U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–298 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL PERMITTING 

PROCESSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2018 

Serial No. 115–67 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA General Counsel 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Interior, Energy, and Environment Subcommittee Staff Director 

EMILY WONG, Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Blake Farenthold, Texas, Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair 

Dennis Ross, Florida 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 15, 2018 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. James Iwanicki, PE, Engineer-Manager, Marquette County Road Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Ms. Valerie Wilkinson, CPA Vice President and CFO, The ESG Companies 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Mr. Kevin DeGood, Director, Infrastructure Policy, Center for American 

Progress 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Ms. Diane Katz, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, The Heritage 

Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

APPENDIX 

February 24, 2016, Stateline Pew, Barrett and Greene, ‘‘States Strive to 

Eliminate Costly Construction Delays’’ submitted by Mr. Palmer .................. 64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL PERMITTING 

PROCESSES 

Thursday, March 15, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Palmer, Comer, Plaskett, 

and Raskin. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and the Environment will come to order. Without 

objection, the presiding member is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today, our subcommittee will examine the Federal permitting 

processes under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as 

NEPA, and the Clean Water Act. Numerous reports have documented how convoluted requirements and lengthy application periods for Federal environmental permits negatively affect infrastructure and development projects. Today’s hearing will explore the 

problems and inefficiencies within those permitting processes in 

order to highlight opportunities for reform. 

NEPA was passed with good intentions nearly 50 years ago but 

over time has evolved to become one of the most burdensome regulations facing any development project. NEPA review for complex 

projects that require an environmental impact statement can take 

years to complete and cost millions of dollars. The time for a full 

environmental review for a highway project has now grown from 

approximately two years when NEPA was first implemented in the 

’70s to over seven years in 2013. Even that seems quick compared 

to the 17 years it took one company to get a permit for mining in 

western Montana. 

State and local governments are forced to navigate the bureaucracy of a myriad of Federal agencies in order to get a project approved under NEPA. In addition to all the red tape, applicants face 

the constant threat of litigation brought by environmental groups 

and other opponents to development. Even the most minor oversight in the review process can prompt a lawsuit from activists, 

adding further delay on top of an already lengthy process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

The permitting program established in section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act is similarly plagued by lengthy delays and high costs for 

applicants. One of the witnesses we will hear from today has been 

waiting nearly 30 years for a permit, and the project remains in 

limbo. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of 

Engineers share responsibility for administering this program and 

over the years have used their regulatory authority to expand the 

jurisdiction of the program and their own authority. 

The requirements for section 404 permits are vague, and reports 

indicate that enforcement varies from district to district. This 

makes it very difficult for applicants to know what is required for 

a successful application. There is also no time limit imposed on the 

review process, so permit applicants face significant uncertainty 

and have difficulty planning for when they can begin work. 

Not only is navigating the permit process difficult, there is also 

no guarantee that a project will be allowed to proceed. In 2013, the 

Supreme Court held that the EPA has the authority to retroactively veto section 404 permits issued by the Corps. In that case, 

the permit had been issued four years prior to the EPA’s decision 

to veto it, and the permit holder was in full compliance with the 

conditions of their permit. When a project can be arbitrarily vetoed 

midway through development, it is difficult if not impossible to attract investors and creates enormous disincentives to undertake 

any project requiring a 404 permit. 

Some of our panelists have had particularly egregious experiences trying to get a permit, and I look forward to hearing their 

perspectives on the issue. I hope this hearing provides a starting 

point for a productive discussion about ways to improve the Federal permitting process and get American infrastructure and development back on track. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I will now recognize the ranking member, Ms. 

Plaskett, for her opening statement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, witnesses, for being here with us this afternoon. 

We can all agree that environmental protection should go handin-hand with economic development. The Virgin Islands, which I 

am proud to represent, is a beautiful place that thrives on tourism 

and understands more than most places the importance of striking 

the balance between environmental regulations and development. 

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our nation faces an infrastructure investment deficit of $2 trillion. For instance, the estimated $1 trillion is needed to fix America’s drinking 

water infrastructure. Our nation’s transit system has a backlog of 

projects to attain a state of good repair that will cost $90 billion 

and is projected to grow to $122 million. America’s public school system needs $58 billion to maintain and operate current facilities and an additional $77 billion to upgrade 

the current school facilities to reduce the maintenance backlog. In 

my district, the public schools are forced to run on four-hour rotations because of the destruction to school facilities during the recent hurricane season. This is expected to continue at least through 

the next school year until new facilities can be constructed. 

Finally, America’s roads and bridges are in need of $836 billion 

to repair a system that has been underfunded for years. UnfortuVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:10 Aug 15, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30298.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

nately, President Trump’s infrastructure proposal aggravates the 

infrastructure deficit. The Trump plan will cut more than $168 billion from Federal highways, Amtrak, and water infrastructure 

funding over 10 years. President Trump also proposes retreating 

from the Federal Government’s lead role in financing infrastructure. 

The Federal Government historically funded 80 percent of the 

highways and 20 percent would be funded locally. This new plan 

reverses the percentages and requires States to contribute 80 percent of projected costs in order to receive 20 percent match. State 

officials know that requiring an 80 percent local cost share for an 

eligible project is going to put most if not all projects out of reach. 

In the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico it makes them basically out 

of the question. 

The plan is little more than a wish list. It wishes that State and 

local governments and private investors will make up for reduced 

Federal investment in infrastructure, but we don’t have the luxury 

of magical thinking. The civil engineers determined that inadequate infrastructure costs every American family $3,400. Isn’t it 

time we face up to the fact that we cannot avoid the cost of investing in our infrastructure? 

There is also much progress to be made in permitting. In the Virgin Islands where the cost of living is 33 percent higher than even 

the District of Columbia, every dollar in local economy is crucial to 

the survival of the islands, and we cannot afford drawn out delays 

in permitting for economic development projects. But there are 

ways to speed up projects that will not lead to environmental damage. Permitting agencies should have enough funding to complete 

reviews quickly, and coordination tools already available should be 

fully implemented. The most common factor delaying water and 

transportation projects is inadequate funding. What we need is 

long-term Federal support. That should be our priority. 

I thank our witnesses for sharing their testimony today and look 

forward to this important discussion. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. And now, I am pleased 

to introduce our witnesses. First, we have Mr. James Iwanicki. Did 

I get that right? 

Mr. IWANICKI. Iwanicki. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Iwanicki, all right. That wasn’t even close to 

what was in—the phonetic spelling in my notes. I am sorry, Mr. 

Iwanicki. He is the engineer-manager of the Marquette County 

Road Commission in the upper peninsula of Michigan. We have 

Ms. Valerie Wilkinson, vice president and CFO of the ESG Companies in Virginia; Mr. Kevin DeGood, director of infrastructure policy at the Center for American Progress; and Ms. Diane Katz, senior research fellow and regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation. Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn 

in before they testify. Would you all please stand and raise your 

right hand? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let the record reflect all witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. You may be seated. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to five minutes. Your entire written testimony will be made part 

of the record. And as a reminder, you have got a clock in front of 

you, and you have also got three lights. Green means go, yellow 

means hurry up, and red means stop. Please also turn your microphone on, and the budget-conscious folks we are, we did not buy 

the most expensive microphones, so they sound much better the 

closer you get to them. 

So now, we will recognize Mr. Iwanicki. Did I get that—I am getting closer. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF JAMES IWANICKI 

Mr. IWANICKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking 

Member, and other distinguish members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Federal permitting 

process under the Clean Water Act. I am Jim Iwanicki. I’m the engineer-manager of the Marquette County Road Commission in the 

upper peninsula of Michigan. I’m very familiar with the Clean 

Water Act permitting process. Over the last five years, my agency 

has averaged over 20 Clean Water Act permits per year. 

I’m here today to testify about my experience in trying to permit 

County Road 595 in order to improve the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens, along with having a positive economic impact 

on mining, logging, recreation, and tourism in the State of Michigan. 

The Michigan DEQ was ready to issue a permit for County Road 

595 pursuant to Federal Clean Water Act. EPA vetoed the State’s 

position and stopped the permit from being issued. That is why I’m 

testifying about a road that never was, and counsel for the Road 

Commission is in Federal court seeking the opportunity to challenge EPA’s veto. EPA’s veto has caused heavy truck traffic to be 

routed through populated areas of Marquette County, through a 

university campus, three cities, and next to schools. 

In January of 2012 the Road Commission submitted a 404 permit 

application for County Road 595. It was 21 miles in length, affected 

26 acres of wetland, and it was a commonsense solution to a transportation need in the county. The cost of the project was $83 million. It was going to be funded through a public and private partnership with Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto was interested in the partnership 

because they were building a new nickel mine called the Eagle 

Mine, and they were refurbishing an old iron mill, the Humboldt 

Mill. 

The distance between the mine and the mill as the crow flies is 

about 19 miles. The existing road system that goes to the mine and 

to the mill is over 60 miles one way. Five ninety-five would reduce 

travel time by an hour, and 595 would have been built in a working woods, not a pristine wilderness. 

EPA only wanted to talk about preservation and would not allow 

us to use creation for a wetland mitigation plan. EPA continually 

changed the rules for wetland mitigation. In June of 2012 they said 

a 20-to-1 ratio would covered direct and secondary impacts of the 

project. By the way, the Michigan Department of Environmental 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Quality replacement ratio is 12 to 1 max. We proposed to preserve 

2.5 square miles next to the McCormick track. The McCormick 

track is a Federally protected wilderness area in the Ottawa National Forest. We proposed 640 acres of high-quality wetlands, a 

25-to-1 ratio, plus 929 acres of upland for a total of a 60-to-1 ratio. 

In December of 2012, the EPA wanted additional mitigation for 

secondary impacts and gave the Road Commission less than 30 

days, including Christmas and the New Year’s holiday, to come up 

with a solution. EPA also wanted us to secure mineral rights for 

the wetland preservation area. Federal rules only say to protect 

sites to the extent appropriate and practicable. EPA would not 

allow local units of government to be the land steward of the preservation area, as allowed by law. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources voluntarily—volunteered to be the land steward. They manage 4.6 million acres for 

the State of Michigan. When the—we told the EPA that they were 

willing to do that, their response was we were not sure they were 

qualified, and they would have to check into it. 

EPA demanded creating wildlife crossings large enough to accommodate moose, bear, wolf, and cougar, but they would not tell us 

where they wanted these crossings. These may be NEPA requirements, but they are not requirements of the Clean Water Act when 

a State has assumed authority. 

EPA was unwilling to negotiate resolutions openly by telling us 

directly what would satisfy their issues. In fact, during the last 

months of the project, they would not even tell us who the decisionmaker was going to be so we could talk to them directly and come 

up with a solution. 

We had great political support for County Road 595. On the local, 

State, and Federal level it was bipartisan. The Michigan House 

and Senate approved; the Governor of the State of Michigan approved; Dan Benishek, at the time a Republican House Representative, approved; and both of our Democratic Senators, Carl Levin 

and Debbie Stabenow, approved the project. 

Congress wrote the Clean Water Act specifically to allow States 

to assume Clean Water Act section 404 permitting authority in 

place of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. Michigan 

has done that. Congress should do what it can to see that the localand State-elected officials who have followed the Clean Water Act 

requirements can act in the best interest of their community without arbitrary and capricious interference from EPA bureaucrats in 

Chicago and Washington. 

Congress should clarify the Clean Water Act. When a State has 

assumed section 404 permitting authority and intends to approve 

the project but the EPA objects, the permit application—the permit 

applicant should be allowed to challenge EPA’s objections as arbitrary and capricious in court. 

Thank you, and I’d be willing to answer any questions that the 

panel has. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Iwanicki follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 30298.001

~ 

~PACIFIC LEGAL 

FOUNDATION 

Congressional Testimony 

"An Examination of Federal Permitting Processes" 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment 

By Jim Iwanicki 

Engineer-Manager of the Marquette County 

(Michigan) Road Commission 

March 15, 2018 

8645 N. Military Trail, Suite 511 

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

(561) 691-5000 

pacificlegal.org1 

1 Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is a nonprofit, public-interest organization that litigates nationwide to advance the 

American ideals of individualism and liberty, which establish a rule of law under which every person is secure in 

their inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. PLF represents all clients 

free of charge. PLF is privately supported, primarily through thousands of small, individual donors, and accepts no 

government grants or contracts. PLF represents the Marquette County Road Commission in this case free of charge. 

930 G Street • Sacramento, CA 95814 · plf@pacificlegal.org • 916.419.7111 • pAcifideaal.org 
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 30298.002

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, and other distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testifY on the federal permitting 

process under the Clean Water Act. 

My name is Jim Iwanicki and I am the Engineer-Manager of the Marquette County Road 

Commission (MCRC) in the upper peninsula of Michigan. My public agency is responsible to 

provide a safe and efficient system of county roads and bridges. Our population is over 67,000 

residents and we maintain over 1,274 miles of roads and 94 bridges in the largest county in the 

State of Michigan. Marquette County is over I ,873 square miles and is larger than the State of 

Rhode Island. Our area also has an annual snowfall of 184 inches per year. I am very familiar 

with the Clean Water Act permitting process because of my role as Engineer-Manager with the 

Marquette County Road Commission. Over the last 5 years we have averaged over 20 Clean 

Water Act permits per year to maintain our system of roads and bridges. I'm here today to testify 

about my experience trying to win approval for a new county road, County Road 595, to improve 

the quality of life, the health, the safety, and the welfare of our citizens. This experience opened 

my eyes to the problems with the Clean Water Act permitting process and how it is implemented 

by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

County Road 595 would have had a positive economic impact on the Mining, Logging, 

Recreation, and Tourism Industries for Michigan, but the EPA vetoed the CR 595 permit that the 

Michigan State Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) stood ready, willing, and able to 

issue pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. The EPA arbitrarily refused to allow us to move 

forward pursuant to the state's planned approval, leaving us unable to build the road without 

submitting a new permit application and starting over with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

That was unacceptable to us in terms of the years it would take and the money it would cost, and 

thus we are now in federal court seeking the opportunity to challenge that EPA veto. 

Let me share some background of County Road 595 and Marquette County. 

Background Facts 

In January of2012, the MCRC submitted a Section 404 permit application to fill 

approximately 26 acres of wetlands in order to construct 21 miles of road at a cost of $83 

million. Rio Tinto, a private commercial entity, intended to fund the construction through a 

public-private partnership. In addition, Rio Tinto spent millions in the-to date-futile effort to 

permit CR 595. (See Attachment 1 for a map of the area and where CR 595 would fit in the 

county.) 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 30298.003

Rio Tinto took interest in funding the project because they planned to construct a new 

nickel and copper underground mine, the Eagle Mine, in northern Marquette County. The 

company also refurbished the old Humboldt Mill to process the ore, south of the mine. The mine 

and the mill have created about 300 direct new jobs. 

The distance between the mine and the mill as the crow flies is about 19 miles. Using the 

existing road system to go from the mine to the mill would be approximately 60 miles one way. 

CR 595 would have reduced travel time by an hour and about 40 miles each way. (See 

Attachment 2 for a more detailed map of the area and CR 595.) 

The construction of CR 595 would have lasted two years and employed over 100 people 

during that time frame. 

CR 595 would have been built in a working woods-not in pristine wilderness. The road 

alignment is based on existing public and private roads already in place and only after studying 

several alternative routes. (See Attachments 3, 4, and 6-9). 

CR 595 was the common sense solution to Marquette County's transportation needs. 

But the EPA stopped the project. After we started the permitting process with the MDEQ 

by submitting a permit application in 2011, the EPA objected to our project's purpose. We 

revised the permit application and then the EPA held a public hearing on the pending permit 

application in August of 2012. We then revised the permit application again and submitted it to 

the state DEQ. The MDEQ informed the EPA that it approved the new permit application and 

was ready to issue it in September, 2012. 

