U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–438 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST: 

AGENCY PERSPECTIVES (PART 2) 

(118–24) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 13, 2023 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 
(ii) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JENNIFFER GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N, 

Puerto Rico 

PETE STAUBER, Minnesota 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

TROY E. NEHLS, Texas 

LANCE GOODEN, Texas 

TRACEY MANN, Kansas 

BURGESS OWENS, Utah 

RUDY YAKYM III, Indiana 

LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Oregon 

CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina 

THOMAS H. KEAN, JR., New Jersey 

ANTHONY D’ESPOSITO, New York 

ERIC BURLISON, Missouri 

JOHN JAMES, Michigan 

DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin 

BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York 

MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York 

MIKE COLLINS, Georgia 

MIKE EZELL, Mississippi 

JOHN S. DUARTE, California 

AARON BEAN, Florida 

RICK LARSEN, Washington, 

Ranking Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, 

District of Columbia 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

GREG STANTON, Arizona, 

Vice Ranking Member 

COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas 

SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas 

JESU ́ S G. ‘‘CHUY’’ GARCI ́A, Illinois 

CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts 

MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington 

TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana 

PATRICK RYAN, New York 

MARY SATTLER PELTOLA, Alaska 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

VAL T. HOYLE, Oregon 

EMILIA STRONG SYKES, Ohio 

HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN, Michigan 

VALERIE P. FOUSHEE, North Carolina 
(iii) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JENNIFFER GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N, 

Puerto Rico 

BURGESS OWENS, Utah 

CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ERIC BURLISON, Missouri 

JOHN JAMES, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin 

BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York 

MIKE COLLINS, Georgia 

MIKE EZELL, Mississippi 

JOHN S. DUARTE, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, 

Ranking Member 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

EMILIA STRONG SYKES, Ohio, 

Vice Ranking Member 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

PATRICK RYAN, New York 

VAL T. HOYLE, Oregon 

HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN, Michigan 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, 

District of Columbia 

RICK LARSEN, Washington (Ex Officio) 

(v) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE 

Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, opening statement ..................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment, opening statement ........................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, opening statement ....................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, oral statement ......................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Maria-Elena Giner, Ph.D., P.E., Commissioner, United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, oral statement ............................ 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Louis Aspey, Associate Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, oral statement ....................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Aaron Bernstein, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, oral statement ...................................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, oral statement ............................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer: 

Letter of June 28, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the 

Army, from Alicia G. Huey, Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home Builders of the United States ............................................... 39 

Letter of July 7, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the 

Army, from Emily W. Coyner, P.G., Senior Director, Environmental 

Policy, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ................................... 40 

Letter of July 11, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the 

Army, from Caitlin McHale, Associate General Counsel, National Mining Association .............................................................................................. 42 

Letter of July 13, 2023, to Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

Courtney Briggs, Chair, Waters Advocacy Coalition ................................. 44 
Page

vi 

Submissions for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer—Continued 

Letter of June 21, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the 

Army, from U.S. Senators Capito and Lummis, and U.S. Representatives Graves of Missouri and Rouzer ........................................................... 46 

Letter of July 12, 2023, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Water Resources and Environment, from Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army .......................................... 48 

Letter of July 10, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, and Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the Record 

by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano ............................................................................... 51 

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Patrick Ryan: 

Memo on Lead Service Lines in Poughkeepsie, NY, May 22, 2023, from 

Environmental Advocates NY ...................................................................... 56 

Article entitled, ‘‘America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables,’’ 

by Susan Pulliam, Shalini Ramachandran, John West, Coulter Jones, 

and Thomas Gryta, Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2023 .............................. 61 

APPENDIX 

Questions to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from: 

Hon. David Rouzer ........................................................................................... 91 

Hon. Patrick Ryan ............................................................................................ 95 

Hon. Hillary J. Scholten .................................................................................. 95 

Hon. Greg Stanton ............................................................................................ 97 

Questions to Maria-Elena Giner, Ph.D., P.E., Commissioner, United States 

Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, from: 

Hon. David Rouzer ........................................................................................... 97 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano ................................................................................ 100 

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Louis Aspey, Associate Chief, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .................. 100 

Questions to Aaron Bernstein, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

from: 

Hon. David Rouzer ........................................................................................... 100 

Hon. Hillary J. Scholten .................................................................................. 101 

Questions to Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from: 

Hon. David Rouzer ........................................................................................... 102 

Hon. Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n ........................................................................ 102 
(vii) 

1 H. COMM. ON TRANSP. & INFRASTRUCTURE, JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMM. 

ON WATER RES. AND ENVIRONMENT, 118TH CONG., (2023) (on file with Comm.) [hereinafter JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT]. 2 Id. 

JULY 7, 2023 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 

FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 

RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ‘‘Review of Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request: 

Agency Perspectives (Part II)’’ 

I. PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Thursday, July 13, 2023, at 2:00 

p.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony on ‘‘Review of Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request: Agency Perspectives (Part II).’’ The Subcommittee previously held a hearing on Thursday, June 22, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. ET 

and received testimony from some of the Federal agencies under the jurisdiction of 

the Subcommittee related to the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Request. 

The purpose of these hearings is to provide Members with an opportunity to review 

the FY 2024 budget request, as well as the Administration’s program priorities 

within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. 

During this second hearing, the Subcommittee will receive testimony from the remaining agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction including: the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States Section (IBWC), Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the first hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation (GLS). 

II. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

The Subcommittee’s jurisdiction over EPA includes programs aimed at protecting 

the Nation’s water quality pursuant to the Clean Water Act.1 The EPA, through its 

own programs and in partnership with states and tribes, seeks to improve water 

quality nationwide through investment in wastewater infrastructure, water quality 

standards, permitting programs, water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, and 

research, among other activities.2 The EPA’s Office of Water manages the EPA’s 

water quality protection programs. The Subcommittee also holds jurisdiction over 
viii 

3 Id. 

4 EPA, FY 2024 JUSTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATION ESTIMATES (2023), available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/fy-2024-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf 

[hereinafter EPA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION]. 5 IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117–58, Div. J, Title VI, 135 Stat. 1396 [hereinafter IIJA]; see also Appendix I. 6 EPA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, supra note 4, at 1314; the FY 24 authorization for the CWSRF is $3 billion (see section 607 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1387)). 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 IIJA, supra note 5; see also Appendix I. 10 Id. 11 Id. 

the Superfund and brownfields programs, which are managed by EPA’s Office of 

Land and Emergency Management (OLEM).3

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s FY 2024 budget request for EPA totals $12.083 billion, a 19.1 percent increase from the FY 2023 enacted level of $10.149 billion.4 The EPA 

will receive an additional $11.608 billion dollars in emergency supplemental funding 

in FY 2024 through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), with the majority of these funds distributed as capitalization grants to states for local water infrastructure related programs.5

Program 

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

FY 2023 Enacted Level 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

Science and Technology ................................................ 802.3 967.8 165.6 20.6% 

Environmental Programs and Management ................. 3,286.3 4,511.0 1,224.7 37.3% 

Geographic Programs ............................................... 681.7 682.1 0.3 0.0% 

National Estuary Program ........................................ 40.0 32.5 –7.5 –18.7% 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants † ........................... 4,493.7 5,855.6 1,361.9 30.3% 

Clean Water SRF ....................................................... 1,638.9 1,638.9 0.0 0.0% 

Drinking Water SRF ‡ ................................................ 1,126.1 1,126.1 0.0 0.0% 

WIFIA .............................................................................. 75.6 80.4 4.8 6.3% 

Hazardous Substance Superfund .................................. 1,282.7 355.9 –926.8 –72.3% 

EPA OIG ......................................................................... 44.0 64.5 20.5 46.6% 

Other * ........................................................................... 164.0 248.0 83.9 51.2% 

Total .......................................................................... $10,148.7 $12.083.3 $1,934.5 19.1% 

Italics denote subsections of larger programs 

† The State and Tribal Assistance Grants program includes several grant programs other than the SRFs. 

‡ Drinking Water SRF is outside of the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction and falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. * Includes appropriations to the following accounts: Buildings and Facilities; Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) 

program; and Inland Oil Spill program. 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): The FY 2024 budget request pro- poses $1.639 billion in Federal capitalization grants for the CWSRF, which is equal 

to the FY 2023 enacted level.6 The CWSRF is the primary Federal program for 

funding wastewater infrastructure projects and activities throughout the Nation.7

CWSRF funds are used to provide low-cost financing for state clean water infrastructure programs, which in turn fund locally developed wastewater infrastructure 

projects and activities.8 The CWSRF and Drinking Water SRF are funded under the 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account; which provides categorical 

grants to states and tribes as part of the cooperative partnership between the Federal government, states, and tribes. IIJA appropriated $2.403 billion for the CWSRF program for FY 2024, 

supplementing regular appropriations.9 Additionally, IIJA appropriated $225 million 

that same year for CWSRF to specifically address emerging contaminants.10 IIJA 

also reserved a portion of these funds to be distributed as grants to economically 

disadvantaged communities.11

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program (WIFIA): Originally authorized by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 

(P.L. 113–121), the WIFIA program provides low-interest loans or loan guarantees 

to eligible entities for a wide range of Nationally and regionally significant water 
ix 

12WRRDA 2014, Pub. L. No. 113–121, Title V, 128 Stat. 1322. 13 EPA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, supra note 4, at 955. 14 Id. at 1311. 15 IIJA, supra note 5. See also Appendix I. 16 EPA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, supra note 4, at 1310. 17 Id. 18 Id. at 1308. 19 Id. 20 IIJA, supra note 5; see also Appendix I. 21 Id. 22 JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 103 [hereinafter CERCLA]. 27 IIJA, supra note 5 § 80201; IRA, Pub. L. No. 117–169 § 13601, 136 Stat. 1981. 28 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 117–328 §443 [hereinafter Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023]. 

and wastewater projects.12 The FY 2024 budget requests $80.4 million for the 

WIFIA program, a 6.3 percent increase from the FY 2023 enacted level of $75.6 million.13

Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): This account provides funds 

for internal programmatic activities. The FY 2024 budget requests $4.511 billion for 

EPM. This represents a 37.3 percent increase from the FY 2023 enacted level.14

IIJA also appropriated $387 million in supplemental funding to this account for FY 

2024.15

Included in the EPM account, the FY 2024 budget requests $32.5 million for the 

National Estuary Program.16 This represents a decrease of 18.7 percent from the 

FY 2023 enacted level of $40 million.17

Geographic (Regional) Programs: EPA’s Geographic Programs provide an opportunity to target regionally specific water quality issues and to work closely with 

state and local partners. The President’s FY 2024 budget requests $682.1 million 

for geographic programs, an increase from the FY 2023 enacted level of $681.7 million.18

The FY 2024 request specifically includes: $368.2 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), $92.1 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program, $25.6 

million for the Gulf of Mexico, $25 million for Lake Champlain, $40 million for Long 

Island Sound, $8.5 million for South Florida, $54.5 million for San Francisco Bay, 

$54 million for Puget Sound, $7 million for Southern New England Estuary, $2.2 

million for Lake Pontchartrain, and $5 million for other activities.19

Additionally, IIJA appropriated $343.4 million in supplemental funding in FY 

2024 EPA’s Geographic Programs.20 This includes $200 million for the GLRI, $47.6 

million for Chesapeake Bay, $10.6 million for the Gulf of Mexico, $8 million for Lake 

Champlain, $21.2 million for Long Island Sound, $3.2 million for South Florida, $4.8 

million for San Francisco Bay, $17.8 million for Puget Sound, $15.8 million for the 

Columbia River Basin, $10.6 million for Lake Pontchartrain, and $800,000 for other 

activities including the Pacific Northwest.21

Superfund Program: The Superfund program was established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (P.L. 96– 

510) in 1980, and is run by EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management 

(OLEM).22 The Superfund program is the Federal program established to clean up 

the Nation’s worst uncontrolled and/or abandoned hazardous waste sites.23 The 

Superfund program is also available to respond to emergency situations involving 

the release of hazardous substances.24 EPA addresses the highest-priority sites by 

listing them on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).25 CERCLA requires 

responsible parties to pay for the hazardous waste cleanups or response costs, and 

provides for the Superfund Trust Fund to pay for remedial cleanups in cases where 

responsible parties cannot be found or otherwise held accountable.26

In the 117th Congress, three excise taxes were reinstated to pay into the Superfund. IIJA reinstated the Chemicals Superfund Tax and Hazardous Substances Tax, 

while the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117–169) reinstated a tax on crude oil 

and petroleum products.27 The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (P.L. 117– 

328) included language allowing tax receipts collected in the Superfund Trust Fund 

from the prior fiscal year to be available to implement CERCLA without further 

Congressional appropriation and be designated as emergency funding.28 This budgetary treatment prevents the collection and spending of these receipts from counting 

toward the Appropriations Committee’s allocation or top-line funding level. There-
x 

29 EPA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, supra note 4, at 1313. 30 Id. at 652. 31 JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, Pub. L. No. 107–118, 

115 Stat. 2356. 35 EPA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, supra note 4, at 1308, 1314, 1316. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1 39 Id. 40DEP’T OF THE ARMY OFFICE, ASS’T SEC’Y OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), FY 2024 CIVIL WORKS

BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (March 2023), available at https:// 

usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2317 [hereinafter ARMY CORPS

CIVIL WORKS FY 2024 BUDGET); see also WHITE HOUSE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL WORKS

APPROPRIATIONS, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ 

coelfy2024.pdf [hereinafter ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2023 APPROPRIATIONS] (describing 

the FY 2023 Enacted Levels). 41 IIJA, supra note 5, Div. J, Title III; see also Appendix I. 

fore, these receipts are not included in the table summarizing EPA’s enacted and 

requested funding. 

The President’s budget requests $355.9 million in Superfund appropriations, a decrease of 72.3 percent from the FY 2023 enacted level.29 However, the United States 

Department of the Treasury forecasts collecting a total of $2.544 billion in Superfund taxes in FY 2023 that will be available for use in FY 2024.30 These funds are 

covered by the budgetary treatment change in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 

of 2023 and are not included in the table of enacted and requested EPA funding. 

Using these estimates, EPA’s total budgetary authority for Superfund as proposed 

by the President’s budget would be $2.9 billion, a 71.0 percent increase from the 

FY 2023 enacted level. 

Brownfields: Brownfields are properties for which the expansion, redevelopment, 

or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous 

substance, pollutant or contaminant.31 Examples of these sites include former industrial properties, gas stations, or dry cleaners.32 EPA’s OLEM manages the 

brownfields program.33 The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107–118) authorized funding for EPA to award brownfields assessment, cleanup and revolving loan fund grants, and provided limited Superfund liability protections for certain innocent landowners and bona fide prospective purchasers.34

The FY 2024 budget request proposes $216.6 million in funding for EPA’s 

brownfields program.35 This includes $131.0 million in site assessment and clean up 

grants (STAG account), $47.0 million for authorized state brownfields programs 

(STAG account), and $38.6 million for EPA’s management of the Brownfields program (EPM account).36 This represents an increase of $43.2 million over the FY 

2023 enacted levels in total.37 IIJA also appropriated $300 million in supplemental 

funding for brownfields for FY 2024. 

III. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS) 

The Corps studies, constructs, operates and maintains water resources development projects for the Nation, usually through cost-shared partnership with non-Federal sponsors.38 Authorized mission activities include navigation, flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, shoreline protection, hydropower, 

water supply, recreation, environmental infrastructure, environmental restoration, 

enhancement and protection, fish and wildlife mitigation, and disaster response and 

recovery.39 The water resources development programs and projects of the Corps 

provide for continued economic growth, job creation, and economic stability while 

protecting human lives and property, ensuring reliable waterborne transportation of 

goods, and restoring valuable natural resources. 

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s FY 2024 budget request for the Corps totals $7.413 billion, 

a decrease of 10.8 percent from the FY 2023 enacted level of $8.310 billion.40 IIJA 

also provided the Corps with supplemental appropriations of $1 billion for Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) and $50 million for Construction in FY 2024.41
xi 

42 ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2024 BUDGET, supra note 40, at 4. 43 Id. at 2. 44 Id. 45 Id. at 2. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. at 7. 49 Id. at 8. 50 Id. at 2. 51 Id.; ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2023 APPROPRIATIONS, supra note 40. 

Program 

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

FY 2023 Enacted Level 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

Investigations ................................................................ 172.5 129.8 –42.7 –24.7% 

Construction .................................................................. 1,808.8 2,014.6 205.8 11.4% 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) .............................. 5,078.5 2,629.9 –2,448.6 –48.2% 

HMTF † ........................................................................... N/A 1,726.0 1,726.0 N/A 

Regulatory Program ....................................................... 218.0 221.0 3.0 1.4% 

Expenses ........................................................................ 215.0 212.0 –3.0 –1.4% 

Office of ASA–CW .......................................................... 5.0 6.0 1.0 20.0% 

Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) .................... 370.0 226.5 –143.5 –38.8% 

FUSRAP .......................................................................... 400.0 200.0 –200.0 –50.0% 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) .......... 35.0 40.0 5.0 14.3% 

WIFIA .............................................................................. 7.2 7.2 0.0 0.0% 

Total .......................................................................... $8,310.0 $7,413.0 –$897.0 –10.8% 

† The President’s budget proposes to execute these appropriations within HMTF rather than transfer and execute them in 

Construction, O&M and MR&T accounts. Congress typically specifies that a portion of the appropriations provided to the 

Construction, O&M and MR&T accounts be derived from the HMTF. 

Sources of Appropriations for FY 2024 Budget Request: 42

• General Fund ................................................................................ $5.624 billion 

• Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ................................................ $1.726 billion 

• Special Recreation User Fees ...................................................... $62.6 million 

Investigations: The Investigations program funds studies to determine the need, 

feasibility, and economic and environmental benefits of potential water resources 

projects.43 This account also funds the restudy of authorized projects, miscellaneous 

investigations, and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.44 The 

FY 2024 budget request proposes $129.8 million for the Investigations program.45

Requested funding for Investigations includes $35.5 million for technical and 

planning assistance programs that will help local communities, including disadvantaged communities, identify and address their risks associated with climate 

change.46 The budget also requests funding to continue studies intended to investigate climate resilience along the Great Lakes coast and in Central and Southern 

Florida.47

The FY 2024 budget proposes funding to initiate five new studies: Klamath Basin, 

CA (aquatic ecosystem restoration); Southeast Michigan (flood and storm damage 

reduction); Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River and Tobacco River, MI 

(flood and storm damage reduction); Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, RI (flood and 

storm damage reduction); Morgantown, WV Lock and Dam Automation (flood and 

storm damage reduction).48 The budget request also proposes funding to complete 

three ongoing studies: Guadalupe River, CA (General Reevaluation Report) (flood 

and storm damage reduction); St. Augustine Back Bay, FL (flood and storm damage 

reduction); Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR (dredged material management plan).49

Construction: The FY 2024 budget uses performance guidelines to steer allocation 

of construction funds, giving priority to projects with the highest economic, environmental, and safety returns.50 The FY 2024 budget requests $2.015 billion in funding 

for the Construction program, a level which would ensure momentum on critical infrastructure projects across the Nation.51

The FY 2024 proposal includes $415 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan (Everglades) program, $66.7 million for Columbia River Fish Mitiga-
xii 

52 Id. 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2024 BUDGET, supra note 40, at 2. 56 Id. 57 Id. 58 ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2024 BUDGET, supra note 40, at 2. 59 ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2024 BUDGET, supra note 40, at 3. 60 Id. 61 Id. 62 Id. 63 Id. 64 Id.; see also ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2023 APPROPRIATIONS, supra note 40. 65 Id. 66See ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2023 APPROPRIATIONS, supra note 40. 67 ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2024 BUDGET, supra note 40, at 3. 

tion, and $655 million for a dam safety project at Prado Dam, CA.52 It also includes 

$350 million for replacement of the Cape Cod Canal Bridges and a legislative proposal to transfer these funds to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to design and 

construct the replacement bridges.53

The budget request also includes $235 million for a ‘‘Project Cost Increase Reserve’’ to help complete authorized projects that have experienced cost increases 

after beginning construction (e.g., Sault Ste. Marie, MI Replacement Lock project).54

Operation and Maintenance (O&M): The FY 2024 budget request uses performance guidelines to steer allocation of O&M funds, reflecting a risk-informed approach which considers project and project component conditions and consequences 

in the event of possible failure of a Corps project.55 The budget requests $2.630 billion in funding for the O&M program.56

The budget request also includes $64 million for O&M activities focused on climate change and/or sustainability at Corps-owned projects, $51 million to mitigate 

for adverse impacts from existing Corps-owned projects, and $26 million to install 

refueling infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles at Corps-owned projects.57

The budget request does not propose allocating funds directly from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF); however, it proposes $997 million for maintenance and 

navigation improvement on the inland waterways, giving preference to the waterways with the most commercial traffic.58

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF): The FY 2024 proposal includes $1.726 

billion from the HMTF for eligible projects, emphasizing O&M, notably dredging, of 

completed projects.59 The proposal also includes $985 million for O&M of the Nation’s top 50 coastal ports, which handle about 90 percent of the waterborne cargo 

that is shipped to or from the United States.60 The budget includes $272 million 

for O&M of Great Lakes projects, $58 million for projects that support Native American tribe access to legally recognized historical fishing areas, $15 million for construction projects that accommodate disposal of dredged material from coastal navigation projects, and $21.2 million for mitigation of adverse impacts from navigation 

projects.61 The budget proposes to execute the appropriations to Construction, O&M, 

and MR&T within the HMTF rather than to transfer and execute them within the 

respective accounts. 

Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T): The MR&T program focuses on ongoing work in the lower Mississippi River valley and its tributaries, emphasizing the 

1,600 miles of levees and related features on the main stem of the Mississippi and 

in the Atchafalaya Basin.62 The budget requests $226.5 million for the MR&T program. 

Regulatory Program: The budget requests $221 million for the Corps Regulatory 

Program, including its work administering Clean Water Act permitting authorities.63

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE): The budget requests $40 million, 

a 14.3 percent increase from the FY 2023 enacted level, for preparedness and training to enable Corps staff to respond to communities during floods, hurricanes, and 

other natural disasters.64

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): The budget requests 

$200 million for cleanup of sites contaminated by the Nation’s early atomic weapons 

development program.65 This is a 50 percent decrease from the FY 2023 enacted 

level of $400 million.66

WIFIA: The budget requests $7.2 million for WIFIA, including $5 million for administrative expenses and $2.2 million for credit subsidy costs related to non-Federal dam safety projects.67 This program is separate and unique from EPA’s WIFIA 

program. 
xiii 

68 Id. 69 Id.; ARMY CORPS CIVIL WORKS FY 2023 APPROPRIATIONS, supra note 40. 70 Id. 71 IIJA, supra note 5, Div. J, Title III; see also Appendix I. 72 Id. 73See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 74 UNITED STATES DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE, FY 2024 BUDGET SUMMARY at 32 (2023), available at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-usda-budget-summary.pdf [hereinafter USDA FY 2024 BUDGET SUMMARY]. 75See id. 76 Id.; Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115–334 § 2401, 132 Stat. 4570. 77See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1; see also Fact Sheet, UNITED STATES

DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE, WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS PRO- GRAM, available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/NRCSlWatershed 

FloodPrevlFact%20Sheet-2021.pdf. 78 Id. 

Expenses: The budget requests $212 million for the Expenses account, which 

funds the Civil Works program responsibilities of Corps headquarters and division 

offices, along with other operational costs.68 This represents a 1.4 percent decrease from the FY 2023 enacted level of $215 million.69

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA–CW): The budg- et proposes $6 million, an increase of $1 million over FY 2023 levels, for the Office 

of the ASA–CW, which is responsible for policy direction and oversight of the Civil 

Works program.70

IIJA FUNDING

IIJA provided $1.050 billion for the Corps in FY 2024, including $1 billion for O&M and $50 million for Construction.71 However, IIJA provided more than $16 billion in supplemental funding to the Corps the previous two fiscal years, which the 

Corps has allocated to projects and studies in periodic spend plans. This funding is 

available until expended. The Corps is not scheduled to receive any supplemental 

IIJA funds after FY 2024.72

IV. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) 

NRCS is authorized to give technical and financial help to local organizations 

planning and carrying out watershed projects for flood protection, agricultural water 

management, recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and wildlife enhancement.73

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

The FY 2024 budget requests a total of $185 million in funding for NRCS watershed programs in the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.74 This represents a 140.3 percent increase in funding from the FY 2023 enacted level of $77 million.75

Program 

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

FY 2023 Enacted Level 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ................ 75.0 175.0 100.0 133.3% 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program† ............ 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program ............................... 2.0 10.0 8.0 400.0% 

Total .......................................................................... $77.0 $185.0 $108.0 140.3% 

† This program received emergency funding in FY 2023 

The FY 2024 budget reflects $47 million in mandatory funding for the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Program, which was created in the Agriculture Improvement 

Act of 2018 (Farm Bill) (P.L. 115–334), consistent with the FY 2023 enacted level.76

The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations activities authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78–534) and the 

Watershed and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83–566).77 This program directs 

NRCS to work with localities to plan and install flood prevention improvements and 

share the cost with a non-Federal sponsor for these activities.78 The small watershed operations program provides technical and financial assistance for water conservation projects and sediment and erosion damage reduction projects. The FY 

2024 budget request proposes funding for this program at a level of $175 million, 
xiv 

79See USDA FY 2024 BUDGET SUMMARY, supra note 74. 80See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 81See USDA FY 2024 BUDGET SUMMARY, supra note 74. 82 Id. 83 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, supra note 28, Div. N. 84See IIJA, supra note 5. 85 Id. at Div. J, Title I; see also Appendix I. 86See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 87 Id. 88 NOAA, BUDGET ESTIMATES FISCAL YEAR 2024 (2023), Exhibit 4B, available at https:// 

www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/NOAAlFY24lCJ.pdf [hereinafter NOAA FY 2024 

BUDGET ESTIMATES]. 89 Id. 

which would be an increase of $100 million from the FY 2023 enacted level of $75 

million.79

The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides financial and technical assistance for the rehabilitation of Federally constructed flood prevention dams that have 

reached the end of their design lives or no longer meet Federal or state safety criteria or performance standards.80 The budget proposal requests $10 million for FY 

2024, an increase of $8 million above the FY 2023 enacted level.81

The FY 2024 budget does not request additional funding the Emergency Watershed Protection Program.82 However, this program received $925 million in emergency funding in FY 2023 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (P.L. 117– 

328).83

IIJA does not provide any funding in FY 2024 for these programs.84 However, in 

FY 2022 IIJA appropriated $500 million for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, $118 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, and $300 million for 

the Emergency Watershed Protection Program.85

V. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

The Subcommittee holds jurisdiction over various NOAA programs and activities, 

including responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act 

Reauthorization Amendments (P.L. 101–508), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 100–688), Superfund, Oil Pollution Act (P.L. 101–380), Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 104–332), Harmful Algal 

Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (P.L. 105–383), Estuary Habitat Restoration and Partnership Act of 2000 (P.L. 105–457), and Save Our Seas 2.0 Act 

(P.L. 116–224).86 The Subcommittee’s jurisdictional interest in the National Ocean 

Service (NOS) includes coastal water pollution and natural resource damages.87

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

The FY 2024 budget requests $687.7 million for the NOS, and $786.3 million for 

the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).88 This represents a 5.9 percent decrease from the FY 2023 level for NOS, and a 0.5 percent increase from the 

FY 2023 level for OAR.89

Program 

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

FY 2023 Enacted Level 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

National Ocean Service (NOS) ...................................... 731.1 687.7 –43.4 –5.9% 

ORF † ......................................................................... 717.1 679.2 –37.9 –5.3% 

PAC † ......................................................................... 14.0 8.5 –5.5 –39.3% 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) ... 782.1 786.3 4.1 0.5% 

Total .......................................................................... $1,513.2 $1,474.0 –$39.2 –2.6% 

† The National Ocean Service (NOS) and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) programs receive funding 

from the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) and Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) accounts in annual appropriations bills. 

This table represents only discretionary requested funding. Additional mandatory funding for these programs comes from 

the Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving Fund, Sanctuaries Asset Forfeiture Fund, and Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Fund. 

NOS programs provide scientific, technical, and management expertise to promote 

safe navigation, protect and restore coastal and marine resources, and manage and 
xv 

90See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 91 Id. 92 Id. 93See NOAA FY 2024 BUDGET ESTIMATES, supra note 88. 94See IIJA, supra note 5, Div. J, Title II, 135 Stat. 1355; see also Appendix I. 95 Id. 96GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY SYSTEM, The Seaway Story, available at https:// 

greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/. 97 Id. 98See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 99See UNITED STATES DEP’T OF TRANSP., BUDGET ESTIMATES FISCAL YEAR 2024, GREAT LAKES

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Exhibit II–1, available at https:// 

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-03/GLSlFYl2024lPresidentlBudgetl 

508.pdf [hereinafter GLS FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET ESTIMATES]. 100 Id. at 1. 

preserve coastal and ocean environments.90 While many NOS programs are outside 

the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, the National Coastal Zone Management (CZM), 

which is within in the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, is housed in NOS.91 OAR provides research and technology development necessary to improve NOAA climate, 

weather, and coastal, Great Lakes and ocean services.92

Notable programs of interest to the Subcommittee and their FY 2024 budget request include: $78.5 million for Coastal Zone Management Grants (a decrease from 

$81.5 million in FY 2023); $22.5 million for National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science (NCCOS) Competitive Research Funding Grants (relatively equal to FY 

2023 levels); $80.7 million for the National Sea Grant College Program (an increase 

from $80.0 million in FY 2023); and $33.7 million for the Coral Reef Program (an 

increase from $33.5 million in FY 2023).93

NOS and OAR programs receive funding from the Operations Research, and Facilities (ORF) and Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) accounts in annual appropriations bills. IIJA appropriates $516 million in supplemental funding 

to the ORF account in FY 2024, however, it is unclear how much of this supplemental funding will go towards programs within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.94

IIJA appropriates funds to the ORF account each year from FYs 2022–2026 but appropriated $180 million in supplemental funds to the PAC account only for FY 

2022.95

VI. GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

(GLS) 

The St. Lawrence Seaway is a 328 nautical-mile deep-draft waterway between the 

Port of Montreal and Lake Erie.96 It connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean 

via the lower St. Lawrence River.97 The Seaway consists of a network of fifteen 

locks, thirteen of which belong to Canada and two of which belong to the United 

States, and connecting channels located in the two countries.98 The United States 

section of the Seaway is operated by GLS, which is part of the United States Department of Transportation. 

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

The FY 2024 budget requests $40.3 million for GLS, a 4.6 percent increase over 

the FY 2023 enacted level.99

Program 

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

Enacted Level in FY 2023 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

Operations and Maintenance ........................................ 23.7 24.0 0.3 1.2% 

Seaway Infrastructure ................................................... 14.8 16.3 1.5 10.1% 

Total .......................................................................... $38.5 $40.3 $1.8 4.6% 

Operational, maintenance and capital asset renewal needs for the United States 

portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway are derived from appropriations from the HMTF 

and revenues from other sources.100 The $40.3 million request funds Operations and 

Maintenance at $24.0 million and Seaway infrastructure investment at a level of 
xvi 

101 Id. at Exhibit II–1. 102 Id. 103Tennessee Valley Authority Act, 16. U.S.C. 831. 104TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, About TVA, available at https://www.tva.com/about-tva. 105 Id. 106See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 107 Id. 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Id. 111See UNITED STATES DEP’T OF STATE, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION DEP’T OF

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2024, at 80, available at 

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/FY%202024%20CBJ%20FINALl3.9.23l0.pdf. 112 Id. 113See JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES REPORT, supra note 1. 114 CERCLA, supra note 26, § 9601. 

$16.3 million.101 This represents a 1.2 percent increase for Operations and Maintenance and a 10.2 percent increase for infrastructure investment compared to FY 

2023 enacted levels.102

VII. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) 

TVA is the Nation’s largest government-owned wholesale power producer and was 

established in 1933 by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act (16 U.S.C. 831).103 TVA 

supplies power to ten million people over an 80,000 square mile service area covering Tennessee along with parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, 

Virginia and Kentucky.104 Additionally, TVA’s non-power program responsibilities 

include economic development and the management of land and water resources 

throughout the Tennessee Valley.105

Initially, Federal appropriations funded all TVA operations. However, direct Federal funding for the TVA power program ended in 1959, and appropriations for 

TVA’s environmental and economic development activities were phased out by 

1999.106 TVA receives no Federal appropriations but operates and maintains its assets through commercial and residential rates, and the authority to issue Federally 

secured bonds.107

VIII. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION (IBWC) 

First established in 1889, the IBWC is responsible for implementing the various 

boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico and settling 

issues that arise along the border.108 The IBWC is an international body, composed 

of a United States sector and Mexico sector, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by the respective President.109 The United States Section of the 

IBWC is overseen by the United States Department of State.110

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

Program 

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

Enacted Level in FY 2023 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

Salaries and Expenses .................................................. 57.9 64.8 6.9 11.8% 

Construction .................................................................. 53.0 40.0 –13.0 –24.5% 

Total .......................................................................... $111.0 $104.8 –$6.1 –5.5% 

The FY 2024 budget request for the IBWC totals $104.8 million, representing a 

5.5 percent decrease in funding from the FY 2023 enacted levels.111 This total includes $64.8 million for salaries and expenses, an 11.8 percent increase from FY 

2023, and $40.0 million for construction, a 24.5 percent decrease from FY 2023.112

IX. AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR) 

The ATSDR is housed under the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

and is the Nation’s public health agency for chemical safety.113 ATSDR was created 

by CERCLA to assess the presence and nature of health hazards at Superfund sites 

and was formally organized in 1986.114 Under its CERCLA mandate, ATSDR’s work 

falls into four functional areas: (1) protecting the public from hazardous exposures, 
xvii 

115 UNITED STATES DEP’T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FISCAL YEAR 2024 AGENCY FOR

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES, at 8, available at 

https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2024/FY-2024-ATSDR-congressional-justification.pdf. 

(2) increasing knowledge of toxic substances, (3) educating health care providers and 

the public, and (4) maintaining health registries. 

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

FY 2023 

Enacted 

(millions of 

dollars) 

FY 2024 

President’s 

(millions of 

dollars) 

President’s Budget Over the 

Enacted Level in FY 2023 

Millions of 

Dollars Percent 

Total .............................................................................. $85.0 $86.0 $1.0 1.2% 

The FY 2024 budget request for ATSDR totals $86.0 million, up $1.0 million from 

the FY 2023 enacted level.115

X. WITNESSES 

• The Honorable Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

• Dr. Maria-Elena Giner, Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section 

• Mr. Louis Aspey, Associate Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

United States Department of Agriculture 

• Dr. Aaron Bernstein, Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Center for Disease Control and Prevention 

• Ms. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
xviii 

116This chart reflects a summary of IIJA funding as compiled by H. Comm. on Transp. and 

Infrastructure staff. 

APPENDIX I: IIJA FUNDING IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S JURISDICTION

(FY 2022–2026) 116

Agency FY 

2022 

FY 

2023 

FY 

2024 

FY 

2025 

FY 

2026 

5-Year 

Total 

Program (Millions of dollars) 

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............ NRCS ... 500 0 0 0 0 500 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program ........................... NRCS ... 118 0 0 0 0 118 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program ............... NRCS ... 300 0 0 0 0 300 

Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) † ........... NOAA ... 557 516 516 516 507 2,611 

Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) † NOAA ... 180 0 0 0 0 180 

Wildlife Infrastructure ‡ ........................................ 50 0 0 0 0 50 

Weather and Climate Modeling ‡ ......................... 80 0 0 0 0 80 

Coastal, Ocean, and Great Lakes ........................ 50 0 0 0 0 50 

Investigations ............................................................ Corps .. 120 30 0 0 0 150 

Mississippi River and Tributaries ............................. Corps .. 808 0 0 0 0 808 

Operation and Maintenance ..................................... Corps .. 2,000 1,000 1,000 0 0 4,000 

Regulatory Program .................................................. Corps .. 160 0 0 0 0 160 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................. Corps .. 251 0 0 0 0 251 

Expenses ................................................................... Corps .. 40 0 0 0 0 40 

WIFIA ......................................................................... Corps .. 75 0 0 0 0 75 

Construction .............................................................. Corps .. 11,515 50 50 0 0 11,615 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants ......................... EPA ..... 10,144 10,819 11,221 11,621 11,621 55,426 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds .................... 1,902 2,202 2,403 2,603 2,603 11,713 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ‡ ............. 1,902 2,202 2,403 2,603 2,603 11,713 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, Lead 

Service Lines ‡.

3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds, Groundwater.100 225 225 225 225 1,000 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, PFAS ‡ ... 800 800 800 800 800 4,000 

Emerging Contaminants, Sec. 1459A Safe Drinking Water Act ‡.

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 

Underground Injection Control Grants ‡ ............... 50 0 0 0 0 50 

Brownfields ........................................................... 300 300 300 300 300 1,500 

Sec. 6605, Pollution Prevention Act ‡ .................. 20 20 20 20 20 100 

Save Our Seas 2.0 Act ......................................... 55 55 55 55 55 275 

Grants to Improve Material Recycling ‡ ............... 15 15 15 15 15 75 

Clean School Bus Program‡ ................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 

Environmental Programs and Management ............. EPA ..... 412 387 387 387 387 1,959 

Geographic Programs ........................................... 343 343 343 343 343 1,715 

National Estuary Program Grants ........................ 26 26 26 26 26 132 

Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan ...................................... 12 12 12 12 12 60 

Class VI Wells Permitting .................................... 5 5 5 5 5 25 

Battery Recycling and Labeling ........................... 25 0 0 0 0 25 

Hazardous Substance Superfund * ........................... EPA ..... 3,500 0 0 0 0 3,500 

Office of Inspector General ** ................................... EPA ..... 65 49 51 52 52 269 

Total ..................................................................... 30,680 12,801 13,173 12,523 12,515 81,693 

Italics denote subsections of larger programs 

† NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) receive funding from ORF 

and PAC accounts. NOAA’s FY 2024 Congressional Justification excludes the IIJA advance appropriations in its budgetary tables. It is unclear in NOAA’s budget documents how much IIJA funding went to NOS or OOAR. These funding totals reflect 

the total appropriations to these two major accounts. It is unclear how much of this funding is for programs not within the 

jurisdiction of the T&I Committee. ‡ Denotes programs outside of Subcommittee jurisdiction. 

* Includes specified appropriation and does not reflect transfer to Inspector General. 

** Estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office. This total does not directly flow into the totals. Pre-transfer 

amounts are included in original appropriations for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Environmental Programs and Management, and the Hazardous Substance Superfund. These pretransfer amounts are reflected in the totals to prevent double 

counting. 
(1) 

REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET 

REQUEST: AGENCY PERSPECTIVES (PART 2) 

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Rouzer (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROUZER. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. 

I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time during today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s 

hearing and ask questions. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And as a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 

the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov. 

Again, that is DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov. 

Now I am going to take a quick moment of personal privilege. I 

just recently found out, actually yesterday, that my great friend 

and colleague from California, Mrs. Napolitano, has decided that 

she is not going to run again and retire from Congress. 

And at first I was really sad about it. Then it occurred to me she 

is probably the smartest one here. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are kind, very kind. 

Mr. ROUZER. So, anyhow, we are going to miss Grace in the next 

Congress for sure. And she has been such a delight to work with 

the entire time, but I am not—I will not dwell on that. 

But I will certainly share the microphone with you, Grace, if you 

want to say a word or two. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

This has been a good pleasure. He truly is a good person to work 

with. Believe me. And I look forward to working with him another 

year and a half. So, I will be here yet. Don’t write me off yet. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ROUZER. You are not written off, not at all. 

I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening statement. 
2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROUZER OF NORTH 

CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. ROUZER. Today’s hearing is the second this subcommittee is 

holding on the President’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposal. 

Today, we are pleased to have representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, International Boundary and Water Commission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or what we 

refer to as NOAA. 

I would like to start with a topic of keen interest for many of us 

on the committee, in particular. And I greatly appreciate that we 

have the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Water, the 

Honorable Radhika Fox, here with us today, whose agency is central to an issue that we all know as WOTUS. 

The definition of waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act 

has been debated in the courts and altered by varying Presidential 

administrations for decades. At the same time, it has led to uncertainty and bureaucratic back and forth for regulated communities 

such as farmers, property owners, homebuilders, and infrastructure 

developers, among many others. 

So, I was encouraged to see the Supreme Court act decisively in 

Sackett v. EPA, delivering a seemingly easily implementable and 

consistent definition of WOTUS. 

The Sackett decision clarified what the intended scope of the 

Clean Water Act has always been, doing away with the overreach 

and confusion of the ‘‘significant nexus’’ test. 

This ruling enables EPA, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, to kick-start project completion, eliminate regulatory redtape, and maintain crucial environmental protections by conforming with Sackett. Now, EPA and the Corps must bring the 

Biden administration’s flawed and legally outdated WOTUS rule 

into compliance. 

In response to this, the EPA and the Corps recently announced 

they will be finalizing a revision to the WOTUS definition by the 

beginning of September. And while I appreciate the initiative of the 

agencies to quickly provide a rule consistent with Sackett, I am 

concerned this is not being done through the right procedures, and 

instead, ramrodded without appropriate input. 

Now, at our hearing last month, Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works Michael Connor said the EPA and the Corps will 

promulgate changes through, quote, a ‘‘direct final rulemaking’’ 

process under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. This 

is a rarely used procedure which does not employ the traditional 

comment-and-response process. 

The Biden WOTUS rule was based heavily on the ‘‘significant 

nexus’’ test, and any revision to the rule will inevitably be major 

in order to align with the very clear Sackett decision. 

