U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–581 PDF 2008

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE GREAT 

LAKES LEGACY ACT 

(110–131) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 21, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Cherry, Lieutenant Governor John D., State of Michigan ................................... 4 

Davis, Cameron, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes ................... 21 

Green, Emily, Director, Great Lakes Program, Sierra Club ................................ 21 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................... 4 

Gulezian, Gary, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 4 

Kuper, George H., President, Council of Great Lakes Industries ....................... 21 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 32 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 33 

Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin ............................................................................ 35 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Cherry, Jr., Hon. John D. ....................................................................................... 38 

Davis, Cameron ........................................................................................................ 48 

Green, Emily ............................................................................................................ 53 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 58 

Kuper, George H. ..................................................................................................... 68 

vi 


42581.001
vii 


42581.002
viii 


42581.003
ix 


42581.004
x 


42581.005
xi 


42581.006
xii 


42581.007
xiii 


42581.008
(1) 

HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF 

THE GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT 

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Committee will come to order. 

Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony on the reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This program 

aims to address the legacy of contaminated sediment that degrades 

water quality throughout the Great Lakes and threatens the health 

of populations who live in the region. The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 was a good first step in ad- dressing the contaminated sediment that despoils the water resources upon which a successful transformation of the region will 

depend. Introduced by Congressmen Ehlers and Oberstar, it is 

aimed to clean those many contaminated sites that have been 

largely overlooked by ongoing Federal toxic waste site cleanup efforts. 

Not only was the Superfund process perceived as slow, litigious 

and unwieldy, many contaminated sites in the Great Lakes Region 

were not included on the list of sites that would ultimately be addressed by the Superfund. Yet many of these sites were too large 

and too toxic for States and localities to deal with on their own. 

In addition to many, many communities throughout the Great 

Lakes Region were left with the chronically toxic effects of contaminated sediment that relegated their towns and peoples to health 

risks and economic under-achievement. 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 sought to address these 

largely abandoned sites and Areas of Concern by providing a dedicated source of Federal funding for cleanup and remediation. This 

morning, we look to what has worked over the past five years with 

the Legacy Act, what challenges remain and how these can be addressed. 

The Legacy Act of 2002 authorized $50 million a year for 5 years 

to clean up contaminated sediment of hazardous waste sites in 31 

Areas of Concern. To this end, the program has been successful but 

only to a degree. Of the 31 Areas of Concern, one, Oswego Lake in 

New York, has been delisted. 

2 

Cleanup has been completed at four sites. I want to highlight, 

however, this is a cleanup of only four sites, not four Areas of Concern. 

Many of the sites targeted by the original Legacy Act remain as 

they were in 2002, untouched and continuing to leach their toxic 

legacy into the lakes. Perhaps this is because the program has been 

consistently under-funded by the Administration over the past five 

years. Perhaps there are structural issues within the Legacy Act 

itself that need to be addressed. 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that ten Areas of Concern in 

Michigan, four in New York, one in Pennsylvania, three in Ohio 

and three in Wisconsin remain wholly unaddressed. 

Let me clear to my colleagues on the Subcommittee. The scientific record is very well established on the health impacts of 

these toxics on human populations. To be blunt, that so many hazardous waste sites remain unaddressed is a public health risk of 

the first order. 

As a former nurse, I can say with clear conviction that as a body 

we would be remiss if we did not find a way to clean these toxic 

hot spots at a far faster pace than we have over the past five years. 

We cannot shrink from our responsibility on this front. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today 

in how we can improve the Legacy Act program. 

I yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I want to welcome all the witnesses today. I look forward to their 

testimony. 

I also want to commend Dr. Ehlers for his years of work with 

stakeholders from the Great Lakes to advance the Great Lakes 

Legacy Act. When I was appointed to this position, it probably was 

not five minutes later that Vern called and said, I need to meet 

with you regarding this. So, as always, he is very, very active. 

The Great Lakes are a vital resource for both the United States 

and Canada. The Great Lakes systems provide a waterway to move 

goods, a water supply for drinking, industrial and agricultural purposes, the source of hydroelectric power and swimming and other 

recreational activities, but the industrialization and development of 

the Great Lakes basins over the last 200 years has had an adverse 

effect on the Great Lakes. 

Although safe for drinking and swimming in many places, fish 

caught from the Great Lakes are not safe to eat. Lake sediments 

contaminated from the history of industrialization and development 

in the region are one of the primary causes of this problem. 

By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing cleanup 

plans for the Great Lakes and for specific Areas of Concern. 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act passed in 2002 has helped citizens 

restore the quality of the Great Lakes by taking action to manage 

contaminated sediments and to prevent further contamination. The 

Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized the Environmental Protection 

Agency to carry out qualified sediment remediation projects and 

conduct research and development of innovative approaches, technologies and techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes. 

3 

Legacy Act funding must be matched with at least 35 percent 

non-Federal share, encouraging local investment. By encouraging 

cooperative efforts through public-private partnerships, the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act provided a better way to address the problem of 

contaminated sediments. 

At some sites, removing sediments will be the best way to address short and long-term risk. At the other sites, the last thing we 

want to do is go in and stir up the contaminated sediments by 

dredging, causing more harm to the environment. Obviously, how 

to address contaminated sediments at each Great Lakes Areas of 

Concern will be very much a site-specific decision. 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act does not try to presume any particular cleanup action. It simply encourages stakeholders to take 

action and to make sure that the action they take will make a real 

improvement to human health and the environment. 

This legislation is strongly supported by both the environmental 

groups and business groups in the Great Lakes Region. The Great 

Lakes Legacy Act reflects a consensus approach to addressing sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. 

The authorization for the Great Lakes Legacy Act expires this 

year. Recently, the Act has been funded at a level between $22 million and $35 million per year. 

Today’s hearing allow stakeholders to express their support for 

the Great Lakes Legacy Act and offer any suggestions to modify 

the Act. I look forward to hearing today’s witnesses. 

In reading the testimony, I want to compliment you in the sense 

that it looks like that the stakeholders are working hard together 

and appear to be in consensus in much that we are going to hear 

today. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Are there other opening statements? Yes, Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I certainly appreciate your having this hearing today. 

I will enter my full statement for the record, but just briefly let 

me certainly welcome and recognize our Lieutenant Governor from 

the great State of Michigan. We work very closely together at the 

Federal and State levels and the local level as well to do everything 

we can to protect our magnificent Great Lakes. 

This Subcommittee, as you are aware, Madam Chair, just last 

week held a week actually in my district in the City of Port Huron, 

where we addressed the issue of water quality, and Chairman 

Oberstar came. It was a great hearing. I think much will come of 

it. 

In the Great Lakes, we think of the Great Lakes obviously as 20 

percent, one-fifth of the fresh water supply of the entire planet, and 

all of us in Michigan do recognize the extraordinary work that remains to be done for restoration and maintenance of the Great 

Lakes. We love the Great Lakes, but we haven’t treated it particularly well for many generations and so, as has been articulated already, many challenges facing the Great Lakes with industrial contamination, invasive species, the combined sewer overflows, et 

cetera. 

4 

As people have said that the last century was perhaps about oil 

and this century is going to be about fresh water, we are certainly 

at the forefront of all of that. 

Again, we look at it as a national treasure. Certainly, it is long 

overdue that the Federal Government is recognizing what a national treasure it is and having the political will and the courage 

to stand up with their dollars as well and invest in this fantastic 

treasure. 

So, again, with that, I certainly look forward to the testimony of 

all the witnesses but want to recognize Lieutenant Governor Cherry for his participation as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller. 

We will now introduce our first panel. We have Lieutenant Governor John Cherry from the State of Michigan; the Honorable Benjamin Grumbles, Environmental Protection Agency, Assistant Administrator for Water; and Mr. Gary Gulezian, Director of the 

Great Lakes National Program Office for the EPA, Chicago. 

We will hear you as you were introduced. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JOHN D. CHERRY, 

STATE OF MICHIGAN; THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, UNITED 

STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND GARY 

GULEZIAN, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM 

OFFICE, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY. 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. Well, thank you, Chairwoman 

Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 

and Environment. 

I am Lieutenant Governor John Cherry of the State of Michigan, 

and I appreciate this opportunity to share the perspectives of the 

State of Michigan and the Great Lakes Commission on the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act. 

I am honored to serve both as Michigan’s Lieutenant Governor 

and Chair of the Great Lakes Commission. The Commission is a 

public agency established by the Great Lakes Basin Compact in 

1955 to help the eight Great Lakes States speak with a unified 

voice and collectively fulfill a common vision. 

Let me begin by recognizing the Committee Members from the 

State of Michigan: Representatives Vern Ehlers and Candice Miller. I want to thank you and the other members of the Great Lakes 

Region for your support for the priorities for the Great Lakes. 

In particular, Congressman Ehlers, you have been a key champion for the Great Lakes, and it is because of your leadership in 

sponsoring the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 that we are here 

today reflecting on the success of this important program. 

The Committee’s support for reauthorizing and strengthening the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act is a necessary step forward, advancing a 

strong agenda for the Great Lakes. 