The EPA lifted its objection to the project's purpose on December 4. 2012, but had other 

objections to the revised permit application which needed to be satisfied by January 3. 2013 

(within 30 days), or jurisdiction would move to the Army Corps of Engineers and we would be 

forced to start over. 

Rio Tinto needed certainty in their transportation route by January of2013. Failure to 

have a permit for CR 595 in January, 2013, caused Rio Tinto to pull their $83 million funding 

commitment for CR 595 and they instead were forced to use the existing road system to truck the 

ore because the EPA refused to budge. 

The EPA did not like how we proposed to mitigate the impacts ofCR 595. Our proposed 

mitigation plan involved preserving over 1,576 acres of land (2.5 square miles) adjacent to 

2 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 30298.004

McCormick Tract in the Ottawa National Forest. The area included approximately 647 acres of 

high quality wetland (a 25:1 mitigation ratio) including an additional 929 acres of uplands (60: 1 

total acreage). (See Attachment 5.) 

The EPA was very aloof during the whole permit process. EPA officials would not tell us 

what would be acceptable to them to win approval of the permit application that the state was 

ready to issue. In fact, during the last month of the project-December, 2012-they would not 

even tell us who the decision maker was going to be. They were unwilling to negotiate 

resolutions openly by telling us directly what would satisfy them. 

There are several examples of the EPA's unwillingness to follow the Clean Water Act 

and implementing regulations in vetoing the permit application. For example, the EPA demanded 

additional wildlife protection and they proposed creating wildlife crossings (tunnels or bridges) 

large enough to accommodate moose, bear, and cougar, and to place fencing to guide vvildlife to 

the crossing. But they would not tell us where these crossings needed to go. And these 

requirements were the kinds of requirements that perhaps we would have to meet pursuant to 

NEP A, but these were not requirements we were required to meet pursuant to the permitting 

process outlined in the Clean Water Act when a state has assumed approval authority for the 404 

permit, as Michigan and New Jersey both have done. 

The EPA also wanted to limit secondary road connections to CR 595 by placing deed 

restrictions on CR 595 so adjacent landowners could not connect to the road. In other words, 

they were demanding that we place restrictions on property rights of private property ownerslegal authority we did not have and would not want to have. 

The EPA Overreach 

The Marquette County Road Commission believes the EPA overstepped its authority in 

the following areas: 

1. EPA would not allow MCRC to use any creation (establishment) of 

wetlands for mitigation, forested wetlands in particular, as allowed by 

40 C.F.R. parts 230.92 and 230.93(a)(2). 

2. The preservation ratios EPA required (i.e. 20:1) were beyond what 

was reasonable and not compliant with 40 C.F.R. part 230. MDEQ 

rules allow a maximum replacement ratio of 12:1 for wetland 

preservation. 

3 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 30298.005

3. EPA imposed requirements that mineral rights be obtained for the 

wetland preservation areas. Federal rules only require that site 

protection should include measures to protect sites "to the extent 

appropriate and practicable" (40 C.F.R. part 230.97(a)(2)) in regard to 

mineral extraction and other threats. 

4. EPA continually changed the "rules'' in regards to what was required 

for mitigation on the project. EPA suggested that wetland preservation 

be at a 20:1 replacement ratio in June, 2012, to cover indirect and 

secondary impacts, but in December, 2012, it required additional 

mitigation measures to address secondary impacts and gave MCRC 

less than 30 days (including Christmas and New Year holidays) to 

come up with such measures. The EPA public hearing in this process 

was held over three months prior to the December 4, 2012, EPA letter 

and the timing of the letter did not allow sufficient time for MDEQ or 

MCRC to respond to the requirements of EPA's letter due in 

substantial part to the holidays. 

5. EPA would not allow the Marquette County Road Commission, 

Marquette County, or Michigamme Township (all legal governmental 

entities in the State of Michigan) to be the land steward of the 

proposed wetland preservation area, as allowed in 40 C.F.R. part 

230.97(a) and when EPA was asked about having the Michigan 

Department ofNatural Resources, which takes care of over 4.6 million 

acres for the State, as the land steward, the EPA said they would have 

to check into it. The EPA was not sure they were qualified. 

Political Support for CR595 

The objections from EPA officials in Chicago and Washington, D.C., flew in the face of 

the approvals that leaders in Michigan on both sides of the aisle had for this project. CR 595 was, 

and still is, supported by all local units of government in Marquette County where CR 595 would 

either go through or where the existing road to the mine goes through. This includes three cities 

(Marquette, Ishpeming, Negaunee), eight townships, the Marquette County Board, the two 

4 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 30298.006

Michigan State House of Representatives members who represented Marquette County at the 

time, the Michigan State Senate senator who represented Marquette County, 63 of the II 0 

members of the 96th Michigan State House, and 28 of38 senators from the 96th Michigan State 

Senate, the Governor of the State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Transportation, 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

the Michigan State Police, Dan Benishek (R) U.S. House of Representative at the time, and both 

U.S. Senators Carl Levin (D), and Debbie Stabenow (D). Congress wrote the Clean Water Act 

specifically to allow states to assume Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting authority in place 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. When all relevant state officials and agencies 

want a project approved but bureaucrats in Chicago and Washington, D.C., can overrule them, 

then Congress's intent, as expressed in the plain language of the Clean Water Act, is overruled 

by Executive Agency bureaucrats who are unelected and accountable to no one. That was not the 

intent of Congress when it allowed states to assume permitting authority under the Act. 

Result of EPA's Overreach 

As a result of the EPA's overreach here, heavy truck traffic is now routed through the 

populated areas of Marquette County. That includes large trucks traveling each day adjacent to 

Northern Michigan University's campus, directly through small towns, and next to schools. 

Local units of government have been forced to address the safety issues created by EPA's lack of 

regard for the citizens of Marquette County. And this was all forced unnecessarily. The people of 

Michigan care greatly about their environment and the Michigan DEQ would not have approved 

the project if the concerns for pollution were not adequately addressed. The concerns were 

addressed. That's why the state DEQ wanted to approve the project. But instead I am here before 

you five years later testifying about the road that never was, and counsel for the MCRC is in 

court fighting for that road. Congress should do what it can to see to it that local and state elected 

officials who have acted in the best interest of their community, as the MCRC and state DEQ did 

here, can act without arbitrary and capricious interference from Washington EPA oflicials. That 

should not require Congress to amend the Clean Water Act, since Congress intended for a project 

like this one to be approved by the State of Michigan. But Congress should consider making 

explicit what is implicit in the law: when a state that has assumed Section 404 permitting 

authority intends to approve the project but the EPA objects, then the regulated party may 

challenge the EPA's objections as arbitrary and capricious in court. 

Thank you. 

5 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 30298.007

.James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15, 2018 

Attachment 1: Location of Marquette County 

6 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 30298.008

James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15, 2018 

Attachment 2: Location ofCR 595. Mine and Mill 

7 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 30298.009

James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15, 2018 

Attachment 3: Routes Studied 

Other Roltes Considered ln1he CR 595 Assessment 

8 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 30298.010

James M Iwanicki, P . .E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15, 2018 

Attachment 4: Existing Roads in Area 

9 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 30298.011

James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15, 2018 

Attachment 5: Proposed Mitigation Area 

10 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 30298.012

,James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15, 2018 

Attachment 6: Photo Along CR 595 Alignment 

11 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 30298.013

James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15,2018 

Attachment 7: Photo Along CR 595 Alignment 

12 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 30298.014

James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15,2018 

Attachment 8: Photo Along CR 595 Alignment 

!3 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 30298.015

James M Iwanicki, P.E. 

Engineer Manager 

Marquette County Road Commission 

Testimony for the Subcommittee On 

Interior, Energy, and Environment 

March 15,2018 

Attachment 9: Photo Along CR 595 Alignment 

14 
21 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Wilkinson, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VALERIE WILKINSON 

Ms. WILKINSON. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member 

Plaskett, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is Valerie Wilkinson, and I am the 

vice president and chief financial officer of the ESG companies, a 

small business based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Homebuilders have become frustrated with the expansion of Federal authority over private property and believe the current permitting process is broken. For almost 3 decades we’ve been held hostage by the EPA and the Corps, who have continually altered the 

Clean Water Act 404 permit requirements. This is perplexing as 

the relevant sections of the act have not changed since 1972. 

Our nightmare began almost 30 years ago when our company 

proposed plans for a multi-use community to address the local 

housing demand. While we were clearing our land in 1989, the 

Corps asserted that our property contained jurisdictional wetlands 

and that a 404 wetland permit was required. We hired environmental experts to survey the land. However, the Corps completely 

dismissed their assessments. The delineation took years to complete because Corps officials disagreed on the criteria for determining wetlands. 

The regulatory environment changed again in 1999 when Virginia adopted the Federal 404 regulations to create an expedited 

one-stop-shop permitting process. Virginia DEQ staff confirmed our 

expert’s delineation, and we submitted our State permit request. 

We agreed to revise our plan to further avoid and minimize impacts and provided mitigation so for every acre impacted two acres 

of wetlands would be restored and another acre placed in preservation, resulting in no net loss of wetland acreage or functions. The 

DEQ applauded the fact that we exceeded the typical protective 

measures and issued a 15-year permit in 2003. 

Since the State and Federal requirements are the same, we were 

stunned when the Corps disagreed with the DEQ’s delineation and 

added 36.7 acres of impacted wetlands to the project. The basis of 

their decision for this 25 percent increase was vague and unsubstantiated. Although we strongly disagreed, we tried to move the 

permit forward by offering a number of amendments to our proposal that lessened the environmental impact and provided extensive alternatives analysis, which prove the other options unfeasible. 

Five years after we received a State permit, the Corps, utilizing 

the same regulations, denied our request. The Corps wrongly 

claimed that we had not adequately addressed information requests even though we had replied to everyone, provided numerous 

offsite analysis, as well as 17 onsite alternatives and addressed 

every public comment to multiple public notices. 

Frustrated, we modified our project again in an effort to stay out 

of court and salvage some of our extensive investment. The significantly reduced plan decreased wetland impacts by 84 percent, and 

the Court accepted this as a modification to our original application. However, the Corps adopted a new regional supplement, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

which expanded the definition of a wetland, and we were forced to 

start over again with a new set of rules. 

Now, 13 years since first filing our Federal application, we have 

responded to countless requests for information, studies, data, only 

to be met with more delays and requests to update and revise the 

information. We’ve hired more consultants and experts. Many of 

these requests appear to be just stalling mechanisms, yet we’ve 

complied again and again. We have been prevented from developing any of our 428 acres for almost 30 years, and our 15-year 

State permit will expire in nine months. We have spent over $4.5 

million in the process and over $40 million in our investment in the 

property, and we still are not close to a permit. 

If constructed, our project will create jobs, increase property tax 

revenue, and provide affordable housing. I hope that our story can 

be used to advance positive reforms and repair a broken regulatory 

system. Congress must work to pass legislation that streamlines 

permitting and establishes a process that offers transparency, certainty, and reasonable deadlines. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Wilkinson follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 30298.016

Testimony of Valerie Wilkinson, 

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 

The ESG Companies 

Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

Subcommittee on Interior, Energy and the Environment 

"An Examination of Federal Permitting Processes" 

March 15, 2018 

Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 

more than 140,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today. My name is Valerie Wilkinson, and I am a Vice President and the 

Chief Financial Officer of The ESG Companies. The ESG Companies is a group of family 

owned development, building, management and entrepreneurial companies based in Virginia 

Beach, Virginia. Our companies evolved from a small electrical contracting company started by 

our founder, Edward Garcia, after returning from serving in the Navy in the Pacific during World 

War II, and we have been providing strong, sustainable communities ever since. 

I commend the subcommittee's desire to highlight the pitfalls of the current regulatory regime, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to tell our story. Our quest to obtain a federal wetland permit for 

our building project has spanned nearly 30 years. Throughout every step of the process, the rules 

have changed and new requirements have been added. Unfortunately, the land we acquired 

almost three decades ago still lays undeveloped and we continue to be held hostage by the 

federal government. After spending thirty years and over $4.5 million dollars in pursuit of the 

required permit, we still are not even close to obtaining a federal 404 CW A permit for our 

project. 

Recognizing and supporting the need for a clean environment and the benefits that it brings to 

our nation's communities, home builders and land developers have a vested interest in preserving 

and protecting our nation's water resources. Since its inception in 1972, the Clean Water Act 

(CW A) has helped to make significant strides in improving the quality of our water resources 

and improving the quality of our lives. Our nation's home builders build neighborhoods, create 

jobs, strengthen economic growth, and help create thriving communities while maintaining, 

protecting, and enhancing our natural resources, including our lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams. 

We foster the American dream of home ownership. Under the CWA, home builders must often 

obtain and comply with section 402 storm water and 404 wetland permits to complete their 

projects. What is most important to these compliance efforts is a regulatory scheme and 

permitting process that is consistent, predictable, timely, and focused on protecting true aquatic 

resources. 

1 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 30298.017

The home building community knows all too well the frustration of a broken permitting process. 

Over the years, the federal government has expanded the scope of their regulatory authority and 

have frequently changed the requirements needed to obtain a federal wetland permit. These 

changes have made the permitting process virtually impossible to navigate and have caused 

many land use projects to come to a grinding halt, putting more people on the unemployment 

rolls. It is impossible for home builders and developers to support the needs of our community 

under an ever-changing regulatory system. With property rights being jeopardized by federal 

regulatory overreach, it is increasingly difficult to attract new companies into our industry. 

Unfortunately, our company has fallen victim to this broken system. 

Our story begins in the mid-1980's when The ESG Companies began to acquire parcels of land 

in order to develop a mixed-use community in Chesapeake, Virginia. Our mission was to address 

the anticipated population growth and housing demand after forecasters announced that 8,000 

new jobs would be created in the Chesapeake area. The proposed project consisted of a multi-use 

community comprising retail, office, multifamily, single family and town homes with 

recreational amenities. Multiple parcels of land were consolidated into the Centerville Properties, 

a 428-acre development with a total investment in the project today, including land and carrying 

costs, of over $40 million. 

In 1989, after obtaining required zoning approvals from the City of Chesapeake, The ESG 

Companies began clearing the land to develop Centerville Properties. Almost immediately, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) asserted that jurisdictional wetlands, which were 

subject to CWA protections, appeared to be present on the property. They issued a Cease and 

Desist Order to halt "any and all filling activities on or adjacent to the waters and wetlands 

located on the property" until a wetland delineation could be completed. This action was 

surprising because prior to this time, we, along with many builders like us, had been developing 

properties like this all over the region, and the Corps had never asserted jurisdiction over 

similarly situated seasonally wet, non-tidal forested land. Even while the Corps put us through 

this rigorous regulatory obstacle course, numerous properties in the vicinity with similar soils, 

hydrology and vegetation characteristics had been and continued to be developed without 

permits. 

The Corps asserted jurisdiction over our property by using their newly expanded jurisdictional 

authority to regulate wetlands as "waters of the United States." The landmark Supreme Court 

decision, United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. 1 solidified the Corps' authority to 

regulate wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. The Court decided that wetlands which "actually 

abut on a navigable waterway" are "adjacent" and subject to CW A authority. 2 While our 

property does not directly "abut" a navigable water and is connected only by a historical, nonnavigable drainage ditch, the Corps claimed that there was a subterranean connection to a 

jurisdictional water due to the fact that our soil was seasonally saturated to the surface. 

1 474 u.s. 121 (1985). 2 Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. at 135. 

