[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT ======================================================================= (110-61) HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- JULY 17 AND JULY 19, 2007 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT ======================================================================= (110-61) HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 17 AND 19, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36-734 WASHINGTON : 2008 _____________________________________________________________________________ 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 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 ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana SAM GRAVES, Missouri TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DORIS O. MATSUI, California TED POE, Texas NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANCY (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 Summary of Subject Matter........................................ viii Proceedings of: July 17, 2007.................................................. 1 July 19, 2007.................................................. 572 July 17, 2007 TESTIMONY Connolly, Kim Diana, Associate Professor of Law, Department of Clinical Legal Studies, University of South Carolina School of Law............................................................ 28 Curry, Hon. Ron, Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico........................................... 20 Hopper, M. Reed, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation.... 28 Percival, Robert, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland.... 28 Schweitzer, Hon. Brian, Governor, State of Montana, Helena, Montana........................................................ 5 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 53 Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 54 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 59 Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., of Michigan.............................. 62 Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida................................... 65 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 70 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES Connolly, Kim Diana.............................................. 73 Curry, Ron....................................................... 212 Hopper, M. Reed.................................................. 217 Percival, Robert V............................................... 237 Schweitzer, Hon. Brian........................................... 266 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Baker, Hon. Richard H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, supplemental photographs................... 56 Connolly, Kim Diana, Associate Professor of Law, Department of Clinical Legal Studies, University of South Carolina School of Law: Brief of the Honorable John D. Dingell, the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., the Honorable Robert F. Drinan, the Honorable Gary W. Hart, the Honorable Kenneth W. Hechler, the Honorable Charles McCurdy Mathias, Jr., the Honorable Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., the Honorable Charles B. Rangel, and the Honorable Senator Richard Schultz Schweiker, as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondent, Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Nos. 04- 1034, 04-1348, Supreme Court of the United States, Jan. 13, 2006......................................................... 88 ``Any Hope for Happily Ever After? Reflections on Rapanos and the Future of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program,'' Vermont Law School publication............................... 129 ``Survey Says: Army Corps No Scalian Despot,'' 37 Env'l Law Reporter 10317 (May 2007).................................... 150 ``Anchoring the Clean Water Act: Congress's Constitutional Sources of Power to Protect the Nation's Waters''............ 195 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Submitted by the Committee: Lance D. Wood, ``Don't Be Misled: CWA Jurisdiction Extends to All Non-Navigable Tributaries of the Traditional Navigable Waters and to Their Adjacent Wetlands,'' Environmental Law Reporter's News & Analysis, 34 (2004)........ 269 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, John Horsley, Executive Director, written statement. 300 The American Institute of Architects, Paul Mendelsohn, Vice President, written statement................................... 304 American Rivers, Katherine Baer, Director, Healthy Waters Campaign, bibliography of documents relevant to both hearings.. 305 Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., Larry Larson, Executive Director, written statement.......................... 312 The Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc., Peg Bostwick, Chairman, written statement.................................... 313 California Association of Sanitation Agencies, Catherine Smith and Tim Quinn, Executive Directors, written statement.......... 315 Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, written statement............ 317 Chesapeake Bay Foundation: Roy A. Hoagland, written statement............................. 319 Additional written statement................................... 321 Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, written statement.......................... 330 Coachella Valley Water District, Steve Robbins, General Manager- Chief Engineer, written statement.............................. 333 Friends of Wetlands, John Katko, written statement............... 341 Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund, Jill Ryan, Executive Director............................................. 343 Lake Erie Region Conservancy, Tom Fuhrman, President, written statement...................................................... 344 State of Montana, Office of the Governor, written statement...... 346 National Association of Home Builders, written statement......... 348 National Mining Association, written statement................... 361 The Nature Conservancy Steven H. McCormick, President and Chief Executive Officer, written statement............................................ 365 Nat Williams, Director of U.S. Government Relations, written statement.................................................... 366 Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, American Rivers, National Audubon Society, U.S. PIRG, Southern Environmental Law Center, Environmental Integrity Project, Clean Water Action, joint written statement.................... 370 State of New Mexico, Office of the Governor, written statement... 391 Northeast Ohio Watershed Council for Grand River Partners, Inc., David A. Lipstreu, AICP, Member, written statement............. 393 Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, written statement.................................. 395 Comments for the EPA Water Docket, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of ``Waters of the United States''................................ 400 Western Coalition of Arid States, Charlie Nylander, President, written statement.............................................. 566 July 19, 2007 TESTIMONY Browner, Carol M., Principal, The Albright Group, LLC, and former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency........... 584 Forester, Hon. Larry, City Councilman, Signal Hill, California... 608 Hall, Marcus J., P.E, Public Works Director/County Engineer, Duluth, Minnesota.............................................. 608 Logan, Joe, President, Ohio Farmers Union........................ 608 Meyer, Dr. Judith L., Distinguished Research Professor of Ecology Emeritus, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia............... 616 Moyer, Steve, Vice President, Government Affairs and Volunteer Operations, Trout Unlimited.................................... 608 Semanko, Norman M., Executive Director and General Counsel, Idaho Water Users Association, Inc................................... 608 Yaich, Dr. Scott C., Director of Conservation Operations, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee............................ 616 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 622 Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 623 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 626 Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., of Hawaii................................. 628 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 630 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 632 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 635 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES Browner, Carol M................................................. 639 Forester, Hon. Larry............................................. 641 Hall, Marcus J................................................... 651 Logan, Joe....................................................... 655 Meyer, Judith L.................................................. 661 Moyer, Steve..................................................... 713 Semanko, Norman M................................................ 720 Yaich, Scott C................................................... 730 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Meyer, Dr. Judith L., Distinguished Research Professor of Ecology Emeritus, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia: ``The Role of Headwater Streams in Downstream Water Quality,'' Richard B. Alexander et al., Journal of the American Water Resources Association, American Water Resources Association.. 668 ``Where Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands,'' Sierra Club, American Rivers....................................................... 687 Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, response to request for information from Rep. Bishop......................................................... 576 Yaich, Dr. Scott C., Director of Conservation Operations, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee, letter to Rep. Gilchrest.. 738 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Submitted by the Committee: Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715; 126 S. Ct. 2208; 165 L. Ed. 2d 159 (2006) (Nos. 04-1034 and 04-1384)................................................... 740 American Farm Bureau Federation, written statement............... 806 American Road and Transportation Builders Association, written statement...................................................... 812 American Society of Civil Engineers, written statement........... 819 The Associated General Contractors of America, Stephen E. Sandherr, CEO, written statement............................... 840 The Edison Electric Institute on Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Issues, written statement...................................... 849 The National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, written statement...................................................... 856 National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, joint written statement........ 864 The Nationwide Public Projects Coalition, written statement...... 871 North American Benthological Society, R. Han Stevenson, Ph.D., President, written statement................................... 873 Letters to the Committee from former Administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency................................ 875 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.016 HEARING ON STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT ---------- Tuesday, July 17, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James L. Oberstar [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. Mr. Oberstar. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. We meet to discuss one of the most important environmental issues of our time, the jurisdictional scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This is the first of two hearings and perhaps others that will follow on the history of the Clean Water Act and the intent of Congress over three decades ago in enacting this landmark legislation and on the effect of two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court which in my judgment and that of many, many others has undermined the most successful environmental statute ever enacted. This October marks the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act and, more importantly, the 51st anniversary of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, authored by that gentleman portrayed in the portrait in the corner, John Blatnik, my predecessor in Congress, former Chairman of this Committee who first hired me in January of 1963 as Clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors. I spent 44 years, much of that time in this Committee room and a good deal of it in another Committee room where the Public Works Committee started in the Cannon Office Building. He had the vision as he assumed the Chairmanship in 1955 of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, traveled the Mississippi River to understand what was needed in the way of works by the Corps of Engineers to support the navigability of the Mississippi and its tributaries: the Missouri, the Ohio, the Illinois and many others. But as he moved down the Mississippi River, a biochemist by training himself and a teacher of biochemistry, he said, what struck me was the increasing pollution of this mighty father of waters. By the time, he said, we got to New Orleans, there were raw phenols boiling in the water, dumped by countless cities along that 2,000 mile journey of the mighty Mississippi to the Gulf. He came back to Washington, resolved to deal with the navigation needs and the dredging needs of traffic on the Mississippi but, more importantly, to deal with cleaning up discharges into the Nation's waterways that were polluting, poisoning our waters. Shortly after that, he went down to the Tidal Basin in full cherry blossom dress and called it the best dressed cesspool in America. Out of that came the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 signed by President Eisenhower. A subsequent amendment to that act to expand the funding under the program from $30 million, 30 percent Federal grants to $50 million was vetoed by President Eisenhower. His veto message was written by Bryce Harlow, later a lobbyist for Procter and Gamble, with the salient two sentiments: Pollution is a uniquely local blight. Federal involvement will only impede local efforts at cleanup. That year, John F. Kennedy was elected President Kennedy was elected President, and one of his critical elements of his platform was cleaning up the Nation's waters. That resulted in amendments of 1961 that expanded the program, subsequent amendments that improved it and then the far-reaching classic act of 1972 vetoed by President Nixon, a veto overridden by a vote of 10 to 1 by the Congress in October of 1972. An historic commitment to cleaning up the Nation's precious resource, irreplaceable, all the water, all the water we have that ever existed that ever will be is here now. We are not going to create more water. This Committee bears responsibility for determining the future success of this Clean Water Act or its failure, and our work has been made difficult by the interpretation of the Supreme Court. In crafting that legislation and much of the House-Senate conference took place right in this room, I was part of that over many months. It was an 11 month conference. We clearly intended the broadest possible constitutional interpretation of the Act. I have read the SWANCC case. I have read the Rapanos case. I strongly disagree with the Court's invention of a fiction, a fictional juncture between authority to protect and so-called traditional navigable waters. All those who participated in that House-Senate conference understood the traditions of Congressional authority for traditionally navigable waters, but they purposely moved away from those notions in order to establish a new national commitment for clean water. We understood after extensive hearings on the subject, extensive practice under the 1956, 1961, 1967 Act amendments that we needed broader authority to deal with the quality of receiving waters than just dealing with the lakes and streams themselves. John Blatnik, in Floor consideration of the bill, said: In this measure, we are totally restructuring the Federal Water Pollution Control program and making a far-reaching national commitment to clean water. As much as our space program was restructured a decade ago when the late President Kennedy committed America to land on the moon, the legislation we are considering is of immeasurable significance to the Nation. In many ways and very predictive, he said, it is a far more difficult undertaking than the 42,500 mile interstate highway program which the Public Works Committee initiated in 1956. That has been hailed as the greatest public works undertaking in all history. The Water Pollution Control program we are initiating in this body will, in my judgment, be an even more monumental task. That was a visionary statement. The late Justice Rehnquist and current Justice Scalia pointed to the use of the term, navigable waters, which appears 86 times in the Clean Water Act, but the legislative history is very clear. The very opening paragraph of the Act says the purpose of this Act is to maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The very opening statement makes the definition of terms, makes it very clear what the purpose of the Act was. We have learned over many years that dealing with isolated waters, only receiving waters or only intermittent streams was not sufficient to protect waters. The language specifically referred to waters of the United States and the territorial seas. Our Committee report clearly said: ``The Committee was reluctant to define the term, navigable waters, on the fear that any interpretation would be read narrowly which is not the Committee's intent.'' Then when we got into conference, ``The conferees fully intend that the term, navigable waters, be given the greatest possible constitutional interpretation.'' In the decades after enactment of the Clean Water Act, the Corps and EPA broadly interpreted that authority consistent with the intent of the committee of conference, consistent with the term of the legislation itself. So over 30 years, we have a body of practice, a body of application of this Act to address potential impairments of the water at their source, not just further downstream. Federal Government agencies have been able to administer this program very, very effectively and within keeping of the original purpose of the Act. The objective of the legislation that I have introduced with a large number of co-sponsors is to restore, post-Supreme Court decision, the original purpose of that Act and to reinstate the way the Act has been administered for over 30 years. We come back to this Committee room to do what visionaries before us undertook to do in the name of their generation and of future generations. Thank you. I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica. I thank the Chairman and appreciate his convening this hearing today, the first of several hearings that will deal with the status of our nation's waters, including wetlands, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I might say that I think we are all here for the same purpose and the same interest. I think everyone with any modicum of common sense would want to preserve and protect our natural areas in this Country, our wetlands and our environmentally sensitive bodies of water. I think we are here partially too, as we all know, because the U.S. Supreme Court kept a narrow definition of what we have come to know as a definition of wetlands, and that has resulted in a re-examining of that definition and also the status of our Clean Water Act performance. Any definition, redefinition or expansion of the definition of wetlands, if not carefully crafted, can result and I think we have to be careful that it would result in initiating costly litigation, more red tape and even more uncertainty for future efforts to clean up the environment and our natural bodies of water. Not only do we have that problem that we could impair future infrastructure development; we could halt projects around the Country that are necessary for development. We could depress employment opportunities. We could do all this, and we might in fact fail to achieve our original goal, and the original goal is cleaner water and natural bodies of water. Today, we are going to hear about some of the problems and successes of the Clean Water Act and probably hear some recommendations on how to improve the law. Some in Congress, including Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Dingell, have already introduced proposals to revise the Clean Water Act's wetlands program. It is doubtful, however, that these proposals will really clarify, as they are currently drafted, Clean Water Act jurisdiction or create any certainty for the regulated public. Rather, I am concerned that these provisions could vastly expand Federal powers over private property, upset longstanding cooperative relationships that the Federal Government and the States have had with regard to water management and water quality, and create even more confusion and uncertainty over application and interpretation of the Act which will start all over again. The legislation that has been introduced proposes a much broader definition of ``waters of the United States.'' It will eliminate the traditional basis for Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act by deleting the term, navigable, from the statute and expand the scope of Federal jurisdiction to its maximum limits under the Constitution. So all this opens a whole new can of worms. These changes would effectively erase many of the decades of jurisprudence and invite the Federal courts to decide the constitutional limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. This, in turn, will spur even more litigation as the Government and stakeholders struggle to clarify the uncertain scope of jurisdiction under these new proposals and this new language and these new definitions. Congress has the responsibility to state clearly the jurisdictional limits of Federal regulatory programs, and I support that, but it shouldn't create more confusion and more controversy and more litigation, more uncertainty, as I am afraid might happen with the proposal that has been introduced in Congress. I am pleased that our witnesses today and on Thursday will address their experiences with the Clean Water Act regulation. I anticipate we will hear about some of their problems and concerns with the way the program is currently working or not working. I do reserve the right, however, to work with both the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, and also with our current Ranking Member, Mr. Baker, to look at the possibility of crafting a legislative alternative and something that could provide a better definition, less controversy and less uncertainty in reaching our mutual goal. So I hold that in abeyance. I hope the Members will listen to the testimony this week so that we can all work together to create legislation that is clear, legislation that is predictable, legislation that is reasonable and legislation that is truly protective of our water resources. I yield back. