`[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  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
             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-438 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                               

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                   Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
                   
Rick Larsen, Washington,             Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  Ranking Member                     Arkansas
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Daniel Webster, Florida
  District of Columbia               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Brian Babin, Texas
John Garamendi, California           Garret Graves, Louisiana
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiavid Rouzer, North Carolina
Andre Carson, Indiana                Mike Bost, Illinois
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Doug LaMalfa, California
Jared Huffman, California            Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Julia Brownley, California           Brian J. Mast, Florida
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey       Puerto Rico
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
  Vice Ranking Member                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Colin Z. Allred, Texas                 Vice Chairman
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Lance Gooden, Texas
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Burgess Owens, Utah
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
                                     Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida

            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

  David Rouzer, North Carolina, 
             Chairman
Grace F. Napolitano, California,     Daniel Webster, Florida
  Ranking Member                     Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California           Brian Babin, Texas
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Bost, Illinois
  Vice Ranking Member                Doug LaMalfa, California
Jared Huffman, California            Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Brian J. Mast, Florida
Patrick Ryan, New York               Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                   Puerto Rico
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Burgess Owens, Utah
Julia Brownley, California           Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Greg Stanton, Arizona                John James, Michigan, Vice 
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Chairman
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Brandon Williams, New York
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Mike Collins, Georgia
  District of Columbia               Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) John S. Duarte, California
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                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
    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 Gonzalez-Colon................................   102

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              July 7, 2023

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment
    RE:      LSubcommittee 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 the Superfund and brownfields 
programs, which are managed by EPA's Office of Land and 
Emergency Management (OLEM).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024          FY 2023 Enacted Level
                     Program                           Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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 proposes $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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ IIJA, supra note 5; see also Appendix I.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ WRRDA 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-121, Title V, 128 Stat. 1322.
    \13\ EPA Budget Justification, supra note 4, at 955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id. at 1311.
    \15\ IIJA, supra note 5. See also Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ EPA Budget Justification, supra note 4, at 1310.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id. at 1308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ IIJA, supra note 5; see also Appendix I.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 103 [hereinafter CERCLA].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Therefore, these receipts are not included in the table 
summarizing EPA's enacted and requested funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ IIJA, supra note 5 Sec.  80201; IRA, Pub. L. No. 117-169 Sec.  
13601, 136 Stat. 1981.
    \28\ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-328 
Sec. 443 [hereinafter Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ EPA Budget Justification, supra note 4, at 1313.
    \30\ Id. at 652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization 
Act, Pub. L. No. 107-118, 115 Stat. 2356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ EPA Budget Justification, supra note 4, at 1308, 1314, 1316.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Dep'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/coe_fy2024.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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024          FY 2023 Enacted Level
                     Program                           Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Army Corps Civil Works FY 2024 Budget, supra note 40, at 4.