The APA is straightforward in its requirement for a notice-andcomment rulemaking process for major changes to regulations, and 

it is crucial that the agencies comply with that. 
3 

The EPA has referred to the process it is pursuing as, quote, 

‘‘surgical’’ or ‘‘ministerial,’’ which strikes me as a veiled attempt to 

articulate compliance, while leaving much of the original rule intact. And I hope that I am wrong. 

In addition, by moving forward without the proper comment-andresponse process for a major change, this administration would be 

disregarding regulated communities, our constituents, once again, 

depriving them of the opportunity to ensure that the regulation 

would actually provide certainty and align with Sackett. Rather than heed the rule of law, it seems to me the administration is trying to preserve much of the original rule, whose main 

provisions were essentially struck down by the Supreme Court, to 

maintain their regulatory objectives that are far broader than the 

law allows. 

Thankfully, due to Sackett, we no longer have to worry about the 

outlandish regulations of things like depressions in a farmer’s field, 

ditches that have collected water after back-to-back storms, or isolated waters that might be visited by a frog living in a nonadjacent 

navigable water, of all things. 

Instead of trying to find ways around Sackett, EPA and the 

Corps should focus their efforts on revising this rule the right way. 

It is undoubtedly possible for the administration to act both expeditiously and accurately, no question about that. And I urge them to 

listen to the will of the American people and the Supreme Court 

and do just that. 

Now, moving on from that topic, we also have folks here from a 

number of other important entities in the subcommittee’s jurisdiction: The International Boundary and Water Commission, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, and NOAA. 

Between them, these entities serve a crucial set of missions including maintaining important water projects and treaties at the 

southern border, assisting farmers and ranchers with their conservation needs, aiding research into public health and chemical 

safety, and managing our Nation’s coastal zones. 

I look forward to hearing from all of them about their successes 

and challenges in carrying out these missions. 

[Mr. Rouzer’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment 

Today’s hearing is the second and final in a series this Subcommittee is holding 

on the President’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposal. Today, we are pleased to have 

representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), International 

Boundary and Water Commission, United States Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention’s (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

I’d like to start by discussing actions involving the EPA. I appreciate that we have 

the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, the Honorable Radhika Fox, 

here with us today. I would like to bring attention to an issue that my constituents 

in North Carolina, and communities across the country, care a great deal about— 

the definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ (WOTUS). 

The definition of a WOTUS under the Clean Water Act has been debated in the 

courts and altered by varying presidential administrations for decades. At the same 
4 

time, it has led to uncertainty and bureaucratic back-and-forth for regulated communities such as farmers, property owners, homebuilders, and infrastructure developers. 

That’s why I was encouraged to see the Supreme Court act decisively in Sackett 

v. EPA (Sackett), delivering a seemingly easily implementable and consistent definition of WOTUS. The Sackett decision clarified what the intended scope of the Clean 

Water Act has always been, doing away with the overreach and confusion of the 

‘‘significant nexus’’ test. 

This ruling enables EPA, along with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to 

kickstart project completion, eliminate regulatory red tape, and maintain crucial environmental protections by expeditiously conforming with Sackett. Now, EPA and 

the Corps must quickly bring the Biden Administration’s flawed and legally outdated WOTUS policy into compliance. 

In response to this, EPA and the Corps recently announced they will be finalizing 

a revision to the WOTUS definition by the beginning of September. While I appreciate the agencies’ endeavor to quickly provide a rule consistent with Sackett, I have 

concerns whether this will be done correctly and through the right procedures. 

At our hearing last month, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Michael Connor said that EPA and the Corps will promulgate changes through a ‘‘direct to final’’ rule process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This is 

a rarely used procedure which does not employ the traditional comment and response process. 

The Biden WOTUS rule was based heavily on the ‘‘significant nexus’’ test, and 

any revision to the rule will inevitably be major in order to align with the clear 

Sackett decision. The APA is clear in its requirement for a notice and comment rulemaking process for major changes to regulations, and it is crucial that the agencies 

comply with it. I am significantly concerned that this approach, which the EPA has 

called ‘‘surgical’’ or ‘‘ministerial,’’ is rather a veiled attempt to articulate compliance 

while actually circumventing the process. 

In addition, by moving forward without the proper comment and response process 

for a major change, this administration disregards regulated communities once 

again, depriving them of the opportunity to ensure that the regulation would actually provide certainty and align with Sackett. Rather than heed the rule of law, it 

seems the Administration is working around their failed definition to implement political priorities through other means. 

Thankfully, due to Sackett, we no longer have to worry about outlandish regulation of things like depressions in a farmer’s field, ditches that have collected water 

after back-to-back storms, or isolated waters that might be visited by a frog living 

in a non-adjacent navigable water. 

Instead of trying to find ways around Sackett, EPA and the Corps should focus 

their efforts on revising this rule the right way. It is undoubtedly possible for the 

Administration to act both expeditiously and accurately. I urge them to listen to the 

will of the American people and the Supreme Court and do just that. 

Moving on from EPA, we also have folks here from a number of other important 

entities in the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction: the International Boundary and Water 

Commission, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and NOAA’s National Ocean Service. 

Between them, these entities serve a crucial set of missions, including maintaining important water projects and treaties at the southern border, assisting farmers 

and ranchers with their conservation needs, aiding research into public health and 

chemical safety, and managing our Nation’s coastal zones. I look forward to hearing 

from all of them about their successes and challenges in carrying out these missions. 

Mr. ROUZER. I yield back and recognize my good friend and 

Ranking Member Napolitano for her 5 minutes and her opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO OF 

CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding today’s hearing on President Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget and priorities for the remaining agencies and within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 
5 

I welcome our Federal witnesses today, many of whom I have 

spoken to often about the unique water resources challenges facing 

our Nation and the regions and communities we are all honored to 

represent. 

I want to extend a special welcome to Assistant Administrator 

Fox and Commissioner Giner. Welcome. The Federal agencies and 

offices you serve have seen firsthand the challenges posed by climate change and extreme weather, including persistent drought, in 

providing continued clean, safe, reliable, and affordable water and 

wastewater services for the Nation. Thank you for your continued 

and dedicated service to our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, annual budget proposals of the administration 

and congressional leaders provide valuable insight into the goals 

and priorities of their authors. Annual budgets provide an objective 

way to compare competing visions for the future of our country and 

for what we stand for in representing our constituents. 

This year, the contrasts are stark and telling. 

The Biden administration’s proposal lays out a bold vision to 

grow the economy from the bottom up; to invest in cleaner, 

greener, and more accessible infrastructure; to create jobs and opportunities for all people; and to restore and protect our environment. 

That is the same vision shared by House Democrats, who, last 

Congress, passed the largest infrastructure investments in over a 

generation through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as other transformational infrastructure investment bills, such as the first reauthorization of the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund in its history. 

With each dollar invested and each new water and wastewater 

infrastructure project implemented, everyday Americans will continue to reap the benefits of these transformational laws through 

reduced transportation congestion; cleaner air and cleaner water; 

and a safer, more resilient, and more livable environment. 

Mr. Chairman, House Democrats specifically tailored these investments to address the affordability concerns facing many minority, rural, and Tribal communities, ensuring that all Americans, regardless of ZIP Code, should have access to clean, safe, and reliable 

drinking water and wastewater services. 

However, I remain very concerned that the current Republican 

leadership of the House is moving this country in a contrary direction of the will of the American people. 

For example, House Republican leadership advanced the debt 

limit proposal that sought to hold hostage the ‘‘full faith and credit’’ 

of our economy, while blindly slashing critical investments in our 

economy, our infrastructure, and our quality of life. 

While, thanks to the leadership of President Biden, everyday 

families will be spared the worst of this misguided proposal, it is 

apparent the Republican leadership continues to advance their draconian cuts even today. 

These cuts are most apparent in the projected 40-percent cut to 

the EPA budget, an agency founded on the principle of safeguarding the health of our citizens and our natural environment. 

If the latest House Republican proposal becomes law, rural and 

coastal communities will be most vulnerable to the effects of ex-
6 

treme weather events and flooding. Fewer families, grandparents, 

and children will have access to clean air or clean water, and our 

treasured regional water bodies, such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and the Florida Everglades, will be placed at greater 

risk. 

I am further dismayed by the focus on putting polluters over our 

people and eliminating Clean Water Act protections on over half of 

the Nation’s wetlands and up to 70 percent of the Nation’s streams, 

rivers, and lakes. 

Last month, the Supreme Court’s misguided reading of the Clean 

Water Act undermined our Nation’s ability to protect our rivers, 

streams, and other water bodies for our future generations, the 

consequences of which are still undefined. 

Earlier this week, Ranking Member Larsen and I called upon 

EPA and the Corps to start documenting the actual day-to-day impacts of the Sackett decision. The American people deserve to know 

how this decision impacts the protection of the rivers, streams, and 

wetlands in their own backyards and its adverse impact on our 

local businesses and communities. 

I am most concerned the Sackett decision has transferred significant costs from polluters to States, localities, and everyday American families. We can all say we support clean water, but I believe 

those who receive an economic benefit from the activities that may 

pollute our waters should not be able to profit by transferring the 

cost to others. 

I hope we all know that it is always cheaper to prevent pollution 

from occurring than to clean up its aftermath. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. I hope Congress 

and the administration can work together to invest in our water infrastructure and protect our clean water for residential, recreational, and environmental use. 

Mr. Chairman, I welcome our agency witnesses here today, and 

thank you for your continued service. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

[Mrs. Napolitano’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Water Resources and Environment 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on President Biden’s fiscal 

year 2024 budget and priorities for the remaining agencies within the jurisdiction 

of this Subcommittee. 

I welcome our federal witnesses here today—many of whom I have spoken to 

often about the unique water resources challenges facing our nation and the regions 

and communities we are honored to represent. 

I want to extend a special welcome to Assistant Administrator Fox and Commissioner Giner. The federal agencies and offices you serve have seen, firsthand, the 

challenges posed by climate change and extreme weather, including persistent 

drought, in providing continued clean, safe, reliable, and affordable water and 

wastewater services for the nation. 

Thank you for your continued and dedicated service to our nation. 

Mr. Chairman, annual budget proposals of the administration and Congressional 

leaders provide valuable insight into the goals and priorities of their authors. 

Annual budgets provide an objective way to compare competing visions for the future of our country and for what we stand for in representing our constituents. 

This year, the contrasts are stark and telling. 
7 

The Biden administration’s proposal lays out a bold vision to grow the economy 

from the bottom up, to invest in cleaner, greener, and more accessible infrastructure, to create jobs and opportunities for all people, and to restore and protect our 

environment. 

That is the same vision shared by House Democrats, who, last Congress, passed 

the largest infrastructure investments in over a generation through the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as other transformational infrastructure investment bills, such as the first reauthorization of the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund in its history. 

With each dollar invested and each new water and wastewater infrastructure 

project implemented, everyday Americans will continue to reap the benefits of these 

transformational laws through reduced transportation congestion, cleaner air and 

cleaner water, and a safer, more resilient, and more livable environment. 

Mr. Chairman, House Democrats specifically tailored these investments to address the affordability concerns facing many minority, rural, and tribal communities—ensuring that all Americans, regardless of zip code, should have access to 

clean, safe, and reliable drinking and wastewater services. 

However, I remain concerned that the current Republican leadership of the House 

is moving this country in a direction contrary to the will of the American people. 

For example, House Republican leadership advanced a debt limit proposal that 

sought to hold hostage the ‘‘full faith and credit’’ of our economy while blindly slashing critical investments in our economy, our infrastructure, and our quality of life. 

While, thanks to the leadership of President Biden, everyday families were spared 

the worse of this misguided proposal, it is apparent that Republican leadership continues to advance their draconian cuts even today. 

These cuts are most apparent in the projected 40 percent cut to the budget of 

EPA—an agency founded on the principal of safeguarding the health of our citizens 

and our natural environment. 

Mr. Chairman, every week, there is another story about the impacts of climate 

change on our communities—whether it be the extreme rains in the Northeast, excessive heat in the South and Southwest, or continued drought conditions in communities across the U.S. However, if the House Republican proposal becomes law, 

all our communities will be more vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events 

and flooding—especially those least able to afford measures to make their communities more resilient, such as rural, tribal, and minority communities. 

If the House Republican proposal becomes law, fewer Americans will have access 

to clean water and clean air, and our treasured regional waterbodies, such as the 

Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Florida Everglades, will be placed at 

greater risk. 

I am further dismayed by their focus on putting polluters over people and eliminating Clean Water Act protections on over half of the nation’s wetlands and up to 

70 percent of the nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes. 

Last month, the Supreme Court’s misguided reading of the Clean Water Act undermined our nation’s ability to protect our rivers, streams, and other waterbodies 

for future generations—the consequences of which are still undefined. 

Earlier this week, we called upon EPA and the Corps to start documenting the 

actual, day-to-day impacts of the Sackett decision. The American people deserve to 

know how this decision impacts the protection of the rivers, streams, and wetlands 

in their own backyards and its adverse economic impact on our local businesses and 

communities. 

I am most concerned that the Sackett decision has transferred significant costs 

from polluters to states, localities, and everyday American families. 

We can all say we support clean water—but I believe that those who receive an 

economic benefit from activities that may pollute our waters should not be able to 

profit by transferring that cost to others. 

I hope we all know that it is always cheaper to prevent pollution from occurring 

than to clean up its aftermath. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the Congress and the Administration can work together to invest in our water infrastructure and protect clean 

water for residential, recreational, environmental, and economic uses. 

Mr. Chairman, I welcome our agency witnesses here today, thank you for your 

continued service, and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROUZER. I thank the gentlelady. 

I note that the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen, is here. I recognize him for 5 minutes if he so chooses. 
8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

Mr. LARSEN OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Chair Rouzer and 

Ranking Member Napolitano, for holding the second hearing on the 

administration’s fiscal year 2024 budget request for agencies within 

the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. 

First, I want to congratulate Grace Napolitano on her service to 

the U.S. House and to the United States. 

[Applause.] 

Since 2007, Grace has been a trailblazing member of this committee, fighting to make our waters cleaner and our transportation 

systems safer and greener. As former chair of the subcommittee, 

Grace was instrumental in delivering historic, bipartisan solutions 

to national, regional, and local water resources challenges, shepherding four of the last five WRDA bills and advancing the first reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in its history. 

She has been a tireless advocate for smart, resilient water policy 

and robust water investments, making sure that her communities—and sometimes the rest of us, but I know she has been a 

tireless advocate for her communities—and communities across the 

U.S. are prepared for the challenging that they will face with the 

changing climate. 

And, finally, she has been a leader in ensuring a voice for our 

underrepresented communities including communities of color and 

Tribal communities. 

I wish her the best for the remainder of her service here, as well 

as for her endeavors after she is done in Congress. But she still has 

work to do, and we still have need of her here for quite some time. 

And, Mr. Chair, I will now shift a little bit to the hearing, as 

well. These budget hearings offer important opportunities to discuss how the administration’s priorities for Federal agencies we 

oversee line up with congressional priorities and expectations. 

This committee’s oversight and responsibility over the EPA and 

other agencies on the panel today extends to money that has already been appropriated including through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In the BIL, on a bipartisan basis, Congress affirmed 

its commitment to water infrastructure with a significant investment, $12.7 billion in Federal money, for upgrading wastewater 

systems, preventing pollution, and supporting restoration programs 

like those in the Puget Sound where I am from. 

These investments are critical, providing a lifeline to communities across the country struggling to maintain water quality. 

Members who voted for the BIL voted for clean water. We have 

consistently supported investments in water infrastructure to protect public health and the work that the EPA and other agencies 

do in support of this clean water mission. 

I know firsthand the importance of the EPA’s regional watershed 

program for the Puget Sound. The increased focus and Federal resources associated with EPA’s regional programs for the sound, the 

Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and other critical regional water 

bodies are vitally important to our communities and to the members on this committee. 
9 

Clean bodies of water enhance quality of life, the economy, and 

the health of the communities that surround them. Maintaining robust Federal funding for EPA and defending against potential cuts 

in the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process will continue to be 

a top priority for House Democrats. 

All of the agencies here today provide important services when 

it comes to clean water across the country. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service assists local communities in carrying out watershed projects for flood protection, 

water management, and ecosystem enhancement. 

NOAA has many programs and activities, including work on 

harmful algal blooms and the National Coastal Zone Management 

Program. 

The International Boundary and Water Commission implements 

the various boundary and water treaties between the U.S. and 

Mexico, with its impacts felt from the Tijuana River to the Rio 

Grande. 

And, finally, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is a vital part of the Nation’s public health system that assesses the presence and nature of health hazards at Superfund 

sites. I would note, from what I understand, that the Agency deployed 15 percent of their staff to East Palestine recently just to 

deal with one train derailment. 

So, I look forward to the testimony today and thank each of our 

witnesses for your participation in today’s hearing. 

With that, I yield back. 

[Mr. Larsen of Washington’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

Thank you, Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member Napolitano for holding this 

second hearing on the Administration’s FY 2024 budget request for agencies within 

the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

First, let me congratulate Ranking Member Napolitano on her service to Congress 

and the United States. Since 2007, Grace has been a trailblazing member of this 

Committee—fighting to make our waters cleaner and our transportation system 

safer and greener. 

As former Chair of this Subcommittee, Grace was instrumental in delivering historic, bipartisan solutions to national, regional, and local water resources challenges—shepherding four of the last five WRDA bills and advancing the first reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in its history. 

She has been a tireless advocate for smart, resilient water policy and robust water 

investments—making sure that her communities and communities across the 

United States are prepared for the challenges they will face with a changing climate. 

Finally, Grace has been a leader in ensuring a voice for our underrepresented 

communities, including communities of color and tribal communities. 

I wish her the very best for the remainder of her service and for her future endeavors after her time in Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, these budget hearings offer important opportunities to discuss how 

the administration’s priorities for the federal agencies we oversee line up with congressional priorities and expectations. 

The Committee’s oversight responsibility over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies on the panel today extends to money that has already 

been appropriated, including by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). 

In the BIL, on a bipartisan basis, Congress affirmed its commitment to water infrastructure with a significant investment—$12.7 billion in federal dollars for up-
10 

grading wastewater systems, preventing pollution and supporting restoration programs in places like the Puget Sound where I’m from. 

These investments are critical, providing a lifeline to communities across the 

country struggling to maintain water quality. Members who voted for the BIL voted 

for clean water. 

We have consistently supported investments in water infrastructure to protect 

public health and the work EPA and other agencies do in support of this clean 

water mission. 

I know firsthand the importance of the EPA’s regional watershed program for the 

Puget Sound. 

The increased focus and federal resources associated with EPA’s regional programs for the Puget Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and other critical 

regional waterbodies, are vitally important to the communities Members on this 

Committee represent. 

Clean bodies of water enhance the quality of life, the economy and the health of 

the communities that surround them. Maintaining robust federal funding for EPA, 

and defending against potential cuts in the FY2024 appropriations process, will continue to be a top priority for House Democrats. All the agencies here today provide 

important services when it comes to clean water across the country. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service assists local communities in carrying 

out watershed projects for flood protection, water management, and ecosystem enhancement. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has many programs and 

activities, including work on harmful algal blooms and National Coastal Zone Management. 

The International Boundary and Water Commission implements the various 

boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico, with its impact 

felt from the Tijuana River to the Rio Grande. 

And finally, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is a vital part 

of our nation’s public health system that assesses the presence and nature of health 

hazards at Superfund sites. I would note that 15 percent of their staff was sent to 

East Palestine just to deal with one train derailment. 

I look forward to the testimony and thank each of the witnesses for your participation in today’s hearing. 

Mr. ROUZER. I thank the ranking member. 

I would now like to welcome our witnesses, and I certainly thank 

each of you for being here today. 

We have the Honorable Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator 

for the Office of Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Dr. Maria-Elena Giner? Is it Giner? Is that correct? 

Ms. GINER. Very good. 

Mr. ROUZER. Commissioner of the United States Section of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission; Mr. Louis Aspey, 

Associate Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service at 

the Department of Agriculture which does a fine job; Dr. Aaron 

Bernstein, Director of the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry; and then Ms. Nicole LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Again, thank each of you for being here today. 

I think you are quite familiar probably with the light system. 

But green means go. Yellow means red is right around the corner. 

And red, of course, means wrap it up as quickly as you can. 

I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

As your written testimony has been made part of the record, the 

subcommittee asks, as I just mentioned a minute ago, that you 
11 

limit your remarks to 5 minutes. And, again, I appreciate each of 

you being here. 

And we will start with Administrator Fox. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; MARIA-ELENA GINER, PH.D., P.E., COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION; LOUIS ASPEY, ASSOCIATE 

CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AARON BERNSTEIN, M.D., 

M.P.H., DIRECTOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND 

DISEASE REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

PREVENTION; AND NICOLE R. LEBOEUF, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. FOX. Good afternoon, Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, members of the subcommittee. 

I am Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss EPA’s budget request 

for water programs for fiscal year 2024 and to also update you on 

the Agency’s efforts to ensure clean and safe water for all Americans. 

But before I do that, Ranking Member Napolitano, I want to congratulate you on your retirement, and thank you for your decades 

of service. As you know, we have known each other for a long time. 

We first met when I worked for a local water agency in California. 

And I just have to say you are a true champion for water, not only 

for your district, but for the Nation. And you will be deeply missed. 

Thank you. 

So, there is nothing more essential than clean and safe water. 

Yet, if you think back to where we were as a Nation just 50 years 

ago, our waters were so polluted that rivers were literally on fire. 

Rivers ran in color. That was just 50 years ago. 

And the American people said, enough is enough. Our waters 

matter. They are worthy of protection. And it is this very committee that acted. They wrote the Clean Water Act, and they shepherded it through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. 

And with the Clean Water Act, we set an ambitious goal for ourselves. Congress said let us be a Nation that goes from rivers on 

fire to ensuring that our waters are fishable and swimmable for 

every American. 

And with the Clean Water Act as our North Star, America has 

made tremendous progress in protecting and restoring our rivers, 

lakes, streams, and oceans. 

But there is much work that remains to be done to ensure clean 

and safe water for all Americans. Too many waters remain polluted 

in this country. Too many Americans still lack access to adequate 
12 

sanitation, stormwater, and drinking water services. We can and 

we must do better. 

That is why the President’s 2024 budget request includes nearly $6 billion for EPA water programs, about half of the Agency’s overall budget. These resources will enable the Agency to support 

States, Tribes, Territories, and local governments to provide clean 

and safe water for all communities. 

So, I wanted to begin my update by really highlighting some of 

the work that we are doing to address America’s aging water infrastructure. 

Thanks to bipartisan congressional action, EPA is investing more 

than $50 billion through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in local 

water projects, and nearly $13 billion of that will go through the 

Clean Water SRF Program. 

While historic, these resources fall short of the need at the local 

level. That is why the budget proposal provides more than $4 billion for water infrastructure, an increase of $1 billion over the 2023 

enacted level. This includes about $1.6 billion for the Clean Water 

SRF Program, $280 million for the Sewer Overflow and 

Stormwater Reuse Program, and $80 million to support the Water 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA. 

And let me just say on WIFIA, this has been a tremendous success story. Since 2014, WIFIA has helped communities from 

Pflugerville, Texas, to Los Angeles, California. EPA has financed 

more than $38 billion in water infrastructure projects through 

WIFIA. We have saved ratepayers, the American ratepayers, more 

than $6 billion, and we have created more than 130,000 jobs. 

Now, WIFIA is just one example of the power of EPA water infrastructure programs to deliver for the American people, and I 

want to thank this committee for your ongoing support of that program. The budget also invests about $715 million in our place-based 

programs, treasured water bodies from the Great Lakes to the Gulf 

of Mexico, from the Outer Banks to the Puget Sound. EPA’s budget 

proposal also includes $170 million to tackle PFAS pollution including $60 million for water-related programs. 

So, I want to close by calling for continued partnership. Our ability to ensure clean and safe water for all will be determined by the 

strength of our partnerships including the one between the administration and Congress. 

That is why I am just so honored to join you all today. I thank 

you for the opportunity, and I look forward to the discussion. 

Thank you. 

[Ms. Fox’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Good afternoon, Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Radhika Fox and I have the great honor of serving as the 

Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss EPA’s 

budget request for water programs for Fiscal Year 2024, and to highlight the work 

we are doing, stewarding these precious taxpayer resources, on behalf of the American people. 
13 

Clean and safe water is an essential foundation to protect human health, to ensure thriving ecosystems, and to drive a strong economy. Just over 50 years ago, 

this Committee wrote and shepherded through Congress the Clean Water Act with 

broad bipartisan support, establishing the goal that our Nation’s treasured waters 

be fishable and swimmable, and giving to EPA the authority and responsibility to 

address pollution, protect wetlands and water resources, and improve wastewater 

and stormwater infrastructure. These goals remain central to President Biden’s, Administrator Regan’s, and my own values, and to our approach to implementing all 

of our Clean Water Act programs. Although we have made immense progress to 

achieve these goals, there is much work that remains to be done. We continue to 

make great strides to protect the integrity of our Nation’s waters, but many remain 

polluted or threatened. So, too, have we made progress in improving our Nation’s 

clean water infrastructure, yet too many people in this country still lack access to 

adequate drinking water, sanitation, and stormwater infrastructure. That is why in 

FY 2024, the President’s budget requests nearly $6 billion for EPA’s water programs—just under half of the Agency’s total $12.1 billion request. These resources 

will enable the Agency to continue our work with federal, Tribal, state, local, and 

nongovernmental partners to provide clean and safe water for all communities, advance water quality science, and protect America’s waters for today’s and future 

generations. 

Before turning to our budget requests, I want to take a moment to recognize and 

express my profound gratitude to the incredible career staff in the EPA’s Office of 

Water, and in our Regional Water Divisions. Their dedication, technical expertise, 

and hard work are delivering on this Administration’s promise to protect our Nation’s waters and rebuild America’s water infrastructure. 

ACHIEVE CLEAN AND SAFE WATER THROUGH INVESTING IN AMERICA’S WATER

INFRASTRUCTURE

When I was last invited to appear before this committee to discuss our FY 2022 

budget, I highlighted the promise of what was, at the time, a proposal for more than 

$50 billion in the then-Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework. Thanks to President 

Biden’s leadership, and bipartisan action in Congress, that framework is now the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and we are delivering on that promise for every person in this country. 

At EPA, we are delivering on that promise by investing in America—as the President says, from the bottom up and the middle out—and by upgrading and renewing 

our Nation’s water infrastructure. We’re working to ensure that no community, however small, rural, or disadvantaged, is left out. As you know, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes more than $50 billion for our Nation’s water infrastructure— 

and an unprecedented $13 billion of it will flow through our Clean Water State Revolving loan funds. These investments will play a critical role in reversing decades 

of underinvestment, disinvestment, and neglect. Aging wastewater and stormwater 

systems dot our counties and states. Many of them are still addressing 20th century 

challenges, some even using 19th century pipes, while striving to meet the pivotal 

issues that will define the 21st century, from climate change to per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

As we look to FY 2024, we will continue our close partnership with states to implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and look to build on that success with 

the President’s budget. The Budget provides more than $4 billion for water infrastructure, an increase of $1 billion over the 2023 enacted level—including more than 

$1.6 billion to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Budget also provides resources for additional infrastructure grant and loan programs administered by EPA, 

such as $280 million to the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse program. In addition to creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying American jobs, these resources would advance efforts to upgrade wastewater, stormwater, and drinking 

water infrastructure nationwide, with a focus on underserved and small rural communities that need these resources most. 

While it lies outside the jurisdiction of this committee, I will also note that, to 

further the President’s goal of replacing all lead pipes within the next decade, the 

Budget proposes $219 million for two grant programs dedicated to remediating lead 

contamination in water—EPA’s Reducing Lead in Drinking Water grant program 

and EPA’s Lead Testing in Schools grant program. 

Also included in this budget is $80 million to support the Water Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program. Earlier this year, EPA celebrated the closing of its 100th WIFIA loan. Since its establishment in 2014, this 

EPA program has helped communities leverage more than $18 billion in credit assistance to finance more than $38 billion in water infrastructure projects around the 
14 

Nation. By providing lower-than-market interest rates, WIFIA loans for these 

projects have saved communities—like Pflugerville, TX and Los Angeles, CA—more 

than $6 billion, which can be used for additional infrastructure investment and to 

keep rates affordable for families and small businesses. These WIFIA-financed 

projects have created more than 130,000 jobs and benefited more than 57 million 

people, demonstrating that WIFIA credit assistance is an effective tool to help address critical water infrastructure needs. 

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR COMMUNITIES THROUGH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

We also know that to protect public health and to ensure clean water across 

America, we need to ensure that ALL communities benefit from these investments. 

Too many disadvantaged communities across rural, suburban, and urban areas have 

not received their fair share of funding. We can and will do better. That’s why we 

are standing up an unprecedented technical assistance effort to level the playing 

field for communities who have too often been left behind. In the last year, we’ve 

committed $150 million to provide technical assistance through our 29 Environmental Finance Centers around the country, and launched two partnership initiatives—the Closing the Wastewater Access Gap initiative and our Lead Service Line 

Accelerators initiative. These efforts will develop capacity to unlock investments in 

underserved communities, and our FY 2024 budget request will help us expand on 

those efforts. 

For example, in addition to continuing to provide resources to support communities through our Environmental Finance Centers, the budget also funds all of the 

technical assistance and targeted grant programs from the Drinking Water and 

Wastewater Infrastructure Act (DWWIA) of 2021, which was authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These include an $18 million dedicated technical assistance grant program for wastewater treatment works, a $10 million Small and 

Medium Publicly Owned Treatment Works Circuit Rider Program, a $25 million 

Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Grant Program, and a $20 

million Wastewater Efficiency Grant Pilot Program. Strategic technical assistance 

will be central to the legacy that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will deliver for 

the American People. 

PROTECT AMERICA’S TREASURED WATERS THROUGH PLACE-BASED INVESTMENTS

From the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, and from Albemarle Sound to Puget 

Sound, the United States is home to treasured water bodies of ecological, cultural, 

and economic significance. With partnerships that span across federal agencies; 

state, Tribal, and local governments; and interstate and non-governmental organizations, these financial assistance programs leverage federal resources to achieve 

outsize impacts for communities across America’s Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf, Caribbean, 

and inland coasts. The Budget invests nearly $715 million in our Geographic, National Estuary, and other place-based and coastal programs, which deliver technical 

and financial assistance to address critical—and locally identified—watershed priorities. These resources will help clean up pollution, reverse habitat loss, build coastal 

resilience to storms and other climate impacts, and protect culturally and economically important fisheries and waters beloved by communities across America. 

PROVIDE FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO MITIGATE POLLUTION AND

IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

The Budget provides $493 million in financial support through Categorical Grant 

Programs to EPA’s Tribal, state, and local partners to support their efforts in implementing key provisions of the Clean Water Act. Within this amount, $279 million 

is provided to the Section 106 Grants Program, an increase of more than $42 million 

from the FY 2023 enacted budget. These resources would fund state, interstate, and 

Tribal water pollution control programs to assess and mitigate pollution, and expand and implement water quality programs to protect and restore our Nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. The Budget also includes $189 million for the 

Section 319 Grants Program, which is an important tool to reduce nonpoint source 

pollution and restore impaired waterbodies to meet water quality standards, and 

protect clean waters. 

ACCELERATE EFFORTS TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM PFAS POLLUTION

In FY 2024, EPA will continue to work across environmental programs to advance 

agency efforts to tackle PFAS pollution. As part of the President’s commitment to 

addressing PFAS pollution, and consistent with EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, 
15 

the FY 2024 Budget provides approximately $170 million for EPA’s overall PFAS 

efforts, including work to increase our understanding of PFAS and their human 

health and ecological effects; minimize PFAS entering our Nation’s waters; and protect people and aquatic life from these chemicals. The Budget requests almost $60 

million to EPA in additional funding for water programs to enable the Agency to 

move more quickly on policy and regulatory actions across relevant statutory authorities. This includes not only significant Clean Water Act efforts within this Committee’s jurisdiction—such as making critical progress on Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines for industries that discharge PFAS—but also the Agency’s recent proposal under the Safe Drinking Water Act to set enforceable limits for six PFAS in 

drinking water. If finalized, this rule will prevent thousands of deaths and tens of 

thousands of avoidable illnesses. EPA will also continue its efforts in FY 2024 to 

develop analytical methods, drinking water health advisories, toxicity values, and 

risk assessments, as well as risk communication and other tools to support states, 

tribes, and localities in managing PFAS in their communities. This funding complements and informs the implementation of the nearly $10 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law resources dedicated to addressing PFAS and other emerging contaminants. 

ENSURE CLEAN WATER AND HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS ACROSS THE NATION

We are also working to ensure that EPA fulfills its statutory responsibilities, included under the Clean Water Act, to protect the health of the American people and 

the integrity of our waters. As we do so, we are committed to grounding our regulatory and rulemaking approaches on a foundation of science, the law, and partnerships with our state and Tribal co-regulators—and informed by robust stakeholder 

engagement. 

The Budget includes $268 million for the Surface Water Protection Program, an 

increase of $43.5 million over the FY 2023 enacted level, to support efforts to protect, improve, and restore the quality of our Nation’s coastal waters, rivers, lakes, 

wetlands, and streams. 

CONCLUSION

Our ability to achieve these goals—ensuring clean and safe water, protecting 

water resources and wetlands, and improving our Nation’s wastewater and 

stormwater infrastructure—will be determined by the strength of our partnerships. 

None of these goals will be possible without strong collaboration between the Executive and Legislative branches. That is why I am so honored to join you today. Once 

again, Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the FY 2024 President’s Budget 

for the EPA’s National Water Program. I look forward to answering any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Ms. Fox. 

Ms. Giner. 

TESTIMONY OF MARIA-ELENA GINER, PH.D., P.E., COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION 

Ms. GINER. So, this is my first time doing this. So, thank you for 

the opportunity to do this. 

My name is Maria-Elena Giner. I am from the International 

Boundary and Water Commission. 

Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you so much for this opportunity to testify 

regarding our fiscal year 2024 budget. 

The U.S. IBWC, or the International Boundary and Water Commission, may be one of the most interesting agencies you’ve never 

heard of. Our mission is part engineering and part diplomacy. We 

resolve issues that arise in applying the U.S.-Mexican water and 

boundary treaties along the 2,000-mile border. 
16 

The agency maintains two international wastewater treatment 

plants, two major international storage dams with hydroelectric 

powerplants, four diversion dams, over 500 miles of levees, and 

20,000 acres of flood plain. We also manage water deliveries from 

the Colorado River to Mexico and from six tributaries from Mexico 

to the Rio Grande. 

At a time of historic drought, our value is even more important 

as we try to conserve water, to leave water in the Colorado River, 

as well as to seek deliveries of water from Mexico to the Rio 

Grande for use by our farmers in south Texas. 

U.S. IBWC appreciates Congress’ increased attention to environmental justice. We serve mostly impoverished communities. Many 

of our border counties have less than one-half of per capita income 

than their State averages, and the combined local and Federal dollars have not met growing infrastructure needs. 

These vulnerable communities that we have been entrusted to 

serve with their youthful populations and heavy communities of 

color need our help. 

My staff also faces some of the same resource challenges as the 

public they serve. We regularly borrow equipment from field offices 

hundreds of miles away. It has been hard to recruit and retain employees in the remote border locations of most of our 11 field offices. 

Fortunately—and we are very grateful for the fiscal year 2023 

funding increases. U.S. IBWC is now investing in heavy equipment 

and raising pay for hard-to-fill positions. In the coming months, we 

will be contracting an asset management plan to identify the maintenance needed to maintain this federally owned infrastructure, 

and offset any expensive future capital repairs. 

Now, from our construction priorities for fiscal year 2024, we envision using our 2024 funding for three major projects. One is for 

Amistad Dam which is a dam that is ranked 11th in conservation 

capacity in the United States and has been categorized by the 

Army Corps of Engineers as potentially unsafe. It is the main 

source of water for south Texas. 

IBWC plans to install grout curtains in the dam’s base, while 

drilling to determine the depth and cost of a cutoff wall. To date, 

we have received $30 million in multiple-year appropriations to get 

us started. 

In Nogales, Arizona, U.S. IBWC will spend $600,000 to repair an 

international wastewater treatment plant which is currently in 

noncompliance, because it has exceeded its plant capacity in recent 

months. These excess flows, as well as high levels of metals and 

nitrates, have led to noncompliance with the Clean Water Act 

standards. 

All of our fiscal year 2024 construction funds, nearly $40 million 

in the budget of fiscal year 2024, will be realigned to rehabilitate 

the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in California. After a recent assessment of the plant’s condition, U.S. 

IBWC has estimated that the repairs cost is on the order of $105 

million and must be done before we can expand the plant with the 

$300 million that has been allocated under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada 

Agreement. 
17 

The rehabilitation’s high pricetag results from an aging plant 

built in 1997 and years of deferred maintenance. Between 2010 and 

2020, U.S. IBWC only made $4 million worth of capital repairs at 

the plant. Once expanded, the plant will reduce cross-border wastewater flows by as much as 80 percent, and reduce the number of 

norovirus-related illness by up to two-thirds. 

My testimony provides details of the fiscal year 2024 budget request for $104.824 million. 

Thank you. 

[Ms. Giner’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Maria-Elena Giner, Ph.D., P.E., Commissioner, 

United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission 

Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the Fiscal Year 2024 budget request for the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, 

United States and Mexico (USIBWC). We welcome the opportunity to discuss opportunities to improve infrastructure and the quality of life in the United States along 

the U.S. border with Mexico. 

Everything the USIBWC does safeguards the lives, health, property and prosperity of U.S. citizens residing in the border area, whether agency activities are related to flood prevention, water pollution mitigation, or the efficient and equitable 

distribution between the United States and Mexico of water from the Colorado River 

and the Rio Grande. Promoting environmental justice is at the forefront of our concerns, since the border communities we serve are some of the most disadvantaged 

in the United States: the average income in most border counties is less than half 

the average of the states in which they are located. These communities often lack 

the resources to effectively manage challenges such as the historic drought in the 

American Southwest or cross-border wastewater flows entering the United States 

from Mexico. 

The USIBWC’s mission is to provide binational solutions to issues that arise during the application of treaties between the United States and Mexico regarding, 

among other things, water quality and flood control in the border region, including 

constructing, rehabilitating, operating and maintaining flood control systems, storage dams with hydroelectric power plants, and wastewater treatment plants, as directed by Congress. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is 

an international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, each headed by an Engineer Commissioner appointed by the President of their country. Each 

Section is funded and administered independently of the other. The U.S. Section is 

an independent federal agency that operates under the foreign policy guidance of 

the U.S. Department of State and is funded through the annual Department of 

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. 

For over a century, the IBWC has worked to promote bi-national cooperation and 

partnership, dating back to the temporary boundary commissions established by the 

Treaty of Guadalupe, the Gadsden Treaty, and an 1882 Convention to map the 

international boundary between the United States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexican governments established what became the IBWC (then the International Boundary Commission) in 1889, initially to resolve boundary-related differences arising 

along the border. The 1944 U.S.-Mexico water treaty established the key organizational components of the modern-day IBWC and its two sections. Today, the IBWC 

is charged with applying binational boundary and water treaties, including water 

distribution and flood management of the transboundary rivers. 

The USIBWC’s activities include: 

• preservation and demarcation of the international land boundary along the 

States of California, Arizona and New Mexico, and Texas, including at international ports of entry; 

• preservation and demarcation of the international boundary defined by the Rio 

Grande along the State of Texas and the Colorado River along the State of Arizona, including at international bridges; 

• determination and accounting for national ownership of the waters of the Rio 

Grande and Colorado River and allocation of water between Mexico and the 

United States during severe drought; 
18 

• operation and maintenance of flood control systems consisting of over 500 miles 

of river and floodway levees, 20,000 acres of floodplains, 700 hydraulic structures, 100 hydrologic gaging stations, and four diversion dams; • operation and maintenance of two international storage dams and associated 

hydro-electric power plants; • operation and maintenance of two wastewater treatment facilities in the United 

States; • maintenance of two international bridges in the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez area; • water quality monitoring for bi-national IBWC-approved projects and exchange 

of data; and • review of all plans for new international bridges, border crossings, and pipe and 

power lines that cross the international boundary to ensure compliance with 

boundary treaty requirements. 

PRIORITY ISSUES

Water Delivery 

As the Western United States faces unprecedented severe drought conditions, the 

USIBWC’s ability to negotiate international agreements, known as Minutes, with 

Mexico under the 1944 Water Treaty allows our respective countries to develop solutions to current issues, and our water accounting function helps ensure the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers is in accordance with the treaties and Minutes. For the Colorado River basin, USIBWC helped 

develop and implement Minutes 319 and 323, ensuring that if the United States 

makes a shortage declaration, Mexico will take cuts to Colorado River water deliveries along with the Lower Colorado River Basin in the United States. The Bureau 

of Reclamation made shortage declarations in 2021 and 2022, forcing automatic 

water delivery cuts, and expects to make a similar declaration in August 2023. 

USIBWC’s budget provides for work to implement drought planning and water conservation in the Colorado River Basin, including working with Reclamation and 

Mexico to prepare to implement cuts in Mexico. We are consulting with other federal agencies with the aim of building a climate science department within the 

USIBWC, to better forecast anticipated precipitation levels. 

Since 2021, Mexico has saved water under the Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan agreed to in Minute 323, a plan that complements savings undertaken 

in the United States under the domestic Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan approved by Congress in 2019. Under the terms of Minute 323 and related Minutes, 

Mexico has conserved hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water, adding to volumes conserved in the United States, to help boost Lake Mead elevation and delay 

or reduce mandatory reductions to users in both countries. Past Mexican conservation has raised Lake Mead’s elevation as much as three feet. 