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. We will have ample time to debate the issues the Ranking Member has raised, and I appreciate him being frank and straightforward about his thoughts. Governor, thank you very much for being with us today. I say to my Committee colleagues that others who have statements can summarize them during their five minute questioning period of time, but we don't want to keep the Governor waiting. He has come a long way from Montana. I assume by Northwest Airlines since that is the best way out, but I know it is a trepidatious trip from out there. You are awfully good to spend time with us. Governor, I just have one question, and that is: How were the poll ratings of your dog? TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN SCHWEITZER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MONTANA, HELENA, MONTANA Governor Schweitzer. Higher than mine. [Laughter.] Mr. Oberstar. They were higher than most of us from what I heard not some time ago. Generous of you to be with us today. Thank you very much. I refer to a humorous comment the Governor made, speaking to a meeting of the Democratic Issues Conference a year or so ago. I wish I had the dog's poll ratings. Thank you. Governor Schweitzer. Well, I have to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and the Members of this Committee. I try not to go places that I can't bring my dog along with me. So if I made an exception here today, it is an important issue that we are here today. I come before you not just as the Governor of Montana but as a soil scientist, as a rancher, as a third generation farmer in Montana. Montana is known as the Treasure State, and it affects each and every one of you because for thousands of years in the high country of Montana we get large quantities of snow and through the summer this snow is melting and it renews America's water supply every single year. In Montana, we provide the snow that is 70 percent of the Missouri River system. We provide 50 percent of the water that is stored in the Columbia River basin system. In Montana, at our Continental Divide, it is the only place in the United States that water flows to the Pacific, to the Atlantic and yes, indeed, also to the Arctic. We are the Headwater State and we are the Treasure State. A hundred years ago, we were the Treasure State because of all the wonderful minerals in the mountain. Of course, we were blessed. God spent six days making the rest of the world and the rest of the States, and on the seventh day after all of that practice, he created the Big Sky Country where in our mountains we have gold and we have silver. We have copper. We have 30 percent of the Nation's coal supply. We have oil, we have gas, and we have the only platinum and palladium deposits in the Western Hemisphere. So, indeed, we are the Treasure State. But as we have come to find out and find out during the recent years, probably the greatest treasure that we have is not necessarily the minerals in the mountain but the mountains themselves and this cleansing snow that we send to the rest of the States every year. Now I seldom come before Congress and ask you to help us with anything because our history in Montana is that your help is very expensive. In fact, you help us manage the Missouri River draining system. We already described for you how we provide 70 percent of the water in the Missouri River system. We have the first big reservoir on the Missouri River system, and we think that we ought to have the opportunity to keep that first reservoir full for recreation, for irrigation, but we only have one Member of Congress and North Dakota only has one Member of Congress and South Dakota, the same. In fact, as it turns out, all of the States upstream from Missouri have fewer collectively than the State of Missouri. So the Missouri River ends up getting managed for the benefit of the State of Missouri and floating their boats as opposed to all of the concerns that we have upstream. If we, as leaders, could learn a single thing from the people who have occupied Montana and the Great Plains, the Indian people that have occupied it for as much as 5,000 years. Their leadership understood that you need to protect the future. We, as politicians, I bet you have all done this once or twice. You say we need to do something for our children, and some of you are visionaries and you say for our grandchildren, and some will even say the future generations. But the people who have occupied Montana and the Treasure State sustainably for more than 5,000 years, when they made their decisions, they always considered the seventh generation. If we were to consider the seventh generation, I think we would make different decisions than we have been making relative to our Nation's water. Let us talk about this bill. To use as the barometer as to whether we are going to manage this water for clean water as to whether it is navigable or not is ludicrous. The natural filtration system at the headwaters of our water systems, that natural purifier, by definition, are these streams and streams that only flow when the snow is melting. Some of these headwater streams only flow for a few months per year, and yet that is your supply of clean water. We ask you to support this legislation, but we also ask you for some common sense because if you were to put the map of Montana on the northeast, it would run from New York City to Indianapolis, and yet we only have 930,000 people. We have a natural filtration system, and we make a living in Montana running cows on the range, and sometimes those cows drink water out of a pond or out of a river. We don't want the long arm of the Federal Government telling us we can't do that. We don't want the long arm of the Federal Government stopping us from sustainable logging in Montana, and we don't want the long arm of the Federal Government telling us what we ought to do with our fisheries at the high reaches of the Rocky Mountains. We want you to be our partner and collaborator. We don't want to put the Federal Government in the position of managing our waterways all the way to the Rocky Mountains. We want you to be our partner, our collaborator. We want you to help us protect the water supply for the rest of the Country, but we don't want to put our farmers out of business, our loggers out of business, our cattlemen out of business. I think that is the intent of what we are attempting to do here is to help protect the water and to maintain those natural resource businesses that we have in places like Montana. So, again, I thank you for considering this legislation. It is important because I understand the way lawyers look at things. They went off to law school, and there is a lot of words and a lot a books, and they try and draw a line between navigable, non-navigable, but that is not the way you manage resources on the ground. Clean water isn't necessarily a place that you can float your boat. Clean water actually has more to do with the places that you don't float your boat because those are our natural filtration systems. So, again, I thank you. I encourage you to support this legislation, but I want to make sure that you protect those of us who are upstream, providing your water and don't put our livestock people out of business, our loggers out of business and those who use water for irrigation. Let us protect the waterways, let us protect the fisheries, and let us protect the seventh generation. Thank you very much. Mr. Oberstar. Governor, I think that reference to the Native American people, the seventh generation, is something of great significance for all of us to ponder and to weigh carefully. I have read several of the treaties of 1837 and 1854 in which the promises were made by the great white father in Washington to the Native Americans as long as rivers flow. Let us make sure we keep the rivers flowing. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me say that, first of all, I don't suppose there is anybody in the Congress that admires and respects your knowledge of this Committee and its work more than I do. I think what we are all attempting to achieve here is balance. Last year in this Subcommittee, we passed a resolution commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We are all proud of the great progress we have made in making our waters cleaner over the last 30 years, and much of that progress was made because of the work of this Committee and because of the work of our Chairman over the last 44 years both on this Committee staff and on this Committee. Governor, certainly, it is an honor to have you with us. I have a first cousin who is a radiologist in Libby, Montana, and has been there for many, many years and loves it. I think the philosophy that you have expressed in your opening statement is one that is shared by almost everybody on our side when you say that you don't want the long arm of the Federal Government managing your waters or preventing sustainable logging or hurting your farmers and ranchers. As I said, I think that is what we need to try to achieve. There are some groups who don't want to admit that we have made progress over the last 30 years because they have got to keep telling us how bad everything is so they can keep their contributions coming in. Also, at the same time while we are proud of the progress we have made, we want to try to do better, but we have also noticed that in almost every industry or area that if we regulate too much, the little guys are the ones that are driven out of business. And so, I hope you will help us since you have come here today and testified and you are assuming a leadership role in regard to this legislation. I hope that you will meet with the smallest of your ranchers and farmers in Montana and maybe even other States and make sure that we are not going to do anything that hurts them or drives them out of business because they already have it tough enough as it is. Are you willing to do that? Governor Schweitzer. I do that pretty near every day of the week. Mr. Duncan. You have got in your statement that you are afraid that if we go with the Supreme Court decision that you would lose some Federal funding under the Clean Water Act. How much Federal funding does Montana get from the Clean Water Act right now? Governor Schweitzer. I can't answer that question. I don't have that number in front of me. You might have that. Mr. Duncan. Possibly what we could do would be to make sure in this legislation that you don't lose any Federal funding. What I am thinking about is this. Governor McWherter, who was our Democratic Governor in Tennessee for many years, he would come to us every year and he would say, please, no more unfunded mandates. We have heard that from governors all over the Country, and it is a problem. I think, again, you expressed the philosophy of the people on our side when you said you want us to be a partner rather than some type of dictator. With that, I don't think there is anything in your statement that I disagreed with, so I will just thank you for being here and let the Chairman move on. Governor Schweitzer. May I respond? Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir. Governor Schweitzer. Then you know with having a relative in Libby, in Montana, we have had a history, being the Treasure State, of a lot of companies coming in and mining the minerals, and so we have a hundred years of mining activity, and that mining activity that we conducted a hundred years ago doesn't look anything like the way we do today. We have a lot of those glory holes that have been dug into the side of those mountains, and now we have pH 2.5, 2.8 water flowing out of the highest reaches of the Rocky Mountains, flowing into your water supply. So we need to continue to rectify those concerns that we have to protect your water supply. Of course, in Libby, probably one of the largest environmental catastrophes in the history of this Country where W.R. Grace was mining vermiculite mixed with asbestos and poisoned an entire town in one of the most remarkable places in America. The consequences of the actions that we have taken in the past are some of the things that we need to rectify in the future, not the kind of management that is conducted on the ground today but what has happened in the past. We still have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cleanup to do in places like Montana. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Well, I will say this. The people in Tennessee sometimes drink the water in California and Montana and places like that and vice versa. So I have always thought there was an important Federal role in regard to all of this that we are talking about here today. On the other hand, we can't do it all. There has to be an important State role and a local role. But, as I said, I just think we have got to be careful and not over-regulate so that we drive the smallest of our businesses out of existence. In that case, you end up destroying jobs and driving up prices. The wealthy always come out all right, but who you hurt in that process are the poor and the lower income and the working people, and I think that is what we have got to be concerned about. We have got to do everything we can for the environment, but we have got to make sure we don't harm humanity in the process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful remarks on my service on the Committee as well. Ms. Johnson, our Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee. Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, what are the water resources in Montana most at risk of being polluted or filled and destroyed in the scope of the Clean Water Act if it is reduced and the law is read to exclude certain tributaries, streams and wetlands? Governor Schweitzer. The highest reaches of the Rocky Mountains often times contain the most minerals, and so near the Continental Divide is where we have been mining gold and silver and copper for well over a hundred years. In many cases, with the Mining Law of 1872, people came from all over the world to Montana for a very short period of time, and their aim was to dig a hole in the side of that mountain big enough so that they could collect enough gold that they could go back and buy their home town out. A lot of them did that, and what they left behind was these big old holes in the side of a mountain. That mountain is a living place. There is water that flows through that mountain. It is part of the filtration system. When you excavate the side of that mountain and you expose pyrite To air and to water, pyrite is a mineral that will change the pH of the water from its native 7, 7.2, even 7.5 down to 2, 2.5 and that water flows out from the Continental Divide in streams that don't even flow all year into the next creek to the next creek to the next creek and to the river and finally to the Missouri River where it flows all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. The greatest challenge that we have collectively is to protect the water supply for some 20 States that starts high in the Rocky Mountains of Montana. A great part of the problem we have isn't the things that we are doing today, but it was activity that was conducted as much as a hundred years ago, and we have no permanent solution to solve the problem. So we will have ongoing water treatment for as long as the snow lands in the high countries of Montana. So we need your help. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Petri? Mr. Coble. Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, good to have you with us. Governor, you mentioned your ranchers earlier. What sort of response have you had from your farmers and ranchers and localities to this proposal? Governor Schweitzer. Well, farmers and ranchers in Montana like clean water because the most likely folks to drink the water on their ranches are themselves and their livestock. The ranchers in Montana want to make sure that we maintain a high quality of water because that is the water for their livestock. The farmers in Montana want to continue with a clean water supply because we export our agricultural products all over the world, and a great part of our production is with irrigation. So farmers and ranchers are supportive of clean water. Farmers and ranchers would like the Federal government to help us. Remember, most of these farms and ranches are more out on the prairie and the water starts high in the Continental Divide at those old mines that we have there. The last thing a rancher wants is for some of that water to flow down out that mountain with low pH or heavy metals that would destroy his land or his livestock. Again, the farmers and ranchers would like your help, but they wouldn't like to be in a position where the Federal Government says, oh, boy, you know that stock pond that you have got there on your ranch where you built it or your granddaddy built that thing 75 years ago? Well, you no longer can have your cattle take water out of that because now we in Washington, D.C. think we own that water. That is something that we don't want to see happen. We also don't want the Federal Government to come in and say, the way you are irrigating, sir, has got to change today without the resources to change. So if you want us to change in Montana, you bring us the dollars and we will do some of those changes. Mr. Coble. Water, the essential commodity for generations has generated much controversy in a way. So I think we all want clean water. Governor, I am told that western Montana is currently experiencing a boom in natural gas production, presumably greatly benefitting your State's economy. How will H.R. 2421 affect, if it will affect, Montana's economy and the ability of what is probably a regulated energy sector to develop natural gas with every small and presumably intermittent body of water may well be under Federal regulation? Will that have any adverse or negative effect? Governor Schweitzer. Our natural gas is actually for the most part in eastern Montana. Our dry natural gas which is drilled much deeper to as much as 8,000 and 12,000 feet, probably not affected at all. But coal bed methane which are shallow wells that are drilled to coal seams, 500 to 1,000 feet, that have been aquifers, it would affect us a great deal. The way you develop coal bed methane is you drill a well to the coal seam 500 or 1,000 feet deep and you start pumping the water out and you release the pressure and then the gas starts to flow. We already have some great concerns with coal bed methane because the water that is associated with that coal is often very high in sodium. The sodium absorption ratio is very high. If you just dump that water in one of our rivers and the irrigator downstream brings that water back out and irrigates his farm, after about eight or ten years, he is going to have big reductions in yield because his soil will start turning to cement. So probably not going to affect us that much because we are already regulating that coal bed methane industry. We are saying to them, if you have got high sodium water, you are going to have treat it before you put it in the river or you are going to have to reinject it back into a deeper geological structure. Montana already has some regulations that are dealing with coal bed methane and, frankly, our regulations are different than Wyoming's. Wyoming now has about a hundred times as many of these coal bed methane wells as us, and they are dumping their water into the Tongue and the Powder Rivers that flow up into Montana. Then we become the recipient of that sodium. So there is kind of a rub between us right now in Wyoming and Montana. Mr. Coble. I thank you, Governor. Good to have you with us, Governor. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. I appreciate the gentleman's question. I just want to remind the gentleman that in the Energy Act of 2005 Congress exempted oil and gas exploration from the provisions of the Clean Water Act, and that covers the question you asked, not that I agree with that. I opposed it vigorously, but I lost that argument on the Floor. Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, you don't lose many arguments. Mr. Oberstar. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baird. Mr. Baird. Governor, I very much appreciate it. It is good to see you again and good to have a fellow westerner out here. I think you have hit the nail on the head in terms of the challenge. This is it. As we say, we are a pretty wet State, but we have also got a dry east side as you know. The challenge we face is let us suppose you are a farmer and it rains a fair bit. Water collects on part of your farm, and that gets your farm classified as a wetland. Then you have to get the permitting to do anything you want around there. One thing I would like to ask you about for the edification of the whole Committee is if we were to pass legislation preserving the status of the Clean Water Act protects for wetlands but not do anything on the permitting side, particularly vis-a-vis salmon and other things like that, could you enlighten us a little bit about the challenges your State, my State and other northwestern States face with environmental permitting that doesn't affect States impacted by an ESA listing of a species that swims right by your major properties? Governor Schweitzer. Well, as you know, in Washington and Oregon, they are primarily concerned about a species of salmon that likes to swim upriver, and then we built those dams. In Montana, we have a white sturgeon. It is the doggonedest thing. The time that we need to release water from the reservoirs in Montana so that we can improve the habitat for the white sturgeon is exactly the wrong time for the salmon and vice versa. So since there are more Congressmen from Washington and Oregon than we have in Montana, we often times end up releasing the waters for the benefit of the salmon. Here is the way it works on the ground in a place like Montana. You want to do some work around your stream or wetland or something like that. You go right on into your local conservation district, and you first get a 310 permit. You have local on the ground farmers and ranchers elected from that community that come out and take a look at it and see if it makes sense and whether there is going to be any deleterious effect to folks around because of that activity. They think it is going to be okay. You get your 310 permit. If it is on a little bit bigger river, then you need the Army Corps of Engineers to come in and do a little work for you, to decide whether it is going to be okay. In some unusual cases, you are going to have to have the EPA do something. But for most of this work, small streams, wetlands, it is probably just a 310 permit and it will be issued by your conservation district that has been locally elected. Mr. Baird. See, we have it different, and I think that illustrates one of the challenges that led to the Court decision and that is before us today. Even if you have a relatively small holding, you may well need to get a Corps of Engineers permit, and that is a much more difficult process than that which you have just described. I think that would be one of the questions, Mr. Chairman, the people would have about this is how the permitting interface with this legislation will be affected in terms of if you don't. It is particularly consequential for us in that because of the listing of salmon and steelhead and bull trout, we have got so many listed species proximal to major metropolitan areas and because of lack of staff of Corps of Engineers permitting officials. The more water areas that fall under jurisdiction, the more the permitting demand is. Without a commensurate increase in permitting personnel, you have these enormous backlogs. Two, three, four, five years is not uncommon. That money that is spent both in opportunity costs, direct expenditures, permitting, et cetera, could be used in other ways, and it could be deeply frustrating to our private landowners. So we face this paradox. Your point is well taken, Governor, that we want to protect the water supply. That includes the aquifers. We get aquifer supply from Montana as you know well. Some of our aquifers in Washington State are sourced out of Montana. Governor Schweitzer. We will send you the bill. Mr. Baird. Well, the reason I say that is there is some legitimate commerce issues here. Some people say, well, there is no commerce clause here. I think there is a commerce clause applicable because it does cross State lines, but at the same point we have got to deal with this regulatory situation because it has a profound impact. The Corps, by the way, parenthetically, not only have they traditionally been underfunded in terms of permitting staff, but the Iraq conflict has pulled some of their best staff. This is an anti-Iraq statement. It is just a statement of fact. It has pulled some of their best staff off mid-processing time, thereby further extending the backlog. As we deliberate the Chairman's well intentioned legislation, I think we need to look realistically at permitting consequences, particularly in States where this has an impact. I am glad to see you here, Governor, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Governor Schweitzer. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. We dealt successfully with permit streamlining in the SAFETEA-LU legislation for highways, and I hope we can work out a streamlining proposition for the Clean Water Act. Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gilchrest. I thank the Chairman. I came in a little bit late, but I appreciate your recognizing me. I won't be too long because I know Mr. Ehlers has been sitting here longer than I have. Mr. Oberstar. If you wish to yield to Mr. Ehlers, I will be happy to recognize him at this time. Mr. Gilchrest. I will just ask two quick questions to the gentleman from Montana, and I will yield two minutes to Mr. Ehlers who will later get five minutes, so he will get seven minutes. Mr. Oberstar. In my State, we call that Minnesota nice. Now that is Maryland nice. Mr. Gilchrest. Maryland nice. We are trying to mix it up with Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, all the M States. Governor, I appreciate you being here and your knowledge on this issue. I just want to make some quick comments for the Members that are here, that the present Clean Water Act, Section 402 but specifically 404, exempts the following activity from needing a permit: normal farming practices, silviculture, ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for production of food, fiber, forest products, upland soil and water conservation practices. All those practices right now do not need a permit. They are exempted from a permit in 404. Maintenance including dykes, dams, levies, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, bridge abutments, et cetera., they don't need a permit, not even a nationwide permit; prior converted cropland. So there are numerous provisions in the Clean Water Act right now that recognize the need for that type of commerce, especially in the agricultural community. The question is and I think Mr. Oberstar has included this in the provision of taking the word, navigable, which it seems to me in the history of the bill, the word, navigable, up until recent years, recent Supreme Court decisions, has basically been broadly interpreted as meaning waters of the United States. But since we are now faced with a couple of Supreme Court decisions that make that a little bit difficult to interpret that way, my question to you, Governor, is Mr. Oberstar wants to take the word, navigable, out and replace waters of the United States in the same way that it has been interpreted since 1972 up until recent years. Now putting in a provision to ensure the agricultural community, that the exemptions that now exist for permits under the Clean Water Act, will continue to persist after this change has taken place. Do you see any problem down the road with past judicial precedence or reinterpretation by outside groups that could bring lawsuits as being a problem with the proposed changes by Mr. Oberstar? Governor Schweitzer. Well, it has been my experience that as long as we hatch lawyers from our law schools, there is going to be reinterpretations of laws that we have written. That is how they make a living. And so, whether you pass any new legislation or you maintain the legislation that you have got right now, you are likely to have some challenges as we go forward. My caution is simply this: Make sure that the unintended consequences do not occur which are to shut down legitimate businesses in the natural resource industry that already have good filtration systems, that are maintaining a filtration system that already exists, that are just simply trying to continue an irrigation business in a place that has already been irrigating for the last hundred years, and there has been no significant damages to the land or any endangered species. I think that in the implementation of the rules, we can get there. But I would just caution that in writing this legislation, make sure that you give adequate authority to local folks on the ground to interpret these rules. For example, the conservation districts that I mentioned earlier that are locally elected, that have the charge of protecting the water in each of these conservation districts in nearly every agricultural county in America. Mr. Gilchrest. Governor, you would not oppose taking the word, navigable, out? Governor Schweitzer. Actually, I think that the term, navigable, has no place in deciding a bill about clean water because it doesn't really define those places that are actually filtration systems. As I have described before, Montana's greatest problems are the mines that were left behind at the Continental Divide, and you can't float a boat over the top of the mountains because if you did, Lewis and Clark would have arrived at the ocean about two months earlier. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. We will now go to Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, it is good to see you again, and you talk my language, sir. Water is a big issue in most of the western States. One of the questions I would have for you is have you seen marked change in the water yield, the amount of water? Is the climate change affecting the amount of water that you are seeing whether it is in your streams, in your aquifers, in your flows? Governor Schweitzer. I got to tell you. Montana being the Headwater State, and I already described to you that our water flows to the East Coast and the West Coast and up to the Arctic and 70 percent of the water in the Missouri River system and 50 percent makes it on to Washington and Oregon, the Columbia River system from Montana. The driest 10 years in history have been during the last 11 years. We are getting less snow in the high country. It is melting sooner in the spring. And so, this recharge system that we have created in Montana for the rest of the Country, we are finding that that snow that used to last all the way into August until we would get some replenishing snow, it is disappearing, and some of those high mountain streams are drying up. We have springs that are disappearing all across Montana. Artesian wells are drying up. We are getting less precipitation in the high country in Montana, and that affects each and every one of you in this Country. As we get less snow there, we have less water for the rivers that recharge other rivers all across both the Pacific Basin, Atlantic Basin, all the way to the Arctic. It is affecting our irrigation supply. It is affecting our drinking water. It is affecting wildlife habitat. Some of our fisheries in the high country, for example, we have had to suspend fishing in the afternoon at some of the best blue ribbon trout streams in America because we have less of that cold water flowing down out of those glaciers, and the water has become so warm that it can't contain as much oxygen as those fish need, and we are losing them. That is something I can't control. The Governor of Montana is a pretty powerful guy, but I can't place more snow in the mountains in Montana. I think you can argue about what is creating the climate change, but I don't think there are many people in Montana who would be willing to argue that there isn't something going on here. There is a climate change occurring. Mrs. Napolitano. What are you proposing to do to be able to reduce? A lot of conservation, possibly recycling storage? One of my biggest issues is recycling. How do we educate our people to change with the climate, if you will? Governor Schweitzer. It is a tough one. Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. Governor Schweitzer. We don't respond well to things that aren't a crisis in this Country. Some of the things that we could do are to allow Montana to fill our reservoirs to full pool and not send it all down the Missouri so they could float a few boats. That would help us in Montana. But, ultimately, there is only one way that I can deliver more water to the Missouri River drainage system because I can't guarantee you any more snow, and I can't make it rain just because I pray. What I can do is I can tell you about a treaty that we had with Canada, Alberta, a hundred years ago. Coming out of Glacier National Park, right up at the highest reaches of the Continental Divide, there are a couple of rivers. There is the Milk River and there is the St. Mary's. We made an agreement with Alberta a hundred years ago that we would share the water equally in those two drainages. Now this is where it gets interesting. The Milk River and the St. Mary start in Montana. Then they both flow up into Alberta. The Milk River comes back into Montana and ultimately flows into the Missouri River. Okay, now you know how you have got a dog in this hunt. The St. Mary River just heads on up and goes to the Arctic. Well, we made a deal. We built an aqueduct that would bring half the water over from the St. Mary to the Milk, and then they would irrigate with a little bit in Alberta, and it would flow down into Montana and it would ultimately go into the Missouri. Well, that old aqueduct has worn out, and we are not getting our full dose of water into the Milk River, so you are getting less water in the Missouri River. If you would help us out with a few shekels in Montana so we could maintain that system, I will promise you we will deliver more water to the Missouri River system. Mrs. Napolitano. And you would do that by? Governor Schweitzer. Well, this aqueduct system that we have already built that is leaking and it is worn out, it is not able to haul as much water as we used to. If we can get the dollars in a cost-share with the State of Montana and with Alberta who will put some money in, we can move more water from the St. Mary into the Milk River drainage system that ultimately goes into the Missouri River instead of just going on up to the Arctic. Help us out; we will bring you some water. Mrs. Napolitano. We will talk later. That is one of my issues. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Ehlers? Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Governor, thank you for being here. You are a very refreshing witness, and I appreciate not only your comments but the wisdom behind those comments. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be entered into the record. Mr. Oberstar. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I think what came through your comments is simply that all water is connected, and that is in a sense why I support Mr. Oberstar's bill because we can't assume that isolated ponds are not connected with other aquifers under ground and above ground. They are all connected and we have to take that into account. That means if you are going to worry about applying the law, someone has to go out and look at a particular situation and make a judgment as to how that is to be regulated. On another issue which is related to water but not related to your testimony, Mr. Chairman, I just want to enter into the record here my concern over the sad news that British Petroleum plans to dump thousands of tons of ammonia and refinery sludge into Lake Michigan just north of Gary and under current law is allowed to do that. I found that astounding. That must be a remnant of the old rule of thumb that dilution is a solution to pollution because dumping thousands of gallons of ammonia into Lake Michigan and thousands of cubic feet of sludge containing heavy metals does not seem to be a good solution, but apparently it is legal at this point. So I hope we will take that situation under consideration too. With that, I will yield back. Mr. Oberstar. That is appalling, absolutely appalling. We will have to join forces to prevent that from happening. Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. We have about an hour of voting ahead of us, and I would propose that we recess and not hold the Governor. Before we do so, I would like to just go around the room and invite Members who have not yet spoken to ask at least one question of the Governor without making a speech on it. Ms. Hirono? Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller. Yes, I really have some concerns with the bill. California is a different situation than you might face in your State. You talked about water carrying pollutants coming down from the mountains on the farmers. The Clean Water Act in California has been applied so broadly through the courts that instead of source of pollution going to an industrial source, as it should since they are polluting the waters, it goes to a subdivision building homes. They say that might be a source of pollution, so you need retain all on your water onsite in the subdivision. Mr. Chairman, I know who you are and you are a good man. My concern that I have in this bill is that it appears to me that it is rather vague what waters could be construed to be of the U.S. If it is challenged in court by a special interest group, it could mean ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, drainage, farmland, groundwater, even a wastewater treatment plant. It could go to that degree. In many cases, it is being expanded beyond the intent today. My concern is that that could be the result of this bill because I am not sure that the definition is clear enough in this bill, what the definition of waters and virtually anything that carries waters could be determined to be. I would strongly encourage you to review that section of the bill because I think if we pass this bill as drafted, the intent in my State is going to be horrendous as it applies to try and provide affordable housing for the growth that we expect in our State. But we all agree on wanting clean water. We all agree that we need to do something about that. My concern in your State is if this bill is not defined more properly, it could mean any waters running off of one of your dairies or your farms or whatever, and you could be required to keep all that onsite, which in California we really do. Our dairy guys have to retain all the water on their property that comes from their property. It has been litigated to that degree. I think that should be a huge concern for your State, and I would please ask the Chairman to look into that and make sure we are more definitive. Mr. Oberstar. I would invite the gentleman's attention to Section 6 of the Act, the savings clause which restates the key provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and addresses those issues, limiting the Act to the purposes of the original law and not expanding it beyond that. Mr. Miller. I think the original law needs to be more defined. Mr. Oberstar. Well, if you want to have a debate about the Clean Water Act of 1972, that is a different matter but about my bill that reinstates, I don't think there is a debate. Mr. Arcuri? Mr. Carney? Mrs. Capito. Mrs. Capito. Yes. Governor, I represent the State of West Virginia, and like my colleague from Washington, Mr. Baird, I share some concerns. Our permitting processes with the Corps for our coal mining are all held up in litigation. It is very lengthy, very costly and very discouraging to those who want to get coal out which I do to power America. Do you have these same kinds of problems in Montana in terms of your permitting for your coal mines and how do you think this act will influence that? Governor Schweitzer. Well, in all due respect to you and my good friend, Joe Manchin, our coal is real close to the surface, and so we just peel back 30, 40 feet of soil and go in with a front loader and dig it out like gravel. Then when the coal is gone, we push all that back in and replant it to native vegetation. Mrs. Capito. You never have to worry about the intermittent stream and all that ephemeral stream? Governor Schweitzer. The country where we have most of our coal is 10, 11 inch rainfall. There are no creeks running through there. We are well above where the aquifers are for the most part. Once again, God blessed us on the seventh day when he created the Treasure State and we didn't have to be in the situation of having to dig inside a mountain in order to get our coal. We get it pretty close to the surface with a tractor. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. I have concerns over the navigable water clause or removing that. I certainly am like everybody, wanting the clean water. I think it is something we need to work with. I look forward to working with the Chairman on this. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. I look forward to it. Thank you. Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, have you read the bill? Governor Schweitzer. Yes, I have. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. Did you read the section where it talks about waters of the United States and what all that includes? Governor Schweitzer. I haven't got the bill in front of me. You can remind me. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay, I will remind you: lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds and all impoundments of the foregoing or activities affecting these waters. Your 310 permit will be a thing of the past because what this bill does, it expands the EPA's and the Corps of Engineers' authority to these things where now it is navigable water. That long arm of Government is going to come into Montana, and I hate that because I think you are a very sincere person. I know the Chairman is very sincere on clean water. We all want clean water. This is giving the Corps and the EPA authority over the State that you already regulate those things in a way that is beneficial for all of us, but that power will now be transferred to the Federal Government. So that is all the comment I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. I want to observe for the gentleman from Georgia who has cited this provision and invite his attention to the Corps of Engineers Code of Federal Regulations, Part 328, Definition of Waters of the United States. Section 328.3, Definitions: All waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams including intermittent streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes and all the other words that we have used in this bill are drawn exactly from 30 years of Corps of Engineers regulation in accordance with the term, waters of the United States. This is not a new creation. This is not new regulatory authority. It is existing authority, I say to the gentleman and I yield to him. Mr. Westmoreland. I thank the Chairman for that. I think the only thing that has kept the Corps and the EPA out of that is the navigable water portion of this bill which we are taking out. But I respect the Chairman. I know that he has been here a lot longer than I have. It is just that I have dealt with this in my business. I know the Corps. I am going to enter things into the record on the Corps that has held up reservoirs for drinking water for my county since the early 1970s, and we have not received a permit yet. I am very familiar with it, and I understand it. I agree with Mr. Miller that we need some redefinition in the Clean Water Act, and I know that is a subject for another day. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Diaz-Balart? All right, thank you. The call of the House is more powerful than the call of questioning the Governor of Montana. We all have to go and vote. I just want to reference some very thoughtful comments made in your testimony: We believe that all upstream tributaries, the waters that discharge into the Missouri, Yellowstone, Kootenai and Clark Fork, along with wetlands, are an integral part of our Nation's watersheds and affect the health of all waters of the United States--a very prescient, very thoughtful statement. You reference the wetlands that are less than a percent of the State, and you say the ecologic and economic importance of the waters far outweighs their relative size. You picture for us a 50 gallon drum of PCBs leaking into one of the depressional wetlands, and the connection between these isolated waters and waters of the United States--a very powerful image to us. It brings us back to the days of the forties and fifties when power companies were changing out their transformers, and they gave the spent liquid, that inert liquid to county highway departments. They spread that on the dirt roads to keep the dust down, not realizing, not knowing that it was PCB and that it would be washed off the road, into the ditch and from the ditch into the creek and from the creek into the tributary and the tributary into the river and then into the lake and then into the Mississippi, and generations have been poisoned because of it. That is what you were talking about. That is what you have the prescience to understand. We will take to heart your counsel and that of Native American people to protect these waters into the seventh generation. Thank you for your testimony. Governor Schweitzer. Thank you very much. Mr. Oberstar. The Committee will stand in recess until the conclusion of these votes, and we will resume. [Recess.] Mr. Oberstar. The Committee will resume its sitting. We escaped with fewer votes than anticipated, and we will continue with testimony of Secretary Curry of the New Mexico Department of Environment. We thank you very much for journeying a long distance to be with us today. Please give Governor Richardson my great appreciation for making you available. He and I served in the House together and traveled to El Salvador in pursuit of human rights issues in the early eighties, 1982, 1983, where Governor, then-Congressman Richardson visited hospitals where there were both wounded citizens who had been attacked by the ruling class and soldiers who had been attacked by the people resisting oppression. In his wonderful way, his warm and his native speaker Spanish fluency was able to comfort people on both sides of the conflict. I think that is where he got his appetite for involvement internationally in human affairs issues and later went on to the United Nations and to being an intermediary in international conflicts. It started with our common excursion into El Salvador in pursuit of human rights in Central America. I have only the fondest memories of Bill Richardson. Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly pass that on to him. Mr. Oberstar. We welcome you today on a subject of similar magnitude, the Clean Water Act. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RON CURRY, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO Mr. Curry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ron Curry and I am the Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department in the Administration of Governor Bill Richardson. The Clean Water Act has been our Nation's main tool, as you know, in ensuring the continued protection of the water we drink, enjoy for recreation and that wildlife communities rely upon. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of this tool has been blunted by two recent Supreme Court decisions. This is especially troubling in New Mexico, a very arid State that has relied on the Clean Water Act to help us protect our limited but very, very precious water resources there. It is important for us to remember that the passing of the Clean Water Act is one of our Nation's successes. Waters that 30 years ago were thick with waste discharges now support thriving recreation and economic activities. Our quality of life has improved and so too has the sustainability of aquatic species and wildlife, but now those protections are mired in widespread confusion amidst judicial and bureaucratic gridlock because it is no longer clear what waters will continue to be protected. In effect, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are two classes of water, one that is tied directly to navigability and deserves Federal protection from pollution and the second class that is completely abandoned. As the man put in charge by Governor Richardson with protecting New Mexico's limited water supply from pollution, I can tell you and I would hope that those of you have been to New Mexico can see this. I will tell you that basing the decision on what water deserves to be clean or whether you can float a boat on it is an extremely limited view. Quite simply, it is lunacy. There are times during the summer months when you can't float a boat down the mighty Rio Grande. I can tell you since the mighty Rio Grande is New Mexico's main water source, there have been times when I have been able to walk across the Rio Grande without touching any water. So it is indeed lunacy. To put it another way, many of you today have glasses or bottles of water in front of you. As an analogy, imagine that those glasses collectively made up the waters of the United States as you look around this room. Before 2001 and the SWANCC decision, the water in those glasses was protected by the Clean Water Act. However, today because of the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, as much as half of those bottles of water or glasses that you have in front of you may no longer be protected. I want you to have good clean water in those glasses or bottles that you are drinking out of, but if the Supreme Court decisions stand, no one can say for sure if that will be the case if those were the waters of the United States. Nowhere have the limitations created by these two recent Supreme Court decisions been felt more acutely than in the desert Southwest. We simply have no water to waste in New Mexico and in Arizona and the rest of the Southwest. The water we do have and its quality is of utmost importance to our continued health, citizens and the future economic development of our region. Additionally, waters within the closed basins that cover up to one-fifth of New Mexico would also be left vulnerable to pollution. That includes 84 miles of perennial streams, 3,900 miles of intermittent waters, 4,000 playa wetlands in New Mexico and numerous headwaters, springs, cienegas and isolated wetlands. Threatened basins include the Tularosa, Mimbres, San Augustine, Estancia and Salt in central, south and southwestern New Mexico. The misguided Court rulings that we have been speaking about today also threaten New Mexico's precious limited groundwater resources, the source of 90 percent of our clean drinking water in the State of New Mexico. Surface water bodies are often directly linked to ground water resources. Unregulated damaging surface dumping will therefore ultimately lead to pollution of the aquifers. We cannot and I ask your help in not allowing this to happen. The water beneath just one of those basins, the Salt Basin, has been estimated by the United States Geological Survey to contain as much as 57 million acre feet of water including 15 million acre feet that is potable. That could prove to be a vital and needed future water supply for the rapidly growing City of Las Cruces. Therefore, New Mexico also supports efforts to ensure that this bill preserves our traditional authority over ground water resources. Governor Richardson has fought to restore protections to New Mexico's waters. In March, 2003, he filed comments with the EPA, petitioning that New Mexico's closed basins and other imperiled waters remain protected under the Federal Clean Water Act. He also has strongly supported the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003, a precursor of the legislation before you today. The citizens of New Mexico depend on the protection of a clean environment and sustainable water supply. El agua es la vida. In New Mexico, we say, water is life, and water is life in New Mexico and the United States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. Mr. Oberstar. I thank you for your very thoughtful testimony and your well expressed understanding of the Clean Water Act as written and as administered over the years. You say whether you can float a boat on the water is an extremely limited view and go on to say there are summer months when you can't float a boat down the mighty Rio Grande, and that is true of much of the arid West, that rivers simply dry up. But if you say, well, they have to be running all year long in order to be protected, then we won't be able to protect waters. You correctly observe that the legislation simply restores protections, as you put it very well, in place for three decades. That is what we are trying to do, just restore the purpose of the Act to what it was before the Supreme Court legislated on this major water protection legislation. I love that you say we in the Southwest have no water to waste. That is so true. We have no water to waste anywhere frankly. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make an observation that in all things, there is balance. I understand certainly your interest in preserving the quality of environmental assets for those who follow, and I strongly support that. Perhaps there is a difference in the manner in which we may choose to follow that. I think in the discussion of navigable waterway, adjacent wetlands thereto or isolated wetlands, we really in the discussion should just move past all that and say we want the Corps to have jurisdiction along with the EPA nationwide. Just make it simple. In fact, have all those legal hocus pocus from SWANCC on. I don't go there, but I think in fairness of the philosophic discussion, we ought to at least say that is what we want to do. In the example previously cited by the Chairman before the recess, talking about the distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls on a roadway, the fact that occurred is illegal in itself because PCBs are prohibited chemicals or very constrained utilization. If you distribute that in any unsafe or unsound manner, the EPA has statutory authority to pursue, fine and, as necessary, take criminal actions against those who intentionally violate the environment. So I see there are two tracks. On one side, we can have a very well defined role for the EPA on all fronts to go after anything. If it is someone polluting your ground water in your home State, we ought to go after those folks. I don't defend that at all, obviously. But, at the same time, there is a consequence to actions which would define South Mountain in Maricopa, Arizona, which I am going to enter the photograph in the record because I think it is such a great one. From 1993 to 2000, this, what is called a drainage area, carried water 5 times with 182 reported rainfall events for a total flow in over seven years of seven hours. Now this becomes a waterway, navigable waterway subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps. That is where I think the equities are not balanced. The consequence of that to a landowner is that whatever your intended utilization for that property can and most likely will be impaired by the findings of a 404 permitting process. Now if we were to reach the conclusion that that is in the social best interest of all parties affected, then we at least ought to have a provision that would enable the Federal Government to compensate that landowner whose right of use has been taken by the finding by the Corps that the rocks of Maricopa were a wetland. That is the balance we are trying to find here. Do those issues resonate with you or do you think that the adoption of the bill as currently proposed overwhelms any of those counterbalancing concerns? Mr. Curry. Member and Mr. Chairman, I think the bill as it is proposed will provide necessary protections not only for the environment and the waters that we are concerned about, but I think it will provide necessary protections for the property owners that you speak of. I think in New Mexico, we are concerned many times about closed basins, and those closed basins often times have the potential to be used for illegal dumping of some sort or another. Mr. Baker. On that point, let me ask as to your authority with the Department of Environment in your home State. What are you empowered to do when you see an action being taken that is against the public interest or any of the things you are concerned about? Somebody is playing with the drinking water. What are your authorities under State law to prohibit that action from taking place? Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman and Member, we are empowered by the State legislature to take necessary action to protect the health and the environment of New Mexico. But what we don't want to run into and why we support this bill and why Governor Richardson supports this bill is to find clarity in what is being enforced upon, to find clarity in our State, like I said earlier, where we don't have the ability to navigate down the Rio Grande, where we don't have the ability to navigate down the arroyos of northern New Mexico and southern New Mexico but where we have situations where there is a point source discharge along those arroyos that may only flow for only 30 days out of the year. We have to have the ability to go in there and enforce in those areas even though certainly no boat can ever float down those arroyos. Mr. Baker. Defining that property as a navigable waterway for the purposes of enforcement under the Clean Water Act is a separate and distinct issue from your regulatory authority to proceed in the public's interest. When you couple State's rights together with Federal environmental rights, there are very few things that can occur in this Country today that are detrimental to the environment for which there is not a civil or criminal penalty. That is the only point I am making. I don't know that we need to adopt this particular language to resolve your concerns, but I thank you for your appearance, sir. Mr. Curry. Okay, thank you. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, it is great to have you in this hearing. I listened to great interest as I was walking in, although late, to your remark on the Rio Grande. I was born and raised in Brownsville, Texas, and there were pictures in the Brownsville Herald of where a shoe would not fit into the river. So I understand from that vantage point. I am also very concerned some of the issues that most of the West is facing in regard to the drought, climate change and all of the issues that you are talking about. In the more arid parts of the Country, especially in New Mexico, there are many entire watersheds, the closed basins, if you will. They are very important resources for all of us, but they never connect to traditional navigable waters. Now, will this make it difficult if not impossible to prove a significant nexus to the waters based on the Kennedy test and the Agency's new guidance? Would you talk about that, the water resources in New Mexico, and why are they protected and what is New Mexico done to protect them and where does the Federal Government fit in to help protect them? Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman and Member, in New Mexico, on the area of climate change, just as a note on that because I note that you mentioned that earlier, Governor Richardson set up a task force. The task force was made up of stakeholders from business, from oil and gas which is obviously big in our State, from the dairy industry, from people who are advocates for the environment. They came up with 69 recommendations, 67 of which were passed unanimously by a task force consisting of over 20 people. Some of these recommendations addressed issues like the clean car standards, clean tailpipe standards. Some of them talked about what we could do to increase our snow pack in northern New Mexico and make sure that we were able to continue to have that. So the climate change issue is very much aware, and we think that we are taking a very forward moving progress on that issue as far as what we can do in New Mexico to address it. When we look at navigable waters in New Mexico, we find very few, and that is why it is important that we don't consider the waters of New Mexico which cannot be navigated to become second class waters. That is what we don't want. That is why we support this bill because if this bill does not pass, then New Mexico will not only not have the complete ability to protect its waters like it has for the last 30 years. I believe that our waters will become second class waters just like a second class citizen. I don't think that is good for the next generation or the seventh generation as we look forward. The Rio Grande is the river that most people who have never been to New Mexico think of. The Rio Grande at one time in our history of our State was a mile wide at the City of Albuquerque. Today, there are times like in Brownsville where the river is less than a yard wide for one reason or another. It was very navigable back in the early history of Albuquerque. It is not now. There is an occasion raft race down the Rio Grande, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect it. We are protecting the silvery minnow in New Mexico. We are protecting the river for agricultural purposes in New Mexico, and it must be continued to be protected for the historical acequia uses in the State of New Mexico. The last thing I would say, Member, is that you talk about the shoe in Brownsville. I have had the opportunity to be a commercial balloon pilot, a hot air balloon pilot for 25 plus years in New Mexico. Often times, we had the opportunity to fly our craft into the Rio Grande, and we are happy to call it a splash and dash. Some days when there is no water flowing in the Rio Grande, we refer to it as a mud and thud. It certainly is not navigable at that point. A lot of times as you move up and down the Rio Grande, what you see are people on air boats moving along much as you see airboats in the Everglades. So we look to keep New Mexico's waters from becoming second class citizens. Mrs. Napolitano. What role would the Federal Government have in helping you protect them? Mr. Curry. Passing this law would be the biggest role that I can tell you right now because with the Federal decisions, we have been left with the morass of uncertainty. Mrs. Napolitano. Is there anything that would enlighten us? I chair the Subcommittee on Water and Power. I have a great concern about climate change, about pollution, if you will, because even though we may have enough water in the rivers and in our streams, if they are polluted they are going downstream and hurting somebody or going to endanger the ecosystem or hurt the fish. How are you protecting your streams from that happening? Mr. Curry. Member and Mr. Chairman, I want to focus again back on the Rio Grande. We have 19 Native American pueblos along the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Some of those pueblos have attained the ability from the Federal Government to set their own water quality standards, and that has caused some economic concerns. There is a pueblo of Ysleta that sits south of Albuquerque. There is a pueblo of Sandia that sits north of Albuquerque. The pueblo if Ysleta back in the early nineties set its own standards for water quality, and the City of Albuquerque has to adhere to those standards. So in a very direct yet indirect way the Federal Government, by empowering the Native Americans in our State to set their own water quality standards has helped improve the water quality standards in New Mexico. The other thing that I would ask the Federal Government to continue to help us on: In the lower Rio Grande in New Mexico, we have a number of studies going on to remove and understand the salinity problems that exist in the lower Rio Grande in New Mexico before it passes over in to become a border river with the State of Texas in Chihuahua. So those two issues, the salinity issue in the lower Rio Grande is very important to the State of New Mexico. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Curry. Mr. Oberstar. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney. Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Curry, for joining us today. Many of the opponents of the clean water protection say that they think that the protection of so-called isolated waters, non-navigable tributaries and many types of wetlands should be left up to each individual State. Often times, however, when States try to pass their own statutes or regulations, many of these efforts are vigorously resisted by polluters. We understand that the State of New Mexico has recently undergone such a contentious debate and won its case. Congratulations. Can you tell us more about that? Mr. Curry. Yes, sir, Member and Mr. Chairman. Through what we have in the New Mexico, the Water Quality Control Commission, we went through an exercise where we essentially tried to decouple the State of New Mexico from the Federal standards. So we would have the opportunity so that we would have a better chance of having our own water quality standards that were separate from the confusion that existed at the Federal level. We were successful through the Water Quality Control Commission, and then those efforts were appealed to the State Court of Appeals. We prevailed. At this point, we are in the process of continuing to decouple in that area, and that will give us the authority to continue to do in New Mexico that which we lost in 2001 but what we had been doing for the 30 years, 3 decades, prior to that. It will give us the ability to continue to protect those rivers because of that court of appeals decision. We graciously accept your congratulations. Mr. Carney. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Arcuri, no further questions? Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would ask the same question I asked the Governor of Montana. Do you see any problems with the Chairman's legislation which will essentially in my judgment, and you can correct me if I am wrong on this, keep intact the jurisdiction of the Corps and EPA for the Clean Water Act over waters of the United States, not change essentially the legal precedents that have evolved over the last so many decades but make it clearer that waters of the United States include tidal waters, non- tidal waters, ephemeral streams, those kinds of things for a myriad of purposes: flood storage, erosion control, sediment control, nutrient management and those kinds of things? Do you see or foresee any problem with taking that term, navigable waters, out of the Clean Water Act and leaving intact essentially what I think you just described as protecting waters of the United States? Mr. Curry. Member and Mr. Chairman, I would say no. We are concerned in New Mexico about ephemeral waters because we have so many areas and so many sources in New Mexico that run intermittently. We want to have the ability to protect those even though they are not navigable. Just on that basis alone, we feel confident in supporting this legislation. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. Again, the gentleman from Maryland has reaffirmed what our witness today, Mr. Curry, has said and what I have--how should I say--elucidated on numerous occasions and in my opening remarks today, and that is the purpose of the Clean Water Act was stated very clearly in the opening paragraph's definition of terms in 1972: ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.'' The Act has been interpreted in that broad sense for 30 years. The Supreme Court, in an activist decision, this group of justices came in saying, well, we don't want an activist court, but then they became one. They overturned the meaning of the Congress in this legislation. They said, no, there has to be a connection to navigability, but for 30 years the Act has been interpreted in this broad sense of the 1972 Act, the waters of the United States. Deleting the term, navigable, in the body of the Act simply reaffirms 30 years of practice by the Corps of Engineers and the EPA and the States and all their subdivisions in administering this Act. That is purely and simply what I attempt to do with this legislation, what all the co-sponsors want done and what so many others throughout the Country want to accomplish. To make it clear that we are not expanding this authority, we included Section 6, the savings clause that deals with, that restates all the limitations on the Act that were enacted in 1972. Now, your statement on the second or third page of your testimony, I think, is so illustrative of the importance of this broad interpretation, and that is your reference to the Salt Basin estimated to contain as much as 57 million acre feet including 15 million acre feet potable. But if the aquifer, you say, is allowed to be polluted by surface dumping, its benefits for future New Mexicans will be severely curtailed. Now that dumping could come from an intermittent stream above that basin or in another State that only a few weeks or a few months of the year is an operating body of water in which you could float a boat, a canoe maybe or pirogue if you are in Louisiana. Yet, toxics dumped into that water could get into this aquifer and poison it. Isn't that what we are trying to get at? Isn't that what the purpose of the 1972 Act was to give the Federal Government, give the State Governments authority to prevent such pollution? Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman, I concur completely. I can think of an example if you would bear with me. In Albuquerque, about three years ago, there was an oil spill in the south valley of Albuquerque. It was a relatively small spill, several thousand gallons, and it came from a used oil company. It ran down, and it was within a mile of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque. It ran down a concrete ditch. When the concrete ditch ended, it ran into a dry arroyo, a dry earthen ditch. We looked around, and we were concerned that we didn't have the authority to go in there with the proper enforcement activity to get after the particular polluter involved in this. We ended up using some other acts within our State's ability to get in there to ensure that we got it cleaned up. There was, if I remember, a small penalty, but our concern was getting it cleaned up so that it would not go from the arroyo into the Rio Grande. That is an example of what you speak, of what we are trying to do. Mr. Oberstar. I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and wise testimony and the experience of your State. We particularly appreciate the views of the governors who represent those arid regions of the Nation for whom water is so precious and whose protection is so critical. Thank you very much for your contribution today. Our next panel includes Professor Robert Percival, the Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law from the University of Maryland, Professor Kim Diana Connolly, University of South Carolina School of Law, and Mr. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation. We welcome you all and thank you for being with us today and for your contribution. I have read your testimony, respective testimonies previously, and I am very impressed with your thoughtful presentations. Professor Percival, we will begin with you. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PERCIVAL, ROBERT F. STANTON PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; KIM DIANA CONNOLLY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL LEGAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW; M. REED HOPPER, PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION Mr. Percival. Chairman Oberstar, Congressman Baker and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am Robert Percival, the Robert Stanton Professor of Law and Director of the Environmental Law program at the University of Maryland School of Law. The topic of this hearing is extremely important. The U.S. has been a world leader in environmental law. During the 1970s and 1980s with overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress enacted landmark legislation to protect the environment. Due to the foresight of those Congresses, our water and air are much cleaner and our citizens are safer and healthier than in countries that only belatedly developed environmental laws. Yet now, 35 years after enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, we find some of the most fundamental premises of our environmental laws under assault in the courts. The sharply divided Supreme Court has created confusing new loopholes in the vital legal infrastructure that protects our environment, and it is essential that Congress repair our legal safety net. There are four basic points that are covered more extensively in my written testimony that I would like to emphasize in my brief oral statement today. First, Congress properly recognized in 1972 that a comprehensive approach would be necessary to protect the Nation's water. Thus, it intended to exercise the fullest extent of its constitutional powers when it adopted legislation requiring permits for all discharges of pollutants or dredged or filled material that would degrade the Nation's waters. Second, initially, the courts_and for 30 years nearly_ properly recognized that Congress had acted wisely when it entrusted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with the responsibility to implement this program. Thus, in its 1985 Riverside Bayview decision, the Supreme Court unanimously deferred to these agencies in upholding the broad application of the Clean Water Act to wetlands not contiguous to open waters. Third, as a result of two sharply divided Supreme Court decisions, one 5-4 and the other 4-1-4, SWANCC in 2001 and Rapanos in 2006, every one now agrees that confusion reigns over the scope of Federal jurisdiction to protect the Nation's waters. This confusion benefits no one and can only be dispelled by the adoption of new legislation clarifying the scope of the Act. Fourth, Congress has ample constitutional authority to restore the Act to its initial premises. As a result of the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, the most fundamental question one asks about any regulatory statute_to what does it apply_is in a state of confusion today. This confusion threatens to undermine not only the particular program challenged in those cases, the Section 404 program to protect wetlands, but also other programs that rely on the same jurisdictional term, waters of the United States. These include the Section 402 permit program for point source discharges of water pollutants and the Act's oil spill prevention program. Rapanos has produced the bizarre result that the law currently defining the scope of Federal jurisdiction reflects the views of a single Justice that were rejected by each of the eight other Justices. Moreover, no one seems to know how to apply the significant nexus test created by Justice Kennedy in this case. This has spawned new legal challenges and enormous uncertainty. In light of the enormous confusion created by the Court's 4-1-4 split in Rapanos, Congress should amend the Act to clarify the scope of Federal jurisdiction. The simplest approach would be for Congress to return to the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act which prevailed for 30 years prior to SWANCC and Rapanos. This approach should command bipartisan support because it would endorse the very interpretation of the waters of the United States so ably advanced by the Bush Administration's Solicitor General in the Rapanos cases. This approach would also have the virtue of ensuring that agencies need not revise their regulations that predate SWANCC and Rapanos. It would promote legal stability by retaining long-held interpretations well known to agency officials and the private Bar. When I was a law clerk to Justice White, who was the author of the unanimous decision in Riverside Bayview, he once said to me he couldn't understand why some justices believe that what Noah Webster had in his mind when he came out with this first dictionary in the 19th Century was more important for statutory interpretation than what was in the minds of the Members of Congress who passed the actual legislation. I suggest that those are very wise words. When Justice Scalia responded to the criticism that his extreme view in the Rapanos case would be very damaging to the environment, he essentially said: So what? It is not my fault. Congress did not speak clearly enough. I urge you to take this opportunity to speak clearly by amending the Act to restore it to the long-held interpretation prior to these two decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you for those very enlightening remarks and for that explicit insight into the mind of Justice Scalia. Thank you. Professor Connolly. Ms. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Baker, distinguished Members, good afternoon. It is an honor and privilege to be here today. My ultimate message will boil down to one important truth. Congress must take immediate action and enact legislative language to straighten out the mess that regulating wetlands and other waters in the United States has become in recent years. You can read more about my background in my written submission, but it might be interesting to know that I have come to this conclusion after years of work including practice here in Washington, D.C., representing the regulated community as well as scholarly work. Your staff has prepared an excellent background paper, and Professor Percival has provided coverage of crucial points. So I am not going to go over these remarks about the current state of the law. I do want to make a couple of other important points. Wetlands and other waters differ depending on locations due to a variety of factors including soil differences, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry. Yet, regardless of their differing nature, scientists have demonstrated that adjacent wetlands, tributaries of virtually of all types and headwaters are inseparably bound up with other waters. Through their connectivity, they are essential to the maintenance of the quality of our Nation's waters. I believe that in 1972 and again in 1977, Members of Congress did their best to set forth a clear path for what the Clean Water Act should cover in terms of navigable waters. As I argued on behalf of a bipartisan group of current and former Members of Congress in a Supreme Court brief in the Rapanos case that I was privileged to co-author last year, it is clear the intent of Congress when passing the Clean Water Act was to embrace the broadest possible definition of navigable waters when it defined that term as all waters of the United States. You have read in your staff-prepared memo about the Riverside Bayview Homes case. You have read and heard today about the Solid Waste Agency case. The subsequent legal interpretations of the 2001 Solid Waste Agency decision by various courts did find it to be very narrow in most cases. But the agencies gave mixed signals as to how they were going to proceed in dealing with the areas of jurisdiction. GAO studies demonstrated there was confusion among Corps staff. Stakeholders on both sides continued to battle in interpreting the geographic jurisdiction. During these years, the first and second Clean Water Authority Restoration Acts were introduced in Congress, and some good progress was made, but perhaps because of the then leadership, those legislative efforts did not receive the attention that I think they deserved. But it has become more important. The United States Supreme Court got involved again, leading to the most recent set of opinions that we have heard about today in the consolidated Rapanos and Carabell cases. These are very, very academically interesting cases. They leave stakeholders, except for law professors who like to write about these kinds of things, without much comfort. Now we have got guidance. We have got this set of guidance that the Corps and EPA has put out almost a year later to interpret how the term, navigable waters, should be read in the field, but I use the term guidance loosely. It does not read as a document I would find very guiding if I were an EPA or Corps employee trying to make a particularized decision in the field with respect to a particularized permit application. It leaves more questions unanswered than answered. As the frontline regulator, the Corps processes close to 90,000 permit applications and 100,000 jurisdictional determinations a year. Significantly, less than 1 percent of permit applications are denied. So the odds are if you apply for a permit that you want to undertake development in waters of the United States, you are likely to receive such a permit. Admittedly, it will require some investment of resources, take some time, but at the end of the day you are likely to get your permit and be allowed to undertake activities. Recent research that I did and was published in an article in the Environmental Law Reporter shows customer service surveys filled out by thousands of permit applicants after undertaking the process of going through this Corps process show that they are happy, if not delighted, with the permitting process. Though some applicants express concern about the time the permit process requires, a few others have some other complaints, an impressive percentage give the Corps perfect marks in their overall ranking of the permitting experience. So, contentment with the current system? Yes, but it is my belief that Congress must act, must amend the Clean Water Act now. I personally believe that the bill before this Committee could have gone farther. I think that it might have wanted to deal with the so-called Tulloch Rule interpretations of the term, discharge, maybe even mitigation, but I think it is an important step. I am aware that there are some who question constitutionality of the pending legislation. I will not belabor the point here because of time constraints but simply state it is my belief that this proposed legislation is constitutional. Finally, in closing, I want to reiterate something I wrote to conclude a recent piece published in a book of essays. My essay was looking into whether there could be a happy ending in the jurisdictional debates. I wrote there: It seems to be precisely some new magic words from Congress that are needed to rectify the situation. H.R. 2421 contains appropriate words to bring us closer to happily ever after when it comes to our Nation's waters. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much for your thoughtful and well expressed testimony. Mr. Hopper, welcome and you are recognized. Mr. Hopper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the best indicator of Congressional intent is to be found in the language actually adopted by Congress. After all, this is what the Federal officials have to work with, the regulated public and the courts themselves. As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, the broad statement of the objective was clear. The objective of this Act indicated, as you mentioned in the first line of the Clean Water Act, it was to restore and maintain the integrity of the Nation's waters. However, in the next line, Congress adopted this language: In order to achieve this objective, consistent with the provisions of the Act, the national goal is to eliminate discharges into the navigable waters. The other provisions referred to here of Section 404 and other provisions of the Act used these terms, navigable waters and waters of the United States, which had been employed in previous acts and for 150 years did have a settled meaning, meaning actual navigable channels. These same terms were employed in the Clean Water Act without being redefined. In addition, on the same first page of the Act, Congress indicated another objective which was to recognize as a policy of Congress that it is the primary responsibility and rights of States to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution and plan the development and use of land and water resources. Still, for 30 years, no consistent jurisdictional standard was applied by the Corps. This was proven in a GAO audit in 2004 in which the GAO reported and demonstrated that if you take any three officials from a Corps district office, you will get three different interpretations as to the jurisdiction of the Corps. In ensuing years, we had the development of the Supreme Court decision, Riverside Bayview, which indicated a broad authority under the Clean Water Act followed by SWANCC which implied a narrow authority under the Clean Water Act. We had split decisions. So to clarify the Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, we brought the case of Rapanos to the United States Supreme Court. We did not get the clarity we had hoped. As is clear now, we have a 4-1-4 split. We have the dissent, four justices indicating that anything goes. All water should be subject to Federal control. We have Justice Kennedy in his lone concurrence, providing for a jurisdictional standard under his significant nexus test. Then we have the four in the plurality who suggest that the jurisdiction should be limited to relatively permanent traditional standard type of streams, lakes and rivers and abutting wetlands that are inseparably bound up. There has been a three-fold response on the Federal level. The courts now are split again. The Seventh Circuit in the Gerke case and the First Circuit in the Johnson case have come at loggerheads as to how to understand or interpret the 4-1-4 split in Rapanos. We have the Seventh Circuit that says that the Kennedy approach is controlling along with the Ninth Circuit. We have the First Circuit saying that Federal jurisdiction could be established under either the Scalia plurality or the Kennedy significant nexus test. Then we have, as was already mentioned, the reference to the new agency guidance, which is anything but. It means, I think, business as usual. What the Corps will not regulate categorically, it will regulate under the significant nexus standard. We think that this is a pro forma test because the Corps of Engineers is already on record as arguing that all wetlands and indeed all waters are significant. That brings us to the current state of affairs where we have the proposal here of the Clean Water Restoration Act. The language in this Act suggests that Congress would exercise authority over all intrastate waters and with the exception of the farm exemptions that are mentioned, it would intrude, I think, in an unprecedented way into States' rights. I think it far exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the language that was actually adopted in the Clean Water Act. I think it does exceed the current regulations, and I think in addition it raises constitutional questions. Under current Supreme Court commerce clause analysis, it is unlikely that this broad reach would be sustained. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Hopper, for being with us and for a contrasting view on this subject. I know you argued before the Supreme Court on the SWANCC case. Am I correct? Mr. Hopper. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Oberstar. You do refer in your testimony and you repeated a moment ago to the intradistrict inconsistencies and the interdistrict disagreements, but most of those were post- SWANCC case where there was a great deal of confusion sowed. Not to say that the Corps in all of its districts throughout the Country has had a consistency, a slavish sort of consistency to interpretation of the Clean Water Act. To be sure, there are differences in the way the Act was applied. Those differences, in my experience sitting in hearings in this Committee over 33 years now, are because of differing conditions within the various Corps districts. But in your view of consistent application of the Clean Water Act, does the body of water have to be navigable? That is one on which a boat can be operated even down to a canoe? Mr. Hopper. Are you referring to what the Supreme Court has now decided under the Rapanos decision? Mr. Oberstar. Your view of the Act. You have read the Clean Water Act. You argued the case. You know it. Tell me what your view is, not the Supreme Court's views, your view. Mr. Hopper. Well, we thought that the Supreme Court was correct in the SWANCC decision when the Court looked at the history of the Act, looked at the legislative structure and the language of the Act and concluded that Congress did not intend to exercise anything more than its power over navigation. We think that was a correct reading of the Act as written. However, the Supreme Court has come to a different conclusion under the Rapanos decision. Even the plurality has backed off of SWANCC and given a broader reading than appeared to occur with the SWANCC decision. Mr. Oberstar. You would not insist on navigability. That is actually assuring that the smallest water conveyance would have to operate on the water in order for authority to be regulated. Mr. Hopper. That is correct. I would not insist on that, and I don't think that the Supreme Court now does under any reading of the Rapanos decision. Mr. Oberstar. I have read so much in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decisions, so much commentary about the Act and how it has been interpreted before I crafted the legislation pending before us. I marvel at various commentators' view of what Congress intended. First of all, there is the very plain language of the Act. Secondly, there is the very plain application of that Act over a period of 25, 27 years until the SWANCC case. How the Court could have gotten so far off base is a puzzlement to me. I sat right here in this room. We negotiated for 11 months with our Senate counterparts on the provisions of the Clean Water Act. It was very clear to us as staff and then to our principals, the Members of the House and Senate, that they wanted a departure from the past, from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, 1961 and subsequent, that clearly it wasn't doing the job. We weren't getting at the problem. You had to deal with watersheds. You had to go to the source. You had to go to protect particularly the wetlands, the marshes, the peat bogs which are the filtering agents, the coastal wetlands that are the buffering agents against storms to give this Act the broadest authority to clean up our waters. The term, navigable, stayed in the Act in various places because we were recycling the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act or also known as the Refuse Act. Thirty years of practice ought to mean something, but apparently it didn't for that first court case. Mr. Hopper. You do recall, Mr. Chairman, that in SWANCC the Supreme Court pointed out that in 1974, two years after the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, that the Court interpreted the term, navigable waters and waters of the United States, to mean traditional navigable waters and said that the Corps got it right then, the correct understanding of the intent of Congress. I would differ with you about this so-called 30 years of consistent application. The fact is that the Corps has never defined the word, tributary. This was a bone of contention in the Rapanos case. This was a free-wheeling definition, ever changing. Originally, the Corps just disclaimed any jurisdiction over ditches and the like. Then now suddenly only in the litigation in the Rapanos case, for the first time, did we hear the Government arguing that navigable waters and waters of the United States meant anywhere water flows regardless of its impact on downstream navigable waters. That was not a 27 or 30 year consistent application or interpretation of the law. That was ad hoc. Mr. Oberstar. You are right. Initially, the Corps didn't quite know what to do with this new authority. They were puzzled about what to do with the much broader authority the Congress intended for them, and they stumbled around. Then they published a set of regulations on Section 404 which is two paragraphs, and they produced 34 pages of regulation in the Federal Register which one of my colleagues called the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, the multiplication of terms, but the Act was implemented. Now, Professor Percival, you say and rightly so that more than 98 percent of the Nation's waters are not navigable and, in fact, the quality of navigable waters is significantly affected by pollution entering their non-navigable tributaries. Can you protect waters of the United States without having a broad interpretation? Mr. Percival. No, absolutely not, and that is why Congress intended to be as comprehensive as possible. I would just commend to the Committee for historical purposes the excellent article written by Lance Wood who has been legal counsel to the Corps for all these years, that was published. It is cited in footnote 31 of my testimony and was published in the Environmental Law Reporter in 2004. He specifically responds to what he deems the misguided notion that that original 1974 interpretation by the Court should carry any weight at all, given that they were doing precisely what you just indicated that they were doing. It was their first cut, and they didn't really think about it very much. It is now absolutely clear that unless you have a broad interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act, it is not going to accomplish what Congress intended because polluters will simply be able to move further upstream, dump their pollutants and escape all Federal jurisdiction. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. What this legislation is turning into is something I didn't intend and didn't foresee--maybe I should have--that it was going to unleash a great redebate over the Clean Water Act. That is a good thing. That is a healthy thing. Before I go on to Mr. Baker, let me ask. From the standpoint of the Constitution, is the commerce clause authority of the Congress limited to traditionally navigable waters, Mr. Hopper? Mr. Hopper. No, I think it is clear that it is not. Under the recent Supreme Court decisions of Lopez and Morrison, the Court has adopted a standard whereby commerce clause jurisdiction can be established if the activity that is regulated substantially affects a traditional navigable water, and so I think that is the standard now. I do not think that the bill that is proposed would pass muster under those standards, but you are correct to say it is not limited to channels. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. Professor Connolly? Ms. Connolly. I believe that the bill as proposed would pass muster. I think that it is clear that when you look at the jurisprudence of the commerce clause, particularly in the environmental setting, there hasn't been a Court decision that has found that there has been overreaching. I think that what you have done in the bill is very clearly set forth that the tests that currently exist in the constitutionality under the commerce clause and other sections of the Constitution that are impacted by this are met by this standard and that Congress clearly has the authority to regulate activities in waters under the Constitution. Mr. Oberstar. Professor Percival? Mr. Percival. I would just emphasize that even Justice Rehnquist, who is the architect of the Court's new jurisprudence limiting Congressional power in the commerce clause as far back as 1979, conceded in the Kaiser Aetna case that Congressional authority over the waters of this Nation does not depend on a stream's navigability, that if you are really trying to protect the waters of the United States, Congress has very broad powers. I would just add that it is certain that this bill could not be unconstitutional because your objective is simply to extend Federal authority to the limit of Congress' powers, so it is almost a tautology. Congress is not saying that we are going to exceed our constitutional powers. It is just that you are going to give the Corps and EPA as broad authority as is possible under the Constitution, and it is undoubtedly the case that the Corps' longstanding regulations would satisfy those constitutional tests even under the Court's current constitutional jurisprudence. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much. Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the sake of defending the Court's honor, I want to revisit just briefly judicial and regulatory history on the matter, Professor, and ask your comment as to where you think I might have missed it. In the case of the 1972 amendments, I will refer to as the Act, when you look to the Act and as to the definition of navigable waters, it simply states the waters of the United States including the territorial seas and there is no further clarification at that point. In looking to legislative guidance in the matter, I read with interest the Floor remarks of Senator Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, who made the following statement, and I read an excerpt acknowledging that. ``One matter of importance throughout the legislation is the meaning of the term, navigable waters of the United States The conference agreement does not define the term. The conferees fully intend the term, navigable waters, be given the broadest possible interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purpose.'' Everybody gets excited when they hear that, but they have got to read the next line. That statement is made in the context of the debate forum in which they were in. At that time, there were navigable waters not subject to jurisdictional claim. ``Based on the history of consideration of this legislation, it is obvious that its provisions and the extent of application should be construed broadly. It is intended the term, navigable waters, include all water bodies such as lakes, streams and rivers regarded as public navigable waters in law which are navigable in fact.'' So the Senator made a statement which, to me, makes clear that in the context of the regulatory regime in 1972, there were in fact navigable waters not subject to the Corps' jurisdiction, and he was making a statement of clarity that the Clean Water Act was to extend that jurisdictional reach to all navigable waters at that time. We go on. Pursuant to the actions of the Congress in the adoption of the 1972 Act, the EPA and the Corps then proceeded to take two differing approaches in interpreting the legislative direction. The EPA navigable waters definition was much broader. I won't read that. I will go on for time's sake. The Corps, on the other hand, rejected the EPA's broader interpretation and viewed the Clean Water Act as requiring it to assert jurisdiction over all the traditional navigable waters including those traditional navigable waters that it had previously declined to regulate. That seems to legitimate the Senator's view that expanding the jurisdiction was, in essence, expanding it to navigable waterways, not to, at this point, isolated wetlands. We get to that down the road. The National Resources Defense Council then, in response to the Corps' definition in 1975, filed in district court a D.C. action which the Court then ordered the Corps to develop regulations clearly recognizing the regulatory mandate of the Water Act. It did not specify what that action was, but it said do better than where you are. It took the Corps a while, until 1977, before the final rule was issued. By that time, the EPA had taken additional aggressive actions through regulation expanding and continuing the inconsistencies between the Corps and the EPA because the Corps could not catch up to the EPA because of the slowness of their rule promulgation. In 1985, the Court, pursuant to Riverside Bayview Homes case, seemed to give a victory back to the EPA, requiring wetlands regulation but that directly abutted open navigable waters consistent with the Clean Water Act. So we still have at the root of the definition as of the Riverside case a basement using navigable waters but extending the Clean Water Act reach now to wetlands abutting a navigable waterway or a distributary to that waterway. SWANCC comes along. For those who have not--I think for purposes of record--had the delightful time sitting down, reading that a page at a time should know that this was a gravel strip mine which had trenches left by the mining that resulted in the formation of seasonal ponds that were from a tenth of an acre to several acres in size on which migratory birds would nest in the season. The Supreme Court concluded in that case that the Corps had extended beyond its jurisdiction in enforcing the migratory bird rule in this instance. After evaluating the plain meaning of the statute and the contemporaneous interpretations of the Corps as well as its own precedent, the Court found the migratory bird rule to exceed the Corps' jurisdiction over the plain language of the CWA. The CWA grants jurisdiction only over navigable waters, so we get that same repeat language. What I am trying to establish for the record is that this Court did not wake up after drinking bad water and come up with this navigable waters idea. It started from the Floor statements of Senators during the course of legislative consideration and is replete with repetitive explanation through the jurisprudential record. Then we move on to Rapanos, and even there we find that the regulation of wetlands with a continuous surface connection to a tributary to a navigable water body. We still can't get away from it. Now I am not a purist when it comes to legislative construction. The goal here is to provide enhanced regulatory authority for the Clean Water Act over all land, all waters anywhere. It is my reading of it that if we were to have a rainstorm this afternoon and a few inches of water would accumulate on top of that very expensive visitors center, that that would classify it, at least for the purposes of this activity, as a wetland subject to jurisdiction claim. Do you see in the history that I have recited to you an inconsistency in the defense of navigable waters as a basic building block through which the Court, District and Supreme, have always looked at the critical right for extension of the provision of CWA authority? Mr. Percival. I think you have done a very good job, but I don't think you have given the complete picture. You have done an excellent job of pointing out why navigability has caused so much confusion over time. Mr. Baker. I wish you would stop there. That would be better, but go ahead. Mr. Percival. It is important. It is important to bear in mind, though, that what Congress did do in 1972 is it defined navigable waters to mean waters of the United States, a term of art whose meaning was to reflect the desire of Congress to have it as comprehensive as possible. Mr. Baker. But that is all they said. Mr. Percival. Right. Mr. Baker. They said navigable waters, and that is it. Mr. Percival. That is all they said in the text of the Act. Now I think the Supreme Court got it exactly right in Riverside Bayview when it looked carefully at the legislative history, carefully at the debates that you looked at and noted that the purpose of Congress was to do more than just protect navigability. It was also to protect water quality and that required deference to the Corps' judgment that you also needed to include wetlands that had hydrologic impacts on the quality of traditionally navigable waters. Mr. Baker. That was a provision in the holding which said you could literally walk from waste-deep wetlands directly to the navigable waterway, but the holding was because of its association with a navigable waterway, not that it was principally a wetlands. It was wetlands with a navigable waterway that led them to their conclusion. Is that wrong? Mr. Percival. Well, the Court also, Justice White in his opinion said that Federal jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands was not dependent on the flow of water between wetlands and traditionally navigable waters but rather the fact that in the judgment of the Corps, they had an impact on those other waters. Mr. Baker. They shared certain hydrologic conditions. Mr. Percival. Here is his quote: ``The wetlands adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams and other bodies of water may function as integral parts of the aquatic environment even when the moisture created in the wetlands does not find its source in the adjacent bodies of water.'' Now, just one final point and that would be the visitors center. It is not a wetland. It doesn't meet the Corps definition of wetlands. There is no conceivable way, no matter how hard it rains here, that Federal jurisdiction would be extended to the visitors center. Mr. Baker. But that definition is not statutory and it is really unclear if we were to go to the record and look at what the Corps has declared as a navigable waterway. Mr. Chairman, I am going to enter this one into the record. I will get the source for it. I just happen to have it in my file. Mr. Oberstar. Entered into the record without objection. Mr. Baker. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The title says Regulated Navigable Waters in Elk Grove, California, and it is just this little trench created by the farmer which is fenced on either end. So it would be a very short haul for a commerce operation. I can't remember off the top, but I know it is less than five inches a year annual rainfall. That is already a wetlands. That is the operational concern that I have, sir, is not that we shouldn't protect aggressively all environmental resources, but the unintended consequence of a bureaucracy let loose with the authority of law to back them will take private property rights without compensation almost at will. I know that is a reach for some who are strongly advocates of this position, but I think it is one equally strongly held by those who have been the recipient of these judgmental determinations. I thank you for your courtesy. I have gone on too long. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. No. The gentleman has time. Mr. Baker. I am fine. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is I will put that little diatribe into a memo and deliver it to the Professor for further analysis. Mr. Oberstar. That was a very thoughtful legal analysis that falls somewhat short, but I would instruct the Clerk to print the gentleman's remarks upside down. It was too good for the record. [Laughter.] Mr. Baker. I thank the Chairman for his kind comments. Living in Louisiana means you are upside down. So I take no offense. Mr. Oberstar. Well, my wife is from Louisiana. Mr. Baker. I strike that from the record then. [Laughter.] Mr. Oberstar. And the Mississippi rises in my district or just outside my district and finishes in her town. Professor Connolly. Ms. Connolly. Just I would commend to you the brief that I had the opportunity to co-author that goes into the legislative history. In addition to some of the quotes that you have, there are some additional quotes that you might want to look at as you are considering the legislative history here. Mr. Oberstar. It was my intention, without objection, to include in the Committee record Anchoring the Clean Water Act of the Environmental Law Institute. I think it is a very cogent document. Mr. Hopper, did you have comments on what Mr. Baker said? Mr. Hopper. Yes, I did if I could just make a comment on Mr. Baker's comments. I agree with Professor Percival that water on the roof is not a wetland, but it doesn't need to be a wetland in order to be regulated, and that is the key point. We have been engaging in a long debate about how clear the language of the statute is, and what is clear about the bill is that it applies to all intrastate and interstate waters, all waters. It is just as clear as the Chairman believes that navigable waters and waters of the United States was in 1972. I would also remind Professor Percival that it is a matter of established judicial canon of statutory interpretation that a contemporaneous interpretation is given more weight than a subsequent interpretation, and so therefore the 1974 interpretation of the Clean Water Act by the Corps is not to be set aside so easily. It was contemporaneous. Mr. Baker. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Certainly. Mr. Baker. Just as a quick follow-up, let me see if I understand your constrained definition of isolated wetland. Were it in fact, for example, where a farm tractor cuts across a field, where the field itself prior to the crossing was not deemed wetlands by the Corps, you have the residual tire marks that subsequently fill with water. There are cases where those marks or that area has been defined as wetlands. Do you think that jurisdictional reach is appropriate or inappropriate? Mr. Hopper. Oh, it is inappropriate. I think that you are right. We have seen some bizarre interpretations of what constitutes of what constitutes a wetland. Mr. Baker. Well, but there may be some middle ground here. I am not opposed to protection of waters, but what I am suggesting is there have been, as you have acknowledged, determinations that are not cemented in logic. Mr. Hopper. Oh, absolutely. Mr. Baker. For example, in construction of the interstate between Baton Rouge and Lafayette, there were isolated wetlands that were maintained by the contractor during the constructed of the elevated interstate, but when he left, those died. They were not wetlands of a permanent or natural nature. They were creations of the construction effort. Those are the kinds of concerns that practical people have about the extension of this authority in an unbridled fashion. If there are ways you can suggest to better clarify without extraordinary overreach. I am not suggesting that the Chairman's bill isn't going to pass as it is. He can pretty much do what he chooses here, but if there is a way to suggest a modest improvement in a definitional arena, I certainly would like to explore that with you. Mr. Hopper. I can think of no modest improvement. I can suggest an improvement. I think clearly if you are going to, this Clean Water Restoration Act, as proposed, simply says we are going to regulate all waters until a court says we can't. That is what it says, and it will cover all waters. All right, now. Mr. Baker. Except on the visitors center. Mr. Hopper. No. It will cover that. It will cover that on the visitors center, but it won't be called a wetland. Mr. Baker. Okay. Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Baker. I would be happy to yield, yes. Mr. Ehlers. I would have to agree with the professor from the State of Maryland. This area over here would not. The visitors centers is not going to meet the test of hydrology, of soil type or vegetation. So the visitors centers is not now or ever will be considered a wetland or a non-tidal wetland. Mr. Hopper. But if I could finish with my recommendation. Mr. Baker. I reclaim my time. Mr. Hopper. I think that this bill, as proposed, simply puts us in another round of intense litigation. I am volunteering. I do not think that this would pass constitutional muster. Now I think that if we want to adopt a standard that is respectful of States' rights and avoids a lot of the problems with intruding on the takings clause and property rights and still is protective of waters, I think that I would recommend adoption statutorily of the standard put forward by the Scalia plurality. Then I think what we need to do is continue our efforts with the States. The way I read the Clean Water Act of 1972, Congress intended to rely on the States to regulate at the source upstream whereas the Federal Government regulates downstream in the navigable waters. That is an entirely rational approach to address a nationwide issue. I think that we need to rely on greater States' rights. In addition to trying to protect the environment for future generations, we also want to protect the constitutional structure for future generations. The rule of law is an important thing as well. Mr. Baker. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Before I go to Mr. Carney, we have heard a lot of discussion about Congressional intent, and I would just like to enter into the record at this point the Committee report from this Committee when we reported the bill from Committee to the House Floor and before going to conference. ``One term the Committee was reluctant to define was the term, navigable waters. The reluctance, however, was based on the fear that any interpretation would be read narrowly. This is not the Committee's intent. The Committee fully intends that the term, navigable waters, be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.'' That is Congressional intent. That is what the Supreme Court ignored. Mr. Carney. Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hopper, I guess I need you to help me follow a couple things here. In the very first sentence of your testimony, you assert that, and please let me quote you: ``In over 30 years of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, agency officials were never able to provide a predictable consistent standard for Federal jurisdiction.'' Mr. Hopper. That is correct. Mr. Carney. You then go on to support this sentence with reference to the 2004 GAO report. Now, while you imply that the report supports this 30 year record, you do not make any references whatsoever to the time period actually covered in the GAO analysis, interviews that took place over a 10 month period regarding the less than 3 years following the SWANCC decision. Could you please explain how the time period assessed in the GAO report, 2001-2004, accounts for that 30 year period? Are there non-anecdotal references to the Committee that supports the 27 and some years you refer to in the first sentence? Mr. Hopper. I don't think I can cite to you any non- anecdotal references. I am not sure what you are asking with respect to this three year time frame. All I am suggesting is that, in both the SWANCC and in the Rapanos decision, the pluralities and the majority castigated the Corps for its ever changing regulatory framework. The migratory bird rule was adopted subsequent to the regulations that now exist. It was an underground regulation. It was never formally adopted, but it was followed and used. The Corps has specifically disclaimed in formal regulations that it does not have authority to regulate certain discharges and certain types of ditches, drainage ditches and the like. But, subsequently, it asserted authority over that. Let me just point out that with respect to SWANCC even though it was quite clear. Mr. Carney. It has done this over 30 years in other words. Mr. Hopper. Well, if it were consistent over 30 years, it wouldn't have been inconsistent in the past 3 years or 5 years or 10 years. Mr. Carney. Basically, you are saying over 30 years using a 3 year period to mark 30 years of inconsistency, is that right? Mr. Hopper. I am just saying that in the 30 years experience that the Corps has had to enforce, it has not come up with a consistent jurisdictional standard. Mr. Carney. I see, okay. Professor Percival, do you care to weigh in on that. Mr. Percival. Yes. I have read the GAO report, and the whole motivation behind having the GAO do the report was to find out how the Corps was responding to SWANCC. So, if anything, it actually supports the notion that SWANCC is the source of any inconsistencies that are referenced in that report, that the Corps didn't understand what its limits were for the scope of Federal jurisdiction, and that is why the report documents cases where they are applying different interpretations. If anything, that reinforces the case for going back to a pre-SWANCC interpretation as the Chairman's bill would do. Mr. Carney. Thank you. Professor Connolly? Ms. Connolly. Yes. I think that I have to pleasure every summer of working with Corps employees, teaching them an environmental laws and regulations course. So I actually get to meet with people who are in the field, trying to work with these regulations on a regular basis, and I have the utmost of respect for the employees who are trying to do this. As the Chairman pointed out, waters are different in different places, and there does need to be some different interpretations. The other interesting thing when you are looking at the data, I think that SWANCC put things into a very different perspective and that there was a lot of confusion. I think the GAO report. I was