[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY ======================================================================= (110-25) HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- APRIL 17 AND 19, 2007 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 ____ 2007 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY ======================================================================= (110-25) HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ APRIL 17 AND 19, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ? COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas California GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN J. HALL, New York STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California (ii) ? Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida JERRY MCNERNEY, California JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of York Columbia CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., BOB FILNER, California Louisiana ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio) (iii) ? CONTENTS Page Proceedings of: April 17, 2007................................................. 1 April 19, 2007................................................. 130 April 17, 2007 Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii TESTIMONY Driscoll, Charles T., University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University............................... 26 Fineday, Lenny, Director, Administration and Governmental Affairs Department, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.......................... 7 Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.......... 7 Mueller, Jon, Director of Litigation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.. 26 O'Donnell, Hon. Arleen, Acting Commissioner, State of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection.......... 7 Slattery, Michael C., Director, Institute for Environmental Studies, Texas Christian University............................ 26 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 43 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 45 Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin.................................. 46 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 47 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 51 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Driscoll, Charles T.............................................. 55 Grumbles, Benjamin H............................................. 79 Goggleye Jr., Hon. George (submitted by Lenny Fineday)........... 98 Mueller, Jon A................................................... 104 O'Donnell, Arleen................................................ 115 Slattery, Michael C.............................................. 119 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions for the record.......................... 88 April 19, 2007 Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ xvii TESTIMONY Baker, James, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University.................. 151 Coombe, Richard, Regional Assistant Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........... 135 Faber, Scott, Farm Policy Campaign Director, Environmental Defense........................................................ 151 Hooks, Craig, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency......................................................... 135 Howarth, Robert W., Ph.D, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University.................................... 151 Stem, Wiley, Assistant City Manager, City of Waco, Texas......... 135 Wolf, Roger, Director of Environmental Programs, Iowa Soybean Association.................................................... 151 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 168 Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., of New York............................. 171 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 177 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 179 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 181 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 186 Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado............................... 192 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Baker, James..................................................... 197 Coombe, Richard.................................................. 217 Faber, Scott..................................................... 232 Hooks, Craig..................................................... 238 Howarth, Robert W................................................ 251 Stem, Wiley...................................................... 278 Wolf, Roger...................................................... 298 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Baker, James, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, the impact of agriculture on water quality................................... 201 Coombe, Richard, Regional Assistant Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, response to questions for the record.................................... 226 Hooks, Craig, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions for the record.................. 248 Howarth, Robert W., Ph.D, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University: Response to questions from Rep. Johnson........................ 257 The Development of Policy Approaches for Reducing Nitrogen Pollution to Coastal Waters of the USA, Robert W. Howarth.... 262 Wolf, Roger, Director of Environmental Programs, Iowa Soybean Association, response to questions for the record.............. 306 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD American Farm Bureau Federation, statement....................... 308 National Corn Growers Association, statement..................... 332 National Pork Producers Council, statement....................... 339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.020 HEARING ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AND WATER QUALITY ---------- Tuesday, April 17, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. Ms. Johnson. I would like to welcome today's witnesses to our hearing on the Impact of Atmospheric Deposition and Water Quality. Today we will hear from representatives from Federal, State and tribal governments and other interested stakeholders. These diverse perspectives will provide the Subcommittee with a much broader understanding on nonpoint source water pollution and how atmospheric deposition impacts water quality and what the Federal Government is currently doing about it. To begin, let me extend a warm greeting to Dr. Michael Slattery. Dr. Slattery comes from my home State of Texas and one of my alma maters, who is an expert in environmental science. As a former health care professional, I am very concerned about the impact that air pollution can have on human health especially on mothers and children. Dr. Slattery has been instrumental in providing critical scientific findings on the impact of coal-fired plants, power plants, in the State of Texas. These plants, as Dr. Slattery will testify, are central contributors to mercury loading in water bodies throughout Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. I thank you very much for being here today to discuss your research findings. Nonpoint source water pollution is an area that has not been looked at in many years by this Subcommittee, and I am pleased to announce that this is the first in a series of hearings that will look at this major area of concern and the impairment of the Nation's water bodies. I hope that these hearings will provide the members of the Subcommittee with a firmer grasp of the nature of nonpoint source pollution as well as what the Federal Government is doing or not doing to deal with it. Nonpoint water pollution might best be described by what it is not. It is pollution that enters water bodies through a pathway other than a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance such as a pipe or ditch. This pollution is captured by rainfall or snowmelt and carried into the waters, eventually causing these water bodies to become impaired. The sources of nonpoint water pollution are varied. They can include runoff from farms, streets and construction sites. The sources can also include emissions from power plants, industrial facilities and car tailpipes. This form of nonpoint source pollution is referred to atmospheric deposition and what we are here today to discuss. These types of substances begin as air emissions enter the atmosphere and eventually fall out or settle over the land and water bodies. In many cases, these substances are eventually washed into water bodies, causing considerable pollution. It is important to understand that atmospheric deposition nonpoint source pollution begins as an air pollution problem and ends up as a water pollution problem. While I realize that the regulation of air pollution is outside the purview of this Subcommittee, the fact that a significant number of waters are impaired through the atmospheric sources makes this issue a concern of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. I, for one, am eager to find out if the Environmental Protection Agency is equipped to properly handle such multimedia pollution problems especially in the light of the interstate and international nature of air pollution and its impacts on State waters. Atmospheric deposition is a major source of water body impairment. In EPA's most recent National Assessment Database, the States report that 26 percent of lakes, reservoirs and bays are impaired because of atmospheric deposition. In addition, in 2004, 44 States had fish consumption advisories for mercury. This means that nearly every State in the Union has fish that are contaminated and should not be eaten. The majority of fish consumption advisories focus on mercury contamination from atmospheric sources. Although sources of mercury in the environment can be both natural and manmade, the United States Geographical Survey has found that human activities have doubled or even tripled the amount of mercury in the atmosphere. This mercury has come from power plants and other fossil fuel-burning sources. Given what we know about health impacts of mercury, any mercury advisory in today's day and age is wrong. That more and more water bodies are subject to mercury advisories and nearly every State in the Country is subject to these mercury warnings is unbelievable and needs explaining. It is time for this Committee to start asking how this could be, and then it is time to ask what are we doing about it. Water bodies throughout this Country have been negatively impacted, are being negatively impacted by harmful atmospheric deposition for far too long. Unchecked, this type of nonpoint source pollution will result in human health and economic costs that both localized regions as well as the Nation can ill afford. I urge members of this Subcommittee not to forget these costs are not just the aesthetics of water bodies, not just the fish and aquatic plant life. Instead, the effects of mercury deposition and the effects of pesticide deposition, the effects of other toxic metals, all have demonstrated dramatic negative health impacts on young children, adults and the elderly. We need to ask ourselves if all of this harm can continue without any effective response. I welcome the witnesses to today's hearing, and I look forward to their testimony. They will better inform the Subcommittee as to the nature of atmospheric deposition, how it relates to nonpoint source pollution and how it impacts human health and the environment. The Chair recognizes Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. I thank the gentlelady for convening this hearing and for her broad view and opening statement concerning water quality. I share many of her concerns in preserving the valuable asset that our nation relies on in a daily fashion. I would also point out that nonpoint source water degradation is certainly something the Congress should better understand, receive scientific comment and learn better the effects or consequences of that anomaly. With specific reference to atmospheric deposition, merely for establishing the scope of the problem we really face, there was actually a geologic period brought to an end by the result of a six mile meteor impact 65 million years ago that ended the Cretaceous and started the Tertiary period. Also, similarly, some believe ended the life of dinosaurs. Fortunately for humankind, no similar event has recently occurred although in 1883 the volcano, Krakatoa, erupted and volcanic ash surrounded the equator in 13 days, having significant adverse ecological effects. I merely enter those observations into the record because atmospheric depositional conduct is an extremely complex phenomenon which can be affected by vehicle emissions in China or coal-burning gas-fired generators in other countries around the globe and, because of trade winds, result in depositional activities within the domestic United States, over which we obviously have very little control or ability to regulate. It is for those reasons that I suggest we certainly should learn and better understand the forces at work, but prior to moving to any new regulatory constraint on domestic business activity, we need to fully understand the risks we face and the appropriate response that this Congress should generate without unnecessarily constraining responsible economic growth. With that in mind, I look forward to the balance of the hearings that are now scheduled as I know the Committee will learn a great deal and resultingly take responsible action. I yield back and thank the Chairlady. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for calling this very important hearing. In my district of Sacramento, we are part of the greater Sacramento River Watershed which emanates from the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River is the largest and longest river in California. It stretches over 350 miles through the heart of Northern California, and it collects water from over a dozen counties between Sacramento and Oregon in an area of more than 27,000 square miles. This mighty river has 27 tributaries feeding into it, and 17 percent of California's land drains into the Sacramento River. My priority since taking office has been flood protection, but the more I engage on the issue, the more it is apparent to me that flood protection is not just about levees and dams. It is also about the decisions we make within a watershed. I am very interested in developing a comprehensive Sacramento Watershed approach. It is my intent that this approach will address the environmental, water quality, conservation, land use and, yes, flood protection components of a full and robust watershed approach. I am particularly interested to hear about the EPA's Section 319 program and how it can work with other programs and agencies such as USDA. It is my belief that it will take more than one program, one agency and one approach to address the needs of our larger watersheds in this Country. Whether it is identifying nonpoint source pollution or managing land use, all of these issues are interrelated. I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, and I thank you once again, Madam Chair, for calling this hearing. I yield back. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Ehlers? Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to express my appreciation for this hearing. I apologize. I won't be able to stay because the Aviation Subcommittee is having a classified briefing in 15 minutes, and I have to be at that, but I will try to stop by here after that. This is an extremely important issue and, as a representative of the Great Lakes, I can assure you how important it is for all of us who live there. We have something on the order of 70 million people depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, and so it is a crucial issue for everyone in the Great Lakes Region. We are very proud of our lakes. We are very proud of the purity of the water, but the atmosphere deposition is an increasing problem. Just to give you one example, a number of years ago, the United States banned the use of the chemical, Toxaphene. Not too long ago, the Great Lakes' concentration of Toxaphene was still continuing to increase because it is not banned in other parts of the world. It is a volatile organic compound. It gets into the air, circulates in the atmosphere, comes down with the rain into the Great Lakes Watershed, and there we are. So this is an extremely important topic, and I look forward to the comments on this. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop? Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you for having this hearing as well as the hearing Thursday afternoon. This is a very important issue, nationally, one that is particularly important to my district. I represent a district that is literally surrounded by water. And so, these are concerns of ours that are of long standing, and we look forward to the testimony both this afternoon and on Thursday afternoon. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson. Mr. Gilchrest? Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just briefly, I want to thank our witnesses on the first and second panels for coming. We look forward to a very productive working relationship with you over the next couple of years in this session of Congress, and we hope we can make progress. I have some other things. I am going to try to stay for the hearing, but I may have to leave. As we go through nonpoint source pollution and all the various aspects which is fundamentally human activity, everything we do from streetscapes to, as Mr. Ehlers mentioned, atmospheric deposition to herbicides, deforestation, agriculture, sewage treatment plants, the list is seemingly endless. Except that we match that list up with human activity, we now that it is not compatible with nature's design. Nature gets degraded. Pretty soon, we are the ones that are going to be degraded or our great grandchildren. But as we go through all of the nonpoint source pollution contributions to this degradation, into this mix I really think we have risen to the level of understanding to put climate change and what that does to acidification of our estuaries to the draw-down potentially of the Great Lakes because of changing weather patterns and what that reduction of the volume of water will do to the concentration of all of these activities from herbicides to toxic chemicals to sewage to more people, et cetera. So I just ask you to take into consideration, climate change, as you run through the various aspects of your responsibility. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mrs. Napolitano? Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Honorable Ben Grumbles, we have met before and we talked water extensively. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the hearing because the Subcommittee on Water and Power, in my particular Subcommittee, we have a great interest in this, and this dovetails the efforts that we are trying to put in. The nonpoint sources of pollution have become a major problem, and I am sure the studies are going to show that it is at least in 50 percent of water. How do we work to be able to ensure that our residents or citizens are protected from that pollution which we know is identifiable, is filterable and will make our youngsters or elderly who may be prone to picking up that pollution in the water that is not filtered out? How do we work with all of the effects on water and be able to ensure that we do it in a way that is not going to be protracted in addressing who is responsible, what responsibilities the Federal Government may have if it is Federal Government land? There are all kinds of things that come to mind. The adding of Section 319 in Congress in 1987 to the Clean Water Act, I think, needs to be more vibrant, visible, effective, and we should work with the States to ensure that that runoff is managed properly so that we can then work with them to be able to ensure the delivery of potable water and clean water in our rivers and our dams and into the aquifers that we draw from. Those are all areas, Madam Chairwoman, that I am hoping that we will be addressing or at least identifying the plans that will address the nonpoint pollution problems, the funding, whether it is public access from the cities, the States, the Federal Government through implementing State management plans, and if those Section 319 funds are being used adequately to address agriculture and nonpoint pollution. Those are all issues that I am hoping that we will be able to address, and thank again for being here and to the Chairwoman for calling this hearing. I yield back. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Kagen? Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a great honor for me to able to serve the people of Wisconsin. I have gone through some of the math, and I represent more shoreline than any of the Congressional seats. It is a matter of great importance to my district and my people. I am also very sensitive to the political nature of how we preserve our environment and nonpoint source pollution. My father was a volunteer health commissioner when I was growing up in the early 1960s in Appleton, Wisconsin, and he was very irritated when I came home with my baseball suit on and I smelled like the DDT fogger. We had been riding our bicycles in the fog. The very next day, he went down to city hall, and he banned DDT spraying, and he lost his job because of it. He was protecting the health of his children and his neighborhood. I certainly hope that the actions of this Congress, the 110th, will be different than the results that he had as we seek to protect our environment, not just our surface water but our ground water as well. I look forward to working with everyone here and listening to the greatest extent possible to the testimony before I, like Vern Ehlers, have to go to a different meeting. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I think that ends our opening statements. We are very pleased to have very distinguished panels of witnesses. For our first panel here this afternoon, we have the Honorable Benjamin Grumbles who we are going to give an honorary chair at that table. He is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Next, we have the Honorable Arleen O'Donnell, Acting Commissioner for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Finally, we have Mr. Lenny Fineday, Director of the Administration and Governmental Affairs Department of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. He is here on behalf of the Honorable George Goggleye, Jr., Chairman of the Leech Lake Band Board. Unfortunately, the Chairman is unable to attend this afternoon's hearing, but we are happy to have Mr. Fineday to deliver that testimony. We are pleased that you were able to make it this afternoon. Your full statements will be placed in the record. We ask that witnesses try to limit their testimony to five minutes of oral summary of their written statements as a courtesy to other witnesses. We will continue to proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed in the call of the hearing. Mr. Grumbles, you may proceed. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE ARLEEN O'DONNELL, ACTING COMMISSIONER, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; LENNY FINEDAY, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is always an honor and an education to appear before the Subcommittee and listen to your thoughtful statements. On behalf of EPA, I just want to commend you and the Subcommittee for holding this series of hearings this week, today on atmospheric deposition and Thursday on nonpoint source pollution. We all live downstream and downwind. I think over the course of several years the country is connecting the dots or I should say connecting the drops. The fact that acid rain, SO2 deposition, has a significant impact on lakes and water bodies, the fact that deposition of mercury which then becomes methylmercury has significant ramifications for water quality and fish consumption and human health and the health of water bodies. So this series of hearings, this focus on the diffuse sources of pollution is critically important. We fully agree with you, and the data tells us that atmospheric deposition is a significant contributor to water pollution. EPA's recent data, the data that we get from the States under the Clean Water Act, Section 305(b) reports, cite atmospheric deposition as the source of impairment in 26 percent of the lakes and bays and 5 percent of the rivers and streams. Over 8,500 water bodies in 43 states and Puerto Rico have been listed as impaired by mercury on the State TMDL lists, and most of these are believed to be caused by atmospheric deposition. Acid rain is also a challenge for the Country particularly in the Northeast and New England States, and acid rain causes a cascade of effects ranging from fish kills to reduced fish populations and decreased biodiversity. Nitrogen is a significant problem, a significant water quality problem, and people often focus appropriately on the runoff from the land, but it is also the deposition from the air that can be a major contributor to eutrophication and hypoxic zones through atmospheric deposition of nitrogen. In the Chesapeake Bay, air deposition of nitrogen accounts for an estimated 28 percent of the nitrogen inputs to the bay. Congressman Baker, in the Gulf of Mexico, that number is about 20 percent. So it is not just about the nitrogen from sewage treatment plants or from farms or from the land. It is also from the air. We are also aware of other toxic metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, constituents that can be part of the atmospheric deposition that present challenges to the water. Most importantly, though, from an EPA perspective, I am focusing on the solutions, and I want to emphasize that one of the key steps we have taken over the last couple of years has been to use the Clean Air Act tools to control atmospheric deposition of mercury. In 2005, the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule which were signed in 2005, we have concluded that they will reduce air deposition of electric utility mercury emissions by nearly 70 percent from 1999 levels when fully implemented. That is a significant step forward in controlling mercury, the atmospheric deposition of mercury. Under the Clean Water Act, we have recently taken important steps working with our State partners to provide guidance, voluntary guidance to encourage a focus on early action, on implementing, using various State and regional tools and authorities to control and reduce mercury deposition and mercury discharges into water bodies through a voluntary approach coupled with our Clean Water Act tools that we will continue to use, the TMDL program as appropriate, and other tools under that statute. I also want to emphasize that one of the greatest success stories when it comes to environmental law and environmental statutes, from my perspective, is the acid rain trading program under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. This program set up a cap and trade approach, and we believe the data show that there are excellent environmental results from that cap and trade. Lastly, under the Clean Air Act rules, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, we believe, will be a major step forward in reducing NOx and SOx emissions and helping to protect and restore waters across the U.S. We estimate that the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule will reduce nitrogen loads to the Chesapeake Bay by 8 million pounds per year, a reduction of 8.8 percent by 2010. So, in conclusion, Madam Chair, we have a lot of work ahead of us. We, EPA, have made a significant investment under the air and water authorities that we have, relying on technology and innovation and perhaps, most importantly, collaboration, recognizing that State and local authorities, when it comes to nonpoint source or diffuse pollution, are key, critical to solving the problem. We think working with you, we will continue to make success on this important effort. Thank you. I would be happy to answer questions if you have any. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. I would like to welcome Commissioner O'Donnell from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. We welcome your testimony. Ms. O'Donnell. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is an honor to be here today to testify before this Subcommittee. I just want to make a few points, starting with the problem. Mercury is a serious problem for the residents of Massachusetts. We have a Statewide advisory for consumption of all freshwater fish across the State. Over 8,000 babies are born each year with elevated mercury levels in their blood. The problem with this is that mercury is a neurotoxin, and it causes brain damage. We also have over 100 lakes that we have tested specifically for mercury in fish, and they are all posted individually. Our motto is basically where you test for it, you are going to find it. The vast majority of mercury comes from air emissions. We have done a lot of work throughout the New England area and with the Eastern Canadian Provinces, and the amount coming from water discharges is really negligible. The vast majority of mercury that enters our water bodies and our fish comes from the air. In 1998, the New England Governors and the Eastern Canadian Premiers adopted a zero mercury strategy. We set very specific numeric goals. The goal is to control mercury by 50 percent by 2003 and 75 percent by 2010 and virtual elimination after that. As a region, we are on target, and Massachusetts is ahead of schedule. Massachusetts has currently reduced 70 percent of its in-State mercury resources. I am going to mention six sectors that we specifically controlled. Number one, trash incinerators, all of our trash incinerators control 90 percent of mercury emissions. That is three times the national standard. Coal-fired power plants, by 2008, all will have 85 percent mercury emission controls. By 2012, that will be up to 95 percent mercury emission controls. We had 150 medical waste incinerators. We work closely with the hospital industry in Massachusetts which is obviously a big industry in Massachusetts. All of those hospitals have found alternative ways of dealing with their mercury products, mostly replacing them with non-mercury sources. All 150 medical waste incinerators have been decommissioned. We also have 3,600 dentists in our State, and now 80 percent of them have amalgam separators on their discharge which goes to our wastewater treatment plants. We started with a voluntary program. We now have a mandatory program. You might not think dentists contribute a lot of mercury, but in Massachusetts alone 400 pounds of mercury came from dental offices directly into our rivers and streams. All of our industrial wastewater dischargers must control mercury down to one part per billion by 2009. We have that standard on some wastewater treatment plants. We are putting it on the industrial wastewater dischargers themselves. Then finally, last year we passed mercury product legislation, the last State in New England to pass it. We are very proud of that legislation. It will involve phaseouts of mercury products where there are less hazardous substitutes, recycling for mercury products for which there is no acceptable substitute and a labeling program. Okay, so what results have we seen to date? We have been doing this now since 1998. We are sampling our fish Statewide from the time we put the controls on incinerators, five years out, to see if the environment showed any improvement whatsoever. Surprising results, you wouldn't expect to see that rapid a response in fish tissue over five years, but Statewide we saw mercury levels come down between 15 and 20 percent. Interestingly, in the vicinity of the mercury sources themselves where the incinerators had controls put on them-- there is one part of Massachusetts that has a lot of incinerators--up to 32 percent mercury reductions in fish tissue there, just over a period of five years. But that is still not enough. What else do we need to do? Well, the New England States all banded together with New York State and last week submitted to EPA, a regional TMDL. A TMDL is a Total Maximum Daily Load under the Clean Water Act, and it basically is a calculation of how much mercury reduction has to come from various sources in order to meet water quality standards. Our calculation in Massachusetts alone is 70 percent of all of the mercury coming into Massachusetts comes from upwind sources. So we have done our best to control our own sources, but 70 percent is still coming in from out of State, and we will not meet water quality standards unless more controls are put on upwind sources. Our calculations show that the incoming mercury sources need to be reduced by 86 to 98 percent in order for our fish to be safe to eat. Minnesota has also submitted a TMDL which I believe has been approved by EPA, and their figures show 93 percent out of State sources need to be controlled in order for their fish to be safe to eat. So, in summary, the States have done a lot, New England in particular. With westerly prevailing winds, we are at the end of the pipeline, and so we have seen some dramatic impacts associated with mercury deposition. We are doing our part to control it, and we believe that more controls ought to be put on upwind sources or else we will not be able to reach our goals in New England. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Welcome, Mr. Fineday, for testimony from the Leech Lake Board. Mr. Fineday. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Subcommittee members. I am here today representing the Honorable George Goggleye, Jr., the Chairman of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. He sends his gratitude to the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and allowing us to offer testimony, but he also sends his regrets that a scheduling conflict prevented him from being here. There are several toxic pollutants or contaminants that are known to be capable of adversely impacting our watersheds and waters via atmospheric deposition. Mercury, dioxins and PCBs quickly come to mind. Of these, mercury is the most ubiquitous because it comes from any fossil fuel combustion source and is deposited through atmospheric deposition both into watersheds and directly into lakes. The fish in all of our tribal lakes and in all Minnesota lakes contain mercury from atmospheric deposition. Because of the widespread adverse impacts of mercury, I will direct my remarks today to this atmospherically deposited nonpoint source pollutant. Briefly, what do we know about mercury and its adverse impacts? Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and human developmental impacts are well described. Mercury falling out of the air into a lake or watershed becomes methylated usually through natural bacteriologic processes. Once methylated, the mercury enters a terrestrial or aquatic food chain. All forms of mercury may be transformed biologically to methylmercury. Once methylmercury is incorporated into a food chain, it may be bioaccumulated and biomagnified as one organism eats another. Human exposure to mercury occurs primarily through consumption of fish and seafood. Because mercury is a potent neurotoxin, exposure to small amounts in the womb and during childhood can cause permanent neurological damage. In addition to IQ reduction, mercury toxicity has been associated with childhood diseases and disorders including mental retardation, cerebral palsy-like symptoms and hyperactivity as well as heart disease in men. An additional sobering fact regarding the toxic impacts of mercury is that the slope of the dose response curve appears to be steeper at lower doses, a term known as supralinear. This means that even at very low doses, mercury can cause significant adverse impacts to children, and impacts to fetuses may occur with minimal or no apparent symptoms in the mother. The following quote by the physician, Dr. Ian Donald, must be in the foreground of our thoughts as we deliberate mercury issues: ``The first 38 weeks of life spent in the allegedly protected environment of the amniotic sac are medically more eventful and more fraught with danger than the next 38 years in the life span of most human individuals.'' Tribes using their fishery resources are disproportionately impacted by mercury contamination because of their generally higher fish consumption as compared to the overall U.S. population. Based on human blood mercury research by Schober, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 8 percent of American women of childbearing age have blood mercury levels above EPA safe levels. This percentage increases by four times to 31.5 percent for Native American women with blood mercury levels above the safe limit established by the EPA. The ability of mercury to cause IQ deficits in children is perhaps the most widely recognized quantifiable mercury impact. The following calculations are derived from the findings of the three major studies that have been done regarding mercury impacts to children, the EPA and our ongoing tribal research of mercury in fish. The three major studies are named for their geographic locations: Faroe Islands, New Zealand and Seychelles. The range of potential IQ deficit for children in the above studies is quite large, spanning from-.53 to-0.024 IQ point for each part per million of maternal hair mercury. Our assessment of potential IQ impacts to Leech Lake children incorporates the above referenced study data, tribal specific fish mercury data and tribal seasonal fish consumption data. All of this data translates to potential IQ losses of up to 14 IQ points per Leech Lake child. Then, as distasteful as this may be, using the EPA's economic valuation per IQ point of $11,871, a child losing 14 IQ points to mercury would also be at an economic disadvantage of $166,194. We as Indian people cannot afford to relinquish the fish that have sustained us for centuries. Fish are an integral part of our culture. They are who we are. Thank you again for allowing me to speak here today. Megwitch. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. We will begin the first round of questions now. Let me start by asking Mr. Grumbles. What is EPA actively doing at this time to coordinate EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Water to reduce atmospheric deposition? Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Congresswoman. Several things, one of them is the two offices work together in the implementation of the water program, sharing observations and ideas in coordination with our State partners as the Air Office works with its States to implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. We are also working together on several fronts to advance energy efficiency and water efficiency to reduce and to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases. The two offices have been working together for years on the Energy Star Program, and now we are also working on a Water Star. It is called Water Sense Labeling Program to help use voluntary measures. But, frankly, the focus is on using the tools we have to provide to the Air Office, added incentives and insights from the water programs across the Country and the tribal programs across the Country to help connect the dots or the drops between atmospheric deposition and water. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now what is EPA doing to reduce the mercury emissions from foreign sources? Mr. Grumbles. One of the highest priorities in the Agency is to work with our global partners to reduce air pollution that does have an impact on U.S. citizens. There are several initiatives that are underway. There is the Methane to Markets Partnership that the Administration has been advancing, not just EPA but the Department of Energy and others. I, myself, as well as the Administrator on several occasions have been to China to meet with environmental officials to learn what they are doing and to also provide insights from the EPA programs and statutes that your Committee and other committees have passed to control atmospheric deposition including mercury. The Agency has a mercury road map which involves many different offices and programs reducing the sources of pollution. Arleen O'Donnell mentioned an effort with dentists to have amalgam separators. Our Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Office as well as our Air Office have been working to advance measures with States and with the regulative community to reduce mercury emissions and discharges into the air and into the water because we recognize that what you put on the land or what you put in the air is ultimately written on the water. So it is a priority for the Agency including continuing to work with the FDA on joint fish consumption advisories to reduce the risk and also recognize that eating fish is part of a healthy, balanced diet. Ms. Johnson. Do you have a copy of the results? Are you documenting results? Mr. Grumbles. Under which? Ms. Johnson. On the international influence or impact. Mr. Grumbles. We have an extensive amount of information that we would be happy to provide the Committee with in terms of our discussions and comparisons with Chinese officials, Air and Water. I just recently entered a memorandum agreement with the Ministry of Water Resources to focus on a watershed approach and in particular to provide technical assistance to them on integrated river basin management and ways to address nonpoint source pollution because that is one of the major challenges facing China when it comes to water. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Grumbles. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Ms. O'Donnell, do you have any comments? Ms. O'Donnell. I am also Chairman of the Quicksilver Caucus which is a national affiliation of State associations, and we have been working closely with EPA on the mercury road map. We provided comments along the way, and I think the bulk of our comments, at least from me, are that the road map ought to have more specific numerical targets, the same way the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers mercury strategy did. We have done a lot of work with vehicle switches, with electric arc furnaces. I think that is a great success story, having an agreement with the Automobile Manufacturers of America. That will reduce about 10 tons of mercury emissions a year just coming from that one source alone. But I think we have got to take a sector approach and look at all the other sectors that need to be controlled and figure out what numeric targets are achievable. On the coal-fired power plants, we can do in 95 percent in Massachusetts. Other States are requiring 95 percent. We think 70 percent under the Clean Air Mercury Rule is not sufficient. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Fineday, did you want to comment? Thank you. Mr. Baker? Mr. Baker. Secretary Grumbles, what is the database on which the atmospheric depositional estimates are based? Is there, for example, a Canadian-U.S. monitoring system that is run for some continuous period of time to generate a database from which assumptions can be made? Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I am going to ask to get back to you with specifics on that. I want to coordinate with the Air Office in terms of the precise databases. I am not sure if it is. It probably is the Clean Air Act permitting programs, one of the most reliable databases for atmospheric deposition. They may also be using in part some of the TRI data, air emissions. Mr. Baker. Permitting data would be a one time instance where you are required to report certain data upon your applications filing. That would not be a continual monitoring responsibility, would it? Mr. Grumbles. I can speak to the Clean Water Act on continual monitoring responsibilities which it is the case for all facilities under the Clean Water Act on monthly monitoring. Mr. Baker. But not for air. Mr. Grumbles. I don't know the time frame for the monitoring on air, and I commit to get that to you. Mr. Baker. Well, it is my understanding that there are various governmental agencies like the NOAA, for example, and various states which may have their own aggregating data points, but it is not a formalized EPA-driven monitoring system which generates an annual data set from which conclusions about atmospheric deposition rates, on a statistically significant basis--let me clarify--those conclusions. My point is A, we need to know more, but B, if we were to find out that the coal-fired generators of Canada are a significant contributor to Massachusetts and Minnesota's numbers, what do we do about that? Do you have a recommendation? Mr. Grumbles. Well, I know one thing that the Agency is doing is that the Administrator is in discussions with the Environment Minister for Canada, talking about issues that we share, and one of them is atmospheric deposition and air pollution, trans-boundary air pollution. Mr. Baker. Would there be any data available to us that shows the U.S. atmospheric depositional rates to other nations? Mr. Grumbles. I think we do have some data that I would be happy to provide to you. I want to check the facts on this, but as I was going through some of the background material that we will provide to you and other members, the figure of 1 percent jumps out in my mind. Mr. Baker. That is 1 percent of what? I am sorry. Mr. Grumbles. The global emissions, that the U.S. contributes 1 percent of the global emissions, atmospheric deposition emissions with respect to mercury. Mr. Baker. Sure, and so what we need then is a substantive material database by element and by amount. I think it is important for us to see what we are doing to others as well as what others are doing to us. I am very concerned about the rate of industrialization in China and the lack of air quality restrictions that they do not appear to be anxious to impose on their burgeoning economic development and the consequences of that to us, not necessarily mercury but nitrogen particularly. Is there any study of those international relationships that might be available to us or is that an area where significant work needs to be done? Mr. Grumbles. We need to continue to do work, and I will also coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for International Affairs to coordinate a response to you. I would also say, Congressman, that the Administration's emphasis on the strategic economic dialogue is precisely to engage with our partners, China and other Asia Pacific partners, on energy efficiency, energy production and environmental responsibility. Part of the purpose for that emphasis that the Administrator and other cabinet level officials have is to have sincere discussions with China and other countries about the concerns we have about global air pollution. Mr. Baker. To wrap up for me, you mentioned a 20 percent contribution to the Gulf waters from atmospheric deposition. On what basis was that 20 percent calculation made? Is there some study that you might make available? Mr. Grumbles. I can certainly make available the study, the data that we have. The Air Office and their programs in Research Triangle, they have similar data on the Chesapeake Bay where I got the 28 percent figure. Mr. Baker. I will only point out this observation about our circumstance in my immediate market, that we are under an EPA restricted economic environment because of our non-attainment standards. I have been advised by academics that if you were to take all mankind, all vehicles, all industry and everybody that breathes, including cows, off the face of the state in the area in which the current non-attainment requirements exist, given the number of trees and hours of daylight, there are days in July and August when God can't meet the standard without any contribution from human involvement. We just need some reasonableness here, and I think that that is the thing that concerns many of us who want clean water, clean air and our kids to be healthy. How do we get there in a manner which makes taxpayer sense and environmental sense? Without this data, it seems very hard to develop a meaningful policy that can be publicly defended. The 20 percent figure should be something that ought to be very clearly delineated so that we can understand and then try to proceed and do something about it, having identified the source. I thank the gentleman and yield back. Mr. Grumbles. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Baker. I have a couple more questions before I move on. Mr. Fineday, thank you very much for being here. What I would like you to tell me about is the unique situation faced by the Native American neighbors especially with regard to contaminated fish. Mr. Fineday. I guess all I can really say on that is that fish has been an integral part of our culture for centuries, and it has been a staple of our diet for many, many centuries. From my testimony, I think you can see that we have concluded the potential negative impacts as far as the impacts on IQ is an economic disadvantage. Outside of that, I guess I would ask for something maybe more specific. I would also just like to say that the Chairman had instructed me that any technical questions, if they could please be submitted in writing, and we will respond to those as expeditiously as possible. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Grumbles, just one more question, you have a web site that has been up. When we started to look in order to do some research on this hearing, it disappeared. Who manages that web site? Mr. Grumbles. Is this the Office of Water home page? Ms. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Grumbles. Well, it is within my office. We have a technical official, a technical person within the resource management staff, who operates it. I would love to know for how long it was not available. It must have just been a technical bleep or something. Was it after the storm? Ms. Johnson. It disappeared last Thursday. Mr. Grumbles. I would love to know more. We embrace transparency and providing as much information as we can that is credible and reliable, putting it on the web site. So I would be very interested to find out more. Our web site does have, just for the benefit of others who haven't visited it, we do have specific focus and emphasis on mercury, the mercury road map which is in the Office of Water. It is an Agency-wide web site. Then also within the Office of Water, we have something in particular. You were just asking a question about fish advisories. We have an annual listing of fish advisories and through the Office of Water web site, EPA.gov/water, you can locate the different types of fish advisories, most of which are mercury-related, throughout the Country, and we can track the trends, the status and trends of that. Ms. Johnson. Is it updated periodically? Mr. Grumbles. Yes. Yes, it is. Ms. Johnson. Is that the reason it is down? Mr. Grumbles. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Okay. I wonder. We have complimented you for the transparency, but I wonder whether or not anything outdated or whatever that is not that far outdated, that warrants removing it completely from public view. Mr. Grumbles. I think that the credibility of the Agency and other agencies depends on having accurate, reliable information. I think particularly in this day and age having a web site that shares as much information as we know is a good thing, and we fully embrace that. Also updating is the key as some of these issues are so complex. As we gather information and benefit from peer review, it is important to get the scientific information up there. So I am happy to look further into that and find out more specifics with your staff as what problem you might have run into. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Grumbles. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. We were a little curious because of this hearing come up, that it suddenly disappeared. Thank you. Mr. Grumbles. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Are there questions from other members? Mr. Taylor? Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Grumbles, I happen to represent the coastal area of Mississippi that was clobbered by hurricane Katrina a year and a half ago. A fairly large portion of the coast went underwater at different times. So that would have subjected the Mississippi Sound to urban runoff, in some instances maybe even industrial waste. I am curious since the consumption of shellfish in that area is very high--crab, shrimp--and we are trying to revive the oyster industry. To what extent, if any, has your Agency been involved in testing of those coastal water, in particular testing of shellfish like crab and shrimp to see if there have been any adverse effects? I would take the attitude of I just think people need to know. Let them decide whether or not they want to eat it, but they at least need to know if there is something that they should be concerned about in that source of food. Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Congressman. I recognize your involvement and leadership after the storms. The Agency was very quick to enter into a partnership with FDA and with NOAA and with the Mississippi DEQ precisely on that subject of coastal water quality and the potential for contamination of fish and shellfish. I would not say we were the lead, but we offered expertise and technical assistance both within my office and, probably more importantly, within the regional office for that EPA region. So we have been involved. We continued to be involved. I don't know. I haven't gotten an update in the last few months on that concern, but we did work with the State and with the public health agencies on the water quality monitoring. We also took extensive samples in coastal water quality and also used our relatively new ocean research and survey vessel, the Bold. We diverted it from other missions and brought it into the Gulf of Mexico for additional reconnaissance work and testing in coastal waters. Mr. Taylor. If there is a compilation of results of what you have done, as things start to get a little better, these kinds of questions are coming up in my town meetings, and I would very much welcome whatever information you could provide along those lines. Mr. Grumbles. Definitely, and also on the Agency's web site, there is an extensive amount of information on hurricanes Katrina and Rita and all the different types of environmental monitoring that we did. So I will also go back and mention your ongoing interest and need for data on that. Mr. Taylor. The consumption of seafood really tends to spike during the summer, shrimp season, crab season. In the fall, they are expecting the first oyster harvest since the storm. So I think a timely response from you would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Grumbles. Okay. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. Mr. Grumbles. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Gilchrest? Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The issue of mercury and air deposition, to some extent it seems to me, is a design flaw in our engineering technology. Nature has a particular design. Now you could say it is random. You could say there is an infinite number of variables. But there is a particular design to hydrology, to air deposition, to everything on the planet. We reach in, and we disrupt that with our designing technology which doesn't take mercury out, which for a long time didn't take lead out of gasoline. It didn't take CFCs out of the atmosphere. We saw what all of those things did. So what we did with lead, we took it out of gasoline and designed engines to run without it. We took CFCs out of the atmosphere and had an international arrangement to do that. Ben, you mentioned acid rain and all of those things and how they were created. Acid rain, or example, is a cap and trade program, so we are reducing that by fairly significant numbers, and it is beginning to work. We were able to engineer new technology to become not only as efficient but even more efficient and improve the economy at the same time. If in the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, we are going to reduce mercury levels by 70 percent, if I heard you right, Ben, what is the date that we are going to achieve that 70 percent reduction by the target date? Mr. Grumbles. I am going to make sure that I provide accurate information in follow-up. But some of the materials I have that I am looking at, there are a couple of different phases. The first phase for the Clean Air Mercury Rule, what I have got. Mr. Gilchrest. You can approximate, Ben. Is it somewhere around 2015, 2017? Mr. Grumbles. I think it is around that. I have got the second phase under the Clean Air Mercury Rule is due in 2018. Mr. Gilchrest. Okay, so that is a reduction of 70 percent by 2018 of mercury. Mr. Grumbles. Right. Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. O'Donnell, does that reduction by 70 percent by 2018 enhance or help anything that you are doing in your reduction of mercury in Massachusetts, New England and New York, and what is your goal by 2018? Ms. O'Donnell. Our goal is 95 percent by 2012. Mr. Gilchrest. By 2012. Ms. O'Donnell. Correct. Mr. Gilchrest. How are you achieving that? Ms. O'Donnell. Actually, because we were already controlling for NOx and SOx, so we have already got air pollution controls on our coal-fired power plants for that, those controls alone got us to 80 percent mercury reduction. So with some additional control technologies, it wasn't far fetched to get to 85 and eventually 95 percent by 2012. Mr. Gilchrest. Is there some discussion with New England and New York? First of all, I would like to have Maryland associated with that. We will see what we can do to connect with that prospect. Is there a discussion with people in EPA about how you are achieving more dramatic results a lot sooner and apparently, I am assuming, successfully and sharing your system with them? Ms. O'Donnell. Yes, we submitted voluminous comments on the Clean Air Mercury Rule when it was proposed. So we do have extensive comments in the public record, and several States have actually sued EPA under the Clean Air Mercury Rule because we believe that further controls are needed. Mr. Gilchrest. Do you feel that what you are doing with mercury is hampering or stifling your economy in New England? Ms. O'Donnell. No. We do cost-benefit analyses for all regulations that are submitted, and our analyses show that the benefits far exceed the costs and the costs were fairly minimal. Mr. Gilchrest. You wanted to achieve one part per billion in Massachusetts for mercury? Ms. O'Donnell. That is for the discharges, wastewater discharges. Mr. Gilchrest. Wastewater discharges. Ms. O'Donnell. Right, and we are already achieving that for the Mass Water Resources Authority which basically treats sewage for half the State's population. They are already meet the one part per billion mercury limit set by us and EPA Region 1, by the way, and Region 1 EPA played a very lead role in that. Mr. Gilchrest. In the TMDL program, is mercury a part of your TMDL? Ms. O'Donnell. Yes. We specifically submitted a TMDL for mercury. That was all six New England States plus New York. We previously submitted a proposal under 4(b), which is another listing category under the Clean Water Act, basically claiming that because the source of mercury came from the air and not the water a TMDL was not required, was not appropriate. EPA denied that request, so we are coming back now with a TMDL. Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention in your very good questions that with respect to the Clean Air Mercury Rule, the Agency also has extensive records on how it made its decisions in setting a national standard, not a standard for Massachusetts but a national standard. Also with embracing the notion of federalism, that in particular instances if States are going to show additional leadership or specificity tailored to their conditions, they could do so. With respect to the TMDL, the program with which you are very familiar, we look very much forward to working with States on innovative approaches and regional approaches. The reason we did not accept the proposal from the State of Massachusetts was that based on our lawyer's views, the most legally defensible approach was to keep the Clean Water Act tools, not to create an off ramp from the TMDL program, to keep the TMDL program relevant and applicable but also to provide incentives for States that are showing leadership to take additional approaches and use additional tools. That is why we have come up with the March memorandum suggesting additional approaches towards early implementation using the various programs and activities that Arleen has articulated. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ben. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney. Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Grumbles, new reports indicate that oil refining in the San Francisco Bay Area is responsible for approximately 4,000 pounds of mercury from atmospheric deposits into the San Francisco Bay per year. What guidance can you give me on how that would be dealt with, how long it might take, how much it might cost and so on? Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, thanks for mentioning that. You are underscoring the importance of looking at what goes up in the air and not just off the land if you are serious about water quality, and we are serious about water quality in the Bay. Various things come to mind. One, through the Clean Air programs, we would want to look very carefully at that to see what controls there are to reduce that percentage. Under the programs that I am focused on, the Clean Water programs, a very useful tool, one which we want to continue to use, is the TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Load program which creates a pollution budget and which can help us working with our State and local partners to identify significant and not significant sources for pollutant loadings to bays and other estuaries. We also have the National Estuary Program, and the Bay is part of that. That is a forum for collaboration at the local and State level to bring in the private sector and to demonstrate to them and show them that we have enforcement tools. We also have tools for collaboration to make further progress in reducing mercury and other harmful pollutant loadings to the Bay. Mr. McNerney. Is this problem local to the Bay Area or do other refineries around the Country cause similar problems? Mr. Grumbles. There are other refineries. That is not a particular or uniquely local problem. Personally, I don't have with me statistics on how many other areas are experiencing that. I can say that sector, like other sectors that have air emissions, can lead to water quality problems. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I don't have many questions. I am a little curious, though. Ms. O'Donnell, have you ever done a study of whether or how much some of your pollution is coming from outside of Massachusetts or even outside the Country? Do you have any kind of estimate on that at all? Ms. O'Donnell. Our estimate now is 70 percent comes from upwind States. Mr. Duncan. Seventy percent comes from neighboring States? Ms. O'Donnell. Seventy percent, yes. We don't know what percentage of that comes from international sources. Mr. Duncan. I don't really have any questions, Madam Chairwoman. I was interested in the Ranking Member's statement that even God would be at non-attainment at some point. You know I have never heard a regulator any place who ever said that the cost-benefit analysis didn't come out in favor of more regulation. The problem is this: We could bring in people from small business who have been run out of business all over this Country in every industry because of so much regulation. I will give you an example. In East Tennessee, in 1978, there were 157 small coal companies. Then we opened up an Office of Surface Mining, and now there are none. You know 157 was probably too many, but in all these industries, all these energy-related industries, the little guys go out first, then the medium size, and things end up in the hands of the big giants and costs go way up. People's utility bills go way up and all their energy costs go way up. Who you end up hurting are the poor and the lower income and the working people. I have noticed that almost all the environmental extremists come from very wealthy or very upper income families, and perhaps they don't realize how much they hurt the lower income and working people by destroying jobs and driving up prices, but that is what they do. And so, you have got to have some balance and common sense in some of these things. There are all these groups that are always telling us how bad everything is even though great improvements have been made. Great progress has been made in regard to clean air and clean water over the last 30 years, and that is a good thing. But we have these groups that keep telling us it is getting worse, getting worse, getting worse, and really what it amounts to is they are just trying to get more contributions. They don't want their contributions from their members to dry up. But what we need is some balance and common sense, and we need to keep in mind that every new regulation increases the costs that really can't afford it. When President Clinton locked up the largest natural gas deposits in the Country along the face of the Rocky Mountains and the Grand Staircase Escalante Region of Utah, it drove up people's utility bills all over the Country. We do that in regard to all these things. Anyway, I yield back. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Duncan, I agree with you to a certain effect, and I am sorry, but you just brought up a point. What is it worth in human effect because we have had an increase in, and I was making a note, attention deficit disorder in children and hyperactivity and mental health issues like bipolar disorder and cerebral palsy. If the findings from the tribe are focused and true, that human effect alone is worth the ability for us to continue to look at because our future generations will be affected. That, to me, whether it is mercury or perchlorates or any of those issues in water, we need to ensure that our future generations are protected in that manner. So while, yes, there may be some areas, but possibly we are right in being able to control them so that we don't have future generations affected as badly as some of our generations currently are. I am talking about the grandchildren and great grandchildren of our future. Commissioner O'Donnell, in testimony, Administrator Grumbles described EPA's new voluntary program for identifying and listing waters impaired by mercury placed on the TMDL category, the Total Maximum Daily Load. Could you explain how this new program is a useful program for the States like Massachusetts and what are the alternatives? Ms. O'Donnell. Well, Ben is probably in a better position to look at that. We did look. You are talking about the 5m? Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. Ms. O'Donnell. We thought about 5m, and we decided not to do it because we felt that we needed to take action sooner. The way we read 5m was it basically offered a delay in attacking the problem. So we wanted instead to do a traditional TMDL to make the case that further controls are needed and to get the discussion about how best to achieve those controls. Maybe Ben can talk a little bit about 5m. Our read of that was it was the slow path. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I kind of agree. I was looking in the testimony from Mr. Grumbles where they are indicating, and this just really brings to focus. Fifteen years ago, EPA started the program, and we are just now asking for voluntary participation? Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, thanks for getting into this because it is important to clarify. The TMDL program, there are probably 23,000 or more. I know it is over 20,000 TMDLs that we and our State partners have done across the Country. We have a lot more to do. Mercury presents a unique challenge when it comes to TMDLs given the atmospheric deposition and the challenges outside of the jurisdiction and the science surrounding it. So what we were doing in response to concerns from various States, some of the States had concerns that if we go through a costly or lengthy TMDL process, that might not be the most efficient use of our resources. We could be moving ahead and implementing other programs that get at the atmospheric source that aren't under the Clean Water Act TMDL program. What our guidance says, it doesn't require or mandate anything. What it is saying to States is if that is an area where it has been a problem to you, we want to encourage you to move forward more quickly and use those other tools, and we will defer. We will allow you to defer some time on the Clean Water Act TMDL. But the bottom line is that as a matter of law we are still charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, and if a State is going that other route and they are violating water quality standards, ultimately they will still be required by us to do a TMDL and to take other specific steps. We view it as it is not required. It is not a regulation, and that is why we are calling it voluntary. It is guidance saying, look, if a State, and States vary across the map as to what their priorities and challenges are, but we put this forward as a constructive way. Some States might choose to use it. We are very encouraged by the State of Minnesota which just a few weeks ago, we approved a first time Statewide mercury TMDL that we think may be a national model. Again, it wasn't based on the guidance that we provided in terms of that 5m memo, but we think that is a constructive and innovative approach. Mrs. Napolitano. But that just doesn't get the problem solved or at least the pollution addressed faster than we need to. In reading your testimony, you focused on mercury reduction efforts 15 years ago, and we are just still talking about helping people realize they have a problem. Now how are they going to deal with it? Ms. O'Donnell, what does the EPA need to do to help States achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act regarding atmospheric deposition? In other words, do we need to address it faster? Do we need to have them up their time frames? Is there another different approach that is more current? What about could EPA do it through regulatory promulgation? What can we do to help be able to work at a faster rate to address the issues and protect our waters and address the health factor of our populace? Ms. O'Donnell. Well, TMDLs aren't going to solve the problem. I can tell you that. They can point to where the problem is coming from, but until controls are placed on the sources of mercury, we are not going to get cleaner water. Right now, the major sources of mercury are coming from air emissions. So, electric arc furnaces, again I point to that as a great success. Ten to twelve pounds a year taken out of deposition, through application of the MACT Rule, and the electric arc furnaces saw it coming and did the right thing. They stepped up, and they said we have got to do something with the vehicle switches. So that is a good example. I think looking at every sector and figuring out how can we control it in a cost effective way. There are a lot of substitutes available. There are a lot of different control strategies available. But I think that is the type of approach that is needed. Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Grumbles? Mr. Grumbles. I think Arleen has hit it on the head in terms of using a variety of tools and sources. I think it is important to keep in mind that the Clean Air Mercury Rule that the Agency issued in 2005 is the first mercury control rule for coal-fired power plants in the world, and it is going to lead to significant progress, but that alone isn't enough. We need to do more. Under the Clean Water Act, we need to continue to work with States on innovative approaches, not just in the TMDL program but others. Mrs. Napolitano. Can I go back very quickly? It is just a statement? Why have we not enforced stricter standards on the automobile industry to provide alternative fuel vehicles or to provide a higher mileage? We took out lead. What we have not done, and that is a lot of the source of the pollution, is emissions, car emissions, besides manufacturing. Mr. Grumbles. Yes. I appreciate your question. I think the Administration is looking forward to working with Congress on a variety of approaches. I know the department of Transportation as well as EPA and Energy are committed to making progress while maintaining this Country's economic competitiveness. I know you know, as you have described before, the importance of addressing various sectors, the transportation sector, cars. From a water standpoint, we know that this is one of the challenges of the future where we need to continue to use innovative approaches through the TMDL program and combine forces with the various air authorities and also focus on recycling and also minimizing the use of certain types of products. Arleen mentioned the mercury switches, getting those out of cars and having proper disposal and turning to other things is key. So it is a variety of different tools. Because it is a unique type of challenge, it is causing water quality impairments, but it is coming primarily from atmospheric deposition. It requires more collaboration and technology innovations. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, just let me express my distress at hearing kind of circular arguments, particularly after what we have learned about global warming, about costs on the one hand, campaign contributions, jobs, over-regulation, regulation for its own sake. I just want to say enormous benefits of living in a society which uses all kinds of artificial chemicals, various kinds, enormous benefits. One thing that the Country, in part because of so little leadership from the Congress, has not understood and accepted is with those benefits come great risks and therefore some additional costs. If you look at young women who get cancer, I don't remember anybody getting cancer when I was young woman, breast cancer, for example, children. You have to say we want to keep the benefits coming. I mean we are wearing these chemicals. We are eating them. We are sitting on them, hey. But we don't even want to do any regulation. We have got to grow up. I would have thought that the global warming notion which, frankly, I think we may be too late for. We haven't figured out, maybe somebody will, a way to refreeze the glaciers. We may be smart. I just don't think we are that smart. Mr. Grumbles, you and I have become good friends over the years. I have got to ask you a question about the Clean Water Act, the provisions and lead in the water. We know that there was a terrible, embarrassing and dangerous crisis in, of all places, the Nation's Capital when it was discovered a few years ago there was lead in the water. Where? In the Nation's Capital--not in some developing country--and that people hadn't been told of it. You got to work, and the District of Columbia got to work. Then people panicked all over the Country because they thought they might be in the same kind of danger. We have had a new chemical added and the rest. We had another scare recently because we learned what apparently had been suppressed. The District of Columbia had found lead in water fountains of school all across the District of Columbia. I tell you one thing. I don't believe that is a contained District of Columbia problem. You argued when the lead in the water crisis came that we didn't need updated provisions of the Clean Water Act. What we needed was to let the Agency do its work. What have you done to assure that water fountains in our Nation's schools do not contain lead in them? Why wasn't the District subject to something you had done since the crisis of, what is it, five years ago, four or five years ago, so that that could not have occurred? Mr. Grumbles. What I said was that we were not supporting comprehensive revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act. I didn't get into the Clean Water Act. Ms. Norton. I am sorry, yes. Mr. Grumbles. I will tell you where we are, Congresswoman, and I really appreciate this because there are two things. One is finalizing the revisions to the Lead and Copper Drinking Water Rule that I am estimating that we will finish and finalize by the end of this year. We have gone through the public comment period. We are committed. I am committed to seeing those revisions made, and the revisions are based in many respects on lessons that we have learned from the hearings and from the outbreak, the incidents that you are describing in the District of Columbia. With respect to schools and day care centers and facilities, there is most definitely a statutory issue in terms of the scope of the Safe Drinking Water Act as it is written in terms of how you define some of these public water systems. Schools, most schools are not public water systems. We have been spending quite a bit of time working. Ms. Norton. It is something you don't think you have regulatory authority with respect to? Mr. Grumbles. The way the statute is currently written, we don't. We have been working on technical guidance and voluntary measures. We provided to schools and public health authorities, what I call the three Ts--testing, training and telling-- information for school administrators and custodians and parent teacher associations to understand more about the plumbing systems in their schools and to work with their local and State authorities and, as appropriate, EPA on proper monitoring for potential lead in drinking water problems at schools and day care facilities. We provided that guidance. We are working with other agencies on that front. Ms. Norton. Mr. Grumbles, I appreciate your response. It does seem that the ball is in our court. Our concern about lead in water, frankly, was not about old deteriorated brains like mine. I don't think lead can do a thing to me yet or now. But the concern in the District of Columbia was nursing mothers and young children who certainly could be affected. My colleague has talked about the effect on IQ, for example. They were told nothing and that, of course, was not your problem. It was the District's problem because it withheld the information. We are about to introduce a new version of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and I wanted you to know that because of our concern. I will take a look, however, if you tell me when. You say the comment period is about to close. God, you have had a long time since that occurred. If you tell me when it is about to close, I would hold off putting the bill in until I at least took at look at it to see what was needed, if anything. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. Could he just respond to when the comment period is over? Mr. Grumbles. The comment period closed. The regular process that we follow through the Administrative Procedure Act is that we need to review all the comments, and we have done that. We are making the decisions within the Agency on what the final rule will look like. What I am saying is that our goal and my expectation is that that rule, those revisions would be finalized. The final rule will be issued later this year. Ms. Norton. When? Mr. Grumbles. I am guessing in the next four to five months. Ms. Norton. I don't intend to let this first session end without putting in a bill. So either you regard this as a matter of some priority or I am just going to put the bill in, Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Grumbles. It is a priority for us. Also, we can brief you on the direction we are heading. Ms. Norton. I would appreciate such a briefing. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Let me thank the witnesses from panel one and suggest that members of the Subcommittee may have some follow-up questions for the record, and we would expect a timely response if they do, if the questions are forwarded to you. Thank you so very much. I appreciate all of you coming today and for your testimony. The second panel of witnesses consists of Dr. Michael Slattery, Director of Texas Christian University's Institute for Environmental Studies; Mr. Jon Mueller, the Director of Litigation for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; and Dr. Charles Driscoll, University Professor of Environmental Systems and Engineering, Syracuse University. As I noted to the first panel, your full statements will be placed in the record. We ask that you try to limit your testimony to about five minutes, and that little light will blink when your time is up as a courtesy to other witnesses. Again, we will proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed in the call of the hearing. Dr. Slattery? TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL C. SLATTERY, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY; JON MUELLER, DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION; CHARLES T. DRISCOLL, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Mr. Slattery. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we can have the slides. I am proud to be from the great State of Texas although the accent may be a little misleading as to where I am from. Could I have the next slide, please? I would like to start with a simple statement, and this is going to be my take home message. This is the bottom line, and that is that if you live in Paris, France, mercury emissions from Texas power plants will have no immediate impact. If you live in Paris, Texas, however, the impacts are likely to be considerable and perhaps even widespread. If you could just remember that, I think that would be a useful take home message. Next slide, please. The mercury cycle is certainly complex, widely recognized. It is an environmental pollutant that biomagnifies in aquatic food webs to levels that threaten the health of wildlife and humans that consume contaminated fish. My colleague, Dr. Driscoll, will talk more about that, I am sure. Next slide, please. In Texas, we currently have 11 reservoirs, or 10 reservoirs and our only natural lake, and the entire coastline under a mercury advisory for at least one species of fish. Next slide, please. If we take a step back and look at States on a more regional picture, there are currently 20 advisories for the State of Arkansas, 38 in Louisiana and the State Oklahoma is under a Statewide advisory. Next slide, please. I think at a very simple visual or graphical level, there appears to be a correlation between the mercury advisories and emissions from coal-fired electricity-generating units or power plants. As you can see in this slide, the larger the circle, the greater the emission, and you can see this axis that is sometimes referred to as the wall of fire that stretches from South Central Texas up to East Texas, these coal-fired power plants. I am not using the term, correlation, in a statistical sense. This just is a graphical look. Next slide, please. We focus on Texas and regionally here because I am sure many of you are aware that Texas has been in the news through utility companies wanting to build 17 new coal-fired power plants, and five of the top ten emitters in the United States are in this great State that I live in. Next slide, please. Now the modeling of atmospheric deposition or transport of deposition is a complicated task. No one would deny that. Any kind of model involves assumptions and complications. But we are able to do this using several approaches, and the one I have been involved in, in terms of modeling the patterns of deposition of mercury, involve a model that has been widely tested and used and developed at NOAA's Air Resources Laboratory. It is called the HYSPLIT model. Next slide, please. I have used that to model the dispersion patterns of mercury deposition regionally. What is really important to stress is that when you are looking at the deposition of mercury or any pollutant, that you look at the long term statistical dominant transport winds. What that means is that essentially any scientist can make a computer model do anything to foot his or her desired outcome. What we have to be aware of here is that there is a background transport long term wind pattern. That is what the input to these models have to be. This is a wind rose from Waco in Texas. What you can see here is that the dominant transport directions in Central Texas are out of the South, South-Southeast and South-Southwest. Forty-three percent of the time, the winds are from that direction. Next slide, please. This is the graphical output for a run of mercury deposition from all current coal-fired power plants in Texas. There are 17 of them. The yellow plumes are of greatest concerns. The yellow plumes in this model, this is for a wind scenario that is reflective of the dominant transport winds. This happens to be the 5th of November, 2005, my birthday. I am not quite sure whether that is meaningful, probably not. The plumes here represent an area or cover an area of about 15,000 square miles. That is just the yellow plumes, and these are the plumes in which the deposition would be most significant because these plumes are reflective of what is known as divalent gaseous mercury. This is Hg2. This is the mercury that falls out closest to the power plants. The blue plumes show a less intense deposition, and those plumes actually reached as far north as the Great Lakes themselves. The rates of deposition within the yellow plumes are on the order of four micrograms per square meter per year. Now that may not be meaningful if you haven't done any kind of mercury modeling, but just in those yellow plumes themselves, those rates without any synergy between the plumes represent the equivalent to the background deposition rate across the United States. Next slide, please. Two more runs just to show you that these plumes under less dispersive atmospheric conditions on the left would impact places like Louisiana quite dramatically and Caddo Lake in particular, and on the right of that diagram is a model deposition run where the winds are out of the north. Next slide, please. Now one thing that has concerned me and has got a lot of attention is this issue of foreign sources of mercury. Congressman Baker mentioned this at the outset of this afternoon's hearing. We hear very frequently that mercury deposition in the United States is not a U.S. issue; it is a Chinese issue. I, frankly, flat out disagree with that. This is a map that shows from the EPA web site, and I quote from the EPA web site, and this may well be the missing web page that Congresswoman Johnson was referring to. The U.S. EPA has stated that ``Regional transport of mercury from coal-fired EGUs in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the total mercury in U.S. waters.'' What this map shows is that any part of the United States that is in gray, 85 percent or more of that mercury is from non-U.S. sources. Now for the Western U.S., that makes sense. But look at Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. I simply don't buy the fact that even when you are in the greens and the yellows, that more than half of that mercury is coming from outside sources. Next slide, please. This is particularly acute from a watershed perspective, and the Honorable Grumbles mentioned this in his oral testimony. The red watersheds here in this diagram, especially the darker reds, show watersheds that are currently not in attainment of the EPA standards of .300 parts per million, 300 nanograms per wet weight of fish tissue. When you look at the next slide, these watersheds, in particular, I draw your attention to the reds, the oranges and the reds. These are watersheds that are going to acquire up to a 75 percent reduction in atmospheric deposition with no new sources. This is EPA data. This is not my data. This is from the mercury mapping tool. Next slide, please. So, in conclusion, and I have just three, one, mercury deposition rates that we have found in these plumes of 4 megagrams per square meter per year would be adding new mercury to the environment. I haven't gotten into the new plants and the whole TXU debate, and I would gladly field questions on those. But any new plant would be adding new mercury to the environment especially in these areas that are already stressed. Mercury deposition from the coal-fired plants is significant at the regional scale. Bear that opening statement, as simple as it seems, in mind. I take this from the EPA web site, and then I will quickly close. ``Regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little mercury in U.S. waters.'' I think that is very important and quite telling. Finally, next slide, please. Requiring utilities, in my opinion, to meet a national cap will really have very little effect in areas such as North and East Texas that are already, for lack of a better way of putting it, under the gun when it comes to mercury deposition. I thank you for the opportunity to testify and would welcome your questions. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Dr. Slattery. I would like to welcome Jon Mueller from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Please proceed with your testimony. Mr. Mueller. Thank you. Thank you for the honor to appear here today. I would like to start with the first slide if we could, please. This is a map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I am sure Mr. Gilchrest has seen this a few times and probably can memorize it by heart here. But the point is, as we go to the second slide, that is 64,000 square miles and this is a map of what we call the NOx or nitrogen oxide airshed. So sources within that outer circle contribute to nitrogen deposition to the Chesapeake Bay region and the watershed. That is also true, and when I discuss mercury, you will also see that the airshed is a little bit bigger than, in fact, the size of the watershed. So we do have sources from outside of the Bay States, traditional Bay States of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia that are contributing to problems within the Chesapeake Bay Region. One of those problems is acidification. Mr. Grumbles talked about the successes of the acid rain amendments, Title IV of the Clean Air Act. With all due respect, while that is a successful cap and trade program, it has not been successful for all regions in the United States. I am sure Mr. Driscoll will address the Northeast and New York State, my home State and the impacts to the Adirondacks which have been quite severe. If we go to the third slide, we can see there is one in there that is the map of Virginia, if you could. There you go. Thank you. That was it. You will see the shaded areas there, Shenandoah National Park, St. Mary's Wilderness area, Dolly Sods and the Otter Creek Wilderness areas, these are all areas that are continued to be impacted by acidification which is lowering the ph in the waters due to nonpoint source air pollution from power plants and other NOx and SO2 sources. So, again, while we do have acid rain amendments and they have done a lot to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions in the United States, they don't address all of the problem and more needs to be done. The other problem area, and you have heard a lot of that today, is mercury and how mercury is a harmful neurotoxin. One of the things I would like to respond to is one of the comments discussed about how the poor and the working families are impacted by regulation. Well, my suggestion is that, in fact, in the Chesapeake Bay Region and this is probably true throughout the United States, that those same people are impacted by our failure to regulate especially when we have impacts to water quality like Chesapeake Bay where there is a mercury health advisory for rockfish in all Maryland waters, a very prominent recreational and commercial fishery. When you have watermen that their livelihoods depend on their ability to sell fish or crabs or other aquatic organisms that are impacted by mercury or by nitrogen deposition. The problem with nitrogen is that whether it comes off the land or through the air and directly deposits to the Bay, it causes algae blooms. Those excessive algae blooms either block the sunlight and inhibit the ability of these organisms to grow or it deprives of them of oxygen. When you have crabs and oysters that can't move, they are severely impacted by what is called hypoxy or apoxy. In the Bay, that has become a significant problem. In 2003, the Chesapeake Bay program studied dissulved oxygen in the Bay--if we could go to the next slide back--that large red area is the main stem of the Bay and is the largest area of the Bay to report anoxic or hypoxic conditions which basically means death for all aquatic organisms that live down below that area. So, again, there are direct impacts to the livelihood of people that are either recreational fishermen or commercial fishermen who depend on good water quality. One of the other things about mercury that is a big problem is health advisories. Well, there was some research done by students and graduate folks from Virginia Tech that looked at the impact of fish advisories in Baltimore, Washington, D.C. and the Tidewater, Virginia areas. What they discovered was that people who live at the subsistence level are not greatly impacted by fish advisories. They read them. They are aware of them. But because of their life conditions, they have to subsistence fish or they pass the fish on to friends, and they eat the fish. So they are consuming the contaminants that we are all warning them not to eat, but because of their economic situation, they have to eat. If we could go to the bar chart, one of the things I think that astounded me in doing research for this is that mercury was the top cause for impairments on the 303(d) list throughout the Nation. Mr. Grumbles spoke a lot about the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Ms. O'Donnell stated that some States have sued EPA over that rule. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and a number of other citizens groups have also sued EPA over that rule because it does not address hot spots which are localized areas around the plants which EPA's own research has showed is actually the problem. We are not dealing with international sources. We are dealing with in-State or local sources that are impacting water quality. Until that rule is amended, we are not going to be able to address those problems inherent in water quality today. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Mueller. Dr. Charlie Driscoll from Syracuse University, we look forward to hearing your testimony at this time. Mr. Driscoll. Madam Chair and the Subcommittee members, thanks for hearing me. I am an academic researcher. I am going to try to talk about three things. First of all, I would like to talk to you a little bit about two components of air pollution on surface waters, firstly, acid rain and, secondly, a little bit on mercury. I will try to streamline my mercury comments because we have heard so much about it. But, third, I would like to seek your input in terms of a critical component of evaluating air pollution effects, and that is monitoring programs, and I will close with those comments. Next slide. On this slide, I have two figures and a map. The map is the Eastern part of the Country. You can see that it is color-coded. Those areas that are reddish and orangish represent those areas of the Eastern part of the Country that have been impacted by acid rain. The resources that are impacted are soil--that is why I show this figure of soil--as well as surface waters. You may wonder why I am mentioning soil in a Subcommittee on Water, and that is because soil influences water quality. These soils have lost their base content and therefore are less able to neutralize inputs of acid rain, and that is going to delay recovery. Next slide, whole ecosystems are impacted as Mr. Grumbles said. This is sort of a snapshot of where we stand in terms of the current situation. The items on the left represent what are the status of various water bodies in the Eastern part of the U.S. in terms of recovery. Mr. Grumbles is correct that given the fact that there have been reductions, that areas in New England and New York and in the northern Appalachians are showing some limited improvement. Streams in Virginia are not showing any trends, and this is because the soils are very sensitive southern soils. The bottom line, though, is that for these areas, soils are continuing to acidify and that will impair the long term recovery of these systems. If we look to the future with the Title IV of the Clean Air Act, we would expect to see much of the same, but under the Clean Air Interstate Rule, we would expect to see some curtailment of soil acidification and additional improvement. But the recovery of these systems will be extremely slow. Next slide, even though my research focuses on the East, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the West. The West also is sensitive in terms of air pollution, particularly lakes, and the contaminant of interest here is nitrogen. Nitrogen will impact surface water quality in the West because many lakes are nitrogen growth limited. Next slide, then on to mercury very briefly. As people have said, mercury is really derived from atmospheric contaminants. The critical step in this is the conversion of inorganic mercury from the atmosphere to methylmercury in certain environments, and that is the form of mercury that accumulates in fish by a factor of a million to ten million times. Next slide, so human exposure to mercury is largely through fish consumption. People have mentioned this, but I think maps are very effective. Madam Chair, as you indicated, virtually every State in the Country has some sort of mercury advisory. Next slide, one thing that I wanted to point your attention to is we recently completed a study for the Northeastern part of the U.S. and portions of Canada where we have identified a series of what we call biological mercury hot spots, and these are areas in the landscape where we have particularly high concentrations of mercury. So, as we move forward with the Clean Air Mercury rule, it is really critical that these very high mercury areas are identified for other parts of the Country and also we track the recovery of these systems as we try to control mercury emissions in the future. Next slide, I would like to close by talking a little bit about monitoring, and I can't emphasize this enough. I think monitoring is a critical tool to track how effective we are at managing these air pollution programs. Some of these are extremely expensive. I want to bring your attention to two programs in particular that are under jeopardy in the current budget. The first is the Dry Deposition Program through CASTNet, that in the current budget is experiencing major cutbacks. The second is the Surface Water Monitoring Program which has direct implications with this Subcommittee. The current President's budget has proposed to zero out those programs. So if you ask me a year from now whether or not I can give you an assessment of surface water quality, I will not be able to do that because these monitoring programs will have been terminated if the current plan goes forward. Last slide, then with respect to mercury, there were questions about what is the current mercury monitoring program. There is a network of precipitation programs across the U.S., but that only measures wet deposition of mercury. EPA is taking leadership in developing a dry deposition program which hopefully will get at total deposition efforts. I also wanted to call your attention to this House bill here, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Program, which was recently introduced in both the House and the Senate to establish a national comprehensive mercury monitoring program. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Dr. Driscoll. We will now begin the questioning. Let me say that I have a question for Dr. Slattery, and then I have got to run to another meeting, but you will not be left alone. Dr. Slattery, in your view, had the TXU proposal to erect the 13 new coal-fired power plants in the State of Texas gone through, what impact would that have had on the atmosphere or water quality within the State or atmospheric deposition? Mr. Slattery. Thank you, Madam Chair. The impact, well, there are 17 in total and 11 TXU new units, I believe. If that deal goes through to still construct those units, our work has shown, I think, very clearly that the impact would certainly be profound in terms of regional deposition. When I say regional deposition, the plumes themselves were all within about 100 to 150 miles of the plants themselves. There would certainly be impacts beyond that and beyond the State just depending on how those plumes interact and the synergy between the plumes themselves. Those plants, I think we have shown confidently and clearly that the impact would be significant from a regional perspective. I guess when I say regional, I should point out that it is not just Texas, that it is Texas and the immediate surrounding States. The implications will be widespread for the region in terms of water quality. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now, in your view, what needs to happen to avert a crisis of mercury exposure in our Nation's waterways? Mr. Slattery. Well, I mean that is a great question and a very difficult one. In a sense if you are thinking about the national picture, a lot has been made of the Clean Air Mercury Rule and my colleague, Dr. Driscoll, has referred to that. Whilst there is certainly a good deal to be positive about in terms of that rule in a national reduction of 70 percent of mercury by, I believe, 2018 or 2025 when it becomes fully into effect, the real issue is deposition at this regional scale. A national cap and trade program like the Clean Air Mercury Rule, whilst it may produce a national reduction of some percentage, that rule will do essentially nothing to regions where you are putting in new old technology coal-fired power plants. I guess that is the bottom line. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Slattery, what is the mechanism that results in the mercury being deposited on the Earth's surface out of the atmospheric suspension? What causes the mercury to come out of that very fine particle that is blown in the prevailing winds? Mr. Slattery. My understanding of it is that it is one of two mechanisms. We talk about a dry deposition which is a straightforward settling out of the mercury itself but also a wet deposition in rainfall. Mr. Baker. Of the two mechanisms, the wet form would be the more prevalent because what does it require to have a dry deposition, very still winds, at the upper altitude? Mr. Slattery. The settling velocities of the particulates are very small as you would imagine. Mr. Baker. Very fine particle. Mr. Slattery. They are very fine particles, and there is no question. You raised a very important point early on, Mr. Congressman, about the fact that these pollutants do not obey State or even international boundaries. They get transported around the globe. Mr. Baker. Yes. They don't have a voter registration. They just go where they want. Mr. Slattery. Oh, absolutely. They go around the globe merely depending on the winds. Mr. Baker. Which gets me to my sort of observation about some of the PowerPoint presentation. There were some very significant yellow plumes outlined. Fifty thousand square miles, I think you said. Mr. Slattery. Fifteen thousand. Mr. Baker. Fifteen thousand. Mr. Slattery. Yes, 15,000. Mr. Baker. In scope, and based on the modeling through which the formula output that type of distribution. My question goes to what kind of data points were initially put into the formula to generate that pattern? It was, as I believe you outlined it, historical observations of prevailing winds, perhaps other information, but it was not necessarily air monitoring at the various coal- burning facilities that led to actual observational data being then cranked into the formula which then generated the chart. It was basically historical observations that if we use this generalized data, put it into the formula, this is what it would look like. Mr. Slattery. Now let me clarify that because that raises a very important point when it comes to atmospheric modeling because, as I said earlier, there is a catch phrase with any kind of modeling and that is garbage in, garbage out. We can produce anything really that we want. With an atmospheric model like this, the input data, we use the actual observed meteorologic data that is stored on the NOAA web site which is stored at a resolution of 40 square kilometers. Mr. Baker. But that is meteorologic data. Mr. Slattery. That is meteorologic data. Mr. Baker. It doesn't tell you wind direction, speed and so forth. Mr. Slattery. Absolutely. Sorry. Mr. Baker. That doesn't necessarily tell you about air quality or the discharge from the facility itself that is the source, in your view, of the mercury that then is transported. You are looking at the piping mechanism through which it moves. You are not looking at how much water is going into the pipe. Mr. Slattery. No. You are. You are looking at both because you have got to have input. You have got to have as realistic as possible or even a real emission rate. You have got to have a rate of emission. Mr. Baker. Right, that was my point, but is there air emission data that is available to you? Mr. Slattery. Absolutely. Now there is a caveat there in that the mercury air emission data is relatively sparse. There are five power plants in Texas that have widely available data on the NEI, the National Emissions Inventory on the EPA web site, and that was the data that was put in for the five power plants under the TXU recent coal issue. But, no, the mercury emission data is available on the National Emissions Inventory and the TRI. I actually spoke with the guys at the Air Resources Lab to get that data to put in. You have to put in full velocities for that particular type of mercury. That gets built into the model. Mr. Baker. There are some assumptions built into the modeling as a result because, for example, at the outset I asked about the mechanisms by which the mercury would come out of suspension and be deposited. Rain would be a big factor. That would be why on those dry East Texas summers, stuff would leave Texas and likely come to Louisiana and get rained on, and that is why we would be the downstream beneficiary of that activity. Are those weather patterns part of this data? Mr. Slattery. Yes, they are. But, again, you are correct; they are assumptions. They are built in. They are built into the model. Like, for example, the 5th of November plumes, the input data are the emission data. The meteorologic data are the meteorologic data. But there is no one up there in an air balloon actually telling you what percentage of that is falling out as dry deposition versus wet deposition. Mr. Baker. Well, that is one of the problems for us in the Baton Rouge area. A lot of our non-attainment problems with ozone, we believe come from the Houston automobile market, but we don't have real data to prove it. My point is don't we need some significant scientific expenditure? I can't imagine you saying no. Mr. Slattery. No. Yes, we do. No. Mr. Baker. To determine with some degree, some higher degree. I don't wish to cast aspersion on your presentation but a significant amount of data on which to act to determine where things are coming from. For example, the lady who testified earlier from Maine or Massachusetts was saying they had done great work in reducing their own emissions, but about 70 percent of their problem now seemed to come from either out of state or out of country. We have got to find out where it is coming from if we are going to fix it, and that is my only point. Mr. Slattery. Can I respond to that? I mean absolutely. Mr. Baker. Oh, certainly, yes. Mr. Slattery. Yes, I agree, and that goes to Dr. Driscoll's monitoring. I mean when you look at the mercury deposition network and that really is, as far as I am aware, the only real hard monitoring data that is out there in terms of a national picture. I think Louisiana may only have three, maybe four sites. Texas has two. Oklahoma has one on the eastern border. It is important to be able to calibrate and test these kinds of models that you are producing. They have to be validated with hard data on the ground, and that data on the ground is extremely sparse. The contour maps that you see, that are produced, showing the deposition patterns, it is very easy to look at those contour maps and think that they are absolutely real, but they are lines from a computer. They are interpolated from actual data measurements, yes, but Louisiana has three points throughout a very large State. So you are absolutely right; we need good monitoring. I would agree with you completely that you need to be looking significantly west of your State boundary to where a lot of that mercury is coming from. There is no question about that. Mr. Baker. It is sort of the difference between polling prognosis and election night returns. We need a few more election night returns to find out where we really are. I yield back. Mrs. Napolitano. [Presiding] Thank you very much. I can't help but think about California's EPA. Cal EPA, for years, brought up the issue of pollution in California, whether it was automobiles, which we have the largest concentration of automobiles there, I believe, and the pollution was causing the health problems it was causing. So we have done a lot of the actual research to be able to identify and bring down emissions from manufacturing and others. But when I think of the Eastern Seaboard, I think of the trade winds bringing a lot of the pollution not only from California, I would say--I mean it is stretching it a little bit--but all the pollution that is swept into the Eastern area. It is just reaching, and I am not sure whether any research has been done to determine where else. If in Massachusetts, 70 percent is coming from outside sources, where? He is right. Where is it coming from? Is anybody looking at that research to identify and stop it at source rather than after it gets there? Mr. Slattery. Yes. I mean there is a lot of work being done on where this material is coming from, but the difficulty is tying down the specific percentages. I mean we cannot say with any certainty that 58 percent of the mercury deposition in pick your State is coming from a particular region. I mean that is just not how the atmosphere behaves. That very fine elemental mercury stays suspended for a very long time, and that becomes part of the global pool of mercury. When you look at the contribution from U.S. power plants or U.S. anthropogenic emissions or the U.S. as a whole to the global pool of mercury, it is small. It is less than 10 percent. In fact, it is probably considerably less than 5 percent to that background global pool, and that is what is being transported around and will fall out over long periods of time to add to this background rate. My concern is the mercury that is falling out approximately to these plants, in plants that are deposition in an immediate area to these coal-fired power plants. That is my concern, and that is the mercury, this gaseous mercury that has a much higher fall velocity and falls out much more quickly. That is why those plumes are 100 to 150 miles around these plants. Our modeling is certainly not suggesting that deposition from coal-fired power plants is stretching thousands of miles and depositing over that kind of geographic span. We know that that is not the case. It is a very regional issue, and that is why I like the term. I certainly didn't coin it, but I like this term of a mercury hot spot. Mrs. Napolitano. In the deletion of the two programs that Mr. Driscoll alluded to, what implications do these have to continue to identify and monitor them? Mr. Slattery. The programs, could you say that again? Mrs. Napolitano. The clean air status, the CASTNet, and the extramural monitoring. Mr. Slattery. To be honest, I am really not qualified to answer that question of those two programs. I would defer to Mr. Driscoll. Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Driscoll? Mr. Driscoll. Well, concerning the mercury, those two programs are directed for and looking at sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, so those contaminants in air and also in water. They specifically don't look at mercury. The only mercury program that is in place now is called the Mercury Deposition Network which only targets precipitation mercury, and that represents actually, in our neck of the woods, probably only about 30 percent to 25 percent of the total inputs. So there really needs to be a better program to track mercury as was suggested by the questions. Mrs. Napolitano. But why are the two programs you are talking about, valuable? Mr. Driscoll. They are valuable because by 2010, industry is going to be spending about $3 billion per year in expenditures to control these contaminants, and I think that it is only good management to track what the effectiveness is. What you are talking about is, in terms of CASTNet, you are talking about a million dollars a year. In terms of the Surface Water Monitoring, you are talking about $800,000 a year. So you are talking very modest programs to track the effectiveness of these very, very expensive programs. Without these programs in place, you won't have a good idea how effective those programs are and whether we need more controls or less controls in the future. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, is the current monitoring network adequate? Is it enough to be able to do what you are asking? Mr. Driscoll. It is bare bones. It is a very sparse network. Many of the areas that I talked about aren't included. The program in the Upper Midwest was eliminated. The program in the West was eliminated. So you are only talking a few sites in the East that the Surface Water Program currently targets. It is certainly not adequate, but it is better than nothing. Some of these areas that we are talking about are among the hardest hit in terms of acid rain impacts. Mrs. Napolitano. What would you say would be needed, an increase in being able to do other areas that should be targeted? Mr. Driscoll. If they had a million dollars a year or two million dollars a year, that would be a tremendous boost to this operation. They could do a lot with that amount of funding. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest? Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have some questions about a cap and trade program for various sources of toxins with air deposition. What areas of the Country have benefitted from the cap and trade for sulfur dioxide or acid rain? The map you had up there didn't look like the Northeast benefitted very much. Can anybody say what areas benefitted from this? Mr. Driscoll. Well, I think that the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide has been beneficial. I think it has allowed industry to have flexibility to control the emissions. In contrast, there is also a proposal for cap and trade on mercury. Sulfur dioxide is less toxic. So I think it has been successful. I think there are still problems, and there will be additional controls that will be needed to basically allow these systems to fully recover. Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have a percentage of reduction of sulfur dioxide with this cap and trade for acid rain? Mr. Driscoll. Since we started the Clean Air Act, there has been about a 50 percent reduction. When the Title IV completes itself in about 2010, that will be a 50 percent reduction from 1980 values. So you are talking about substantial reductions in sulfur dioxide. Mr. Gilchrest. So the cap and trade with the acid rain problem has been relatively successful. Mr. Driscoll. It has allowed us to turn the corner, and the systems are starting to recover, yes. Mr. Gilchrest. It seems from my perspective that a cap and trade with CO2 would be pretty successful too. But a cap and trade with mercury, given the term, hot spot, and given what the gentlelady from Massachusetts was talking about, would you recommend a cap and trade with mercury or to mitigate the problem of mercury, a standard regulatory policy would be better? Mr. Driscoll. As you indicate, Congressman, mercury is a very toxic substance. I am just a research scientist. I am not a manager. But a lot of people have expressed concern about the trading option of the Clean Air Mercury Rule. I think that the identification of hot spots are reason for concern in the mercury monitoring program. I would say my advice to EPA is if there is going to be unconstrained trading of mercury, there should be a rigorous monitoring program, first of all, to identify other areas of the Country where there are hot spots and, second, to track how they recover from this trading program because as we have heard, mercury will fall out very close to the source. So there may be very, very severe local effects. One of the hot spots is in Massachusetts, and following those very aggressive controls, we saw approximately 50 percent reduction of mercury in loons over a period of five years, really very rapid recovery. I think local emissions--we can't emphasize that enough--we think are very important. Mr. Gilchrest. Could I ask how long does mercury, an element, stay in the ecosystem from where it falls? It is a problem with fish, and we all know it is a problem with IQ as the first panel stated. If you have bigger fish eating smaller fish, I am not sure if we need to worry about the brain power of striped bass versus man? But how about bald eagles or ospreys or blue herons? Mr. Driscoll. You are correct. Those organisms that consume other fish such as loons, eagles, otter, mink, all those things are impacted. There is increasing evidence to show that mercury cycles through the terrestrial food chain. So birds that eat insects, bats, are showing very high concentrations of mercury. Now this is an understudied area, so the more we study the problem, the more widespread we find the contamination. As you mentioned, mercury, it is an element. It cannot be created or destroyed. Once we release it, it is there. It can only be sequestered and hopefully reduced, removed slowly from the ecosystem. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much and, welcome, the Chesapeake Bay Program. Mr. Mueller. Foundation. Mr. Gilchrest. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Mr. Mueller. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. If I remember correctly, California did some studies on the effect it had on the bald eagle and osprey, and they found that it was reducing the reproduction of those species. This was 10 years ago if I remember correctly. Mr. Hall? Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Driscoll, I am sorry. I apologize to everybody for being late. I was triple booked with the Aviation Subcommittee, my Subcommittee that I chair, and Veterans Disabilities and this extremely important hearing. Just picking up on what you said, how does one sequester mercury once it is in the environment? Is that being done? Mr. Driscoll. It is being done. Mercury falls to the Earth's surface, and it can go one of three ways. It can be actually converted and go back to the atmosphere so it can be re-emitted. It can be transported in soil, and then it will get into potentially the aquatic food chain and contaminate humans and wildlife, but it can be incorporated in soil and removed from the system. This will occur over a period of years. One of the critical questions that we are researching is how will ecosystems respond if we control mercury emissions? Will they respond slowly or will they respond quickly? The few areas where we have data points suggest that surprisingly many of these ecosystems respond very quickly. I should point out that we also have a lot of data from sediment records where we collect material through the depths of sediment cores in lakes and bogs, and we can determine the age of the material and how that mercury has changed over time. What we see over the whole eastern half of the U.S. is that we have seen about a 30 percent decrease in mercury deposition since about the 1970s or 1980s presumably due to controls on incinerators and power plants and things like this. I think this is strong evidence that we can remove mercury. Mr. Hall. That is good news. I am glad to hear that. Dr. Slattery, I guess first to you and also to Dr. Driscoll because being from Syracuse, he would probably have a good idea about this. If the range of the plume, from coal-fired plants particularly, that is depositing mercury is thought to be relatively short, 100 to 150 miles I think I just heard. We are looking at some hot spots in the mid-Hudson Valley and also in the Adirondacks. We are also looking, of course, at the continuing acid rain problem in the Adirondacks. Where should we be looking for those sources? I mean are the coal-fired power plants that are in the Hudson Valley, more to the south than to the west of the county, Dutchess County where I come from, are they the likely source of the mercury that we are seeing in Dutchess County or would it be traveling from, let us say, the Ohio Valley? Mr. Slattery. Again, I don't want to just simply defer to Dr. Driscoll on this, but I haven't worked and I am not familiar with that region at all. I have just worked solely in Texas and the surrounding regions in terms of where to look for these sources. I will ask Charles to answer that in a moment. But I would make one comment in response to that, and that is that the plumes we were seeing emitted from the Texas power plants, this 100 to 150 mile stretch of immediate fallout, that was based on the assumption that there was no synergy between the plumes. We were doing this on an event type basis, a 24 to 48 hour type basis just to get a picture of where these plumes were going and what the geographic extent of them would be. And so, what that means is when you have several power plants like this overlapping with one another, there will be synergy and mixing and an increase in the travel distances and the deposition fallout. But I can't actually answer specifically your regional question. Mr. Hall. Dr. Driscoll? Mr. Driscoll. Yes. So if there is a particular area, I can try to address that, but in general you will see both local, regional and global impacts. In Dutchess County, I am not aware of any large sources that are in the immediate area such as incinerators or power plants or industrial facilities although I could look that up for you if you were interested. But, clearly, it will be impacted by regional sources and some global sources as well. I mentioned the sediment cores that we have collected all over the Northeast, and they track very, very well with the regional historical emission estimates for the whole Upper Great Lakes area, explaining a large percentage of the historical mercury. So we think that the regional and local contribution is much higher than some have suggested. There is a global contribution, but I think the regional and local can be very important. Mr. Hall. Two more quick questions for anybody: How much of a problem is batteries, all kinds of batteries from little AAs up to camp light batteries that are disposed of by the average citizen, unfortunately? Unless there are household hazardous waste collection points which a lot of counties have or do collection days which many counties have, but a lot of them get into the incinerators and into the waste treatment in general. The second point is have you looked at tidal drying? I know in the Hudson River Valley, for instance, that there has been measurement done of PCB-contaminated dust that has blown between high tide and low tide. The water comes up and deposits sediment on the banks. Then it drops to low tide, and the sediment dries and is carried in the wind. There is measurable PCBs in the body fat of everybody who has lived for any period of time close to the Hudson River as a result. I am just curious if that sort of tidal re-introduction into the air is something that you have experienced elsewhere. Mr. Driscoll. Do you want me to answer? In terms of batteries, I think just briefly incinerators have been aggressively controlled and there is an effort to try to remove mercury from batteries. I think that progress has been made on that score. In terms of the intertidal zone, you are correct. It is a critical area probably not for the mechanism you are talking about, but in those environments where there is wetting and drying, that action can stimulate the methylation of mercury and, of course, that is the bioavailable form. That is a critical process particularly in estuaries and coastal waters for the production of methylmercury and the contamination of those water bodies. Mr. Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. There is such a great interest in what you are talking about. I am the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power in the Natural Resources Committee, and we are discussing perchlorates and the VOCs in our rivers and aquifers. What we don't know is hurting us, and unfortunately we need to be able to get more information from the research community to find out what you have done because we need to translate it into how we address the future of not just legislation because that is not all but partnership, partnering with those that can make the changes. That is the general public in many instances. Batteries, when they go into the landfill, if they go into the landfill, which in California we have very strict standards. They have to be recycled. Many things are recycled. Back in the 1990s, California banned burning of trash. I remember. So that was some of the pollution that was hitting the atmosphere. There are many things that the general public began to understand was contributing and adding to the atmosphere. Now I am not sure. I am not on the Eastern Seaboard. I am on the other side. But I would hope that together, this Committee and the research community,--and thank you for coming and sharing your testimony--that we can be more forthcoming in addressing how we protect our environment for future generations. So, with that, gentlemen, thank you very much. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.107 HEARING ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURE ON WATER QUALITY ---------- Thursday, April 19, 2007, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Timothy H. Bishop [chairman of the committee] presiding. Mr. Bishop. We are about to get called for a set of votes, and that is why our Ranking Member is not here. He has gone directly to the Floor. So if you all will indulge us for another, I would say 20 or 25 minutes, we have a series of votes coming up on the Floor. Then we will be back and we will begin the hearing. So I thank you for your patience and your indulgence. [Recess.] Mr. Bishop. I would like to call the Subcommittee to order. Let me start by thanking you all for your patience and for your indulgence as we went through a series of votes. Today we will be having a hearing on nonpoint source pollution and the impacts of agriculture on water quality. I would like to welcome today's witnesses to our hearing on the impact of agriculture on water quality. Today we will hear from representatives from Federal, State and municipal governments, as well as from academia and other interested stakeholders. These diverse perspectives will provide the Subcommittee with a much broader understanding on whether and the degree to which agricultural activities impact water quality. We also hope to learn more about how the Federal Government can further assist the agricultural community in reducing runoff. To begin, let me extend a warm greeting to Dr. Robert Howarth, who hails from my home State of New York. Dr. Howarth is a professor in Cornell University's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. He is one of our Nation's preeminent scientists and he will be speaking on the second panel. Dr. Howarth, thank you for being here. Let me say that in large part, this hearing is about protecting our heritage. A very important part of that heritage is farming. Today the United States is the breadbasket of the world, and it wouldn't have this role without the important part played by farms and ranches across the land. But there is another part of our heritage, too, and this includes protection of our natural resources; critical among them, protection of the Nation's water bodies. The hearing we are holding today will look at the impacts of agricultural runoff on water quality. As we will learn, the promotion of agriculture and the protection of the Nation's waters are not exclusive concepts. Indeed, the Federal Government is actively working to promote both. The question is, however, is the Federal Government doing enough? Let me be very clear: any suggestion that we want to end farming and return farmland to its natural state in order to protect our waters is nothing but a red herring. We seek agricultural practices that make sense, environmental sense, and economic sense. Agricultural runoff consists of pollutants from farming and ranching that are picked up by rainfall and snowmelt and eventually deposited into water bodies. These pollutants can include nutrients, pesticides, sediment and animal waste. Why is agricultural runoff important? It is important because these pollutants can lead to water body impairments, as well as threats to human health. In fact, the EPA tells us that the States have reported that 45 percent of rivers and streams across the Country are impaired, and that agricultural runoff is a leading culprit. Water body impairment is not just a box on a scientific report somewhere that is just checked off impaired or not impaired. No, there are very real-world implications that impact our communities, making it harder for ordinary working folks to make a living and harder for municipalities to provide basic services. Let me provide just a few examples. As we will learn today from our witness from Waco, Texas, the City of Waco has had to spend literally millions and millions of dollars to upgrade its drinking water facilities as a result of water contamination from upstream dairies. Through relatively simple dairy farm management reforms that would have been far cheaper to implement, those upgrades would not have been necessary. This money could have been spent on schools in Waco, it could even have been returned to the taxpayers of this community through lower taxes. Similarly, blue crabs are in decline in the Chesapeake Bay and commercial oysters harvesting is nothing compared to what it once was. On the Gulf of Mexico, one of the Nation's greatest natural resources, fishermen are suffering because shrimp and commercial fish populations are in decline due to the infamous Dead Zone. This Dead Zone is in part the result of nutrient runoff hundreds of miles upstream along the Mississippi River. The Federal Government has a number of programs that provide opportunities for the farming community to receive funding and assistance to decrease this runoff. These programs are largely voluntary and entail farmers and landowners adopting best management practices. Many of these programs make both economic and agronomic sense. For example, water body impairment through excess nutrient runoff is often the result of too much nutrient being applied to fields. Precision agriculture means fewer nutrients which means that farmers have to spend less on buying fertilizer. At the end of the day, this leaves a bigger paycheck. Erosion control programs help keep valuable topsoil on the fields. As any farmer will tell you, healthy, abundant topsoil is critical to success. These programs are just further examples of what makes economic sense makes environmental sense also. The trouble is that not enough farmers are receiving benefits from these programs. Given that some of these practices have been proven to work, the onus is on us to work out why there is not more enrolment in these Federal programs. Part of the reason is that the programs just aren't big enough. There is not enough funding for conservation programs that provide grants to farmers. In fact, funding is so low and the backlog of applications so long that there are currently 195 farmers in Iowa who have chosen to take out conservation loans, that is loans, not grants, through Iowa's local water protection program. This just goes to show that farmers want to do what makes environmental, economic and agronomic sense. It is just that the Federal Government doesn't seem to be there for them. Today we hope to learn more about what the Federal Government is doing with these programs, whether it is doing enough and if we all work together, the Federal Government, the States, the farmers and conservationists, what more needs to be done. I welcome the witnesses to today's hearing and I look forward to their testimony. Now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Baker, for any opening remarks he wishes to make. Mr. Baker of Louisiana. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the interest in the subject matter and the calling of this hearing on this important topic. Data which is not all that recent, but still relevant enough for this hearing, indicates that less than 3 percent of the American population is engaged in or in some way acts in concert with a principal farming operation. That number is continuing to decline. Concurrently with that decline in number of producers, we are also seeing commercial operators grow the scope of farming operations in geographic size dramatically. In my state, unless you are at least 2,000 acres, in the soybean business, you are probably not going to be economically viable. Which leads to an observation: these folks are sophisticated people trying to make a living producing from the land which is the essential core of their long-term economic viability. They are folks that are necessarily going to do what they believe best for the preservation of that natural resource. And as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, fertilizer isn't cheap. And the less of it you use, the better off your yield is in the bank. So the idea is to use sophisticated production technologies to increase the yield, keep costs down, and for us to help keep farmers alive. We do not need to rely on foreign nation's generosity to feed our people. In fact, in looking at the end result of this process that we have been engaged in, the atmospheric transport of mercury, for example, that filled the room up last week, we appear to be on a course of designing a new set of regulatory standards for all sorts of environmental activities. I only hope that at the conclusion of this work, we find economically viable methodologies, which will enhance the ability of people to continue to produce. I would also point out that in looking for causes of water contamination, we should not divert our attention too far from urban centers, where weekend landscapers use material this time of year to weed and feed their lawns. Just a casual observation I have made, not too many appear to be reading labels. They are walking around slinging it out by the handfuls. That stuff winds up in the same groundwater supply as everybody else's by product, and we need to be carefully examining all sources of potential contamination to determine what if any action might be taken to assist in that arena. Finally, aging municipal water treatment systems. It is not uncommon for, in a severe storm, to have systems back up and overflow and that contamination finds its way again untreated into public water systems. For these reasons, we have a lot of work to do, Mr. Chairman. I am hoping that throughout the course of our discussion we will learn here today from learned individuals perspectives on how we can help, not hinder, and how we can accomplish these goals in an economically responsible manner. With that, I yield back. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. Salazar, do you wish to make an opening statement? Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate that we are addressing the topic of water pollution, specifically the issue of nonpoint source pollution. There is no question that having a clean and safe water supply is important to all of us, including those of us who are in agriculture. Ecosystems work together. Healthy wildlife populations, vibrant plant systems and clean water each contribute to the overall well-being of our environment. But I must assure you that America's farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the Nation's land and water resources. Their production and profitability can only be as good as the land from which it comes. So appropriate care for land and water resources makes both environmental and economic sense for them. As a farmer and rancher myself, I fully appreciate the importance of a healthy, functioning ecosystem. I firmly believe that we can have agriculture and a clean water system in this Country. I think it is important to recognize that agriculture is a regulated industry. Extensive new regulations were put in place in the 109th Congress to control discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs. In fact, there has been a significant shift over the past several years in Federal efforts to regulate and prohibit production area discharges from CAFOs. In addition, CAFOs must utilize and comply with strict nutrient management plans when applying manure to agricultural fields, to ensure that manure is applied at agronomic rates. Any violation of these requirements can result in substantial penalties in certain situations, even imprisonment. We should consider these new regulatory requirements that ensure protection of our waters and give them time to work. There are also several programs in place under the Clean Water Act that specifically address nonpoint source pollution. This Congress should consider increased funding, and I associate myself with the Chairman's remarks, that the Government does not do enough for agriculture. But this Congress should consider increasing funding of these programs to levels that will enable States to address nonpoint pollution as intended. Agriculture producers are also taking measures to be as environmentally friendly as possible in their operations. We just had a hearing in the Ag Committee. Just one example is the implementation of the projects of the USDA Farm Bill conservation programs that work to improve water quality. We discussed the buffer strip initiative that is being proposed. From 2002 to 2006, NRCS disbursed over $2.7 billion to ag producers for projects to improve water quality. But as the Chairman said, there is still not enough. Most of those projects were through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. In the same time period, they spent almost $1.2 billion conserving and improving wetlands, mainly through the Wetlands Reserve Program. Family farmers and ranchers are excellent stewards of their land, natural resources, and water. Their livelihoods depend on it. We should enable them, through programs like these, to continue to produce our Nation's food and fiber in an environmentally sound and sustainable way. Last year for the first time in the history of the United States, the United States became net food importers of specialty crops. That is a scary thought to me. I think it is the responsibility of this Committee, this Congress, to ensure that we preserve and protect our water sources for today's use as well as for future generations. But it must be done in a way that does not negatively impact the slim margins that farmers face today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to today's hearing. I yield back. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Salazar, thank you. Mr. Gilchrest, do you wish to make an opening statement? Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly. Thank you for holding this hearing. This is an issue in many parts of the Country. In my Congressional district, the biggest industry is agriculture. It wraps around the Chesapeake Bay. Just a couple of comments. There are a myriad of programs in the Department of Agriculture that attempt to address nonpoint source pollution, particularly in agriculture. What we have been doing for years and what we really want to try to do in this Farm Bill is to pump more money into those programs to help the farmer whose only source of income is production agriculture, but give him ready cash to be a part of the solution of reducing runoff from herbicides, pesticides, too much nitrogen, too much phosphorus, et cetera. That is in the form of cover crops, CRPs, forested buffers, grass buffers, technical assistance on the kinds of crops to plan, you name it. This Country is a lot better off and our taxes are a lot lower with a landscape carpeted with farms as opposed to a landscape carpeted with sprawl. You don't need a lot of bureaucracy to take care of an agricultural area. But you need a lot of bureaucracy and you get a lot more pollution from sprawl. So if we just recognize that economic viability for communities, but especially agriculture, rests on the Federal Government being an assistant in helping with money, with technical assistance, with expertise, the farmers dealing with their stormwater runoff. Because that is what this is. Agriculture has a problem with stormwater runoff, just like an urban area does. But you can sure capture that stormwater runoff with the expertise that we now have in-house. So I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. The hypoxia Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a classic example of something that we can solve, the dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay which is caused by urban and ag runoff. Like the previous speaker said, the farmers in Maryland have applied, there are more farmers applying for those kinds of dollars to deal with that kind of stormwater runoff, which in essence is what it is, because we all know from our seventh geology class or geography class that water runs downhill. And the way we absorb that is something that is a well-known quantity: preserve agriculture, put money into these programs and we all benefit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can just ask the former speaker, what he had against straw. Mr. Gilchrest. What I have against what? Mr. Brown. Straw. Mr. Gilchrest. Straw? I like straw. It's a good bedding for cows, horses, hogs. I think I said sprawl. I didn't say straw. Mr. Brown. Oh, sprawl. I thought you said straw. It must be your southern accent. [Laughter.] Mr. Baker of Louisiana. For a small fee, I will gladly interpret for you. [Laughter.] Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, this morning Mr. Brown wanted an interpreter for me. Now I think we need one for him. [Laughter.] Mr. Bishop. If there are no other members who wish to make an opening statement, we will now proceed to the first of our two panels. We are pleased to have a very distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this afternoon. First, we have Mr. Richard Coombe, Regional Assistant Chief of the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Next will be Mr. Craig Hooks. Mr. Hooks is the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, which is located in the Office of Water. And our final witness on the first panel will be Mr. Wiley Stem, Assistant City Manager for the City of Waco. We are pleased to welcome you all here this afternoon. We ask that the witnesses try to limit their testimony to a five minute oral summary of their written statements, and their full written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. We will proceed in the order in which you were introduced, so let us begin with Mr. Coombe. TESTIMONY OF RICHARD COOMBE, REGIONAL ASSISTANT CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; CRAIG HOOKS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; WILEY STEM, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CITY OF WACO, TEXAS Mr. Coombe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to describe the relationship between water quality and agriculture and the activities the Natural Resources Conservation Service is participating in to provide assistance to address this issue. This topic is of special interest to me, as I served as CEO of the Watershed Agricultural Council, Inc., of the New York City watershed. This watershed project was a showcase example of how agricultural forest landowners took successful, proactive steps to protect the water supply of the city of New York. For over 70 years, NRCS has been committed to working with America's private landowners through a locally-led, voluntary, cooperative conservation approach. This approach has proven time and time again that when given sound information, guidance and technical assistance, farmers and ranchers voluntarily adopt, install and maintain conservation practices. Our mission effectively describes what we do: helping people help the land. Water quality is a primary indicator of our environmental health. And the quality of water reflects what occurs on the land. Water quality concerns from agriculture are generally defined as nonpoint source pollution. This pollution comes from diffuse sources, which makes identification of the source of water quality problems difficult. Often, water quality problems are the result of actions by many landowners, both rural and urban. Mr. Chairman, if you visit any one of the 3,077 counties in the United States, you would likely find that agricultural producers work with NRCS. Our conservation technical assistance program provides direct conservation planning, specific conservation practices, or systems are developed and farmers and ranchers may utilize our Farm Bill cost share programs and other authorities. Let me highlight a few of our voluntary programs. First, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the flagship of the Working Lands Conservation Program portfolio. Funding for EQIP in the 2002 Farm Bill greatly expanded the program's availability. Sixty percent of these funds are directed to address livestock-related resource concerns. The Department's 2007 Farm Bill proposal recommended consolidating and reauthorizing existing cost share programs into a newly- designed EQIP, which will simplify and streamline activities and includes the creation of a new regional water enhancement program. The Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program stimulates the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches. In fiscal year 2006, CIG was implemented with three components: national, the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and State. The Wetlands Reserve Program provides funding to landowners to retire cropland from agricultural production if those lands are restored to wetlands and protected with a long-term or permanent easement. Our 2007 Farm Bill proposal seeks to add more than 1 million additional acres to WRP, bringing the overall enrollment to more than 3.5 million acres. The Conservation Reserve Program, administered by the Farm Services Agency, provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers. There are more than 36 million acres enrolled in the program and planted to cover crops to stop soil and nutrients from washing into waterways. Finally, the Conservation Security Program provides assistance on tribal and private working lands which rewards producers who practice good stewardship on their agricultural lands and provides incentives for those who want to do more. NRCS has offered the program in 280 watersheds and rewarded nearly 19,400 stewards on 15.5 million acres. Every year, NRCS measures the changes of the resource based on private lands through the National Resources Inventory (NRI). The NRI is a statistical survey of natural resource conditions and trends, and it assesses soil erosion, land cover and use, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices and related resources. In 2006, the NRI shows a 43 percent reduction in cropland soil erosion between 1982 and 2003. This reduction did not happen by regulation, but through voluntary cooperation at the local level. Mr. Chairman, we have excellent information about our program outputs, but we still are working to quantify our data on environmental outcomes of our programs. As a result, starting in 2003, in collaboration with USDA and Federal agencies, we initiated the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) to scientifically assess the environmental and related outcomes from Farm Bill conservation programs at both the national and watershed scale through 2008. We believe that farmers and ranchers are making important gains in conservation on working lands. We are sharply focusing our efforts and will work together with our partners to continue to make improvements to water quality. I look forward to working with you as we move ahead in this endeavor. I thank the Subcommittee and will be happy to respond to any questions. Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Coombe. Now we would like to welcome Mr. Hooks from the EPA office. Mr. Hooks, we look forward to your testimony. Mr. Hooks. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Craig Hooks, Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds in the Office of Water at the U.S. EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA water quality programs for agriculture. EPA's 2002 National Assessment Database summarizes State water quality reports and categorizes the quality of the State- assessed waters as good, threatened or impaired. States assessed their rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and reservoirs and found that agriculture was the most frequently identified source of water quality impairment. The National Nonpoint Source program, under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, is EPA's primary program to manage nonpoint source pollution. The most significant category of nonpoint source pollution is agriculture, and as such, it deservedly receives more attention than any other nonpoint source category. The Section 319 program is administered by EPA, but implemented by the States. States develop and implement watershed plans that assesses water quality programs holistically throughout a watershed, analyze and quantify the sources and causes of water quality programs and impairments, estimate the pollutant reductions that will be needed to solve water quality problems, and identify the best management practices that will be needed in various places to achieve the needed pollutant reductions. In terms of EPA's relationship with USDA, EPA and USDA bring different strengths to solving water quality problems at the local level. USDA conservation programs have built a long history of trust among agricultural producers. EPA and State water quality agencies can provide funding for some activities that may not be funded by USDA programs to help make a watershed project a success. For example, EPA funds can be used to conduct water quality monitoring, to improve understanding of water quality issues and potential solutions, develop watershed plans that enable a community to identify priority needs and priority locations for implementation, hire a dedicated watershed coordinator, often a conservation specialist, who is rooted in a local community, who can educate the community and help design and implement solutions and demonstrative innovative management practices. EPA water quality programs and USDA conservation programs are most effective when we are able to work together in a concerted and coordinated manner to focus our resources in the same watershed. I would like to mention water quality trading. One of EPA's tools for supporting agricultural conservation practices is water quality trading. Water quality trading programs allow facilities facing high pollutant costs to meet their regulatory obligations by purchasing environmentally equivalent or superior pollutant reductions from another source at lower cost. Trading programs transform pollutant reductions achieved by implementing agricultural conservation practices into a valuable commodity that a producer can sell to an industrial or municipal facility. So in conclusion, we have made a major investment in the implementation of programs and practices to protect and restore waters that are impacted or may be impacted by agriculture. However, much more work remains to be done to achieve the program's long-term goals. We will continue to work with this Committee, our Federal colleagues and the many partners, stakeholders and citizens who want to accelerate the pace and efficiency of water quality protection and restoration. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Hooks, thank you. We will now proceed to Mr. Stem from Waco, Texas. Mr. Stem. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Wiley Stem. I serve as Assistant City Manager for the City of Waco, Texas. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the American Waterworks Association and its 60,000 members. AWWA member utilities serve safe water to over 80 percent of the American people and AWWA is both very concerned and very qualified to speak about the subject of this hearing, nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is a very serious problem, and one that is not effectively addressed by the Clean Water Act. I would like to illustrate this problem by describing the situation we face in Waco over the contamination of our municipal water supply. Lake Waco is the only viable public drinking water supply for approximately 150,000 central Texas citizens who live in our city and in surrounding communities. In recent decades, Lake Waco has been severely damaged by pollution running off of agricultural lands and our watershed. Numerous studies and peer review publications concluded that high concentrations of phosphorus in Lake Waco are caused by runoff from agricultural operations in the North Bosque River watershed. More specifically, this runoff occurs as a result of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, over-applying cow manure to their waste application fields. The dairies in question, which by the way are industrial scale operations, and not traditional family farms, are applying manure to their fields as a means of waste disposal, rather than for agronomic purposes. The excessive phosphorus in our watershed has caused algal growth in Lake Waco. These algae, in turn, cause serious taste and odor problems with the water. In addition to phosphorus, animal waste also is a significant source of pathogens. Although Waco takes great care to treat its water to safe levels, in other cities there have been several well documented cases where a chain of events, including breakdowns in water treatment, has resulted in people being killed or seriously sickened by pathogens associated with animal waste. The City of Waco has both an obligation under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a moral responsibility, which we take very seriously, to make sure that water we deliver to our residents is safe, odor-free and pleasant to drink. In order to meet this obligation, Waco has been forced to spend millions of dollars in recent years for additional water treatment as a direct result of the pollution in our watershed. The cost of upgrades in equipment and facilities which we must employ to deal specifically with this problem is projected to nearly double the cost of a project we are undertaking to ensure that we have adequate water supplies for now and the future. The cost of that project is estimated at approximately $90 million, of which $40 million is attributable to poor water quality caused by animal operations in our watershed. As described in more detail in my statement, the City of Waco was forced to sue a number of the dairies in our watershed, using Superfund. These suits were not for the purpose of enriching the city, but to force the dairies to adopt better practices that reduce the levels of polluting runoff from their fields. I would note that there are efforts underway in Congress to relax the provisions of Superfund by excluding animal manure and its constituents, such as phosphorus, from coverage under the law. I urge you to strongly oppose such relaxation of Superfund. I would also note that while Waco had to sue agricultural operators to adopt certain programs in our watershed, those same programs could be adopted voluntarily with support under our Nation's comprehensive farm bill. Congress is expected to pass a new comprehensive farm bill this summer. I urge you to expand the conservation programs in it to at least $7 billion annually, as proposed by representative Ron Kind and several other members of Congress. Protecting drinking water supply should be a top priority for those funds. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank Representative Chet Edwards for his tireless efforts to procure funds for the City of Waco to help us deal with these problems. I hope that you will strongly support the Water Resources Development Act and the funds Congressman Edwards is seeking to assist Waco and upstream agricultural operators in the important work of securing adequate and safe supplies of water for our citizens. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Stem, thank you very much. We will now proceed to questions for the first panel. Let me start with a question that will be both for Mr. Hooks and Mr. Coombe. The question has to do with coordination between the USDA and its Federal partners, such as the EPA, in an effort to continue to decrease agricultural runoff. In what ways is increased cooperation important, in what ways will they be valuable, and how would you suggest going forward to achieve that level of cooperation? We will start with Mr. Coombe. Mr. Coombe. Mr. Chairman, I would refer to the Chesapeake, for example. We have a predictive EPA watershed model, which is utilized so much in the press. It measures BMP, best management practices. In our particular program, conservation practices are what we use. Consequently, the jargon is different. So we are working closely to have these two work together. We have just signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in October between the EPA and USDA with regard to putting actions in place to deal with the Chesapeake together. At the departmental side, both agencies or both departments have an MOU in the works to improve communication between leadership and focus on financial and technical resources. We also have in the new Farm Bill proposal of the secretary, of a Regional Water Enhancement Program proposal which would be looking at large watersheds. Last of all, recently the regional directors met in Philadelphia at the request of Don Welsh, Region III Administrator, myself and others. That is an example of where each of us that oversee all of the States within the region of the Chesapeake have met. Mr. Hooks. Thank you for your question. I think one of the areas that USDA and EPA can work together really are at the local level. I think there are some examples of us working together in a much more concerted and coordinated fashion. Just recently USDA's NRCS office worked with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to develop a fund in 2007 called the Water Quality Initiative Program that will invest EQIP dollars to fund one on one technical assistance to farmers and landowners at priority sites within a watershed. One of the key features that we have promoted, that we attempt to promote through our nonpoint source program, is our ability to work cooperatively and through this voluntary program at the local level. So in terms of our ability to again work with the USDA, I would say that we need to take a serious look at some of the programs and identify what priority watersheds we need to work in, and then work closely together with USDA in those areas. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Coombe, is there a backlog in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program? Mr. Coombe. Mr. Chairman, there certainly is. All of our programs are over-subscribed. And with regard to EQIP contracts, for example, we have a backlog at this time, unfunded applications of over 41,000. There is about an 8.9 percent participation rate, up to 2,128,982 farmers across the Country. Mr. Bishop. And what are the implications of this backlog? Mr. Coombe. The implications are that with regard to our expenditures since 2002 to 2006, 2,773,159,000--well, I have my digits off, but over $2 billion have gone for water quality programs, parts of programs. EQIP is a major one, WRP, et cetera. I am saying that all of our programs are over- subscribed, and we believe that these are extremely important to watersheds. We take a national view, but realizing all land is in a watershed, and many of the members will have different watersheds they think are important. But we are over- subscribed. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Hooks, there is an EPA report entitled the National Water Quality Inventory. It is my understanding that the Clean Water Act stipulates that that report be released every two years. It is my further understanding that there has not been a full report released since the year 2000. So my question is, why is it that we have not had a report since 2000 and when do we think we might see the next report? Mr. Hooks. I am actually hopeful that you will see the report within the next few weeks. I think part of the reason for the delay in the report has been to a change in the type of reporting that we are doing. We have moved to an integrated reporting mechanism, combining both our 303(d), our impaired waters list, along with our 303(b) reports. We have moved to a different electronic reporting mechanism. That also caused certain delays in the reporting of the report. But we are starting to make significant advances and improvements in the reporting. The reports are coming to us electronically and we will be able to get these reports out in a much more timely fashion. Mr. Bishop. But you think that report will be available within the next two to three weeks, did you say? Mr. Hooks. Probably in the next two to three weeks. Mr. Bishop. Okay, thank you very much. My last question is one that has a local implication for me. I represent a district that includes two estuaries of national significance: Peconic Bay and Long Island Sound. It also is an area where agriculture is one of the more dominant industries. My question is for areas that include estuaries of national significance, particular farm land that borders estuaries of national significance, should the programs that currently exist to curtail runoff that are voluntary, should we be looking to make some of them mandatory when we are dealing with an estuary of national significance? Mr. Coombe or Mr. Hooks? Mr. Coombe. May I? I just feel so strongly on this, Mr. Chairman. In 1989, Surface Treatment Rule required all water systems to be filtered. The New York City watershed is one of the largest, 1.45 billion gallons. I own a farm within that particular watershed. We suggested that the low density land use pattern, 85 percent in ag and forestry, was the preferred land use. The city decided instead to regulate us. The rest is history. They saw their way because in the area of the Croton system, which you are familiar with, highly urbanized and industrialized, they had to filter their water. They would have Croton-ized the Cat-Del if they had done that. So in my humble opinion, and I feel very strongly on this, when you are dealing with nonpoint source pollution on diffuse sources, from agriculture and forestry, you have to have access. That is one of the things we have had 70 years of experience with, 71, 72 years at NRCS. And that is the trust on the part of the farming community and the forestry community to utilize our science-based technology in order to protect the land. You have to get on that land and you have to win them over. So I believe that there can be a combination. Sometimes you need the hammer in the regulation. But to get the work done, you need the voluntary, incentive-based program. We have a 43 percent reduction in sediment from 1982 to the year 2003. And that was done on a voluntary basis nationwide. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Hooks? Mr. Hooks. I think one of the hallmarks of the 319 program at this point, it certainly is a voluntary program. One of the things that we focus on is education and training with the farmers and the local communities. I think one of the central tenets is in trying to promote the watershed approach, it is important that we have a plan that is based on sound management techniques and based on sound science, where we need to go in, assess what the natural resources are, identify what the goals are, determine what sort of priority problems we are going to focus on and then develop a specific management approach to the problem. Then we need to evaluate, and also bear in mind that we can apply adaptive management after we monitor and see what sort of progress we are actually making over time. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Baker? Mr. Baker of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hooks, I am not questioning the underlying assumption about the hearing, but I think it is something that I need to understand better, and that is that agriculture represents a problem with regard to nitrogen runoffs. Within the agency, has there been significant academic study, either by outside source or within professionals in the agency to, for example, looking at the water in the Mississippi River, which flows by my front door every day, comes from everybody from the Appalachians to the Rocky Mountains? It is utilized by our industry, we have to take it out, treat it and use it for commercial purposes. And when it goes back to the river, it is cleaner than when we took it out. But we still have concerns about water quality, even doing that. But how much of pollutants, I learned a great deal in this atmospheric deposition here, and as they say, a significant problem, particularly in proximity to coal-fired generators, do we know whether the nitrogen is 100 percent runoff? Is it 50/ 50? Is it 70/30? And is that based on studies that get us an awareness of where our problems really are? Mr. Hooks. Currently, actually, the agency's science advisory board is conducting a study at this point. One of the programs that EPA participates on is the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force. They requested the science advisory board to look at actually both nitrogen and phosphorus and the contribution that it makes to the Gulf of Mexico. The numbers that I have seen, there is an estimate that approximately 74 percent of the nitrogen that is coming down the Mississippi is from agricultural sources. Mr. Baker of Louisiana. How did they get to that number? Did anybody do a study or is that modeling, or how did we come to that conclusion? Mr. Hooks. I don't know that personally, but I would be more than happy to research that. Mr. Baker of Louisiana. My reason for bringing this point up is, there are too few resources to address all the identified problems all at once. So we really need to prioritize. So a very carefully focused scientific analysis of where we believe the best taxpayer benefit would be yielded, for example, I know in high density animal operations, the milking parlor, as it is called in the evening, represents a concentration of animal waste that is pretty considerable. At least in my state, we have had dairies actually put in mini- sewer treatment plants to treat that material before it is disposed of. That is an obvious one. But I am not altogether convinced, if you are looking at several hundred acres where you have crop rotations of beans in the spring and you go to an alternate crop in the fall, even grassland, that that kind of simple operation represents the environmental threat that I am hearing about. That is my point. My colleagues think I am not sensitive to the environment. We drink the wastewater you send down, that is where we get our drinking water, out of the river. So we are pretty sensitive about it. The point is, I don't want agriculture just to be plowed under here as the bad guy in all this. There are a lot of good people in business who spend their money to clean this stuff up because they rely on the viability of that land for their future kids' generations to come economic vitality. So I am just requesting that in our prioritization of where we spend money, let's at first have arms-length professionals take a look at the field and figure out who are the number one violators and how can we help those folks through voluntary programs correct those actions to help us all. But there were wildly varying numbers, as for example, in the Chesapeake Bay, as to whether atmospheric deposition was responsible for 10 percent or as much as 50 percent of the deposition in that lake. We don't know. So it is hard to rush to a judgment and spend a lot of money when we might find out later we would have been better served somewhere else. How long do you think it is before that scientific study that you say is now engaged would be available to the Committee? Mr. Hooks. They are due to release a draft report in July of this year and have a final report, I believe, in October of this year. And I share your sentiments. It is an extremely complex and difficult issue, particularly the Gulf of Mexico issue. Mr. Baker of Louisiana. I represent sort of a rural area, and we have a lot of septic tanks that dump a lot of water into a lot of roadside ditches. I hope nobody from the EPA goes down there and checks them, but I have a suspicion that some of those wouldn't quite meet your standards. I think when you aggregate hundreds of thousands of people's activity as opposed to a single farming operator, the equities might need to be readjusted there. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gilchrest. Would the gentleman yield just for a quick second? Mr. Baker of Louisiana. Yes, sir. Mr. Gilchrest. The Chesapeake Bay program has actually helped us, through pretty critical analysis, to figure out where all these, where the nitrogen is coming from, where the phosphorus is coming from. And even where the septic systems are contributing nitrogen. In the State overall, there is 5 percent of the nitrogen going into the Chesapeake Bay from septic systems. But if you take that down a few other notches, in certain areas it is 50 percent. If you look at a little tidal pond to the Chesapeake Bay, it will vary. And it is about 40 percent from agriculture, about 28 percent from air deposition for nitrogen, and about, I am not sure, maybe Mr. Coombe knows. But anyway, we have classified urban, suburban, agriculture, septic tanks, sewage treatment plants and so on. I do want to buttress one of your comments, and that is, I think my state, my farmers, nothing against Colorado, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, but we really have reached a level of state of the art in best management practices for agriculture to reduce these kinds of runoffs. And it is because of the collaborative effort in the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the agricultural community. They have really integrated their cooperation together to move forward. Mr. Baker of Louisiana. I thank the learned gentleman. I would just merely point out that the type of diligence that the Chesapeake Bay groups have exhibited is the kind of diligence I am suggesting ought to be required nationally. Before the Congress spends a bunch of money, we ought to know what the net effect is and are we helping the problem or not. I am merely suggesting, I don't think agriculture generally, at least speaking for my state, is as bad as some folks may think. I yield back. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Baker, thank you. Mr. Salazar? Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Baker, I couldn't agree with you more. In Colorado, we have several streams that are impaired. We have the Fountain Creek that flows out of Colorado Springs, through the City of Pueblo and on down the Arkansas River. Probably the largest contaminant of the Arkansas River. And most of the contamination does not come from agriculture, most of it comes from the City of Colorado Springs. As we build more cities, with more concrete and more pavement, when we have heavy rains it flows into the streams and that becomes a great contaminant. I am just concerned that agriculture is becoming the scapegoat here, and we have to be careful that we don't over-regulate agriculture. Mr. Stem, you mentioned that in Waco, agriculture contributes, I don't remember the number, but you said somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 40 percent of the contaminants to the river. Have you done an assessment as to what the City of Waco actually contributes when you have heavy rains or floods? Mr. Stem. There have been assessments done. The Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research at Tarleton State University, which is in Stevenville, in the heart of dairy country, did a study of the watershed. I believe the number, the urban runoff number was around 7 percent. It has been a number of years since I read the study. It was less than 10 percent. I think the waste application field contribution from dairies was in the 30s or 40s. Mr. Salazar. Well, that seems a little optimistic to me, when I look at what has happened in some of the Colorado rivers. I guess I would ask Mr. Hooks, what is your assessment of the mercury issue in our rivers and streams and lakes, based on the pollution by, for example, electric generation power plants? We have a study or a graph here, I have, that was issued by the EPA, which is an inventory of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty-two percent of the greenhouse gas emissions come from electric generation, 28 percent from transportation, our vehicles, 19 percent from industry. Agriculture only represents 7 percent of that contamination. I understand that these electric generation plants contaminate the water with heavy mercury deposits. Can you address that, please? Mr. Hooks. Yes. The mercury contamination is also an extremely difficult issue, particularly in the water program. The majority of the mercury that is deposited into our surface waters, oftentimes the majority of it can come from out of state, which makes it extremely difficult for State regulators to deal with on a case by case basis. I think the thrust of what we are trying to do is to work with States to develop comprehensive management mercury reduction programs, to the extent that we can. Certainly programs with the Office of Water's purview, we basically have indicated that States have the ability to delay implementation of their TMDLs for mercury impairments. So to the extent that we can, with the tools that we utilize within the water program, we try to understand the science, we try to understand the States' ability or lack of ability to meet those types of mercury standards. Mr. Salazar. Thank you. Mr. Coombe, are you aware of the new Greenbelt Initiative that the USDA is working on, and something that has been requested for the Ag Committee to include in the 2007 Farm Bill program, which basically creates greenbelts? I think part of it is to help with noise pollution, part of it is to help with water pollution. Are you aware of that initiative? Mr. Coombe. No, I am not. Mr. Salazar. Okay, thank you. This is something that I believe will help, especially with the farms and ranches that are along rivers and streams. We are going to be looking at that with the Ag Committee. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Dr. Boustany? Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me start off by saying I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Louisiana. I still have this question about, do we really know enough about monitoring and data collection on all this to really have an understanding from a watershed basis on what is the role of agricultural runoff versus suburban and urban runoff in this problem? First, my younger brother actually is a research scientist with the NRCS at the wetlands center down in Lafayette, Louisiana. I have been with him the center, obviously, seen his laboratory work. I have also gone out in the field with him on occasion. I have been to some suburban developments where there are ponds, they are trying to create beautiful grounds. And the ponds are repetitively overgrown with duckweed. And when you get down there and collect this duckweed, it has the strongest nitrogen smell you can imagine. So we know there is a lot of nitrogenous waste getting into the water. I have also been out to a number of farms in my district, which is largely a rural district in southwest Louisiana. I haven't seen that same problem. So it seems to me there are farmers that are doing a pretty decent job of approaching the problem. Just anecdotal, but again, I think we really need to make sure we are getting good, clean, accurate data and a full understanding of this. A couple of questions. One, Mr. Hooks, with the 319 program, you mentioned some success stories in your testimony. I looked through them. Are there any other problems, disparities among the States, in your experience with this as to their effectiveness in implementing the program? Mr. Hooks. I think you would almost have to look at that problem on a case by case basis. There are plenty of examples where farmers have done an outstanding job in terms of their conservation practices on their local farms. Then there are ceratin areas where we need to do additional work. Again, one of the thrusts that we try to promote is looking at the problem from a watershed standpoint, so that we can look at a community of farmers, or a community of even urban potential inputs of nitrogen, phosphorus, what have you, on a watershed basis, so that we are trying to make significant progress and improvements on a watershed downstream. Mr. Boustany. So are you suggesting that there are many area where there is room for a lot of improvement in the implementation of this program? Mr. Hooks. Again, it is probably on a case by case basis. Mr. Boustany. That is a fair enough answer. Mr. Coombe, on the Wetlands Reserve Program, you mentioned retiring crop land. Are there other alternatives being looked at, such as strategic planting of wetlands plants to try to get the same result? Are you aware of any research or data along those lines, rather than retiring acreage of crop land? Mr. Coombe. Yes, there are a few. A quick comment to your statement before. The discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus is two times higher per acre from urban as opposed to agriculture. That was helpful. And with regard to Mr. Stem's comment, the North Bosque river is a CEAP special emphasis watershed that is the water supply for his community. We are monitoring water quality very closely there, and should have results by 2008. In terms of riparian areas and the Wetlands Reserve Program in our Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) too, we are doing a lot of study through the Agricultural Research Service, which has developed agriculture-based models for crop land. We are also developing models with regard to the value of specific types of plantings along riparian areas. Mr. Boustany. Thank you. I see my time is about up, so I will yield back at this time. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Arcuri? Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Just a couple of questions. I have a district in upstate New York that has very heavy dairy farms. I couldn't agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle more. I hear them constantly complaining about the fact that they are being blamed for runoff and they are trying to do the right, but obviously it is very difficult, especially for the small farmers. My first question is to you, Mr. Stem. When you were speaking, you made a distinction in terms of using the Superfund to go after, I think you said, some of the larger dairy farms. Do you find the same problem coming from the smaller dairy farms? Do you have those in your area? Mr. Stem. In the North Bosque watershed, which is the watershed that feeds to Lake Waco, I believe there are 64 CAFOs that would be 500 head or more. Last I heard, 10 or 12 what we call FAFOs, which would be less than 500. Generally, we don't have the waste management issues with the smaller ones that we do with the bigger ones. But the problem in the North Bosque is that it is kind of over-permitted, and many of them just don't have enough land to apply their waste at agronomic rates. So there are some problems with some of the smaller ones. But primarily the over- application is with the larger ones because they have so much waste to deal with. Mr. Arcuri. Mr. Hooks, does EPA treat the small farmers differently than the large dairy farmers? Mr. Hooks. Well, it certainly, the 319 program is a voluntary program. So obviously, the mechanisms that you might employe to educate or to train might be different. But the essential thrust of the program is the same, to provide technical assistance, financial assistance, promote technology transfer and demonstrate projects, both on small scales and large scales. So we try not, I don't think we discriminate between the large and the smaller farmers. But the thrust of our message and our program is the same. Mr. Arcuri. I would just like to point out, and I have had a series of town hall meetings throughout my district, which again is very dairy-oriented. Most of them are small farmers, but they say the same thing. They want to do the right thing, they want to try to take the right steps. The problem is, the price of milk is so low that they really can't afford to do the things that are necessary to do. So I think that is something that we really need to be cognizant of. These farmers, I think sometimes people tend to demonize them as the cause of this problem. And they are trying to do the right thing, but the economics of it is very difficult for them. Just one more question. We are finding many more organic farms sprouting up. Do you see any difference in terms of the problem with the organic farms as opposed to the traditional farms? Mr. Hooks. Actually, I am not that familiar with the farming practices of organic farming, to give you a decent response right now. But I would be more than happy to obtain some additional research and provide an answer to you on that. I did want to make one correction in terms of do we treat small farmers and large farmers any differently. For large CAFOs, those industries are regulated by NPDES permitting. So there is a distinction there, based on the size. Mr. Arcuri. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mrs. Drake? Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here. The district that I represent borders the Chesapeake Bay. It has been my experience, talking with our farmers on the Eastern Shore, and also farmers I have talked to across Virginia, that they are very supportive of agricultural conservation measures. They understand the importance for the environment, and they know that it also helps them in their own practices. So my question is, there are so many programs that are out there, but there is confusion and I think limited coordination between agencies. So Mr. Hooks, what is the EPA doing, or Mr. Coombe, what are we doing to make sure that we are better educating our farmers, and the ones who are willing to participate in these programs? How are we making sure we are getting the information to them? Mr. Coombe. That is what we are all about. We are helping people help the land. We provide technical assistance. We are in most every county in the Country. As a farmer myself, NRCS is just the place we go for technical assistance, et cetera. Certainly, one of the most exciting things that we do, I think, is that we have State Technical Committees that represent a whole series of groups, and especially the farming community, that helps us set our priorities with regard to how we are spending the dollars in our national programs across the Country. And along with that, in terms of working with the communities, once again, Secretary Johannes in his 2007 Farm Bill presentation has agreed with you. So has the Chief of NRCS, Arlen Lancaster. And they do want to simplify and merge the programs together, so that our cost share program and our conservation programs from the standpoint of easements would be more simplified and yet still directed, in order to put conservation on the ground. We think that is one of our strongest points. One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, I go back to your question with regard to the voluntary approach. It is important to change behavior patterns on lands by private individuals. We think this is the best way to do it, and that is what we are all about with our programs. Mr. Hooks. I think one of the distinctions from USDA's programs and EPA's is our ability to hire watershed coordinators, which typically USDA does not fund, use its moneys to fund that type of a hire. Right now, we spend approximately about $100 million per year doing the things that I mentioned earlier in terms of education and training. States or other entities below the State level have the ability to bring watershed coordinators on board full-time for that purpose, to basically go out and talk directly to the farmers. Mrs. Drake. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. I know we have a vote. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. We have a 15 minute vote on the Floor right now. There are about 11 minutes left. I think we will have time at least for one more set of questions. Mr. Baird? Mr. Baird. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Hooks, as you may be aware, Puget Sound is engaging in a great effort to try and clean up that magnificent waterway. One of our challenges, frankly, is nonpoint source pollution, the subject of today's hearing. I wonder if you have any knowledge of that or any thoughts you would like to share about the role your agency might play in working with the Puget Sound and trying to improve its water quality, vis-a-vis nonpoint source? Mr. Hooks. As you are aware, while I have been focusing my comments primarily on the 319 program, we certainly have the NEP program in Washington, which is one of the hallmark programs for EPA. It is kind of the poster child for partnership and collaboration. They also are a large part of the solution in dealing with nonpoint source and point source pollution, working in collaboration with the many partners in the region and in the area. Mr. Baird. We appreciate your collaboration. Another issue that I played a role in has to do with the issue of harmful algal blooms. Many of us have a pretty strong feeling that that may be exacerbated, if not caused, by agricultural runoff, at least in some areas. It is a multi- million dollar threat to shellfish and other fishing industries. I wonder if you could comment on that issue? We tried actually a couple of years ago to include some language, actually ran into some opposition from agricultural interests who didn't really even want us to study the possible contribution, let alone study measures to control this. I wonder if you have any insights into that, what the contributing factor is and what needs to be done? Mr. Hooks. In large part, again, it is going to be focusing on education. We are very much concerned about the HABs, or harmful algal blooms, around the Country. They can contribute to red tides, brown tides. Certainly dealing with the whole physteria epidemic on the east coast over the past couple of decades has also raised awareness of this issue. It is something that we just need to keep after. Again, developing an effective watershed plan that is based on sound science, trying to figure, again, what are the priority areas that we need to develop and work on, what are the best management practices to deal with this nutrient over- enrichment, and do it in a concerted way, do it so that it makes sense. I try to identify what are the high priority watersheds that are contributing most highly to the nutrient, usually nitrogen in the marine environments, what are the highest priority watersheds that we need to focus our energy and attention on. Mr. Baird. Is EPA aware of the economic and health consequences of harmful algal blooms? I know there are powerful interests that might discourage you from attending to the upstream contributors to this. But are you aware of, for example, the impacts on the shellfish industry and other fishing industries and the economic impacts of that and the tourism industry, should harmful algal bloom hit a recreational area? Mr. Hooks. We are very aware of that. Hence the pressure to try to deal with this very serious issue. Oftentimes, obviously, the human health impacts associated with particularly some of the toxic blooms that occur on occasion as well. We are very aware of it. We continue again to work with the local community, work with our local coordinators, and again try to assess the natural resources and develop a plan that is effective that is effective and that is going to work. Mr. Baird. Do any of the other panelists want to comment on either of those issues? Mr. Coombe. I would just make two comments. Once again, back to the gentleman from Maryland, the data in the Chesapeake is showing at least two times more nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from urban development and suburban development. We are actually losing the battle, somewhat, because of the urbanization. Second of all, we in USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service have put forth salmon habitat improvement programs and dollars through the EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program I alluded to before. So it is a high priority. Once again, we know agriculture is part of the problem. We also know we are part of the solution. We believe our voluntary incentive-based programs at the local level are helping with the problem. Mr. Baird. I can tell you, some of my agricultural folks, especially the smaller producers, cranberries and others, really appreciate EQIP dollars. They use them very, very well, and very productively to keep the water supply clean. So thank you for that. I yield back. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We have about six minutes left on the vote on the Floor. So Mr. Gilchrest, take it over. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two very quick things, I will take 30 seconds. One, you can have a CAFO operation as long as you use BMPs, including nutrient management, and you have enough land, that is the big issue. The other thing is, Mr. Hooks, if you could contact my office, I would really appreciate understanding a little bit more about the trading system you described there earlier. And if it is a cap and trade or if it is a trade, I don't think we do it in Maryland, but I sure would like to take a look at it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk to you further, Mr. Hooks. Mr. Hooks. I would be more than happy to do that. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Gilchrest, thank you. I think we will now excuse the first panel with our thanks and appreciation for your time and for your expertise. We will recess for about 15 minutes. When we return, we will start with the second panel. Thank you very much. [Recess.] Mr. Bishop. The Committee will reconvene. We will now move to our second panel of witnesses. The second panel consists of Mr. Roger Wolf, Director of Environmental Programs at the Iowa Soybean Association. Next will be Mr. Scott Faber. Mr. Faber is the Director of the Farm Policy Campaign at Environmental Defense. We will then have Dr. Robert Howarth from Cornell University's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Then our final witness will be Dr. James Baker, a Professor Emeritus from Iowa State University, representing the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Again, I will ask that you limit your verbal testimony to five minutes. Your written testimony will be entered in its entirety into our record. Let us begin with Mr. Wolf. TESTIMONY OF ROGER WOLF, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION; SCOTT FABER, FARM POLICY CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE; ROBERT W. HOWARTH, PH.D, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY; JAMES BAKER, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. Wolf. Good afternoon, and thank you. On behalf of our 6,100 farmer and dues-paying members, I want to thank you for the invitation to talk about our perspective on agricultural nonpoint source pollution and water quality. The Iowa Soybean Association has the distinction of being the largest State-based row-crop commodity association in the Country. Over the last decade, Iowa Soybean Association has established itself as a leader in helping improve agronomic, economic and environmental performance in agriculture. We believe this is unique. We believe our programs are a model of what cooperative public and private partnerships with farmer leadership can achieve. In fact, we believe we are providers of solutions to these issues. Our participants include dozens of partners from the public and private sector, as well as 500 individual farmers working on 1,500 fields across the State. We are currently working in eight sub-watershed efforts that are within four major river basins. Of course, you mentioned my testimony has been entered into the record. It is quite long and I hope you do look at it. It recognizes that despite the fact that agriculture has made significant investment in conservation applications, challenges do remain. It addresses the question we all must answer, which is how best to achieve water quality the public demands, while also meeting demand for food, fiber and fuel. This is an exciting time in agriculture. If you are a farmer, it is the best time to be in agriculture. Our recommendations involve system changes as well as policy and program changes, changes that are designed to provide measurable improvements in environmental performance from agriculture. Our specific recommendations for advancing agriculture's environmental performance include: establish an Upper Mississippi River Basin initiative to provide a framework of inter-governmental, multi-jurisdictional and public and private collaboration, and implementing and funding a strategic, performance-based resource center plan for environmental performance. Maybe this could be done as a geographic initiative within EPA, or maybe it could be done as part of a priority area in the upcoming Farm Bill. We need more support of public-private partnerships, empowering local communities of farmers to work on providing these solutions. We need support, we need a means for diffusing and institutionalizing the innovation. That is one of the things Iowa Soybean has done over the last decade, is this innovation programming, so that we can mature agriculture's capabilities to perform. Frankly, we need to sophisticate our system. We need to go beyond best management practices. That is one of the foundations of our program at Iowa Soybean. We need increases in funding for technical and financial assistance on farms. That is critical. We need support of applied evaluation involving monitoring and measurement of management providing site-specific and location-specific feedback that can be used to validate performance and incorporate results over time. Farmers benefit first from that information and we believe we can best capture environmental improvements with that kind of information. We need to incorporate these adaptive management and performance-based approaches into watershed programming. Then we also must define realistic time frames to achieve some progress on these water quality issues. How did we arrive at these recommendations? They are based on the experience that we have at Iowa Soybean and the fact that we have stepped up to the challenge and embraced opportunities. We have heard about the issues from the other speakers and from your opening comments about nitrogen in the Mississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly, the issues in the Chesapeake Bay, we share those issues. The Iowa Soybean Association, which manages the farmer checkoff, has invested over $2 million of farmer funding to address these issues and leverage that with State and Federal grants, all to work on this issue. Nonpoint source pollution is challenging because it occurs as part of a dynamic, open system. This is also what makes farming challenged. The difference is we have invested significantly in mastering management capabilities driven for profitability. ISA programs are designed to help tune in our management capabilities to address environmental objectives. Multiple tactics are used to do this. We use precision agriculture technology, we used applied science in fields to collect performance data. Performance data is used to adjust practices. This is all done as a proactive effort, for economic reasons for agriculture and to address water quality issues. Mr. Bishop. If you could limit your remarks to perhaps another one minute. Mr. Wolf. This approach works, because it gets quantifiable results and it is replicable. We are already seeing it evolve into a working model for landscapes across Iowa and beyond. That is why we think that the Upper Mississippi River Watershed and the sub-watersheds within should be targeted with a focus on making progress on nutrients. In closing, members of the Iowa Soybean Association hope you will consider our work to be a touchstone and our people to be a resource as your Subcommittee considers work ahead, and Congress works on the next Farm Bill. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Wolf, thank you. Now we will hear from Mr. Faber. Mr. Faber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just start by saying how much I appreciate your holding this hearing, and to especially thank Congressman Salazar for his leadership in introducing the Eat Healthy America bill and its proposal to increase conservation spending in the next Farm Bill. I would especially like to applaud the work of the Iowa Soybean Association. They have done incredible things to help farmers improve the efficiency with which they are applying fertilizers. We are getting real reductions, 10 to 20 percent reductions in the amount of fertilizer that is being applied to farm fields in Iowa. It is proof positive that farmers can significantly increase the efficiency with which they using their nitrogen and it helps all of our water quality problems. You have already heard that it has been more than 30 years since we pledged to clean up our rivers, lakes and bays, and that it has been more than 20 years since the first deadline to clean up our rivers, lakes and bays was passed. You have heard today also that thousands of our water bodies remain too polluted to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. Farmers and ranchers manage more than half of the American landscape. So it is no surprise to any of us that agriculture has a significant impact on the environment. We heard that Mr. Hooks earlier today. To comply with the Clean Water Act, our States have developed thousands of pollution reduction plans, TMDLs, and many of these plans heavily depend upon agriculture to reduce loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. One of the questions we heard earlier was about the Chesapeake Bay. About 46 percent of the phosphorus that reaches the Bay comes from agriculture, and about 40 percent of the nitrogen comes from agriculture. So clearly, we are asking our farmers to do a lot to help us meet our Nation's water quality goals. I think the good news is that our farmers are really eager to help solve these water quality challenges. There are many examples. Let me just provide a couple. About 41 percent of our farmers now employ conservation tillage practices, up from 26 percent in 1990. Farmers are widely employing the installation of buffer strips and grasses to help filter out runoff from our farm land. And overall, literally hundreds of thousands of farmers are implementing scores of different kinds of conservation practices that help us apply our fertilizers with much greater precision and help filter the nutrients that are intended for our crops. With additional tools and incentives, our farmers could do much more to help address our water quality challenges. Right now, more than 100 million acres of crop land are still eroding at unsustainable rates, despite the great gains we have made in the last 20 years. Most farmers still do not conduct basic soil tests. Less than 40 percent of our crop land is subject to a test for nitrogen before we apply fertilizers. Less than 15 percent of our farmers employ technologies that automatically change fertilizer applications to reflect nutrient needs. This is not a criticism, it is a recognition that our farmers could do much more to apply nitrogen with greater precision and to intercept runoff before it comes off the field and into our surface waters with the right tools and the right incentives. Congress has many opportunities, including reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, the Energy Bill, but especially renewal of the Farm Bill, to help reward farmers when they help address our water quality challenges. We heard Mr. Coombe talk about the fact that many farmers are unable to get conservation funding when they see it from USDA. What is really tragic about that is that we have gone from a point where folks like the Iowa Soybean Association and Environmental Defense used to argue about agriculture's contribution to a point where now we are working together to seek those funds. Farmers are bringing their money to the table to share the cost of the installation of the myriad practices that can help address water quality. Every year, we turn away about 50,000 farmers who are putting their money on the table to help solve these significant water quality problems. Doubling annual conservation spending, as has been proposed in the Eat Healthy America bill and Mr. Kind's Healthy Farms bill would dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment getting into our surface waters. We have hired some agricultural economists and other experts. They have estimated, for example, that nitrogen losses would fall by 11 percent nationally if we double conservation spending as you proposed in the Eat Healthy America Act. There would be a significant reduction, far more than we have achieved in the last 30 years, in the time since the Clean Water Act has been passed. What Congress needs to do much more than simply expand these programs, we agree with ISA that Congress should do more to improve the delivery of these programs by bringing groups of farmers together in small watersheds to help meet local environmental challenges, what the Administration has called cooperative conservation. What we have frequently found is that when farmers work together, neighbor to neighbor, peer to peer in these small watersheds, we can often solve these water quality and wildlife challenges much faster and at less cost and provide far more insights into the benefits of significant practices. Congress should also take the opportunity with Farm Bill renewal to reform our land retirement and restoration programs, like the Conservation Reserve Programs, to focus more enrollment on lands that are best able to intercept and filter our farmland runoff. So let me just finish by saying, and reiterating that farmers are eager to help solve these big environmental challenges. Many of the challenges that farmers can implement, such as better nutrient management and better pest management, also help reduce their input costs. Many of them simply require changes in behavior, such as changes in the timing of fertilizer applications. But many of these practices also cost more money, create new risks. Those are costs and risks that should be shared by the taxpayer. I hope we will take advantage of this Farm Bill to reward, rather than reject our farmers when they offer to help share the cost of clean water. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Dr. Howarth? Mr. Howarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me today. I am delighted by your interest in this topic, and Mr. Chairman, thank you also for your kind words of introduction earlier this afternoon. I am going to focus on nitrogen pollution in coastal waters of the United States. I am going to draw heavily on a National Academy of Sciences report that came out in 2000 in a committee that I chaired, but also from more recent reports from the Pew Oceans Commission and from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that came out in 2004. For context, what human activity has done to the nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fluxes globally is one of the most severe aspects of global change. We are changing the rate of nitrogen cycling much faster than we are changing climate change. It is much more in our face. To put it in perspective, in the 55 years since I was born, the rate at which human activity creates reactive nitrogen, the nitrogen that can cause water pollution, has increased seven- fold globally, a massive change. There are a lot of local scale, regional scale variations. It plays out differently in different parts of the world. Agriculture is a big part of that, and the creation of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is a big part of that. Again, just to get the rate of change, half of the nitrogen fertilizer that has ever been used in this planet has been used in the last 15 years. So we are talking about rapid and massive changes globally. There was some discussion earlier about various systems and how much nitrogen came from various places. I will tell you that the science on the Gulf of Mexico-Mississippi River is solid enough that I can say with some assuredness that nitrogen is coming largely from agricultural sources in the Mississippi River Basin, certainly more than 60 percent, probably more than 70, 75 percent, possibly more than that. There is uncertainty, but it is agricultural. Having said that, we look elsewhere and it is not so clear. Chesapeake Bay, agriculture is a big component, as you have heard. I think there is more debate about the exact numbers than you might have heard so far. But atmospheric deposition is also important. And this is nitrogen that comes from car exhaust and from power plants. If you follow the science of that closely, the numbers are changing rapidly. There is a lot of scientific discovery there. But the consensus at the moment of the scientific community would be that both of those sources are important for the Chesapeake Bay. If we look nationally, we need to deal with both of those. If we want to focus on the Gulf of Mexico, then it certainly is an agricultural issue. As a result of this increase in nitrogen cycling, over the past few decades in particular, nutrients are now the largest pollution problem in the coastal waters of our Country. They are one of the largest threats to the ecological integrity of these systems. We do not have a nationally consistent monitoring system for what the damages in coastal waters are. We just do not have that. And that severely limits what we can say in a quantitative sense, when we look and say how bad the situation is. But the best available evidence is that a majority of our coastal and marine ecosystems are degraded. Probably a third of them are severely degraded from nutrient pollution; another third moderately degraded. So it is a big problem. I have gone into more detail in my written testimony on what some of the issues are. I will say that the best evidence is that there is an increased frequency duration and extent of harmful algal blooms as a result of this nutrient pollution. We certainly have created dead zones as a result of this nutrient pollution. We have lost biodiversity. We are damaging fish and commercial shellfish. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, there is a lot of regional variation in what the effects of nutrient pollution are. As a scientific community, we partially understand that and we partially don't. Some areas are much more sensitive to the problem than are others. We sort of understand that, we don't entirely understand that. As a scientist, that leads me to urge you to be very cautious. Because once we hit a tipping point where we severely damage these systems, there is every reason in the world to believe it is going to be more difficult to have them recover. It is not a simple matter of going back to where you are. It is a harder road to go. So we don't know, system by system, where that tipping point is exactly until we reach it. But that is a reason to be cautious and make sure we don't get too close to those tipping zones. I can see my light is flashing here. I have a minute to go. Let me jump to what I think is a critical thing for the Congress to consider, and that is the role of monitoring of what is going on. If you turn to page 5 of my written testimony, I have a figure there which is taken from the 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, a bipartisan commission. They show the change in surface water monitoring in the United States from the 1970s to 1990s to now. Monitoring is a fraction now of what it used to be. That severely limits our ability to track whether we are making progress or not. Similarly, the monitoring of atmospheric deposition is far, far less than it was in the past. So the scientific community is unanimous in believing that we really need to restore solid national monitoring programs of nutrient fluxes, of sources of nutrients. And we need to for the first time establish a nationally consistent monitoring program to truly, consistently determine what the effects are. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Howarth. Dr. Baker? Mr. Baker. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify on this important subject. I am Jim Baker, formerly of Iowa state, now with the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. I will concentrate on, the emphasis of this will be on nitrogen in the Corn Belt. I want to start out by making five points, based on research on field plots and watersheds, such as shown in this slide, on the Corn Belt. Before I make the first two points, you need to understand three things. First, that the rate of nitrogen applied to corn has been nearly constant the last 20 years. At the same time, corn yields on average have increased at least 2 percent each year, therefore removing more and more nitrogen. So we are now at a point that inputs into row crops are generally less than outputs. This is true whether you are looking at fields or a whole State like Iowa. Recently, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, with inputs from the USDA ARS and Iowa State University, did a nutrient balance for the State, shown in these two graphs. On the left, for nitrogen are the inputs which include fertilizer as well as manure and inputs like atmospheric deposition on the right are outputs, which include of course yields, but also loses to the environment. You will note for both nitrogen and phosphorus the balance is negative. So the first point is, a negative nitrogen balance means soil organic matter is being lost through a process called mineralization. This is bad because it results in the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, reduces soil quality, sustainability and the soil's ability to produce and also increases water quality problems. In the second point, given this negative balance, current nutrient water quality impairments in the Corn Belt are not mainly due to the mismanagement or the use of ``excess'' fertilizers and manures. On the third point, background you need for optimum corn production, there must be an optimum level of nitrogen in the soil. For the producer, it is very economically advantageous to add nitrogen to this level either in the way of fertilizer or manure. The nitrogen in the soil must be in a form which is nitrate. That is readily available to crops, but it also then means that that form and that nutrient is readily available to be lost with water. So some nitrogen loss is going to occur whenever excess water in the way of precipitation and in some cases irrigation drains from the land, particularly when that water drains through the soil as a sub-surface or tile drainage. So the third point is that impairments are mainly due to past conversion from prairies and wetlands by our forefathers to intensive grain crops with nutrient inputs and sub-surface drainage where it is needed to produce the productive lands that we have. And in terms of the fourth point, the background that you need to understand, the level of nitrogen in the soil and the amount of excess water are both much less for sod-based rotations, including alfalfa and CRP ground. Constructed wetlands are a proven technology for removing nitrate from water passing through them. To be effective, though, these wetlands must be carefully sited within areas of significant nitrate loss to remove that nitrogen. So reductions in impairment, actually they will take substantially reductions in nitrate loss, will come mainly through changes in cropping and/or implementation of off-site practices. The fifth point, although we have learned a lot from past research, there is still a need for additional research to refine proposed but yet unproven management practices and technology. Likewise, beyond that, there is need for research on totally new or innovative management practices and new cropping systems. And of course, with the new pressures on agriculture to provide energy, this will provide additional water quality challenges that will need to be addressed. So the fifth point is that there is a need to create and fund a regional nutrient management, environmental research center. Currently this is being proposed through Iowa State. Our agricultural dean, Dr. Wendy Winterstein, that testified at a Farm Bill meeting last week in Council Bluffs, made the point that she is willing to lead that effort with engaging the other land grant universities across the Corn Belt. I have a few seconds left. Let me make a final point relative to the Iowa Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Again, with background Federal USDA and Iowa cost sharing, it was put together to construct wetlands for nitrogen removal in the tile-drained areas of north central Iowa. This program languished for about two years because of initial permitting issues. Even now, current regulations for assessments limits construction of these wetlands to about 20 sites a year, when it is estimated that 8,000 to 10,000 are needed to reduce nitrate losses. The last point is, regulatory impediments are currently limiting the adoption or efficiency of some of the off-site practices that we think are effective. And my last slide then is what we would like to have help with. We need research, new information. We need to be able to get help to fund implementation of that new information and we need some regulatory relief. Hopefully we can develop a new landscape that might include more buffers as well as changes in the field itself. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Dr. Baker, thank you. We will now move to questions. Let me start with a question for both Mr. Faber and Mr. Wolf. We have heard a lot this afternoon, and in the testimony there was a great deal of talk about good practices, having farmers perform soil tests, installing buffers, restoring wetlands and so on. What is the best way to encourage more farmers to adopt these and other practices that will help point us towards a solution? Mr. Wolf. Thank you for the question. One of the things that our program does in Iowa is we go into a watershed and we ask a fundamental question: can you validate and verify the performance of your practices. First, farmers want to know, do they work agronomically and do they perform economically, because they are driven by bottom line issues. Our programming helps them collect data and the data really, it defuses the whole question. This becomes very compelling. In some of our watersheds, we have 60 to 70 percent of the farm fields enrolled, collecting data. Then the farmers have the data, they can look at it, and all of a sudden you have their attention, because it addresses their bottom line. They want performing solutions. The other interesting thing that we found is that what one answer works in one watershed, you go right over to the next one and it is a different answer completely. If they hadn't collected the data, they wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. So it is just applied evaluation. It is very compelling. It addresses their bottom line. And if we strategically do some things in the watershed, we think we can provide some water quality solutions as well. Mr. Faber. What is so unique about what the Iowa Soybean Association has done is that they have really gone beyond what most farmers do, which is use State recommended rates for fertilizer applications, and instead tried to calibrate their applications to fit the needs of that particular farm, in many cases finding they were applying more nitrogen than they need to. So that reduces their costs of their inputs, but also helps improve the receiving waters nearby. So I think Roger has hit the nail on the head, that in many cases, simply providing more information, more technical assistance to producers. One of the big challenges facing NRCS is that we have doubled the size of their conservation portfolio, but we have not at all increased the number of staff who are available to deliver those programs. So the era when USDA experts used to go out into the field and work with producers to help them think about nitrogen applications, installation of buffers, the myriad practices you can implement, is now over. All those guys are stuck in the office, administering contract applications for EQIP. So one big challenge is getting more technical assistance in the field. But I think there is also a number of practices, many of the practices you would implement simply require more information. Some of them require an incentive payment, just to get the farmer to try to adopt a new practice, or because he is going to incur a new risk, such as changing the timing of his fertilizer applications from the fall to the spring or splitting his spring applications. A lot of the things that get us the most bang for the buck don't cost the farmer any money out of pocket, but increases the risks, that is that there might be a wet spring and he won't be able to get out there and apply the fertilizer when he would ideally like to. That would ultimately reduce yields. Then of course there are practices that simply cost money, installing buffers, installing artificial wetlands. Those are things that reduce yields, that take land out of production and that do cost money. So it is a mixture of things that are needed to get farmers to take those steps. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Dr. Howarth, you sort of hand to race through your comments on monitoring. So I thought I would give you an opportunity to go through those thoughts in a somewhat more leisurely fashion. Mr. Howarth. I appreciate that opportunity. Thank you very much. There are several points here I would like to make. First is there is not, as I said briefly, there is not a nationally consistent monitoring program of what the effects of nutrient pollution are in coastal waters. So we have monitoring that is done in the National Histories Program, we have monitoring that is done through the NOAA Reserve Programs, we have State and local governments doing monitoring. When our National Academy committee sat down to try to see if we could look at a consistent pattern, or when NOAA has tried to do this before us, what you find is that the measurements are made in different ways, different methodological things, different sampling time periods. As a result, you really are hard pressed to say that what the trends are in particular areas, or in a highly quantitative sense, what the scale of the national problem is. So I mentioned that there is a consensus that we have two- thirds of our coastal waters degraded from nutrient pollution, a third moderately and a third severely degraded. That is based on NOAA's polling of local expert judgment. They go to estuary by estuary and they sit down with the local government officials and they sit down with the local academic officials and they sit down with the stakeholders and they say, what do you think it is here? When people do that, that is the answer you get, we have a big national problem. But in terms of objective data, where we contract things and really look at progress or degradation, we cannot do that. There has been a proposal on the books at least since our 2000 committee report, and it was endorsed by the Pew Oceans Committee and by the U.S. Ocean Commission. There is a huge amount of monitoring going on. With a little bit of coordination at the Federal level, it could be done in a nationally consistent way and nationally reported, which it is also is not, and we would have a national data set, which would be invaluable for determining if we are making progress. So that would be one recommendation. The next is that the U.S. Geological Survey has done historically a great job of looking at nutrient flows and sediment flows in rivers, starting in the early 1970s and going until the mid-1990s. That program, that series of programs, has been severely cut since that time. So when we develop models or statistical procedures, which would allow me to say what the extent of agriculture's problem is versus car exhaust or other things, we are using those data sets collected from the 1970s and 1990s, and particularly what happened in the 1990s. Since then, we have had climate change, we have different weather patterns. That is going to change the nutrient fluxes. We can model that all we want, but we cannot verify whether or not those changes are real. Because the monitoring data are no longer there. And we need those sorts of data. The third point is the measurement of what is coming from the atmosphere. For acid rain, but also for this problem of nitrogen pollution, the national atmospheric deposition program has been curtailed slowly over the last several years. It is scheduled to be further curtailed in the budget that the Bush Administration sent forward. Other atmospheric monitoring problems, like CASNA, which also deal with mercury pollution, are being cut back. Those really need to be expanded, not cut back. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on that. Mr. Bishop. I have one final question. You perhaps may have heard me describe my district earlier. It is the eastern half of Long Island, very rural, particularly as you move further east, two estuaries of national significance. An emerging industry is aquaculture. It has been embraced by the Long Island Farm Bureau and the acquaculturists are now members of the Long Island Farm Bureau. So I guess my question is, how can we best focus on how we could improve aquaculture? Dr. Howarth, this is perhaps best a question for you, or Mr. Faber, I am not sure, or Dr. Baker. Any of you that wish to comment on that. Mr. Howarth. Okay, sure. Aquaculture, as you know, our national fisheries, our world fisheries are depleted. They have been over-fished, they are damaged by pollution, they are being altered by climate change. As I say in my testimony, it is difficult to say exactly how much of a problem is due to each of those in any locality. It is very frustrating as a scientist. Those things interact synergistically and they are damaging our fisheries. One hopeful response is to try to at least make some of that fish protein back up through aquaculture. There is a huge potential from there. It requires good water quality as the basis of that. You really need to have high quality water to do that. You certainly have that in the Peconic Estuary. Long Island Sound is a little more problematic, but that is okay, we can maybe make it better. And of course, as with any agricultural activity, aquaculture is the same. It is not entirely free of risks, and we should carefully think about the risks for particular types of aquaculture in particular water bodies and whether they have a long-term sustainable use or not. I don't think that has been adequately done yet. Mr. Bishop. Any other panelists wish to comment? Thank you. Mrs. Schmidt? Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. I would like to direct my question to Dr. Howarth, if I could, please. And maybe Dr. Baker might want to comment, or Mr. Wolf or Mr. Faber. I looked with curiosity at your testimony, and I think that you are making some assumptions here with your data, simply because as I believe you just stated, your data pool is not as nice as you would like it to be. One of the things that I have a concern with is in your end on page 6, when you want to mention the current national expansion of producing ethanol from corn. My question to you is this. We all want to be sensitive to the environment. I think we can all agree that we need to get off of oil for whatever reason, we need to get off of oil. In getting off of oil, you have to get onto something else. There are folks out there that don't want us to have nuclear power because they have concerns. There are folks out there that don't want us to expand the coal, because they have concerns. There are folks out there that don't want us to use ethanol, because they have concerns. My question to you is this: how are we going to reduce our reliance on oil, whether it is foreign or domestic, if we don't look at the broad alternatives? Because I don't think, and I think you and I will agree on this, there is going to be one source that is going to replace oil. So maybe you can help me there. Mr. Howarth. Yes, thank you for the question. I did indeed add that at the end of my testimony and I didn't have time to mention it today. It is something I feel is very important to address. We certainly do not have a sustainable economy based on oil. We need to be developing other energy sources. We need conservation. That is not my expertise. Water quality is my expertise. For background, I have just been asked over the last several months by the International Council of Science and by the United Nations to lead an international effort of scientists to look objectively at what is good and bad in all of the ways of various biofuel alternatives. We are just getting started on that. I am not in a position to give you that analysis yet. I am in a position to say that every water quality person I have talked to across the Country is really alarmed by the ethanol production from corn, if it grows at the rate that many of us expect that it will, as the President and others would like. The reason for that is that corn, I think Dr. Baker can comment further on this, he alluded to it in his testimony as well, but corn inherently is going to lose some nutrients downstream. It is a major source of the water quality problems we have from agriculture in this Country. We can improve that. There are a lot of things we can do to make it better. But there are some fundamental limits. In some places, you want to be growing less corn, you want to move towards other sorts of cropping systems, if you really want to deal with Mississippi nitrogen flow, for example. If we greatly expand corn production without a great deal of care on that, we are taking on high risk. So what I am actually urging is not that, I know what the final answer is, but that we badly need objective science behind that before the Nation goes too much further in policy decisions which will set an economic infrastructure from which it will be hard to pull back, if in fact they are not the best, most sustainable choices. Mrs. Schmidt. A follow-up. One of the other biofuels that you can look at it soy diesel. But we also have a problem, or what I am hearing is that there is a concern with growing too many soybeans, because they also put the nutrients into the water system. So if we can't do corn and we can't do soy diesel, what do we do? Mr. Howarth. I agree with your starting premise, which is there is not a single bullet that is going to solve the problem. We need multiple choices. Again, I will answer your question in a second, but my fundamental premise is that we want to have a good, objective analysis of all the environmental pluses and minuses, so that whatever course we go down is the most sustainable for the long term, economically and environmentally. That analysis has not yet been done, to the best of my knowledge. There is an urgent need for it. There are alternatives to either soy diesel, which I have not studied that closely, or corn ethanol. We can grow other crops to make ethanol. We can grow other crops to make methanol, which is in fact a lot easier. We can produce methane, and the technology is more available for that. We can directly burn things such as switchgrass and the energetics of that. In my quick analysis, the environmental benefits would be far better. But I don't think the final answers are in on that. I am just urging that careful analysis be conducted. That needs to be funded. Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Baker, would you care to comment? Mr. Baker. Sure. I think Dr. Howarth makes two points that I would agree with, that first the corn system is a leaky system. We can't retain all the water and all the nutrients there when we grow corn. The second point I would be in agreement on is that we do need to proceed carefully. But probably not quite as alarmed as he indicated some others might be. When you look at what we can do, for example, in Iowa, the projections are that this year we will plant 11 percent more corn acres than we did last year. And of course, where will that be planted? Well, in our State that will come from soybean acres, primarily. So these areas are fairly similar in their environmental impact. Actually, in terms of the issue of a negative mass balance or more consumption of organic matter, soybeans, even though they are a legume and produce nitrogen, they don't nearly produce enough to equal what is removed in grain. So on average, we are probably mining the soil about 80 pounds an acre with soybeans. So switching some of those acres from soybeans to corn may actually help that soil organic matter issue. And of course, the impact in terms of nitrate leaching is very dependent on the rate of nitrogen fertilizer, although given what the high value of corn and the cost of nitrogen, although it has gone up, it hasn't gone up as fast, there is a chance that the new economic optimum rate will bump up, which could enhance the leaching of more nitrogen. The other point that one does need to be concerned about or think about is, in Iowa, or other States where there are other corps like alfalfa or even CRP, bringing those lands out of those sod-based rotations and putting them into corn could cause some water quality problems, but they wouldn't be nitrate leaching problems. Because those lands are not in tile-drained landscapes. They are in landscapes that aren't nearly as productive and have erosion problems, which is why they are either in CRP or in alfalfa. So I think again I would totally agree that we need to look at this carefully. I mentioned that as one of the research needs for this research center that we would like to see started. Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Mr. McNerney? Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the panel's willingness to come here and testify today. I understand that farmers are anxious to find solutions, as we all are. I have a couple of basic questions. I see a soybean representative, but no one from the corn community. What is the relative proportion of soybean to corn in terms of adding to the nitrogen build-up in our waterways. Dr. Howarth, do you have an answer to that? Mr. Howarth. I don't have a good answer. Dr. Baker can address it as well. But much of the analysis that has been done looking at corn and soybean in rotation has classically been done over the last decade. And again, the best estimates on what the relative contribution of nitrogen sources is is based on models and monitoring data from the 1990s situation. The way that farming is being done now is differently, quite frankly. So that throws uncertainty into it. Mr. McNerney. And I certainly appreciate the need for data. That was pointed out several times. It is something that we should be willing to help with. Adding scientific value to the discussion always makes the solution more apparent. There were some things that I was a little confused about. But what sort of farmer are we talking about? Are we talking about the mega-farmers or are we talking about family farms? What is the market of these farmers? Is it for food or for livestock or for ethanol? What are the sort of general parameters we are looking at here? Mr. Baker. In Iowa, of course, the State has about 36 million acres. Ninety-five percent of that is in agriculture. And depending on how you count them, we probably have 90,000 producers. So the average farm size might be 400 acres. But of course, we have a wide range of people within the State. But by and large, a major part of our corn and soybean production comes from producers that probably at most either work with a relative, son, brother, have one hired man. These are not, at least in terms of row crop production, these are not mega-operations. Mr. McNerney. Okay. I was a little confused about the nitrogen balance you discussed. It looked like more nitrogen was being put into the system than was leached out through drainage. Is that a proper understanding? Mr. Baker. No, what I was showing in the determination balance or mass balance sometimes is confusing. But in the case of my discussion, I was really talking about organic matter in the soil, about 5 percent of which is nitrogen. If you use the analogy that that was a bank account or checking account or non-interest bearing account, if you put money into that account, for example, in the way of fertilizer, and you take money out of that account in the way of yield, if those are equal, your account balance will stay the same. The problem we think we are getting into, again, particularly in a corn and soybean rotation, where soybeans remove probably 80 pounds an acre more than is added. And in the corn situation, depending on where you are in the fertility, you probably are negative as well. Over time, that bank account is going to go down. In other words, the amount of organic matter in our soil is going to go down. Right now, in many of our soils in Iowa, it is at about 3 percent. It has extreme value. If you have traveled in the Midwest, you see these black soils. The reason they are black is the organic matter. One of the terrific advantages of that organic matter, in addition to buffering nutrients, is its ability to provide structure and to hold water. We can store about two inches of water per foot of soil that is plant-available. So out of maybe 18 inches that would be transpired through the plant, we can provide a storage, if we are wet in the spring, of 8 of those inches. So we can easily go through a month of no rain and still not impact yields. That is because of that organic matter. So we are not at a point where it is a ``red emergency.'' It is just something that we think we need to look at when we are making decisions on using fertilizer to reduce water quality impacts that we aren't at the same time reducing soil quality. Mr. McNerney. I would like to ask the Chair for one additional minute. Mr. Bishop. Proceed. Mr. McNerney. I am from the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley immediately adjacent to that. Is there relevance to this discussion of the Bay Area, the delta in particular? What is the nitrogen build-up in that area, and how dangerous is it in your opinion, Dr. Howarth? Mr. Howarth. Well, San Francisco Bay certainly has many water quality problems, as I am sure you know. The South Bay in particular does. The relative contribution from agriculture there, I am not familiar. It has been modeled, I have seen studies on it. But I have not looked at those recently. But that information is available. The U.S. Geological Survey has modeled that using their National SPARROW Model. I have a lot of confidence in that model. Mr. McNerney. Anywhere along the West Coast, do you have any familiarity with that issue, of nitrogen and dead zone activity? Mr. Howarth. Well, there is a newly-described dead zone off of the coast of Oregon. Oregon State University has been working on it for the last couple of years. That is probably not a result of nutrient pollution from land. It is probably a natural phenomenon and it might be aggravated by climate change. That is their hypothesis at the moment. So there are natural things that can go on here as well. The larger problem, many of the West Coast estuaries do have problems with nutrient pollution. There are problems in San Francisco Bay, as I say. Puget Sound has problems, has been developing a dead zone. I believe there is some discussion and disagreement about the relative contributions of agriculture versus other sources in Puget Sound. I was in a discussion on that just two days ago. But it is fair to say that the distribution of estuaries that is affected by nutrients is about the same as elsewhere in the Country. The prevalence of dead zones is a little bit less, just because those systems tend to be a little bit less sensitive to that particular response. They are more likely to get harmful algal blooms or other problems. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Dr. Boustany? Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Dr. Howarth's testimony, he remarks that pollution can be lessened through management practices, such as planting winter cover crops. Are there agronomic issues with this practice? For example, getting cover crops established in the autumn as the growing season is ending, or accomplishing springtime planting when cover crops are already established there? Could each of you maybe comment on that? Mr. Howarth. Although I wrote that in my testimony and I believe the scientific evidence for the use of cover crops is the way to reduce nitrogen pollution is very, very strong, I am not an expert on the economic aspect of that. So I will defer to my colleagues who know more. Mr. Faber. There has been an enormous success story in the Chesapeake Bay region with the use of cover crops. For a modest payment, I think it is about $10 or $15 an acre, has gotten farmers to now routinely plant cover crops and reduced the loss of nitrogen from soil. It actually just came out, this great desk reference for those of you who really want to know every detail on the environmental benefits of conservation on crop land. One of the issues would cover crops is certainly when you are removing them and the impact on phosphorus and other soil quality issues. But properly managed, cover crops are among the most cost-effective ways to help address some of these water quality challenges. Mr. Wolf. I would like to add that farmers have lots of questions about how cover crops could be incorporated into their system. It really depends on the individual farmer. There are some farmers that could benefit from the forage that a cover crop could provide. There are a lot of farmers in Iowa, well, I shouldn't say a lot, but some farmers that are experimenting with it. But there are some questions that need to be answered. So we are just beginning some work with the Sand County Foundation in Iowa that are really going in and applying our evaluation techniques, looking at the questions of cover crops and what impacts they have on the agronomic performance, the economic performance for the farmer. And then ultimately the water quality issues. Because if we are asking farmers to use it as a mitigating practice, we have to address some of the risks that Scott Faber identified earlier. If nitrogen needs to be mitigated and cover crops become a viable strategy, then we may need to incentivize to cover some of those risks. Mr. Baker. We have interacted with the agricology group at the University of Maryland, as Scott mentioned. Maryland does pay $15 or $20 an acre, because they work there. Of course, in Iowa, with 25 million acres of row crop, at $20 an acre, you can see that that would be a very big program for us to implement. The other part of it is the climate differences. You have pointed out very well that the issues that we deal with, we have producers that have considered this and some that have even tried it, and their description is it is a management nightmare. And again, it is not to say that it couldn't work. We really need to figure out how to get around these problems. But you have the problems of establishment in the fall, because of our climates, cold, and after crops are harvested there is not enough time. And then in the spring, with wet and dry soils that a producer has to plant into, getting that cover crop killed and getting the soils warmed up and dried out is a problem. We have yield reductions. In measurements that have been made relative to water quality in limited studies, they have shown to be effective at holding nitrogen against leaching. Mr. Boustany. What about phosphorus management with regard to winter crops? Mr. Baker. With regard to cover crops? Mr. Boustany. Yes, winter cover crops. Mr. Baker. The issue there may be more, when you look at the potential of nutrient loss or phosphorus loss from a soil, at least in our conditions in Iowa and much of the Corn Belt, leaching is not a big issue. We do have, for example, probably 50 parts per billion of phosphorus in our drainage water. But that is probably one-fifth to one-tenth what we have in surface water dissolved. Then a bigger issue is what is in the sediment. So probably the biggest benefit that you might see from a cover crop is not so much the cover crop taking up and holding phosphorus as much as preventing erosion, wind and water erosion. Mr. Boustany. Okay. Do any of you want to comment on that? Mr. Howarth. I would concur. The issue for nitrogen loss is, nitrogen is highly soluble. So we are talking about keeping things from moving in groundwater and crops holding it there is the issue. Phosphorus is not highly soluble so it is an erosion issue. Cover crops help for both. Some management practices do not work well for both. Mr. Boustany. I understand there may be some suggestion that you could increase phosphorus pollution by the use of cover crops. Mr. Faber. I don't think that is the case. In fact, probably the opposite is true. Because you are reducing erosion and phosphorus binds to the sediment, you are probably reducing phosphorus solution as a result of planting cover crops. Mr. Boustany. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. This brings our hearing to a close. I thank you very much for your testimony, particularly thank you for your patience. It has been a long afternoon. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4796.293