2 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 30298.018

While we did not agree with the decision that we were subject to federal jurisdiction, we clearly 

understood that the rules had dramatically changed. Therefore, we immediately hired highly 

qualified and esteemed environmental consultants, Dr. Hilburn Hillstead, a biologist and 

environmental scientist with Law Environmental and a former official with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Dr. Wayne Skaggs, a soil scientist and then professor at the 

University of North Carolina and member of the Soils Committee of the National Academy of 

Sciences to assist us with the wetland delineation and permitting process. From 1990 to 1995, 

our consultants attempted to work with local Corps officials to resolve any issues and clear a 

path that would allow our project to break ground. Surprisingly, Corps staff steadfastly refused to 

consider hydrology studies performed by Dr. Skaggs showing that the soil on site was not 

saturated to the surface by capillary fringe due to free standing water 12" below the surface. The 

Corps responded that it did not dispute Dr. Skaggs' findings, however its definition of surface is 

the '"A" horizon within the root zone 12" below the top of the soil. Regrettably, the delineation 

took years to complete because at the time there was considerable confusion among Corps staff 

as to whether they should use the 1987 or the 1989 wetland delineation manual to determine the 

existence of wetlands. Even though the 1989 delineation manual had been expressly disallowed 

by Congress in the Fiscal Year 1993 Appropriations bilV Corps field officials still used it to 

complete their field assessments on our project. 

Prior to 1998, mechanized land clearing and excavating in wetlands to prepare the land for 

development was prohibited by a Corps rule. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

overturned the rule prohibiting these actions in 19984 In July 1999, after the Court ruling, Tri 

City Properties, LLC (Tri City), one of The ESG Companies, obtained an erosion and sediment 

control and water discharge permit and moved forward with clearing and excavating the land 

under the supervision oflawyer and environmental specialist, William Ellis. 

As it has always been our intention to be in full compliance with federal regulation, we notified 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps prior to initiating the action and took 

videotapes of the work as it was undertaken. These video tapes were then provided to the EPA. 

The ditching was accomplished by excavating and loading the material directly onto trucks and 

hauling it to an offsite location under the supervision of an engineer. At no point was dredged or 

fill material re-deposited on the land. Yet, in May 2000, the EPA issued an Administrative Order 

for compliance, one of over 20 they issued that day in our general area, stating that illegal 

discharges, "if any," must cease immediately and a new wetland delineation must bi:! completed. 

No illegal activity took place on our property. However. later that year the Commonwealth of 

Virginia adopted a new regulation that required a permit to excavate in wetlands. Therefore, to 

comply with this new state regulation, we filed an application with the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) to continue excavating the land. ln addition, we retained the 

services of Environmental Specialty Group headed by Julie Steele, a former Corps Norfolk 

District regulatory branch Section Chief as well as Dr. W. Thomas Straw, a hydrogeologist and 

currently Professor Emeritus of Geosciences at Indiana University. These specialists have 

3 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1993, P.L. 102-377, 106 Stat. 1315, 1992 

'National Mining Association v. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 

3 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 30298.019

extensive expertise in environmental geology and wetlands hydrology and worked to develop a 

new wetland delineation as requested by EPA through their Administrative Order for 

compliance. 

After obtaining yet another wetland delineation and 15 years since we had first started readying 

the property for development, we were prepared to apply for our wetland permit. V ADEQ and 

the Corps have joint permitting authority over the Commonwealth's wetlands. The expressed 

purpose of Virginia's statutory scheme was to provide a one-stop shop and prevent land owners 

from having to go through duplicative permit approvals. It is important to note that Virginia's 

wetlands regulations mirror the CW A section 404(b )( 1) requirements. Since they use the same 

criteria and methodology, the state and the federal government should not differ in their 

regulatory assessments of our project. Unfortunately, coordination was not what we experienced, 

and our project only illustrates the disconnect between state and federal permitting partners. 

In late 2000, we sent our new wetland delineation to the V ADEQ to begin the permitting 

process. Our environmental consultant certified that the site contained 253.5 acres of palustrine, 

forested wetlands and 174.7 acres of upland. The VADEQ made multiple requests over an 8-

month period that the Corps confirm the delineation; however, the Corps refused to participate, 

citing the outstanding Administrative Order. Therefore, Dr. Ellen Gilinsky, then VADEQ's 

Director of the Water Quality Programs Division who later served as a Senior Advisor to the 

EPA's Office of Water, and her colleague, Dave Davis, personally confirmed the wetland 

delineation we provided by performing their own field assessment of the property. Dr. Gilinsky 

and Mr. Davis invited Corps officials to accompany them on their field review so Corps staff 

could observe the wetland boundaries on the property. Corps staff attended but left without 

comment. The VADEQ confirmed the wetland delineation, showing 174.7 acres of uplands and 

144.6 acres of wetland impacts, and the state permit process moved forward. 

In late 2001, in an effort to find a mutually beneficial and expedient resolution to the outstanding 

Administrative Order, representatives from Tri City and their legal counsel, Robert Dreher, who 

now serves as the Associate Director ofUSFWS, met at EPA's Philadelphia offices with key 

EPA officials as well as a representative from the Environmental Defense Section of the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ). Tri City proposed a settlement through a Consent Decree which 

included significant mitigation and preservation that the DOJ official believed it was in 

everyone's best interest, and EPA representatives agreed, with the caveat that they would need 

concurrence from the Corps to finalize the agreement. We were later notified that the Corps did 

not concur and would require a CWA 404 permit for any development to proceed. 

As required by Virginia state law, V ADEQ opened a notice and comment period and held two 

public hearings on our project. During this time, we continued to communicate with V ADEQ 

and interested parties to respond to any and all concerns regarding the impact of the project. In 

an effort to move the project ahead, we agreed to make a number of significant changes to our 

development plans to lessen the number of wetlands impacted. The revised project allowed us to 

avoid over 100 acres of wetlands and required us to offset our impacts by creating 290 acres of 

wetlands offsite by restoring wetland function on prior converted cropland. This amounts to two 

acres of restored wetlands for every one acre impacted. We also agreed to contribute 145 acres of 

4 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 30298.020

wetlands on the adjoining property as a conservation buffer. As a result of these new 

development, mitigation and preservation plans, V ADEQ concluded that the project met the 

requirements of no net loss of wetland acreage and functions. In addition, Tri City agreed to 

install state-of-the-art stormwater ponds and filtration features such as wetlands benches, 

bioretention areas, and grassy swales in order to reduce erosion and improve water quality. At 

our final public hearing, V ADEQ acknowledged that the permit contemplated more protective 

measures than typically required. Once again, V ADEQ attempted to share our new project plans 

with the Corps, only to be rebuffed. At this point it had become painstakingly clear that the 

Corps did not want to participate in any review of our project. 

On November 21,2003, almost twenty years after obtaining the property, the Virginia State 

Water Control Board approved and VADEQ issued a Virginia Water Protection Permit, allowing 

Tri City to impact 144.6 acres of wetlands. The permit, which expires in 2018, included the 

negotiated wetland conservation requirements as well as numerous other conditions relating to 

wildlife preservation. erosion and sediment controls and construction procedures. Shortly atler 

the issuance of the permit, V ADEQ Director Bob Burnley praised our project, in an official 

VADEQ publication, as "an excellent example of the success of Virginia's wetland protection 

program" due to the extensive restoration, preservations and minimization requirements. Our 

project was being used as the prime example of how development can occur with sound 

environmental protections. 

On two occasions, the Virginia judicial system defended our State permit against legal 

challenges. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CFB) opposed the issuance of the permit in 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Court of the City of 

Richmond ruled in our favor by upholding the permit. 5 The CBF appealed the decision only to 

lose again when the Virginia Court of Appeals issued a final ruling upholding the validity of the 

permit on April, 22, 20146 Our state permit still remains in full force and effect, but only for 

another 9 months. 

While we still needed formal CW A section 404 approval from the Corps, we felt we had 

overcome the most challenging obstacle of securing the wetland permit from the 

Commonwealth. After all, Virginia and the Corps have joint pennitting authority, and tbe 

Virginia regulations enacted the CW A 404 regulations verbatim. The Corps issued the first 

public notice on the property based on the V ADEQ confirmed impacts in 2005, and Tri City 

provided responses to all public comments including those made by the EPA, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, as well as various 

environmental groups and individual citizens. The Corps then requested a significant volume of 

new and updated information which we also provided; however, it took approximately 1 year to 

receive a response from the Corps related to our submissions. 

The Corps subsequently concluded that the V ADEQ-approved wetland delineation, which was 

the basis of our approved state permit, was not accurate. This is the same wetland delineation 

5 Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Com., ex rei. Virginia State Water Control Bd., No. 1897-12-2, 2014 WL 

1593323, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014). 6 Id. at *16. 

5 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 30298.021

that the VADEQ asked the Corps to confirm three years earlier. With disregard to the VADEQ's 

regulators and their expertise, the Corps performed a new wetland delineation in 2007 that added 

36.7 acres of wetlands to the project for a new total of 181.3 acres impacted. Contrary to the 

well-documented delineation that was performed by our environmental consultants and V ADEQ, 

the basis of the Corps delineation is rather vague and, in some instances, a stretch. For example, 

the Corps relied on a single observation of"ponding water and blackened leaves in designated 

areas" as primary indicators of hydrology during their site visit. Due to the increase in wetlands 

impact per their confirmation, the Corps required that the project go through a second public 

notice process. Tri City again provided detailed responses addressing all public comments. 

In response to the Corps' delineation, we quickly worked to amend our project proposal and 

offered a number of options to further reduce our environmental impact. One of the proposals we 

offered reduced wetland impacts from 181 acres to 80 acres with onsite 1:1 mitigation. We also 

worked through the Corps' Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternatives (LEDPA) 

analysis and considered the Corps' impractical suggestion that we move our project to 90 acres 

of uplands on nearby Elbow Road. However, there were many complications with the Corps' 

LEDPA. First, the 90 acres is located along a narrow winding and dangerous section of road that 

could not support the main ingress and egress of a mixed-use development without millions of 

dollars of offsite infrastructure and road improvements that would have made the project 

financially infeasible. Second, the City of Chesapeake zoning laws prohibited us from moving 

the project to that area. In an attempt to overcome this obstacle, the Corps unsuccessfully tried to 

pressure city officials to waive current zoning restrictions and related proffers to allow the result 

it desired. Finally, as it is Congress' policy to "recognize, preserve and protect" the rights of the 

states to "plan the development and use ... ofland," the Corps has no authority to determine 

where a project should be built/ yet the Corps requires such "off-site alternatives" be considered 

even when not owned by the applicant. This action is an unfortunate example of the federal 

government's intrusion on local land use. 

Three years after our permit request was filed with the Corps and 8 years after we had initiated 

the joint permitting process with the V ADEQ, the Corps denied our request for a federal wetland 

permit. The Corps believed that we had failed to prove that the 90 acres of uplands on Elbow 

Road could not be developed and stated that we had not met the requirements of the LED P A. 

The Corps also claimed that we did not adequately respond to requests for information even 

though we had filed all requested information, including analysis of numerous offsite 

alternatives, extensive analysis of 17 onsite alternatives and detailed responses to two rounds of 

public comments. 

In an effort to avoid litigation challenging the denied permit and to salvage at least part of our 

investment, we modified our project yet again. The significantly reduced plan allowed 

development on just 61 acres, impacting 29.8 acres of wetlands. In 2009, the Corps accepted this 

proposal as a modification of the previously denied permit and reopened the 2005 application. 

7 33 u.s.c. § l251(b). 

6 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 30298.022

The Corps issued their third public notice on our project with its modified scope and impact and 

Tri City again provided responses addressing all public comments. 

As soon as we started to gain ground, the Corps issued a new regional supplement manual for 

field staff to use in making wetland delineations. 8 Contrary to claims made by the Corps at the 

time of release, these changes significantly expand the definition of wetlands and subsequently 

increased limits of wetlands into land that was formerly delineated by the Corps as uplands. This 

change specifically affected the Tri City property at Centerville. Two of the secondary indicators 

of hydrology were changed to primary indicators and used to expand the test for identifying 

wetlands. This change alone shifted very large areas from uplands to wetlands. We do not 

understand how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can adopt a 148- page "supplement" in 2010 

to the 100- page 1987 Corps Wetland Manual, when Congress instructed the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in 1993 to not utilize Department of Defense moneys to use any wetland manual other 

than the 1987 Wetland Manual. The use of the word "supplement" by the Corps appears to have 

provided an end-around of Congress. 

The rules changed again in the midst of the process and the Corps applied these wetland manual 

changes to our pending project application. In essence, we were forced to start over with new 

rules. We were now required to go through a public notice for a fourth time based on the 

increased impacts, moving us even farther away from securing our permit. In fact, more than 60 

days since the publication of our last notice, we received another 7-page request from the Corps 

for new and updated information on our project. It appears that we will be perpetually subject to 

vacillating circumstances. 

Over the last ten years since the original permit denial, we have diligently continued to work 

with the Corps in an attempt to obtain a federal wetland permit. For us, these years have been 

spent responding to the Corps' constant requests for additional information, studies, and data. 

When we responded with the requested information and data, we were often met with follow-up 

requests to reformat the information in a painstakingly specific way. Indeed, the numerous 

reformatting requests appeared to be nothing other than an intentional stalling mechanism, as we 

swiftly complied with every request only to be faced with another. We had to hire additional 

environmental consultants to conduct more wetland delineations and wetland functional 

assessments, and even hired consultants suggested by the Corps. In addition, the Corps staff 

assigned to our project continually changed over the years and we struggled to keep them 

appropriately educated on our project. Over the years we have had dozens of field visits from 

Corps and EPA staff in order to survey and assess the land. We have complied every step of the 

way. 

Since 1988, the Corps has successfully prevented Tri City from developing the land, the 15-year 

permit that V ADEQ approved in 2003 will soon expire. The results of our 28-year effort to 

obtain required permits for the development of our property are contained in approximately 55 

file boxes of records of submissions, correspondence, maps, scientific analysis and data 

8 "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain 

Region (Version 2.0)." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 2010. 

7 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 30298.023

collection related to this project and our pursuit of the required permits. In fact, if we laid the 

papers end to end, they would stretch over 30 miles, the distance from the U.S. Capitol to Dulles 

airport. It is hard to keep going when the continual requests and delays seem designed to further 

protract the process and frustrate our ability to ever reach a resolution and run out the clock on 

our state permit. 

In 2015, the rules changed again when the EPA and Corps finalized a regulation to redefine the 

scope of waters protected under the CW A. The agencies added new terms, definitions, and 

interpretations of federal authority over private property that are more subjective and provided 

the agencies with greater discretionary latitude to expand their regulatory authority. 

This rule fell well short of providing the clarity and certainty sought by the regulated community. 

It would increase federal regulatory power over private property and would lead to increased 

litigation, permit requirements, and lengthy delays for any business trying to comply. It is so 

convoluted that even professional wetland consultants with decades of experience would struggle 

to determine what is jurisdictional. The federal government should be working to provide a 

practicable and transparent permitting system rather than expanding their authority over private 

property. 

Fortunately, the Trump Administration is working to rescind this rule. We are optimistic that the 

Administration will develop a new rule that respects congressional intent under the CW A while . 

protecting the aquatic environment and improving the compliance process for the regulated 

community. 

Recommendations for Streamlining Permitting 

NAHB members were encouraged by President Trump's recent proposal to strengthen our 

nation's transportation and infrastructure. There are many aspects of this proposal that help 

establish a permitting regime that is consistent, timely and will prevent agencies from needlessly 

delaying projects. 