I have submitted written testimony that I ask be made of the 

part of the record for today’s hearing. The testimony includes the 

Great Lakes Commission’s complete recommendations for reauthorizing and strengthening the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

5 

The Great Lakes are a unique and extraordinary natural resource for our region and the Nation as a whole. More than 32 million Americans receive the benefits of the Great Lakes including 

drinking water, food, recreation, commercial navigation and water 

resources for industries and utilities. 

Public interest in restoring and protecting the Great Lakes is 

greater today than at, perhaps, any time in the past. The Great 

Lakes Region has united behind the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to restore and protect the Great Lakes. 

As you know, Areas of Concern are the most heavily degraded 

areas of the Great Lakes. There are 31 U.S. and binational Areas 

of Concern including 14 in my home State of Michigan. Cleaning 

up these areas is a longstanding priority for the Great Lakes 

States. 

The Legacy Act has proven highly successful in these efforts. It 

has become a cornerstone of restoration efforts for the Areas of 

Concern. In Michigan alone, the Act has facilitated the cleanup of 

approximately 250,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments, 

using $20 million in Legacy Act funds and leveraging nearly $13 

million from State and local sources. 

The Great Lakes Commission has prepared detailed recommendations for reauthorizing the Legacy Act. I will mention 

three important highlights. 

Number one, increase the authorized funding level to $150 million annually. This funding will better match the long-term cost of 

completing the remediation of contaminated sediments in the Areas 

of Concern which is projected to be between $1.5 billion and $4.5 

billion annually. I mean over time. 

Number two, allow the use of Legacy Act funds to restore habitat 

of cleanup sites. This is an appropriate use of Legacy Act funds 

that will facilitate the complete restoration and redevelopment of 

the site. 

Extend the life of appropriated Legacy Act funds beyond two 

years would be the third point. Given the lengthy and complex nature of sediment cleanups and the possibility of unanticipated 

delays, the two-year limit is inappropriate for the Legacy Act program. 

The Great Lakes States are united in their approach to a comprehensive restoration strategy. A recent study found that local 

governments alone are spending an estimated $15 billion each year 

on Great Lakes restoration and activities. 

Collectively, the Great Lakes States look to the Federal government to be a critical partner in restoring the Great Lakes. Reauthorizing, strengthening and, most importantly, fully funded the 

Legacy Act would be a significant step in this direction. 

Let me conclude by reminding the Committee that the Areas of 

Concern include communities and the rivers that run through them 

that helped win our Nation’s wars and fueled our economic prosperity in the 20th Century. From the Buffalo River in New York 

to the Rouge River in Michigan to the Grand Cal River in Indiana, 

these are the rivers that suffered as our region and our Nation 

prospered. 

The Areas of Concern are the clearest legacy of our use and 

abuse of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes will not be fully reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Jun 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42581 JASON
6 

stored until these areas are restored. The Great Lakes Legacy Act 

is a key component of our strategy for restoring the Great Lakes. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee 

for your work on this important legislation. I welcome any questions you may have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor Cherry. 

Mr. Grumbles. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to be here 

and to be joined by Gary Gulezian, the Director of the Great Lakes 

National Program Office. 

It is great to see you, Congressman Boozman, in your position of 

leadership on the Water Subcommittee, and I am looking at congressional leaders in the Great Lakes. Congressman Ehlers, Congresswoman Miller, EPA appreciates your work, your leadership on 

this effort. 

Madam Chair, it is great to have the opportunity to discuss the 

successes to date as well as some of the challenges ahead. As you 

know, during this Administration, EPA has put a real priority behind protecting and restoring the Great Lakes and accelerating the 

restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. A key part of that 

is the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

So the first thing I would like to do is to say that we believe that 

our major success to date has been the ability under the Act to accelerate the pace of sediment remediation in the lakes. Since 2004, 

when the first amount of funding was made available under the 

Act, we have remediated over 800,000 cubic yards of sediment at 

a cost of almost $97 million. 

For these remediation projects, we provided $53 million in Legacy Act funding which, in turn, has leveraged $44 million in additional funds. That has allowed us to remove over 1.5 million 

pounds of contaminants from the environment. 

It is a model that may be used well in other regions of the Country. It is about accelerating the pace of cleanup through innovation 

and collaboration, and that collaboration is based on partnerships. 

The 2002 Act envisioned stronger partnerships among the agencies 

and with the public and private sectors. 

EPA and other Federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, have been working, providing efforts to get this environmental restoration underway. The Corps, in particular, has provided technical assistance and disposal capacity at their confined 

disposal facilities and working closely with State agencies and industry and local governments to get sediment remediated and to 

get environmental progress moving. 

Another key component that we urge the Committee to keep in 

mind is that the key to continued success is going to be the continued ability of non-Federal sponsors to provide the necessary cost 

share. 

Remediating the remaining contaminated sediments will cost in 

excess of $1 billion. While some of those cleanups will be accomplished through Superfund and other authorities, the potential demand for Legacy Act resources is expected to be high. 

Of course, how much we can utilize will be a function of and limited by the availability of the non-Federal match. So we think it 

7 

is important to identify a non-Federal sponsor at these projects and 

to move forward because we won’t be able to move forward if we 

are not able to identify non-Federal sponsors with the requisite cost 

share. It is all about leveraging, as you know. 

So we are looking forward to working with States and other interested parties to find creative ways to provide the necessary 

funding. 

Another major point to make is the polluter pays principle, and 

I know Congressman Ehlers, in particular, has been following this 

very closely. 

EPA continues to honor the polluter pays principle. It is a fundamental part of how we approach remediation in the Great Lakes. 

We believe that is a key principle to continue to follow. 

We also recognize that there are situations where there is an orphan share. There are situations where the projects, the key to accelerating the cleanup is by using the Legacy Act funding, using 

the authorities under the Legacy Act to help fill the gap to help 

make restoration possible. 

The Lieutenant Governor also mentioned the two-year life of 

funding as one of the key issues to focus in on. The two-year life 

of funds could be problematic. As in most cases, it takes time to 

conduct the necessary up-front work to get these very complex 

projects ready for implementation. So this time-intensive up-front 

pre-remedial work is critical in order to conduct environmentally 

sound and fiscally responsible projects. 

The last point, Madam Chair, is to underscore the point that environmental cleanup is an economic engine for health and prosperity. Recent studies have shown that there is an economic benefit 

from contaminated sediment remediation. The Northeast Midwest 

Institute and others are identifying the savings that occur, the environmental benefits that occur, in fact, the economic benefits that 

occur when these sites are cleaned up. 

We agree with you that it is important to continue to use this 

authority as a way to accelerate cleanup and avoid costly 

debilitative litigation which has been something that has occurred 

in the past. 

So we look forward to working with you and others as legislative 

proposals are introduced and as the Committee moves forward on 

this very important and successful environmental statute. 

We would be happy to answer questions as you wish, Congresswoman. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I want to start a first round of questioning. 

Lieutenant Governor Cherry, in your view, what is the current 

capacity for potential non-Federal partners like State or local governments to contribute to the current cost share level of 35 percent? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. In the State of Michigan, I believe 

that we have been fortunate enough to be able to match that work 

that the EPA has approved to do. We have had the benefit of what 

we call the Clean Michigan Initiative, a bond proposal that was 

passed back, I believe, in 1998 that has allowed us to fund our 

match. 

8 

All total throughout the Great Lakes Region, and this is through 

the eight Great Lakes States plus the two provinces of Canada 

through the St. Lawrence River, roughly $15 billion is spent annually by local units of government and the States on Great Lakes 

remediation. 

So I think that the funding would be challenging if we were on 

a schedule that would complete cleanup in 10 years, but my sense 

is that there is a public will to make those expenditures. At least 

that has been the case in the State of Michigan. 

I would think that if you were able to fund at $150 million a year 

over a 10-year period, the States would be probably able to match 

that, I would believe, as required. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Given the current economic climate and fiscal environment, what is your impression of the capacity for State and 

local governments to actually contribute to your recommended cost 

share of 25 percent? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. I think you have to be innovative 

as a State because your ongoing State budget is very constrained, 

particularly in the upper Midwest. So you have to be innovative. 

That is why the State of Michigan chose a bond route in which 

we floated a general obligation bond which gave us the working 

capital to match, to be an active partner with the Federal Government and our local units on remediation. That is how we would 

probably proceed in the future. 

So I think those States will have to be creative, but again I think 

the upper Midwest understands that we are in a new era of global 

economics and that we have to begin to understand what our priorities are. Our economy is very much based upon the Great Lakes 

and so as much an investment in the future as it is an ongoing expense. 

I would think you would find that the States and communities 

would rise to the occasion, utilize that kind of innovative funding 

that would allow them to have the capacity to meet the Federal 

Government in the cost share arrangements that we have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. In the State of Michigan, there are currently 10 

Areas of Concern that have not had any Legacy Act projects on 

them at all. Similar situations exist in nearly every other Great 

Lakes State. In your view, what is the reason for this and what has 

been done? 