On the Rio Grande in Texas, under the 1944 Water Treaty, Mexico is required 

to deliver water from the Rio Grande to the United States, meeting designated volumes for five-year cycles. For the water delivery cycle that ended in October 2020, 

USIBWC was instrumental in ensuring Mexico finished without a water debt. As 

part of the 2020 IBWC agreement stipulating arrangements for Mexico’s end-of-cycle 

water deliveries, the two countries agreed to negotiate another agreement by December 2023 to ensure more predictable and reliable water deliveries. The U.S.- 

Mexican negotiations on this latest Rio Grande agreement are well under way. 

In the current treaty-designated five-year water delivery cycle, Mexico has delivered volumes near historical lows, providing only 45 percent of the volumes expected 

at this stage. The growing shortfalls could become unmanageable, making it difficult 

for Mexico to comply with treaty requirements. USIBWC is negotiating with Mexican officials to provide tools to make deliveries earlier in the five-year cycle. 

Sanitation—San Diego, California 

Another of the Commission’s top priorities is addressing sanitation conditions 

along the U.S.-Mexico border. To that end, USIBWC operates and maintains two binational wastewater treatment facilities at San Diego, California (South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant) and Nogales, Arizona, and participates with 

Mexico in its operation of a facility in Mexico that discharges into the Rio Grande 

River near Laredo, Texas. In the early 1990s when NAFTA was being drafted and 

implemented, Mexico made major investments in sanitation infrastructure with substantial U.S. cost-shares through entities like the Border Environment Cooperation 

Commission, the North American Development Bank, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The San Diego wastewater treatment facility was also constructed during this time. However, rapid economic and demographic growth along 

Mexico’s northern border with the United States did not bring proportionate Mexi-
19 

can investments in infrastructure or maintenance of the existing infrastructure, particularly in water and sanitation. As a result, much of that infrastructure is coming 

to the end of its useful life. This results in increased operations and maintenance 

costs at USIBWC’s facilities and recurring sewage spills across the border into the 

United States. 

For decades, nearby communities have had to cope with the transboundary wastewater flows between Tijuana and San Diego. Despite massive U.S. investment in 

the City of Tijuana’s collection system, that system has aged, and the city’s population has grown since the mid-1990s. During rainstorms or wet weather in Tijuana 

and when pipelines or pumps break, water flows to the Tijuana River and canyons 

and mixes with unknown amounts of urban runoff, treated effluent from the Tijuana River, and wastewater in Mexico before flowing into the United States. During dry weather, the runoff is largely groundwater and some untreated flows from 

illegal connections in Mexico (dry-weather flows); during storms, this runoff mixes 

with large amounts of rainfall (wet-weather flows). Thus, transboundary flows that 

cross the U.S.-Mexico international border can transport pollutants generated in 

Mexico that impact downstream surface waters in the United States. A 2017 Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography study identified 34,000 illnesses per year in nearby 

communities that the contamination could cause. 

Among the factors leading to transboundary flow incidents are aging and 

unmaintained Tijuana sewer lines and pumps, power outages, and wet weather 

flows from storms that overwhelm the capacity of pumps in Mexico that are diverting sewage flows away from the United States. USIBWC uses its relationships with 

Mexican officials to leverage larger solutions than one small agency can achieve on 

its own. We consult closely with U.S. stakeholders and encourage Mexican officials 

to access federal, state, local and private sources to fund repairs. 

In the mid-1990s the IBWC constructed the South Bay plant to treat a limited 

amount of Mexican wastewater sent to the plant primarily from the City of Tijuana’s collection system, before discharging the treated effluent offshore in the Pacific 

Ocean. The collection system in Mexico includes a small-capacity pump in the Tijuana River in Mexico to divert to the South Bay plant the dry-weather flows that 

occur in the river on a regular basis. However, there are two scenarios when the 

flows from Mexico overwhelm South Bay’s capacity. First, when it rains, wastewater 

mixes with stormwater in the Tijuana River and canyons, exceeding Mexico’s capacity to capture the river flows and exceeding the South Bay plant’s treatment capacity. The river simply cannot be stopped from flowing into the United States and no 

single wastewater treatment plant could treat the entire river, which is part of the 

drainage of a watershed that is over 1,700 square miles in size. 

Second, Mexico’s wastewater system sometimes sends flows to the South Bay 

plant that exceed its limited capacity. Over the last several years, pump station failures and leaks in Tijuana’s sewage pipelines have become particularly acute, leading to increased wastewater flow to the United States. These excess flows have put 

tremendous strain on the South Bay plant’s facilities, to include equipment failures 

and loss of primary treatment capability. Plant operators have not been able to perform the essential repairs and maintenance needed to keep the plant in proper operation. Because of the loss of primary treatment and other damaged equipment, 

plant effluent has exceeded the Clean Water Act standards in 15 of 36 categories 

on over 100 occasions since August 2022, resulting in impaired water quality discharges. 

San Diego area communities have expressed growing frustration with the volumes 

of untreated wastewater in the Tijuana River, and with reported shortfalls in funding for the planned rehabilitation and expansion of the South Bay plant. In June, 

18 municipalities in the San Diego area wrote the White House Council on Environmental Quality to request a federal emergency declaration for the Tijuana River 

Valley and the shoreline of Imperial Beach. The aim of the requested declaration 

is to coordinate a multi-agency response and obtain needed funding. 

The USIBWC has worked closely with EPA to coordinate planning for a major expansion of the South Bay plant. In January 2020, Congress appropriated $300 million for border area infrastructure, as part of the United States-Mexico-Canada 

Agreement (USMCA) implementing legislation. The funds were appropriated to EPA 

to design and construct new infrastructure in coordination with eligible public entities. EPA’s environmental review of its priority project, the planned South Bay plant 

expansion, concluded successfully with the June 12, 2023 Record of Decision. The 

decision moved the project to the design and construction phase, and the USIBWC 

began the pre-solicitation process the same day with a ‘‘Sources Sought’’ announcement to produce market research and promote bidder interest in a contract to perform the rehabilitation and expansion of the plant. Last year, Congress provided 

USIBWC with the authority to receive EPA funds for the design and construction 
20 

of the project. Once expanded, the plant will reduce cross-border wastewater flows 

by as much as 80%, and reduce the number of norovirus-related illnesses by up to 

two thirds. In addition, the President’s budget requests additional authorities for 

the USIBWC to receive funds from federal and non-federal entities all along the 

U.S.-Mexico border. The new authorities would match the contributed funds authorities already enjoyed by other U.S. infrastructure agencies, and any contributed 

funds could be used in connection with the South Bay plant expansion or a wide 

range of activities along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. 

Under an August 2022 IBWC Minute, Mexico’s federal government committed to 

$144 million in short-term projects to improve wastewater management in the Tijuana area. These projects, the counterpart to promised U.S. projects such as the 

South Bay plant expansion, include repairs to wastewater collectors, pump station 

upgrades, and projects to re-use treated wastewater. Mexico’s largest planned 

project is the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant at San Antonio de 

los Buenos on the Pacific coast, which will curb pollutants carried to San Diego area 

beaches when ocean currents drift northward. The solicitation for the construction 

is slated to go out this Autumn. In May, EPA and the Mexican National Water 

Commission announced the near-completion of the Oriente Collector rehabilitation 

(it was subsequently completed), and plans to replace the International Collector 

and provide a rehabilitation and flood protection for Pump Station 1, with each 

country providing roughly half of the nearly $30 million cost. 

Sanitation—Nogales, Arizona 

Southeastern Arizona has been impacted by deteriorating international wastewater pipelines in Santa Cruz County known as the Nogales Main Collector Line 

(Trunkline) and the International Outfall Interceptor (IOI). Wastewater from 

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico as well as Nogales and Rio Rico, Arizona, travels through 

the wastewater pipelines to the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(NIWTP), which is operated and maintained by the USIBWC. The condition of the 

IOI deteriorated over the years due to inadequate maintenance by local authorities. 

Through multiple-year appropriations, USIBWC has received $34 million in funding 

to completely rehabilitate the pipeline by installing a new liner inside it. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality obtained state and non-governmental 

funds for a cost share with the federal government. The multi-year rehabilitation 

of the Nogales IOI is needed to avoid adverse environmental impacts and to ensure 

reliable operation of the wastewater collection and treatment system. 

With federal investment in the IOI amounting to tens of millions of dollars, the 

USIBWC seeks to ensure proper maintenance of the rehabilitated pipeline. The 

USIBWC supports congressional efforts to provide authorization and funding to 

transfer ownership of the IOI to the USIBWC. The USIBWC has the expertise to 

ensure proper maintenance of the IOI, and unique international factors make it appropriate for the federal government to take a lead role. Almost 90% of the wastewater carried through the IOI for treatment at NIWTP originates in Mexico. In addition, Transnational Criminal Organizations regularly break into the IOI to insert 

drug bundles in Mexico that they retrieve downstream in the United States. These 

intentional punctures greatly complicate maintenance of the pipeline. By ensuring 

proper maintenance of the IOI, USIBWC will avoid the periodic ruptures that have 

caused raw sewage to flow within the Nogales, Arizona community. 

The amount of Mexican sewage treated at the NIWTP has often exceeded agreed 

limits. In addition, the transboundary flows sometimes include heavy metals primarily from industries in Mexico—the treatment plant cannot remove these contaminants. The metal components, as well as high levels of nitrates in the wastewater, have on a number of occasions caused the plant’s non-compliance with Clean 

Water Act standards. The City of Nogales, Sonora has also accumulated large unpaid balances for the treatment of its wastewater at NIWTP. In coordination with 

the U.S. Department of State, USIBWC has repeatedly pressed Mexico’s federal government to pay the ballooning debt on behalf of the local utility, which currently 

amounts to almost $5 million. 

Flood Control and Dam Safety—Texas 

Dam safety is another one of USIBWC’s top priorities. While the Agency does not 

seek additional funds for its Safety of Dams Program this year, it will use unobligated carryover balances to develop and implement risk mitigation plans. USIBWC 

is working with the Mexican Section to determine the best option to reduce the risk 

of dam failure, which will require a cost share with Mexico. The most recent safety 

inspections have identified urgent or high priority deficiencies at five of the six Rio 

Grande dams operated by the U.S. Section or jointly with the Mexican Section. 

American, International, Retamal, and Falcon Dams received a Dam Safety Action 
21 

Classification (DSAC) of ‘‘High Priority, Conditionally Unsafe,’’ while Amistad Dam 

received a DSAC rating of ‘‘Urgent, Potentially Unsafe.’’ The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers will perform updated safety inspections starting in November. A minimum of $30 million in unobligated carryover funds will be used to implement mitigation measures at Amistad International Dam. The Mexican Section of 

the IBWC hopes later this year to solicit bids on a contract to install two grout curtains in the base of the dam, and at the same time do exploratory drilling to determine the required depth and cost of a composite cut-off wall. About 98 percent of 

the water used in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and Mexico is released 

from Amistad and Falcon Dams, providing potable water for 1.5 million U.S. and 

Mexican border residents. Failure of either of these dams would have catastrophic 

consequences in terms of potential loss of life and property, and damage to the economy in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. 

COMPONENTS OF AGENCY’S PROPOSED 2024 BUDGET

The President’s FY 2024 budget request for the USIBWC Salaries and Expenses 

(S&E) Account is for $64,800,000, an increase of $6,865,000 above the FY 2023 Appropriation of $57,935,000. The requested funds will allow the USIBWC to continue 

critical or urgent maintenance and repairs of its facilities and infrastructure for 

storage, diversion, and flood control of river waters, as well as maintenance of 

USIBWC sanitation projects. The request funds 263 positions and administrative 

costs of the U.S. Section, as well as the funds needed for the continued operation 

and maintenance of the U.S. portion of bi-national infrastructure along the border. 

That infrastructure is required to ensure compliance with treaties and other international agreements between the United States and Mexico that are within the purview of the IBWC. 

As mentioned earlier, the President’s budget requests additional authorities for 

USIBWC—a contributed funds authority. The purpose of the new authority, which 

other U.S. infrastructure agencies possess, would be to accomplish the USIBWC 

mission of water supply, flood protection, eliminating cross-border wastewater flows, 

and boundary maintenance. 

The USIBWC has eight field offices and four satellite offices that span the border 

from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas. Staff in these offices operate and 

maintain projects, including many operated jointly with Mexican Section personnel 

based in companion offices on the Mexican side of the border. Of the $64.8 million 

request, $43.4 million will support continued operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs of existing infrastructure. This activity includes the measurement and determination of the national ownership of boundary waters. 

The S&E funding also covers the U.S. share of O&M for two international wastewater treatment plants, two major international storage dams with associated hydroelectric power plants, four diversion dams, river channel and levee projects, and 

boundary demarcation activities. 

The remaining roughly $21.5 million that is requested for the S&E Account includes $13.9 million for administration, which covers negotiations and supervision 

of joint projects with Mexico to solve international boundary and water problems; 

overall management of the USIBWC; formulation of operating policies and procedures; and financial management, information technology (IT) infrastructure modernization and administrative services to carry out international obligations of the 

United States consistent with international agreements and other authorities. 

In addition, $7.5 million is requested to cover activities in USIBWC’s Engineering 

Department, which support our projects and include technical and environmental 

planning, engineering design and hydraulic studies, construction oversight of new 

projects, and engineering guidance. Other areas include environmental monitoring 

and compliance; surveys and mappings, and investigations to determine the need for 

and feasibility of future projects. Engineering funds also cover the design and management of projects, surveys, studies, and investigations to address international 

boundary and water problems with Mexico in accordance with IBWC treaties and 

agreements. The IBWC participates in multi-agency water quality programs in the 

Rio Grande, Colorado River, New River, and the Pacific Ocean. 

The FY 2024 Construction Account request of roughly $40 million is over $13 million below the FY 2023 President’s Budget of over $53 million. Initially, USIBWC 

intended to use these requested funds for a variety of projects; however, virtually 

all of the funds will be realigned to pay unexpectedly high costs to rehabilitate the 

South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP). Only $600,000 of 

the $40 million construction account will remain dedicated to the initially intended 

function: improvements at the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant, 

where excess flows from Mexico have caused plant non-compliance with Clean 
22 

Water Act standards. All other projects not related to the two U.S.-based wastewater treatment plants will be deferred for one year. 

At SBIWTP, the USIBWC hired a consulting firm as a project manager to help 

plan for the design and construction of the plant expansion, which will use USMCA 

funds to be transferred from EPA. When the project manager performed an assessment of the plant’s current condition, they found a large number of essential repairs. The need for extensive repairs is due to the age of the plant, where many 

components were nearing the end of their life cycles, and low levels of capital repairs in the preceding 10–15 years. The project manager identified $100–$200 million in needed repairs, of which an estimated $105 million worth of repairs are recommended as part of the plant’s expansion. IBWC is consulting with EPA, the State 

Department, and other partners on how these recommendations could be addressed. 

The USIBWC welcomes your support as we implement these important projects 

as part of our mission to address boundary and water issues along the U.S.-Mexico 

border. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Aspey. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS ASPEY, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, NATURAL 

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. ASPEY. Thank you, Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you so much 

for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Mr. ROUZER. Pull your microphone a little closer. 

Mr. ASPEY. Is that better? 

I am a first time, too. Thank you. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony 

on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed programs. 

My name is Louis Aspey, and I am honored to serve as Associate 

Chief of NRCS. I began my career as a civil engineer, and have 

worked on watershed projects for the majority of my professional 

life. Like you, I have seen firsthand the benefits these projects provide to citizens and communities throughout America. 

As one resident with small children in West Virginia said to me 

after a project was completed a few years ago, I don’t need to worry 

when it rains anymore at night. 

NRCS delivers voluntary programs and services that enable producers, landowners, Tribal nations, and others to enhance land 

stewardship, improving the viability of agriculture operations and 

the sustainability of the Nation’s soils, water, and related natural 

resources of non-Federal lands. 

About 70 percent of the Nation’s land is privately owned, making 

stewardship by private landowners and managers critical to the 

health of our agriculture lands and economies. NRCS provides financial assistance and science-based technical assistance to help 

our customers better manage the natural resources of their land. 

Although we administer a wide range of conservation programs, 

today I will focus on NRCS watershed operations and watershed 

rehabilitation programs. Through both of these, NRCS collaborates 

with State and local agencies, Tribal governments, and other Federal agencies to prevent damage caused by erosion, flood water, 

sediment, and provide benefits such as water supply and recreation. 
23 

NRCS works with local government sponsors and individual 

landowners to solve natural resource concerns and related economic problems within watersheds. The watershed operations programs have provided communities with flood prevention, municipal 

and irrigation water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat improvement for over 60 years. It has assisted local project sponsors 

to plan, design, and construct nearly 12,000 dams since 1948. Over 

half of these dams have now exceeded their planned life, and over 

two-thirds will reach this milestone within the next 5 years. 

Projects such as channels, agriculture water management, and 

flood plain relocation are also part of this program, which illustrates the broad flexibility the authority provides to solve complex 

water resources problems on a landscape scale. 

Watershed operations projects are located in all 50 States and 

Territories, and NRCS estimates the average annual benefits to be 

$2.7 billion. This estimate considers categories such as flood damage reduction benefits to homes, businesses, infrastructure, and agriculture. 

In fiscal year 2022, NRCS received $600 million in discretionary 

funding for this program, including $500 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Under BIL, priority was given to projects 

in limited resource areas and historically underserved communities 

where there is a severe need for watershed infrastructure to protect communities from flooding and disaster and address major watershed issues. The remaining $100 million was split across 137 

projects in 37 States and Territories. 

In fiscal year 2022, NRCS also received $50 million in mandatory 

funding that was split between 261 projects in 39 States and Territories. 

The watershed rehabilitation program provides assistance with 

the planning, design, and implementation needed to bring aging 

dams up to current engineering criteria. We prioritize dams that 

pose the greatest risk to public safety. Our efforts extend the service life of dams, bringing them into compliance with applicable 

safety and performance standards. 

In fiscal year 2022, the watershed rehabilitation program received $1 million in mandatory funding, and $118 million from the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This investment recognizes the critical role these structures play in flood management, water supply, 

erosion control, agriculture productivity, recreation, and wildlife 

habitat. This funding helps to repair aging infrastructure, creates 

jobs and commerce, and protects homes and families. 

Of particular importance, almost 2,500 watershed dams are currently classified as high hazard, which means they have the potential for loss of life if they should fail. Less than 1,000 of those dams 

were originally designed as high-hazard criteria, so, most do not 

meet current safety standards. 

Watershed dams are federally assisted, but not federally owned. 

Local project sponsors continually rely on NRCS to provide them 

technical assistance on operation and maintenance of their dams, 

as well as technical and financial assistance to rehabilitate them 

to current safety standards. 
24 

In conclusion, I deeply appreciate Congress’ continued support 

for NRCS and our work to ensure the safety and viability of our 

small watersheds and voluntary conservation on working lands. 

Thank you very much, again, for the opportunity to be here with 

you today. 

[Mr. Aspey’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Louis Aspey, Associate Chief, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer, Subcommittee Ranking Member Napolitano, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony 

on U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

watershed programs. 

NRCS BACKGROUND

The mission of USDA’s NRCS is to deliver conservation solutions, so agriculture 

producers can protect natural resources and feed a growing world. NRCS provides 

programs and services that enable people to enhance their land stewardship activities to protect the viability of their agriculture operations and the nation’s soil, 

water, and related natural resources on non-Federal lands. NRCS supports the rural 

economy by helping private landowners and producers, who make day-to-day decisions about natural resource use and management on non-Federal lands, implement 

conservation measures through technical and financial assistance. Technical assistance provided to farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other private landowners supplies 

the knowledge and tools they need to conserve, maintain, and restore natural resources on the lands they manage. Financial assistance partially offsets the cost to 

install conservation practices necessary to sustain and enhance natural resources 

and improve wildlife habitat. About 70 percent of the land in the United States is 

privately owned, making stewardship by private landowners and land managers 

critical to the health of our agricultural economy. In addition to working directly 

with private landowners, NRCS also works with tribal Nations, units of government, and other eligible sponsors (e.g., water authorities) to deliver technical and 

financial assistance. 

Conservation Technical Assistance: The ability of NRCS to provide Conservation 

Technical Assistance (CTA) to farmers, ranchers, foresters, and landowners across 

the country is core to our mission. Through CTA, NRCS works with landowners and 

managers to develop conservation plans that outline the specific conservation activities needed to improve farm operations and enhance farm environmental sustainability. NRCS partners with third-party private sector entities (known as Technical 

Service Providers, or TSPs) to collaborate and provide technical assistance for conservation planning and activities. Currently, there are 1,012 individuals and more 

than 115 businesses serving as certified TSPs that are available to help program 

participants apply conservation efforts through programs such as the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), 

the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), the Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMA), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), CTA, and 

Watershed programs. The need for TSPs is growing and NRCS has taken steps to 

improve program efficiency through an improved certification process where certification takes 60 days or less; an improved certification system where administrative 

burdens are removed; simplifying the certification process; and adding staff resources to assist TSPs; and more. 

Conservation Programs: NRCS administers a wide range of Farm Bill conservation programs, including EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. These programs make it possible to implement the conservation 

plans that resulted from CTA work. Additionally, while the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) is administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency, NRCS provides 

technical assistance, conservation planning, and support for conservation practice 

implementation and management. NRCS conservation programs are carried out 

through local field offices that provide direct assistance to individual farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other private landowners to restore and improve our shared natural resources. Key priorities about the implementation of these programs and practices are made at the local level with input from Local Working Groups and State 
25 

Technical Committees to ensure local needs, which vary greatly across the country, 

are addressed through voluntary based NRCS programs. 

NRCS WATERSHED PROGRAMS

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 

Through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) account, NRCS 

cooperates with State and local agencies, tribal governments, and other Federal 

agencies to prevent damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and sediment to further 

the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water and advance the 

conservation and utilization of the land. 

WFPO includes the Small Watershed Program, the Flood Prevention Operations 

Program, and may include activities under the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. 

The vast majority of NRCS watershed projects have been built pursuant to the authority of the Small Watershed Program under which NRCS works with local government sponsors and helps participants solve natural resource and related economic problems within watersheds. Watershed projects are limited to 250,000 acres 

and cannot include any single structure that provides more than 12,500 acre-feet 

of floodwater retention capacity, or more than 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. 

Projects may include flood prevention and damage reduction, development of rural 

water supply sources, erosion and sediment control, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, wetland creation and restoration, and increased recreational opportunities. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to support plan development 

and project implementation. 

NRCS can offer suggested conservation practices to individual landowners and 

work with local communities to create vital infrastructure protecting and restoring 

natural resources. NRCS financial and technical assistance for watershed projects 

includes dams that not only offer flood control, but can also offer critical fish and 

wildlife habitat, livestock water, recreation and in some cases municipal water. 

Additionally, Flood Prevention Operations includes projects in 11 watersheds that 

were specifically authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78–534) and 

are much larger than Small Watershed Program projects. The Flood Control Act 

placed a primary focus on watershed protection by preventing floodwater damage 

and stabilizing stream channels, tributaries, and banks to reduce erosion and sediment transport. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act extended these 

authorities to expand NRCS’s ability for delivering additional conservation investments beyond those focused solely on flood damages. Through these programs, 

NRCS has assisted in the construction of more than 11,850 watershed dams that 

help mitigate flooding downstream, offer municipal and industrial water supply, 

provide recreation opportunities, and serve as a source of irrigation for our farmers 

and ranchers. These dams are located in 1,271 watersheds in 47 states and help 

protect numerous farms, businesses, and positively impact millions of people each 

day. 

In FY 2022, the Agency received $600 million in discretionary funding for the 

WFPO account, which included $500 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure 

Law. The $500 million authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has been 

allocated to new and existing watershed projects. NRCS also received $50 million 

in mandatory funding in FY 2022. NRCS provided funding to 261 projects in 39 

States and the territories of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In selecting 

projects for funding, the Agency prioritized addressing drought in the western 

States, projects that would have a positive impact on historically underserved and 

tribal communities, and projects that involved sponsors who had not previously 

worked with the Small Watershed Program. 

In FY 2023, the Agency received $75 million in discretionary funding and $50 million in mandatory funds for the WFPO account. NRCS continues to assess new, remedial and backlog projects submitted for funding across the county. 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program 

The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides technical and financial assistance for the planning, design, and implementation of projects to rehabilitate and extend the service life of aging watershed dams and bring them into compliance with 

applicable safety and performance standards, or to decommission the dams so they 

no longer pose a threat to life and property. While the Watershed Rehabilitation 

Program is a separate account, its activities are included as part of WFPO. Passage 

of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115–334) also authorized $50 million in mandatory funding for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, 

which prioritizes dams that pose the greatest risk to public safety. These dams are 
26 

classified as high hazard potential in the national dam safety classification system. 

All high hazard potential dam project requests from public sponsors will be rehabilitated before dams classified as low or significant hazard potential to public safety. 

The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides up to 65 percent of the total cost 

for dam rehabilitation projects, including the acquisition of land, easements, rightsof-way, project administration, non-Federal technical assistance, and construction. 

NRCS provides technical assistance to conduct studies, develop rehabilitation plans, 

develop environmental impact statements, prepare the engineering designs, and provide construction management services. Local sponsors are required to provide 35 

percent of the total project cost. In 2022, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program received $1 million in discretionary funding and $118 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). 

From the BIL, $101 million has been allocated to existing rehabilitation projects, 

and the $17 million remainder will be used for new projects or existing projects as 

they progress to construction phases. This investment in watershed rehabilitation 

recognizes the critical role of these watershed structures in flood management, 

water supply, erosion control, agricultural productivity, recreation, and wildlife 

habitat. This funding helps to repair aging infrastructure, creates jobs and commerce, and protects homes and families. The agency continued to provide funding 

and promoted assessments of high-hazard potential dams, monitored costs, and examined the rehabilitation program to ensure equitable delivery in economically disadvantaged areas. 

In 2022, 144 assessments of high hazard dams were funded. These assessments 

provided communities with technical information about the condition of their dams, 

and alternatives for rehabilitation of dams that do not currently meet Federal dam 

safety standards. From 2000 through 2022, 446 dams have been funded for rehabilitation. Of the 446 dams, 269 dams in 26 States were authorized for rehabilitation. 

There are 156 dams in the planning phase that are subject to funding priorities. 

Of the 269 dams that were authorized for rehabilitation, 176 have been rehabilitated and 39 are in the design and 23 are in the construction phase. 

In 2023, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program received $2 million in discretionary funding, and the Agency is working to ensure these resources are put to 

their best use. The reality is that many of the communities protected by the watershed dams that NRCS helped to establish are now vulnerable to flooding. Many 

dams have reached, or will soon reach, the end of their design life. There are currently 5,938 watershed dams that have reached the end of their originally designed 

lifespan. That total is estimated to increase to 6,392 by December 2023; 6,609 by 

December 2024; and 6,782 by December 2025. This has happened over time because 

dam spillway pipes have deteriorated, and reservoirs have filled with sediment. Additionally, the areas around many dams have changed as homes and businesses 

have been constructed on what was once agricultural land. A dam failure could pose 

a serious threat to the health and safety of those living downstream and to the communities that depend on the reservoir. Dam failure also could bring serious adverse 

environmental impacts. 

DAMWATCH ®: Dam safety is a critical concern as many of the watershed dams 

NRCS assisted local sponsors with construction financing were built in the 1950’s, 

1960’s, and 1970’s. Of the 11,800 NRCS assisted dams, 2,423 are high-hazard, 

meaning the potential for a loss of life should a dam failure occur. Many of these 

dams need upgrades to meet current public safety standards, and many more need 

key repairs to man-made components. NRCS has worked to help sponsors mitigate 

risk with DAMWATCH ®. DAMWATCH ® is a web-based application developed for 

NRCS to support watershed project sponsors with monitoring and managing NRCSassisted dams. DAMWATCH ® provides real-time monitoring of rainfall, snowmelt, 

stream flow, and seismic events that could pose potential threats to dam safety. The 

application can alert essential personnel when dams experience potentially hazardous conditions, allowing for the coordinated deployment of personnel and resources. NRCS and watershed project sponsors utilize DAMWATCH ® to manage a 

proactive response through the application’s ‘‘one stop shop’’ for accessing critical 

documents, databases, monitoring devices, and geospatial information. 

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Over the past two years, NRCS identified strategies to improve watershed program delivery to meet increased workload and changing priorities. Measures adopted include refined agency policies, additional delegations of authorities to states, improved program reporting mechanisms, new standardized forms for funding requests 

and other decision points, and ongoing financial allocations to projects for improved 

project implementation as resources become available. 
27 

FISCAL YEAR 2024 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET OVERVIEW OF WATERSHED PROGRAMS

The fiscal year 2024 Budget proposes a funding level of $1.250 billion for NRCS, 

a net decrease of $718 million from the 2023 Enacted Budget. This includes a $77.4 

million increase from the 2023 Enacted Budget for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). 

The FY 2024 Budget proposes $175 million in discretionary funding for WFPO 

and $10 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 permanently authorized $50 million in annual mandatory 

funding to be used for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Within 

WFPO, the budget proposes $160,000,000 for the Small Watershed Program, an increase of $104.8 million. The other $15,000,000 is for Flood Prevention Operations, 

which includes projects that were specifically authorized under the Flood Control 

Act of 1944, an increase of $4.974 million. These increases will allow NRCS to address the increased cost of projects that are now ready for implementation. Additional funding is requested to address cost escalation in project implementation 

phases (both design and construction) for the highest priority projects that have 

completed the planning phase. 

The budget proposes $10,009,000, an increase of $8 million from 2023, for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Dams installed through the Watershed Protection 

and Flood Prevention Act, Pilot Watershed Projects authorized by the Agriculture 

Appropriation Act of 1953, and the Resource Conservation and Development Program are eligible for rehabilitation assistance. There are currently 221 active watershed rehabilitation projects, and of these there are 161 dams in planning, 40 dams 

in design and 20 under construction. This funding will provide construction funds 

for two rehabilitation projects that will address critical public health and safety concerns with aging dams reaching the end of their design lives. 

CONCLUSION

NRCS’s Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program combines the agency’s technical, scientific, and financial resources to have the greatest impact on our 

nation’s resources. This program reflects our commitment to local leadership on critical conservation issues and targets the specific needs of communities across the 

country. 

Protecting our Nation’s small watersheds is essential to protecting lives, natural 

resources, and agriculture. As we work to respond to the climate crisis, maintenance 

and upkeep of these dams and related infrastructure is more important than ever 

in the face of extreme weather and natural disasters. We know that farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other landowners are on the frontlines of the climate crisis, and 

NRCS stands ready to support the implementation of conservation and infrastructure solutions that respond to the severity of the crisis. I appreciate Congress’s continued support for NRCS and our work to ensure the safety and functionality of our 

small watersheds and voluntary conservation on working lands. Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide testimony. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you much. 

Dr. Bernstein. 

TESTIMONY OF AARON BERNSTEIN, M.D., M.P.H., DIRECTOR, 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY, 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

Dr. BERNSTEIN. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to be with you today to discuss the work of the Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATS—— 

Mr. ROUZER [interrupting]. Perhaps bring that microphone just 

a little closer to you. 

Dr. BERNSTEIN. A little closer. OK. I will swallow it next. 

ATSDR does work every day to protect the health of Americans 

from environmental exposures, whether chemicals that may be 

spilled in your communities or otherwise. 
28 

I am Dr. Aaron Bernstein, the Director of ATSDR and the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC. I am a pediatrician, and I consider it a great honor to serve in this capacity. 

Communities across this country routinely ask ATSDR to respond to their concerns about exposures and what they mean to 

their health, and especially the health of their children. 

A prime example of this is the work that has been done in East 

Palestine. At the request of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the U.S. EPA, 

ATSDR deployed a team of experts who engaged with State and 

local health departments, poison control centers and, of course, the 

affected communities. 

We did extensive science, sampling data, geospatial modeling, 

other means to really dig into what those exposures meant to the 

health of the people affected in real-time. With the State health departments, our on-the-ground staff conducted a rapid assessment of 

potential health effects for first responders, in addition to the communities affected. 

And we, of course, ensured that everything we did was shared directly with affected communities through regular meetings. And we 

ensured that the healthcare providers that were charged with the 

day-to-day care of these communities were well-informed through 

collaborations, both with the poison control centers and ATSDRsupported Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units, or 

PEHSUs. 

ATSDR supports the PEHSU program which many of you will 

know about. I am proud to say that I served for many years in the 

region 1 PEHSU. These are regionally based centers with experts 

in pediatric environmental health. 

I can attest firsthand to the crucial work that these centers do 

when disasters like this happen, because they are able to address 

the questions that inevitably arise and concerns about exposures, 

whether it is to lead, mold, PFAS, heat, wildfire smoke from parents, caregivers, and healthcare providers. 

Beyond working directly with healthcare providers, ATSDR 

builds State environmental health capacity. ATSDR has funded 30 

State health departments already to better their ability to detect, 

respond to, and prevent harmful exposures. 

ATSDR funding allowed the Missouri Department of Health, for 

example, to form collaborations to test private wells for lead and 

the North Carolina Health Department to work with the Department of Defense on PFAS testing for residents near the Camp 

Greene Base. 

A major priority for ATSDR, as I know it is for many of you, remains PFAS. In September 2022, ATSDR released the ‘‘Final PFAS 

Exposure Assessments Report’’ that was based on an assessment of 

2,300 individuals in 10 communities across the country. We found 

that three PFAS blood levels were often higher in these communities than national averages and, perhaps more importantly, 

learned about how PFAS may be getting into people’s bodies in the 

first place. 

Right now, ATSDR has embarked on a national, multisite health 

study to better understand what health effects having PFAS in our 

bodies—and we know that more than 90 percent of Americans do— 

what health effects they may have. Our hope is that we can learn 
29 

more about how to protect Americans from PFAS-associated health 

risks. 

You should all know that ATSDR serves on the front line to protect the health of Americans from environmental exposures, and 

the need for ATSDR services has been growing. 

For PFAS alone, ATSDR has worked with over 40 communities. 

And since June, ATSDR has responded to unprecedented wildfire 

smoke that affected millions of people in at least 10 States. 

However, when accounting for inflation, ATSDR funding has decreased about 5 percent since 2020, and 35 percent over the last 

two decades. To put that in context of what that means, as Representative Larsen mentioned, about 15 percent of ATSDR’s staff 

had to be deployed in response to East Palestine. If there were a 

second instance of the size of East Palestine simultaneously, 

ATSDR would have difficulty responding. In the President’s fiscal year 2024 budget, there is a $1 million 

increase in funding which would go a long way to help ATSDR respond to the kinds of exposures that happened around events like 

East Palestine and others and, of course, to help ensure that when 

your constituents need us, we are there. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 

the work of this agency. 

[Dr. Bernstein’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Aaron Bernstein, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, and distinguished members of 

the Committee, I am Aaron Bernstein, the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is an honor 

to appear before you today to discuss how investments in ATSDR are protecting 

Americans’ health, now and in the future. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

In 1980, Congress created ATSDR through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to implement the 

health-related sections of laws that protect the public from hazardous wastes and 

spills of hazardous substances. Congress authorized the agency to assess the presence and nature of health hazards at specific Superfund sites, prevent and reduce 

further exposure and the illnesses that result from such exposures, and expand the 

knowledge base about health effects from exposure to hazardous substances. 

Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and 

the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) broadened 

ATSDR’s responsibilities and authorities in the areas of public health assessments, 

establishment and maintenance of toxicological databases, information dissemination, and medical education. 

ATSDR accomplishes its mission by preparing for and responding to environmental health emergencies; supporting and building capacity at state, tribal, territorial, and local health departments; protecting children from the health effects of 

environmental exposures; and investigating environmental exposures to emerging 

contaminants of concern. Between FY 2021 and FY 2023, ATSDR responded to over 

1,200 state, community, and federal requests to address the potential health risks 

to over 200,000 people around the country. During that period, ATSDR funded state 

health departments and conducted over 80 assessments to evaluate environmental 

exposures in communities. Much of this work takes place in the regional offices, 

where staff can respond quickly during emergencies. 

Modest increases in funding in FY 2020 through FY 2023 have allowed ATSDR 

to provide enhancements in its support to state and local health departments and 
30 

1https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/wildfires/index.html 

2https://onemap.cdc.gov/Portal/home/ 

expand its environmental health education efforts. The $1 million in additional 

funding requested in the President’s Budget would allow ATSDR to expand its partnership with communities to address their concerns, monitor and investigate hazardous exposures, build environmental health capacity, and respond to environmental health emergencies. These efforts align with CDC/ATSDR’s Moving Forward 

Initiative to modernize efforts to respond to public health crises in all communities, 

including those that are underserved. Sustained investment in public health infrastructure and capacity will be essential to build strong, resilient communities and 

will bolster CDC/ATSDR’s ability to respond to the next public health event, including any that result from environmental exposures. 

PREPARING FOR AND RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCIES

ATSDR Emergency Response Teams are available 24 hours a day and are composed of toxicologists, physicians, and other scientists available to assist during an 

emergency involving hazardous substances in the environment. These teams conduct assessments and provide technical support to health departments working to 

address environmental health emergencies. 

ATSDR has staff located in 10 regional offices across the country, who are prepared to respond when natural hazards, chemical spills, and other environmental 

emergencies occur. Although most regional offices have a small staff, these offices 

are first on-the-ground, leveraging both the situational awareness they have developed over the years and the trust they have established with state, territorial, local, 

and tribal health departments, regulatory agencies, and community organizations to 

ensure responses meet the needs of communities. 

During environmental health emergencies, ATSDR provides information to health 

care providers to help treat patients, communicates with the public about health 

risks, forms partnerships to address community needs, and delivers technical assistance, including reviews of environmental sampling data to assess for public health 

risks. 

ATSDR has aided state, territorial, local, tribal, and federal partners during many 

environmental disasters over the last several years, including responses to the 

drinking water contamination incident at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and the 

recent train derailment and resulting chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio. In both 

cases, the affected state health departments requested that ATSDR conduct an Assessment of Chemical Exposure (ACE) investigation, a rapid epidemiological assessment used to evaluate the health impact of environmental exposures. ATSDR sent 

staff to East Palestine to assist with on-the-ground efforts to conduct the ACE investigation and provide other technical assistance, such as attending meetings to answer community questions. Information from the ACE investigations was used by 

the health departments to inform the next steps of the response and identify additional follow-up needs. ATSDR continues to assist the health departments on an asneeded basis to ensure the continued safety of those in the communities. However, 

approximately 15 percent of ATSDR’s staff responded to the East Palestine incident, 

either remotely or in the field, causing disruptions to routine work. With current 

resources, ATSDR would have difficulty responding to two concurrent events of this 

magnitude. 

ATSDR also maintains resources to help partners prepare for and address health 

risks. For example, CDC and ATSDR have a wildfire readiness webpage with information people can use to protect themselves 1 and a geospatial information portal 2

that complies data from the U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and others with ATSDR’s health and social vulnerability data to 

allow users to quickly see where wildfires are occurring across the world, the direction and magnitude of the wind, and an interactive map that shows detailed data 

on current fire incidents, smoke forecasts, fire forecasts, air quality, population vulnerability, and more. ATSDR responded to the Canadian Wildfire Smoke event in 

June 2023 by building an interactive map in less than two hours with information 

to visualize air quality, smoke, and population information, as well as providing 

health messaging, surveillance of air quality and health effects, and coordination 

with federal, state, tribal, and territorial partners. ATSDR is currently leading 

CDC/ATSDR’s efforts to update the agencies’ response planning for wildfires and the 

public health consequences of wildfire smoke exposures. CDC and ATSDR are also 

working with other federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to integrate 
31 

3https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pha-guidance/index.html 

4https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/eji/index.html 

public health considerations into their wildfire activities through participation on 

multiple interagency workgroups, including the Wildland Fire Leadership Council. 

SUPPORT TO HEALTH DEPARTMENTS

ATSDR’s Partnership to Promote Localized Efforts to Reduce Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) cooperative agreement program funds state health departments to detect, respond to, and prevent harmful exposures in communities. In FY 

2020 through FY 2022, ATSDR awarded approximately $35 million to 28 state 

health departments through APPLETREE over the three-year cycle of the competitive award. Funding increases in FY 2023 allowed ATSDR to expand APPLETREE 

to support two additional states, bringing the total to 30. 

State health departments are on the front lines when it comes to responding to 

environmental exposures. ATSDR’s cooperative agreement program builds capacity 

in states to assess health risks from potentially hazardous substances. Cooperative 

agreements have enabled greater ability for health departments to support clinicians who may have patients with specific concerns related to exposures, build 

bridges between health and environmental agencies, implement protections to harmful exposures, and rapidly respond to environmental emergencies. 

APPLETREE allows health departments to form partnerships to address hazardous exposures comprehensively. For example, the Missouri Department of Health 

and Human Services collaborated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and local governments to address lead 

exposure concerns from contaminated drinking water. The partnerships led to the 

sampling of hundreds of private wells and a free community blood-lead testing event 

that helped people understand their risks and steps they can take to protect their 

and their family’s health. 

Many states, such as North Carolina and Washington, choose to use ATSDR support to enhance their actions addressing community concerns about emerging chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). APPLETREE also enables health departments to make resources available to the public, such as California’s work to create a one-stop website with information on hazardous sites, environmental health screening, and mapping tools that residents can use to learn more 

about their environment and how it may affect their health. 

Communities that are economically and socially marginalized continue to bear 

disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards and it remains a top priority for 

ATSDR to continue to engage these communities to address their concerns and understand how exposures impact health. ATSDR has created tools to help health departments and others address exposures in these communities, including updates to 

the Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual 3 and a geospatial index 4 that uses 

demographic and socioeconomic data, along with cumulative environmental exposures, to identify communities that experience a disproportionately high environmental burden in the United States. 