We are supportive of the Administration's proposal that requires one agency to take the lead on 

evaluating projects. Many federal statues tie their approval/consultation requirements to those of 

the CW A meaning that if a builder has to obtain a CW A permit, they must also obtain others, 

such as under the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and National 

Environmental Policy Act. This means that builders not only have to consult with the Corps and 

EPA, but also with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And during these additional reviews, the 

developer does not have a seat at the table, and the consulting agencies are not bound by a 

specific time limit. This immediately places builders and developers at a disadvantage. These 

federal consultations, across multiple agencies, are just another layer of red tape that the federal 

government has placed on small businesses. Allowing builders to consult with one agency will 

ultimately reduce the time and resources needed to obtain a permit, while continuing to protect 

the environment. 

8 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 30298.024

The Administration's proposal offers the certainty the regulated community desires by giving the 

federal government a two year deadline to complete the permitting process. I cannot overstate 

how valuable this aspect of the proposal would be for my business. Having that certainty would 

allow us to predictably bring our product to market which not only benefits the home builder but 

also the home buyer. 

In addition, we were pleased to see that the Administration's proposal included language that 

would reverse the Civiletti memorandum ("Civiletti Memo"). The Civiletti Memo, named for its 

author U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, gives the EPA the final word on CWA 404 

permits. The Civiletti Memo makes little sense given the Corps' expertise in administering the 

day-to-day operation of the 404 program. The Corps has decades of experience operating the 404 

program and has conducted hundreds of thousands- perhaps millions- of CW A jurisdictional 

determinations and issued countless 404 permits over the years. EPA does not have this 

experience and docs not make jurisdictional determinations nor issue section 404 permits. Yet, 

the Civiletti Memo allows EPA to delay, block, or second-guess the Corps' expertise in 

managing the 404 program. To address this, the Civiletti Memo should be rescinded and the 

government must confirm that the Corps has ultimate administrative authority to operate the 404 

program, issue permits, and make jurisdictional determinations under the CW A. 

While the Corps, not the EPA, should have authority over federal permitting, they must stop 

acting as a roadblock to states and tribes that wish to administer the CW A 404 permitting 

program for certain waters within their borders. Section 404(g) of the CW A authorizes states to 

assume authority to administer the 404 "dredge and fill" program in some but not all navigable 

waters and adjacent wetlands. Section 404(g)(l) describes the waters over which the Corps must 

retain administrative authority even after program assumption by a state. Only two states, 

Michigan and New Jersey, have been approved to assume the Section 404 program. While other 

states have explored assumption, those efforts have not borne fruit in part due to uncertainty over 

the scope of assumable waters and wetlands. Unfortunately, the Corps has sought to retain far 

too many waters under federal authority thereby contradicting the intent of Congress under 

404(g). The Corps' overly expansive interpretation of waters and wetlands to be retained under 

Corps· authority leaves little, if any, waters for states to assume 404 permitting authority over. In 

giving authority to the states as envisioned by Congress, red tape in Washington will be cut and 

permit costs and delays for home building projects and related infrastructure projects will 

decrease. 

In addition, the Corps must stop expanding CW A jurisdiction using supplements to the 1987 

wetland delineation manuaL To identify and delineate wetlands, the Corps published the "1987 

Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" (the 1987 Manual). The 1987 Manual 

describes technical guidelines and methods to determine whether an area is a wetland for 

purposes of CW A Section 404 and subject to federal permitting. Over time, the Corps has made 

a practice of"supplementing" the national 1987 Manual with regional variations. These 

"regional supplements" relax the three-parameter test needed to determine that an area is a 

jurisdictional wetland, allowing regulators to reject scientific studies conducted by highly 

credentialed professionals, and arbitrarily make findings of wetland hydrology based on a single 

9 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 30298.025

observation of field indicators, such as ponding water on the ground surface or blackened leaves. 

Such use of unsupported field indicators expand the Corps' regulatory authority unlawfully. As 

more and more features, such as common woodlands and farm fields, become jurisdictional 

wetlands, more home building projects will face increased costs and delays. To avoid this 

undesirable outcome, the Corps must eliminate the regional supplements and assert jurisdiction 

only in instances where wetland plants, soils, and hydrology are actually present and clearly 

definable in the field by the Corps and private consultants. 

Finally, Corps headquarters should assert centralized control and oversight over its regulatory 

program. Unfortunately, due in part to the absence of strong oversight and central guidance from 

Corps Headquarters on important regulatory interpretations, there has been inconsistency among 

Corps districts as they implement the CW A Section 404 program. These inconsistencies create 

uncertainty for both regulators and project proponents and make it difficult for Corps staff to 

administer the program. The results are increased project delays and costs. To reduce regulatory 

confusion stemming from district-by-district interpretations of regulations and guidance, Corps 

headquarters must establish clear lines of authority to direct the implementation of key 

regulations and policies. Until Corps headquarters makes this fundamental change, there will 

continue to be inconsistency, uncertainty, and delay associated with the CW A Section 404 

permitting process. 

Conclusion 

After more than three decades of stalls, delays and changing federal requirements, our most 

recent project proposal totals 53.8 acres, a 233-acre reduction from the original development 

proposal. If constructed, the project will benefit the City and the public in the form of increased 

employment opportunities, increased property tax revenue estimated at well over $1.1 million 

per year, sales and use tax revenues, proffers for a school site, and increased public amenities. 

For over thirty years we have complied with every request, modified our building plans, and 

created an extremely aggressive conservation plan to combat environmental impacts. It is 

difficult to say what else we can do to move this project forward. Most recently, at the request of 

the Corps and the EPA, we have conducted another extensive review of the feasibility of 

developing the 90 acres of uplands near Elbow Road; however, this again has been deemed 

infeasible as it would require rezoning which the City has recently denied to a similarly situated 

parcel, 2,000 feet south of our property. Most businesses do not have the time, money and 

fortitude to engage in these lengthy tights and are forced to abandon such projects. We believe 

this is the Corps main objective. We are fortunate to have the means to stay in this fight, and our 

Chairman, Edward Garcia, now 92, is dismayed that the very liberties and fairness that he and 

his three brothers fought for during WWII are now being eroded by an overzealous regulatory 

bureaucracy. Eddie is not about to step away from this tight because he understands how 

important it is not only for our project but also for all landowners. While the project remains at a 

standstill and we still have no clear end in sight, I hope that our story can be used to advance 

positive reforms to repair our broken regulatory system. 

10 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 30298.026

I encourage you to pass legislation that would implement some of these commonsense changes. I 

am hopeful that in the coming weeks, you will seriously consider a legislative proposal that will 

establish a permitting process that offers transparency, certainty and reasonable deadlines. This 

will go a long way towards improving the way we do business and making the homes we build 

more affordable. 

11 
34 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. And I am sorry for what you are 

having to go through. 

Mr. DeGood, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN DEGOOD 

Mr. DEGOOD. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, 

Ranking Member Plaskett, and members of the subcommittee, for 

the opportunity to testify. It is a privilege to contribute to this committee’s work. 

In recent years, environmental review and permitting have come 

under sustained attack, often based on spurious claims about the 

length of time needed to complete Federal reviews. The President’s 

infrastructure plan is only the latest example. 

The hard truth is that infrastructure projects cost money, yet 

when taken together, the President’s budget and infrastructure 

plan call for cutting $1.40 from existing Federal of the structure 

programs for every $1 of proposed expenditure. The net cut would 

reduce total construction activity. In Washington, everybody wants 

to go to the ribbon cutting, but nobody wants to pay the bill. 

Instead of real spending, the President has proposed deep environmental deregulation. The White House and other opponents of 

environmental review paint a dire picture of a Federal bureaucratic 

Leviathan implacably turning out red tape to our collective detriment. If only, the argument goes, project sponsors didn’t have to 

study the potential impacts of building, then everything would be 

cheaper, faster, and better. This tidy narrative is false. 

First, environmental review produces better projects and saves 

taxpayers’ money in the long run. History shows that building first 

and asking questions later often leads to irreparable social and ecological damage. Second, only a small fraction of infrastructure 

projects must complete a full review. And third, project review 

times for many categories of projects have actually fallen in recent 

years. 

In 1969, Congress passed NEPA to address growing public concern over the serious community and environmental damage 

caused by Federal actions, including the construction of new infrastructure projects. The fundamental goal of NEPA is to allow informed decision-making by providing the public with detailed information on the potential harms associated with infrastructure 

projects. Failing to consider potential impacts from infrastructure 

projects is penny wise and pound foolish. 

Take, for example, the Kissimmee River in Florida. The river 

carries water south from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee, 

which then releases water into the Everglades and recharges the 

Biscayne aquifer, which provides drinking water to millions of residents of South Florida. In early 1960s, prior to NEPA, the Army 

Corps reconstruct the this 103-mile meandering Kissimmee River 

into a 56-mile-long, 300-foot-wide drainage canal in the name of 

flood control. The resulting environmental damage was so severe 

that Congress authorized the partial restoration of the Kissimmee 

River just 21 years after completion of the channelization project. 

When adjusted for inflation, the channelization cost $194 million, 

and the partial restoration will cost more than $1 billion, a fivefold 

increase in constant dollar terms. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Opponents of review often argue that transportation projects, especially highways, face inordinate delays. In fact, only 4 percent of 

highway projects require a full environmental impact statement. 

Since 2009, the average review time for major highway projects has 

fallen to 3.6 years. That may sound like a lot, but it’s important 

to remember that mega-projects often come with mega-complexities. By rushing environmental review, we increase the risk of 

funding infrastructure that will produce substantial social and environmental harms that could have been mitigated with a bit of 

forethought and planning. 

The push for further environmental deregulation is especially 

troubling since Congress has already voted three times in the past 

six years to speed the review process. In fact, Federal agencies 

have yet to promulgate many of the regulations implementing reforms to NEPA, included within MAP–21, WRRDA, and the FAST 

Act. Moreover, the Trump administration has yet to appoint a director for the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council or 

to appoint a head of CEQ. In short, Congress has granted the Federal executive numerous administrative and regulatory powers to 

speed the environmental review process. These reforms need time 

to be fully implemented and given time to work before further 

changes are made to law. 

Unfortunately, these facts haven’t stopped the Trump Administration from proposing to dramatically rollback review by shortening the statute of limitations for filing legal claims, allowing certain types of construction to proceed before review completion, and 

limiting the scope of alternatives analysis. These and other proposed changes would lead to less community input and greater environmental harms, including dirtier air and water. 

In many respects, the fight over NEPA is a fight about values 

and power. Environmental review is the process by which we value 

people, places, and the environment by trying to minimize the 

harms from development. Review also serves to empower local communities. Moving critical information and decision-making out from 

behind closed doors where planners and developers tend to operate, 

yet without adequate time to study a project or the ability to seek 

legal remedy when mitigation efforts are inadequate, the concept 

of community and environmental protection lose their meaning. 

Weakening environmental review would simply add to our fiscal 

burden by rushing construction of poorly conceived projects that 

would require extensive remediation later on. There are no shortcuts to fixing our nation’s infrastructure backlog. The only real solution is for Congress to once again take the investment—I’m sorry, 

to make the investment necessary to ensure our country can prosper and compete for decades to come. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. DeGood follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 30298.027

Center for American Progress 

p:::ps 

An Examination of Federal Permitting Processes 

Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. Honse of Representatives 

Testimony by Kevin DeGood 

Director of Infrastructure Policy 

Center for American Progress 

March 15, 2018 

Thank you Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, and members ofthe subcommittee for the 

opportunity to testify on federal environmental review and permitting. It is a privilege to contribute to this 

committee's work. 

In recent years, environmental review and permitting have come under sustained attack-often based on 

spurious claims about the length of time needed to complete federal reviews. The President's 

infrastructure plan is only the latest example. 

The hard truth is that infrastructure projects cost money. Yet, when taken together, the President's budget 

and infrastructure plan call for cutting a $1.40 from existing infrastructure programs for every $1 of 

proposed expenditure. This net cut would reduce total construction activity. In Washington, everybody 

wants to go to the ribbon cutting, but nobody wants to pay the bill. 

Instead of real spending, the President has proposed def'p environmental deregulation. The White House 

and other opponents of environmental review paint a dire picture of a federal bureaucratic leviathan 

implacably churning out red tape to our collective detriment. If only, the argument goes, project sponsors 

didn't have to study the potential impacts of building, then everything would be cheaper, faster, better. 

This tidy narrative is false. First, environmental review produces better projects and saves taxpayers 

money in the long run. History shows that building first and asking questions later often leads to 

irreparable social and ecological damage. Second, only a small fraction of infrastructure projects must 

complete a full review. And Third, project review times have fallen in recent years. 

In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, to address growing public 

concern over the serious community and environmental damage caused by government action, including 

the construction of new infrastructure projects. The fundamental goal ofNEP A is to allow informed 

decisionmaking by providing the public with detailed information on the potential harms associated with 

infrastructure projects. These harms could include anything from the loss of wetlands to the destruction of 

historic buildings or damage to the social, economic, or cultural character of a neighborhood. 

Failing to consider potential impacts from infrastructure projects is penny wise and pound foolish. Take, 

for example, the Kissimmee River in Florida. The river carries water south from Lake Kissimmee to Lake 

Okeechobee, which then releases the water into the Everglades and recharges the Biscayne aquifer that 

provides drinking water to millions of people in Miami and across south Florida. 

In the early 1960s, prior to NEP A, the Army Corps reconstructed the I 03-mile meandering Kissimmee 

River into a 56-mile, 300-foot wide drainage canal to reduce flooding. The resulting environmental 

H NW, 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 30298.028

damage was so severe that Congress authorized the partial restoration of the Kissimmee River just 21 

years after completion of the channelization project. When adjusted for inflation, the channelization cost 

$194 million. The partial restoration will cost more than $1 billion-a five-fold increase. 

Opponents of review often argue that transportation projects---especially highways-face inordinate 

delays. In fact, only 4 percent of highway projects require a full environmental review. Since 2009, the 

average review time for major highway projects has fallen to 3.6 years. That may sound like a lot, but it's 

important to remember that mega-projects come with mega-complexities. By rushing environmental 

review, we increase the risk of funding infrastructure that will produce substantial social and 

environmental harms that could have been mitigated with a bit of forethought and planning. 

The push for further environmental deregulation is especially troubling since Congress has already voted 

three times in the past six years to speed the review process. In fact, federal agencies have yet to 

promulgate regulations implementing many of the reforms to NEPA included within MAP-21, WRRDA, 

and the FAST Act. Moreover, the Trump administration has yet to appoint a director for the Federal 

Permitting Improvement Steering Council established by Title 41 of the FAST Act or to appoint a head of 

the Council on Environmental Quality. In short, Congress has granted the federal executive numerous 

administrative and regulatory powers to speed the environmental review process. These reforms need to 

be fully implemented and given time to work before making further changes to law. 

Unfortunately, these facts haven't stopped the Trump administration from proposing to dramatically 

rollback review by shortening the statute of limitations for filing legal claims, allowing construction 

activity to begin before review completion, and limiting the scope of alternatives analysis. These and 

other proposed changes would lead to less community input and greater environmental harms, including 

dirtier air and water. 

In many respects, the fight over NEPA is a fight about values and power. Environmental review is the 

process by which we value people, places, and the environment enough to try and minimize the harms 

from development. Review also serves to empower local communities, moving critical information and 

decision-making out from behind closed doors where planners and developers tend to operate. Yet, 

without adequate time to study a project or the ability to seek legal remedy when mitigation efforts are 

inadequate, the concept of community and environmental protection lose their meaning. 