What has been the biggest impediment to not cleaning up these 

sites or fulfilling these goals? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. Madam Chairwoman, it is my 

recollection that we have completed three or four sites as of today 

as it pertains to the State of Michigan, and I believe that we are 

active financially with every project that the EPA has proposed for 

those Areas of Concern in the State of Michigan. 

So, if anything, I think it is the Act as good as it is, and I want 

to say I believe the Act has moved things forward. I don’t want to 

be critical of the Act, but I think the limitations have been the limitations within the Act itself. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You have done four. Have you used any kind of 

priority out of the 10 that have received no Federal funding to 

date? 

9 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. I believe that these proceed as a 

collaboration, and I think this is one of the good things of the Act. 

It does give a structure in which the EPA can work in a collaborative way with States and local units of government to establish 

the priorities for remediation, and I believe that what we have 

done to date has been a reflection of the collaborative efforts to decide with the EPA what the first priorities are. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Is it funding? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. I believe so. We have been able to 

match the funding that has been available to us to date. I think 

we could go further if we had more funding available to us. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You have indicated that there might be some 

shortcomings in the law. How would you suggest it be changed? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. I think one of the issues is the 

two-year limitation. As Mr. Grumbles pointed out, this is sometimes a lengthy process to determine what is actually there in an 

Area of Concern. So the actual process can drag out more than two 

years, and so I think the availability of that funding being secure 

would be terribly helpful in that respect. 

Additionally, the match level, I think, if it were reduced to 25 

percent would allow us to engage. At least if it brought more Federal money into the picture, it would allow us to engage in more 

cleanups. 

I also believe that remediation should include, as well, restoration of the habitat. I mean much of this is done to encourage a 

healthy ecosystem, and so the habitat goes beyond just the removal 

of sediments. The securing of a riverbank and other aspects of the 

habitat are all part of the overall project. 

So to the extent that the Legacy Act could allow that, that would 

be helpful as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Gulezian, in March of 2006, the Great Lakes National Program Office briefed the congressional staff on implementation of 

the Great Lakes Legacy Act. In that briefing, EPA identified potential impediments of the projects, and one of these impediments was 

a lack of available cost share. 

Now, in the current cost share of 35 percent, has it been an impediment? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. Cost share and having sufficient non-Federal 

funds to match the Federal funds is very important to moving forward with Legacy Act projects. To date, it has not been a problem 

in terms of utilizing the funds that we have received under the 

Legacy Act. 

In the future, it could be more of a problem. I really see that as 

one of our challenges in the coming years, to make sure that we 

have sufficient non-Federal cost share to make these projects a success. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, I would just add that local and 

private industry investments are unlikely to be sufficient to make 

full use of the Federal funding that is provided. So State bond 

funds such as Michigan’s Clean Michigan Initiative will be key to 

future success on meeting the cost share, which we feel is an extremely important principle of the Great Lakes Legacy Act just as 

it is for the Corps of Engineers Water Resources program. 

10 

Ms. JOHNSON. What problem under the current circumstances do 

you see in accomplishing the goals of the future? Is it still going 

to be a shortage of share on each end, both ends or one end? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Gary may want to elaborate on this some, but I 

think the key for us is following the priority system that is currently laid out in the statute and laid out well about focusing on 

remediation and also honoring the polluter pays principle and not 

providing some duplicative program or something that undermines 

the Superfund program when there are responsible parties. 

In the context of the funding in the future, I think for us a key 

part of it, Madam Chair, is to work with the authorizing Committees and the appropriations Committees to think about innovations, innovative approaches. 

The water enterprise bonds that aren’t directly related to the 

Legacy Act but that we feel are the wave of the future when it 

comes to meeting Clean Water Act infrastructure needs is critically 

important to bring in more innovative funding, not to change the 

cost share that has worked well, we believe so far, but to remove 

barriers to potentially innovative approaches both at the Federal 

level and at the State level. 

Mr. GULEZIAN. On the issue of innovative funding and generating 

non-Federal cost share, I think the concept of return on investment 

really needs to be taken into account. On the economic valuation 

work that we have done at some of the Legacy Act sites such as 

Waukegan, we were able to estimate that there could be increases 

in property value in the City of Waukegan of $250 million were we 

to do a Legacy Act project that would cost about $30 million. 

If you look at non-Federal cost share, that would be $12 million 

of the $30 million. The return on investment from property tax receipts from that kind of a property value increase would pay for 

that in just several years. 

So, to the extent that that kind of thing can be taken into account, it may be a way of generating non-Federal cost share 

through bonding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, I understand that 76 million cubic yards of 

toxic sediment remain to be corrected. Is that your estimate? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. Based on the work of the regional collaboration 

where States and cities and nongovernmental organizations came 

together, some estimates were made of the remaining contaminated 

sediments within the Great Lakes Basin. The total amount that 

was estimated was on the order of 75 million. We think, of that 75 

million, approximately 40 million will need to be remediated in 

some way. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Grumbles, in your testimony, you note that 

EPA has successfully remediated 800,000 cubic yards of sediment 

over the past 4 years. What percentage of the total potential volume of contaminated sediment does this 800,000 cubic yards represent? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Based on our current estimates, it is about 10 

percent. 

Ms. JOHNSON. So, based on these calculations at the current rate 

of Legacy Act funding recommended by this Administration, it 

seems that it will take over 300 years to accomplish that and to 

remove all the toxic sediment? 

11 

Mr. GRUMBLES. You put a time frame on it, and I am not comfortable with making estimates like that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I mean at the current funding level. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. What I am comfortable in saying is that we recognize, just like our non-Federal partners recognize, there is a tremendous amount of work that remains to be done, that the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act is an excellent framework for addressing some of 

the sediment problems. Existing environmental statutes like the 

Superfund statute or other regulatory authorities are also important ones. 

We think the key is not to view this as a public works project 

but as a public-private works project and to use authorities and 

continue to focus on streamlining the program under the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act and identifying the challenges ahead. Some of 

them are funding, but others are making sure that we can also see 

the environmental benefits and work with the communities on the 

concept of restoration and restoring the impaired biological, chemical and physical integrity of these special sites. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. My concern is with the current situation of 

clean water supply in this Country. It seems to me that we could 

get into a public health problem if we could not move any more 

rapidly to clean these sediments out. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. As you know well and as Congresswoman Miller 

mentioned about the importance of water in the 21st Century, it 

really is the oil of the 21st Century. 

We see clean water as more than just an environmental protection issue. It is a public health issue, and that is why all of us, I 

think, are supportive of efforts to accelerate the pace of cleanup, 

using tools like the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

It is a threat to public health over time. Particularly when you 

look at the water flow patterns within the Great Lakes, it is important to come up with ways to remediate or to prevent the spread 

of potential toxins that could pose a risk to public health. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Now I know that the U.S. shares some of this with 

Canada. What kind of cooperation has occurred there? Are the Canadians moving at a more rapid pace to remediate their contaminated sites than the U.S.? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. We have a strong cooperative program with Canada. There is a Binational Executive Committee where the U.S. 

agencies meet with the Canadian agencies, and we also have a Binational Toxic Strategy where we specifically review the progress 

that is made on both sides of the border in cleaning up contaminated sediments. 

The Canadians are making similar progress to us. These projects 

are complex. They are expensive. They have had some recent appropriations on their side to assist them with moving forward with 

their contaminated sediment problems. 

We learn from each other too in terms of how best to approach 

these problems. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You know we had a hearing on the Great Lakes 

here a couple of months or so ago, and there was testimony from 

one of the House Members that open sewage was being dumped 

from Detroit or somewhere in that area into the lake. How do you 

12 

measure that with the rate of cleaning the sediment and it getting 

recontaminated or do you consider that accurate? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. The principle of pollution prevention is a key 

principle. That is why EPA has, for the last several years, been 

putting a priority in terms of our enforcement program, an enforcement priority on sewer overflows. 

In the Great Lakes, we know, based on the age of the systems 

and climate and various factors, that combined sewer overflows as 

well as sanitary sewer overflows is a threat to the health of the 

Great Lakes. It doesn’t make the situation any easier in remediating contaminated sediment if you are not also working upstream 

in the watershed to reduce sewer overflows. 

We feel that it is a collaborative effort, and the Great Lakes 

strategy recognizes that sewer overflows is a key area, a priority, 

just like sediment remediation. The two need to be thought of together. So we are working with the States and we are working 

with the cities. 

It is not just a question of more Federal funding. It is a question 

fusing the various tools to improve the management of those community assets and to find financing ways based on rates, local 

rates and also State efforts to finance the upgrade of those systems 

so that the sewer overflows are reduced. 

We see progress, but it takes time. It takes years for these control plans to get developed and implemented. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Grumbles, one of the common threads from the testimony we 

are going to hear in a little bit and then also with Mr. Cherry’s was 

this two-year problem that you mentioned in your testimony about 

having the two-year time frame. Can you talk a little bit more 

about that and maybe give us some examples of how that affects 

things? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We appreciate the decisions that are made in the 

appropriations process of the amount of funds. I think the Act contemplated no-year funds that could remain available until expended, but in the decisions made and the realities of the appropriations process, these funds are essentially two-year limits. 