PROTECTING CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Children are uniquely sensitive to exposures to chemical contaminants and environmental stress such as extreme heat or cold. Children’s minds and bodies are still 

developing which can make them less able to effectively cope with exposures when 

they occur. In addition, exposures can disrupt normal development and result in 

harm later in life. ATSDR manages a national network of 10 Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs), located in each federal region across the 

United States, to advise parents, child caregivers, and healthcare providers on protecting and caring for children potentially exposed to harmful chemicals. Regional 

PEHSU units respond to requests for information, offer advice on environmentally 

related health effects for pregnant women and children, and provide education to 

healthcare providers, other health professionals, and community members. 

The PEHSU network has produced many tools to help clinicians, parents, and 

children understand environmental exposures. Most health professionals who care 

for children do not receive adequate training to recognize, manage, treat, and prevent environmental health risks to children and pregnant women. PEHSUs fill this 

critical gap every day and especially when communities are in crisis, whether that 

comes from newly discovered PFAS exposures in a community or in situations such 

as the East Palestine train derailment. 
32 

5https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072821/ 

6https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/OSTP-March-2023-PFAS-Report.pdf 

7https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp200.pdf 

ATSDR also protects children’s health through the Choose Safe Places for Early 

Care and Education (CSPECE) program, which works to reduce exposure to dangerous chemicals in childcare facilities. Funded by ATSDR as part of APPLETREE, 

states screen potential childcare locations, educate childcare providers, and inform 

implementation of evidence-based protective measures to ensure children play, 

learn, and grow in healthy, safe places. In the last three years, CSPECE has enabled 260 local partnerships across various sectors, developed over 100 tools and resources to educate childcare providers, provided educational resources to over 55,000 

childcare stakeholders, and screened over 9,000 childcare locations for potential hazards. 

INVESTIGATING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF PFAS AND EMERGING CONTAMINANTS

Work on emerging environmental contaminants continues to be a priority for 

ATSDR, with the agency conducting work to characterize human exposures and understand the health impacts of those exposures. For example, ATSDR is continuing 

its work on addressing exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a 

class of thousands of human-made chemicals that have been used in industry and 

consumer products since the 1950s. Exposure to these chemicals is widespread. 

CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) has detected 

PFAS in the blood of more than 95% of the U.S. population 5. More research is needed to determine the health effects in humans 6, and some studies 7 suggest exposure 

may affect cholesterol levels, affect the immune system, and increase the risk for 

some cancers. 

ATSDR has worked to address community concerns about PFAS since 2009, with 

the development of the first health assessment that looked at PFAS exposure in Decatur, Alabama. To date, ATSDR has worked to investigate exposure to, and possible health effects associated with, PFAS in more than 40 communities across the 

United States. 

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 directed ATSDR to complete exposure assessments and a health study to look at PFAS exposure in communities. With funds provided through the Department of Defense appropriation, 

ATSDR conducted exposure assessments in ten communities near current or former 

military bases across the U.S. that are known to have had PFAS in their drinking 

water. An exposure assessment provides information to communities about the levels of PFAS in their bodies. The exposure assessments looked at exposure in more 

than 2,300 individuals from over 1,200 households, providing information about factors that can affect exposure, such as age, sex, and use of certain consumer products. In September 2022, ATSDR released a final report on the findings of the exposure assessments across all 10 sites. This information can be used to develop interventions which might ultimately reduce PFAS exposures. 

ATSDR is also using funds provided through the Defense appropriation to conduct 

a national multi-site health study that will look at the relationship between PFAS 

exposures through drinking water and health outcomes. The Pease Study in New 

Hampshire is serving as the first site in the multi-site health study. ATSDR has 

completed recruitment and sample analysis for the Pease Study and is in the process of developing reports to share findings from the study, expected to be released 

in FY 2024. In 2019, ATSDR awarded research cooperative agreements to seven recipients to work on the multi-site study in seven additional states. Two recipients 

have completed study recruitment and sample collection while the remaining expect 

to complete these steps by the end of FY 2023. This groundbreaking health study 

will provide information about the health effects of PFAS exposure that can be used 

in all communities to protect health. 

ATSDR is also taking steps to ensure that clinicians have the guidance they need 

to address patient concerns about PFAS exposure. ATSDR is working closely with 

the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units to offer pediatricians and other 

healthcare professionals information about PFAS so they can best serve their patients in these communities. ATSDR supported the National Academies of Science, 

Engineering, and Medicine to review the scientific information on PFAS to develop 

recommendations to inform updates to ATSDR’s PFAS Guidance for Clinicians. 

ATSDR expects to update the guidance by the end of 2023. 
33 

8https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/cancer-environment/pdfs/Guidelines-for-Examining-Unusual-Patterns-of-Cancer-and-Environmental-Concerns-h.pdf 

In 2022, CDC and ATSDR released the Guidelines for Examining Unusual Patterns of Cancer and Environmental Concerns 8 to help health departments as they 

investigate patterns of disease in communities, another emerging environmental 

health issue. This document updated the 2013 guidance for investigating cancer 

clusters to include additional patterns of cancer that may warrant further assessment, approaches to better engage communities, standardized templates to document the nature and extent of cancer concerns, and updated approaches to identify 

and investigate unusual patterns of cancer, including suggestions for routine surveillance activities. 

ATSDR is also investigating the potential health impacts of microplastics, which 

are pervasive in the environment and are small enough to be internalized and 

transported within the human body. Exposure-dose and health effects have not been 

established, but some research in animals has indicated that microplastic exposure 

may carry significant health consequences. Studies to understand health effects of 

microplastics in humans still need standardized methods for identifying and measuring plastic particles. ATSDR, along with CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, is working on developing the science to define and prioritize potential health risks and develop initiatives to better characterize and understand 

whether microplastic exposures are harmful to human health. 

FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST FOR ATSDR 

In FY 2024, ATSDR’s budget request will allow ATSDR to respond to requests 

from communities, states, and other jurisdictions to investigate environmental exposures and provide information that can help them protect themselves and their families from chemical exposures. This includes preparing for and responding to environmental health emergencies. ATSDR will also continue to provide resources to 

state, territorial, local, and tribal health departments to build national public health 

capacity and develop tools to support that work. 

ATSDR has used the annual ATSDR appropriations increases over the last four 

years and COVID supplemental funding to provide additional funding to states to 

build their environmental health capacity and to provide additional support to 

PEHSUs. 

CONCLUSION

ATSDR serves on the frontline to protect the health of Americans when environmental risks appear. It has a unique mission and responsibility to advance health 

through studies, support of health departments, development of clinician guidance, 

and response to environmental health emergencies, all in partnership with affected 

communities. In FY 2024, the agency will continue working toward our goals of providing science-based guidance that can protect people from health risks that may 

come with environmental exposures. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here 

today to discuss the important work of the agency. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. LeBoeuf. 

TESTIMONY OF NICOLE R. LEBOEUF, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. LEBOEUF. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

I am Nicole LeBoeuf, NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Ocean 

Services and Coastal Zone Management. 

My statement will offer highlights of NOAA’s fiscal year 2024 

proposed budget, illustrating the increasing value of investing in 

NOAA as we work toward building a climate-ready Nation. 

NOAA’s ability to understand and predict changes to our planet 

provides a critical foundation for smart decisionmaking in the face 
34 

of climate change. While we don’t know exactly what the future 

holds, there is no question that it will be different from the world 

in which we live today. 

The good news is that it is NOAA’s mission to understand and 

predict changes to our Earth’s systems and to share this important 

information with the public in ways that make science actionable 

in our daily lives. NOAA also serves as steward of our marine resources and ecosystems, conserving them for future generations. 

NOAA is uniquely qualified to prepare our Nation for climate 

change, and America is in need of NOAA’s authoritative data, products, tools, and services now more than ever. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction 

Act provided much needed investments in NOAA’s efforts related 

to coastal resilience, climate data and services, marine debris, fisheries, and protected resources. 

In fiscal year 2024, NOAA will build on these historic investments and strengthen our efforts to build our country’s resilience 

in a changing world. 

In the United States, approximately 40 percent of the population 

lives at direct risk from coastal- and ocean-related impacts of climate change such as intensified and longer lasting hurricanes, 

coastal inundation, and other hazards exacerbated by sea-level rise. NOAA requests $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2024, an increase of $450.5 million above fiscal year 2023 enacted levels, to meet the 

growing demand for our climate information, facilitate the development of new products and services, and ensure equitable access to 

these critical resources. 

NOAA is requesting an additional $78.2 million to expand 

NOAA’s climate products and services with the goal of increasing 

our understanding of the climate, enhancing our ability to predict 

environmental disasters and extreme events, and improving our 

understanding of the impacts of climate change on fisheries and 

marine ecosystems. 

NOAA’s request prioritizes actionable environmental information 

as the basis for smart decisionmaking so that communities across 

the Nation can plan ahead for the kinds of events already impacting them every day, such as wildfires, floods, and extreme heat, 

and help them prepare for the changes to come. 

NOAA also requests an additional $81.4 million in fiscal year 

2024 in support of offshore wind energy, the National Seafood 

Strategy, foundational mapping and charting efforts, as well as key 

ocean, weather, and space observations infrastructure. 

These investments will support the U.S. blue economy and a climate-ready Nation, by making our Nation’s infrastructure more resilient, advancing U.S. leadership in research and development of 

critical technologies, and improving fisheries management in ways 

that prepare this important industry for the future. 

In addition, NOAA’s fiscal year 2024 request includes an additional $359.2 million to support NOAA’s observational infrastructure in its next-generation satellite systems, ensuring expanded delivery of these essential observations, as well. 

These requests will improve NOAA’s IT infrastructure, ensuring 

that data collected are both preserved for the future and easily accessible by all. 
35 

Finally, safe and functional facilities are critical to NOAA’s success and to our ability to carry out our mission of science, service, 

and stewardship. NOAA is requesting an increase of $55.7 million 

to support maintenance and repair of our aging infrastructure and 

facilities across the Nation and across our programs. 

In summary, NOAA’s fiscal year 2024 budget request identifies 

priority investments to ensure that NOAA’s delivery of ocean and 

atmospheric science, products, and services to the Nation are delivered. 

We welcome the opportunity to work with you to meet our country’s growing needs for environmental intelligence, essential to 

keeping us prosperous and resilient under changing conditions. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Ms. LeBoeuf’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator, 

National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) appreciates the continued support of Congress, 

the Administration, and our broad and diverse base of stakeholders. 

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, NOAA proposes a budget of $6.8 billion in discretionary appropriations, an increase of $450.5 million from the FY 2023 Enacted. The 

FY 2024 budget builds on investments on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 

117–169) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (P.L. 117–58) for Climate-Ready 

Coasts, climate data and services, and fisheries and protected resources. 

The FY 2024 request builds on BIL and IRA investments and supports the following NOAA goals: 

• Expanding NOAA’s Climate Products and Services—As part of a whole of government approach, NOAA will provide actionable environmental information 

that is the basis of smart policy and decision-making, especially around initial 

risk and focus areas including wildfires, floods, drought, extreme heat, coasts, 

marine resources, and mitigation. 

• Providing Science and Data to Inform Economic Development—NOAA will continue to foster environmental stewardship and optimize advances in science and 

technology to create value-added, data-driven sustainable and equitable economic development, with a particular focus on the New Blue Economy. 

• Equity and Workforce—NOAA will continue to integrate equity across the organization by improving capabilities and knowledge sharing, and honing product 

development and service delivery in Tribal and underserved communities. 

• Satellites—NOAA will continue investments in future geostationary, low Earth 

orbit, and space weather observations to ensure continuity of critical data from 

legacy systems, while providing significant improvements in data and products. 

• Facilities—NOAA will continue investments aligned with the NOAA Facilities 

Strategic Plan and Facilities Investment Plan. 

EXPANDING NOAA’S CLIMATE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

NOAA provides actionable environmental information that is the basis for smart 

policy and decision-making in a changing world. NOAA is collaborating with other 

Federal agencies as part of the whole-of-government effort to address the climate 

crisis, strengthen resilience and promote economic growth. Together with its partners, NOAA will build a climate-ready nation whose prosperity, health, security, 

and continued growth benefit from and depend upon a shared understanding of— 

and collective action to reduce—the impacts of climate change. 

The FY 2024 budget builds on investments in the BIL and IRA to pave the way 

for NOAA’s support for a climate-ready nation. In FY 2024, NOAA requests an additional $78.2 million to implement Executive Order (EO) 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. Funding will support an earth system approach 

to enhance NOAA’s critical contributions to the U.S. climate modeling enterprise, 

prediction and projection, research and development, observational infrastructure, 
36 

1 NOAA Office of Coastal Management and U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 

Five-Year Estimates (2015–2019), https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/acs.html (accessed 

March 1, 2023) 

and service delivery and decision support tools. Establishing an end-to-end value 

chain for climate and weather data and services starts with investing in observational infrastructure and culminates in delivering comprehensive services to meet 

a diverse set of missions. 

NOAA’s weather and climate predictions and information must be reliably delivered to users to inform decision making. Forty percent of the U.S. population lives 

and works in coastal counties,1 making a disproportionate segment of our society 

and economy at increasing risk to hazards such as hurricanes and coastal inundation. Therefore, the FY 2024 request will maintain investments to optimize the National Weather Service (NWS) Integrated Dissemination Program to ensure the provision of weather and climate predictions, forecasts, and warnings to the public, 

emergency management partners, and the U.S. weather enterprise. Funding will 

also allow first responders to immediately access imagery to assess and prioritize 

response efforts, improving positioning and processing, and delivering high resolution GIS ready imagery in real-time. 

In coordination with other Federal climate service partners, NOAA will expand 

the proven capabilities of the Climate Adaptation Partnerships program and complement this work with NOAA’s Regional Climate Services in order to advance adaptation measures and resilience planning at regional and local scales, while also 

prioritizing environmental justice. These partnerships will increase the value of climate information to users and support more efficient, cost-effective delivery of products and services relevant to region-specific economic activity, hazards, and vulnerability. 

NOAA provides timely and actionable environmental observations on global, national, and regional scales from satellites, radar, surface systems, atmospheric 

greenhouse gas sampling stations, ocean buoys, uncrewed systems, aircraft, and 

ships. With the funding requested in FY 2024, in addition to the funding provided 

through the IRA, NOAA will continue the acquisition of a second G–550 for its highaltitude jet program. NOAA will invest in Days at Sea and Flight Hours to support 

critical mission requirements, and the NOAA Corps officers needed to safely and effectively operate new ships and aircraft. In addition, uncrewed platforms have great 

potential to increase data collection efficiency and fill gaps not met by traditional 

platforms. NOAA will continue to explore using Uncrewed Systems to support the 

full spectrum of NOAA’s aircraft and maritime missions. 

NOAA will collaborate with our academic research partners to improve precipitation predictions across multiple weather and climate timescales through the Precipitation Prediction Grand Challenge Initiative. This effort will lead to improved precipitation forecasts using NOAA’s Unified Forecast System. In addition, NOAA will 

develop a state-of-the-art global reanalysis capability to improve the prediction of 

high impact weather events, coastal inundation risk, and infrastructure failure, 

which will in turn improve our understanding of trends in extreme events, climate 

impacts on marine ecosystems and fisheries, and environmental change in underobserved polar regions. 

As we increase our understanding of the changing climate in the short and longterms, we will simultaneously research and develop new and improved tools for decision makers to address climate impacts. For example, NOAA will support scientific 

monitoring and prediction of Arctic systems, development of innovative observational technologies, and ensure that satellite-derived data is provided to users as actionable information in support of high-priority applications in polar regions and 

coastal zones. NOAA will also address the ongoing needs identified by the NOAAAlaska Tribal Health Consortium to further develop its Tribal climate program, and 

increase support in service to Alaska Natives. In addition, NOAA’s research will address challenges faced by commercial fishing and marine resource managers and 

support tourism and recreation. The NOAA Climate-Ready Fisheries Initiative will 

provide decision-makers with climate-informed advice on best management strategies to reduce impacts and increase ecosystem and economic resilience. 

NOAA will also invest in increasing conservation and protection in an expanded 

sanctuary system, which is an integral part of NOAA’s implementation of the America the Beautiful initiative that includes the goal to conserve at least 30 percent of 

U.S. lands and waters by 2030. 

NOAA’s FY 2024 request will enhance NOAA’s sanctuary management capacity 

as new sanctuaries are designated. NOAA will work to identify gaps in marine protection, train the next generation of Marine Protected Area professionals, and expand technology use in sanctuaries to support management priorities. 
37 

2 Bureau of Economic Analysis and NOAA, Ocean Economy, https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/ 

marine-economy-satellite-account-2014-2020 (accessed March 1, 2023) 3 Bureau of Economic Analysis and NOAA, Ocean Economy, https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/marine-economy-continues-to-power-american-prosperity-despite-2020-downturn (accessed 

March 1, 2023) 

PROVIDING SCIENCE AND DATA TO INFORM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NOAA will continue to foster environmental stewardship and optimize advances 

in science and technology to create value-added, data-driven sustainable economic 

development, with a particular focus on the New Blue Economy: supporting development framed around an information and knowledge-based approach to support fisheries, transportation, shipping, renewable energy, recreation, and livelihoods. In 

2022, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in partnership with NOAA, released the official Marine Economy statistics, finding that the U.S. marine economy contributed 

approximately $361.4 billion to the Nation’s gross domestic products 2 and supported 

2.2 million jobs in 2020.3 In FY 2024, NOAA requests an additional $81.4 million 

in support of the expansion of offshore wind energy, the National Seafood Strategy, 

ocean and coastal mapping and charting, and development of key information systems in our tsunami, weather, and space observations infrastructure. 

In support of the Administration’s goal to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore energy 

by 2030, NOAA will facilitate smart economic and ecological offshore wind development. In FY 2024, NOAA will continue to work closely with the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to minimize the effects of 

offshore energy projects on protected marine resources, fisheries, and important 

habitats; reduce delays and minimize adverse economic impacts to the fishing industry and related coastal communities; and mitigate impacts to fisheries surveys in 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. 

NOAA’s National Seafood Strategy outlines actions to rebuild and enhance the 

competitiveness of the seafood and fishing industries and associated communities. 

NOAA will support the Strategy by combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 

(IUU) fishing through increased capacity for existing programs. NOAA will use advanced technology, improve global fisheries management through international negotiations and capacity building, monitor U.S. imports to promote legal and sustainable seafood, and increase enforcement capacity and marine forensics. 

In FY 2024, NOAA will fill data gaps in the foundational data for ocean and 

coastal mapping and charting of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and build out 

geospatial and water level infrastructure in coastal areas benefiting local communities and Tribal populations. Also, to further address tsunamis’ unpredictability 

and potentially disastrous consequences to life and property along vulnerable U.S. 

coastlines, NOAA will provide a common framework that supports the National Tsunami Warning Center, located in Alaska, and Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, located in Hawai’i. Funding will ensure continuity of operations by eliminating discontinuities within existing systems, and providing consistent guidance to all users, 

independent of location. 

With the FY 2024 Budget request, NOAA will complete acquisition of a demonstration model to advance critical research and support industry engagement to 

evaluate a dual polarization Phased Array Radar (PAR) technology to meet NOAA’s 

weather radar requirements. PAR is a promising technology that could replace 

NOAA’s current NEXRAD radar network by 2040. Additional funding will support 

improvement in the safety of commercial space activities as Earth’s orbits become 

increasingly congested with space traffic and debris. This request will allow the Office of Space Commerce to continue progress toward meeting its target of achieving 

Full Operating Capability in FY 2025 for space situational awareness services. 

EQUITY AND WORKFORCE

As NOAA tackles the climate crisis by building a climate-ready nation, it will 

strive to engage and support the Nation’s underserved and vulnerable communities. 

The Administration’s policies, including those described in EO 13985 on Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, and EO 14096 on Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental 

Justice for All, direct agencies to integrate equity into the DNA of their organizations—from management, to policies, to service delivery. To meet this challenge, 

NOAA is making equity central to every facet of mission delivery and working internally to create a model agency that incorporates diverse perspectives into our decision-making. In FY 2024, NOAA requests an additional $9.1 million to invest in 

science and management efforts in the U.S. Pacific and Caribbean territories, and 
38 

support fisheries management and the seafood sector through training and workforce 

development. NOAA will expand the use of social, economic, and climate change metrics that 

uniquely characterize a coastal community’s vulnerability and resilience to disturbances (e.g., harvest declines, extreme weather, oil spills, sea level rise, etc.). This 

will enable users to analyze the climate vulnerability of over 4,600 coastal communities in 23 states thereby supporting the implementation of policies that address 

environmental, climate, and racial equity and justice considerations. 

NOAA will support a diverse domestic seafood sector through a series of workforce 

development and training programs. Partnerships will span a wide range of entities, 

including diverse and historically underserved communities such as: minority serving institutions (MSIs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and community colleges. Training will focus on 

adaptation to disruptions in the market and the regulations and science that underpin management, which will help improve cooperation and trust among the industry, public, scientists, and regulators. 

SATELLITES

NOAA satellites are critical for NOAA’s mission, as well as the security, safety, 

and prosperity of the Nation. Data from these satellites provide essential support 

to all segments of the U.S. economy. In FY 2024, NOAA requests an additional $365.8 million for significant investments in NOAA’s observational infrastructure, 

underscoring NOAA’s commitment to making crucial, time-sensitive, and cost-effective investments to ensure that the Nation’s next-generation satellite systems expand 

service delivery of essential earth system observations to meet the evolving needs of 

the American public. The FY 2024 budget will help NOAA better observe environmental phenomena connected to climate change-related impacts and patterns, and 

deliver products, information, and climate services to inform decision makers. 

The value of NOAA’s world-class data is enhanced by NOAA applications and access by users. The FY 2024 budget supports much-needed improvements to NOAA’s 

data infrastructure that will ensure that the data collected are preserved for the future and can be easily accessed in a cloud-based environment. This includes funding 

to transition NOAA to cloud computing for data ingest, processing, dissemination, 

and archiving, which will expand the size and diversity of NOAA user communities 

and data applications. In addition, NOAA will continue to implement vulnerability 

management against the latest threats on satellite ground systems to lower the 

operational risk, which ensures continuity of critical satellite data flow to key customers such as NOAA’s NWS. 

NOAA’s current constellation has proven its worth and will continue to do so for 

another decade. However, NOAA must concurrently invest in the next generation 

of environmental satellites with the needs of all of our communities in mind. FY 

2024 funding for future geostationary, low earth orbit, and space weather observations will ensure critical data continuity from legacy systems, while providing significant improvements in data and products to meet the complex societal and environmental needs of the Nation. NOAA’s program investments also allow us to immediately capitalize on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s 

satellite observations for NOAA requirements and mission focus. 

FACILITIES

NOAA’s facilities portfolio is vast with over 620 facilities, including over 400 

owned properties, and an estimated replacement value which exceeds $3 billion. In 

FY 2024, NOAA requests an additional $55.7 million to support maintenance and 

repair of its aging infrastructure and significantly improve facilities across the nation. Each facility requires financial investments for maintenance, repairs, modernization, and even replacement to effectively sustain and evolve NOAA’s science 

capabilities to support the current and future missions. NOAA proposes to significantly invest in facilities with an influx of funding to accompany the strategic priorities identified in the upcoming Facilities Strategic Plan. 

SUMMARY

NOAA is working hand-in-hand with partners locally and sharing best practices 

globally. People know they can turn to NOAA for reliable climate and extreme 

weather information to help make informed decisions that help save lives and livelihoods. With increased funding in FY 2024, NOAA will ensure continuity from legacy 

systems while providing significant improvements in data and products and continue investments aligned with our strategic vision. In doing so, it ensures that 
39 

NOAA will continue to deploy the full breadth of its integrated services and capabilities necessary to ensure a climate-ready nation. 

Mr. ROUZER. Well, thank each of you for your testimony. 

Before I get into the question-and-answer period, I have a couple 

of items for the record, a little housekeeping, so to speak. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters sent by 

the National Association of Home Builders, dated June 28, 2023; 

the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association dated July 7; the 

National Mining Association dated July 11; and the Waters Advocacy Coalition dated July 13, all addressed to EPA Administrator 

Michael Regan and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works Michael Connor, urging the Biden administration to end the 

pause on jurisdictional determinations and quickly comply with the 

Supreme Court’s Sackett decision. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

f 

Letter of June 28, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

Alicia G. Huey, Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home 

Builders of the United States, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David 

Rouzer 

JUNE 28, 2023. 

The Honorable MICHAEL S. REGAN, 

Administrator, 

Office of Administrator, Mail Code 1101A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

The Honorable MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310. 

DEAR ADMINISTRATOR REGAN AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONNOR: On behalf of the National Association of Home Builders of the United States 

(NAHB) and its more than 140,000 members, I write to urge you to quickly propose 

and finalize a revised regulation and immediately provide the Corps districts with 

regulatory guidance that clarifies the limits of federal jurisdictional under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Since the Sackett decision was announced on May 

25, 2023, the Corps has stopped processing requests for approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) while the districts await guidance from Corps’ Headquarters on 

how to proceed. Halting AJDs leads to permitting delays and places another barrier 

on the nation’s home builders’ ability to provide safe, decent, and affordable housing. 

Over a month has passed since the Court’s opinion. With no post-Sackett interpretive guidance, home builders and developers face three untenable options. First, 

they may attempt to determine whether their activities require a CWA §404 wetlands permit and risk subsequent CWA enforcement action if they interpret Sackett 

differently than the federal regulators. Second, property owners may accept a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD), allowing federal regulators to assume 

that the wetlands or water features on or near the property are jurisdictional. In 

this scenario, only after our members relinquish the right to have the Corps make 

an official determination of jurisdiction of aquatic resources for any CWA jurisdictional features on their property will the Corps district offices agree to process requested CWA §404 permits. And third, they can do nothing and wait until the agencies figure how to address Sackett. These options are extremely frustrating and costly to the U.S. homebuilding industry, and none is appropriate or acceptable. 

Last week, Assistant Secretary Connor testified before the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and stated that the agencies do not intend to lift the nationwide suspension on AJDs or provide the districts with interim Sackett regulatory guidance until 
40 

1https://www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule 

a final rule is enforced. On June 27, 2023, the agencies announced they intend to 

file amendments to the 2023 ‘‘Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ 

Rule’’ (2023 Rule) and issue a final rule by September 1, 2023.1 Land acquisition, 

permit processing, and home building cannot be paused until September 1; we desperately need interim guidance from the agencies now. A healthy housing market is critical to a strong and vibrant U.S. economy and 

is contingent upon EPA and the Corps moving forward quickly and affirmatively to 

clarify the scope of federal CWA jurisdiction and restart the Section 404 approval 

processes. Sackett established clear, bright lines concerning which aquatic features 

are not jurisdictional under the CWA. In short, the agencies cannot rely on the ‘‘significant nexus test,’’ cannot regulate wetlands that do not directly touch (i.e., appear 

indistinguishable from) a water of the United States, and cannot claim as jurisdictional any waters of the United States that are not relatively permanent bodies of 

water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters. While the agencies continue to apply two different WOTUS regulatory definitions, with less than half the 

states following the 2023 Rule and a majority adhering to the ‘‘pre-2015 regulatory 

regime’’, regardless of which regulatory definition of WOTUS is being followed, 

Sackett has invalidated key aspects. 

NAHB supports the agencies’ plan to promulgate a new WOTUS regulatory definition consistent with Sackett. Nevertheless, there is an immediate need for interim 

regulatory guidance that will allow the Corps to lift the nationwide suspension of 

issuing AJDs and provide affected landowners, including homebuilders, certainty 

over whether their lands may be subject to CWA jurisdiction. 

I appreciate your prompt attention to this critically important matter for the U.S. 

home building industry. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 

contact Mr. Michael Mittelholzer, Assistant Vice President, Environmental Policy. 

NAHB looks forward to working collaboratively with you as the agencies craft a durable and workable regulatory definition of WOTUS that is consistent with the recent Sackett opinion. 

Best regards, 

ALICIA G. HUEY, 

Chairman of the Board, 

National Association of Home Builders of the United States. 

cc: Ms. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. EPA 

Mr. Jaime A. Pinkham, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

f 

Letter of July 7, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

Emily W. Coyner, P.G., Senior Director, Environmental Policy, National 

Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 

David Rouzer 

JULY 7, 2023. 

The Honorable MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 108 Army Pentagon. 

The Honorable MICHAEL S. REGAN, 

Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. 

Re: Post-Sackett Pause on AJDs and materials needed for IIJA implementation 

DEAR ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONNOR AND ADMINISTRATOR REGAN: 

The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) strongly urges the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) (the agencies) to immediately issue a public, post-Sackett memo on approved 

jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) for areas that are clearly excluded from jurisdiction under the Sackett v. EPA (Sackett) opinion. While we agree that an updated 

rule is needed for more complex aspects of the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) 

opinion, interim directives are urgently needed to issue AJDs for features that were 

clearly excluded under Sackett, namely isolated waters, ephemeral waters, intermit-
41 

tent waters that lack relatively permanent flow and wetlands not connected to tributaries or navigable waters. 

It has been over a month since the release of Sackett, and our members cannot 

wait another two months or more while they are seeking to supply construction materials to infrastructure projects. The dynamic nature of our industry means that 

time is of the essence, and delays hinder our ability to contribute to the administration’s infrastructure goals by providing the high-quality materials needed for nearly 

every project. Over the past two years our industry has been operating under one 

rule nullified, then the pre-2015, then another rule in place for a short time then 

nullified in half of the country. The current AJD ban only adds to existing confusion 

and obstacles our industry faces as we work to fulfill the administration’s infrastructure goals by providing high quality materials needed for nearly every project. 

NSSGA represents the stone, sand, and gravel (known as aggregates) needed for 

infrastructure and environmental improvements such as the purification of water 

and flood control from over 9,000 operations across the U.S. The industry employs 

over 100,000 people in high-paying jobs to source 2.6 billion tons of aggregates each 

year that are used to sustain our modern way of life and build our nation’s communities and infrastructure. Regulatory compliance delays and costs impact the availability of materials needed for infrastructure. NSSGA helped deliver the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and strongly supports every federal effort to 

improve infrastructure, promote energy development and build more resilient communities. The lack of transparency and consideration from the agencies impairs 

timely permits which our members require to supply vital materials needed to advance our shared infrastructure goals. 

At a time when the SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear that many features 

are now non-jurisdictional and admonished the agencies for lack of clarity with prior 

rules, we find it concerning that the Corps has halted the only tool that allows the 

regulated community to have certainty regarding their jurisdictional status. This is 

especially troubling for our members who risk severe penalties for violation of the 

CWA. After an unprecedented move of disallowing previously issued JDs under the 

2020 WOTUS rule and requiring an additional analysis under the pre-2015 rule 

and/or the 2022 Rule, some of our members are having to now navigate the postSackett landscape blindly. Simplifying the process with a short interim directive or 

memo that identifies features not subject to jurisdiction and eligible for AJDs as 

well as preliminary JDs (PJDs), will provide needed certainty. 

As per the Corps website: ‘‘The only USACE process for determining that an 

aquatic resource is NOT jurisdictional is an AJD.’’ During the busiest season for 

most industries including ours, the Corps has removed the only avenue for landowners to be certain that their features are not subject to the CWA. 

Instead, our members face a frustrating array of unacceptable choices that are not 

within the legal framework under Sackett. They are forced to accept a preliminary 

jurisdictional determination (PJD), which would make many now non-jurisdictional 

features jurisdictional, requiring costly and time-consuming mitigation and other requirements, or determine that features are non-jurisdictional and face greater risks, 

or wait even longer, exacerbating the confusion we have experienced in recent years. 

SCOTUS unanimously noted the need for clarity, and this delay in any type of direction from the agencies is in direct opposition to this. 

Adding to the frustration is the complete lack of transparency. Since Sackett, our 

members have received inconsistent and conflicting information from the Corps. 

This seems to stem from an apparent hold on all AJDs from headquarters. It was 

not until the June 22 hearing before the Senate Committee on Environmental & 

Public Works where Assistant Secretary Conner publicly acknowledged the headquarters decision placed this hold on AJDs pending rulemaking. This lack of communication and uncertainty is exactly what SCOTUS admonished the agencies for. 

Direction from the Corps to immediately issue AJDs for clearly excluded waters 

is needed to fulfill the infrastructure goals of this administration. Doing so will help 

avoid supply chain issues, keeping material prices low and reducing inflation, which 

is essential for the general economic health of the country. Issuing a clear directive 

that outlines what waters are excluded and ensuring both AJDs and PJDs are 

issued per Sackett would demonstrate to the regulated community that we can collaborate collectively to achieve the best outcomes. This would provide a limited degree of certainty rather than the nebulous void of uncertainty caused by the lack 

of communication, saving valuable time and resources for stakeholders and the Corp 

staff. By holding up this process, a huge backlog is being created so it’s likely our 

members will have to face even more delays once the new rule is released. 

The June 21 bicameral letter from Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Chairman Sam Graves (R–MO), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R–WV), Water Resources and Environment 
42 

1 NMA, 2023 Mining Facts, at 4–6, available at https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ 

FINAL-NMA-Mining-Facts-2023.pdf (last accessed July 11, 2023). 2See id. at 7–8 (highlighting major mined products in each state). See also The White House, 

Fact Sheet: Securing a Made in America Supply Chain for Critical Minerals (Feb. 22, 2023) 

(‘‘Critical minerals provide the building blocks for many modern technologies and are essential 

to our national security and economic prosperity.’’); (‘‘ . . . our overreliance on foreign sources and 

adversarial nations for critical minerals and materials posed national and economic security 

threats.’’), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/22/ 

fact-sheet-securing-a-made-in-america-supply-chain-for-critical-minerals/ (last visited July 11, 

2023). See also The White House, Report: Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth (June 2021), (‘‘The United States and 

other nations are dependent on a range of critical minerals and materials that are the building 

blocks of the products we use every day. Rare earths metals are essential to manufacturing everything from engines to airplanes to defense equipment.’’), available at https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/100-day-supply-chain-review-report.pdf (last 

visited July 11, 2023). 3Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023). 

Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer (R–NC), and Senate Fisheries, Wildlife, and 

Water Subcommittee Ranking Member Cynthia Lummis (R–WY) notes: ‘‘In implementing the Court’s decision, the Agencies must adhere to the majority opinion and 

not slow-walk compliance with the decision. The Agencies wasted valuable time and 

resources by prioritizing the promulgation of a rule over the first two years of the 

Biden Administration; that is now clearly unlawful. Notably, this Administration ignored our repeated admonitions that the Agencies should wait until the Supreme 

Court acted to proceed, and our warnings that the rule being drafted would not be 

‘‘durable.’’ Now the EPA and the Corps must work to bring application of WOTUS 

quickly and effectively in line with Sackett II.’’ 

Summer is a critical time for our industry to accomplish the infrastructure goals 

of the nation, particularly in the northern part of the US. We cannot wait additional 

months on end for a rule. We urge the agencies to issue a clear public directive of 

what waters are clearly not jurisdictional, and begin issuing AJDs as well as clearly 

excluding non-jurisdictional areas from PJDs, so that we can all get back to work. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

EMILY W. COYNER, P.G., 

Senior Director, Environmental Policy, 

f 

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. 

Letter of July 11, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

Caitlin McHale, Associate General Counsel, National Mining Association, 

Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer 

JULY 11, 2023. 

The Honorable MICHAEL S. REGAN, 

Administrator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Mail Code 

1101A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460. 

The Honorable MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Department of the Army, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310. 

DEAR ADMINISTRATOR REGAN AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONNOR: 

On behalf of the National Mining Association’s (NMA) nearly 300 members and 

the more than 1.2 million Americans employed directly and indirectly by the U.S. 

mining industry,1 we urge you to promptly lift the nationwide moratorium on 

issuing approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs). Mining operations rely on 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue AJDs so they can plan their operations with certainty. The Corps’ halt on issuing AJDs is causing significant uncertainty for the mining industry and could put our members’ projects—and the critical 

national supply chains 2 that rely on the raw materials they produce—at risk. 

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA 3 unanimously struck down 

the ‘‘significant nexus’’ test the agencies have used to establish federal jurisdiction 

over certain water features and narrowed the scope of federal jurisdiction over other 

water features, including non-adjacent wetlands, isolated features, and features that 
43 

4 Review of Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request: Agency Perspectives (Part I): Hearing Before 

the House Transp. and Infrastructure Comm., Subcomm. on Water Res. and Env’t., June 22, 

2023, (Statement of Michael L. Connor), available at https://transportation.house.gov/calendar/ 

eventsingle.aspx?EventID=406736 (last visited July 11, 2023). 5 EPA, Waters of the United States, Amendments to the 2023 Rule, available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule (last visited July 11, 2023). 6The White House, Investing in America, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/invest/ (last 

visited July 11, 2023). 7The White House, Press Statement: ‘‘Bidenomics is Working: The President’s Plan Grows the 

Economy from the Middle Out and Bottom Up—Not the Top Down’’ (June 28, 2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/28/bidenomics-is-working-the-presidents-plan-grows-the-economy-from-the-middle-out-and-bottom-up-not-the-top-down/ 

(last visited July 11, 2023). 8 EPA Administrator Michael Regan, Investing in America to Build a Brighter, Healthier Future (May 3, 2023), (‘‘From creating good-paying jobs to strengthening communities that have 

been left behind, that’s what the President’s Investing in America agenda is all about. With 

these once-in-a-generation investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation 

Reduction Act, we are delivering on that promise.’’) available at https://www.epa.gov/perspectives/investing-america-build-brighter-healthier-future (last visited July 11, 2023). 

are ordinarily dry. But instead of implementing the clear parameters the Court laid 

out in Sackett, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps have 

refused to implement the decision, leaving important development projects in regulatory limbo. 

Last month, Assistant Secretary Connor testified before Congress that the Corps 

had halted the issuance of AJDs and ‘‘would not be back in the AJD business’’ until 

the agencies completed a new ‘‘waters of the United States’’ (WOTUS) rule.4 The 

agencies recently stated they intend to issue a new final WOTUS rule by September 

1, 2023,5 but there is nothing binding the agencies to that timeline. Nor have the 

agencies shared any direction with the regulated public as to how they should proceed with ongoing projects that rely on obtaining AJDs or other permitting decisions 

from the Corps. 

Even if the agencies do complete a final rule by September 1, 2023, and resume 

issuance of AJDs at that time, the monthslong backlog will make it impossible for 

our members to obtain an AJD or permitting decisions in a timely manner. By the 

time they do obtain an AJD, their projects could be a year or more behind schedule. 

The agencies have put our members and the broader business community in an untenable position: move forward with construction and risk significant civil and criminal penalties; stop work for months, if not longer, until the agencies promulgate a 

new rule and eventually handle your AJD request; or concede jurisdiction and obtain a preliminary jurisdictional determination. None of these options give our industry the certainty it needs to move projects forward and provide our supply chains 

with the raw materials they need to thrive. 

Moreover, the agencies’ refusal to issue AJDs directly undercuts the President’s 

energy, transportation, infrastructure, manufacturing, and economic priorities. The 

President’s $503 billion-dollar ‘‘Investing in America’’ agenda promises to ‘‘[rebuild] 

our roads and bridges using Made in America materials, built by American workers.’’ 6 It pledges to support a ‘‘strong domestic manufacturing base’’ and shore up 

‘‘key industries that are critical to our national security and economic security’’ like 

semiconductors, battery and solar plants, and more.7 But these investments, and 

the good-paying American jobs they create, will be merely an empty promise without a robust domestic mining industry. 

Put simply, the agencies cannot claim to take this Administration’s priorities seriously 8 when they are holding AJDs hostage and blocking progress on the very types 

of projects on which our country’s future depends. Sackett was clear that certain features are not federally jurisdictional. At minimum, the agencies can and should resume issuing AJDs for clearly non-jurisdictional features. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. The NMA looks forward to 

working with you on next steps in crafting a WOTUS rule that complies with the 

Sackett decision, provides regulatory certainty to the mining industry, and protects 

the environment. Please contact me if you have any questions or we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

CAITLIN MCHALE, 

Associate General Counsel, National Mining Association. 

cc: Ms. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Mr. Jaime Pinkham, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, U.S. Department of the Army 
f 

44 

Letter of July 13, 2023, to Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of 

the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from Courtney 

Briggs, Chair, Waters Advocacy Coalition, Submitted for the Record by 

Hon. David Rouzer 

JULY 13, 2023. 

The Honorable MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310. 

Re: Moratorium on Approved Jurisdictional Determinations 

DEAR ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONNOR: The Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) hereby urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to lift the nationwide moratorium it has imposed on new ‘‘approved 

jurisdictional determinations’’ (AJDs). The Corps’ ongoing refusal to issue AJDs is 

creating significant uncertainty for job creators, food producers, housing developers 

and other important sectors of the national economy. In May, the Supreme Court 

unanimously ruled that the ‘‘significant nexus’’ test used by the Corps and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish jurisdiction over certain wetlands and other water features was inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. Rather 

than implement the Supreme Court’s decision through the AJD process, the Corps 

has halted the processing of AJDs, putting numerous projects in limbo. 

Last month, you testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and stated that the Corps does not expect to be ‘‘back in the AJD business’’ until EPA and the Corps finalize revisions to the regulatory definition of 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ that conform the regulations to the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sackett v. EPA. Although EPA and the Corps have only recently said 

they expect to issue a final rule by September 1, 2023, the Agencies have in the 

meantime left property owners to once again feel their way through jurisdictional 

questions on a case-by-case basis. Together, the lack of guidance from the Agencies 

and the Corps’ refusal to issue AJDs present significant barriers to growing a thriving economy and building strong infrastructure. 