 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Id. at 2.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Id. at 7.
    \49\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Id. at 2.
    \51\ Id.; Army Corps Civil Works FY 2023 Appropriations, supra note 
40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FY 2024 proposal includes $415 million for the South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan (Everglades) program, $66.7 
million for Columbia River Fish Mitigation, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Army Corps Civil Works FY 2024 Budget, supra note 40, at 2.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Army Corps Civil Works FY 2024 Budget, supra note 40, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Army Corps Civil Works FY 2024 Budget, supra note 40, at 3.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulatory Program: The budget requests $221 million for 
the Corps Regulatory Program, including its work administering 
Clean Water Act permitting authorities.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Id.; see also Army Corps Civil Works FY 2023 Appropriations, 
supra note 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ See Army Corps Civil Works FY 2023 Appropriations, supra note 
40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Army Corps Civil Works FY 2024 Budget, supra note 40, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Id.; Army Corps Civil Works FY 2023 Appropriations, supra note 
40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works (ASA-CW): The budget 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ IIJA, supra note 5, Div. J, Title III; see also Appendix I.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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].
    \75\ See id.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024          FY 2023 Enacted Level
                     Program                           Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Id.; Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 
Sec.  2401, 132 Stat. 4570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, which would be an 
increase of $100 million from the FY 2023 enacted level of $75 
million.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1; see also 
Fact Sheet, United States Dep't of Agriculture, Watershed Protection 
and Flood Prevention Operations Program, available at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/NRCS_Watershed
FloodPrev_Fact%20Sheet-2021.pdf.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ See USDA FY 2024 Budget Summary, supra note 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \81\ See USDA FY 2024 Budget Summary, supra note 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, supra note 28, Div. 
N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ See IIJA, supra note 5.
    \85\ Id. at Div. J, Title I; see also Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ NOAA, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2024 (2023), Exhibit 4B, 
available at https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/
NOAA_FY24_CJ.pdf [hereinafter NOAA FY 2024 Budget Estimates].
    \89\ Id.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024          FY 2023 Enacted Level
                     Program                           Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \91\ Id.
    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ See NOAA FY 2024 Budget Estimates, supra note 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ See IIJA, supra note 5, Div. J, Title II, 135 Stat. 1355; see 
also Appendix I.
    \95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System, The Seaway Story, 
available at https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/.
    \97\ Id.
    \98\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ See 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/GLS_FY_2024_President_Budget_
508.pdf [hereinafter GLS Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Estimates].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024        Enacted Level in FY 2023
                     Program                           Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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 $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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Id. at 1.
    \101\ Id. at Exhibit II-1.
    \102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Tennessee Valley Authority Act, 16. U.S.C. 831.
    \104\ Tennessee Valley Authority, About TVA, available at https://
www.tva.com/about-tva.
    \105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ Id.
    \109\ Id.
    \110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024        Enacted Level in FY 2023
                     Program                           Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ See 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%20FINAL_3.9.23_0.pdf.
    \112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      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, (2) increasing 
knowledge of toxic substances, (3) educating health care 
providers and the public, and (4) maintaining health 
registries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ See Jurisdiction and Activities Report, supra note 1.
    \114\ CERCLA, supra note 26, Sec.  9601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     President's Budget Over the
                                                       FY 2023         FY 2024        Enacted Level in FY 2023
                                                       Enacted       President's   -----------------------------
                                                    (millions of     (millions of     Millions of
                                                      dollars)         dollars)         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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              X. WITNESSES

     LThe Honorable Radhika Fox, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Water, United States Environmental 
Protection Agency
     LDr. Maria-Elena Giner, Commissioner, 
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
Section
     LMr. Louis Aspey, Associate Chief, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of 
Agriculture
     LDr. Aaron Bernstein, Director, Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention
     LMs. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator, 
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration

      Appendix I: IIJA Funding in the Subcommittee's Jurisdiction
                          (FY 2022-2026) \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          5-Year
                                             Agency         FY 2022  FY 2023  FY 2024  FY 2025  FY 2026   Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Program                                           (Millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed and Flood Prevention       NRCS.................      500        0        0        0        0      500
 Operations.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program...  NRCS.................      118        0        0        0        0      118
Emergency Watershed Protection       NRCS.................      300        0        0        0        0      300
 Program.
Operations, Research, and            NOAA.................      557      516      516      516      507    2,611
 Facilities (ORF) \\.
Procurement, Acquisition, and        NOAA.................      180        0        0        0        0      180
 Construction (PAC) \\.
  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            Corps................      251        0        0        0        0      251
 Emergencies.
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                              1,902    2,202    2,403    2,603    2,603   11,713
   Funds \\.
  Drinking Water State Revolving                              3,000    3,000    3,000    3,000    3,000   15,000
   Funds, Lead Service Lines \\.
  Clean Water State Revolving                                   100      225      225      225      225    1,000
   Funds, Groundwater.
  Drinking Water State Revolving                                800      800      800      800      800    4,000
   Funds, PFAS \\.
  Emerging Contaminants, Sec. 1459A                           1,000    1,000    1,000    1,000    1,000    5,000
   Safe Drinking Water Act \\.
  Underground Injection Control                                  50        0        0        0        0       50
   Grants \\.
  Brownfields......................                             300      300      300      300      300    1,500
  Sec. 6605, Pollution Prevention                                20       20       20       20       20      100
   Act \\.
  Save Our Seas 2.0 Act............                              55       55       55       55       55      275
  Grants to Improve Material                                     15       15       15       15       15       75
   Recycling \\.
  Clean School Bus Program \\......                           1,000    1,000    1,000    1,000    1,000    5,000
Environmental Programs and           EPA..................      412      387      387      387      387    1,959
 Management.
  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.

 
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.

   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-
and-comment rulemaking process for major changes to 
regulations, and it is crucial that the agencies comply with 
that.
    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-
and-response 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:]

                                 
 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 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.
    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 extreme 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:]

                                 
  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.
    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.