As was noted and I think everyone would agree, as was noted in 

our testimony, these are complex projects and they take some time. 

The key to sustainable projects is building the partnership up front 

and having local community support and also having the necessary 

technical information at these very complex sites. And so, we do 

run up against a lot of pressure. 

We want to streamline and accelerate cleanup projects, but one 

observation we have had in the five successful cleanup projects to 

date is that two-year time frame can be a real challenge. So that 

is an area that we agree there needs to be a discussion, and we 

look forward to having that discussion with you and your colleagues in other Committees. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. Right now, it looks like the appropriators are appropriating about $35 million or so a year for these 

things. If all of a sudden they say that we were able to do the $150 

million, what capacity do you have? 

13 

How much money? With your staff and things like that, how 

much capacity do you have to actually do as far as appropriations? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I know we are continuously looking into the future and what is in the pipeline. I think we are looking at nine 

projects, potential projects, adding to the five that we have seen 

great success with. 

In terms of the capacity, how quickly we could move towards 

those, it depends on a variety of things. 

I would just say we know there is a tremendous need out there. 

We also know that an authorization level like $150 million is a 

very significant one that I think we would need to work with you 

on getting a more specific answer in terms of the timing and the 

capacity to actually make use of that type of funding in the near 

term. 

Do you want to add anything to that? Okay. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I think that is all I have right now. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, Mr. 

Boozman, our Ranking Member, for holding this hearing. 

Mr. Grumbles, I just wanted to ask you. It is good to see you 

again, sir. 

I am just looking for clarity, myself. Out of the 31 Areas of Concern, how many individual sediment remediation projects are located wholly within the United States? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Go ahead, Gary. 

Mr. GULEZIAN. I can respond to that, Congressman Hall. 

There are approximately 70 sites that have contaminated sediments. Of the remaining 30 Areas of Concern on the U.S. side of 

the border, and some of those are jointly shared with Canada, each 

and every one of them has a contaminated sediment problem of one 

kind or another. 

Mr. HALL. So where are those 70, approximately 70 sites in the 

process? 

What I am asking, I guess, is that the 5 sites that are listed in 

written testimony are 5 of the 70, not 5 of 31. Is that correct? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. Right, that is 5 of the 70, not 5 of the 31. 

Mr. HALL. Also, Administrator Grumbles, I hear you. I didn’t see 

it in your written testimony. I thought you said you estimated cost 

to clean up, to remediate all of the contaminated sites at a billion 

dollars, roughly. Did you say something like that? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I said it could be more than a billion, but we are 

looking at a cost in excess of a billion dollars. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. Well, it doesn’t faze me when you are talking 

85 percent of the fresh water of the United States and 20 of the 

fresh water in the world. I compare it to $12 billion a month in 

Iraq. That is how I calculate things nowadays in my own mind to 

determine national priorities, but anyway that is getting off topic 

a little bit. 

I wanted to ask Lieutenant Governor Cherry. First of all, I guess, 

one of the recommendations of the GLRC (Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration) was to encourage clean disposal and treatment techVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Jun 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42581 JASON
14 

nologies. What are some of the best technologies in your mind that 

have come out of this? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. Congressman, I am not an expert 

on that. 

Mr. HALL. Do you want to hand it off to the EPA? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. The question is what are some of the promising 

technologies? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. The GLRC recommended encouragement of clean 

disposal and treatment technologies. Outside of different kinds of 

dredging, is there anything else that has surfaced? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. There are a number of approaches that we have 

looked at over the years in terms of innovative approaches. There 

are different kinds of dredging that can be done and, as part of the 

Legacy Act, we have experimented with different kinds of hydraulic 

dredging which are more efficient and do a better job of scavenging 

the contaminated sediments. That is something that we have 

worked on at the Ashtabula River project. 

There are also other possibilities out there in terms of things like 

carbon mats that can absorb some of the toxic substances, where 

you might be able to have a more efficient cleanup that would actually not involve dredging at all. So there are a number of possibilities that we evaluate each and every time we do a project under 

the Legacy Act. 

Mr. HALL. A carbon mat? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. Right. This would be like activated charcoal built 

into a mat that you would place over the contaminated sediments 

that would prevent those sediments, to the extent that they are 

organics, from leaching out into the water. So it is something that 

can supplement an existing cleanup. 

Mr. HALL. As we have examined at length in this Committee, the 

Supreme Court’s rulings in the Rapanos and Carabell cases have 

created the potential for serious delays in issuing Clean Water permits and protection activities. What impact is this having or is this 

having an impact on the Great Lakes protection and the ability to 

meet the goals of the program? 

Mr. Grumbles, do you care to comment? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Sure. Yes. I would say that one of our first priorities in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration is on wetlands, and 

that is to restore, improve or protect 200,000 acres within the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. For 100,000 acres, the Federal agencies 

have stepped up to the plate and said we are going to do that. 

We have made progress. We are at about 62,000 acres of restoring, improving or protecting, and that has not been hampered by 

the legalities of the Supreme Court decision. It has been more of 

the Federal agencies all focusing in, as was envisioned in the Great 

Lakes Regional Collaboration, and saying what tools can you use 

to really make progress. We look forward to working with the 

States on the other 100,000 acres. 

Congressman, frankly, when you do get into the jurisdictional 

complexities, what we are doing is we are surveying the regions 

and the Corps district offices of what experiences are they finding 

on the ground when it comes to that significant nexus analysis and 

the various tests that were laid out in that Supreme Court deciVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Jun 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42581 JASON
15 

sion. We will be happy to provide the Committee with our observations or insights from that as we continue to use that guidance. 

Mr. HALL. That would be helpful. Thank you. 

My time is up, but I want to thank you for the work that you 

are doing, and I hope that we can provide resources for you to do 

more of it. 

As a Representative from New York State which is connected to 

the Great Lakes by the St. Lawrence seaway and, of course, bounding Lakes Ontario and Erie and the Hudson River which I represent a district from, which is connected by the Erie Canal and 

Champlain Canal to the Great Lakes, I am happy to see this rising 

high on our to-do list. It is certainly important that we protect this 

great resource. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. 

Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very 

much for having this hearing. This issue is a very important one 

to me and I think to most of the people around the Great Lakes. 

I thank Governor Cherry for taking the time to be here and 

speak on it. We spent many years together in the Michigan Senate 

and got a lot accomplished together, even though he is an outrageously leftist Democrat and I was an outrageously conservative 

Republican. You know that is not true from knowing me, but at 

any rate we worked very closely together on a number of these 

issues. 

It is good to see you again, John. Thank you for being here and 

thank you for your kind words. 

I also apologize for being late. I was speaking at another meeting. I would just ask that my opening statement be entered into 

the record. Without objection, I hope you will do that. 

The first version of the Legacy Act, which is the version that we 

have been discussing here, has been fantastically successful. I normally don’t brag about my work to that extent, but I keep hearing 

it from the people around the Great Lakes. They are extremely 

pleased with the Act. 

I think what has made it so successful is that we designed it to 

be a combined Federal, local, environmental and State project with 

funding coming from all the parties in some fair and equitable arrangement that we developed. That is really been a strong inducement to the business community and to the locals and to the environmental groups to really promote the program. 

We could have, in fact, accomplished much more had the Congress allocated the funds. The President, to his credit, and the EPA 

advocated full funding every year that the bill has been in effect. 

Unfortunately, the Congress cut back the funding every year. 

But, in spite of that, I have been told by numerous individuals 

who have worked in Superfund and have worked in this that this 

is by far the best cleanup activity that they have ever engaged in 

because everyone worked together, everyone knew what the parameters were, we managed to keep most of the attorneys out of it, and 

it would just set up a structure where all the parties could work 

things out together and get the job done. 

I really appreciate your cooperation and work in that. 

16 

In response to the comments about the increasing funding, I 

have no doubt that the Congress will appropriate the money that 

can be usefully used. I think setting the goal at an authorization 

of $150 million is imminently reasonable 

I know the Congress will not throw money at the problem unless 

it can be used effectively. So I am not worried about increasing the 

authorization since I know the appropriators will allocate the appropriate money. 

I think it is important to increase it because we are poised in a 

number of areas in this Nation to rapidly go ahead with cleanups. 

Local communities and States are rounding up funding to be able 

to deal with. Environmental communities are excited and ready to 

go, building local support. So I think it is imminently reasonable 

to increase the authorization, and I hope the appropriations will 

match the local enthusiasm and energy, both of the local and State 

Governments. 

I will defend a $150 authorization. I don’t think we can go wrong 

with that. Obviously, we won’t spend it all if it is not all needed, 

but I think it is a good way to go. 

I just thank the State of Michigan for its work. As you mentioned, there are four sites there. I visited several of them, and the 

cleanup went amazingly rapidly. 

I say this after having spent a lot of time on the county level 

working with Superfund and on the State level working with 

Superfund. I was just astonished that in the space of two years, we 

could clean up sites that under the Superfund Act would have 

taken seven years to clean up. So I think this is an effective program. 