WAC represents a large cross-section of the nation’s economy, including the construction, real estate, mining, manufacturing, forest products, agriculture, energy, 

recreation, and public health and safety sectors, all of which are vital to a thriving 

national economy and provide much needed jobs. Many of WAC’s members construct 

residential developments, multi-family housing units, commercial buildings, shopping centers, factories, warehouses, waterworks, and other utility facilities. WAC 

members also construct, operate, and maintain critical infrastructure such as highways, bridges, railroads, tunnels, airports, electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities, and pipeline facilities. WAC’s agricultural members provide virtually every agricultural commodity produced commercially in the United States, including significant portions of the U.S. milk, corn, cotton, sugar, rice, egg, pork, and 

beef supply. In addition, other WAC members sell and distribute fertilizer, pesticides, and biotechnology products used by American farmers. WAC members design, build, manage, and maintain golf facilities that generate economic development and tax revenue for thousands of communities across the country. Other WAC 

members are focused specifically on wildlife and habitat conservation. Members represent producers of most of America’s coal, metals, and industrial and agriculture 

minerals, which form the building blocks of many of the nation’s supply chains. 

WAC also has member groups representing the energy industry that generate, 

transmit, transport, and distribute our nation’s energy to residential, commercial, 

industrial, and institutional customers. 

Sackett provided much needed clarity about the limits of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act by bringing an end to assertions of jurisdiction 

based on the freewheeling ‘‘significant nexus’’ theory. Moreover, by endorsing the 

Rapanos plurality’s ‘‘relatively permanent’’ test, Sackett leaves no doubt that isolated water features, non-adjoining wetlands, and ordinarily dry features are not 

WOTUS. As such, the Corps can readily issue AJDs in the vast majority of cases 

where Sackett provides a clear answer to the question of whether a feature is 

WOTUS and do not need to wait for the development of a final rule further revising 

the definition of WOTUS. 

As the Agencies recently represented in the 2023 WOTUS Rule, ‘‘only roughly 

12% of resources assessed in approved jurisdictional determinations under the 

Rapanos Guidance required a significant nexus analysis[.]’’ 88 Fed. Reg. 3,004, 

3,126. (Jan. 18, 2023). Thus, the regulated community continues to need AJDs to 
45 

help inform decisions about how to conduct their operations and use their land even 

after Sackett’s invalidation of the significant nexus test. 

Although nothing in the Clean Water Act compelled the Corps to establish the 

AJD process decades ago, having codified the process into its regulations (33 C.F.R. 

Part 331), the Corps may not just arbitrarily refuse to implement its own regulations. The Corps’ current refusal to process AJDs flies in the face of its prior assurance that the agency ‘‘recognizes the value of JDs to the public and reaffirms the 

Corps commitment to continue its practice of providing JDs when requested to do 

so.’’ RGL No. 16–01, at 1 (Oct. 2016). Equally important, the Corps has acknowledged that several Supreme Court justices in Hawkes ‘‘highlighted that the availability of AJDs is important for fostering predictability for landowners.’’ Id. Indeed, 

those justices emphasized that ‘‘[t]he Act, especially without the JD procedure were 

the Government permitted to foreclose it, continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government’s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 

S. Ct. 1807, 1817 (2016) (Kennedy, J., concurring). 

In light of these considerations, the Corps must not postpone complying with the 

Sackett decision by refusing to process AJD requests. The moratorium on AJDs significantly harms WAC members whose activities depend on prompt Corps attention 

to AJD and permitting requests. Freezing this important program until at least September 1 will create yet another bottleneck for stakeholders and the Corps who have 

been struggling to implement numerous rules over the past several years. In some 

cases, businesses received an AJD under the 2020 Rule, and were then told that 

these needed to be redone under the pre-2015 regulatory regime or the 2023 

WOTUS rule. Implementing yet another rule will take time that our members don’t 

have. This is a busy season, and this new unwarranted delay just adds to years of 

hardship. 

WAC looks forward to the Agencies’ efforts to finalize a revised definition of 

WOTUS that is faithful to Sackett and the Rapanos plurality’s ‘‘relatively permanent’’ test and plans to weigh in on those revisions. In the meantime, however, the 

Corps cannot simply freeze its regulatory program. We hereby urge the Corps to immediately resume processing AJDs and thus provide WAC members and other landowners certainty over whether use of their lands is subject to regulation under the 

Clean Water Act. 

Sincerely, 

COURTNEY BRIGGS, 

Chair, Waters Advocacy Coalition. 

cc: The Honorable Michael S. Regan, Administrator 

Mr. ROUZER. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a letter sent by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves and myself and Republican leaders 

on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Michael Connor and 

EPA Administrator Michael Regan, dated June 21, asking what 

steps the agencies are taking to implement Sackett and resume 

reissuance of jurisdictional determinations. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

f 
46 

1Sackett v. EPA, No. 21–454 (U.S. May 25, 2023), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/ 

opinions/22pdf/21454l4g15.pdf; 598 U.S. ll (2023). 2 E.g., ‘‘Graves, Capito Lead EPA Colleagues in Joint Resolution to End WOTUS Rule’’ (Feb. 

6, 2023), https://www.capito.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/graves-capito-lead-gop-colleagues-injoint-resolution-to-end-wotus-rule; ‘‘Capito, Graves Lead Colleagues in Filing Amicus Brief on 

Clean Water Act Authority’’ (Apr. 19, 2022), https://www.capito.senate.gov/news/press-releases/ 

capito-graves-lead-colleagues-inlfiling-amicus-brief-on-clean-water-act-authority. 3 E.g., ‘‘Capito, EPW Republicans Tell Biden Administration to Halt New WOTUS Definition 

Rulemaking, Await SCOTUS Decision’’ (Feb. 23, 2022), https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ 

index.cfm/2022/2/capito-epw-republicans-tell-biden-administration-to-halt-new-wotus-definitionrulemaking-await-scotus-decision. 4 E.A. Cruden, et al., ‘‘Wetlands Approvals Paused After Supreme Court Decision,’’ E&E News 

(June 1, 2023), https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/06/01/wetlands-approvalspaused-after-supreme-court-decision-00099717; Sam Hess, ‘‘Sackett Lawyer Urges Agencies to 

Advance CWA Actions Amid Pause,’’ InsideEPA (June 6, 2023), https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ 

sackett-lawyer-urges-agencies-advance-cwa-actions-amid-pause (citing Corps’ Chicago District 

Regulatory Branch and Sacramento District Regulatory Branch). U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 

Chicago Dist., ‘‘Approved Jurisdictional Determinations Are on Hold,’’ https:// 

www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional-Determinations/ 

Letter of June 21, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

U.S. Senators Capito and Lummis, and U.S. Representatives Graves of 

Missouri and Rouzer, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515, 

June 21, 2023. 

The Honorable MICHAEL S. REGAN, 

Administrator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20004. 

The Honorable MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Department of the Army, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310. 

DEAR ADMINISTRATOR REGAN AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONNOR: 

We write to request a detailed update on the planned next steps of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), collectively ‘‘Agencies,’’ in response to the Supreme Court’s (Court) recently issued decision in Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. ll (May 25, 2023) (Sackett II). The Court’s ruling 

reinforces property owners’ rights, protects the separation of powers by limiting your 

Agencies’ authority to what Congress has delegated in statute, and ensures adherence to the congressional intent in writing the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, the Court upholds the cooperative federalism framework of the CWA, as well 

as the states’ authority and responsibility to regulate non-Federal waters within 

their borders. All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the Biden Administration’s definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ (WOTUS) based on ‘‘significant 

nexus’’ is illegitimate, and a majority of the Court articulated a clear, easily administrable definition of WOTUS.1

In implementing the Court’s decision, the Agencies must adhere to the majority 

opinion and not slow-walk compliance with the decision. The Agencies wasted valuable time and resources by prioritizing the promulgation of a rule over the first two 

years of the Biden Administration; that is now clearly unlawful. Notably, this Administration ignored our repeated admonitions that the Agencies should wait until 

the Supreme Court acted to proceed,2 and our warnings that the rule being drafted 

would not be ‘‘durable.’’ 3 Now the EPA and the Corps must work to bring application of WOTUS quickly and effectively in line with Sackett II. 

While we are pleased to see Sackett II clearly define the scope of the Agencies’ 

regulatory authority, we are concerned that the Administration is now delaying implementation of the ruling. For instance, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision, some Corps districts have stated that they will temporarily halt the review and 

issuance of approved jurisdictional determinations.4 Such a freeze in processing jurisdictional determinations unnecessarily delays the permitting process for projects. 

The Agencies previously used taxpayer resources to revisit already settled jurisdictional determinations issued by the previous Administration. The Biden Administration must now follow the law by implementing the Supreme Court’s decision with 

the same fervor it showed in its prior efforts on WOTUS. Failure to do so is indic-
47 

5 Envtl. Prot. Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following 

the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States 

(June 5, 2007), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-04/documents/rapanosguidance 

6507.pdf; Envtl. Prot. Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United 

States (Dec. 2, 2008), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201602/documents/cwal 

jurisdictionlfollowinglrapanos120208.pdf. 6Supra note 1, at 4–5. 

ative that these recent delays are needless at best, or intentional efforts to halt economic development at worst. 

Following the Court’s ruling in Rapanos v. EPA, the Agencies took a year to provide interim legal guidance and two years to issue the 2008 guidance document on 

implementing that case.5 However, implementing the ruling in Rapanos was legally 

complex because of the 4–1–4 nature of the decision. By contrast, the ‘‘continuous 

surface connection test’’ upheld by a majority of the Court in Sackett II is clear and 

can be implemented immediately.6

In order to comply with the Court’s ruling, the Agencies must provide immediate 

direction to their regional and district offices to apply Sackett II in the evaluation 

of jurisdictional determinations and permits, ensuring clarity and consistent nationwide application of CWA jurisdiction to landowners and the regulated community. 

Ongoing delays and confusion will hamper project development across the country, 

including those authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 

In light of these developments, we request a briefing and response to the following 

questions no later than June 28, 2023, so that we may fully understand the Administration’s plan to implement a truly durable definition of a WOTUS in line with 

Sackett II: 

1. What concrete steps are the Agencies taking following Sackett II to implement 

the majority’s opinion? 

2. Will you direct the Corps to immediately resume the issuance of jurisdictional 

determinations? If not, please provide a detailed explanation justifying the failure to resume issuance. 

Sincerely, 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

United States Senator, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, 

United States Senator, Ranking Member, 

EPW Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife. 

SAM GRAVES, 

Member of Congress, Chairman, 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I). 

DAVID ROUZER, 

Member of Congress, Chairman, 

T&I Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

Mr. ROUZER. And, finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into 

the record a response to this letter sent by EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water Radhika Fox, who is here with us 

today, and Assistant Secretary Connor, dated July 12, in which 

EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers state their intention of delivering a revised WOTUS rule and ending the pause on issuing judicial determinations by September 1 of this year. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

f 
48 

Letter of July 12, 2023, to Hon. David Rouzer, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment, from Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Department of the Army, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David 

Rouzer 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS. 

July 12, 2023. 

The Honorable DAVID ROUZER, 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ROUZER: 

Thank you for your June 21, 2023, letter regarding the definition of ‘‘waters of 

the United States.’’ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of the Army (agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 

2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. In light 

of this decision, the agencies are interpreting the phrase ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. The agencies are 

developing a rule to amend the final ‘‘Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United 

States’ ’’ rule, published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023, consistent with 

the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The agencies intend to issue a final rule by September 

1, 2023. We appreciated the opportunity to brief your staff on the status of the definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ on June 27, 2023. Please see EPA’s website 

at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule for more details. 

Upon receipt of the Sackett decision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

temporarily paused issuance of all Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (AJDs) 

while the agencies determined the appropriate next steps. After a short time, the 

agencies determined it was appropriate to limit the pause to some, but not all AJDs. 

Therefore, the Corps is currently issuing AJDs for which no water resources are involved (known as dry land AJDs) and for water resources that meet the terms of 

exclusions under the 2023 Rule or the pre-2015 regulatory regime, where applicable. 

This includes the longstanding exclusion for prior converted cropland, which our 

country’s farmers have relied on for many decades. 

It is important to note this is a temporary, partial pause while the agencies develop a rule to amend the 2023 Rule, consistent with the Sackett decision. As previously stated, the agencies intend to issue the rule by September 1, 2023, and the 

Corps is prepared to resume issuing all AJDs by the effective date of the rule. 

Finally, applicants with pending or new permit actions can choose to rely on preliminary jurisdictional determinations or delineation verifications, as they are not 

affected by the partial pause. Additionally, applicants can utilize an existing, unexpired AJD to support a pending or new permit action, with the exception of those 

completed under the vacated Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Thank you again for your letter. Please contact us if you have any remaining 

questions or your staff may contact Laura Gentile in EPA’s Office of Congressional 

and Intergovernmental Relations, or Stacey Jensen, Acting Director of Policy and 

Legislation in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Sincerely, 

RADHIKA FOX, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. 

MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Mr. ROUZER. Again, I thank the panelists for their very good testimony. I appreciate each one of you being here today. 

We will now turn to questions from the panel. I will recognize 

myself for 5 minutes for such questions. 

Ms. Fox, great to see you here. I enjoyed our phone conversation 

the other day. And as we talked a little bit about WOTUS, and 

then we all know all nine Justices in the Sackett case unequivocally struck down the ‘‘significant nexus’’ test. Sackett clearly held 
49 

that in order to be a WOTUS, a water has to be relatively permanent or indistinguishable from a traditionally navigable water. 

And of course, this was very much at odds with some examples 

given in the 2023 WOTUS rule, its preamble, and its technical support document. 

And using the examples from that same technical support document, I have a series of questions to get a better understanding of 

where the administration is. 

Pursuant to Sackett, will water collected in ditches from back-toback rainstorms be considered a WOTUS? 

Ms. FOX. Um—— 

Mr. ROUZER [interrupting]. Is that a yes or a no? 

Ms. FOX. So, thank you, Chairman Rouzer, for the opportunity 

to address what the agencies are doing on waters of the United 

States. 

We are currently looking carefully at the Sackett decision, and 

we are in the process of developing a targeted rulemaking to bring 

the 2023 rule into conformity with the Sackett case. 

You mentioned, sir, the ‘‘significant nexus’’ test, which certainly 

is in the 2023 rule. That does not comport with the law. 

And so, for example, one of the things that we will be doing in 

that rulemaking is removing significant nexus. So, we intend to follow the law as we continue to implement waters of the United 

States. 

Mr. ROUZER. So, the question again, though, is: Will water collected in ditches from back-to-back rainstorms be considered a 

WOTUS? 

Ms. FOX. So, Chairman, the Army Corps is responsible for making jurisdictional determinations on various water bodies. And they 

use case-specific and geographically specific information in order to 

do that. So, those questions are best suited for Army Corps. 

Mr. ROUZER. Yes. Well, these questions come from the technical 

guidance, whatever you call it, your technical support document. 

And that is where I have gotten them from. 

Here’s another question for you. I will go through these, and we 

will see where we are. 

Will areas of land with no water present where an aquatic plant 

has been dropped—in the technical document it says ‘‘dispersed,’’ 

I use the word ‘‘dropped’’—by a bird be considered a WOTUS? 

Will areas of land with no water present where an aquatic plant 

has been dropped by a bird be considered a WOTUS? 

Ms. FOX. So, Chairman, as I said, we are moving forward with 

a focused rulemaking that will bring the 2023 waters of the United 

States rule into conformity with the law, with the Sackett decision. 

Mr. ROUZER. All right. I’ve got the trend here. Let me continue 

on. 

Will a rare high watermark be used to determine a WOTUS? 

These are all questions that my constituents want answers to. 

Will the ground 10 feet away from a stream that fizzles out be 

considered a WOTUS? 

Under the technical support guide, it was, under the 2023 rule. 

Will moist soil left under tire tracks on a dirt road be considered 

a WOTUS? 
50 

Will a rice field used out of season for duck hunting be considered a WOTUS? 

So, these are the very significant questions that our constituents 

have. And if we can’t answer yes or no now based on the very clear 

decision of Sackett, ruling on Sackett, I think you can understand 

why a lot of us are quite concerned in how the administration is 

moving forward. 

So, let me get to this bottom line here. 

Do you intend to make modifications to the 2023 rule beyond just 

addressing significant nexus in order to comply with Sackett? 

Ms. FOX. So, thank you for the question, Chairman. 

I also want to thank you for sharing the questions that are coming from your constituents on waters of the United States. 

Once our good cause rule is final on September 1st, we intend 

to host implementation discussions with a range of stakeholders 

who have a stake in the Clean Water Act to—if there are ongoing 

questions after that rulemaking is completed. 

And so, I certainly commit, if you would like for us to speak with 

the constituents that are raising those questions, we are happy to 

do so. 

As far as your question about how we are addressing this rulemaking, we take seriously the law. And we will finalize a rule that 

adheres to that. So, it will address the issue of significant nexus. 

We will be removing significant nexus as a test for jurisdiction in 

that rulemaking, but there are other things in the case that we will 

also address. 

For example, the Justices spoke very clearly on their definition 

of adjacency, that adjacency, you must have a direct surface connection. That is a definition of adjacency that is narrower than currently in the 2023 rule. So, we are going to address that, too. 

The agencies are committed to following the law. We are committed, as we have been from the beginning, to clear and durable 

implementation, and we will not waver from that responsibility. 

Mr. ROUZER. Yes, I will have to cut you off there, since I am 40 

minutes over, and I try to set a good example. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On July 10, Ranking Member Larsen and I wrote a letter to EPA 

and the Corps, asking for your help, in quantifying—this is for you, 

Ms. Fox—the economic, environmental, and public health consequences of the SCOTUS Sackett decision. 

I ask unanimous consent this letter be made part of the record. 

Mr. ROUZER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

f 
51 

1See https://www.law360.com/articles/1686914/sackett-s-us-waters-redefinition-is-a-boon-fordevelopers; https://www.concordmonitor.com/My-Turn-The-Supreme-Court-fails-on-the-environment-51232419; https://www.eenews.net/articles/post-sackett-chaos-erupts-for-wetlands-oversight/; https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/what-comes-next-clean-water-six-consequences-sackett-v-epa and https://theintercept.com/2023/05/26/supreme-court-sackett-epaclean-water-act/. 

Letter of July 10, 2023, to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Hon. Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, from 

Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, and Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the 

Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515, 

July 10, 2023. 

The Honorable MICHAEL S. REGAN, 

Administrator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (Mail code: 

1101A), Washington, DC 20460. 

The Honorable MICHAEL L. CONNOR, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

U.S. Department of the Army, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0108. 

ADMINISTRATOR REGAN AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONNOR: 

We write to request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) systematically document the individual 

and cumulative impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s (Court) misguided decision in 

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (598 U.S. ll (2023)) on efforts to protect the nation’s water quality and to safeguard the strength of the nation’s economy, the health and safety of American families, and the sustainability of the nation’s environment. 

In its Sackett decision, the Court dramatically limited the scope of federal protections over the nation’s waters and wetlands provided by the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). In ignoring the CWA’s plain and unambiguous language, as well as almost 

5 decades of unbroken, bipartisan protection of the nation’s waterbodies, five members of the Court redefined the Act’s scope to serve their hyper-conservative judicial 

philosophy. In doing so, the Court decided to judicially rewrite the tests for determining what rivers, streams, and wetlands remain protected by the CWA and created entirely new criteria—with no precedent in the statute or in the decades-long 

agency interpretation of the CWA. These new criteria are likely to result in greater 

adverse impacts to the nation’s waters than the Trump administration’s 2020 rulemaking—a rulemaking that a prior Federal court characterized as causing serious 

environmental harm. 

In the aftermath of the Sackett decision, various reports have characterized the 

Sackett decision as ‘‘a gift to polluting industries,’’ ‘‘a boon for developers,’’ ‘‘a decision [that] puts private property over any public good,’’ a decision that ‘‘has no basis 

in science,’’ and one that is causing regulatory ‘‘chaos.’’ 1

Preliminary analyses estimate that the Sackett decision has removed federal protections on roughly half of the existing wetlands in the United States, and an unknown, although likely equally significant impact to other waterbodies. If prior EPA 

internal estimates on the impacts of the Trump administration’s 2020 rule hold 

true, the Sackett decision will result in the loss of CWA protections on up to 70 percent of the nation’s river and stream miles. This would mean that critical rivers, 

streams, and lakes, and the associated waterbodies that have historically benefited 

from federal protection—including in watersheds flowing into the Chesapeake Bay 

and national parks like the Everglades—are in jeopardy of degradation or destruction. 

The Sackett decision has the potential to eliminate over 50 years of progress by 

federal, state, and local governments, as well as average citizens, in improving 

water quality virtually overnight. It has returned water quality protection in the 

U.S. to the failed, patchwork of state-by-state efforts to protect local rivers, streams, 

and wetlands that was rejected in enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and 

has reinvigorated the potential state-by-state, ‘‘race-to-the-bottom’’ on protecting our 

water-related environment. 
52 

Considering the potential overwhelming adverse impacts of this decision to our 

nation, its citizens, and our environment, it is incumbent on EPA and the Corps to 

systematically document the individual and cumulative impacts of the Sackett decision on national efforts to protect water quality, as well as the myriad of public, 

private, human health and environmental benefits that are associated with clean 

water. 

Accordingly, we request that EPA and the Corps track the following data: 

1. The number, location, acreage, and potential loss of ecological and hydrologic 

function of waters and wetlands where a jurisdictional determination was initiated, but not completed, prior to the Sackett decision. 

2. The number, location, acreage, and potential loss of ecological and hydrologic 

function of waters and wetlands associated with CWA permits issued prior to 

Sackett where the permittee has abandoned (or requested to abandon) the permit. 

3. The number, location, acreage, and potential loss of ecological and hydrologic 

function of wetlands previously protected by the CWA where such protection 

has been lost because of the Sackett decision, including wetlands separated 

from traditionally navigable waters by ‘‘barriers’’ not considered ‘‘illegally’’ constructed under footnote 16 of the majority opinion. 

4. The number, location, and pollutants covered by existing National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits which discharge into waters 

and wetlands no longer protected by the CWA following Sackett. 

5. The locations and expected population impacted by the loss of CWA protections 

over intermittent, ephemeral, and headwater streams that provide a source of 

drinking water for public water systems. 

6. Information on alleged violations of sections 402 and 404 of the CWA where 

the accused did not seek a jurisdictional determination on whether the 

waterbody was protected by the CWA. 

7. Any potential impact on the agencies’ ability to meet the goals of existing federal geographic programs or projects, including the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Florida Everglades, the Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and 

Long Island Sound. 

In addition, we request that EPA and the Corps quantify the potential adverse 

economic impacts of the Sackett decision on the following: 

1. Any reduced ecological value of waters and wetlands no longer protected by the 

CWA. 

2. Any lost recreational opportunity or recreational value associated with waters 

and wetlands no longer protected by the CWA. 

3. Any potential increase in downstream inundation and flooding. 

4. The ability of wetlands to help allay the potential and future impacts of climate change, including severe weather events and coastal and inland flooding. 

5. Any potential increase in costs for ecological restoration or protection resulting 

from loss of CWA protections over waters and wetlands. 

6. Any potential increase in drinking water costs or decrease in drinking water 

source protection and reliability resulting from loss of CWA protection over 

waters and wetlands. 

7. Any potential increase in agricultural water costs or decrease in agricultural 

water source reliability resulting from loss of CWA protections over waters and 

wetlands. 

8. Any potential increase in oil spill response costs or damages resulting from loss 

of CWA protections over waters and wetlands. 

We also request that EPA and the Corps systematically track and document individual jurisdictional determinations—both positive and negative determinations— 

with ample scientific, geographic, hydrologic, and visual data (including photographic evidence) to provide stakeholders and practitioners with critical data on how 

to interpret the new Sackett decision. 

As Congress begins the discussion on how to respond to the Court’s misreading 

of the CWA, we request that the agencies provide us and the general public with 

periodic updates on the information requested in this letter. 

We also request any recommendations you might suggest on how Congress and 

federal agencies can ensure that this nation does not lose progress in meeting the 

goals of the CWA to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in-
53 

tegrity of the Nation’s waters,’’ including potential amendments to the CWA to restore protections lost in the Sackett decision. 

Sincerely, 

RICK LARSEN, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. This misguided decision has the potential to 

squander 50 years of bipartisan efforts to restore and maintain our 

Nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands, yet the exact scope 

of the damage is not yet known. 

Will you commit to helping us define how the Court’s conservative majority has radically undermined historic clean water protections so we can quickly develop ways to prevent harm to our 

health and the health of our rivers, streams, and wetlands? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you. 

And, Congresswoman, thank you also for this reminder of the 

progress that we have made over the last 50 years because of the 

Clean Water Act. Again, rivers all over the country on fire are now 

fishable and swimmable. We should be proud of that. 

We are in receipt of your letter and Congressman Larsen’s letter, 

and we will work hard to be responsive and document the information that you have requested. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Giner, the scope of your Commission’s responsibilities is 

striking. I don’t know how you do it with that small a budget. How 

do you handle the responsibilities with the budget you are provided 

annually by Congress? How do you manage? 

Ms. GINER. So, we clearly have not done a very good job because 

we have aging infrastructure. We have two noncompliant wastewater treatment plants and a dam that has been deemed as potentially unsafe. 

Right now, we estimate that we have a backlog of around $473 

million worth of construction of estimated—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [interrupting]. And deferred maintenance. And 

deferred maintenance. 

Ms. GINER. I am sorry? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Deferred maintenance. 

Ms. GINER. Yes, $473 million of construction that has come because of deferred maintenance. This includes rehabilitation of two 

of our international wastewater treatment plants that are not complying with water quality discharge permit standards. 

This includes dam safety and canal repairs that deliver waters 

to communities and farmers in Texas that cost about $260 million. 

And then, of course, upgrades to our levees for flood protection 

is required by FEMA for California, New Mexico, and Texas. 

And, of course, every year, there is about $11 million worth of 

work that we do not do, and that has accumulated over time, which 

includes sediment, levee repairs, equipment that requires maintenance. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You borrow from other entities. 

Ms. GINER. We actually—I call ourselves the poor cousins. Whenever some of the other agencies have equipment that they no 
54 

longer need, we definitely sign up to receive much of that equipment. 

But I will say that in fiscal year 2023, we received increased 

funding in construction precisely for new equipment, and in 1 year, 

we bought 44 pieces of equipment, when in 10 years, we had 

bought 50. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Can you describe the economic and environmental benefits that could be obtained if you were able to fully 

fund your critical construction and operation and maintenance 

needs? 

Ms. GINER. So, we serve 2,000 miles and 15 million residents 

from California to Texas. And the failures of our levees, our wastewater treatment plants have varying effects in these communities. 

The negative impacts from cross-border sewage in southern California have closed those beaches for over 500 days, and, of course, 

have reduced the economy and tourism. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All right. How would the contributed funds 

authority included in the President’s budget help IBWC meet its 

mission? 

Ms. GINER. So, the contributed funds authority is an authority 

that other agencies have, like Army Corps of Engineers, and so, the 

absence of that does not allow for IBWC to receive funds from Federal and State agencies for common mission items because of the 

Antideficiency Act. 

Thus, having the ability to share the cost burden with other 

agencies on common mission-related activities will allow us to address these needs. 

For example, CPB uses our levees for patrolling the border, causing damage to our levees. At this time, contributed funds authority 

will allow us to partner with them to repair our levees with CBP. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Dr. Bernstein, my time is up, but I have some questions for you 

that I will submit in writing to you, as well as the other members. 

I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Assistant Administrator Fox, farmers in deep, southern Illinois 

where I live and I represent are tired of the Federal Government, 

by the way, overregulating the waters to advance Biden’s radical 

green agenda. 

They have been jockeyed back and forth under the WOTUS regulation over the past year. And despite questions that are legally 

being raised and an impending Supreme Court decision on the final 

rule, the administration implemented the rule anyway, just to have 

it overturned within the first 3 months. 

And I don’t know what this accomplished. It actually accomplished nothing. It left American farmers and many others in a 

state of limbo and confusion. 

And now your agency has just amended the rule in the next 2 

months. I don’t know how anyone else—but this feels like the administration knows the rule, knows the rule, and is—it is wrong, 

but that it is continuing to push to see just how much they can get 

away with. 
55 

Our farmers and manufacturers are going to have to pay the 

price, because you can’t get it straight. It is no wonder that people 

around the this Nation, especially those trying to feed and provide 

for the food and fiber that this Nation needs, just doesn’t trust 

Government at all. 

As the EPA works to amend the flawed regulation, I need to 

know if you will commit to properly consider the needs of the farmer and other small businesses who produce the food and fiber that 

this Nation depends on? 

Ms. FOX. Yes. We absolutely commit to that. 

And, Congressman, one of the things that I have done in the 21⁄2

years that I have been in this role as Assistant Administrator, really following the leadership of our Administrator, Administrator 

Regan, is to listen to all sides. 

This EPA has engaged more with the agricultural community 

than any administration. As we developed the waters of the United 

States rule, we held listening sessions. We met with farmers and 

ranchers and developers all around the country. And we value that 

input. 

And, in fact, in the 2023 rule, we put in place provisions that we 

heard time and again from farmers and ranchers that was important. 

For example, we codified a number of exemptions, such as prior 

converted cropland, artificial ponds, really at their request. So, we 

absolutely commit to that ongoing engagement. 

Mr. BOST. But, yet—— 

Ms. FOX [interrupting]. We made better policy because of that. 

And as it relates to the—— 

Mr. BOST [continuing]. But yet you could not answer the questions that the chairman asked a while ago, and that is the problem 

that we deal with, with our farmers and other people. 

They have the questions, and Government doesn’t give it the answer because they—I have got to watch what I am going to say, 

because I don’t want to say something that will look terrible on the 

record. 

But it really looks like you don’t know what you are doing, or you 

are just trying to force an idea or an agenda that is detrimental 

to those people who we represent, because you can’t give answers. 

Ms. FOX. What we are doing is working to make sure that there 

is a clear, legal, and implementable definition of waters of the 

United States. 

The Sackett decision—— 

Mr. BOST [interrupting]. I think the Supreme Court has already 

ruled that you didn’t do that, right? 

Ms. FOX. The Sackett decision was focused—ruling on a previous 

enforcement case. It was not a decision about the 2023 rule. But 

clearly there are aspects of the 2023 rule that are inconsistent with 

the Sackett decision. Therefore, we are moving quickly to provide 

regulatory certainty by striking the aspects of the 2023 rule that 

are no longer consistent. 

Our rationale for doing that is because we care very much about 

making sure that the entire regulated community has certainty 

and clarity, and that is what our—— 
56 

Mr. BOST [interrupting]. I think it is a shame that you talk about 

50 years ago when the rivers were burning and we needed to do 

something. That is fine. 

But this is the problem that the American people feel. When the 

overreach comes so far that you leave the navigable waters that 

you should be governing and controlling—and we all want clean 

water—to worrying about what water runs off the brim of my hat 

is when you have gone too far. 

And that is exactly what this rule has done. And that is exactly 

what farmers feel. That is what my constituents feel. That is what 

people with construction sites feel, that they might be just building 

a new addition onto their home. 

Every time we turn around, Government is on our backs, and 

enough. But yet you get court rulings, but you can’t answer the 

questions that are put before you. 

I appreciate you being here today, but you didn’t answer my 

questions, and you didn’t answer the chairman’s questions. 

And with that, I am out of time, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I also want to thank my colleague for letting me skip one ahead. 

I want to also thank our witnesses, each of you, for your service, 

the work that you are doing, and just for your time here today. We 

appreciate it. 

Two specific questions local to my district and the community 

that I represent, which is New York’s 18th Congressional District, 

the beautiful Hudson Valley of New York, north of New York City. 

In my district, we clearly, unequivocally, have a lead water crisis. 

Last month, the Environmental Advocates of New York published 

a report, which I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ROUZER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

f 

Memo on Lead Service Lines in Poughkeepsie, NY, May 22, 2023, from Environmental Advocates NY, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Patrick Ryan 

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES NY 

MEMO ON LEAD SERVICE LINES IN POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 

5/22/23 

Poughkeepsie has a lead poisoning crisis, with one of the highest rates of childhood elevated blood lead levels in the state (approximately 1 in 10 children are lead 

poisoned). Contributing to this crisis are an estimated 5,500 lead service lines 

(LSLs) in the city, which connect water mains running under streets to the internal 

plumbing in homes and businesses. LSLs contaminate drinking water with a dangerous neurotoxin that is especially harmful to pregnant people and infants. There 

is no safe level of lead exposure. 

Poughkeepsie’s policies towards LSLs appear to be a collection of worst practices 

when it comes to protecting residents from lead in drinking water, exacerbating environmental injustices that disproportionately harm the city’s low-income communities and communities of color. The city also currently has no plan to achieve 100% 

LSL replacement. 

This issue has been brought to light thanks to the thorough research of Cooper 

Miller, a Poughkeepsie resident who has an LSL. Over the past two years, Cooper 

has expressed his concern about LSLs through multiple avenues, including a private 

presentation to the City Council in the Fall of 2022. To our knowledge, neither the 
57 

former nor current mayoral administration responded to his concerns with a change 

in city policy. 

The below is an overview of the current situation as well as policy recommendations that the city can adopt to get the lead out of drinking water. Significant questions also still remain to be answered, especially Veolia’s relationship with LSL replacement after taking over maintenance of the city’s water distribution system in 

2019. 

1. Poughkeepsie has only replaced 14 LSLs since 2018, and has spent exorbitantly 

more per LSL replaced than any other city in New York. By wasting resources, 

the city has kept more residents exposed to lead than necessary. 

In 2018, Poughkeepsie received a $544,745 grant from the NYS Department of 

Health (DOH) to conduct full LSL replacements at no cost to homeowners. According to data provided by the NYS Department of Health, as of July 2022, Poughkeepsie had only spent$400,000 and replaced 14 LSLs. Over $100,000 of this spending was not used to directly replace LSLs—it is unclear how the city spent this 

money. It is possible that the city used the $100,000 to develop an inventory of LSLs 

in its distribution system. 

Date Amount Spent 

Number of 

LSLs 

Replaced 

Average 

Cost per 

LSL 

Replaced 

February 2019 ........................................................................... $45,481.98 0 N/A 

July–October 2019 .................................................................... $35,176.30 0 N/A 

March 2020 ............................................................................... $203,239.34 11 $18,476 

April–September 2020 .............................................................. $20,949.93 0 N/A 

April 2021 ................................................................................. $57,819.11 2 $28,909 

September 2021 ........................................................................ $29,746.09 1 $29,746 

January–April 2022 ................................................................... $7,516.16 0 N/A 

Totals .................................................................................... $399,928.91 14 N/A 

The average cost per LSL replaced in Poughkeepsie ran as high as $29,000, far 

exceeding the normal range of $5,000–$10,000. The city has not provided an explanation for why it spent so much money replacing so few LSLs. Meanwhile, thousands of LSLs across the city continue to contaminate residents’ drinking water 

every day. 

In contrast, the City of Albany spent 100% of its DOH grant by March 2021, replacing 74 LSL at an average cost of $6,980 per LSL replaced. Eight DOH grant 

recipients spent all of their funds by July 2021, replacing between a collective 951 

LSLs with their funding, with an average cost per LSL replaced ranging from 

$3,200 to $8,600. 

Recently, and potentially due to Cooper’s questions, Poughkeepsie awarded an 

LSL replacement bid for $175,000 to Sun Up Construction Corporation, which within the last week has begun reaching out to property owners to begin LSL replacements. It is not clear why this bid exceeds the $145,000 in funding that DOH 

records indicate remain. The former mayoral administration had also told the 

Poughkeepsie Journal in August 2022 that only $80,000 in DOH LSL funding remained. 

2. Poughkeepsie has allowed partial LSL replacements (partial LSLR), which cause 

lead levels to spike while keeping part of the LSL in place. 

In Poughkeepsie, ownership over the LSL is split between the property owner and 

the city. The property owner owns the portion of the LSL between the building and 

the curb, and the city owns the portion of the LSL between the curb and the water 

main. Partial LSLR is a procedure where only half of the LSL is replaced, either 

the public or private portion of the line. Partial LSLR causes lead levels to spike 

in the short term due to pipe disruption, and does nothing to reduce lead levels in 

the long term because a portion of the LSL remains in place. Forcing residents to 

pay for half of an LSL replacement also disproportionately burdens low-income residents who are already struggling to pay for basic needs like food and medicine. 

In 2021, Cooper wanted to replace his LSL, and contacted the city about a replacement. The city informed Cooper that he could pay to replace his half of the 
58 

1Poughkeepsie has not exceeded EPA’s 15 ppb action level, but elevated levels of lead could 

still be contaminating drinking water in the city. The level of lead leaching from LSLs may fluctuate over time due to water chemistry, temperature, and flow rate, or from disruption by street 

construction. 

LSL, but the city would not replace their half. Cooper proceeded with a partial 

LSLR at a cost to him of about $7,000. 

3. Poughkeepsie has only conducted federal compliance sampling for lead in wealthy, 

white areas of the city. The city has also sampled at city employee homes, a clear 

conflict of interest. 

All water utilities are required to test for lead by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If a utility’s ‘‘90th percentile’’ of sampling exceeds 15 parts per 

billion (ppb), the utility is in violation of EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and 

must notify customers and take corrective actions.1 Poughkeepsie tests for lead 

every 3 years. 

Poughkeepsie is only sampling for lead in predominantly wealthy, white neighborhoods in the south of the city. While EPA does not require a certain geographic distribution in lead sampling, the city should strive to identify risks from lead in drinking water in areas of the city most impacted by the lead poisoning crisis. 

Poughkeepsie tested 30 homes for lead as part of its compliance sampling in 2020. 

At least 50% of these homes were owned by city employees. Two homes were owned 

by Department of Public Works employees, including the Superintendent. This presents a clear conflict of interest—the city has an interest in not exceeding EPA’s 

LCR. There has been no evidence of sample tampering, but the possibility that tampering could occur is cause enough for concern. 

The city has not announced any changes to its sampling plan for upcoming compliance testing. 

4. Poughkeepsie has not applied for federal funding to inventory or replace LSLs. 

The federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes a historic $15 billion to inventory and replace LSLs (though this is expected to address only about a third of the 

need to replace all LSLs nationwide). New York will receive over $500 million of 

this funding over the next 5 years. $104 million is available this year, and dozens 

of communities submitted eligible applications. Poughkeepsie is not on the list. The 

failure to apply for funding to get the lead out of drinking water shows a lack of 

seriousness by the city in addressing the problem. 

POLICIES TO ACHIEVE 100% LSL REPLACEMENT

The only way to fully protect the public from lead in drinking water is to remove 

the sources of lead entirely. Poughkeepsie needs a plan to achieve 100% LSL replacement, and should: 

1. Adopt a Get the Lead Out Ordinance, modeled off of the ordinance recently enacted by the City of Troy. 

Section 14.79 of the Poughkeepsie Administrative Code details the regulations 

governing service lines in the city, and would likely need to be amended by a Get 

the Lead Out ordinance. Here are the specific components of Troy’s ordinance, and 

improvements that we believe could be made in a Poughkeepsie ordinance to establish an even more health-protective policy: 

a. Declares LSLs an ‘‘unsafe and hazardous installation’’ 

Currently, LSLs are not illegal in New York State. There are no requirements for 

property owners to replace LSLs and local governments are only required to replace 

LSLs in limited circumstances (such as after certain violations of US EPA’s lead in 

drinking water regulations). This language codifies as city policy that LSLs pose a 

risk to human health and should be replaced. 

Recommendation: We recommend that galvanized service lines (GSLs) also be considered ‘‘unsafe and hazardous installations.’’ GSLs are coated in zinc, which contains lead that can leach into drinking water regardless of whether another portion 

of the service line is made of lead. The US EPA has identified GSLs as a threat 

to human health, and allows federal LSL replacement funds to be used to replace 

GSLs. Troy has stated that it intends to replace GSLs even though they were not 

specifically mentioned in their ordinance. 

b. Requires the city to implement a program to replace LSLs 

As written, Troy’s ordinance requires the city to replace all portions of LSLs that 

it owns. Troy is required to offer to replace a customer’s portion of an LSL during 
59 

each replacement, but it reserves the right to charge customers for that replacement. The ordinance does allow Troy to pay to replace a private portion of an LSL 

under certain conditions—these conditions are broad, and Troy has said that it intends to offer to pay the full cost for all LSL replacements it initiates. 

The ordinance requires Troy to secure the consent of the property owner before 

conducting a full LSL replacement. If a property owner refuses to provide consent, 

the property owner must pay to replace their portion of the LSL within 6 months. 

If they do not, Troy reserves the right to disconnect water service. 

The ordinance was structured in this way because, at the time, Troy believed that 

there were legal obstacles to spending certain public funds to replace privately 

owned portions of LSLs. Language was included in the recently enacted New York 

state budget in part to clarify that local governments can spend public funds to replace privately owned portions of LSLs. 

Recommendation: We recommend that Poughkeepsie’s ordinance simply require 

Poughkeepsie to offer to pay the full cost for any LSL replacement that it initiates. 

c. Prohibits partial LSLR and prohibits repairs on LSLs (the full LSL must be replaced if a leak or break is detected) 

This requirement ensures that residents’ health is not put at risk from partial 

LSLRs. It also ensures that LSLs are replaced when they are uncovered during a 

leak or break. It is much cheaper to remove the full LSL in those instances rather 

than repairing the pipe and returning in the future to dig up the street again to 

conduct the full replacement. 

d. Authorizes the city to access and enter properties for the purpose of inspecting 

or replacing LSLs, and to disconnect water service if permission is not granted. 