 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.
    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:]

                                 
 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 upgrading 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 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 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:]

                                 
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.
    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 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, 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.
    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.
    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:]

                                 
  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;
      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 bi-national 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 Mexican 
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 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 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 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.
    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.
    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:]

                                 
 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 
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 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, rights-of-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 
NRCS-assisted 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.
   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.
    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 ATSDR-supported 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 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:]

                                 
 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 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 as-needed 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 public health considerations into their wildfire activities 
through participation on multiple interagency workgroups, including the 
Wildland Fire Leadership Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/wildfires/index.html
    \2\ https://onemap.cdc.gov/Portal/home/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pha-guidance/index.html
    \4\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/eji/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      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.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072821/
    \6\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/OSTP-
March-2023-PFAS-Report.pdf
    \7\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp200.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/cancer-environment/pdfs/Guidelines-
for-Examining-Unusual-Patterns-of-Cancer-and-Environmental-Concerns-
h.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
    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:]

                                 
   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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 high-altitude 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 under-observed polar regions.
    As we increase our understanding of the changing climate in the 
short and long-terms, 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 NOAA-Alaska 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.
       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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
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 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:]

                                 
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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                                 
 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, intermittent 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 post-Sackett 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 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,
                         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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
    \2\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The White House, Investing in America, available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/invest/ (last visited July 11, 2023).
    \7\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                                 
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 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:]

                                 
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. __ (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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Sackett v. EPA, No. 21-454 (U.S. May 25, 2023), available at 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21454_4g15.pdf; 598 U.S. __ 
(2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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-in-joint-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-in_filing-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-definition-
rulemaking-await-scotus-decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 indicative that these recent delays are needless at best, or 
intentional efforts to halt economic development at worst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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-
approvals-paused-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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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/cwa_
jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf.
    \6\ Supra note 1, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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:]

                                 
 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 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-to-back 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?
    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:]

                                 
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. __ (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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See https://www.law360.com/articles/1686914/sackett-s-us-
waters-redefinition-is-a-boon-for-developers; 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-
epa-clean-water-act/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    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 integrity 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 
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.
    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 
2\1/2\ 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----
    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:]

                                 
  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 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average
                                                 Number of     Cost per
             Date                Amount Spent       LSLs         LSL
                                                  Replaced     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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Poughkeepsie 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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 well-tested 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.
    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.
    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:]

                                 
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 underwater-cable 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.
    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-year-old 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 lead-clad telecom 
cables but also our own testing.''
    In a written statement, Verizon said it is ``taking these concerns 
regarding lead-sheathed 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 environmental-testing 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.
      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 well-known 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.
    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 Control 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.
                          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 follow-up. 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.
    ``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 further 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 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 accessing 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.
    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.
    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?
    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. 
Forty-nine 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.
    How can Congress work with the EPA to ensure rural and low-
income 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.
    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.
    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.
    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----
    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.
    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.
    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, 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.
    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 2\1/2\ 
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 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?
    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. Gonzalez-Colon.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. 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.
    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. Gonzalez-Colon. You will get back to me with that 
information.
    Ms. Fox. Yes, I will, absolutely.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. 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. Gonzalez-Colon. 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, 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. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    Ms. Fox. And that is what we will do.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. 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, 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 spray-paint 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.
    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.
    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.]


                                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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Sackett v. EPA, No. 21-454 (U.S., May 25, 2023) available at 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21454_4g15.pdf; 598 U.S. __ 
(2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 3086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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).
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/list-laboratories-approved-epa-
fifth-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-5

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 87 Fed. Reg. at 54415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Water Infrastructure Improvement Act, Pub. L. 115-436, 115 Stat 
5558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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/wiia_integrated_planning_implementation_
memo_december_2019_508.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/integrated-planning-
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-impacts 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

    Questions from Hon. Patrick Ryan to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant 
  Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental 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-child-care-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. Environmental 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 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.

    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 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 
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/
Rio_Grande_White_Paper_FINAL.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 
wastewater 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 weather-related 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.
    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.

   Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant 
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 non-competitively 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 Gonzalez-Colon 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 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/puerto_rico.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/bleachingoutlook_cfs/index.php] is predicting Alert Level 2 
[https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/product/5km/index_5km_baa-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?
    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.
      
                                   [all]`