I believe Mr. Oberstar and I will be introducing a bill on this 

fairly shortly, and I hope we can have a lot of support from our colleagues and from people across the Nation. 

The real key, as has been pointed out by our witnesses, is the 

cooperative aspect of it. I recall when we had our first hearing on 

the original bill, Congressman Duncan was the Chair of the Committee at the time. We had testimony from the Federal Government that this was a good program, testimony from State and local 

governments that it was a good program, testimony from the business community that it was a good program and testimony from 

the environmental community that it was a good program. 

Congressman Duncan turned to me after the hearing was over, 

and he said that is the first time in his 20 years of experience in 

the Congress that he has ever had all of those groups agree on 

something. He said, we will report this bill to the floor immediately. 

I am very pleased that that cooperation has continued and that 

all of you involved, not just this panel but the next panel as well, 

have worked on this so well and made it such a success. I thank 

you for that. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

Dr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking 

Member Boozman for being here and for having this hearing. 

17 

I thank you for coming to give your testimony that I missed. I 

was on the House floor, giving a presentation about our oil crisis. 

My question has to do not just with the cooperation, which I appreciate, but the fact that we still have 30 Areas of Concern that 

have not been remediated. I am wondering if you could, Mr. Grumbles, clue me in as to why it is taking so long. 

I think we have cleaned up one site, Oswego, and yet there are 

29 others or 30 others remaining. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. A priority for us, a goal for us is working with 

all our partners to clean up those sites, but I am going to turn to 

Gary Gulezian as the Director with the most knowledge on the specifics of that, Congressman. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you. 

Mr. GULEZIAN. The biggest barrier to cleaning up the Areas of 

Concern is cleaning up contaminated sediments. The only area that 

we have delisted is the Oswego area, and the Oswego area was the 

only area where we don’t have a contaminated sediment problem. 

These problems are complex. They are expensive to deal with. 

Even once you get the contaminated sediments cleaned up, before 

we can redesignate the areas, we have to see the beneficial uses 

come back. For example, we need to have healthy fish and wildlife 

populations there amongst other things before we could delist an 

area, but the primary barrier is cleaning up contaminated sediments. 

Mr. KAGEN. Is there a ranking order of locations that you are 

going to take on? Is there a certain order in which you are attacking these and, if so, where does the Menomonee River and Fox 

River stand on your list? 

Mr. GULEZIAN. We are trying to take on all of them at once with 

all of the authorities that are available. The work that we are 

doing at the Areas of Concern is work that is shared by the local 

communities, the States and the Federal Government and, within 

the Federal Government, there are a number of programs that can 

be brought to bear. 

For example, at the Fox River, the approach that we are using 

is the Superfund law. As you know, that has been progressing. It 

is going to be a very, very significant cleanup there, and we are 

really looking forward to that one moving forward. 

We had been working in the Menomonee area with the local committee that is working at the Area of Concern to define the problem 

and to define the needs for cleanup there, and we have similar activities going on at each and every one of the 30 Areas of Concern 

across the Great Lakes. 

Mr. KAGEN. On a related matter, the Brownfields program has 

a relatively high number of applications that are ready to go. They 

are on the shelf. Is there a hang-up there? 

Is it the funding? Is it appropriations? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. In terms of prioritizations, again, as Mr. 

Gulezian mentioned, for us on the Areas of Concern, we follow the 

statute which lays out remediation of contaminated sediment and 

then goes through a variety of specific factors in the statute itself 

about innovative technologies and other approaches. 

When it comes to the Brownfields program, Congressman, I 

would say the best thing to do is for us to commit to get back to 

18 

you with our folks back at the agency who really have more knowledge of the Brownfields program than we do. 

But, Congressman, just like the Brownfields program, the contaminated sediments program under the Legacy Act as well as the 

proposed legislation on Good Samaritan cleanups at hard rock 

mines, which is something we hope the Committee will act on, are 

three examples of environmental progress by taking innovative, collaborative approaches. 

In terms of the prioritizations, we think it is an important role 

for Congress. In the Legacy Act, they laid it out, and we will work 

with our partners. 

A key part of that is finding projects where there is the local 

community support which is often reflected in their ability to provide a cost share, but it is more than that. It is having the buyin from the community. That is why we feel the Legacy Act and 

the Brownfields program and those Good Samaritan cleanups are 

all very positive and promising programs for environmental restoration. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you for your answers. 

I ask that my opening statement, which I was unable to deliver, 

could be placed into the record. 

I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No objection; all opening statements can be placed 

in the record 

Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I certainly look forward to working with all of my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to make sure that we do reauthorize and 

hopefully appropriate $150 million for this, this year. I think it is 

critically important. 

I am going to follow up a little bit. Mr. Kagen was asking about 

some of the sites in his district, and I would also like to, just trying 

to get a handle on where all of these are and how you have 

prioritized the various sites. 

I know in my neck of the woods the St. Clair River and the Clinton River, the Saginaw Bay, the Saginaw River are all AOCs. I am 

just wondering. I don’t think they are in the nine sites that you 

talked about, Mr. Grumbles, but does anyone have any information 

on where they may fall and if you are not having much success because of the lack of match available or what is happening there? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Gary, do you want to? 

I know we are going to want to commit to you to get back with 

you with far more specific information on this, but if you want to 

add on. 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay. 

Mr. GULEZIAN. No. We can get back to you with specifics on those 

sites 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay. I appreciate that. I am, obviously, very interested in that and want to assist in any way that I can to be a conduit to assist with that. 

Mr. Grumbles, you mentioned about how sedimentation remediation needs to be accelerated, and I certainly do agree with that. 

I think we all agree with that. 

19 

Hopefully, we have enough places to put all of the sedimentation 

as we are remediating. I just raise that, not to get too much in the 

weeds on this, but as I mentioned the Clinton River. The Confined 

Disposal Facility for the Clinton River, the CDF for the Clinton 

River, because of dredging that has occurred and we have been all 

earmarking to get dredging projects because of the historic low 

water levels, et cetera. 

The dredging that is going to occur on the Clinton River this year 

will essentially fill, as I understand it from the Corps of Engineers, 

our district director there, fill the CDF for the Clinton River. So I 

am just wondering how. 

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers, are they working with the 

States to identify disposal facilities if we do get all of these funds 

and then we have nowhere to put this? How is that all working? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I am going to ask Gary Gulezian to respond to 

that. 

I know from my own observation so far, over the last five or six 

years since the Legacy Act or since 2004 when congressional funding began to be provided, and I can tell you that we have been 

working with the Corps closely on that issue of Confined Disposal 

Facilities and capacity for remediation. I know it is an issue that 

is going to depend on the site. 

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that, and I did want to raise that because that is one that I happen to be familiar with because it is 

literally in my back yard, but there may be other areas like that. 

So we do need to be, I think, working cooperatively to recognize 

this if we are going to increase the funding. 

You can get back to me on that as well. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Okay. 

Mrs. MILLER. Let me go on to my next question since I don’t have 

too much time here. 

We have talked today about the cost share. It is no secret that 

the State of Michigan is facing unbelievable economic challenges. 

The Lieutenant Governor mentioned about the Clean Michigan 

bond which passed overwhelmingly in Michigan. 

I am not even sure how much money we have left there. I know 

there is a phased-in area as the drawdown on some of the funding. 

I am not sure how much we have left in that, but I do know that 

it is difficult, obviously, for the State and the local municipalities, 

counties, what have you to come up with a cost share. 

We saw this most recently with the water quality monitoring system, actually. This Committee had a field hearing, I mentioned, in 

Port Huron in my district last week, and we talked about the initial expense of the water quality monitoring system where we were 

able to get Federal earmarks. 

We split it between two counties pretty equally. That was a 60- 

40 match that the counties themselves matched. There has been 

money for maintenance, some of which was vetoed by the State, 

but I think was put back in. 

Everybody is concerned about the money, obviously. I just wonder if anyone has a comment about the appropriateness of the percentage of the match here. Is there some feeling that perhaps the 

Federal Government should take a look at this again? 

20 

In the State of Michigan, whatever we clean up is not just 

advantaging us. It is advantaging the entire Great Lakes Basin. 

We don’t want to not be able to have a dime to make a buck. So 

I am not sure. Perhaps we should look at the formula. 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. Congresswoman, that is a good 

question. I mean the Great Lakes Commission, which represents 

the region, is suggesting that the match be dropped so that in fact 

we can stimulate more cleanups. 

You are right about the economic difficulties, budget-wise, to find 

the extra dollars. In spite of that, we should understand as well 

that throughout the Great Lakes Region and the St. Lawrence that 

local and State Government and provincial government have spent 

$15 billion a year on Great Lakes remediation. So there is clearly 

a will to engage here. 

I believe that if, for instance, there is more money available in 

the form of an annual authorization or appropriation, people will 

think of innovative ways to get there, such as the bond proposal 

that we used. We have about 25 million left, I believe, and we are 

contemplating renewal. So we understand that the Great Lakes 

issues of remediation are a long-term effort and that we need to be 

in position to engage in the long term. 