Poughkeepsie has general authority to access properties for the purpose of inspecting water infrastructure under its city code, but inspecting and replacing LSLs 

are not specifically mentioned as covered activities. Similar authorization language 

to Troy’s ordinance could be incorporated into Poughkeepsie’s city code. 

Recommendation: We support the establishment of compliance mechanisms to ensure that property owners, both homeowners and landlords, cannot refuse a free 

LSL replacement. While we are willing to accept the use of water shut-offs to 

achieve compliance from homeowners, we do not support the use of water shut-offs 

at apartment buildings when landlords are non-cooperative or non-responsive, which 

would cause harm to tenants. 

Tenants should not be deprived access to water because a landlord failed to 

prioritize their wellbeing. Some landlords may refuse to allow city officials into their 

buildings to hide other code violations that are causing unsafe and hazardous conditions for tenants. And ultimately, some absentee landlords who already care little 

for their tenants might not care that water has been shut-off to their properties. 

We recommend identifying an alternative enforcement mechanism to ensure that 

landlords comply with LSL replacements, or including language that water shut-offs 

will only be used at rental properties as a last resort after all other mechanisms 

to hold landlords accountable have been exhausted. 

e. Authorizes the creation of a program to provide water filters to residents with 

LSLs 

Some residents will have to wait years before work crews arrive at their street; 

no one should be exposed to a dangerous neurotoxin in their drinking water during 

that time. We support providing filters to residents that report an LSL, which would 

incentivize responses to build out an LSL inventory. 

Filtration is an effective and inexpensive short-term solution to protect public 

health. A pitcher filter certified to remove lead can cost less than or around $100, 

including replacement filter cartridges. Providing filters should not be seen as ‘‘taking away’’ resources from lead remediation. Rather, providing filters and replacing 

LSLs should be seen as complementary, equally-essential components of protecting 

residents from lead in the short term and the long term. 

f. Additional recommendations: There are several policies not specifically included 

in Troy’s ordinance that Poughkeepsie could adopt: 

Require the use of copper service lines to replace LSL: Troy is planning to use copper, and Albany’s city code requires the use of copper. Copper is a safe and welltested material. A recent landmark report described the dangers of plastic piping. 

The Healthy Building Network recommends copper, and the International Association of Fire Fighters and United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters have voiced 

their concerns with plastic pipes, with off-gassing of chemicals during construction 

posing health risks to workers. 
60 

Describe properties/areas for prioritization: Poughkeepsie should prioritize LSL 

replacements in Disadvantaged Communities and at day cares, schools, and homes 

with children with elevated blood lead levels. Tying LSL replacements to streets 

being repaved/repaired can also help make replacements more efficient by digging 

up the street only once rather than twice. 

Housing and economic justice: Landlords should be required to inform tenants 

about the presence of an LSL. LSL replacements should be conducted by union 

labor, pay prevailing wage, and where possible utilize apprenticeship programs to 

open employment opportunities to local community members. 

2. Develop a funding plan to implement the Get the Lead Out Ordinance and achieve 

100% LSL replacement. 

The New York state budget included language authorizing local governments to 

bond to access loans to inventory and replace LSLs (both publicly and privately 

owned portions) and pay back those loans over a 30 year period. Given the estimated 5,500 LSLs in Poughkeepsie, and an estimated cost per LSL replaced of 

$10,000 (assuming Poughkeepsie can lower its current cost per LSL replaced), a $55 

million bond would allow the city to fund the replacement of 100% of its LSLs. 

Having access to a significant amount of upfront funding would allow Poughkeepsie to replace LSLs as quickly and efficiently as possible—work could be completed in 5–10 years or even faster (Newark, NJ replaced all of its 23,000 LSLs in 

just 3 years). Larger construction bids are also more likely to attract firms using 

union labor, which is a key component of ensuring LSL replacements further economic justice. 

Poughkeepsie could pay back this loan over time by securing state and federal 

grants. There are a number of potential grant sources that the city could access: 

city or county American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds, state Clean Water Infrastructure Act funds, and state Environmental Bond Act funds. The city could also use water rate revenue for this purpose. 

3. Apply for federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding. 

As described above, Poughkeepsie hasn’t applied for the first year of federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding. The city should commit to submitting applications each of the next 4 years to maximize its chances for receiving LSL replacement 

funds. The second application cycle is currently open—Poughkeepsie has until August 25 to submit an application for Round 2. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The report, in brief, shows that 10 percent of children in the city 

of Poughkeepsie that I represent, the highest of any city in New 

York State, have elevated levels of lead in their blood stemming 

from the 5,500 lead pipes that run through the city. 

We also think this might be an undercount, because many of the 

samples that are mandated by Federal compliance have only been 

collected from homes in more affluent areas of that city. 

Ms. Fox, unfortunately, the city of Poughkeepsie has missed the 

first deadline to apply for some of the IIJA funding through the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

I would ask if you and your team would commit to a visit from 

the EPA to the city to help the city—certainly my team will be engaged—to make sure that we can address this issue. 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for raising that question. And, Congressman, I would be pleased to personally come to Poughkeepsie. I actually have family that live there. But I would be happy to come 

to Poughkeepsie and meet with the folks there locally. 

And hearing the statistics that you just cited, they are concerning. The science is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to 

lead, especially for children. That is why this administration has 

put forward the most ambitious plan to tackle this issue. We have 

the Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan. 
61 

And as it relates specifically to a missed deadline around the 

first year of funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 

this is absolutely the right time to be having this discussion, because the State of New York is developing their intended use plan 

for next year. 

We also have a lot of resources for Poughkeepsie, and really all 

communities, to be able to access the historic $15 billion in funding. We have a guidance document that could help local communities in developing their lead service line inventories. 

We have technical assistance centers that we have set up all 

around the country for this very purpose, and Poughkeepsie and 

other communities can receive that technical assistance free of 

charge to help them with their inventories, to help them sort of 

navigate all of these funding programs that are so exciting and 

available right now. 

So, we would be happy to provide that support, because we have 

got to get the lead out. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes. Thank you. And we appreciate it. 

And I am proud that, at this moment, we are finally addressing 

a lot of these issues that have been, my whole lifetime, that we 

have been working on this. So, I appreciate your leadership and 

your commitment. 

One other separate point. This weekend, and it is a multipart 

story, there was an explosive story in the Wall Street Journal, 

which I would like to enter into the record as well. 

Mr. ROUZER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

f 

Article entitled, ‘‘America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables,’’ by 

Susan Pulliam, Shalini Ramachandran, John West, Coulter Jones, and 

Thomas Gryta, Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2023, Submitted for the 

Record by Hon. Patrick Ryan 

AMERICA IS WRAPPED IN MILES OF TOXIC LEAD CABLES

Telecom companies laid them decades ago and thousands were left behind, posing 

a hidden health hazard today, a WSJ investigation found 

by Susan Pulliam, Shalini Ramachandran, John West, Coulter Jones, and 

Thomas Gryta 

The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2023, 8:18 a.m. ET 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lead-cables-telecoms-att-toxic-5b34408b 

AT&T, Verizon and other telecom giants have left behind a sprawling network of 

cables covered in toxic lead that stretches across the U.S., under the water, in the 

soil and on poles overhead, a Wall Street Journal investigation found. As the lead 

degrades, it is ending up in places where Americans live, work and play. 

The lead can be found on the banks of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, the Detroit River in Michigan, the Willamette River in Oregon and the Passaic River in 

New Jersey, according to the Journal’s tests of samples from nearly 130 underwatercable sites, conducted by several independent laboratories. The metal has tainted 

the soil at a popular fishing spot in New Iberia, La., at a playground in Wappingers 

Falls, N.Y., and in front of a school in suburban New Jersey. 

The U.S. has spent decades eradicating lead from well-known sources such as 

paint, gasoline and pipes. The Journal’s investigation reveals a hidden source of contamination—more than 2,000 lead-covered cables—that hasn’t been addressed by 

the companies or environmental regulators. These relics of the old Bell System’s regional telephone network, and their impact on the environment, haven’t been previously reported. 
62 

Lead levels in sediment and soil at more than four dozen locations tested by the 

Journal exceeded safety recommendations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. At the New Iberia fishing spot, lead leaching into the sediment near a cable 

in June 2022 measured 14.5 times the EPA threshold for areas where children play. 

‘‘We’ve been fishing here since we were kids,’’ said Tyrin Jones, 27 years old, who 

grew up a few blocks away. 

For many years, telecom companies have known about the lead-covered cables and 

the potential risks of exposure to their workers, according to documents and interviews with former employees. They were also aware that lead was potentially leaching into the environment, but haven’t meaningfully acted on potential health risks 

to the surrounding communities or made efforts to monitor the cables. 

Doctors say that no amount of contact with lead is safe, whether ingested or inhaled, particularly for children’s physical and mental development. Even without 

further exposure, lead can stay in the blood for about two or three months, and be 

stored in bones and organs longer. Risks include behavior and learning problems 

and damage to the central nervous system in children, as well as kidney, heart and 

reproductive problems in adults, according to U.S. health agencies. 

The Journal’s findings ‘‘suggest there is a significant problem from these buried 

lead cables everywhere, and it’s going to be everywhere and you’re not even going 

to know where it is in a lot of places,’’ said Linda Birnbaum, a former EPA official 

and director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a federal 

agency. 

In Coal Center, Pa., medical tests independently sought by the mother of 6-yearold twins, Joyanna and Beau Bibby, and shared with the Journal, showed they had 

high levels of lead in their blood. The tests were taken a few days after they played 

in a lot next to their house under a drooping cable. 

In response to the Journal’s reporting, AT&T, Verizon and other telecom companies that succeeded Ma Bell said they don’t believe cables in their ownership are 

a public health hazard or a major contributor to environmental lead, considering the 

existence of other sources of lead closer to people’s homes. They said they follow regulatory safety guidelines for workers dealing with lead. 

The companies and an industry group representing them said they would work 

together to address any concerns related to lead-sheathed cables. ‘‘The U.S. telecommunications industry stands ready to engage constructively on this issue,’’ said 

a spokeswoman for USTelecom, a broadband association that represents companies 

in the industry. 

‘‘The health, safety and well-being of our people, our customers, and our communities is of paramount importance,’’ AT&T said in a written statement. The company 

said the Journal’s reporting on lead-sheathed cables ‘‘conflicts not only with what 

independent experts and longstanding science have stated about the safety of leadclad telecom cables but also our own testing.’’ 

In a written statement, Verizon said it is ‘‘taking these concerns regarding leadsheathed cables very seriously,’’ and is testing sites where the Journal found contamination. It added: ‘‘There are many lead-sheathed cables in our network (and 

elsewhere in the industry) that are still used in providing critical voice and data 

services, including access to 911 and other alarms, to customers nationwide.’’ 

Some former telecom executives said companies believed it was safer at times to 

leave lead cables in place than remove them, given the lead that could be released 

in the process. 

The lead-covered cable network included more than 1,750 underwater cables, according to public records collected by the Journal. A Journal analysis of the five 

most densely populated states, and more than a dozen of the most densely populated counties in the nation, identified about 250 aerial cables alongside streets and 

fields next to schools and bus stops, some drooping under the weight. There are likely far more throughout the country. 

Journal reporters visited about 300 cable sites around the U.S. and collected 

roughly 200 environmental samples at nearly 130 of those sites. The samples were 

analyzed for lead content by Pace Analytical Services, an accredited environmentaltesting lab. A researcher at the University of Washington who analyzed the chemical fingerprint of lead at some of those sites verified that the lead contaminating 

the water and soil likely originated from the cable. 

AMONG THE FINDINGS: 

• Roughly 330 of the total number of underwater cable locations identified by the 

Journal are in a ‘‘source water protection area,’’ designated by federal regulators 

as contributing to the drinking-water supply, according to an EPA review performed for the Journal. 
63 

• Aerial lead cabling runs alongside more than 100 schools with about 48,000 students in total. More than 1,000 schools and child-care centers sit within half 

a mile of an underwater lead cable, according to a Journal analysis using data 

from research firm MCH Strategic Data. 

• In New Jersey alone, more than 350 bus stops are next to or beneath aerial 

lead-covered cables, a Journal analysis of NJ Transit data found. 

• Roughly 80% of sediment samples taken next to underwater cables, which the 

Journal tested, showed elevated levels of lead. It isn’t known if the level of 

leaching is constant; experts say old cables tend to degrade over time. 

Ben Grumbles, executive director of an association of state environmental regulators, called the Journal’s findings disturbing. ‘‘This is a type of toxic exposure that 

isn’t on the national radar and it needs to be,’’ he said. ‘‘There is a need to act and 

clean it up.’’ 

AN ANCIENT NETWORK

American Telephone & Telegraph laid nearly all the cables in question between 

the late 1800s and the 1960s as it built out telephone service across the U.S. The 

cables, often containing hundreds of bundled copper wires, had a thick jacket of lead 

for insulation, to prevent corrosion and to keep out water. For underwater cables, 

steel cords sometimes surround the lead for further protection. 

When technology advanced and companies turned to plastic sheathing and, later, 

fiber optics, they often left the old lines in place. 

With the breakup of the Bell System’s monopoly in 1984, regional phone companies became independent competitors that consolidated over time to form the backbone of modern carriers AT&T and Verizon. Tracking the current owners of old cables isn’t a simple task after decades of deals, and the companies themselves in 

many instances denied their ownership. The Journal provided lists of cable locations 

to major telecom providers, which declined to detail cable locations. 

To track the underwater cables, the Journal collected more than 40,000 pages of 

records from federal and state government offices, including applications to the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers to install the cables that were approved more than a century ago. Removing Army Corps-approved cables at any time would routinely require a permit or be noted in the original paperwork, officials say. The Journal tally 

of abandoned lead cables is sure to be an undercount. 

Researchers Seth Jones and Monique Rydel Fortner, from the environmental consulting firm Marine Taxonomic Services, collected lead, soil and water samples at 

the Journal’s request—a process that included diving expeditions at some locations. 

They have become experts in lead cables since they discovered them under Lake 

Tahoe more than 10 years ago and have advocated for their removal. The Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group, provided guidance and $85,000 

to MTS to partly fund its field research for the project. 

The Journal found that where lead contamination was present, the amount measured in the soil was highest directly under or next to the cables, and dropped within 

a few feet—a sign the lead was coming from the cable, experts said. 

The Journal didn’t find lead in all the locations it tested. The level of contamination can vary in water and soil, depending on environmental and other factors. (See 

article describing the Journal’s methodology.) 

The most obvious public-health risks from lead contamination remain from wellknown sources such as lead paint, leaded gasoline and lead piping that brings 

drinking water to homes. The EPA and other agencies have spent billions of dollars 

to reduce lead in the environment. In 1997, health regulators said average blood 

lead levels in children and adults had dropped more than 80% since the 1970s. 

Yet large numbers of American children continue to show levels of lead in their 

blood—more than half of those tested, according to a Quest Diagnostics study published in 2021, based on an analysis of test results from more than one million children under age 6. 

‘‘A new, uncontrolled source of lead like old telephone cables may partly explain’’ 

why children continue to have lead in their blood, said Jack Caravanos, an environmental public-health professor at New York University, who assisted the Journal in 

its research. ‘‘We never knew about it so we never acted on it, unlike lead in paint 

and pipes.’’ 

Gordon Binkhorst, an environmental consultant and expert on lead sampling, said 

he believes cables should be removed because they are ‘‘continuing sources of soil 

and potentially groundwater contamination.’’ Other experts said covering the cables 

and the area around them could reduce the risk. 
64 

Binkhorst reviewed the sampling methods used by the Journal and said they were 

appropriate techniques for basic testing of whether lead was present in the soil and 

water near the cables, using a certified environmental testing lab. 

THE KNOWN RISKS

AT&T has previously noted the risks from its cables. ‘‘Underground cable presents 

real possibilities for overexposure’’ for workers removing them, AT&T said in a 2010 

presentation about employee safety at an industry conference. ‘‘Some older metropolitan areas may still have over 50% lead cable,’’ it added. 

The company considered the potential cost and environmental impact of removing 

the cables daunting, said Braden Allenby, a former top AT&T environmental health 

and safety official, now a professor at Arizona State University. ‘‘It was standard 

operating procedure to abandon those cables in place,’’ he said. ‘‘We kept the discussion internal and informal. We didn’t try to quantify the problem or speak to the 

economics overall.’’ 

AT&T didn’t respond to requests for comment on Allenby’s assertions. In its statement, the company said: ‘‘For decades, we have managed legacy lead-clad cables in 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and we have followed industrywide best practices to maintain this legacy infrastructure in a way that’s safe for 

all based on established science.’’ 

AT&T has been involved in litigation over cables in Lake Tahoe. In 2021, the 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, an environmental group, sued AT&T 

over two cables in the lake, more than 6 miles long in total, according to permits. 

In a 2021 settlement, in which AT&T didn’t admit wrongdoing, the company agreed 

to remove the cables at a cost of up to $1.5 million. The company said it had stopped 

using the cables, no longer owned them and that its easements, or legal rights to 

cross the lake, had ended. 

The cleanup has been delayed repeatedly. AT&T’s contractor has cited logistical 

issues including that removal could ‘‘disrupt nesting birds (bald eagles, Peregrine 

falcon, osprey),’’ according to an email reviewed by the Journal. 

The Journal, through Marine Taxonomic Services, tested water samples from 

Lake Tahoe and found high levels of lead in several locations. Samples taken in 

March at either end of a severed cable in Emerald Bay, an inlet in Lake Tahoe 

known for its turquoise water, showed lead at 5,510 parts per billion and 38,000 

parts per billion. Marine Taxonomic Services isn’t a party to the AT&T lawsuit. 

The EPA says chronic exposure to more than 2.5 parts of lead per billion in fresh 

water poses risks to aquatic life. While it doesn’t have any guidelines for safe levels 

of lead in natural bodies of water, the EPA can advise local authorities to alert the 

public if drinking water out of the tap registers 15 parts of lead per billion or higher. (One part per billion is equal to about one drop of water in a swimming pool, 

environmental researchers say.) 

Parts of Lake Tahoe are used for drinking water, though any potential risk would 

be for swimmers ingesting water near the cables. Compared with the EPA’s guideline for water out of the tap, the March tests in Emerald Bay were 367 times and 

2,533 times the threshold, respectively. 

In May, the Journal also found high lead levels in roughly the same locations in 

Emerald Bay at 7,410 parts per billion and 1,390 parts per billion, respectively. 

AT&T hired environmental-consulting firm Haley & Aldrich during the litigation 

to take samples in March 2021 at five locations in Lake Tahoe, two of them close 

to the cables. The tests found ‘‘very low’’ levels of lead in the water, according to 

a report provided by AT&T to the Journal. The lake’s ‘‘water quality is not adversely 

impacted’’ by the cables, the study said, adding that samples were ‘‘largely non-detect for lead,’’ including those ‘‘collected nearest the subject cables.’’ 

In the Journal’s testing at Lake Tahoe, lead was found not just near the cables, 

but also moving away from the severed Emerald Bay cable toward the beach. On 

the south side, samples ranged from nearly five times the EPA limit for drinking 

water to more than eight times, or 132 parts per billion, at a sample taken 20 feet 

away from the cut end. 

Experts say it is common to find varying results at different times when testing 

water for lead, depending on numerous factors including movement in the water 

and temperature. 

A young child swimming for an hour in water and swallowing some of it, with 

lead content equivalent to that measured by the Journal in May, could add 7.4 

micrograms per deciliter of lead to his or her blood, according to Caravanos, using 

an EPA lead-exposure model to estimate such risks. To help determine whether 

medical or environmental follow-up are recommended, the Centers for Disease Con-
65 

trol and Prevention uses a level of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter, which is higher 

than that of 97.5% of young children surveyed nationwide. 

Brittany Armas and her three children, ages 2, 8 and 11, have been swimming 

near the cables in Lake Tahoe for years. Armas, 39, estimates that she swam in 

the water with the highest lead levels from the Journal’s sampling at least 30 times 

from a young age. She said she’s suffered fertility issues and chronic gastrointestinal problems. Though there is no way to directly connect a person’s specific 

health complications with lead exposure, and it is unknown when the Tahoe cable 

began to leach, these kinds of ailments generally have been associated with lead exposure. 

The EPA hasn’t gotten involved in the dispute or publicly commented on the removal process. The EPA can compel or undertake a cleanup of major environmental 

contamination in certain cases. The agency doesn’t have a comprehensive program 

to identify hot spots with lead in soil or surface water, though it does have a program to examine lead in sediment periodically. 

NORTHERN EXPOSURE

In Wappingers Falls, N.Y., about 60 miles north of New York City just off the 

Hudson River, an aerial lead cable hangs above the perimeter of a town playground, 

with a jungle gym, a swing set and a basketball court. 

Near a ‘‘CHILDREN AT PLAY’’ sign, lead in the soil measured more than 1,000 

parts per million, according to Caravanos, the NYU professor. 

The EPA’s recommendations for the levels of lead it believes are generally safe 

in soil are lower for areas where children play, at 400 parts per million, and higher 

for other areas, at 1,200 parts per million. (While lead in water is described in parts 

per billion, lead in soil is described in parts per million, with one part per million 

equivalent to about one inch in 16 miles.) 

Caravanos used an X-ray fluorescence analyzer, or XRF, a device used by scientists to measure elements in soil. At the corner of the playground, the XRF 

showed lead in soil just under the cable at 850 parts per million. 

It doesn’t take much lead in soil to elevate a blood level for a child, said 

Caravanos. ‘‘You just need a little dirt on your fingers to put into your mouth and 

ingest, and you get an elevated blood lead above the CDC level of 3.5.’’ 

In West Orange, N.J., a lead-sheathed cable sags over tree-lined sidewalks and 

driveways for more than one-third of a mile, where children and their parents walk, 

across the street from Gregory Elementary School. The cable sometimes dips to 

about 12 feet above the ground. 

Caravanos found contaminated soil beneath the cable in multiple spots and registered multiple readings far exceeding the EPA guideline for play areas. Gregory 

Elementary School is one of 64 schools in New Jersey where the Journal identified 

aerial lead cables. 

MISSISSIPPI BLUES

On the bank of the Mississippi near New Orleans’ Bywater neighborhood, tourists 

recently walked on a bridge with a cable sticking out below. Lead was flaking off 

into a spot where homeless people have set up camp. Lead in the sediment there 

was 19.8 times the EPA guideline for where children could congregate. 

Atop a levee in Donaldsonville, La., along the Mississippi, families often stroll 

near two abandoned cables, one smashed on the ground and the other with a splice 

box, a large lead casing used to connect cables, sealed with molten lead. 

A reading by Caravanos using the XRF showed lead in the sediment next to the 

smashed cable and splice box at 2,850 and 2,880 parts per million, respectively— 

both seven times the EPA guideline for play areas. 

Across the street from the park in a yard strewn with children’s toys, an extension of a lead-covered cable and a lead splice box sit in the front of the house of 

Diane Gros, a 60-year-old mail carrier who has 10 grandchildren. The XRF showed 

a reading of more than 4,000 parts per million at the site of the cable. 

The New Iberia cable on Bayou Teche was laid in 1940 by Southern Bell, which 

is now part of AT&T, and has an estimated 500 pounds of buried lead to encase 

telephone wires, based on an assay of a similar cable. The town uses the area near 

the cable for a gumbo cook-off and an annual canoe race. 

A sample of water from the bayou at the cable site showed lead at a level of 7.4 

parts per billion. ‘‘Kids come down here and play all the time on the edge of the 

bayou,’’ said Wilma Subra, an environmental consultant in New Iberia who had 

been unaware of the cable. 
66 

FINGERPRINTING LEAD

At selected sites, the Journal took the extra step to confirm that lead stemmed 

from the cables and not another source. Reporters worked with a researcher to perform an isotopic analysis, a procedure that determines a specific fingerprint for the 

lead involved. The testing by Bruce Nelson, a geochemistry professor at the University of Washington who specializes in the field, linked the lead found in samples 

most likely to the specific cables—as opposed to, say, lead from a factory or from 

paint. 

Among those high-lead samples Nelson linked to the cables was one in New Iberia. Assuming the current levels of lead in the sediment, playing at that spot as a 

child could have raised the lead in the blood of someone like Tyrin Jones, who has 

fished for years in that spot, to more than eight times the current CDC threshold, 

according to the EPA model used by Caravanos. 

Another lead-sheathed cable juts out of a swampy pond next to Bayou Teche in 

Franklin. An analysis of the water sample from the pond showed lead at 471 parts 

per billion. In a nearby backyard of a home owned by Anthony Peck, his 7-year-old 

granddaughter, Stella Peck, gathers clover flowers to make into bouquets and necklaces. 

AT&T didn’t respond to requests for comment on the cables in New Iberia and 

surrounding areas. 

At some cable sites, telecom companies disavowed ownership. In Lake Pend 

Oreille in the Idaho panhandle, a snarl of two lead-covered cables lies abandoned 

at a spot where children speed by on inner tubes in the summer. The cables sit 

under a railroad bridge in a prime fishing spot. 

A sample of water collected in August at the lake bottom showed lead at 1,250 

parts per billion. A water sample taken at the surface in that spot showed lead at 

38.8 parts per billion. An isotopic analysis showed that the fingerprint of the lead 

in the water at the surface matched lead from a telecom cable at that site, and not 

that of a lakeside slag heap known as Black Rock, the detritus of a lead smelter 

that had ceased operations by 1913. 

A predecessor company to Verizon laid a cable near the site, a U.S. Army Corps 

record shows. Verizon, Frontier Communications and Ziply Fiber, telecom companies 

that have variously served this region over the years, say they don’t own the cables. 

COAL COUNTRY RISK

In Coal Center, Pa., an aerial lead-sheathed cable runs along the street, drooping 

so low in certain spots that it is nearly within arm’s reach. The roughly mile-long 

cable, from Verizon, runs into neighboring California, Pa., across an entrance to 

apartment buildings, and near a school bus stop and playground. Some local residents had known about the cable and had been voicing their concerns for nearly a 

year. 

Lead found at one of the locations measured 7.5 times the amount the EPA says 

is safe for play areas, according to a soil sample collected by the Journal. The isotopic analysis by Nelson showed the lead in the soil mirrored the lead from the 

cable and was unlike the background lead in that area. 

The lead-sheathed cable runs over the property of Shannon Bibby, 36, mother of 

the 6-year-old twins. This February, her children played under the cable in the lot 

next to their house, where ground was being dug up for the foundation of a home. 

An analysis of soil collected by the Journal from the family’s property showed lead 

at a level more than 40% higher than the recommended level for play areas by the 

EPA. 

A borough council member, Bibby had her children’s blood tested after learning 

about the Journal’s finding. Capillary tests, or blood pricks, found lead in one child’s 

blood higher than 3.5 micrograms per deciliter. The other child hit that mark, which 

is the level at which the CDC recommends seeking medical or environmental followup. A subsequent blood test showed non-detectable levels of lead. 

It is impossible to say if the twins’ initial elevated lead level tests were directly 

linked to exposure from the cable. The Bibbys’ results were below what the EPA 

model could expect to find in a child playing in soil with the concentrations found 

at their property, according to Caravanos. 

Bibby said she and other Coal Center residents have been pushing Verizon to take 

the cable down. Verizon has told them it has working services on the old lead cable. 

In December, she and other Coal Center borough council members discussed their 

concerns in the tiny borough hall at the edge of the Monongahela River. 

‘‘We have to get moving on these cables,’’ said council member Rob Lincavage, 

who grew up in Coal Center and said it has become one of his goals in life to see 

the cable removed. 
67 

‘‘It shouldn’t be here,’’ said Bibby. She said the lead should be removed ‘‘before 

something bad happens.’’ 

—Lisa Schwartz contributed to this article. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Published ultimately saying that AT&T, Verizon, and other 

major global telecom companies have left behind a sprawling network of cables covered in toxic lead across the entire United States. 

In my district, lead has been leaching from these legacy cables, 

including specifically at a children’s playground in the town of 

Wappingers Falls, actually not far from Poughkeepsie, and we expect many other parts of the district and the country have been affected by this. 

The EPA recommendations for the level of lead it believes are 

generally safe in soil are about 400 parts per million where children play. The Wall Street Journal independently confirmed that 

there were 850 parts per million of lead at that playground, more 

than twice the acceptable amount—even when, of course, we all 

know that no amount of lead is safe for our kids. 

The report goes on. And I am running out of time. But this is 

a national problem. 

So, Ms. Fox, I wanted to ask, the EPA does have the ability to 

compel or undertake a cleanup of major environmental contamination. Does the EPA plan on compelling cleanup action from these 

telecom companies for this issue? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for this question. 

As you know, the Wall Street Journal article just came out. So, 

we are looking at the information very carefully and figuring out 

next steps. And I am happy to follow up with you, Congressman. 

We are also coordinating with the FCC on this. And so, we are 

happy to follow up in the coming weeks. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Edwards, you are recognized. 

Mr. Edwards, pull your microphone to you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Ms. Fox, I am going to describe a situation back in my district. 

And you might not be familiar with this property specifically, but 

I think we might be able to apply this to other situations that we 

see in dealing with brownfields and Superfund sites. 

In my district, we have a 525-acre former flax pulp paper mill 

that was contaminated with mercury and situated in a very rural 

county in western North Carolina. The county is 50 percent Federal forest and conservation land, and the Ecusta Mill site is the 

final piece of developable land for an industrial complex in this 

county. But nobody is willing to develop the property because of its 

brownfield and Superfund designations. 

Now, the mill Superfund site was listed on the National Priorities List from 2007 to 2011. During that time, the EPA partially 

cleaned the property before having the State take over with a 

brownfield agreement. 

The EPA’s remedial investigation declared the river areas on 

that property were the only operable unit post-cleanup, but no fur-
68 

ther action was planned, and the site was removed as a National 

Priorities List. 

If the EPA is investing taxpayer dollars into the cleanup of national property sites, why would the EPA not be finishing this job? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

So, the brownfields and Superfund programs at the Environmental Protection Agency are under the Office of Land and Emergency Management. They are not under my authority in the Office 

of Water. So, I will take that question back to the leadership in the 

Land and Emergency Management and make sure that we get 

back to you on that question. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What kind of followup, if any, does the EPA do 

with responsible parties to ensure cleanup of an ex-NPL property 

that is no longer operable? Do you have any responsibility or interaction with those at all? 

Ms. FOX. With? Sorry. I couldn’t hear you, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Does the EPA have any responsibility at all? Do 

you interact with those ex-NPL properties in any way? It seems 

like that would be an EPA issue. 

Ms. FOX. Yes. So, again, sir, I want to make sure that we give 

you the best factual information, so, we will connect you and your 

team to leadership in the Office of Land and Emergency Management who, as well as our Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, who are the two offices within the EPA that would primarily be dealing with responsible parties and Superfund, 

brownfield matters. 

Mr. EDWARDS. And so, I will follow up lastly with a conceptual 

question, then, since you are obviously not familiar with this specific site. 

If a property is never fully cleaned or made operable, whoever is 

responsible, isn’t it just throwing taxpayer dollars away? 

Ms. FOX. So, again, I want to make sure that you have factual 

information from the EPA. And so, we will connect your team with 

the Office of Land and Emergency Management to follow up with 

those very important questions. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. FOX. Thank you. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Sykes. 

Mrs. SYKES. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Napolitano, for convening this hearing today. And I also 

echo my adoration for the ranking member’s leadership in support 

on water quality issues. 

To our witnesses, thank you for your testimony. I definitely appreciate hearing this conversation. I felt a little triggered, if you 

will, talking about rivers on fire and East Palestine and all that 

has been happening in Ohio. 

And we are certainly in need of your services and are grateful 

and thankful for the services that you all provide and your attention to the heart of it all in Ohio, and particularly northeast Ohio, 

which is the heartbeat of the heart of it all, if you will. 

I represent Ohio’s 13th Congressional District, and our largest 

city is Akron. It is my hometown. And since 2009, our city had 
69 

been operating under a consent decree pursuant to an agreement 

with the EPA as well as the Department of Justice. And over the 

past 15 years, our city has poured hundreds of millions of dollars 

into investments into our clean water infrastructure due to a combined sewer flow that has failed over the years. 

We have received significant support from the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund for low-interest and no-interest loans. But our residents, and particularly in the city of Akron and those surrounding 

communities who are serviced, have seen the cost of their sewer 

bills rise 200, 300, 400, 500 percent because of the lack of affordable financing for this particular project. 

And so, the brunt of this lack of clean water infrastructure has 

been borne by people in my district, in my community, my neighbors, myself, honestly. And it is why this legislation is so important, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And I just want to say 

thank you and applaud my colleagues who supported it in the last 

Congress and voted for its passage. 

So, getting to the point of water affordability—and, Ms. Fox, this 

question is directed towards you—many communities are like my 

district and my hometown who are bearing the brunt of poor water 

infrastructure, yet we know how important it is to the quality of 

life, to our health, to our well-being. 

Having this very important second hearing about the budget and 

knowing that many of your products and the programs are under 

fire if they are not funded fully, what does that mean to you as you 

are administering these projects, these grants, these loans if we 

don’t fund them fully, and how will constituents like mine continue 

to be impacted? 

Ms. FOX. Well, thank you so much for the question, Congresswoman. 

And I just have to begin by thanking you for being such a tremendous partner to the EPA around the situation in East Palestine. You have been just a fierce advocate for your constituents, 

and the work that the Federal Government has been trying to do— 

and the State—to try to make progress there for the people is, in 

very large part, because of your commitment. So, thank you for 

that. 

And thank you for raising this issue of water affordability. The 

sad reality is that there are too many Akrons around the country. 

There are many older industrial cities, especially in the Midwest 

and Northeast, that face these water affordability challenges. 

That is why this is not the time to cut our budget for water infrastructure, because that will only make it harder for communities 

like Akron to find affordable funding and financing programs. 

So, it would lead to greater rates. It would lead, frankly, to challenges for States, Tribes, Territories, and local governments, because 85 percent of the EPA’s budget goes to States, Tribes, Territories, and local governments. It is not our budget. It is the people’s 

budget, truly. 

And on Akron, one thing that we would be pleased to do is, in 

the Office of Water, we have a water infrastructure center, a financing center, and what that center does is work with communities like Akron to make sure that they are aware of and fully ac-
70 

cessing the range of funding and financing programs that we have 

at EPA, but that also other agencies have to support investment. 

And so, Congresswoman, we would be happy—I understand that 

there is a new mayor in Akron—and so, we would be happy to follow up with the mayor and with your office to make sure that they 

are plugged into all of these opportunities. 

Mrs. SYKES. Thank you. 

And really quickly before my time expires, Dr. Bernstein, I do 

want to recognize and thank your department for coming into East 

Palestine so quickly and acknowledging the threat that so many 

people had and so many concerns that people have. 

I don’t represent East Palestine, but, as we know, water knows 

no jurisdictional boundaries. And knowing that we had a good partner in the Federal Government onsite very quickly, answering 

questions, thinking of the children’s health, that was the one question that we heard over and over. 

Again, just want to say thank you and applaud you for the work 

that you do on behalf of Ohio’s 13th Congressional District in 

northeast Ohio. 

Dr. BERNSTEIN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. SYKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. James. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for all the witnesses for being here today. Your 

direct engagement and passion for clean water is critical for everyone in the United States of America and around the world as we 

set the example for how we must live. 

Really quickly, is anyone on the panel familiar with 

BioCon TM ERS? OK. 

As I toured my district and I learned more about the technologies 

associated with making sure we have clean water, this is one particular technology that I was educated about. This is intended to 

get rid of PFAS in a manner that would completely, over time, extract this dangerous forever chemical from our drinking water 

eventually. 

I will follow up with you, Madam Administrator, on any technologies that you are working for in that regard. 

But, as a followup question, can you give us an update on the 

PFAS Strategic Roadmap? 

Ms. FOX. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. 

And I look forward to learning more about this technology, because if we are going to successfully tackle PFAS pollution in our 

air, land, and water, we are going to not only need to build a scientific foundation and strengthen the regulatory foundation and 

fund PFAS remediation, like we are doing through the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law, but we are going to need technology solutions 

and innovation in order to address it. So, I look forward to learning 

more. 

As far as the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, under Administrator 

Regan’s leadership, the EPA produced our first-ever strategic roadmap that was really looking across all of our authorities as an 

agency to tackle this issue, and I cochair the PFAS Council that 

guides that roadmap. 
71 

I have to say, the career leadership across all of our headquarters and regional staff have been doing a phenomenal job delivering on each of the commitments in the roadmap. We are on 

track, on pace with many of those commitments. 

In my office, the Office of Water, a signature action that we are 

moving forward is establishing the first-ever drinking water standard for PFAS. We proposed that rule this spring. Public comment 

just closed a week or so ago, and we are working quickly to finalize 

that rule by the end of the year. 

So, we are working hard on this issue. We know that people all 

around the country are concerned about PFAS in their water, in 

the land that their children play on, in the air, and we are tackling 

it head on. 

Mr. JAMES. Perfect. 

Another, storm sewer separation, combined sewer overflows, a 

big deal in my district, Michigan’s 10th Congressional District, 

right on Lake St. Clair. And as you well know, not just in the Detroit area, but in areas all across the country, particularly older industrial cities, this is a really big problem, particularly with flooding. 

What is the administration doing, particularly in 

socioeconomically depressed areas and areas particularly in industrial America, that may not have that separation? Are there investments being made for that storm sewer separation, remediating 

combined sewer overflows? And can you explain a little bit more 

about that? 

Ms. FOX. Yes. Thank you for the question. 

And here is a fun fact. Most combined sewer systems, like in 

your district, they tend to be, as you said, in older industrial areas, 

the Northeast, Midwest. 

I started my water career at the San Francisco water agency, 

and, strangely enough, we had a combined sewer system there, 

which is not typical in the West. So, I really understand firsthand 

what the challenges of the combined systems can be, especially 

when we have extreme rain events. 

There are a range of resources that can be utilized to address 

this. So, for example, all of the money that is in the Clean Water 

State Revolving Loan Fund program, that can be utilized, for example, to separate systems. And that is often a solution. 

There are other ways that we can shore up the infrastructure to 

deal with the flooding that occurs with these systems. So, I would 

be happy—— 

Mr. JAMES [interrupting]. I apologize for cutting you off, but I 

would like to discuss those. 

Ms. FOX. Absolutely. 

Mr. JAMES. I would like to personally invite you to my district, 

the 10th Congressional District of Michigan, this year to take a 

look at some of the innovative things that we have going on, and 

hopefully to gain the administration’s support for further investment in keeping our water clean in the Great Lakes. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FOX. It would be my honor to join you. 

Mr. JAMES. Perfect. Thank you. 

Ms. FOX. Thank you. 
72 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. ROUZER. Ms. Wilson, you are recognized. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. Thank you so much, Chair Rouzer and 

Ranking Member Napolitano, for today’s hearing to discuss the 

necessary investments in our water infrastructure. 

We must make conscious decisions to invest Federal dollars 

where they are most crucial and beneficial. My congressional district, Congressional District 24, is in urgent need of major water 

resources investments in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Biscayne Bay, located in the heart of my district, needs funding for 

conservation and restoration, as it suffers from propeller scars 

causing sediment erosion and water quality issues affecting the 

ecosystem’s overall health. 

Every day we fail to address these issues, south Florida’s drinking water will continue to be contaminated, resulting in dire consequences for the health and well-being of our residents. So, we are 

in a race against time to safeguard our public health. Miami-Dade 

County’s wastewater infrastructure needs $4 billion as we transition from septic to sewer. 

Additionally, restoring the natural flow in the Everglades is crucial for protecting our communities from hurricanes and floods, as 

well as providing clean drinking water to over 8 million Floridians. 

This requires continued investment and our focused attention. 

So, in south Florida, an investment in water infrastructure 

means an investment in our public health, ecosystem, and economy. 

With that, I have a few questions. 

Ms. Fox, in south Florida, we are witnessing alarming changes 

and challenges, such as habitat loss, severe beach erosion, and fish 

kills directly related to climate change and pollution. 

Can you discuss how programs like the EPA’s geographic programs address erosion and loss in coastal communities? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

And you are absolutely right. The EPA has several geographic 

programs, place-based programs, the National Estuary Program, 

and these have for a long time been essential tools for achieving 

water quality improvements. 

And many of these geographic programs focus on, as you said, 

erosion and biodiversity, including the South Florida Geographic 

Program, as well as the Gulf of Mexico program. And the fiscal 

year 2024 budget calls for about $35 million for those programs. 

Some of the things that are happening right now which are so 

exciting around these issues of erosion and loss in biodiversity: We 

are supporting critical research on coral reefs and coral biodiversity. We are looking for ways to address nutrient pollution in those 

areas of the country which can lead to a lot of the loss in biodiversity. 

So, I would be happy to follow up with you and your office. I 

have to say our EPA staff in region 4, this is some of their proudest 

work that they are doing. They are making great progress. And I 

think with the fiscal year 2024 budget, we can continue that work. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. OK. Very quickly, based on your understanding of grants provided directly to States, could there be improved outcomes if the grants were given directly to municipalities? 
73 

Ms. FOX. So, one of the things that has made the Clean Water 

Act so successful, as well as the funding programs like the State 

Revolving Loan Fund program, is the partnership between EPA 

and the States in delivering these resources. 

We have been working very closely with all of the States in making sure that these resources are reaching all communities. Fortynine percent of the resources provided through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law must go out as grants and principal forgiveness 

to disadvantaged communities. So, we are really working closely 

with States to make sure that every community that needs it is accessing those dollars. 

And so, we are very confident that we can continue to make 

progress by partnering with the States in this endeavor. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. OK. 

Dr. Bernstein, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, located on the coast 

of Biscayne Bay, has been operating for over 50 years and raises 

concern due to its proximity to our delicate ecosystem. 