Weakening or eliminating environmental review would simply add to our fiscal burden by rushing 

construction of poorly-conceived projects that will require expensive remediation later. There are no 

shortcuts to fixing the nation's infrastructure backlog. The only real solution is for Congress to once again 

make the investments necessary to ensure our country can prosper and compete for decades to come. 
38 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. Ms. Katz, you are recognized for 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE KATZ 

Ms. KATZ. Thank you. Chairman Farenthold and Ranking Member Plaskett and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Diane Katz. I’m a senior research fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation. The 

views expressed in this testimony are my own and should not be 

construed as representing any official position of the Heritage 

Foundation. 

Proponents of President Trump’s infrastructure initiative claim 

that it would create millions of jobs, accelerate economic growth, 

and increase productivity. However, work must actually commence 

in order for benefits to accrue, and a variety of Federal, State, and 

local regulations imposes years of delay and higher costs that serve 

little purpose except to empower the Federal Government and 

antidevelopment activists. 

Among the most problematic of these regulations are the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and the section 404 permitting regime under the Clean Water Act. Four decades of experience with both has exposed a raft of regulatory flaws, including politicized science, arbitrary standards, and protracted litigation. The 

average time—as the chairman referred to earlier, the average 

time to complete a NEPA impact assessment of a transportation 

project has expanded from 2.2 years in 197 to 6.6 years in the past 

5 years. 

Every day of delay increases project costs and postpones the benefits of modernized and safer infrastructure. NEPA is rendered 

largely obsolete by the vast number of categorical exclusions that 

agencies routinely grant to waive environmental reviews. The Federal Highway Administration alone grants more than 50 types of 

exclusions, and waivers constitute between 90 percent and 99 percent of State transportation projects. Even the Obama administration granted NEPA waivers to more than 95 percent of the projects 

funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

It makes us wonder what the use of regulation is if 90 percent of 

the time its compliance is waived. 

The Clean Water Act section 404 permitting is also a regulatory 

quagmire. There is no agreement between Congress, the EPA, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, State and Federal courts, or the U.S. Supreme Court on the parameters of Federal wetlands jurisdiction. 

The regulatory uncertainty is costly to individuals, businesses, and 

the Nation. 

Shoddy science also exacerbates the chaos of section 404 permitting. For example, the EPA established a scientific advisory board 

in 2013 to review the science on the conductivity of wetlands to 

downstream waters. The research was supposed to interpret the 

science on wetlands to help clarify Federal wetlands jurisdiction. 

But EPA didn’t wait for the results before revising the wetlands 

regulation in 2015, a revision the dramatically expanded Federal 

powers over private property and spawned lawsuits nationwide. 

The regulatory complexity of infrastructure projects is magnified 

to the extent that interagency coordination is necessary. Federal 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

agencies are constantly embroiled in political skirmishes simultaneously called to account by Congress, the White House, courts, 

and activists. Each operate by a different set of regulatory procedures and few if any observed deadlines. These and other regulatory hurdles undermine U.S. competitiveness. The United States 

ranked a measly 15th out of 33 OECD countries for ease of permitting in the World Bank’s 2017 Doing Business study. Even Estonia 

and Portugal ranked higher. And the U.S. only ranked as mostly 

free in 2018 in the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. 

Since the passage of NEPA in 1969 and the Clean Water Act in 

1972, there have been dramatic changes in America’s economic, social, political, and environmental landscapes. Back then, NEPA 

was the vanguard of environmental protection, but today, there is 

no shortage of other regulations to protect water and air quality; 

wetlands and endangered species; and to control runoff, hazardous 

waste, construction debris, demolition dust, and every other byproduct of infrastructure modernization. Going forward, any new 

infrastructure funding should be conditional on meaningful regulatory reform, starting with repeal of NEPA and the devolution of 

section 404 permitting authority to States. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Katz follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 30298.029

An Examination of Federal Permitting Processes 

Testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March 15,2018 

Diane Katz 

Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy 

The Heritage Foundation 

The Trump Administration on February 12,2018, unveiled a $1.5 trillion initiative to repair the 

nation's roads, bridges, airports, and railways. Proponents of the initiative claim that an 

infrastructure splurge would create millions of jobs, 1 accelerate economic grov.1h, and increase 

productivity. However, work must actually commence in order to yield these supposed benefits, 

and a raft of federal, state, and local regulations impose years of delay that erodes the nation's 

quality oflife and global competitiveness. 

Among the most problematic of these regulations are the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the Section 404 permitting regime under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Four decades 

of experience with both statutes has exposed a raft of regulatory flaws, including politicized 

science, arbitrary standards, and protracted litigation. 

The average time to complete a NEP A impact assessment of a transportation project-just one of 

several permitting hurdles-has expanded from 2.2 years in the 1970s to 4.4 years in the 1980s, 

to 5.1 years between 1995 and 2001, to 6.6 years in 2011. 2 Every day of delay increases project 

costs and postpones the benefits of modernized-and thus safer-infrastructure for little or no 

environmental benefit. 

'Researchers at Georgetown University calculated that a$! trillion investment in infrastructure spending would 

create as many as 11 million jobs through 2027. See Anthony P. Carnevale and Nicole Smith, "Trillion Dollar 

Infrastructure Proposals Could Create Millions of Jobs-Will the New Jobs Lead to Sustainable Careers?" 

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2017, h.nn.?:l/cew.georgetown.edu/wpcontentluploadsitrillion-dollar-infrastructure.pdf (accessed February 22 2Qlll Research by former Heritage 

Foundation analyst James Sherk challenges the claim that increased infrastructure spending would create jobs and 

boost the economy. According to Sherk, "These arguments have little empirical justification. Infrastructure projects 

require more physical and human capital than brute labor. Consequently, most workers hired on new federal 

construction projects would come from existing projects-not unemployment lines. Additional infrastructure 

spending would do little to reduce unemployment." See James Sherk, "Additional Infrastructure Spending Would 

Employ Few New Workers,'' Heritage Foundation Issue BriefNo. 4081, November 7, 2013, 

http://thf media.s3.amazonaws.com/20 13/pdfi!B408l.pdf. 2

AECOM, "40 Proposed U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Projects of Major Economic Significance," 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2016, https:i/www.treasury.gov/connecVblog/Documentslfinal-infrastructurereport.pdf (accessed February 22, 20 18). The average time to prepare all types ofNEPA-rclated environmental 

impact statements in 2016 was 5.1 years, according to: National Association of Environmental Professionals, 

"NAEP Annual National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Report for20!6," 

http://www.naep.org/index.rhp0 option=com content&view=article&id=285:NEP A 20 !6 Annual Report&catid= I 

9:site-content<emid=24! (accessed February 23, 20 18). 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 30298.030

The NEPA is rendered pointless by the vast number of"categorical exclusions" that agencies 

routinely grant to waive an environmental review. The Federal Highway Administration alone 

lists more than 50 types of such exclusions,3 and waivers constitute between 90 percent and 99 

percent of the NEPA decisions involving state transportation programs. 4 Even the Obama 

Administration granted waivers to more than 95 percent of the 192,707 projects funded by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009.5 

Section 404 permitting is also a regulatory quagmire; there is no agreement among Congress, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Supreme Court on 

the definition of"waters of the United States," the basis of federal jurisdiction for wetlands6 The 

regulatory uncertainty delays the repair of teeth-rattling roads, deteriorating bridges, and 

timeworn rails and runways. 

It also inhibits investment. Mining Consultancy Behre Dolbear notes that despite overall investor 

confidence in the United States, problems with permitting "creates sufficient uncertainty to 

sometimes destroy the viability of new projects."7 

That's evident in various country rankings of business receptivity. For example, the United 

States ranked a measly 15'h out of33 OECD countries for ease of permitting, according to the 

World Bank's 2017 "Doing Business" study. 8 (Even Estonia, France and Portugal ranked better.) 

In the 2018 Heritage Index of Economic Freedom,9 the U.S. was designated as" Mostly Free" 

(18'h out of 180 countries). 

Whatever the outcome of the Trump Administration's infrastructure initiative, Congress and the 

President must eliminate regulatory hurdles before committing tax dollars or soliciting private 

investment. Otherwise, a sizable proportion of the funds will be wasted fighting regulatory 

roadblocks instead of rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. 

3

"23 CFR 771.117-FHWA categorical exclusions," Legal Infonnation Institute. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23!77 I. I 17 (accessed February 23, 20 I 8). 4U.S. Department of Transportation, "National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusion Survey Review," 

November 27, 2012, https:/lwww.fhwa.dot.aov/map2l!reports/sec 1318report.pdf (accessed February 23, 2018). 5The White House Council on Environmental Quality, "The Eleventh and Final Report on the National 

Environmental Policy Act Status and Progress for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009 Activities and 

Projects," November 2, 201 I, 

https://energv.govisites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/CEQ ARRA NEPA Report Nov 20ll.pdf(accessed February 23, 

2018). 

6Daren Bakst, What You Need to Know About the EPA/Corps Water Rule: It's a Power Grab and an Attack on 

Property Rights, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3012, April 29, 2015, 

http://thf media.s3 .amazonaws.com/20 15/pdf/BG30 12.pdf 7

Behre Dol bear, Where to Invest in Mining 2015, http://www.mining.com/wpcontenlluploads/20 15/08/WHERE _TO _INVEST_ 2015 _ 08.pdf 8

A high ease of doing business ranking means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and 

operation of a local finn. The rankings for all economies are benchmarked to June 2017. See World Bank, Doing 

Business Economy Rankingsl http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings?region=occd-high-income 

Terry Miller, Anthony B. Kim, James M. Roberts, 20181ndex of Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation, 

https://www.heritage.org/index/download 

9

Terry Miller, Anthony B. Kim, James M. Roberts, 20 I 8 Index of Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation, 

https://www.heritage.org/index/download 

2 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 30298.031

WhatisNEPA 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 1

D requires federal agencies to assess the 

potential environmental effects of proposed government actions (including government 

financing, technical assistance, permitting, and regulations). Every executive branch department 

must comply, and individual projects often include multiple agencies. 

As part of assessing the impact on the "environment," agencies are required to consider the 

aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, and social effects of proposed actions. 11 This overly broad 

mandate provides virtually endless opportunities for bureaucratic wrangling and legal challenge. 

As set forth by Congress, the purpose ofNEPA is to: 

[E]ncourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; 

to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and 

biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding 

of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation. 12 

Such sentiments reflect la\\1nakers' faith that federal bureaucrats can dispassionately assess their 

own actions as long as they amass enough data and solicit public comment (including comment 

from local, state, municipal, and tribal authorities). 13 But the NEPA predates the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and virtually all of the nation's other environmental statutes, and thus 

its architects were relatively naive about the machinations of bureaucratic self-interest, the 

distortions of policy wrought by judicial activism, and the limits of environmental science. All of 

which have rendered the NEPA process costly, time-consuming, and riddled with conflict. 

Unlike many other environmental statutes, the NEPA is not a "substantive" law; rather than 

mandate specific outcomes, it imposes procedural obligations on federal agencies. The Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office of the President guides (and only 

guides) agencies' implementation of the NEP A. However, each agency decides on its own 

assessment model and dictates whether or how to modify projects based on their interpretation of 

theNEPA. 

There are several steps in the process: 

• Categorical Exclusion (CE). ACE constitutes a type ofNEPA waiver for a category of actions 

that do not significantly affect the human environment either individually or cumulatively. 14 An 

action that qualifies for a CE is not required to prepare an environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. 

"'National Environmenial Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S. Code 4321-4347, January I, 1970, https://ceg.doe.gov/lawsregulationsllaws.html (accessed February 22, 2018). 

''Council on Environmental Quality, "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act," 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508,2005, https:/lenergy.govisites/prod/filesiNEPA40CFR 1500 1508.pdf (accessed February 23. 2018). 12National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 11Daniel R. Mandelker, "The National Environmental Policy Act: A Review of Its Experience and Problems." 

Journal of Law & Policy, Vol. 32, No. 293 (2010), pp. 293-312. 

"Council on Environmental Quality, ''Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act" 

3 
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 30298.032

• Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA determines whether the proposed federal action will 

significantly affect the environment. If the assessment indicates that the impacts will not be 

significant, the agency next prepares a Finding of No Significant Impact" (see below). If the 

impact is likely to be significant, the agency must prepare an "environmental impact statement.'' 

• Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This is the determination by the agency that a 

proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore does not 

require further action under the NEPA. 

• Mitigated FONSI. This is a determination by the agency that a proposed action will not require 

further action under the NEPA if mitigation requirements (such as erosion controls) arc met. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is a thorough analysis of a proposed action· s 

effect on the "human environment," as well as an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed 

action. As mandated by the Clean Air Act. the EPA reviews and comments on all environmental 

impact statements prepared under the NEP A. 15 

• Record of Decision (ROD). A ROD refers to the agency's rationale tor choosing a specific 

course of action, including an account of the factors considered by the agency and the 

alternatives evaluated, a description of any mitigation measures to be implemented, and an 

explanation of any monitoring requirements. 

The EPA is required to review the adequacy of each draft EIS and the proposed actions therein. 

If EPA officials deem the review unsatisfactory. the case is referred to the CEQ. (The EPA also 

publishes notices in the Federal Register soliciting public review and comment on pending 

EISs.) 16 

The NEP A in Practice 

Congress intended the NEPA to be a planning tool for "integrat[ing] environmental concerns 

directly into policies and programs." In actuality, the process has become an administrative 

contrivance; agencies often conduct assessments-if they are undertaken at all-well after 

project planning is underway, and too late for the results to influence strategic choices as 

Congress intended. 

Agencies control the result of a NEPA analysis by shaping its "scope," that is, delineating the 

purpose of and need for a project. This "scoping" will de line the assessment parameters as well 

as the project alternatives that must be considered. 17 Consequently, the agencies e!Iectively 

control the outcome of the NEP A review through deliberate scoping. 

The result of this process is unavoidably political in nature, and not scientific. 

The very heart of the NEPA-the EIS-is based on a conceptual view of the environment as 

static and predictable. Agencies construct a baseline measure of environmental conditions and 

15 In the event that EPA officials regard an agency's review as "unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or 

welfare or environmental quality," the case is referred to the White House CEQ. However, the lead agency is not 

obligated to alter its proposed course of action in the face of objections rrom either the EPA or the CEQ. 16The EPA maintains a database ofE!Ses: Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) Database,'' https:'"cdxnodengn.epa.gov!cdx-enepa-11/public action!eis.search (accessed February 23, 2018). 17Mandelker. "The National Environmental Policy Act." 

4 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 30298.033

model the anticipated impact of a project. This approach disregards the resilience and dynamism 

of ccosystems. 18 

In reality, perfect information about the environment does not exist, nor can scientists accurately 

forecast how complex environmental systems will respond to ever-changing conditions over 

time. Therefore, the impact analyses are largely comprised of assumptions with weak predictive 

value. As noted by CEQ researchers in a study ofNEPA effectiveness: "(W)e often cannot 

predict with precision how components of an ecosystem will react to disturbance and stress over 

time." 19 

Moreover, the NEPA is rendered pointless by the vast number of'"categorical exclusions" (CEs) 

that agencies routinely grant to waive an environmental review. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHW A) alone lists more than 50 types of such exclusions, 20 and a survey by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation found that waivers constitute between 90 percent and 99 

percent of the NEPA decisions involving state transportation programs. 21 Even the Obama 

Administration granted waivers to more than 95 percent of the 192,707 projects funded by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.22 

Any regulation for which 90 percent or more of compliance is waived is a pointless regulation. 

Congress has tinkered with marginal reforms in several statutes, and the CEQ has issued more 

than 35 sets of guidelines on NEPA implementation-all of which have made the review process 

unpredictable and inordinately politicized. 