I think what ultimately we all need to do—local, State and Federal Government—is step up because it is an enormous problem. It 

is an important issue. 

These are problems that emerged in the time of industrialization, 

and much of it is the result of the Great Lakes Region being an 

economic engine for the Nation and an arsenal of democracy for the 

Country. And so, these are problems we all created, and we all 

need to remediate. 

We believe that you need additional money but also the match 

should drop. 

Mrs. MILLER. Lieutenant Governor, has the Commission actually 

advanced a recommendation, a percentage of what they would like 

to see the match drop to? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. Twenty-five percent. 

Mrs. MILLER. To 25, 75-25? 

Lieutenant Governor CHERRY. Yes, correct. 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, I know that time is short, but 

I just wanted to add. Almost it is a statement of the obvious, but 

there is also intense competition in the Federal appropriations 

process. The importance of having a cost share that helps to stretch 

the Federal dollar as far as possible is important. So we look forward to having further discussions with the authorizing Committees as well as the appropriations Committees. 

I think that one very important aspect of the whole debate is to 

ensure that more information is made available of the State and 

local economic benefits of cleanup. The more communities, the 

more all of us see the value of cleanup and how it stimulates economic benefits, that can help bring more parties to the table to 

help meet the 65-35 share. 

There is some degree of flexibility in our regulation, but essentially we are operating off of the statutory framework that you and 

21 

others have been involved in. So we look forward to further discussions with you and other Members on that issue. 

Mrs. MILLER. Yes, I appreciate that. I think everybody does recognize the economic advantages of the cleanup of the Great Lakes. 

I guess I am somewhat embarrassed to still see the huge 

amounts of combined sewer overflows going into the Great Lakes. 

On the other hand, the cost to the locals to right-size the inadequate underground infrastructure is mindboggling. By some estimates, in southeast Michigan alone, $54 billion just to fix what we 

have which is not particularly inherent to Detroit. All the old industrial cities are dealing with that kind of thing. 

There is enormous need, that is for sure, and never enough resources. 

I know my time is expired. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Are there any other questions? 

Then we will thank the first panel and appreciate your coming 

for testimony. 

We welcome the second panel: Mr. Cameron Davis, President 

and CEO of the Alliance for the Great Lakes of Chicago, Illinois; 

Ms. Emily Green, Director of the Great Lakes Program, Sierra 

Club, Madison, Wisconsin; and Mr. George Kuper, President of the 

Council of Great Lakes Industries, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Mr. Davis, you can begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF CAMERON DAVIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES; EMILY GREEN, DIRECTOR, 

GREAT LAKES PROGRAM, SIERRA CLUB; AND GEORGE H. 

KUPER, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES INDUSTRIES 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, good morning and thank you, Chairwoman 

Johnson and Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Cameron Davis, President and CEO of the Alliance for the 

Great Lakes. We are the oldest citizens Great Lakes organization 

in either the U.S. or Canada. 

I am also representing the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition as one of their co-chairs, representing roughly 100 or more 

organizations from around the Great Lakes Basin who are vitally 

concerned about this issue. 

With 90 to 95 percent of the Nation’s fresh surface water, the 

Great Lakes could cover the United States in roughly nine to nine 

and a half feet of water, the continental United States, but their 

size belies their fragility. 

Because they are relatively closed ecosystems, they do not flush 

like rivers. What goes in, tends to stay in. That is true of legacy 

pollutants, persistent toxins that remain at the bottom of industrial 

harbors which are a legacy of the Midwest’s past. 

The result of this is contamination that can continue to circulate 

through the food chain from fish to people especially children, 

women and other sensitive populations. The contamination can also 

suppress property values as we heard before. 

Since more than 30 toxic hot spots were listed on the cleanup list 

of Areas of Concern more than 20 years ago, only 1 has been reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Jun 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42581 JASON
22 

moved from the list. The longer we wait to remediate these Areas 

of Concern, the more expensive cleanups get and the more they 

threaten the health of our children and families. Simply put, it is 

time to act. 

We consider revitalizing our Nation’s waters through the Clean 

Water Restoration Act, combating invasive species and other efforts 

to be important in addition to reauthorizing the Great Lakes Legacy Act which has, as was mentioned before, a proud history of bipartisan and multi-stakeholder support. Reauthorizing this Act will 

help greatly. 

Since Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Ehlers introduced the first generation of the Act several years ago, the Legacy 

Act has been extraordinarily helpful. But several years of experience under the first generation of the Legacy Act shows that there 

are ways we can get more mileage out of the law. 

Several years ago, roughly 1,500 stakeholders from around the 

region including agency officials, elected officials, NGO representatives and businesses put together this plan of attack for helping to 

clean up and restore the Great Lakes. One of the series of recommendations that came out of this Great Lakes restoration collaboration strategy was that we do want to see the Act boosted in 

terms of its authorization. 

We want funds to go for aquatic habitat restoration. It is not 

enough to just clean the contaminants out. We need to make sure 

that these Areas of Concern are fully restored with habitat so that 

they function again. 

We want to see public information and education be part of the 

funding effort as well. Research shows that when there are coordinated, proactive public education efforts that precede cleanups, 

those cleanups can be facilitated and accelerated, which I know is 

our goal through much of the reauthorization of the Legacy Act. 

Enhancing matching opportunities by allowing potentially responsible parties to contribute and dropping the non-Federal cost 

share to 25 percent, which we heard a great deal about earlier from 

the first panel. 

Focusing on sediment cleanups is a top priority. It is incredibly 

important. Removing the maintenance of effort requirements, 

eliminating the need for exclusive Federal agency project implementation so that contractors can execute cleanups with agency 

oversight and extending the life of Legacy Act funds beyond two 

years which, as we also heard today, is a time frame that is difficult for many of these complex cleanups to meet. 

In conclusion, we urge you to act quickly to pass the next generation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act to address these recommendations. 

Thank you for your efforts so that we can ensure that we leave 

a legacy of health for our families in the future, not a legacy of pollution. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. 

Ms. Emily Green. 

Ms. GREEN. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity 

to speak with you today. 

23 

The Sierra Club is the Nation’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization with over 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide. 

I am here in Washington today to ask for your help in addressing 

the toxic pollution in the Great Lakes. 

Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Ehlers, this Committee 

and others, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 has been an extraordinarily successful program that has allowed us to clean up 

toxic sites despite being under-funded. 

I am here to ask you to pass legislation reauthorizing the program this year, increasing the authorized funding level and making 

some minor policy changes to increase its effectiveness. Reauthorizing this program is one of the major recommendations of the 

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy which, as you have 

heard, is a comprehensive blueprint for the long-term restoration 

and protection of the Great Lakes. 

It is critically important that this legislation move this year to 

avoid gaps in the implementation of the program and to allow us 

to more effectively address one of the worst problems that our region faces. The longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive 

this problem will be to solve. 

As you noted in your introduction, Chairwoman Johnson, contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are linked to numerous 

and very well documented human health and ecological impacts as 

well as economic impacts. Really, it doesn’t have to be this way. 

We know how to clean up these sites, and we can gain much by 

doing so. A recent Brookings Institution study found that cleaning 

up toxic pollution in the Great Lakes will directly raise property 

values by 12 to 19 billion dollars. We simply need the funding and 

the political will to act. 

Before the Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed in 2002, we attempted to clean up these sites through a variety of programs, 

most of which were designed for other purposes and none of which 

were adequately funded. This approach, in short, did not work. 

In 2005, the U.S. Policy Committee for the Great Lakes identified 75 remaining contaminated sediment sites in U.S. Areas of 

Concern. 

I believe that reauthorizing, expanding and, most importantly, 

funding the Great Lakes Legacy Act is the single most effective 

and important thing we can do to advance the cleanup of these 

sites. 

The program has arguably been the most effective contaminated 

sediment cleanup tool that we have had to date, even though it has 

been chronically under-funded and some of its provisions have created unintended obstacles to cleanup. Despite its limited funding, 

it has removed almost two million pounds of toxic contaminants to 

date and has completed cleanups that otherwise languished for 

years. 

As I noted previously, reauthorizing the Act is also a top recommendation of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. 

The strategy, as you probably know, contains a number of recommendations that are important to the Great Lakes, and we are 

implementing those recommendations in stages. 

24 

For 2008, our top legislative priorities are to reauthorize the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act, pass legislation that prevents the introduction of aquatic invasive species and pass the Clean Water Restoration Act. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in all of these 

issues. 

The recommendations to expand and reauthorize the Legacy Act 

are the product of a strong collaboration of industry, environmental 

organizations, agency staff and scientists. We are all in agreement 

on these recommendations. We all believe that Congress should reauthorize the Legacy Act this year and make the policy changes 

that have been discussed by both of my colleagues here today. 

In summary, and I am happy to talk about these in more detail 

in questions, these would be: 

To increase the authorization level to $150 million per year; 

Add a habitat restoration component; 

Clarify the intent of the Act to allow potentially responsible parties to contribute to the non-Federal share; 

Ensure support for public education and outreach as part of the 

cleanup process; 

Remove the maintenance of effort requirements; 

Allow the disbursal of Legacy Act funds to non-Federal contractors; 

Reduce the local cost share to 25 percent; and, 

Extend the life of Legacy Act funds beyond two years. 