In the face of aging infrastructure and a constant threat of an 

unpredictable climate, what measures is your organization implementing to prepare for a nuclear catastrophe? 

Dr. BERNSTEIN. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 

So, as a part of my responsibilities at CDC, I also oversee the 

National Center for Environmental Health, which is a separate 

agency from ATSDR, which I am here for appropriations. 

Within NCEH, there is a program focused on nuclear radiation 

risk, which works essentially as the public health backbone of any 

nuclear concern. 

So, the actions we take are in response to community engagement. So, we proactively—we will work with communities of interest. I don’t know off the top of my head if we have directly engaged 

around the Turkey Hill plant. And I have been in this job 5 weeks, 

so, I don’t know everything I need to know yet. But I would be 

happy to go back and look into that for you. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Ezell. 

Mr. EZELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Fox, I want to thank you for coming to my State 

of Mississippi last year, Jackson, our capital. We had a water crisis 

there, and it is still somewhat ongoing. 

The response from the Mississippi Rural Water Association and 

other State association member utilities played an instrumental 

role in restoring these important services. 

As you are aware, the State of Mississippi has received millions 

of dollars to improve its critical water system. However, much of 

the funding is set to expire in 2026. 

As I speak about the system operators in my State, I hear about 

ongoing supply chain issues and a limited number of contractors 

available to complete these projects. According to the members, if 

a contract were signed today, it could be 18 months before work 

would even get started on these critical repairs on our water infrastructure. 
74 

How can Congress work with the EPA to ensure rural and lowincome States like Mississippi can effectively use Federal funds 

provided to make these important critical water improvements? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And thank 

you for mentioning the Mississippi Rural Water Association. 

Mr. EZELL. Yes. 

Ms. FOX. When the Jackson water crisis was happening, the Administrator and I traveled down there four times. And to see Mississippi Rural Water at work, just the fellowship, the sense of a 

local system needed help, we are going to be there, it was truly inspiring. I got to be with them at the incident command and just 

saw firsthand the generosity and spirit and contribution that they 

made. 

And thank you for the question, too, because one of the things 

that I learned when the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed is 

that only 10 percent of water systems around the country have successfully accessed the State Revolving Loan Fund program, which 

has been around in decades. 

And that number, it is not acceptable. This is a program that has 

got to work for every community. And as I have traveled all around 

the country to rural communities, there are significant technical, financial, and capacity challenges that these communities face. And 

we need to take care of that so that they too can benefit from these 

resources. 

So, over the last year and a half or so, the Office of Water has 

set up a technical assistance infrastructure to do that very thing. 

We have actually a website, WaterTA, so, any community can access planning support, design and engineering support, support 

with grant writing, so that they can access these funds. 

We also continue and have actually increased our technical assistance funding to both National Rural Water as well as the Rural 

Community Assistance Program, because they are oftentimes on 

the front lines with these rural water systems. And so, they have 

gotten a significant increase in support from the EPA so that they 

can continue to work with rural America. 

Mr. EZELL. Thank you. 

Does your agency take into consideration the resources available 

in rural and disadvantaged communities when placing timelines on 

the use of these Federal funds? 

Ms. FOX. I am sorry, sir. Could you say that again? I couldn’t 

quite hear you. 

Mr. EZELL. OK. Does the Agency take into consideration the resources available in rural and disadvantaged communities when 

placing timelines for the use of the Federal funds? 

Ms. FOX. Yes, we do, sir. And many of the timelines that we have 

around distributing our funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that was really set by Congress when they passed it. 

Other funds that we have available are more flexible as far as how 

quickly they have to be spent. 

But we absolutely work with disadvantaged communities and 

rural water systems to meet them where they are. We try to be 

flexible. 
75 

We also work with the States, who are often who we give resources to, that then provide assistance agreements to local water 

systems. 

So, that is absolutely a consideration. 

Mr. EZELL. Let’s really try to get that on the high-priority list, 

because that has been a problem for years in Jackson. It is not in 

my district, but it is my State. And they really need some help up 

there. So, if you could get that going a little bit, we would certainly 

appreciate it. 

Ms. FOX. Will do. Thank you. 

Mr. EZELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Arizona is ground zero to witness the impact of climate change 

in our country, in many ways, our planet. More expansive and intense wildfires, and if you are paying attention to the news, Phoenix broke a record yet again for the most days under an excessive 

heat warning. My hometown is now approaching its 14th consecutive day with temperatures at 110 degrees or above. 

But none are perhaps more consequential than the prolonged 

mega-drought in the Southwest that is straining our most precious 

resource, water. 

In the desert, we have always had to be smart about how we use 

our water, but it has become even more urgent and more challenging with the impacts of climate change. 

It is a new reality for the American Southwest, and we need to 

be smart and proactive about how we use and save both surface 

and groundwater in a hotter, drier future. 

That is why I have made it one of my top priorities in Congress 

to tackle these challenges head on and to work with community 

leaders and our Federal partners to develop creative solutions. I 

am proud that Arizona already leads the way, and in so many 

ways, in sound water policy and stewardship. 

In Phoenix, efforts are underway to build a multibillion-dollar 

advanced water purification facility to recycle wastewater into 

drinking water by the end of 2030, providing a resilient and 

drought-proof water supply for not only Phoenix residents, but surrounding communities, as well. 

With continued cuts to our share of the Colorado River water, 

this project has the potential to replace half of what Phoenix receives from the Colorado River each year. That is significant. 

Administrator Fox, I appreciated our discussion about this 

project recently and the ongoing impacts of climate change on our 

water resources. This innovative project is an important investment that we have to make and one that the Federal Government 

should actively partner with us on. 

How can the EPA support Phoenix’s effort on this critical project? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for the question. 

And, Congressman, I have to say congratulations, because it has 

been a few years since I have seen you, and the last time we were 

together in person you were the mayor of Phoenix. So, it is wonderful to see you again. 
76 

And please know that the EPA is committed to working with 

Phoenix. It sounds like a very exciting project that you described 

and just the kind of project that we need in the Western States. 

I would be happy to follow up with your team and with the city 

of Phoenix about the project. I think there is a range of funding. 

One of the things that we have been trying to do at EPA to help 

address the Colorado River Basin challenges is, how do we 

prioritize water infrastructure projects that actually get to water 

supply diversification, water reuse, and fundamentally helping 

communities like Phoenix reduce their long-term reliance on the 

Colorado River, as this project seeks to do. 

Mr. STANTON. That is great. 

Ms. FOX. I recently got information from my team that about $2 

billion of the funding that we have put out over the last several 

years through the SRF and the WIFIA program are funding these 

types of projects all along the basin. 

Mr. STANTON. That is great. 

Ms. FOX. So, we would be happy to follow up with Phoenix and 

think about what is the right package of tools that we have, financing tools that we have to help try to move it forward. 

Mr. STANTON. We look forward to working with you. Thank you 

for your leadership, and I look forward to working with you. 

Commissioner Giner, thank you for your work and that of the 

Commission in addressing the challenges of the ongoing drought in 

the Colorado River Basin. 

Mexico has been a key partner on the Colorado River in recent 

years and has contributed in the same way as other basin States 

in reducing water consumption. 

Last year, Mexico’s allocation of Colorado River water was reduced 5 percent. And this year, as the drought has persisted, it was 

reduced 7 percent. 

These cuts, combined with significant cuts taken by Arizona, 

have been helpful, but they will not be able to reverse the devastating impacts of the ongoing 23-year drought, a drought that 

threatens the entire Colorado River system and all who rely on it. 

We all have an interest in protecting the system from collapse. 

Recently, the lower basin States reached an agreement to conserve an additional 3 million acre-feet of water, but we can’t do it 

alone. This crisis needs an all-hands-on-deck approach from all 

basin users, including Mexico. 

Can you provide an update on discussions with Mexico and a 

timeline for potential agreement on additional water conservation? 

Ms. GINER. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to answer this 

question. 

Yes, we have been working very hard with Mexico on them taking their proportionate share of cuts related to water deliveries, 1.5 

million acre-feet is delivered to Mexico yearly. You are correct, they 

are taking a cut right now, 7 percent. And we have met with very 

high levels within the Mexican Government, and they are committed to do their proportionate share of cuts with deliveries as 

well. 

Mr. STANTON. OK. Good. 

Ms. GINER. We intend to have a Minute in place in time for the 

record of decision that will be issued by the Bureau of Reclamation. 
77 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GINER. So, that will be, like, in January. 

Mr. STANTON. And let us know how Congress can support you in 

that incredibly important effort. 

Ms. GINER. Thank you. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Oh, so I’m next, next. All right. Thank you. 

First, I want to say to our colleague, Mrs. Napolitano, it is a real 

pleasure—and I know we still have a year and a half to go, and 

that is good—but it is a real pleasure to work with you and serve 

with you. And your parents named you aptly, your first name, in 

working with you, ma’am. Thank you. God bless you. 

Administrator Fox, good to see you. I had a chance to speak with 

you a little bit earlier. This will be directed in your direction here. 

Earlier this year, we introduced a bill, H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act. It is keyed on fire retardant, the pinkish-red stuff we dump out of airplanes and helicopters big time. And, of course, it is extremely important in fire 

suppression all over the West, all the over the country, as we have 

more and more large, large fires. 

I just came from a conference meeting about that, talking about 

California wildfires, my bipartisan colleagues there. 

And so, indeed, fire suppression is one of the main missions of 

the Forest Service as well as our local CDF/CAL FIRE, in my home 

State, and in every other jurisdiction that is next to a forest. 

So, the retardant has worked extremely well. It has been modified over the years. It is very environmentally friendly, and certainly they are conscientious about how it is used. 

As you know, it is required in it being dropped on the fires that 

there is a 300-foot buffer away from any kind of a stream or river 

or body of water. And so, when you have got the large aircraft, the 

DC–10s, the 747s, or the next size down, generally, there is a pilot 

plane that is guiding that large aircraft to where the drop is. 

And they do a remarkably good job of getting it where it needs 

to be. It really hasn’t been a problem. We don’t have a record of 

incidents of it harming waterways or environmental issues. 

So, what we are wondering is that why is it that, at this point— 

the Forest Service, again, has been fighting fires since 1905 and 

using aircraft for suppression since sometime in the 1950s—why do 

we need, all of a sudden, a permit to use this well-known material? 

Because that is currently underway, and we—well, I will let you 

answer the question. 

Ms. FOX. Yes. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

And as you know, I too, am from California, and we live with the 

threat of wildfires all across the West. And EPA is committed to 

ensuring that firefighters have all of the necessary tools at their 

disposal to safely protect communities while also upholding their 

responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. 

So, we have in place a compliance agreement with the Forest 

Service that allows the Forest Service to continue all firefighting 

activities, and we are also working towards a longer term permit. 

So, the Forest Service and the EPA are in agreement—— 
78 

Mr. LAMALFA [interrupting]. And we are thankful for that, because there was a lawsuit brought by an outside group to, incredibly, sue to stop the usage of it. 

Ms. FOX. Yes. So, that court—I am happy to give you an update 

on that. 

So, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana that is 

presiding over this case, they acknowledged that a permanent injunction is not needed because we have this compliance agreement 

in place, we have this permit. 

So, the Forest Service, the EPA, we are moving forward. They 

have all of the tools they need to be able to fight fires, and we have 

addressed this litigation issue in Montana. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How long do you think it will take to process the 

permit that, inevitably, I hope, will be issued in order to—— 

Ms. FOX [interrupting]. So, it is a top priority for us and for the 

fire service to get that done expeditiously. Sir, I don’t have the immediate timeframe in front of me right now. 

Mr. LAMALFA. The estimate I hear is 2 to 3 years. Do you think 

we can streamline that? 

Ms. FOX. I would anticipate it is on the lower end of that number. But let me make sure that we are providing you with accurate 

information. 

But what I do want to just underscore is that, with this compliance agreement in place, the Forest Service can undertake all firefighting activities. There are no concerns at all about that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. You don’t see any difference in their ability to 

fight fire this year versus previous years under that compliance? 

Ms. FOX. I am sorry, sir. I couldn’t hear you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. You don’t see any difference in their ability 

to fight fire this year versus previous years? 

Ms. FOX. No. They are able to undertake all the tools. That is 

all covered in the compliance agreement that is in place. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. The States will probably have to—many of 

them will have to go through a permit process as well. I hope they 

can be timely. 

Lastly, are you actually aware of issues that have popped up on 

retardant getting in and causing an environmental issue in our waterways? Do you have a list or such of anecdotes, or are you aware 

of any? Are you aware of them? 

Ms. FOX. I would like for my technical team that focuses on that 

to get back to your office on that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. We would love to have a list and see how 

often it actually may have occurred. Now, there might be an accidental drop here and there. 

But, anyway, with that, I need to yield back. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you. 

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Carter, you are recognized. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

thank you for the opportunity. 

Ms. Fox, you mentioned the passage of IIJA and IRA as being 

instrumental to achieving clean and safe water. Can you share 

with us how the $13 billion investment into the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund will help achieve that goal? 

Ms. FOX. Well, thank you for the question. 
79 

And I have to say, Congressman, it has been a very productive 

partnership between EPA and the States in getting these resources 

out. In the first year of implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure 

Law, we have put forward about $5.2 billion from EPA to States, 

and now States are funding local water projects all across the country. We think that there are over 1,400 assistance agreements that 

are in place. 

So, the vision that Congress had in passing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help provide clean and safe water, we are able to 

deliver this for the American people. 

What is so wonderful about the Clean Water SRF program is 

that there are many uses, that States can work with their local 

communities and make sure that whatever project in need there is, 

that that can be funded. 

So, it is funding flood mitigation projects. It is supporting issues 

around combined sewer systems, which we were talking about earlier. It is investing in wastewater utilities to upgrade their infrastructure so they are discharging safely into the environment. It is 

funding work around PFAS and making sure that we are addressing that. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. Can I get you to drill down a little 

bit in the area of Black and Brown communities that have historically suffered from poor water quality? And what efforts specifically 

can we expect to see as these issues crop themselves up, unfortunately, in areas of underserved communities probably disproportionately more than anywhere else? 

Ms. FOX. That is correct. Low-income communities, communities 

of color, are disproportionately impacted by water challenges. So, 

we are doing a couple of things. 

I mean, one is that when Congress designed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, they did something different than our usual appropriations to the SRFs. They required that 49 percent of those 

resources must go to disadvantaged communities, and it has to go 

out as grants or principal forgiveness, because they have financially related challenges. 

So, we have been working with the States and helping them to 

identify disadvantaged communities. We now have this technical 

assistance program that any community can access to help them 

navigate getting these Federal dollars. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. And it is going to sound like I am cutting you off. Please forgive me. 

Ms. FOX. No, no. It is OK. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. We have got limited time, so, I just 

want to kind of jump in on a couple of points, one of which is, you 

mentioned these resources. 

In a lot of the small parishes—parishes in Louisiana; counties in 

other places—we have smaller communities that don’t have access 

to consultants, accountants, and programs to access these grants. 

What are you guys doing in the area of making it plain and 

reachable and accessible for smaller urban areas? 

Ms. FOX. Yes. Well, so—— 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA [interrupting]. And rural areas. 

Ms. FOX. Yes. And I am putting a call out to all of the Members 

here that our WaterTA program is available to anyone. 
80 

So, Congressman, I would be happy to have my team reach out 

to those parishes, make sure that they know that we have this 

technical assistance. They have access to engineers, planners, grant 

writers to be able to get these funds. We are making that available. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. I will absolutely take you up on that. 

Ms. FOX. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. I mean, because we have a very robust outreach program in Louisiana’s Second Congressional District where we take our efforts to the community to make sure that 

those things that have once seemed to be challenging or far away, 

we bring it close to the people so they have an opportunity to see 

Government at work, but more importantly, access resources that 

can assist. 

Real quickly, Mr. Aspey, one of your areas of focus is conservation programs under the farm bill. There are many programs in 

particular that are looking toward Congress, looking ahead of the 

farm bill for authorization. 

One of the issues that is critically important in my district in 

Louisiana is the massive issue in my district, which is flooding. 

What can Gulf South do to help mitigate the risk of increased flood 

insurance premiums? 

NFIP Risk Rating 2.0 has been devastating to our communities. 

Can you share with us any hope that you may have on some relief 

in the area of flood mitigation? 

Mr. ASPEY. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

NRCS could assist with that indirectly for the flood insurance 

premiums through construction of flood control measures. If folks 

are not directly impacted by the flooding, then their flood insurance 

rates would go down. 

But we would provide the structural opportunities there to help 

address that on the front end so that there would be a level of certainty. We would be very happy to work with you and your team 

in Louisiana on that and talk about options and see what solutions 

we can come up with. 

Mr. CARTER OF LOUISIANA. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. I might just make a plug for NRCS. It has been a 

great agency to work with as it relates to flood mitigation and snag 

and drag and all those good things. So, I appreciate the work. 

Mr. Duarte. 

Mr. DUARTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

All of our participants today, thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Fox, thank you for being here. 

I want to make a few comments on the Army Corps of Engineers 

and then move on. I don’t expect you to have all the answers, but 

I really, really would like you to know some of the just unacceptable performance level of the Army Corps of Engineers in my district in permitting water quality and water flood control projects. 

In Merced County, we had McSwain Creek overflow, flood out 

twice in 5 years, flood out the same grammar school, flood out the 

same neighborhoods. 

It is a farmworker community primarily. It is definitely a disadvantaged community. It is definitely a Brown community, if we 

care that, Black, Brown, or whatever they are. Twice in 5 years, 
81 

all the while undergoing a permitting process for the Army Corps 

of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife to repair the same levee on the 

same creek that broke twice. That was unacceptable. 

Now, in the same county, there was another flood down there 

this year at Black Rascal Creek that flooded out the town and 

grammar school in McSwain, as well as several farms. We actually 

brought in Chinook helicopters from the Army Reserve to drop 

riprap in the break of the levee and see if we can get it repaired. 

Now they are going through a permitting process for the Army 

Corps that was begun in 2000. In 2022, they were told to go back 

and redesign it based on some new standards. They are now 3 

years into redesign trying to repair these critical levees where they 

are very, very concerned about breaks flooding out their communities. 

Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, they can’t get these 

projects done even within the scope of 5 years. So, whatever the 

local authorities, whatever the local decisionmaking you believe the 

Army Corps to have, and however effective you may believe that 

is, I would encourage you to investigate it. 

And if you need any more information on these issues, please 

contact my office. I would be glad to put you in touch with the local 

electeds down there who would be glad to give you a tour on the 

ground. 

On a greater issue that I would like more feedback from you on, 

the San Joaquin Delta sits just east of San Francisco. It is a critical water resource, critical water conveyance point, and a critical 

habitat preserve. 

Over decades, we have had cities surrounding the San Joaquin 

Delta with effluent discharges, nontertiary treated, and sewage discharges into the delta. 

We have had Sacramento municipal waste, saw the waste, documented as to having discharges into the delta. They caused algal 

bloom and caused all kind of habitat and marine life destruction. 

But we see all the money. We see the Clean Water Act, block 

grants to California, from $200 to $300 million a year. We see the 

money you request on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 

We hope—I hope—that some of these municipal waste discharges 

are receiving fines and penalties for discharge and unmanaged 

sewage flow into the delta. 

And then we are flushing trillions of gallons of water into the 

delta each year from our precious water resources to get the delta 

water back up to drinking water quality standards. 

Will you please commit to report back to me and to Chairman 

Rouzer here what have the efforts been specifically in the San Joaquin Delta and its surrounding municipalities to follow up on discharges, detect discharges, remedy discharges, and use some of 

whatever resources we have used over the billions and billions that 

have been put through the EPA for these clean water funds over 

the last two decades to minimize these discharges into the San Joaquin Delta and improve these matters? 

Ms. FOX. Yes. I would be happy to follow up with your office on 

that. 

Mr. DUARTE. Thank you. 

No further questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
82 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Assistant Administrator Fox, the District of Columbia operates 

as the functional equivalent of a State, county, and city, and DC 

residents pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, DC pays more Federal 

taxes than 19 States and more per capita in Federal taxes than 

any State. 

On multiple occasions in the last couple of years, the EPA has 

denied DC equal Federal funding, including in the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling and Climate Pollution Reduction Grant 

programs. 

While it has treated DC as a State, it has not treated it as a municipality in the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling program 

and required DC to share its State funding with the DC metro area 

in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program. 

My question is, why has EPA denied DC equal Federal funding? 

Ms. FOX. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and 

it is good to see you again. 

Having moved from California for this job about 21⁄2 years ago, 

I definitely see the challenges that the District faces with its 

unique governance structure, governmental structure. 

The program that you are referring to is in our Office of Land 

and Emergency Management, so, I would like to take your question 

back to that office and make sure that we get you an answer. 

The one thing I would say is that, as far as the water program 

at EPA, we have a very strong partnership with DC. For example, 

Administrator Regan’s first WIFIA announcement when he became 

the Administrator was the $156 million WIFIA loan to DC. And so, 

that has been a big success story as far as the partnership between 

EPA and the District of Columbia, as well as with the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law, about $130 million in dedicated funding to the 

District. 

And I was recently talking with the leadership at DC Water, and 

what they said is that, because of this dedicated funding for the 

District, you get your own allocation. They are going to be able to 

shave years off of their goal of a lead-free DC. 

So, on the water side, we are going to continue to partner with 

the District and make sure that District residents are getting these 

resources. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I appreciate then your getting back to me as 

well on the earlier part of my question. 

Will the EPA commit to treating DC as a State, county, and city 

in Federal grant programs unless a Federal law expressly precludes such treatment? 

Ms. FOX. So, on that question, Congresswoman, I can speak to 

the water programs. And all of the formula funding that we get, 

the District of Columbia has a set-aside of those resources. And we 

work—— 

Ms. NORTON [interrupting]. Has a what? 

Ms. FOX. Has a set-aside. So, for example, with the State Revolving Loan Funds on the drinking water side, the clean water side, 

there is an allocation, an allotment that the District of Columbia 

gets that is separate and unique from the allotments that the other 
83 

States get. And we work very closely with DC in getting those 

funds quickly and getting those invested. 

Ms. NORTON. So, you will treat DC as a State for these programs? 

Ms. FOX. As far as within the Office of Water, we work in making sure that the funds that are allocated to the District of Columbia are getting to the District of Columbia quickly to invest in 

water infrastructure. 

Ms. NORTON. OK. I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Burlison. 

Ms. BURLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. It is important. 

This topic is extremely important to my constituents. 

And so, Ms. Fox, my first questions go towards you. 

Given the uncertainty that a lot of farmers or people within industry, infrastructure, manufacturing, that they have regarding 

EPA rules on WOTUS, do you think that, given all that uncertainty, that it’s acceptable for those businesses to simply wait while 

the EPA moves at its own pace for a new definition of WOTUS 

after the post-Sackett, especially when these delays can put some 

projects back a year or more? 

What are your thoughts on that? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for the question. 

So, the truth is that the Nation has lived with uncertainty 

around waters of the United States for over a decade. Multiple administrations, multiple courts have addressed this issue. 

When I joined the EPA, I committed to working hard to provide 

regulatory certainty as it relates to waters of the United States to 

stop the ping-pong. We—— 

Ms. BURLISON [interrupting]. So, with that being said, the Supreme Court gave clear certainty. 

Ms. FOX. And that is why we are working rapidly to put a final 

rule in place by September 1st. What that rule will do—— 

Ms. BURLISON [interrupting]. Will your rule underline, will it underscore what the Supreme Court decision was? 

Ms. FOX. It will follow—the EPA and Army Corps are committed 

to following the law. So, the rule that we are developing right now 

and that will be final by September 1st, will be in absolute alignment with the direction provided by the Sackett decision. 

We are doing that quickly because we share your goal, sir, of providing certainty to all who have a stake in our Nation’s water future. 

Ms. BURLISON. Thank you. That is good to hear. That sounds 

promising, because one of the criticisms that I hear back in the district is that they feel like it is confusing. They are worried what 

might end up falling into WOTUS and what isn’t. 

My other question has to do with ponds. Mr. Aspey, you might 

be the one that answers this question. 

When it comes to cattlemen, farmers, a lot of—I think there is 

a program through, is it your agency or the USDA that helps farmers establish water, basically resources, and ponds so that they 

can—enough to rely on access, immediate access to water for their 

cattle? 
84 

Mr. ASPEY. Yes, Congressman. Thank you very much for the 

question. 

The short answer to that is, yes, NRCS has a suite of farm bill 

programs. And we are designed to work individually with landowners, walk their operation with them, determine what their resource concerns are, what their needs are, and then match up those 

concerns with the appropriate program. So, water supply and 

ponds is one of the practices that we do employ. 

Ms. BURLISON. Now, one of the questions that I had is that—and 

I think it is smart because you are creating resiliency within—for 

water. You are establishing places, storage for water where they 

can at least store it for whenever there are times of rain and then 

it is available when there are times of drought. It makes sense. 

The question is, over time, a lot of those ponds end up filling in, 

and so, then the question is: Is your program available to them 

whenever they want to restore those ponds, or try to maybe grow 

or increase the size of them? 

Mr. ASPEY. Sedimentation is an issue whenever you have an artificial body of water for sure. Each one of these practices does have 

a lifespan. So, we would be able to work with the individual producer to, again, see that what their resource concerns are, if there 

is repair needed on that structure, or if it has exceeded its lifespan, 

perhaps to create a new structure or dredge out the existing one. 

Ms. BURLISON. So, that is available. 

Mr. ASPEY. Yes. 

Ms. BURLISON. Today. 

Mr. ASPEY. Yes. And I would encourage—locally you can either 

work with me directly, your constituents, or through our State conservationist and their local team to address that. 

Ms. BURLISON. OK. Well, that clears up some confusion because 

I just had a visit from farmers in my community that that was 

their concern, that it’s not available to existing ponds. 

Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n. 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Ms. Radhika Fox, on Tuesday, the EPA announced in the Federal 

Register a settlement modification to a 2016 consent decree with 

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, requiring setting a 

timeline to make major improvements and upgrades to the island’s 

sanitary collection system and wastewater treatment plants. These 

upgrades would allow the water utility to focus on resources to reduce the number of better operated and more efficient facilities. 

But those need to meet certain revised schedules for specific 

wastewater infrastructure projects and execute 17 new wastewater 

projects, which, on their own, are estimated at $534 million. 

PRASA has also agreed to increase transparency with the public 

regarding the occurrence of combined sewer overflows. 

My question will be: Who identified what the priority projects 

will be and based on what criteria? 

Ms. FOX. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
85 

So, you are referring to an enforcement matter, and so, I have 

to refer that to our Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

But what I can say, though, is this is an EPA that is very committed to making progress on water issues in Puerto Rico. 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. You will get back to me with that information. 

Ms. FOX. Yes, I will, absolutely. 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. The next question in that same line will 

be: What are the mechanisms going to be that will be put in place 

to oversee and ensure that the improvements are completed within 

the timeframe detailed in the full settlement document? 

And the reason for my question is, we suffered Hurricane Maria 

in 2017, earthquakes, and Hurricane Fiona. And we still have a lot 

of Federal funds that are not being used, and I don’t want this to 

be combined with all those Federal moneys, or, if they are combined, to make some improvement in those plans. 

So, in that sense, that is the reason they need to meet with a 

timeframe. When are those going to be completed? Who is going to 

be doing the oversight on that? Because people on the island are 

just saying, we do have the money, Federal money has been approved, but nothing has been seen. Nothing has been constructed. 

So, I do have that concern. 

The other one was if there were any discussions with the Government of Puerto Rico on this settlement. 

My next question to you will be that I know that EPA intends 

to file ministerial edits to the 2023 revised definition of waters of 

the United States rule and issue a final rule by September the 1st 

of this year. 

Without official stakeholders’ input, my question will be: What 

actions will EPA take if the agencies receive an adverse comment 

post-September the 1st? 

Ms. FOX. OK. Well, thank you for that question. So, what EPA 

and Army are doing as it relates to waters of the United States is 

something called a good cause final rule. A good cause final rule 

is something that is allowed under the Administrative Procedure 

Act under certain conditions. 

And so, we are in a situation right now where, because of the 

Sackett decision, we have a regulatory regime around waters of the 

United States that does not comport with that. 

So, we have no policy discretion as agencies right now in this 

rulemaking. We are simply amending the rule so that it is consistent with the Sackett case, and that is why we are not taking 

public comment per the Administrative Procedure Act. 

We think that by having this final rule in place by September 

1st that is consistent with the law, that that will provide great 

clarity to the regulated community. 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. But what happens—— 

Ms. FOX [interrupting]. Now, Congresswoman, if there are questions that remain for the regulated community after that final rule, 

we are going to be holding implementation discussions. 

If there are ongoing questions that remain, we will address them. 

We are absolutely committed to that. From the beginning, we have 

had very robust engagement of all who are impacted: farmers, 
86 

ranchers, developers, watershed groups, States, Tribes, Territories. 

And we won’t waver from that commitment. Our commitment is to 

implement this well, to implement the Clean Water Act well. 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you. 

Ms. FOX. And that is what we will do. 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you. 

I do have many questions for the Administrator of NOAA. I know 

my time is going to soon expire, but I will submit them for the 

record. 

And one of the questions is regarding—I am happy you are 

here—is regarding the coral bleaching that is happening and will 

happen in my islands, coastal islands. I know there is [inaudible] 

there. I do have many concerns. So, I will submit them for the 

record to comply with my expiration of time. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ROUZER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LeBoeuf, I want to talk to you for a few minutes about the 

10-knot rule, the 10-knot rule that you are wanting to impose on 

boats that are 65—or 35 feet and longer. 

According to your all’s information, approximately 15 whales 

have been killed by boats over the last 18 years. 

Do you know how many registered boats there are in the 35- to 

65-foot length? 

Ms. LEBOEUF. I do not, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. OK. Well, let me back up just a second. You all are 

trying to take this rule out of just a small area there around Boston, and you are wanting to run this rule all the way up and down 

the eastern seaboard so that boats that are any larger than 35 feet 

have to go 10 knots up to 100 miles out. 

Now right now, before this rule is implemented, it is anything 

over 65 feet, and it is within a small region up around the Boston 

area. 

So, in essence, what you are trying to do, which really doesn’t 

make any sense, you are going to kill an entire industry. An $84 

billion impact is what you are looking to do; 340,000 jobs will be 

impacted. 

And for the number of boats, there are 63,000 registered boats, 

35 to 65 feet, 15 whales. Do you know what the odds are of that? 

That is 1 in over 1 million that they will hit these whales. 

Are you still on track to implement this rule? 

Ms. LEBOEUF. Thank you very much for your question, Congressman Collins. 

We are working on collecting and looking at the input from the 

public comment period that we just had on the ship speed rule. 

Of course, as a means to try and mitigate concerns over the 

North Atlantic right whale, we closed that public comment period 

in October of last year. But, of course, we received over 90,000 comments on that proposed rule. 

So, NOAA Fisheries is looking over those comments now. And 

those do include comments related to the various different types of 

vessels, the numbers of those vessels, and the potential impacts, 
87 

but also the economic impacts and the kinds of things that you just 

mentioned. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I don’t think you will have a hard time finding any of the information because I just gave it to you. 

But I will be really brief, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be pretty 

blunt and honest because our appropriation bills are open now, 

which means we can drop amendments right down there on the 

floor. 

So, you can either do a couple of things here. You can withdraw 

this misguided and stupid rule or, two, I can offer an amendment 

on the floor. And I will defund NOAA, and I am not just talking 

about this rule, but I will defund the entire department until you 

withdraw the rule. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all I got. I yield back my time. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Van Orden. 

Mr. VAN ORDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a friend. His name is Tom Crimmins. He is a retired Navy 

SEAL, senior chief combat veteran. Before he joined the SEAL 

team, he was a lobsterman. And I want to echo what my colleague 

just said. If you continue with this incredibly poorly thought out, 

ideologically driven, foolish rule, you would have put Tom out of 

business. And that is unacceptable. 

So, your ability to positively or negatively affect an entire industry is real, and our ability to positively or negatively affect your job 

is real. 

And I don’t ever want you to forget that, ma’am. OK? We are not 

going to let you kill these jobs because of some very, very poorly 

thought out, ideologically driven policy decision. 

Is that clear? 

Ms. LEBOEUF. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. VAN ORDEN. Excellent. Let me talk more about these silly 

things you guys got going on. 

There is an act. It states that all construction projects supported 

by Federal spending are required to abide by strict domestic preference rules, requiring that all manufactured products, construction materials used in the project are sourced domestically unless 

appropriate waiver has been issued. 

All right. Sounds great, right? 

Here is the problem. I talk to people that work with their hands. 

I was a tradesman. I am a retired senior enlisted SEAL, and that 

is a tradesman. Work with the hands. And this is so incredibly confusing, convoluted, the way that you guys—you guys—are applying 

this, that it’s detrimental to our ability to do things. And I am 

going to give you a super concrete example. 

When people put in fire hydrants—we all agree fire hydrants are 

good. They are—this sounds silly—they come with a can of spray 

paint. So, when you ding the fire hydrant, you have a way to spraypaint it, right? 

The paint is made in the United States. The can is made in the 

United States. You know what’s not made in the United States? 

That little button that you push. You know where they are made? 

China. You can’t find a domestically produced little thing to make 

the spray paint work. 
88 

So, if you want these people to strictly comply with these things 

that you have been talking about—I have read all your testimony. 

Thank you very much for coming. I should have said that earlier. 

You can’t do it. So, if we followed the letter of your things that 

you guys do all day, we couldn’t have any more fire hydrants in the 

United States because the little thing is made in China. 

So, I really—I don’t think I have another question for you or a 

question for you. I just want you to understand that when you guys 

return to the puzzle palace and start spewing out these regulations 

without talking to somebody that puts in a fire hydrant, you are 

doing an injustice to the United States of America. 

So, Congress is here, and you are here. And to me, does that 

make sense to anyone? Does it? 

I mean—Ms. Fox? 

Ms. FOX. Yes, sir, thank you for raising this question. 

So, I think you are referring to Build America, Buy America—— 

Mr. VAN ORDEN [interposing]. Yes. 

Ms. FOX [continuing]. Which was passed with bipartisan support 

by this Congress. 

Mr. VAN ORDEN [interposing]. I get it. 

Ms. FOX. And so, the agencies are working in a balanced and reasonable way to meet the spirit of this law from Congress. What I 

can say as far as the Office of Water is: We believe that we can 

achieve both goals. We can spark and grow domestic manufacturing capacity right here in America, because that is what is best 

for the American people—— 

Mr. VAN ORDEN [interrupting]. Ms. Fox—— 

Ms. FOX [continuing]. And we can do it in a way, sir, that also 

provides fair and reasonable on-roads—— 

Mr. VAN ORDEN [interrupting]. I understand, ma’am. 

Ms. FOX [continuing]. The situation you are describing—— 

Mr. VAN ORDEN [interrupting]. I understand, ma’am. I have 30 

seconds left. 

Ms. FOX [continuing]. And that is certainly what we are 

doing—— 

Mr. VAN ORDEN [interrupting]. I understand that. 

Ms. FOX [continuing]. As we implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

Mr. VAN ORDEN. I have 20 seconds left, and I am just telling you, 

I get what you are saying. I love this country. I fought for this 

country for my entire adult life. So, I want what is best for America. 

But the problem is when we are trying to do the spirit of stuff, 

you guys are actually prohibiting the ability for us to have a fire 

hydrant. So, I don’t know how long it takes for you to figure this 

out, but it is already too late. That is all I am saying. 

Your conduct and your regulations have real-world implications 

on the ability of someone to put out a fire when their house is on 

fire. 

So, Ms. Fox, if your house is on fire, would you like a fire hydrant out front? And if you would, then please [inaudible] it and 

get this done, please. Let’s get this done. Let’s just do it. 

And with that, I yield back. I am out of time. 

Mr. ROUZER. The gentleman yields back. 
89 

I thought maybe we had another Member coming through the 

door there. 

Seeing no one who has not already had 5 minutes, I know my 

friend and colleague, Mrs. Napolitano, had a couple of words she 

wanted to say. 

Grace. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just want to say that I have heartfelt thanks to you, my chair; 

to the ranking member, Mr. Larsen; and my colleagues for the 

beautiful comments regarding my retirement. It won’t be for a year 

and a half yet. And to my excellent personal and committee staff 

and to the staff on the other side, my gratitude to you for your 

help, your input, and support. Thank you. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. That is very nice. And 

we have certainly enjoyed serving with you. I look forward to serving with you another year and a half. We are going to be able to 

do a lot of good things, a lot of good bipartisan things as we continually have. 

[Mrs. Napolitano aside.] 

Mr. ROUZER. I will do what you say to an extent. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROUZER. But I want to thank all of our witnesses. I really 

appreciate you being here. I appreciate your testimony and appreciate you entertaining all of our questions. 

And I know there are going to be a number of questions for the 

record. 

And let’s see. Where am I here? They have a script they like me 

to stick to. I don’t like to stick to it. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

days for any additional comments and information submitted by 

Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(91) 

1Sackett v. EPA, No. 21–454 (U.S., May 25, 2023) available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/ 

opinions/22pdf/21454l4g15.pdf; 598 U.S. ll (2023). 2 88 Fed. Reg. at 3086. 

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS FROM HON. DAVID ROUZER TO HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Question 1. Justice Alito’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA (Sackett) held that all features jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA) must have a continuous surface connection to a traditionally navigable water, defined as interstate and used 

for interstate commerce.1 Will the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) address this definition of traditionally navigable waters in any forthcoming guidance or rulemaking? If so, please detail how EPA and the Corps will address this definition. 

ANSWER. On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and Department of the Army (the agencies) issued a final rule to amend the final 

‘‘Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’ rule, published in the Federal 

Register on January 18, 2023. This final rule conforms the definition of ‘‘waters of 

the United States’’ to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case 

of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Parts of the January 2023 Rule are 

invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act in the 

Sackett decision. Therefore, the agencies have amended key aspects of the regulatory text to conform it to the Court’s decision. 

Question 2. In the preamble to the Biden Administration’s 2023 waters of the 

United States (WOTUS) Rule, EPA and the Corps explain that ‘‘relatively permanent’’ 2 waters could include, for example, any water temporarily accumulated in 

ditches. 

Question 2.a. Will EPA and the Corps redefine the term ‘‘relatively permanent’’ 

going forward? 

Question 2.b. Will the Agencies provide a clear test for waters to qualify as ‘‘relatively permanent’’? 

Question 2.c. Will the Agencies provide a clear test for waters to be considered 

intermittent? 

ANSWER to 2.a., 2.b., & 2.c. The agencies will identify relatively permanent waters 

consistent with the Sackett decision using a variety of tools, resources, and existing 

guidance. The agencies are also committed to addressing any questions about the 

relatively permanent standard that may arise outside the scope of the August 2023 

conforming rule. 

Question 3. In its responsibilities assisting the Corps by crafting rules and guidance, EPA should also be concerned with the current partial pause on issuing approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs). Are the Agencies tracking the negative 

cumulative effect on the economy brought about by the pause on AJDs? If so, please 

describe the negative cumulative effects tracked to date. If not, please detail why 

the data is not being tracked. 

ANSWER. The pause on issuing approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) was 

lifted on September 8, 2023. EPA recommends contacting the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) regarding questions about AJDs. 

Question 4. Given the outcome of Sackett, please explain how EPA intends to promulgate new guidance on implementation of groundwater non-point source regulation pursuant to County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (Maui). 
92 

3https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/list-laboratories-approved-epa-fifth-unregulated-contaminantmonitoring-rule-ucmr-5 4 87 Fed. Reg. at 54415. 

Question 4.a. Due to the fact that a new WOTUS rule will be published by September 1, 2023, will EPA wait until the new rule is published before issuing guidance pursuant to Maui to provide certainty about what operations will the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the CWA? 

Question 4.b. Knowing that EPA cannot change the NPDES permitting program 

through guidance and that changes to the regulations require notice and comment 

rulemaking, does EPA intend to promulgate a rule in implementing Maui? 

ANSWER to 4.a. & 4.b. EPA developed draft guidance entitled, Applying the Supreme Court’s County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund Decision in the Clean Water 

Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program 

to Discharges through Groundwater. The draft guidance describes the decision’s 

functional equivalent analysis and explains the types of information that should be 

used to determine which discharges through groundwater may require coverage 

under a NPDES permit. For more information visit: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/releases-point-source-groundwater. EPA considered input from industry permittees, 

state permitting authorities, and other stakeholders who had sought additional direction to implement the Supreme Court’s Maui decision. 

Question 5. As EPA works to create baseline levels and limitations for per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), is the Agency considering what levels of PFAS 

are easily and scientifically detectable? 

ANSWER. Yes. Robust, accurate methods for detecting and measuring PFAS are essential for understanding which PFAS are in the environment and the quantities 

present; how they are taken up by fish, wildlife, and humans; and their health effects. These methods are also essential for evaluating the effectiveness of different 

technologies for removing PFAS from air, land, and water and for developing and 

implementing future regulations. For example, in developing the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in EPA’s proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation, EPA considered the availability of analytical methods and the anticipated laboratory capacity to reliably measure and quantify the six PFAS addressed 

by the rule at or below the proposed MCLs. These methods are currently in use to 

support the analysis of samples under EPA’s fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, for which EPA has approved more than 50 laboratories to run one or 

both of EPA’s applicable PFAS drinking water methods.3

Question 6. EPA has announced an enforcement discretion 4 policy under which 

the Agency will not pursue wastewater systems for the cost of cleaning up environmental perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) pollution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), when wastewater systems properly dispose of PFOA 

and PFOS. 

Question 6.a. Why is it appropriate for EPA to not pursue CERCLA liability 

claims for wastewater systems related to PFAS? 