There is significant variation in the documentation necessary to obtain a categorical exemption 

depending on the agency and the environmental issues of primary importance in any particular 

region. Just because a project obtains an exemption from one agency, there is no guarantee that 

other agencies will likewise grant one. 

Public meetings and hearings are held throughout the review process, and every procedural step 

is open to legal challenge. Consequently, environmental purists have considerable opportunities 

to delay projects or to extort mitigation commitments. 

18Sam Kalen, "The Devolution ofNEPA: How the APA Transformed the Nation·s Environmental Policy;· William 

& Alary Environmental Law and Policy Revinv, Vol. 33, No.2 (2009), 

http://scholarship.la\v.wm.edw\vmelnr/vol33/iss2/4 (accessed February 28, 2018). 19Council on Environmental Quality, "The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study oflts Effectiveness After 

Twenty-five Years," January 1997, 

http:iidigital.librarv.unt.eduiark:/6 753 limetadc31142/m IiI i (accessed February 23. 2018). 00"23 CFR 771.117-FHWA categorical exclusions," Legal Information Institute. 

https:iiwww.law.cornell.eduiclritexti23i771.117 (accessed February 23. 20 18). 21U.S. Department of Transportation. ''National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusion Survey Review,·· 

November 27. 2012, https:/iwww.fhwa.dot.govimap21/reportsisec 1318report.pdf (accessed February 23, 20 18). 22The White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The Eleventh and Final Report on the National 

Environmental Policy Act Status and Progress for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009 Activities and 

Projects,'· November 2, 2011, 

https://energy.govisitesiprod!filcs/2013'09!1.2/CEQ ARRA NEPA Report Nov 20 !!.pdf (accessed February 23, 

2018). 

5 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 30298.034

Activists for years have used judicial review to challenge (and delay) development. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the mere filing of a lawsuit and the 

project delays that result are often as important to plaintiffs as whether they ultimately prevail in 

court23 

Consequently, agencies seek to prepare litigation-proof analyses in hopes of staking a defensible 

position (and avoiding public embarrassment). Exhaustive demands for data and other 

information raise project costs and create years of delay. Companies trying to secure a federal 

permit are hardly in a position to complain. 

The complexity of the NEPA is magnified to the extent that projects require interagency 

coordination. Federal agencies are constantly embroiled in political skirmishes, simultaneously 

called to account by Congress, the White House, courts, and activists. Few, if any, observe 

deadlines. 

Under limited circumstances,24 some states are allowed to assume authority for administering the 

NEPA review.25 To date, the FHWA has authorized six states to prepare NEPA documentation 

for highway projects: Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Federal officials 

monitor a state's actions and perform audits to ensure compliance with a memorandum of 

understanding between the state and federal governments. 

Devolving NEPA administration to the states is certainly better than continuing the federal 

bureaucracy. But whether the states or the feds are calling the shots, the entire NEP A regime is 

redundant. Under the Clean Air Act, for example, federal, state, and even local regulators control 

demolition dust, emissions from construction equipment, and airborne debris from clearing land. 

State laws and the Clean Water Act regulate runoff from site surfaces as well as wetlands 

protection. The Endangered Species Act governs the effects of development on habitat and 

wildlife, and waste disposal is controlled under local and state statutes as well as the federal 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-to name a few. These and other regulatory 

mechanisms all provide opportunities for the government to impose the same mitigation actions 

available through the NEP A. 

Failed Attempts to Fix NEPA 

Since its passage in 1969, the NEPA has persisted despite dramatic changes in America's 

economic, social, political, and environmental landscapes-and enactment of countless other 

federal, state, and local regulations. The CEQ has issued more than 35 separate guidance 

documents upon which agency-specific requirements are based. However, guidance is purely 

23Government Accountability Office, "National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA 

Analyses,'" April 2014, https://www.gao.govlassets/670/662543.pdf (accessed February 23, 2018). 24States must apply to the Department of Transportation's FHWA or the Federal Transit Authority, which review the 

state"s suitability to assume the authority based on meeting regulatory requirements. States must sign a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the federal agency and consent to the jurisdiction of federal courts by 

waiving sovereign immunity for any responsibility assumed for the NEPA. The MOU is for a tenn of not more than 

five years and may be renewed. 25The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act; and the Fixing America·s Surface Transportation 

(Fast) Act). 

6 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 30298.035

advisory in nature, and thus Congress has had virtually no say in the NEPA regulatory 

framework despite its application to a wide variety of federal actions. 

Congress has enacted dozens of provisions to streamline the NEPA process since 2005. 26 Some 

of them might seem useful, such as limiting the comments of participating agencies to subject 

matter within its expertise or jurisdiction, or barring claims for judicial review of a federal permit 

for highway projects unless they are filed within 150 days of final agency action. 

However, 22 of 34 highway project provisions and 17 of 29 transit provisions were optional.27 

An analysis by the GAO found that some state officials reported that the revisions were 

ineffective because they had already developed similar processes, either through agreements with 

the U.S. Department of Transportation or at their own initiative. As a result, those states did not 

realize any new time savings from the amendments.28 

Trump Administration Reform ElTorts 

President Trump has likewise sought to streamline the NEP A beginning in his first month in 

office. Executive Order 13766, Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High 

Priority Infrastructure Projects, directed agencies to designate select infrastructure projects as 

"high priority" for the purpose of expediting permitting reviews. 29 

Executive Order (EO) 13807, Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental 

Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure,30 instituted a policy of"One Federal 

Decision." The executive order calls for designating a "lead" agency for each major project to 

navigate NEP A reviews. Relevant agencies will compile reviews into a single ROD (unless the 

project sponsor requests otherwise). 

The executive order also calls for reducing the processing time for environmental reviews to "not 

more than an average of approximately two years." Once an ROD is issued, permit decisions 

should be completed within 90 days. 31 

26Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005), Public Law I 09-59; 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (2012), Public Law 112-141; Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act (2015), Public Law 114-94. 

"Government Accountability Office, "Highway and Transit Projects: Evaluation Guidance Needed for States with 

National Environmental Policy Act Authority," January 2018, https://www,gao.gov/assets/690/689705.pdf(accessed 

February 23, 20 18). 

"Ibid, 

29The White House, "Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority 

Infrastructure Projects,'' January 24, 2017, https:!/www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-ordcrexpediting-environmental-reviews-approvals-high-priority-infrastructure-projects/ (accessed February 23, 20 18). 30The White House. "Presidential Executive Order on Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the 

Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure," Executive Order 13807, August 15,2017, 

https://www. whitehouse .gov ipresidential-actionsipresidential-executive-order-estab I ish ing-d iscip I ineaccountabilitv-environmental-review-permitting-process-infrastructure/ (accessed February 23, 20 18). 31EO 13807 also calls for the director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish a "performance 

accountability system" to score agencies on the efficiency of their infrastructure permitting. The OMB Director will 

consider each agency's scorecard during budget formulation and determine whether penalties are appropriate. 

7 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 30298.036

In his order, the President stated: "Inefficiencies in current infrastructure project decisions, 

including management of enviromnental reviews and permit decisions or authorizations, have 

delayed infrastructure investments, increased project costs, and blocked the American people 

from enjoying improved infrastructure that would benefit our economy, society, and 

enviromnent." 

Meanwhile, on September 14, 2017, the CEQ published an initial list of actions it plans to take to 

further implementation of EO 13807_32 

The President's infrastructure plan features numerous proposals to reform the NEPA and 

eliminate other regulatory barriers to permitting. 33 The most notable is the proposal to "Expand 

Department of Transportation NEPA Assigmnent Program to Other Agencies." 

Current law allows only the Department of Transportation's FHW A and Federal Transit 

Authority to authorize states to administer NEPA reviews. The President is proposing to allow 

other agencies to do the same for other types of infrastructure projects. In addition, the President 

is proposing to allow states to make pennit determinations required by the Clean Air Act,34 and 

for flood plain protections and noise abatement for transit and highway projects. 

Other significant reform recommendations in the infrastructure plan include: 

• One Agency, One Decision. The President is proposing that a lead agency be required to 

develop a single NEP A review document to be used by all agencies, and a single ROD to be 

signed by all cooperating agencies (similar to the "One Federal Decision" directive in EO 

13 807). The proposal also calls for a firm deadline of 21 months for lead agencies to complete 

their environmental reviews and issue either a FONSI or ROD, and a firm deadline of three 

months thereafter to approve or reject the permit application. 

• Performance-based pilot projects. The President is proposing to usc enviromnental 

performance measures in place of environmental reviews for up to 10 projects (based on project 

size, national or regional significance, and opportunities for environmental enhancements). The 

project sponsor would agree to design the project to meet performance standards and permitting 

parameters established by the lead federal agency (and public comment) in lieu of an 

enviromnental review. 

A second pilot would authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or other infrastructure agencies) 

to negotiate mitigation agreements that address project impacts in lieu ofNEPA review. The 

mitigation could include the purchase of oiisets, avoidance of anticipated impacts, and in-lieufees dedicated to an advanced mitigation fund. 

·"Council on Environmental Quality, "Initial List of Actions to Enhance and Modernize the Federal Environmental 

Review and Authorization Process," Federal Register, September 14,2017, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsysipkg/FR20 17-09-14/pdf/20 17-19425.pdf (accessed February 23, 20 18). 33The White House, "Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America." 34This provision would not change the EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. 

8 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 30298.037

• Revise statute of limitations for infrastructure permits or decisions. Under current 

law, legal challenges to infrastructure permits may be filed up to six years after the decision has 

been issued. 35 The President is proposing to revise the statute of limitations to 150 days. 

Useful as such proposed reforms may seem, there is no fixing the NEP A. Predating the EPA, the 

NEP A was at one time the legislative vanguard for environmental law and regulation. But that 

was nearly 40 years ago, and it is now out of sync >liith current environmental, political, social, 

and economic realities. In fact, the intended goal of environmental stewardship is actually 

thwarted by agencies' circumvention of the NEPA reviews, the project delays, and the higher 

costs imposed by the redundant regime, as well as by the politicization of science and the 

influence of special interests. 

Simply put, the NEP A cannot be fixed, it must be rescinded. 

The Chaos of Section 404 Permitting 

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act of 1972 "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical 

and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Section 404 of the act prohibits the discharge of 

any pollutants, including dredged or fill material, to "navigable waters," except in accordance 

with the Act. The CW A states that the term "navigable waters" refers to ''the waters of the 

United States." However, the statute provides no further definition, which has led to decades of 

costly regulatory disputes and arbitrary enforcement. 

The EPA administers most provisions of the CWA, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

administers Section 404 permitting. In 2014, the two agencies proposed a new 88-page definition 

that vastly expanded the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. (It drew 698,000 public 

comments.)36 The new definition, finalized in 2015, hardly settled matters; it prompted numerous 

lawsuits nationwide instead. 

The deeply flawed 2015 rule was stayed nationwide by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit. As a result, the agencies have administered Section 404 under the definition of 

"waters of the United States" in place before the 2015 Rule. 37 

President Trump in February 2017 issued an executive order38 requiring the EPA and the Corps 

to solicit public comment on rescission or revision of the 2015 rule. On January 22, 2018, the 

Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to review 

challenges to the 2015 Rule. 

"When states assume NEPA administration, the statute of limitations is two years. A statute of limitations of 150 

days would be consistent with the statute of limitations Congress already has enacted for surface transportation 

projects. 

36Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Murkey Water: The ongoing debate over the 'waters of the United States." PERC 

Reports, Vol. 36, No.2, Winter 2017, https:!1

www.perc.org/2017/12/08/murky-water/ 370n January 22,2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to 

review challenges to the 2015 Rule. 38Executive Order !3778, Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the "Waters 

of the United States'" Rule. February 28, 2017, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvsipkg/FR-2017·03-03/pdf/2017-04353.pdf 

9 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 30298.038

The EPA's shoddy science has only exacerbated the chaos enveloping the Section 404 permitting 

regime. For example, the agency established a scientific advisory board in 2013 (supposedly) to 

review the state of the science on the connectivity of streams and wetlands with downstream 

waters. 39 According to the EPA, the report, when finalized, "will provide the scientific basis 

needed to clarify CW A jurisdiction, including a description of the factors that influence 

connectivity [of streams] and the mechanisms by which connected waters affect do\\onstream 

waters."40 

Alas, the agency didn't wait for the report before proposing the 2015 rule. Consequently, the 

public was never given the chance, through the rulemaking process, to challenge the scientific 

basis of the agencies' expanded jurisdiction. 

Indeed, federal agencies too often mask politically driven regulations as scientifically based 

imperatives. The supposed science underlying these rules is often hidden from the general public 

and unavailable for vetting by experts. But credible science and transparency are necessary 

elements of sound policy. 

The NEPA process is likewise mired in politicized science and uncertainty. Instead of producing 

environmental analyses of high technical quality, some scientists have criticized the NEPA 

assessments as nothing more than "massive amounts of incomplete, descriptive, and, often, 

uninterpreted data."41 And the more complex the proposed action, the more flawed the data and 

analysis will be.42 

On the upside, the CEQ in April 2017 announced the withdrawal of its guidance for federal 

agencies' consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in NEPA reviews. 43 The extent to which 

greenhouse gases affect climate-if at all-remains undetermined and government modeling 

amounts to little more than guesswork. 

39Environmental Protection Agency, "Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and 

of the Scientific Evidence (External Review Draft)," September 24,2013, 

April IS, 2015). 

"Sonja Klopf, Nada Wolff Culver, & Pete Morton, A Road Map to a Better NEPA: Why Environmental Risk 

Assessments Should Be Used to Analyze the Environmental Consequences of Complex Federal Actions, 

Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall2007, 

http:// digitalcommons. wcl.american.edul cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= I 15 5&context~sdlp 

"Sonja Klopf, Nada Wolff Culver, & Pete Morton, A Road Map to a BetterNEPA: Why Environmental Risk 

Assessments Should Be Used to Analyze the Environmental Consequences of Complex Federal Actions, 

Sustainable Development Law & Policy, fall 2007. 

http:// digitalcommons. we !.american .edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi0 article= I 15 5&context=sdlp 43Council on Environmental Quality, Withdrawal of Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on 

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy 

Act Reviews, Federal Register, April 5, 2017. https:i/www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkgjFR-20 17-04·05/pdf/2017-06770.pdf 

10 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 30298.039

Conclusion 

President Donald Trump's infrastructure plan features 15 pages of recommendations to 

streamline permitting.44 The very fact that so many provisions warrant reform illustrates that 

there is more wrong than right with the NEP A and other permitting regimes. Any new 

infrastructure funding should be conditional on meaningful regulatory reform-starting with 

repeal of the NEPA. 

44The White House, "Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America," February 12,2018, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/INFRASTRUCTURE-211.pdf (accessed February 23, 

2018). 

11 
51 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

We will begin our questioning with the gentleman from Alabama, 

Mr. Palmer. You are recognized for five minutes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might need about 30 

minutes, but I will try to do it in five, maybe a little grace from 

the chairman. 

This is an issue near and dear to my heart and close to me, particularly with my district. Mr. Iwanicki, early last year, the committee held a hearing on environmental barriers to infrastructure 

development, and one of the witnesses was Richie Beyer. He is the 

county engineer in Elmore County, Alabama. In his testimony, he 

used the example of a simple project to place a 1.5-inch-thick wearing surface on roadway, and he noted that the completion, the 

project file will be 20 times thicker than the overlay that was 

placed on the road. The cost an average would be two times more 

than a similar project funded solely with local funds. It was 

$160,000 per mile under the Federal guidelines versus 80,000 local 

only. And the project will have taken 9 to 12 months longer than 

if it had been a local project, all for a road that is materially the 

same, regardless of the funding source. Does this track with your 

experience in Marquette County? 