In our view, these improvements are essential to cleaning up 

these sites in the Great Lakes. 

In closing, I urge you to reauthorize and expand the Great Lakes 

Legacy Act this year and to build support for the full appropriation 

of funds. This is one of the most important things that Congress 

can do to this year to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and to protect the irreplaceable treasure that is the 

Great Lakes now and into the future. 

Thank you very much for your time and for inviting me to speak 

to you today. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Green. 

Mr. Kuper. 

Mr. KUPER. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much. 

My name is George Kuper. I represent three dozen large Canadian and U.S. companies focused on sustainable development policies in the Great Lakes Basin, and it is a privilege to be here. 

We are here in the spirit of an old industrial operating principle, 

namely that of continuous improvement. Industry has really appreciated the opportunity to work with U.S. EPA Region 5 and other 

stakeholders such as those sitting on my right in the region, both 

on the specific projects that you have heard about and those that 

are in the pipeline; but also on identifying ways to improve the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act itself with the consistent and overriding 

objective of reducing contamination to the Great Lakes from contaminated sediments. 

To that end, I would like to emphasize five improvements among 

the ten that we are here collectively representing that are more detailed in my submitted testimony. 

25 

The first is the eligibility criteria for non-Federal match. The 

original intent, which was clearly expressed in the statute, was to 

allow Potentially Responsible Parties, PRPs, to participate in the 

non-Federal share. The implementation policy that has been pursued has severely curtailed the ability of PRPs to participate. 

Our recommendation is that you affirm that PRPs are eligible to 

participate, using the added value criteria proposed by the Great 

Lakes Regional Collaboration. 

Secondly, pilot and demonstration projects: Innovative pilot or 

demonstration projects that could lead to more effective or efficient 

remediation techniques for contaminated sediment are not now 

being funded because of the perception that these are ‘‘research,’’ 

not projects, and no research funds have been appropriated. 

Our suggestion is that you give discretion to program administrators to fund pilot or demonstration projects as projects, not research. 

Thirdly, the pick and stick rule, a wonderful name for an old rule 

administered by the OMB: Pick and stick prevents using two Federal sources of funding on the same project at the same time. It is 

raised as a barrier to using Great Lakes Legacy Act funds at 

Superfund sites even where little progress is being made under 

Superfund due to the lack of viable PRPs. 

We think the application of the pick and stick rule yields counterproductive results, precluding or significantly delaying cleanups. 

This 1800s rule does provide an option for co-funding as long as 

there is express statutory authority to do so. 

Our recommendation is that you need to remove the application 

of the pick and stick to Great Lakes Legacy Act projects in the reauthorizing legislation. 

A couple of administrative improvements, seemingly small but 

important, that you have heard others mention: 

Maintenance of effort requirements, inappropriate because sediment cleanup costs often vary widely year to year and excellent 

projects are being disqualified because larger expenditures happen 

to occur in a previous year. Attempts to work around the maintenance of effort requirements may force delays or detrimental 

changes to proposed remedial projects. 

Our recommendation is the maintenance of effort requirement 

should be removed from the legislation. 

Lastly, project implementation, currently the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act requires exclusive Federal agency project implementation 

which precludes disbursal of funds to other entities. This is inefficient. It is really inefficient to have multiple contractors onsite because of the limitations of disbursal funds. 

Disbursal to non-Federal contractors is allowed under the Water 

Resources Development Act, and the proposed fix utilized the 

WRDA approach. Our recommendation is that you should allow 

disbursal of funds to other entities. 

In conclusion, our recommendation are, obviously, that you reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act and do so in a timely fashion 

so there is no interruption of the program and do so for five years 

at $154 million per year. That is $150 million for projects, $3 million for research and $1 million for public information and participation programs. 

26 

We hope that you will take the opportunity in this reauthorization to correct the inefficiencies and issues with implementation of 

the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this important program. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will begin the first round of questioning now. 

I would like each of you to comment on this question. There has 

not really been that much accomplishment in attempting to clean 

these hazardous areas, the waste sites, and I would like you to give 

me your opinion of the reason for this. 

Is it money? Is it structural changes that are needed in the law 

or should EPA implementation of the law be improved? Tell me 

what you think the handicaps might be. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. 

I do think that whether or not much has been accomplished is 

relative. We have a lot of work that has been done under the Legacy Act that otherwise wouldn’t have been done, which I think is 

very commendable. 

That being said, we still have a long, long way to go. It is a little 

bit like climbing a mountain and seeing that you have a long way 

to go and not really appreciating where you have been. So we do 

have a long way to go on that. 

Why? Why do we have so much further to go? Why haven’t we 

made as progress? I do think funding is a key piece of that answer. 

Many of the Great Lakes States are struggling. You heard from 

Lieutenant Governor Cherry earlier today that Michigan has the 

Clean Michigan Initiative. Many of the other States don’t have that 

kind of bonding for these kinds of purposes. 

So while that has put Michigan in a decent position, many of the 

other States have not had the luxury of matches to be able to reach 

that 35 percent. I do think that that is one thing that could be addressed. 

You mentioned the structure of the Act. Certainly, we think that 

many of the recommendations that we have made today will help 

accelerate the pace of these cleanups. 

I do know this: Since the list was created, it is unacceptable that 

we continue to make as little progress as we have. We have done 

some good work. We need to speed that pace up. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Green? 

Ms. GREEN. Thanks for asking that question. 

I think I would agree with Cameron that we actually have made 

some good progress, and I take sites like Ruddiman Creek as an 

example of a site that sat for years, and the local community had 

advocated for years and years and years for something to be done 

about this. The Legacy Act came along, and finally it is cleaned up, 

and lake salmon are now back in that creek. 

But why not faster? I would love it to see it go faster. I think 

there are three things, and I think it is really all of the things you 

mentioned. 

It is the lack of funding. The Act has been consistently underfunded, under-appropriated since it was started. 

27 

The cost share, I think, is an issue in some sites, and it is hard 

to pinpoint because what you have is with the 35 percent cost 

share you likely have communities that don’t even apply for Great 

Lakes Legacy Act funds because they can’t raise that cost share. 

So it becomes an unnecessary barrier to application. 

At least in the case of orphan sites, we ought to look at reducing 

that cost share. 

Then the administrative changes that you have heard all of us 

bringing up. Some of them small and I think were really not intended to be barriers like the maintenance of effort provision and 

the disbursal of funds to non-Federal contractors, but together they 

have really kept a number of sites from flowing through the process. 

I think if we could tackle those as part of the reauthorization, it 

would help make this Act and program more efficient. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kuper? 

Mr. KUPER. Madam Chair, there are probably eight or ten points 

that I would try to summarize for you. 

First is the eligibility of Potentially Responsible Parties. Were 

they able to participate in the cost share portion, you would have 

more projects. 

Use of project funds for pilot or demonstration projects: There 

have been several demonstration projects proposed that have not 

been accepted by the program administrator. 

The problem created by the pick and stick rule needs to be fixed 

so that we can spend Great Lakes Legacy Act money at Superfund 

sites. 

We need to drop the maintenance of effort requirements. That 

clearly has been a barrier to projects. 

We need to eliminate the current limitation that requires exclusive Federal agency project implementation. We need to have everybody in that project that can possibly make a difference. 

And, we need to use Legacy Act funds for the restoration of habitat. We ought to be prioritizing those funds for remedial projects. 

We ought to have a public participation program to make sure 

the public information that is getting out about these projects is in 

the spirit of the Act and the objectives we are all trying to work 

on. 

As Emily Green said, we need to have cost share that is more 

affordable, and we need more money in the program. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

I guess one of the things I don’t quite understand is you just 

mentioned that we need more money in the program, but I don’t 

understand, if you reduce the cost share significantly, how that 

gets more money in the program. 

Ms. GREEN. Well, I think we are talking about expanding the authorization pretty significantly to $150 million a year. So, despite 

a slight reduction in the cost share, there is still going to be more 

money to go around. 

28 

Mr. BOOZMAN. But if we did that, though. I mean ideally we 

would like to get as much Federal money as we can into the program. I am very supportive of that. 

As Mr. Grumbles said earlier, we have this problem, and we 

have many other problems that you all are dealing with as you 

mentioned earlier. The reality is there is a finite amount of money. 

If we get as much Federal as we can in there and with an authorization of $150 million when we have steadily crept up, I think, 

from $9 million to $35 million, and maybe we will get a little bit 

more this go-round. But the reality is unless you do an awful lot 

of legwork with the appropriators, it is not going to happen. 

I think the danger is you get a significant increase in authorization, you don’t get a whole lot more money appropriated, you have 

a decrease in the cost share, and then you are not going to see a 

significant increase in your dollars. Does that make sense? 

Ms. GREEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. That is the scenario that I see happening with 

this. 