Question 6.b. Is EPA’s enforcement discretion policy legally binding? 

Question 6.c. Would EPA’s enforcement discretion policy prevent polluters that 

face cleanup liability under CERCLA from attempting to recover some of these costs 

from water systems EPA intended to shield from liability? 

ANSWER to 6.a., 6.b., & 6.c. Pursuant to Superfund authority, EPA proposed to 

designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances. EPA is in the process of considering public comments on that proposal. EPA has heard from various 

stakeholders, including farmers, water utilities, airports, local fire departments and 

others, and understands their concerns about potential CERCLA liability. Informed 

by public comments received on the proposed designation, EPA is developing an enforcement discretion policy that will reflect the agency’s enforcement priorities. If 

the CERCLA designation is finalized, EPA would, pursuant to the proposed enforcement policy, focus its enforcement efforts on PFAS manufacturers and facilities 

whose actions result or resulted in the release of significant amounts of PFAS into 

the environment. Under the proposed policy, EPA does not intend to pursue entities 

where equitable factors do not support assigning CERCLA responsibility, such as 

farmers, water utilities, airports, or local fire departments. The policy would also 

describe how EPA can settle with parties to provide contribution rights and protections against third-party contribution claims under CERCLA. We believe this approach to enforcement will addresses stakeholder concerns and will lead to more equitable outcomes, consistent with EPA’s decades-long experience with implementing 

CERCLA. 
93 

5Water Infrastructure Improvement Act, Pub. L. 115–436, 115 Stat 5558. 

Indeed, EPA has a proven track record of developing and applying enforcement 

discretion policies that are effective and well-received, and courts have sanctioned 

this approach. 

Question 7. Congress passed ‘‘integrated planning’’ 5 legislation as far back as 

2018. However, there is concern that EPA is still moving too slowly in providing 

flexibility and assistance in helping communities be more flexible in complying with 

the CWA. 

Question 7.a. Please provide an update on implementation of integrated planning, 

including whether EPA is reaching out to communities and ensuring that those 

under enforcement actions are aware of integrated planning opportunities. 

ANSWER. In September of 2019, EPA issued national guidance [https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/implentationofintegrated 

planningandgreeninfrastructurethroughenforcementtools092619.pdf] directing municipal discharge enforcement case teams to inform municipalities of the opportunity 

to develop an integrated plan and also to share relevant resources with the municipalities. In December of 2019, EPA issued a memorandum [https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2020-01/documents/wiialintegratedlplanninglimplementationl 

memoldecemberl2019l508.pdf] highlighting the new provisions in the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act and how EPA will continue to support communities 

and states on integrated planning and green infrastructure. In June of 2021, EPA 

released a Report to Congress on Integrated Plans [https://www.epa.gov/npdes/report-congress-integrated-plans-and-municipality-profiles]. To date, more than two 

dozen municipalities have developed integrated plans. Of those, 13 have implemented their plans through a permit, order, or judicial consent decree. These case 

studies have been incorporated into a dynamic Integrated Planning Story Map 

[https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/20e0e046df084e1ba1ecfac3414edc07]. To further 

promote integrated planning as a tool, EPA has hosted webcasts, provided technical 

assistance to communities, and released a six-part fact sheet series on the integrated planning process. 

Question 7.b. How much funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 

Act (IIJA) is being used to expedite integrated planning? 

ANSWER. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) did not provide specific appropriated funding for integrated planning; however, integrated planning is eligible for 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund funding under both the base program funding 

and the supplemental BIL funding. 

Question 7.c. What are EPA’s plans for moving this program along quickly and 

making the integrated planning process more responsive to the needs of communities? 

ANSWER. In 2023, EPA formed a workgroup with states regarding resources that 

would promote integrated planning, and support permitting authorities with integrated planning and the process of incorporating those plans into permits. As a result of this effort, EPA published a toolkit [https://www.epa.gov/npdes/integratedplanning-implementation-documents] for permitting authorities. EPA is currently 

pilot testing the toolkit with states and municipalities. EPA will continue to promote 

these benefits through ongoing stakeholder engagement with the water sector, environmental stakeholders, and municipalities. 

Question 8. In EPA’s June 13, 2023, update to its regulatory agenda, the Agency 

said it expects to issue a final rule for CWA Section 401 certification in August 

2023. 

Question 8.a. Is this timeline still accurate? 

Question 8.b. What will be contained in this rule? 

Question 8.c. How will this rule consider actions already taken by this Subcommittee this Congress related to limiting Section 401 certifications to actions 

themselves rather than indirectly related effects, as the CWA intends? 

ANSWER to 8.a., 8.b., & 8.c. On September 14, 2023, the EPA announced the final 

Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule to support clear, efficient, and focused water quality reviews of infrastructure and development projects that are key to economic growth. The final rule enhances certification 

review and provides regulatory certainty to advance federally permitted projects. 

For example, the rule establishes a 6-month default timeframe (when the federal 

agency and certifying authority fail to reach an agreement) and a 1-year maximum 

timeframe for certification review (the statutory maximum). The rule emphasizes 

that states, territories, and Tribes may only consider the adverse water quality-im-
94 

6See Joint Memorandum of Understanding on Interagency Communication and Consultation 

on Electric Reliability from Jennifer M. Granholm, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Energy and Michael S. 

Regan. Adm’r., U.S. EPA, (March 9, 2023) available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/DOE-EPA%20Electric%20Reliability%20MOU.pdf. 

pacts from the activity. To limit delays, the rule also provides a clear approach to 

defining the required contents in a request for certification. For more information, 

including the Federal Register notice, fact sheets, and information on training go 

to: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401. 

Question 9. EPA is currently reviewing comments submitted to the Federal Register regarding the proposed regulation titled, ‘‘Supplemental Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power generating Point Source 

Category.’’ In March 2023, EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) promised 

‘‘interagency cooperation and consultation on electric sector resources adequacy and 

operational reliability.’’ 6

Question 9.a. How often are EPA and DOE convening to plan to ensure uninterrupted electric reliability of our Nation’s grids? 

Question 9.b. How often has EPA engaged in continued consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the promulgation of rules and their 

impact on grid reliability? Please describe how EPA has included FERC in their 

interagency review process for regulatory action. 

ANSWER to 9.a. & 9.b. EPA has established a very good track record over the past 

several decades of developing regulations to protect the environment and allow 

power companies to deliver reliable electricity. We develop our rules to make sure 

there is no conflict between grid reliability and environmental compliance, and DOE 

and FERC have the opportunity to participate in interagency review of all EPA 

rulemakings. EPA considers all input received by DOE and FERC. We are currently 

reviewing the feedback we received on the proposed rule, and we will take all input 

into consideration as we work to finalize the rulemaking. 

Question 10. Last month the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an 

alert that the EPA Office of Water could not properly account for $162 million in 

Federal grant money under the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation Act. At a time of record funding for EPA, what steps is EPA taking to properly account for all grant money issued? 

Please describe the actions EPA specifically took in response to the OIG alert. 

ANSWER. The OIG has retracted the management alert. The retraction is available 

here: https://www.epaoig.gov/reports/other/epa-could-not-readily-identify-more-162- 

million-water-infrastructure-improvements. EPA’s July 13, 2023, response to the 

OIG’s report provided additional background that followed the information provided 

to the OIG during EPA’s engagement on the OIG’s audit of two Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act grant programs. EPA provided the 

OIG with information demonstrating that EPA did not overspend appropriated 

funds. The OIG retracted its management alert associated with this audit after reviewing EPA’s response. EPA will continue to track and control these funds to ensure appropriated funds are within appropriated amounts for WIIN grants. EPA is 

deeply committed to ensuring that communities have access to the resources they 

need to address infrastructure and other drinking water issues. 

Question 11. In an audit released in July 2023, the OIG asserted that EPA needs 

to improve its management of Drinking Water State Revolving Funds programs. 

What steps is EPA taking to ensure states are meeting loan subsidy and timeliness 

requirements for Clean Water State Revolving Funds also? 

ANSWER. EPA continues to work closely with states to ensure they are providing 

and tracking additional subsidy information in a timely manner as part of the Agency’s ongoing oversight of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs. States 

are required to document their progress towards meeting these requirements in 

their annual reports and in the SRF Data System. In addition, EPA conducts annual reviews of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs to ensure their 

compliance with all federal requirements. 

EPA will implement the practices identified in the agency’s response to the recommendations from the July 2023 OIG audit of the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund as part of the oversight of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs, 

including updating the Clean Water State Revolving Fund annual review checklist 

and updating the Clean Water State Revolving Fund annual review guidance for additional subsidy. EPA is taking active steps to ensure that states are properly reporting SRF additional subsidy amounts in the SRF Data System and assigning the 

additional subsidy amounts to the appropriate capitalization grants. 
95 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PATRICK RYAN TO HON. RADHIKA FOX, AS- SISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRON- MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Question 1. Does the EPA’s best practices require testing in areas like low-income 

neighborhoods, public housing, and playgrounds since lead exposure to children can 

seriously harm their health since underserved communities are more likely to have 

lead pipes? 

ANSWER. Children spend a large amount of time in elementary schools and 

childcare facilities; when there is lead in the internal plumbing of these facilities, 

it can pose a risk to children’s health. EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Revisions included requirements for community water systems to test for lead in drinking water 

in elementary schools and childcare facilities that they serve. EPA offers the, ‘‘3Ts 

for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water’’ (Training, Testing, and Taking Action), with 

information and recommendations to prepare schools, childcare facilities, and states 

to build a voluntary implementation program to reduce lead levels in drinking 

water. EPA’s Voluntary School and Child Care Lead Testing and Reduction Grant 

Program [https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/wiin-grant-voluntary-school-and-childcare-lead-testing-and-reduction-grant-program] requires the use of guidance from 

EPA’s 3Ts program [https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water] to support schools and childcare facilities in making 

progress on reducing lead in drinking water. 

Question 2. This weekend, an explosive story in the Wall Street Journal, which 

I entered into the record, was published saying that AT&T, Verizon and other 

telecom companies have left behind a sprawling network of cables covered in toxic 

lead across the United States. In my district, lead has been leaching from these legacy cables including at a children’s playground in Wappingers Falls. 

What authority is the EPA missing, if any, to compel these companies from requiring the clean up on their mostly legacy cabling to ensure that parents with kids 

visiting playgrounds in Wappingers Falls, or children playing in the Bayou in Louisiana, don’t have to be worried about severe damage to their child’s development? 

ANSWER. EPA is currently looking at its various enforcement authorities as we review the need to clean up risks posed legacy cables. EPA will pursue appropriate 

enforcement actions, where needed and appropriate, to address any risks to public 

health and the environment. 

Question 3. Does the EPA plan on creating a comprehensive program to identify 

hot spots with lead in soil or surface water so that families and communities can 

make the best decisions for themselves? 

ANSWER. EPA continues to closely review and act on the issues raised in the Wall 

Street Journal’s investigation of lead covered telecom cables across the United 

States, including coordinating closely with New York State. EPA’s scientific review 

of the data and current conditions in Wappingers Falls area sampled by New York 

State indicate that there are no immediate threats to the health of people nearby 

rising to the level of needing a CERCLA response. 

EPA has established a national working group to consider next steps to ensure 

the public remains safe. Any future actions will be done in coordination with state 

and local leaders, and the public will remain informed of any actions taken. 

There is no safe level of lead exposure. Young children are particularly at risk 

for health effects from exposure to lead, and EPA will take all actions within its 

authorities to ensure children are safe and protected from any potential exposure. 

In addition to sampling, EPA has required major telecom companies to provide 

us with information needed to evaluate the nature and extent of releases or threatened releases of lead from telecommunications cables and equipment, including results of inspections the companies have undertaken, as well as sampling data and 

results in several of the areas identified in the Wall Street Journal article. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN TO HON. RADHIKA

FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVI- RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Question 1. For everyone across America, determinants of health for communities 

and individuals hinges on water quality and sustainability. I represent part of the 

coast of Lake Michigan and its watershed, and we have seen firsthand how lead and 

PFAS in our waterways and homes affects the health of our community. Despite 

being at the forefront of PFAS research and remediation efforts, there is much we 
96 

do not understand. For instance, the project to remediate and develop a former coal 

combustion site at Harbor Island in my district has faced obstacles because of PFAS 

discovered on site, keeping the city of Grand Haven from cleanup efforts and their 

long term goals to turn the island into a public nature preserve. This is not an isolated incident in Michigan’s Third Congressional District: our state economy—and 

our nation’s economy—relies on the Great Lakes and its watershed, and it is in our 

mutual interest that we invest in restoration and sustainability in the region. 

My staff recently met with representatives from the city of Grand Haven working 

on the Renew Harbor Island project in my district. The discovery of PFAS on the 

island was unfortunate, though not surprising. PFAS has been prevalent across all 

parts of my district, and the health of children and families is in question. 

In the event that my friends on the other side of the aisle decide to move forward 

with cuts to funding levels, what is the EPA’s plan to protect the drinking water 

families use from PFAS pollution? 

ANSWER. EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap highlights concrete actions EPA plans 

to take across a range of environmental media and EPA program offices to protect 

people and the environment from PFAS contamination. The President’s Fiscal Year 

2024 budget requests $170 million to deliver on the actions laid out in EPA’s PFAS 

Strategic Roadmap, including $60 million for water programs. These funds are critical for developing a national standard for certain PFAS in drinking water, to getting upstream of the PFAS problem and holding polluters accountable, and to accelerating research needed to take further action faster. Reducing funding would 

hinder these critical efforts to protect human health and the environment from 

harmful PFAS pollution. For example, it could curtail EPA’s work to distribute $10 

billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in water and to provide technical assistance to communities. 

Question 2. I also wanted to follow up with my gratitude for Administrator 

Regan’s recent visit to my district to celebrate the funding for installation of unleaded pipes for homes in the 49507 zip code in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This zip 

code has suffered historic disinvestment, and I appreciate your focus on addressing 

the issues plaguing communities like this. In light of that goal, how would budget 

cuts impact the Agency’s ability to equitably invest in sustainable infrastructure? 

ANSWER. If Congress cuts EPA’s budget, the Agency would have to make difficult 

tradeoffs that could impact the health and safety of all our communities, and the 

water quality of waters that businesses, farmers, ranchers, and families all rely on. 

For example, budget cuts could delay fixing America’s aging water infrastructure 

and could roll back our progress on ensuring that all people are protected from environmental harm. 

Question 3. The President’s FY 2024 budget request specifically includes $368.2 

million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative—a bipartisan priority for my delegation. We are all concerned about invasive species, pollution, sustainability, and 

climate change in our region because of their impact on our economy and natural 

resources. I joined most of the Michigan delegation in sending a letter requesting 

full funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

If funding for geographic programs decreases, or even maintains the FY2023 levels, how will we be able to make progress on the important, bipartisan, community 

based efforts in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative? 

ANSWER. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has greatly accelerated Great 

Lakes restoration and protection work; cutting the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative would certainly result in a slowdown of that work. If the initiative is cut, we 

will not meet our commitment to cleaning up nearly all the Areas of Concern by 

the end of 2030. Cleaning up Areas of Concern leads to substantial economic and 

community revitalization. Cutting the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative means 

that Areas of Concern would likely experience a substantial delay in completing the 

work, and thereby delaying that economic and community revitalization. Further, 

cutting the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative would be unfortunate given the need 

to also focus on (1) nutrient loads and algal blooms; (2) habitat restoration to improve coastal resiliency, especially in the face of climate change; (3) invasive species; 

and (4) bringing more benefits of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to underserved communities across the Great Lakes Basin. 
97 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. GREG STANTON TO HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Question 1. I want to address the issue of PFAS in Arizona where communities 

are suffering from a long-term drought and will increasingly become reliant on 

groundwater. 

In Tucson, there are two significant PFAS plumes. One is spreading PFAS in 

groundwater downgradient from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Left unaddressed, 

the PFAS contamination threatens the quality of Tucson’s central aquifer, its historic source of supply, and critical to Tucson’s water supply. 

The Tucson basin is an EPA-recognized sole-source aquifer for drinking water and 

is in a closed watershed, meaning it doesn’t have a river or ocean where PFAS-contaminated waters can flow out of the community. 

The other plume is spreading in groundwater downgradient from the Tucson 

International Airport and the Morris Arizona Air National Guard facility. 

I am pleased that EPA and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality are 

collaborating with the City of Tucson to build a PFAS-treatment plant to address 

this issue at the Tucson Airport Remediation Project Site. 

Will EPA prioritize federal PFAS response for communities like Tucson that are 

in ‘‘sole source aquifer’’ areas and are heavily dependent on groundwater? 

ANSWER. EPA continues to develop new science and regulatory tools, and to deploy critical funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and other sources, 

to help safeguard communities and the environment from PFAS, especially in overburdened communities. Consistent with EPA’s 2021–2024 PFAS Strategic Roadmap, 

EPA is committed to holding polluters and other responsible parties accountable for 

their actions, ensuring that they assume responsibility for remediation efforts and 

prevent, to the extent possible, future releases of PFAS. 

Question 2. If so, what are some things EPA can do to make sure ‘‘sole source 

aquifer’’ communities like Tucson can rely on clean and safe groundwater as shortage and climate change negatively impact Colorado River supplies? 

ANSWER. Comprehensive protection of ground water resources, including sole 

source and other aquifers, can best be achieved through integrated and coordinated 

efforts by federal, state, and local entities. EPA works to provide information and 

encourage partnerships for source water protection planning and to provide tools to 

assist in protecting source water. EPA’s Creating Resilient Water Utilities initiative 

provides water sector utilities with practical tools, training, and technical assistance 

to increase resilience to climate change and assists water sector utilities by promoting a clear understanding of climate change and helping to identify potential adaptation measures, implementation options, and infrastructure financing. In addition, thanks to significant additional SRF funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure 

Law—including $10 billion dedicated to addressing PFAS, the Water Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program, and other funding sources—communities have access to additional funding to address PFAS and emerging contaminants, improve water efficiency and conservation, and enhance water reuse, storage, 

and recharge. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. DAVID ROUZER TO MARIA-ELENA GINER, 

PH.D., P.E., COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

Question 1. In carrying out various treaties with Mexico, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) plays an important role in protecting our Southern border. Recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a plan to add marine 

buoys to the Rio Grande in order to secure the border while maintaining the integrity of the Rio Grande. 

Question 1.a. What role does the IBWC play to protect our Southern border? 

ANSWER. The U.S. Section of IBWC (USIBWC) works closely with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in support of efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico 

border. First and foremost, through field surveys and the maintenance of border 

monuments and markers, we clarify the exact location of the international boundary. Identifying the boundary location can be particularly challenging in remote locations or areas where the Colorado River and the Rio Grande mark the U.S. boundary with Mexico, and the course of the river has changed. IBWC personnel regularly 
98 

testify in legal proceedings to confirm when apprehensions or lethal encounters 

occur in U.S. territory. 

When CBP constructs structures in or near floodplains, USIBWC reviews construction plans to ensure the new structures will not obstruct the flow of the Colorado and Rio Grande rivers, and that the structures would comply with U.S.-Mexico 

treaties. USIBWC ensures that new structures are completely inside U.S. territory 

and identifies Mexican structures that encroach into U.S. territory. When there are 

Mexican encroachments, USIBWC arranges for their removal. 

On a daily basis, CBP personnel use USIBWC levees to transport their field 

agents along the border, and the two agencies contribute to maintenance of the levees. In addition, as part of the Fiscal Year 2024 budget process, USIBWC has provided technical assistance to Members of Congress who seek to place surveillance 

cameras on IBWC property. 

Question 1.b. Will the IBWC commit to working with states that want to secure 

their border? 

ANSWER. Our agency works closely with federal and state agencies to secure the 

U.S.-Mexico border, through two approaches. The first is the clear definition of the 

boundary as described in response #1. The second is through our permitting process. 

The public and private sector regularly seek permits form IBWC for use of land 

owned or controlled (through an easement or right of way) by IBWC. The IBWC regularly informs state officials and other applicants what information needs to be provided to obtain permits. The USIBWC has also sought information from state officials to enable USIBWC review of construction projects for compliance with multiple 

U.S.-Mexico treaties. For example, under the U.S.-Mexico Boundary Treaty of 1970, 

construction in the Rio Grande and Colorado River floodplains cannot obstruct or 

deflect the river flow. 

Unauthorized structures placed in the floodplain could become dislodged under 

storm conditions, floating downstream and damaging Ports of Entry, bridges, dams, 

levees and other property. In addition, the deflection of Rio Grande flows could alter 

the U.S.-Mexico border, possibly leading to the loss of U.S. territory. 

Question 2. Mexico is required to deliver water from the Rio Grande to the United 

States under the 1944 Water Treaty, meeting designated volumes for five-year cycles. In the current five-year cycle, Mexico has delivered only 45 percent of expected 

volume. 

Question 2.a. How much funding has the IBWC provided to Mexico in its efforts 

to resolve water and boundary issues along the United States-Mexico border? 

ANSWER. Although the United States Section of the IBWC executes critical coordinating and advisory functions with Mexican counterparts, USIBWC does not directly spend appropriated funds on Mexican water projects or infrastructure. The 

Agency does not have the statutory authority to fund any operations, maintenance, 

or improvements of Mexican wastewater infrastructure, with the exception of a contribution toward O & M of the Nuevo Laredo International Wastewater Treatment 

Plant. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamations have 

the authority to co-fund water conservation and environmental projects in Mexico 

which result in water savings shared by the United States and Mexico. We refer 

you to the Bureau for the most up-to-date figures regarding expenditures on water 

conservation and environmental projects in Mexico. 

Question 2.b. What steps does the IBWC plan to take to ensure deliveries are 

made and water security is maintained in the United States? 

ANSWER. This spring and summer, USIBWC asked the Mexican government to 

initiate immediate releases from reservoirs above or near conservation capacity. We 

continue to advocate for these upstream releases as a way to increase water deliveries to the United States and boost storage at Falcon and Amistad International 

Reservoirs. 

In June, we proposed an emergency Minute that would allow the US to receive 

a greater share of water from the Mexican tributaries in order to enhance deliveries 

to the US in response to the current shortfall. We expect to receive Mexico’s response to this proposal in the near future. 

We have also continued to implement Minute No. 325, an agreement signed in 

2020 to avoid a deficit at the end of the 2015–2020 cycle. That Minute called for 

a follow-on Minute by December 2023 to improve the predictability and reliability 

of Rio Grande water deliveries to users in both countries. The Minute negotiations 

are underway as we seek innovative solutions to longstanding challenges. To make 

a break with old patterns, negotiators aim to enable and incentivize management 
99 

strategies that can be deployed during a cycle, rather than waiting until the end 

of a delivery cycle to address any shortfall. 

We also believe ‘‘growing the pie’’—expanding both countries’ water supplies—will 

help with treaty compliance. To that end, we are setting up a binational Rio Grande 

Projects Work Group to seek opportunities for water conservation projects. In addition, the U.S. Section completed a White Paper ibwc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/ 

04/RiolGrandelWhitelPaperlFINAL.pdf earlier this year that described stakeholder proposals to launch water conservation projects in the Rio Grande basin. 

Question 3. Transboundary flows can transport pollutants generated in Mexico 

that impact downstream surface waters in the United States. 

Question 3.a. What steps is the IBWC taking to manage stormwater flows and 

water quality problems in the Santa Cruz River Basin watershed and in the Tijuana 

River Valley watershed? 

ANSWER. Excess flows of Mexican wastewater have caused the failure of the 

Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) to comply with Clean 

Water Act standards, and have strained the plant’s equipment. In Fiscal Year 2024, 

the USIBWC plans to spend $600,000 on improvements to the plant. In addition, 

USIBWC will complete a major upgrade to the International Outfall Interceptor, a 

pipeline carrying Mexican and U.S. wastewater for treatment at NIWTP. USIBWC 

has received $34 million in funding to completely rehabilitate the pipeline, to ensure 

reliable operation of the wastewater collection and treatment system. USIBWC supports congressional efforts to transfer ownership of the IOI to the USIBWC, which 

would allow our agency to protect the large federal investment in this key infrastructure by ensuring proper maintenance. 

Mexican wastewater flows to NIWTP regularly contain excessive levels of nitrates 

and metals. USIBWC will finance studies to pinpoint the location of the contaminated discharges from industrial parks in the Nogales, Sonora area. Regarding the 

increasing levels of stormwater resulting from urbanization in Nogales, Sonora, the 

U.S. and Mexican Sections of IBWC are consulting with city officials in Nogales, Sonora about the need to build and maintain sediment basins. Stakeholders in the 

United States are considering possible support for their efforts as a cost-effective 

means of reducing stormwater impacts on the U.S. side of the border. In the Tijuana River watershed, the USIBWC will receive $300 million in United 

States-Mexico-Canada Agreement funds appropriated to EPA for a major expansion 

of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant. USIBWC is completing the pre-design activities and will soon be entering the design phase for the 

plant expansion, after EPA successfully concluded its environmental review in June. 

The expansion of the plant, accompanied by Mexico’s construction of a major new 

wastewater treatment plant on Mexico’s Pacific Coast as well as pipelines and 

pumping stations, will reduce cross-border wastewater flows by as much as 90%. 

The President’s budget also requested a new, contributed funds authority for 

USIBWC, enabling our agency to receive funds from federal and non-federal entities—an authority already enjoyed by other U.S. infrastructure agencies such as the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any contributed funds could be used for the South 

Bay plant expansion or other activities along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. 

Question 3.b. How is IBWC utilizing recent increases in funding to improve resources while holding Mexico accountable for its aging water and sanitation infrastructure across the jurisdiction of the IBWC? 

ANSWER. Of USIBWC’s two funding accounts (Salaries and Expenses, and Construction), the Salaries and Expenses account in particular has benefited from recent increases. Between FY 2021 and FY 2023, enacted Salaries and Expenses levels rose from $49,770,000 to $57,935,000, a 16% increase. With the additional funds, 

USIBWC has been able to upgrade our technology and increase the maintenance 

work on our equipment and infrastructure. The additional funds also allow us to 

address emergencies at the South Bay and Nogales wastewater treatment plants 

such as increased flows, part replacements, or excess chemicals in the wastewater. 

USIBWC regularly tracks water and wastewater developments in Mexico that require action by the Mexican government. The Mexican Section of IBWC understands 

that much of its sanitation infrastructure in the border area is coming to the end 

of its lifecycle and consults regularly with the Mexican National Water Commission, 

border states and communities to obtain funds for priority repairs in the border region. For example, in the key Tijuana-San Diego area, where large populations on 

both sides of the border are affected by wastewater flows, the Mexican government 

committed under an August 2022 IBWC agreement (‘‘Minute’’ No. 328) to $144 million in sanitation infrastructure projects. At an August 7, 2023 binational meeting 

in Mexico City on the occasion of the one-year anniversary of the Minute, Mexican 

officials confirmed they secured financing for construction of a large coastal waste-
100 

water treatment plant at San Antonio de los Buenos, and said the contract solicitation will take place in October. 

QUESTION FROM HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO TO MARIA-ELENA

GINER, PH.D., P.E., COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES SECTION, 

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

Question 1. Ms. Giner, the United States Section of the International Boundary 

and Water Commission (USIBWC) was not designated as a possible recipient of federal infrastructure funding under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (Pub. L. 117– 

169). 

Are you aware of any jurisdictional concerns or other reasons for not including 

the USIWBC as a potential recipient of federal infrastructure investment funding 

in that law? 

ANSWER. USIBWC receives its funding as a line item in the State Department’s 

budget, and USIBWC’s appropriations subcommittee is the House Appropriations 

Committee’s subcommittee for Foreign Operations (HACFO). Budget deliberations 

on domestic infrastructure do not include HACFO representatives, and those making infrastructure appropriation decisions may not be aware of the significant infrastructure USIBWC owns and operates in the United States. In the event of natural 

disasters and weather-related challenges such as drought and flooding, the demands 

on our infrastructure increase and our facilities are subject to damage from natural 

disasters such as hurricanes. 

USIBWC would certainly benefit by being included in discussions of proposed legislation to enhance preparedness and recovery from natural disasters and weatherrelated crises. Although past practice has not brought the USIBWC into discussions 

of domestic infrastructure planning and financing, there do not appear to be any jurisdictional prohibitions against doing so. USIBWC is not aware of an institutional 

‘‘fix’’ to ensure the agency’s consideration in multi-agency infrastructure discussions 

other than regular informal reminders to appropriators that our facilities merit inclusion in domestic infrastructure legislation. 

QUESTION FROM HON. DAVID ROUZER TO LOUIS ASPEY, ASSOCIATE

CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Question 1. It appears there continues to be a significant backlog of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) watershed planning, projects, and rehabilitation. How does the Administration plan to use emergency funding provided by IIJA 

and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 to bridge this gap? 

ANSWER. The agency plans to provide $631 million of IIJA funds to 238 Watershed 

Operations and Rehabilitation projects in 49 states. Specifically, NRCS will invest 

IIJA funds in 91 dams considered to be ‘high-hazard potential’—meaning, in the 

event of dam failure there would be significant loss of life and property downstream. 

NRCS will further reduce this backlog through investment in additional priority watershed projects using resources provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2023 and the Farm Bill. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. DAVID ROUZER TO AARON BERNSTEIN, M.D., 

M.P.H., DIRECTOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE

REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Question 1. How does the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) interface and interact with other Federal agencies to avoid duplication in 

its CERCLA responsibilities, particularly with EPA’s Office of Water? 

ANSWER. ATSDR is the principle federal public health agency involved with hazardous substance issues. ATSDR is required by CERCLA to conduct public health 

assessments at all sites that are on or proposed for the National Priorities List 

(NPL). EPA, states, local governments, and other federal agencies may also request 

ATSDR’s help with a site, such as in cases of accidental spills or releases. Unlike 

EPA, ATSDR is not a regulatory agency. ATSDR advises EPA on the health aspects 

of hazardous substance sites or spills and makes recommendations to EPA when 

specific actions are needed to protect the public’s health. 
101 

ATSDR works closely with EPA and other federal agencies to conduct public 

health activities as requested by federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial partners. 

This can include providing information to health care providers to help treat patients, communicating with the public about health risks, forming partnerships to 

address community needs, and delivering technical assistance, such as reviews of 

environmental sampling data to assess for public health risks. ATSDR’s multidisciplinary public health experts provide information about potential health risks or 

concerns that EPA and other federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial agencies utilize in their work. ATSDR has a memorandum of understanding with the EPA Office of Science and Technology of the Office of Water and the Center for Public 

Health and Environmental Assessment of the Office of Research and Development 

that serves as a mechanism for coordination in the development of human health 

assessment products. 

Question 2. How does ATSDR’s Partnership to Promote Localized Efforts to Reduce Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) program help states to avoid spending 

Federal funds on environmental issues better handled locally? 

ANSWER. State health departments are on the front lines when it comes to responding to environmental exposures. ATSDR’s Partnership to Promote Local Efforts to Reduce Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) cooperative agreement program funds state health departments to build their capacity to detect, respond to, 

and prevent harmful exposures in communities. Examples of capacity building include providing guidance, training, and funding for health department staff salaries 

to do this work. APPLETREE has enabled greater ability for health departments 

to support clinicians who may have patients with specific concerns related to exposures, build bridges between health and environmental agencies, implement protections to harmful exposures, and rapidly respond to environmental emergencies. By 

growing capacity within the state health departments, APPLETREE enables health 

departments to utilize their staff and resources to address environmental health 

concerns effectively and efficiently, while still maintaining partnerships with 

ATSDR subject matter experts that can support the state health departments’ work 

on an as-needed basis. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN TO AARON BERNSTEIN, M.D., M.P.H., DIRECTOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES

AND DISEASE REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND

PREVENTION

Question 1. For everyone across America, determinants of health for communities 

and individuals hinges on water quality and sustainability. I represent part of the 

coast of Lake Michigan and its watershed, and we have seen firsthand how lead and 

PFAS in our waterways and homes affects the health of our community. Despite 

being at the forefront of PFAS research and remediation efforts, there is much we 

do not understand. For instance, the project to remediate and develop a former coal 

combustion site at Harbor Island in my district has faced obstacles because of PFAS 

discovered on site, keeping the city of Grand Haven from cleanup efforts and their 

long term goals to turn the island into a public nature preserve. This is not an isolated incident in Michigan’s Third Congressional District: our state economy—and 

our nation’s economy—relies on the Great Lakes and its watershed, and it is in our 

mutual interest that we invest in restoration and sustainability in the region. 

In the event that budget cuts impede the EPA’s ability to protect children from 

PFAS pollution, what can I tell families in my district? How can I justify the use 

of taxpayer dollars diverted from the health and safety of our drinking water? 

ANSWER. ATSDR protects communities from harmful health effects related to exposure to natural and man-made hazardous substances. ATSDR does this by responding to environmental health emergencies; investigating emerging environmental health threats; conducting research on the health impacts of hazardous substance sites; and building capabilities of and providing actionable guidance to state 

and local health partners. ATSDR defers to EPA to answer questions about the impacts of potential cuts to EPA’s budget. 
102 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. DAVID ROUZER TO NICOLE R. LEBOEUF, AS- SISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Question 1. How will National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

advance coastal research and the National Coastal Zone Management program for 

adaptation measures and resilience planning at regional and local levels? 

ANSWER. NOAA will continue to advance coastal research, develop and implement 

adaptation measures, and conduct resilience planning under the Coastal Zone Management Act, through both the National Coastal Zone Management Program and 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). Coastal research will continue to be advanced through our 30 designated reserves around the country, including development of resilience plans, monitoring climate impacts, and identification 

of priority acquisition, restoration and stewardship activities. Research will also be 

advanced through the NERRS collaborative science program and graduate research 

fellowship program that invests close to $6 million per year for climate and resilience research objectives. The 34 coastal states and territories that participate in 

the National Coastal Zone Management Program will continue to advance the development and implementation of measures to adapt to the impacts of climate and extreme weather, such as the development of vulnerability assessments and strategies, and planning to help site renewable energy technologies, with funding under 

the CZMA, including $10 million in competitive and non-competitive funding from 

the Enhancement Grant Program under the CZMA’s Section 309. 

Question 2. How is NOAA spending its $516 million in supplemental funding 

under IIJA to the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) fund in fiscal year 

2024? How much of that funding will be allocated to the coastal management planning process? 

ANSWER. NOAA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) investment will continue to protect coastal communities and habitats, conserve natural resources, facilitate advances in climate-related research and technology, and 

promote sustainable economic development focusing on the New Blue Economy. 

Similar to previous years, NOAA will sustain a number of BIL grant-making programs including transformational habitat and coastal resilience, fish passage, marine debris, coastal zone management and national estuarine research reserve habitat protection and restoration, regional ocean partnerships, and the National Oceans 

and Coastal Security Fund. NOAA will also invest in flood and inundation mapping 

and precipitation atlases, ocean and coastal observing systems, and streamlining 

permitting processes. 

NOAA has set aside $10 million for coastal zone management programs, and $6 

million for national estuarine research reserves in FY2023 that is available noncompetitively for program partners to increase their capacity, develop and complete 

planning priorities and oversee projects, and to build partnerships with potential 

project partners to advance their work under BIL. In FY 2024 NOAA expects to set 

aside the same level of non-competitive funding for these programs. Likewise, the 

competitive restoration and conservation grants for coastal zone management and 

national estuarine research reserve programs, transformational habitat and coastal 

resilience grants, and the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, invite applicants to submit design, engineering and planning projects that support efforts that 

will lead to on-the-ground restoration projects in future years. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. JENNIFFER GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N TO NICOLE R. 

LEBOEUF, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Question 1. Assistant Administrator LeBeouf, last Saturday (8 July), an article 

published in one of our local newspapers warned that a severe coral bleaching event 

around Puerto Rico is imminent. I understand NOAA has already issued a coral 

bleaching watch for our islands. And according to the article, experts fear that this 

year’s bleaching event could be similar or worse than the one we experienced in 

2005, when up to 97 percent of Puerto Rico’s corals were impacted. 

As you know, coral reefs support our islands’ tourism-based economy and buffer 

our coastlines against floods and erosion. Protecting them is therefore a priority for 

us. 

Last Congress, we reauthorized the Coral Reef Conservation Act, providing NOAA 

new tools to support coral reef management and restoration efforts. I know the 
103 

agency is working to implement these, and I appreciate that it is keeping my office 

informed about its progress. 

However, I wanted to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the imminent 

coral bleaching event in Puerto Rico. And provide you an opportunity to discuss any 

efforts NOAA is undertaking to address it. 

Question 1.a. So, what actions is NOAA taking to help tackle and, if possible, minimize the impact of the imminent coral reef bleaching event around our Puerto Rico? 

What efforts are you pursuing to support local coral reef managers? 

ANSWER. Planning is underway in Puerto Rico to respond to a significant bleaching and mortality event due to thermal stress, and NOAA staff have initiated conversations with coral managers and restoration practitioners in Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands on accessing funding in the Coral Emergency Response Fund we 

administer with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We are working with 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural & Environmental Resources (PR DNER) and 

coral restoration practitioners to create a response plan as well as transferring lessons learned from the rescue efforts in Florida to replicate that effort to the extent 

possible given Puerto Rico’s lesser capacity to rescue corals. 

NOAA Coral Reef Watch, which provides predictions and near real-time satellite 

monitoring of thermal stress on all coral reefs in the U.S. and around the world, 

is working to both track the status of this heat stress event, and to constantly provide coral reef managers on the ground with the best available data on the environmental conditions surrounding their reefs, so they can take informed action to protect and conserve coral reef resources. • NOAA Coral Reef Watch’s satellite-based Regional Virtual Station for Puerto 

Rico [https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/product/vs/gauges/puertolrico.php] 

reached an Alert Level 1 on August 20. This means that enough heat stress has 

accumulated, such that significant bleaching is expected. Degree Heating Weeks 

(a measure of accumulated heat stress) are accumulating earlier than ever before in the satellite record. NOAA National Coral Reef Monitoring Program surveys during the week of July 24 revealed that bleaching is already occurring 

in four species of coral. • NOAA Coral Reef Watch’s modeled Four-Month Coral Bleaching Heat Stress 

Outlook [https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/bleachingoutlooklcfs/ 

index.php] is predicting Alert Level 2 [https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/product/ 

5km/indexl5kmlbaa-max-7d.php] conditions (associated with severe, widespread bleaching and significant mortality) will begin during the week of September 17 and persist through mid-to-late November. • All indications are that large-scale, significant coral bleaching will begin by 

early September, and the heat is predicted to intensify to mortality-levels by the 

week of September 17–24. Unfortunately, these projections apply to both Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

• What these forecasts and models do not account for are storm events. Tropical 

storm Franklin has slightly cooled the waters off of Puerto Rico. Other storm 

events in the Atlantic Ocean could possibly cool Puerto Rico’s waters in the 

coming weeks, but the magnitude and duration of any cooling will be a function 

of the frequency and intensity of storms. Repeated tropical storm-induced cooling has the potential to ameliorate coral bleaching-level heat stress, but introduces the threat of storm surge and high winds. 

Question 1.b. Can I get your commitment that NOAA will prioritize and ensure 

Puerto Rico receives the necessary resources and assistance to protect and restore 

our corals from any upcoming bleaching event? 

ANSWER. NOAA will work with the Commonwealth to make sure PR DNER staff 

and other coral managers receive timely information on when conditions are likely 

to induce coral bleaching. NOAA has emergency response funds that Puerto Rico 

coral managers can apply for via our Coral Emergency Response Fund with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Question 2. NOAA’s Fiscal Year 2024 budget request includes over $3.6 million 

to improve fisheries science and management efforts in the U.S. Pacific and Caribbean territories. This has been a longstanding issue in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where our fisheries are considered ‘‘data poor.’’ This creates challenges 

for stock assessments to determine overfishing limits, annual catch limits, and the 

status of local fisheries. 

Could you elaborate on the work NOAA intends to carry out with the requested 

$3.6 million to support fisheries science and management efforts in the territories? 

And has the agency considered investing some of its already available funding under 

the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to help improve 

fisheries data collection in the territories? 
104 

ANSWER. The NOAA budget request includes $1.2 million in additional resources 

for the historically under-served U.S. Caribbean to improve estimates of fishing removals, obtain representative samples of age and length of the catch, and develop 

fisheries independent surveys for priority species (e.g. lobster, conch, reef fishes). Increased resources in the U.S. Caribbean would allow NOAA Fisheries to advance 

fisheries management by establishing systematic partnerships with territorial agencies and by promoting cooperative research efforts to develop and conduct statistically-sound data collection and fisheries resource surveys. These funds will provide 

immediate benefits to the Territories by enabling the use of data-limited stock assessment techniques for an increased number of species and by facilitating the evaluation of management options (e.g. MPAs). The Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

proposes to accomplish these objectives through extensive capacity building and engagement with local fishing communities and universities. This cooperative approach is cost-effective, and will ensure that Territorial scientists, managers and 

communities are able to participate as effective partners in the management of their 

local marine resources. 

• As part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding for climate-ready fisheries, 

NMFS is using $500k in Fiscal Year 2023 to address gaps in data critical for 

stock assessment and resource management in the U.S. Caribbean. Based on 

objectives identified in recent Caribbean Strategic Planning workshops held 

with Federal, Territorial, and academic scientists and managers, the primary 

focus is on further developing fishery-independent surveys to obtain size-structured abundance metrics. These funds will increase Territorial fisheries management capacity by expanding Puerto Rico fishery-independent reef fish and 

lobster trap surveys to the U.S. Virgin Islands through cooperative research 

with commercial fishers. Funds will also go to analytical support for better integration and coordination of existing programs, and to preparing existing survey 

data for development of future survey designs. 

Æ