Mr. IWANICKI. I would say it tracks perfectly with our experience 

in Marquette County. Our costs are much lower when we can use 

local money and it’s a locally bid project and we have to follow the 

same regulations. But as soon as we get Federal money involved, 

it skyrockets its costs. 

Mr. PALMER. How important is it to you to provide a reliable 

service on rural roads? This is a rural road. 

Mr. IWANICKI. The Marquette County Road Commission serves 

about 67,000 people, and we’re the largest county in Marquette 

County. We have about 1,274 miles of local county road that we 

take care of. I have $150 million need to fix our local roads, and 

that’s with about a $14 million budget. So my constituents depend 

on the Road Commission to do the best they can with our limited 

resources to make smooth roads for them. 

Mr. PALMER. And you are certainly well aware that even though 

rural roads represent less than half of traffic in the United States, 

it represents over 50 percent of traffic fatalities? 

Mr. IWANICKI. You are correct. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. On bigger projects, one in particular is in my 

district. It’s the northern beltline. This was a project that was approved—funding was approved for this in 1989, and typically, it 

takes 15 to 20 years to complete a project like this. What this is 

is the completion of the beltline around the city of Birmingham of 

I–459. It is a Federal project. It is a multi-lane highway. It is absolutely essential not only for economic opportunity in the Birmingham metropolitan area but for the whole region. It improves 

east/west traffic, economic traffic between Atlanta west and north/ 

south traffic from the Gulf Coast to up north. And like I said, it 

typically takes 15 to 20 years. This was approved in 1989, and now 

they are saying that it might be completed in 2054. Ms. Katz, 

would you like to comment on that? 

Ms. KATZ. What’s ironic in those types of instances—and unfortunately, they’re not all that rare—is that many of these projects 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

have environmental benefits that are foregone in the name of environmental permitting. If you have new road projects that are going 

to reduce the amount of, you know, traffic jams and so on and 

make routes quicker, those are environmental benefits. There are 

also a number of safety—public health and safety benefits to having more modern infrastructure, and so there’s a lot that we lose. 

It’s not just money that we lose. There a lot more important things 

that we lose for these projects and permitting go off the rails. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me read a couple of quotes from a Pew Charitable Trust report from Stateline about this. They actually talk 

about this project in Alabama, but here are a couple of statements, 

one from Philip Howard, founder and chairman of the Common 

Good, a nonpartisan group focused on good government. He says, 

‘‘A delay is bad for the environment, it is bad for the economy, it 

is bad for jobs, it is bad for global competitiveness. There is nothing 

good about it.’’ 

Now, here’s a comment from Bill Reinhardt, editor of a monthly 

newsletter called Public Works Financing. He said, ‘‘You delay the 

benefit the project was supposed to deliver. If the project was supposed to be delivered in 2012 and it isn’t delivered until 2022, then 

you delay all the economic benefit, the lifestyle benefit, the employment benefit. If you don’t deliver the public good, the public suffers.’’ How would you respond to that? 

Ms. KATZ. I’d say that’s absolutely corrects, and what’s tragic 

about it is that it’s avoidable. 

Mr. PALMER. It certainly is. Mr. Chairman, going back if I may 

if you will indulge me for just another minute or so —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 

for another minute. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. Going back to the county engineer 

Richie Beyer’s testimony, he is talking about a situation where 

they had a flood and it washed out a pipe. And they wound up having to get all the permitting, and they spent almost a quarter of 

the funding that was necessary for this just to get—before they 

could even start the project. What should have taken just a few 

weeks wound up taking months. And this made the road impassable. 

That’s the kind of stuff that we are dealing with right now. We 

have overregulated ourselves, we are overregulating our infrastructure, and it makes it extremely expensive, much more expensive 

than it ought to be. I think that’s what we ought to be talking 

about in our infrastructure funding efforts. 

I yield back, and I thank the chairman for his indulgence. 

I would also like to enter the Pew article into the official record 

if I may. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I will now recognize the ranking member for 

her questions for five minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. With the chair’s indulgence, I would ask that Mr. 

Raskin go ahead of me. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. We will recognize the esteemed professor for 

five minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and, Ms. 

Plaskett, thank you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Welcome to all of our witnesses. 

So I am new to the whole issue, so I am looking for clarification 

here because I know it is being said that section 404 is responsible 

for slowing down needed infrastructure improvements, and I know 

that this story has been invoked by the President in his infrastructure plan as well. But I want to make sure I know exactly what 

the law is so we are all clear in terms of the terms of the discussion. 

The NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential 

environmental effects of major actions. It does not prohibit any action at all, is that right, Mr. DeGood? 

Mr. DEGOOD. That’s correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Mr. DEGOOD. It’s a procedural statute. 

Mr. RASKIN. And so it really requires the decision-makers be methodical and transparent about considering the environmental impact of their projects. Is that right? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Is it true that it forces all projects to go 

through a detailed environmental review process and environmental impact statements? 

Mr. DEGOOD. No, I mean it varies by project category, but it’s 

usually in the single-digit percentages. 

Mr. RASKIN. Of all of the projects that are coming forward? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. And I have heard reference to the fact that 

95 percent of projects are categorical exclusions. Is that because 

they just don’t have sufficient environmental impact to make a difference? And what happens to a categorical exclusion project? How 

long does that take? Does it take years or months to get that 

through or —— 

Mr. DEGOOD. You know, I can speak most directly about surface 

transportation and say that there are two kinds of categorical exclusions, those that are documented and those that are undocumented. For an undocumented, it can be a matter of a few days, 

and for a documented, potentially a few months but almost never 

longer than that. So in the time it takes you to put together a bid 

prospectus, you can have all of this documentation wrapped up. 

Mr. RASKIN. So you are saying in more than 9 out of 10 cases 

it would be a categorical exclusion, and you are talking about a 

matter of months or weeks or even a few days? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Around 4 percent are environmental assessments. What does that mean and how long does that take? 

Mr. DEGOOD. So environmental assessments can vary quite a bit 

if you’re not sure whether or not your project is likely to have a 

substantial impact. Sometimes you’ll undertake an environmental 

assessment, which is typically a shorter process. That’s a little less 

involved. And during that process, if you come across something 

that is going to be a significant impact, you can expand it to be a 

full environmental impact statement. And if not, you come to the 

end of that process and you have a finding of no significant impact, 

then you can proceed with your project. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

To show you that that’s not just small projects in terms of either 

dollars or scope, here in northern Virginia the I–66 public-private 

partnership to expand that facility outside the Beltway had a twostep process. They first started with the tier 1 EIS but then ultimately were able to complete that entire environmental review 

under the environmental assessment. So it’s not just that EA is applied to smaller projects or small-dollar projects. They can apply to 

very big multi-billion-dollar facilities. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So 1 percent or fewer of the projects then require environmental impact statement. How do I know if my 

project is going to require an environmental impact statement? 

Whose decision is that? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Well, ultimately, it’s the Federal Government’s decision, but you as the project sponsor are going to have a very good 

sense of that going into it. So if you’re doing something like, say, 

repaving an existing State highway inside of the active right-ofway, it’s likely that you’re going to have a categorical exclusion. If 

you’re engaging in a greenfield construction, which is to say you’re 

building out into an area which is not currently developed, it’s almost assuredly going to be the case that you need to have a full 

environmental impact statement. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay, but I have heard different people raise disagreements over this or that project, and obviously we can’t relitigate the whole administrative process. That is why we have an administrative process. So without entering into the specifics of any 

particular project, is it that the case that we could cut this process 

in a way that would save hundreds of billions of dollars for the 

economy? And does this really have hundreds of billions of dollars 

of impact on the economy? 

Mr. DEGOOD. No. I mean, many of the figures in the Common 

Good report I rebutted in a piece that we have up on our website. 

A lot of the assumptions and a lot of data in that just simply were 

not sound. There are not hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars’ 

worth of savings to be had for shortening or eliminating environmental review. 

Mr. RASKIN. I mean, it sounds good. If we could do it, I think 

most people would want to do it, but it does seem, given that such 

a tiny fraction of the cases even go through the environmental impact statement stage, that it seems hard to believe. Okay. I think 

my time is up, so, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. We will now recognize 

the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, for five minutes. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Katz, my first question is can you describe the steps a local 

government or private developer must take to follow NEPA? 

Ms. KATZ. You probably can’t account for all of them because 

there are so many, but if there is any nexus with the Federal Government in the project, then the—you know, the company has to 

obtain a review or a categorical exclusion from the Federal Government. Contrary to what Mr. DeGood said, there’s no way of knowing whether or not you’ll have to do in EIS because different agencies can make different decisions in different ways about what kind 

of assessment you’ll have to undertake. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

That’s just the beginning—the very beginning of the process. 

There are—you know, depending on the type of projects, State—we 

have the State and Federal regulations and permits that one has 

to, you know, apply for and receive. 

Mr. COMER. But why is the process so slow? 

Ms. KATZ. Why is government so slow? 

Mr. COMER. That is right. 

Ms. KATZ. You know, there is—you have different agencies all 

working in different ways at different time periods and, you know, 

I think if you had this going on strictly at the State level, there’d 

be—you know, you’d—there’d be a lot more accountability in terms 

of, you know, getting people to act. Unfortunately, Washington 

doesn’t much care about what’s happening in Marquette, and it 

tends to move—and the Federal Government has so expanded its 

reach that it has so much to do, it just takes a very long to do everything. 

Mr. COMER. Let me ask, on average, how long does it take for 

an applicant to get signoff that their project is a NEPA complaint 

on average? 

Ms. KATZ. The fact—the data I have is for transportation 

projects, and so it takes on average now almost 7 years, whereas 

in Europe, where they also do environmental permitting, it takes 

about two years. 

Mr. COMER. It is bad that Europe, with their type of government, 

can get it done that much faster than the United States. Let me 

ask, how can the process be improved to facilitate infrastructure 

growth? 

Ms. KATZ. Well, I don’t think we need NEPA at all. I mean, 

NEPA was, you know, developed in 1970, and since that time, we 

have, you know, a plethora of other environmental safeguards. 

Most agencies treat NEPA as pro forma anyway, so I think getting 

rid of NEPA would help. There are a lot of projects that don’t undergo the most intensive assessments. The problem is that you’d 

never know which ones will, and those that do cost a great deal. 

Mr. COMER. My last question, you can explain how does the high 

cost of permitting affect taxpayers. 

Ms. KATZ. Well, this goes, you know, to what we were talking 

about, opportunity costs. For every day of delay, the cost of Federal 

projects increase of course, and that leaves fewer resources to do 

a great many other things. Also, infrastructure improvements 

produce environmental, public health, and economic benefits, and 

all of those, you know, are delayed by regulatory barriers. 

Mr. COMER. Well, I really appreciate —— 

Ms. KATZ. Not to mention even the loss of our economic freedom. 

That’s incalculable of course. 

Mr. COMER. Absolutely. And I appreciate your answers to the 

questions. I appreciate everyone who testified. You know, it is a 

goal of this Congress and this administration to try to reduce the 

regulatory burden. I appreciate the Chairman for bringing this 

topic to be discussed today in committee, and hopefully, this Congress can begin to take steps to try to ease the regulatory burden 

so that we can get more development done, you know, in the right 

way but by significantly reducing the regulatory burden and compliance that is holding back the private sector and holding back 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

local governments from expanding and investing in the infrastructure that they need. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. We will now recognize 

the ranking member for five minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been talking 

quite a bit about infrastructure, and in my opening statement I discussed the President’s infrastructure plan with a budget cut of 

$122 billion from the highway trust fund. Mr. DeGood, what would 

you predict what happened to the Nation’s highways if the plan to 

cut $122 billion goes into effect? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Well, I think we can say with a great deal of certainty that there would be a reduction in the total amount of maintenance and construction work happening around the Nation. We 

should also recognize that the highway trust fund is something 

that provides funding to every community, big and small, urban 

and rural. And one of the real challenges with the cuts that the 

President is proposing is that it would have this regional impact. 

Places that are struggling economically would not be able to go out 

and raise the kinds of revenues that this administration is talking 

about them doing, and I think would lead to further regional economic and social inequality. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I know that the civil engineers have given us a 

D-plus. With these budget cuts, do you—I am concerned about 

what our grade will be after that. Are you? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Absolutely. I think there would be some States and 

some metropolitan regions that have more dynamic economies 

today that might be able to raise additional revenues, and maybe 

those regions wouldn’t fall behind, but I think that they are more 

the exception than the norm. For instance, this White House has 

pointed to ballot initiative that was passed in Los Angeles County 

Measure M in 2016 by more than two-thirds of county voters. It’s 

important to remember that Los Angeles County has an annual 

GDP of more than $700 billion. It’s not particularly representative 

of the rest of the country. I myself am from Toledo, Ohio, and I 

know that Toledo does not look like Los Angeles and would struggle to try to match with that kind of revenue base. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I don’t think many of us look like Los Angeles. 

Having grown up in New York, I think that is a good thing, maybe 

not a bad thing. But one of the things that you are talking about 

in terms of just revenue growth and growth in revenue—and for 

me, one of the other things that we look at when we talk about infrastructure is jobs and the importance of jobs. How many jobs 

could $2 trillion in infrastructure spending create? Is there an extrapolation that will be able to tell us what that is? 

Mr. DEGOOD. Rough estimates on Federal infrastructure spending are that every $1 billion produces roughly 12,500 direct and indirect jobs per year, so if you want to talk about $2 trillion, you’d 

have to factor in sort of over how many years that was. But if 

you’re saying $200 billion a year, so $200 billion times 12,500 is a 

rough estimate of what the annual job creating power of that would 

be. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

Ms. PLASKETT. So if the same one would $200 billion in cuts be 

equal to two—so that’s not a loss of jobs but just jobs not realized, 

correct? 

Mr. DEGOOD. I think some of that is a loss of jobs and some of 

that is the jobs are not realized. It partly depends on whether or 

not States would try to step up and fill that void. And as I mentioned previously, I think some would be able to and some would 

not. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Ms. Katz, you discussed that you didn’t think that 

NEPA was really necessary, that it was pro forma in some respects. I know that Congress recently did reforms to NEPA. The 

FAST Act is supposed to have streamlined the permitting process 

and expanded the list of activities that receive categorical exclusions from environmental review. Do you have any reports which 

show what the outcome of the FAST Act reform has been? 

Ms. KATZ. What I did for a recent report is that I went through 

both the—or the MAP–21 Act, the FAST Act, and the—I’ll tell you 

where it is in the second—the SAFETEA–LU Act, and I looked at 

whether the reform was optional or a requirement. And the vast 

majority of the so-called reforms were categorical exclusions, and 

there were a handful of requirements. And from what I’ve been 

able to tell, it hasn’t done anything. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But how do we know what the effects of the FAST 

Act have been? You are looking at what the acts were supposed to 

give, but in fact we don’t have reports as yet on what the FAST 

Act—what the streamlining reports have shown to be able because 

it has been so recent, has it not? I mean, —— 

Ms. KATZ. Well, it hasn’t changed the fundamental problems 

with NEPA. That’s why we —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. But we don’t know if Congress’ reforms have actually had an effect as yet. Mr. DeGood, do you know what the effects 

of those reforms have been? Do we have statistical analysis as yet 

as to what Congress’ reforms have done? 

Ms. KATZ. I don’t know. 

Mr. DEGOOD. We do not. I mean, the simple answer is we do not. 

I believe there are three covered projects, which have been put 

under the FAST–41 dashboard. But because this administration 

has not appointed a director to that Permit Steering Council, it’s 

really not performing at the way Congress had intended. So I think 

what we need to do is give it more time and push the administration to take advantage of all the authorities that Congress has already given them. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So my conclusion would be—and I see that my 

time is up at this point—is that Congress has done some reforms 

as yet through the FAST Act to streamline the permitting process. 