Mr. KUPER. I understand the principle. The problem is we are 

trying to lower the barriers to getting projects up and underway, 

and it is clear that the local cost share is one of those barriers. So, 

to the extent that we would have more projects in the pipeline appealing for those Federal funds, it would hopefully make the appropriators more aware of what is possible with the Federal dollars. 

Does that make sense? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I understand, but again I think the scenario that 

I just said is more realistic in the sense that you raise the appropriation, you lower the cost share, some more dollars hopefully. 

Again, I am very supportive of that. 

But the reality is, as Mr. Grumbles said, who is I think on your 

side and trying to get as much money pushed in that direction as 

possible, you have a problem. You have less cost share, you have 

some more dollars, but I don’t see how that really helps you a 

whole bunch. 

The other thing is you mentioned increasing or actually diverting 

some money to habitat. What percentage would you divert? 

We have cleanup money now. If we did habitat money, what percentage would you see going to habitat? 

Mr. DAVIS. I guess I will take a shot at that, Congressman 

Boozman. 

I don’t know that we need to slate a percentage. 

What I would do is think of this more in terms of prioritization. 

First prioritization, get these contaminated sediment sites cleaned 

up. Get the pollutants out. 

To the extent that there is money left over, then look at helping 

to rebuild these aquatic habitats so that these sites function, so 

that the river fronts and harbor fronts can again be gathering 

places for these communities, so that fishing can help boost the 

local economies. In many instances, these are places that have been 

hit hard for decades as a result of this contamination. 

So I would think that more in terms of a prioritization scheme 

than slicing up a pie with various percentages that way. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Again, I would agree that the priority needs 

to be the cleanup. 

29 

Again, politically, you have to think through this in a sense that 

what you don’t want is communities that have powerful people that 

happen to be in Congress pushing habitat over the other. Those are 

the political realities that we deal with. 

So I would agree. I think cleanup is the major thing. 

Ms. Green, you mentioned an ecological tipping point with the 

Great Lakes. Could you comment and tell me what you mean by 

that, kind of your reasoning behind that? 

Ms. GREEN. Sure. Recently, sort of a collection of scientists 

around the Great Lakes were just looking at the huge number and 

variety of stressors on the ecosystem as a whole and released a report that suggested that the impact of all these stressors was pushing the ecosystem towards what they call a tipping point, towards 

the point at which it would no longer be able to respond to additional stressors. It would change permanently beyond the point of 

repair so that even if we made changes to kind of enhance restoration, clean up some of these sites, the ecosystem wouldn’t respond. 

That poses a real threat in my mind because it would change the 

way that all of us are able to use and interact with the Great 

Lakes, whether it is for recreation or industry or drinking water, 

whatever it is. 

So I think it puts the onus on us to act quickly to sort of address 

some of these issues and increase the ecosystem’s resiliency, its 

adaptability to stressors including climate change, by the way, 

which is going to have some sort of impact, before it is too late. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. 

You mentioned pilot projects which, again, makes sense if you 

can do things more expeditiously, less expense. Do you have any 

specific things that you are thinking about in that regard? 

Mr. KUPER. There have been several that have been proposed. I 

would like the opportunity to tell you about them from an expert 

rather than myself. So I will get back to you with that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. That would be fine. If you could respond to that, 

that would be very helpful. 

Again, if we could come up with things that are more expeditious, I think we have certainly allocation in that way in the Highway Bill and some other things that has precedence. 

I want to compliment all of you. In reading your testimony, you 

seem to be working very, very together which is so important and 

really are a model. I wish that we could duplicate your united front 

with a lot of other things that we deal with. So thank you very 

much. I appreciate your testimony. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Dr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks for bringing up, Ranking Member Boozman, the idea of a united front. I like 

that idea across the aisle as well. 

Emily Green, thank you for being here. Thank you for your work 

with the Sierra Club, and I appreciate all of your testimony and 

the work you have done over the past number of years. 

In case someone is watching back home, you didn’t change your 

last name to Green because of your belief in a green economy, did 

you? 

30 

Ms. GREEN. I did not. 

Mr. KAGEN. Can you be any more specific with regard to habitat 

restoration money, if any, with regard to the Legacy Act? 

Ms. GREEN. Sure. What we were really thinking about there, and 

this gets a little bit to your question as well, is limiting the type 

of habitat restoration work we would do to actually just restoration 

at the site of cleanup. So it is a relatively small expenditure compared to the price of cleaning up a contaminated sediment site, but 

it is what it would take to return the cleaned up site back to a 

functioning habitat. 

For example, in the case of Ruddiman Creek, and this was actually done by the local community, they replanted the creek bank 

with native grasses and plants and vegetation and got it back to 

a wetlands state which is what it was before it was dredged. 

Mr. KAGEN. So you would like funding to be ramped up sufficiently to cover the complete restoration of the toxic site. 

Ms. GREEN. That is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. Or Area of Concern, as we call it. 

Ms. GREEN. That is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay, so that is where that stands. 

Mr. Kuper, I want to thank you for delineating very nicely the 

different definitions or redefinitions of pick and stick and research. 

You know whenever a physician takes care of a patient, it is really research. You are getting a prescription, and it might or might 

not work. It might have some toxic effects. You could call that research, and it might not be covered by your insurance carrier. 

In much the same way, a pilot project. Have you got any pilot 

projects in mind? 

Mr. KUPER. As I responded earlier, the answer is yes, but I 

would like the opportunity to supply those to you subsequently because there are a lot of people involved in generating these pilot 

projects. 

Mr. KAGEN. Right. You also highlighted the problem at the level 

of the toxic site where the local community might have some speed 

bumps or resistance to joining and applying for a program. If I 

heard you correctly, you really want everyone to be able to apply 

for this funding, is that correct, including the responsible parties? 

Mr. KUPER. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. KAGEN. Is there any reason not to include them? Aren’t we 

really rewarding them for their bad behavior? 

Mr. KUPER. This is not to replace their obligations. This is in addition to their obligations. 

Mr. KAGEN. So you are focusing on the Area of Concern, on the 

environment itself and not those who may have caused the problem. 

Mr. KUPER. Correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. In terms of local cost-sharing components, 

how does that factor into a community? Can you give me a specific 

example? 

Mr. DAVIS. I am not sure I understand the question. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, if the local community has to do cost sharing, 

can you give me an example where a community may not have applied for the money? 

31 

Mr. DAVIS. I think we heard from Gary Gulezian earlier today 

that while that has not been a barrier up until right now, there is 

some anticipation that in the future that we could see sites that 

are not able to apply because of that cost share problem. 

Mr. KUPER. Congressman, the problem with the answer to your 

question, which is an excellent question, is that we don’t know 

about a lot of the applications that don’t become applications. 

Mr. KAGEN. You can’t measure what you don’t see. 

Mr. KUPER. A negative, correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Is that 

about it? 

Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. 

We have heard anecdotally that Buffalo may fall into the kind 

of scenario that you are talking about, Dr. Kagen, where the cost 

share may be a speed bump. 

Mr. KAGEN. Can you educate me about the participation or nonparticipation of non-Federal contractors? 

Mr. KUPER. A tough issue, it is a matter of whether or not you 

can spend money with an expert who may not be a Federal contractor on the same site that Federal contractors are working, and 

the answer is you can’t under the current way the program is administered. It ought to be fixed. 

Ms. GREEN. So, say you have a dredge in the water that is being 

paid for by, say, the State of Minnesota under some other authority 

and there is a little bit of extra part of the site that could be part 

of the Legacy Act orphan share, you can’t, right now, pay that contractor to do the cleanup. You have to bring in your own federallyfunded dredge. It is inefficient, wasteful. 

Mr. KAGEN. I understand. So, if it makes sense, it might not be 

happening. We should change the legislation so that it makes 

sense. 

In the area in which I am familiar with in terms of research 

projects with NIH or any other kind of funding, it is not uncommon 

to get funding from a number of different grantors to study the 

problem of cancer of asthma or any number of other problems. It 

is the question of commingling of the funds and making sure there 

is an accurate accounting of the money that Congress, I think, is 

most interested in. 

I want to thank you for your testimony. 

I yield back my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

With no other questions, we will consider the hearing finished, 

and we thank you very much for being here to testify. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Ms. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. KUPER. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

32 


42581.009
33 


42581.010
34 


42581.011
35 


42581.012
36 


42581.013
37 


42581.014
38 


42581.015
39 


42581.016
40 


42581.017
41 


42581.018
42 


42581.019
43 


42581.020
44 


42581.021
45 


42581.022
46 


42581.023
47 


42581.024
48 


42581.025
49 


42581.026
50 


42581.027
51 


42581.028
52 


42581.029
53 


42581.030
54 


42581.031
55 


42581.032
56 


42581.033
57 


42581.034
58 


42581.035
59 


42581.036
60 


42581.037
61 


42581.038
62 


42581.039
63 


42581.040
64 


42581.041
65 


42581.042
66 


42581.043
67 


42581.044
68 


42581.045
69 


42581.046
70 


42581.047
71 


42581.048
72 


42581.049
73 


42581.050
74 

Æ 


42581.051