However, we are asking now to—we are having hearings to do even 

additional streamlines to that, but we haven’t even seen what the 

reforms that we recently passed have been. And it would be my position that we should wait for the reports to come back, impress on 

the President the need to fill those slots so that Congress can get 

the statistical analysis to determine if there is additional work that 

needs to be done. Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for five 

minutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Mr. Iwanicki, I heard the story about all the back and forth you 

went with the EPA and Corps of Engineers. To me, it just sounds 

crazy. The Corps and the EPA and your county government, the 

State government of Michigan, aren’t we all supposed to be on the 

same team looking out for the people and the environment? 

Mr. IWANICKI. I believe you’re correct, and I guess that was the 

most frustrating part of the whole experience is that the EPA kept 

moving the goal posts on us. They kept moving the goal line, and 

every time we came up with —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Did somebody in your office just make somebody at the EPA mad and say we are going to stick it to them or 

do you think this is—I mean, was there personality problem? It 

seems —— 

Mr. IWANICKI. I don’t think there was a personality problem. I 

think there was an issue problem. And I think they were trying to 

make an issue, in my opinion, of mining in the upper peninsula of 

Michigan. And, you know, we are—helped build this country with 

our copper mining and iron ore mining, and we are a resource area 

for this country. And when you have places like Copper Harbor, 

Ironwood, Iron Mountain and you got two local papers called the 

Mining Gazette and the Mining Journal —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I have visited the area. I have actually —— 

Mr. IWANICKI.—those resources are important to us, and we need 

to make sure that we do it responsibly and have the ability to get 

those resources to the rest of the country. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Just out of a point of personal curiosity for me, 

you talked about bear and cougar crossings. How do those work? 

My experience with most wild animals in Texas is they cross the 

road where they want to cross the road. 

Mr. IWANICKI. That was a very frustrating issue with this permit 

process because, you know, up until like a month before or several 

months before, they didn’t even recognize cougar in the upper peninsula of Michigan. And when asked where they wanted them, 

they would not tell us where they wanted of them, and they wanted also to place fencing to channel the animals to those crossings. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Wilkinson, you talked about your long process. I think you 

outlined three definitional changes of what a wetland is based on 

the Corps and the EPA. Is there a settled-upon definition now? 

Ms. WILKINSON. It varies from district to district. The regulations 

are extremely confusing and vague and seem to be capricious in 

their application. Our experts in the field who this is their life 

what they do, can’t second-guess and can go in knowing what is 

going to be claimed as jurisdictional, and a lot of that has to do 

with primary and secondary indicators. 

Understand in our area in Chesapeake, Virginia, the land we’re 

often talking about a seasonably wet. ‘‘To the surface’’ means actually 12 inches below the surface, and it is—it’s non-titled forested 

land, so if you went out and walked on it or were on it, you would 

not think of this as the type of wetland aquatic resource that we 

typically do. And —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. There are no endangered species or anything 

that —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Ms. WILKINSON. No. We have gotten letters to that extent. That 

has been dealt with with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And you have actually offered to mitigate on 

additional property and create substantially more wetlands than 

would be affected under every —— 

Ms. WILKINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD.—every Corps report, is that correct? 

Ms. WILKINSON. Yes, absolutely we did, and that’s why the DEQ 

held us up kind of as an epitome of the permitting process when 

we, again, through the 404 regulation, so that’s a —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So does this change based on—I know the 

Corps rotates in new colonels every three years. Does this change 

based on that leadership or do you think it’s beyond just who happens to be in charge of your Corps district at the time? 

Ms. WILKINSON. It’s a combination. It changes at the Corps, 

changes at the EPA, also the changes in the interpretations or the 

regulations when the supplements come out or any additional information. So it’s kind of all of the above adds to this ever-changing 

environment. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. And, Ms. Katz, you talked about waivers that came out specifically during the stimulus under the previous administration. And are the waivers sometimes politically 

based or are they more factually based? I mean, how arbitrary is 

the waiver process? 

Ms. KATZ. Well, what I can tell you is that each agency comes 

up with its own waivers, and the—there is no oversight over, you 

know, whether the waivers they come up with, you know, have a 

solid basis beneath them. So there’s a great deal of arbitrariness 

in terms of what a waiver is and who gets it. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And just real quick because I am out of time, 

but I do want to ask one other question if the committee will indulge me. Mr. Iwanicki suggested that maybe part of his issue getting permitted was the environmental effects of something that the 

road would be servicing or the policy of not wanting to do mining 

in that area. Do you see that in other places, Ms. Katz? 

Ms. KATZ. Absolutely. I’m a regulatory expert, and I follow all of 

these things very, very closely. And the political science drives 

much of our regulatory decision-making and policy much more than 

natural science. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Thank you. I see I did go over 45 seconds. Thank you for the indulgence. 

I think before we vote we do have time for one more round of 

questioning since there are only three of us here. So I will recognize Mr. Palmer again for five more minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Mr. DeGood said that about 9 out of every 10 projects 

are not subject to delay. Is that correct? 

Mr. IWANICKI. Again, it depends on the category of project that 

we’re talking about, but —— 

Mr. PALMER. Small projects, for instance? I meant across different Federal agencies, but yes. Typically speaking—and again, I 

can speak most to service transportation—yes, 9 out of 10 are better —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

Mr. PALMER. That hasn’t been our experience in Alabama, so I 

am not going to dispute what you are saying, although I think we 

will research it extensively to see if that is the case. But like I said, 

it is not our experience in Alabama. But given that you have made 

that statement that 9 out of 10 small projects are not subject to 

delay, would you support an exemption of projects that are less 

than $5 million in Federal funding, which was, you know, based on 

the flexibility that was in MAP–21 and the FAST ACT? Could we 

—— Mr. IWANICKI. Impacts are not tied to the dollar amount. The impact has to do with the type of work in question. 

Mr. PALMER. No, I am asking you —— 

Mr. IWANICKI. No, I would not. No, I would not. It’s not a question of dollars. 

Mr. PALMER. I didn’t think you would, but I thought I would ask 

you anyway just in case. But I want to give you an example of— 

and this is in your district I believe or close to it. It may not be. 

I don’t know all the districts in Texas, but in Houston I got small, 

medium, and large. It sounds like —— 

Mr. DEGOOD. Everything is large in Texas. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, everything is large in Texas, but when you 

hear this, you are going to appreciate how large some things are 

in Texas. For instance, for a small project, a 2.7-mile-long widening 

of a local road, it was delayed 33–1/2 months, and it cost $96,000 

a month, Mr. Chairman, in delays, $3.5 million total. Now, you get 

to the medium-sized projects, which was on U.S. Highway 59 that 

was a 2.6-mile-long widening, that was delayed almost 5 years, and 

that cost $297,000 a month. That’s almost $18 million. And then 

one more large—and we won’t stay on this line—it is a 1.5-milelong interchange on I–10, that was an 11-month delay, $447,000 

per month, $5.1 million. It is an enormously wasteful deal going on 

here with a lot of permitting delays that are absolutely unnecessary. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize Ms. Plaskett for five more minutes of questions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Chair, I don’t know if I have five more minutes, 

but first, I did want to say, Mr. Iwanicki and Ms. Wilkinson, I really understand what you are going through. In the Virgin Islands 

we have had projects for, whether it be National Marine Fisheries, 

Army Corps of Engineers, or others that have taken years for permitting, as well as our own permitting processes. Then, when you 

get the Endangered Species Act on top of it, that can really drive 

the length of time in which projects—we have had projects that 

have been delayed because in the interim that the project was initially drawn up, other species were put on the list after the initial 

project, which changed things as well. So I really do empathize and 

understand the issues that you are talking about. 

You know, but one of the things I am hopeful for is that I have 

been with the chairman very much in favor of some kind of streamlining, and it is my hope that the FAST Act will do some of that 

and once we do an evaluation of that, determine how we can do 

even more to assist. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

But one of the things that I think is an even larger issue is the 

lack of funding, the lack of support that those who are doing this 

process have. The Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine 

Fisheries, those at environmental protection agencies, to be able to 

address the needs and the uptick in the amount of projects that 

Americans are trying to do to improve their roads, their ports, et 

cetera. And so I am hopeful that rather than cutting in funding, 

we can support the scientists and others who are willing to do that 

so that we compete with other places such as France and Europe. 

For the Virgin Islands, we are competing with places like Saint 

Martin and Cuba, who have no EPA, who may be building beautiful buildings very quickly, but I guarantee 20 years from now, 

those buildings will be at fault and the environment will be compromised. 

Mr. DeGood, did you have anything? I see you nodding your head 

emphatically. I love it when people are agreeing with what I said. 

Please help me here. 

Mr. DEGOOD. Sure. I will just throw out a number I think to put 

a perspective on this when we talk about investment and what 

does it mean when the Federal Government plays a leadership role. 

If we look in real inflation-adjusted terms, 1955, before the passage 

of the Interstate Highway Act, compared to 1970, the Federal Government increased its expenditures on highway construction again 

in real dollar terms by 543 percent. 

Ms. KATZ. They were building. 

Mr. DEGOOD. That’s what it means to say that you have a national program of infrastructure investment. That’s what it means 

for the Federal government to play a leadership role. So I think if 

we want to be serious about addressing the backlog that you addressed in your opening remarks that the Army Corps—I’m sorry, 

that the American Society of Civil Engineers has put forward, 

that’s the level of Federal involvement that we need to see. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And now I agree. I heard Ms. Katz say that is because they were building. They were building it as opposed to repairing or fixing it, correct? 

Ms. KATZ. They were building the interstate system. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right. And I think right now, we are at a place 

and time where we can have a 1950s building and interstate system that was created in 1950s in the 21st century. Other places 

like Japan, Europe have just gone three generations ahead of us 

while we are just trying to repair a 1950s system rather than rebuilding a completely new system that meets the 21st century and 

beyond. So I think that it is time for us to be investing in this so 

that we can not only keep up it still be the innovators and the 

new—as my kids say, the new-new that is out there for the world. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, and I will now recognize myself for the second round of questioning, and then we will 

let you guys go. 

I want to talk for a second about the EPA’s ability under section 

404 to retroactively kill a project. Mr. Iwanicki, can you tell us how 

that affects public projects or public-private partnerships? 

Mr. IWANICKI. I don’t have any direct experience with them killing a project after it’s been permitted, but I know that what they 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

did with our mining project, one of—or with our road project for the 

mine was that, you know, my counterparts in the U.P. needed us 

to challenge them because they were afraid if they used those same 

standards on all our roads in the U.P., we couldn’t do anything to 

fix them or create new ones for our citizens. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. Ms. Wilkinson, do you want to talk 

about how, as a private entity looking to do some development, the 

prospect of after getting your permit and potentially being under 

construction the EPA coming in and vetoing your permit would affect that? 

Ms. WILKINSON. Yes. Uncertainty is detrimental to any project. 

It makes it very difficult when you’re making your initial investment decisions. It makes it difficult to do—attract equity investors. 

It makes it difficult to get loans when they’re concerned that you 

could be moving forward and have a problem. You know, we just— 

we don’t have a seat at the table with these other agencies. The 

Corps is the one day to day that we’re dealing with. And it’s a very 

difficult hill to climb to know that you could make it through all 

of these—this time, these years, this entire process, and then have 

a veto. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I can understand the frustration. Just moving 

the goalpost is bad enough, but after you’ve scored, taking the 

points off the board has got to be even worse. 

Ms. Katz, Mr. Iwanicki talked a little bit about the mining industry in the upper peninsula of Michigan. It is my understanding 

that there is a real issue here. We have got testimony submitted 

for the record that indicates the United States only attracted about 

7 percent of worldwide mining exploration dollars in 2016, down 

nearly 20 percent from the late ’90s due in significant part to our 

really burdensome, unpredictable permitting system. Have you 

seen other evidence that permitting problems negatively impact 

U.S. competitiveness? And are there signs of similar effects in 

other sectors of the economy? 

Ms. KATZ. There certainly are, and in my testimony, my full testimony, as well as in my remarks here today, you know, I noted 

just a couple of the survey results that are related to business receptiveness in different countries, and the U.S. has been losing 

ground to other countries because just in the Obama administration alone the regulatory burden—cost burden increased $122 billion a year. That’s on top of what already existed. And so the regulatory load is becoming unsustainable. And when that happens, 

people take their money elsewhere. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody’s 

testimony. I would like to thank the members and staff for putting 

together a great hearing and the work you and the folks that 

helped you did. I would like to thank you all for appearing before 

us today. 

We will keep the record open for two weeks for any members to 

submit written opening statements or questions. If we get any of 

those questions, we will forward those to you by mail and would 

appreciate your taking a few moments to answer those. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(63) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 30298.040

T H E PE\V cHAR IT A !llE TRusTs 

States Strive to Eliminate Costly Construction 

Delays 

February 24, 2016 

Newly built roads in Fairfax County. Virginia and other states are trying new ways to cut down on costly 

transportation project delays. 

By Katherine BaTTett and Richard Greene 

Once it's done, the 52-mile Northern Beltline in central Alabama will allow interstate travelers to avoid 

Birmingham traffic. But the $5.3-billion project has been controversial since planning began in the late 

1980s. 
65 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 30298.041

Holding Contractors Accountable 

Some states are pursuing various strategies to avoid such pitfalls. One is simply to require that 

transportation officials provide regular- and public- progress reports. 

The Florida Transportation Commission produces quarterly reviews ofTransportation Department 

spending and annual progress reports on ongoing projects. The commission has been overseeing the 

transportation agency since the late 1980s, but advances in information technology have allowed it to 

sharpen its focus. In the late 1990s, Florida transportation projects took on average 34 percent longer than 

expected to complete. By 2015, the average delay was down to 7 percent 

Virginia also has been aggressive about tracking projects and making the progress reports public. The state 

began doing so in 2000, after it became clear it would cost more- much more-than was projected in 

1994 ($350 million) to widen lanes and add new bridges and ramps to a heavily traveled interchange in 

Fairfax County, about 15 miles from Washington, D.C. The state increased the project budget to about $676 

million in 2003, and it was completed on budget in 2007. 

In the second quarter of 2004, 29 percent of Virginia transportation projects were on time and 70 percent 

were on budget In the fourth quarter of 2015, 84 percent were on time and 89 percent were on budget 

Many states now reward or penalize contractors depending on whether they complete a project within a set 

number of days. California, for example, has used incentives and penalties to accelerate the completion of 

projects and minimize traffic delays. 

"I may pay a slight premium and that's transparent in the contract The time component translates to a dollar 

amount and that determines the working days. If they go over, there's a penalty," said Malcolm Dougherty, 

the state's transportation chief. 

AJ. de Moya, vice president of the Florida-based de Moya Group, a highway and bridge design and 

construction firm, has worked on many state jobs that included incentives or penalties. He says they are 

effective- as long as they are substantial. "The bonus has to be large enough to make it worthwhile." 

John Porcari ofWSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, one of the world's largest design, engineering and construction 

companies, said states are using incentives more frequently, particularly in congested urban areas. 

Porcari was deputy secretary of transportation during President Barack Obama's first term and headed 

Maryland's transportation agency under two governors. He said incentives are attractive to both 

transportation officials and contractors. 

Construction creates "huge disruptions to the traveling public, and every day you can avoid that closure 

means less impact on people," he said. For contractors, "if there is a significant incentive for delivering 

early, they'll do all kinds of things to get that incentive payment" 

Other states are withholding any payments until the project is close to completion.