privileged to help prepare the folks who were doing the GAO report, and I know exactly what they were focusing on. They were trying to figure out what was happening in the field then. There has been an additional data call, and there are additional data that the Corps has gathered. It shows that, yes, there is confusion, and that is precisely why this legislation is needed to help the folks who are in the field, to help the folks who are in the permitted community, to help the folks who are all stakeholders figure out where go to from here. Litigation about this will continue absent some sort of directive, and it will continue to be a mess. There needs to be a directive from Congress to help us get past where we have gotten in light of these two Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Carney. Mr. Hopper, would legislative clarity clear up this cloudiness, do you think or, no, it will create more? What is your impression? Mr. Hopper. Well, if the legislation were clear, then it would help, I suppose. I don't see it. I don't see that with this proposal. I mean it is clear that if it were adopted, it says we will regulate all waters. I mean that is clear. However, again, I think that that will only last until the Court has addressed it. It invites. Because the legislation says we are going to regulate to the fullest extent of the law, it invites the Court to determine what that full extent is. I suggest that is an abdication of the Congressional role. Congress has its own responsibility to determine the reasonable limits of its constitutional powers. I think that it is clear that the Supreme Court under the commerce clause will require some limits to the commerce clause. This proposal offers or recognizes no limits to Federal control over State waters. Mr. Carney. Okay. I guess I am trying to work through is your concern with the scope or the definition? Mr. Hopper. Well, I don't think you can separate them. I think it is too broad from a scope standpoint. The definition, I could talk to you for hours about the ambiguities in the current definition. Mr. Carney. I really wish you wouldn't. [Laughter.] Mr. Hopper. For example, it does not define tributaries, so that is still an open question. Again, as the Court has recognized in Rapanos, and we argued in that case, it is a moving target. There has never been a regulatory definition of tributaries. We don't have a statutory definition of tributaries. It is going to continue to be a bone of contention and subject to litigation. Mr. Carney. Professor Percival? Mr. Percival. I just would like to state that the consequences of adopting Justice Scalia's definition as Mr. Hopper has been advocating is that there would be a tremendous restriction of the Federal Government's ability to regulate under the Clean Water Act, not just to protect wetlands but also to stop point source dischargers and also to prevent oil pollution. In fact, it would have it exactly backwards because the area where you wouldn't have Federal jurisdiction would be in those upstream areas of the watershed where the States themselves would have little incentive to adopt protections because it would primarily benefit States downstream. I think that is precisely the reason that the overwhelming majority of States supported the Federal Government's position in both SWANCC and Rapanos and resisted efforts to try to narrow the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps. This bill in no way would be an unprecedented intrusion on States' rights. In fact, it would restore the ability of the Federal Government to protect States that otherwise are relative helpless about the pollution that flows into their State from other States. Mr. Carney. Thank you. Ms. Connolly. Ms. Connolly. SWANCC actually specifically called on the States to respond, and I find it interesting that most did not respond. I think in part and as somebody who is active in the debates in South Carolina, the States honestly feel that the Federal Government has an important role here. In fact, there were the vast majority, 33 States, signed onto a bill supporting the Government's interpretation in the Rapanos and Carabell decisions. I think that they recognize that having Congress set forth workable language that will achieve the Congressional purpose, as the Chairman pointed out so well, the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters is necessary and not the responsibility of the States. Mr. Carney. All right, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the indulgence of your time. Mr. Oberstar. I appreciate the gentleman's questions. Professor Gilchrest. Mr. Gilchrest. That is my brother, Mr. Chairman. I would like just a statement first to clarify the intent of this Congressman, make that very clear. Rivers and Harbors Act, Clean Water Act, legislative history going back 100 years, 30 years, 3 years, what my intention is along with a number of my colleagues is to get a grasp or an understanding of the change in the hydrologic cycle of water in the United States over the last 500 years. What was the hydrologic cycle 500 years ago, 400 years ago, 300 years ago, all the way up the present day? It has drastically been changed and, to a large extent, been degraded. I would also say, and I don't say this in a flippant manner, but I remember the definition of tributary in my seventh grade geography class. We could probably take Mr. Bussey's definition from my seventh grade and apply that somewhere for the tributary. What do we do now with our intent as Members of Congress? Do we apply navigable waters just to the Federal Government just for downstream purposes and allow the States to deal with upstream regulations or do we have a better sense? We do have to deal with the legality of this. We have to deal with statutes. We have to deal with regulations. We have to deal with judicial interpretations of those things. But underneath all of this is an ephemeral stream that provides a magnificent ecological niche in vast areas of this Country or there are tributaries or there are intermittent streams or there are non-tidal wetlands or there are coastal areas that depend on streams and tributaries and rivers coming from the interior of the U.S. which provide coastal area habitat for spawning fish of which 75 percent we use on our dinner plates. The understanding that there is nature's design, especially nature's design that is dependent upon the hydrologic cycle, upon which we are dependent. So the intent of Congress is to understand how human activity can and must now with a bulging population be compatible with nature's design. For all those legal wrangling, the intent of this Committee to have some understanding about when you drive a tractor across a field too many times, you are going to leave a rut, but that is already taken care of because normal farming practices are exempt from these regulations. I guess my question is if we take out in the present legislation the term, navigable waters, and we use the language of this legislation, what else needs, in your judgment, to be done with the language of the legislation to clarify the intent of Congress? Not to become over-bureaucratic to a mining operation where they leave a couple of ditches and they fill up with water and they are waters of the United States, so you can't do anything else with them, or a farmer that might want to change from corn to a nursery operation to growing lodgepole pines or something like that. What else do you think in the present legislation needs to be changed, if any, to clarify the intent of Congress to restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters and what do you think might need to be changed in the regulatory structure that should be made into statute? Mr. Percival. A couple of things that come to mind: First, I think the most important thing you can do is make it clear as this hearing is doing by contributing to the legislative history that your intent is not to expand in any way Federal authority but simply to restore it to the state it was in prior to the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. The fact that Chairman Oberstar's bill has a savings clause that specifically references the existing exemptions in the Act certainly will make it clear that normal farming activities are not subject to the Section 404 program even though we keep hearing about these anecdotes that supposedly this would cause some problem there. I think Justice Breyer said it right in his dissent, his separate dissent in the Rapanos case where he said that the waters of the U.S. are so various and so intricately interconnected that the only way to achieve the Congressional goal of restoring their chemical, physical and biological integrity is to do what essentially Chairman Oberstar's bill would do, to extend Federal authority to the limits of Congress' constitutional power while entrusting to the Corps and EPA the responsibility of exercising that power intelligently, subject to Congressional oversight. Mr. Hopper. I don't think that protecting the Nation's waters requires federalizing the Nation's waters. Mr. Gilchrest. Can I just interrupt the gentleman just for one second? I live in the Chesapeake Bay Region of Maryland, and the biggest contributor of freshwater and also the biggest contributor of nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay comes from the Susquehanna River which is Pennsylvania. Of course, that is a navigable water but what goes into the Susquehanna River from as far away as Cooperstown, New York and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. There are numerous ephemeral and small tributaries. Mr. Hopper. I think that the Federal structure requires that any legislation accommodate States' rights and individual rights. The Supreme Court said, I think, best when they said that notwithstanding our desire to improve the human condition, we cannot do so by means shorter than the constitutional way. One of the virtues of the plurality approach in the Rapanos, even though I can see as Professor Percival rightly pointed out that it would greatly reduce the reach of Federal control, is that that approach at least has the virtue of being clearly demarking, fairly clearly demarking where Federal control ends and State control begins. One of the reasons why a lot of the States have not been able to step up subsequent to SWANCC was because it was not clear where the Federal Government was going to draw the line after SWANCC. After SWANCC, it should have been clear that the Corps had no authority to regulate isolated water bodies, but it is still doing so and has narrowly interpreted SWANCC. So, in response to your question, I think what is needed is a clear demarcation of Federal authority versus State authority. I don't think the answer is to cut the States out of it in the sense of federalizing it as this proposal seems to do, and I do think that the Supreme Court has at least indicated that Federal control could go as far as the plurality has said. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Ms. Connolly. In answer to your question, I would change nothing. I think that the definition and the bill are sufficient, and I think that what we need to bear in mind is that our constitution and our Nation have designed the system that the Executive Branch are the experts. I am not a scientist, but the science shows--and I have got this in my submitted text--that broader regulation is essential. And so, I think that this is an example, that the language before this Committee will satisfy those requirements. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. My closing comment, Mr. Chairman, is Oliver Wendell Holmes said the Constitution was made for people with fundamentally differing views, so we are seeing that play out here. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Arcuri. Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to thank the panel. I learned a great deal, listening to the three of you. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I just would like to point out that I certainly share the Ranking Member's concerns with respect to creating a bill that would in places like in my district where we have extensive farmland, where if it rains very hard you are going to get temporary wet spots, certainly creating a situation where then there can be regulation or that the farmer would have to submit a permit before using fertilizer or farming his land is a concern. However, to the point that Mr. Gilchrest made in referencing Cooperstown which is in my district. I happen just last week to have been by the very small stream that actually is the beginning of the Susquehanna Basin in Cooperstown, and it clearly is not a navigable stream. My concern is this: If we narrow the definition to the point where we are only applying to navigable streams, clearly we are missing the boat because again the Susquehanna Basin starts in a small little stream in Cooperstown. If that is being polluted somewhere along the way in many, many very small former mill towns, we are not going to be able to regulate it if the State of New York chooses not to regulate it. So my concern is how do we do that federally? How do we deal with it if a State chooses not to regulate it in its own State? Mr. Hopper. Well, I don't see the State not regulating any water body. I think I can say with confidence that it is illegal in every State to discharge pollutants to water bodies. Nobody on the Supreme Court, absolutely nobody on the Supreme Court has suggested that Federal regulation is limited to actual navigable waters. It is beyond that. So your concern, I think, is something you can put behind you. There is no precedent now for limiting Federal jurisdiction to actual navigable waters. We are beyond that. I think that there has been an awakening, environmental awakening among the people and among State legislators. I just think that in keeping with the constitutional structure and what Congress expressed as a policy to defer to the State's primary responsibility to protect against pollution, then I think States will step up and assume that proper role once it is clear where Federal jurisdiction ends. Ms. Connolly. With respect to your question, Congressman, about the exemptions, one thing that is very clear, the savings clause makes sure to clarify something in a way that I actually don't think is necessary. I think it is extra. I think that the exemptions that are currently in place 404(f) would remain in place and that farmers putting down fertilizers are exempt from 404 regulation and would remain exempt from 404 regulation. Mr. Arcuri. That is the fear that we get. That is the number one question that we get from people with respect to this, to the change. Ms. Connolly. I understand that is why the savings clause was included even though it, under most analyses, would not be necessary. Mr. Percival. I concur with Professor Connolly's remarks. Mr. Arcuri. Thank you very much. Mr. Oberstar. I think this panel's testimony may be the most important of our inquiry while not denigrating any other testimony. The issue of constitutionality, the issue of intent of Congress is critical to moving forward with the pending bill. I think these very thoughtful, scholarly presentations from one end of the spectrum to another are extremely important. I would like to ask Professor Percival. How can the same justice be on two sides of the issue? Your research on Justice Rehnquist's opinion in 1979: ``Reference to the navigability of a waterway adds little, if anything, to the breadth of Congress' regulatory power over interstate commerce. It has long been settled that Congress has extensive authority over this Nation's waters under the commerce clause. It cannot properly be said that the constitutional power of the United States over its waters is limited to control for navigation.'' Then he goes further to hold that the regulatory program established by the Clean Water Act was so comprehensive it preempted the federal common law of interstate nuisance. Then how could he side with Justice Scalia? What intellectual leap of faith did he make? Mr. Percival. Well, I actually think that that is not really an inconsistency. Justice Rehnquist had his own particular vision of federalism which he adhered to consistently regardless of whether it supported a conservative or liberal cause. He had already, at the time he made those statements about Congress having such broad constitutional power to protect the waters of the United States, said in his dissent in Fry v. United States that there can be no more important issue before the Court than how to resuscitate States' rights. In 1981, what he was doing when he said the federal common law of nuisance that the Supreme Court had used throughout the early 20th Century to try to resolve interstate pollution disputes between States, when he said that was preempted, he was doing so for two reasons: first, because he did indeed believe that the Clean Water Act was so comprehensive because it required a permit for any discharge to the waters of the United States, that that would take care of the problem and, secondly, he thought that the judiciary was uniquely ill suited to serve as a kind of national EPA umpiring these disputes. It is best left to the administrative agencies. I think that explains why in 1985 he joined the unanimous decision by Justice White in the Riverside Bayview case, that that was the proper view of the law. Now it is true that in the SWANCC decision, he was in the majority in that case, but I suspect that was because he viewed the facts of that case very differently. I don't know how he would have come out in Rapanos. But, again, you have to bear in mind that both SWANCC and Rapanos are not constitutional decisions. The Court didn't question the constitutional authority of Congress under the Clean Water Act. Instead, what they said is even though this might have bad consequences for the environment, it is not our fault. We think Congress adopted a narrower interpretation, and it is up to Congress to tell them they are wrong if that is the case. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. Mr. Hall has arrived, and we are glad to welcome him back to the Committee. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your tolerance with my scheduling and thank you, panel, who I am sure I will read up on all of your testimony that preceded my arrival. There are two questions I have. One is under the current guidance which proposes to use both the Scalia test and then failing that the Kennedy significant nexus test, evaluations of waters could add significant time, maybe two to three months, to water protection projects. Assuming that type of burden, doesn't the regulatory confusion created by the Supreme Court threaten to short-circuit the already overwhelmed system? Nodding is noted. Ms. Connolly. I agree completely, and that is something that I have got in my written testimony and I mentioned briefly as well. I think that the Corps of Engineers, and I work with Corps people on a regular basis, do their best to keep up with things, but there is a huge workload. They process 90,000 permit applications and over 100,000 jurisdictional determinations every year. The so-called guidance that leaves a lot of unanswered questions is going to add a huge burden to them or, in the alternative, it is going to cause a decision just not to regulate things that should be regulated because it is too difficult or there is too much pushback. That is my real concern is that there may be a great falloff in regulation as a result of this guidance. Mr. Hopper. I think it will result in just the opposite. Mr. Hall. Okay. Professor, do you want to weigh in? Mr. Percival. I would tend to agree with Professor Connolly. I would also emphasize that if you look at the history of the 1972 legislation, one of the things Congress was doing was rejecting the notion of relying primarily on site-specific assessments of environmental impact on ambient water quality. That is why we went to this comprehensive system of national technology-based effluent standards because we realized that we just couldn't accomplish it if you had to, for every discharger, make such an assessment. Here, it is for jurisdictional purposes as well. Mr. Hall. The second question is because I have a strong farming presence in my community and concerns have been expressed about reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on the future of clean water regulation, I would appreciate any comments on the way the impacts of the current regulatory situation would affect farming practices. Also, to what extent, if any, would removal of the word, navigable, from the underlying statute have on fields with grass waterways for temporary wet spots? Mr. Percival. I would again reiterate that the legislation expressly in its savings clause reiterates the existing exemption for normal farming activities from the Section 404 program. I think the one thing the legislation might do that would affect farmers is that by ensuring that the confusion created by the Supreme Court decisions will not lead to a great cutback in the scope of Federal jurisdiction, it will do a better job of protecting watersheds and thus improve the quality of waters that many of those farmers may use for irrigation. Mr. Hopper. One of the problems with the farm exemptions is that even though the language is broad the interpretation is quite narrow. For example, what is exempt is ordinary farming practices, but the way the Corps applies that, that doesn't mean ordinary farming practices throughout the Country or even throughout a region but on this particular farm. So if you are switching from row crops to vineyards, as was the case in the Borden Ranch case, you will run afoul of Federal regulation because this narrow interpretation would not apply the farm exemption to that type of activity. Deep plowing was at issue there where a shank is brought into the ground to tear it up so you get better drainage for the vineyard as opposed to the row crops, and the Corps of Engineers determined that that was an ordinary practice on this particular ranch. It couldn't be used and was subject to Federal control. As to whether the proposed bill would regulate you said small areas that become wet, if they fall outside of the farm exemption, they would be regulated. Small ponds or swales, those types of areas may well be regulated. I think that what is clear here is that all waters are going to be regulated unless they fall within this narrow interpretation of the farm exemption. Mr. Hall. Thank you. I have one last question for both Professor Connolly and for you, Mr. Hopper, and that is some States including New York have an ongoing discussion about the ramifications of the waterway being navigable in terms of public access on private land. In other words, if one can canoe in or kayak in on a two inch deep stream or so on, that then could be construed as allowing public access. Is there a crossover between what under these rulings are for the purpose of water quality protection what is determined navigable and what is determined navigable in terms of access? Ms. Connolly. What you are referring to, I believe, are the issues related to public trust and when you get into the concepts of navigability and protection of access to water. Historically, that is coming from ancient Roman times, and that is a separate question. The definitions that would be put in place by this proposed legislation, I do not think, would come into play there. I also would like to go back just briefly to your previous question about the farming exemptions and just wanted to add one little thought which is even in the event that certain activities such as changing from one type of farming operation to an entirely different type of farming operation that would involve great disturbance, many, many of those activities would fall under a streamlined permitting process. Even though the Corps does undertake 90,000 permit applications, 90,000 permit actions a year, only about 5,000 of those are the full individual permitting process where there is a public interest review and public notice and comment. For the most part, most of those activities proceed through a streamlined process, and most farming activities, even if they were captured, would likely proceed through a streamlined permitting process. Mr. Hopper. Streamlined permitting is a misnomer. The cost is very high even for a nationwide permit, and the length of time to get a nationwide permit is very long. Beyond that, what the statistics about permit grants don't tell you is the impact on the permittee. I just got a call yesterday from a fellow in Florida who wants to fill 11 acres on his property. He can get a permit if he provides 273 acres in mitigation. That is what the statistics don't tell you. Now with respect to this access, I agree with the professor. I am not so sure. I don't see an immediate impact on crossover. I don't see this as really affecting the access question immediately. I would just say, however, that there is an issue of incrementalism that goes on where we see the silent encroachment of Federal power in one area does bleed over into other areas. Mr. Hall. The finishing creeps. Mr. Hopper. So I would not say as a matter of law that this would have no impact on access rights. Mr. Hall. Professor Percival? Mr. Percival. I would just say I don't see any conceivable way in which this bill could change rights of access. The second point I would make is that there was one case before the Supreme Court where a private landowner actually dug a channel to his lake in order to connect it to the ocean. That is the Kaiser Aetna case. What the Supreme Court ruled in that case is even though the landowner had made it navigable, the navigation servitude did not mean that that became anything that the public had a right of access to unless the Government actually took the property and paid compensation to the landowner. So I don't see any conceivable way that could be a problem. Mr. Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Well, I thank you very much for your contribution, Mr. Hall, and for the questions and for the responses. Coming back to my reading earlier into the record the Committee report language which clearly expresses the intent of Congress in addition to and supplementing the actual words, that the Committee was reluctant to define. ``One term that the Committee was reluctant to define was the term, navigable waters. The reluctance was based on the fear that any interpretation would be read narrowly. However, this is not the Committee's intent. The Committee fully intends that the term, navigable waters, be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation, unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.'' Is there any way, Mr. Hopper, that we could refine the language in the bill I have introduced, pending before the Committee, that would resolve fears that Congress is overreaching in light of the legislative history and intent of Congress? Mr. Hopper. Yes, well, you could shelve it. I think that is the only way it would resolve my concerns about overreaching. Mr. Oberstar. But that would then close off opportunities for attorneys like you to litigate? Mr. Hopper. We have got plenty of work to do. I think that what you just read was also cited by Mr. Baker, and he went on further in that citation to indicate. Mr. Oberstar. No. He was referring to the law. I am referring to the Committee report. Mr. Hopper. It sounded like the same language to me. In any event, it was similar language that was cited by the Corps of Engineers in the SWANCC case, and the Court looked at that and said, we still don't feel that that was an adequate expression of Congressional intent to go beyond traditional powers over navigation. But as I said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I think what is important here, at least one thing that your bill does is that it clearly states that in the bill that Congress intends to exercise its full extent of its authority. We, as a regulated public, public officials don't have access to these Committee reports, and we have to live with the law as it is written. And so, it is the language in the Act that is important. It is not some subjective interpretation of any one of us or even any eloquent statement of purpose in these reports. They really don't count. The courts don't even get to them unless there is some ambiguity in the language of the Act itself. Mr. Oberstar. Well, that is true, that the courts have traditionally not reviewed, except where there is great uncertainty, the Committee reports. Yet, Committee reports very consistently interpret the language in layman's terms rather than in legislative terms. The courts try to avoid that, but they gratuitously come in and say, well, we know what Congress intended. It certainly had to mean thus and so. We deal with that constantly while we continue to refine our legislation. I think in the purpose of protecting the Nation's waters, we intend to move forward with clarity, and clarity means taking the term, navigable, out if that confuses the Court. I appreciate the contributions of all three of you in helping us in these deliberations. Mr. Hopper. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. The Committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.306 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.341 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.362 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.378 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.393 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.394 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.395 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.396 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.397 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.398 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.399 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.400 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.401 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.402 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.403 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.404 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.405 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.406 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.407 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.408 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.409 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.410 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.411 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.412 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.413 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.414 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.415 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.416 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.417 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.418 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.419 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.420 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.421 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.422 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.423 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.424 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.425 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.426 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.427 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.428 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.429 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.430 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.431 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.432 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.433 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.434 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.435 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.436 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.437 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.438 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.439 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.440 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.441 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.442 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.443 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.444 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.445 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.446 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.447 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.448 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.449 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.450 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.451 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.452 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.453 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.454 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.455 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.456 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.457 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.458 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.459 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.460 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.461 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.462 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.463 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.464 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.465 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.466 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.467 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.468 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.469 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.470 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.471 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.472 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.473 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.474 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.475 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.476 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.477 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.478 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.479 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.480 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.481 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.482 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.483 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.484 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.485 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.486 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.487 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.488 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.489 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.490 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.491 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.492 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.493 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.494 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.495 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.496 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.497 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.498 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.499 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.500 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.501 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.502 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.503 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.504 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.505 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.506 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.507 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.508 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.509 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.510 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.511 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.512 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.513 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.514 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.515 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.516 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.517 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.518 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.519 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.520 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.521 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.522 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.523 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.524 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.525 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.526 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.527 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.528 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.529 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.530 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.531 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.532 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.533 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.534 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.535 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.536 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.537 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.538 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.539 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.540 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.541 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.542 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.543 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.544 STATUS OF THE NATION'S WATERS INCLUDING WETLANDS, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT ---------- Thursday, July 19, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Oberstar [Chairman of the Committee] Presiding. Ms. Johnson of Texas. [Presiding.] Good afternoon. I would like to welcome today's witnesses to our hearing, and, I am certain, the Ranking Member. Today we will hear from former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, scientists, and other interested stakeholders. In addition to this being an important issue in its own right, I am also looking forward to learning more about the original purpose and intent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act. Our witnesses here today will provide informative testimony on where the Clean Water Act has worked and where it needs to be improved. Members of the Committee, while the 1972 Clean Water Act Amendments were passed many years ago, and while those laws and regulations worked quite well for a long period, times have changed. In recent years the Supreme Court has stepped in and subverted the purpose and protections of the Clean Water Act. Like water under a bridge, congressional intent was simply washed away. When the Court makes decisions that are driven by ideology, driven by politics, it makes a mistake. Sadly, though, we know all too well the ramifications of the Bush v. Gore decision. We will soon see the mess that is a result of the Rapanos and Carabell decisions. The Rapanos decision and the muddy guidance that has followed will only result in continued confusion and added expense for the regulated community. This, Members of the Committee, is confusion that simply did not exist prior to 2001, the SWANCC decision. And it is not just regulatory confusion that has resulted from these decisions. Grave environmental harm, damage to our streams and wetlands have come about from the unwarranted actions taken by the Court. The issue is a matter of clean drinking water for all of this country's citizens, and it is a matter of protecting our so very valuable water resources. I look forward to today's hearing to learn more about the implications of these Court decisions on the important issue of wetlands and water quality protection. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. I thank the gentlelady for recognition, and appreciate the willingness of the Chair to again convene a hearing on this important matter. This is the second in a series, and I think will help the Committee to better understand the important issues before us. I would like to perhaps review the history of the matter from a slightly different perspective. From the 1899 Harbors and Rivers Act to the 1972 Clean Water Amendments, the history was fairly clear and certain. As a result of the 1972 amendments and the congressional debate that ensued with the adoption of that act, the Corps took one direction with regard to rules promulgation, while the EPA was in a slightly different perspective. The resulting conflict between the two agency interpretations was litigation in the District Court of D.C., which consequently ordered the Corps to take on a more aggressive regulatory posture. From that point forward, there was much uncertainty as to what constitutes a navigable water of the United States subject to the authority of the Clean Water Act. And from my reading of the Supreme Court cases over time, it becomes clear that navigable waters does in fact mean navigable as to use, or may become navigable with minor modifications to the water system. That was again extended to tributaries of the navigable waterway, to wetlands that abut a navigable waterway. But throughout all court findings, the term "navigable waterway" is the building block upon which jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act flowed. The SWANCC and Rapanos cases did in fact reach an appropriate balance, in my view, in restoration of the responsibilities of the States to act in preserving environmental quality as well as better defining the role of the Federal Government by not extending coverage to isolated waters or wetlands. Although there appears to be some confusion as to the current meaning of the Court's findings, it is clear to me that there is a perhaps more appropriate balance between State and Federal role and between private property ownership and public interest. We should tread carefully as we move forward. As I am from a State which relies to great extent on water quality, fisheries and our navigability of our most important asset, the Mississippi River, we do have great interest in preserving water quality within reasonable bounds. However, the bureaucratic decisions in many cases, identifying tractor tire ruts across a wet field, which subsequently fill with water as a wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act jurisdiction, do not lead one to conclude that logic is always applied in these matters. And so I am anxious to work with the Chair to find a reasonable balance in moving forward to ensure that private property rights are regarded, that the States are given full responsibility for supervision of their own environmental habitat, and that the Federal role is relegated behind those two in order to preserve environmental balance. I appreciate the opportunity to participate, Madam Chair, and yield back my time. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop? Mr. Bishop. I will submit a statement for the record, Madam Chair, thank you very much. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. Mr. Higgins, would you have an opening statement? Mr. Higgins. I will just submit a statement for the record as well, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to thank you for holding this series of hearings and the proposal to adjust the Clean Water Act. I want to thank Ms. Browner for being here also to testify. I am looking forward to hearing your testimony. However this legislation's objectives are alarming. I have several questions and concerns that I want to address. The bill overtly intends to expand the Clean Water Act which has maintained our Nation's waters for 35 years. If we remove the word "navigable," which is used 81 times in the clean water legislation--so I don't think it was misunderstood that "navigable" was supposed to be in there--it will result in the expansion of the Clean Water Act since the 1972 inception. If we replace "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States," and expand the scope of Federal jurisdiction to its maximum limits under the Constitution, the bill would effectively negate decades of jurisprudence. This will become the courts to decide the constitutional limits of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, at a great cost to the American people. And as the Chairlady spoke today, it would end up back in the high Court, and presumably with the same result. The Chairman's bill claims to restore the original intent of Congress. And I don't know how much more the original intent could be than to use a term 81 times. But the reality is that the bill is only broadening the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to cover any and every wet area of the United States, the most troubling of all has yet to come. The business and activities of farmers, ranchers, road builders, property owners, water planners, and so on will be all included under this new expansion of government. The only way to decide if water is subject to the new terms would be through excessive permitting and oversight, and of course costly and time-consuming litigation. The Chairlady spoke about the court cases. Those court cases were to stop the overreach of the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and the Corps. It was trying to show them that there were bounds under the Clean Water Act that they had to work within. They weren't destroying the Clean Water Act. These agencies were reaching over the bounds that the constitutional authority of Congress gave them. And, Madam Chairman, what we are talking about with this proposal, and I have only been here 3 years, but I think this is the most devastating proposal to the people who grow our food chain that I have seen. But this will give EPA and the Corps of Engineers the authority over every wet piece of property in our United States. That is something that I hope we can stop, and that we can work together to negotiate a solution that we can all live with, work with. I think we need to look at the original Clean Water Act, clarify some of the stuff in that to make sure that EPA and the Corps knows their regulations. Now, let me say this. I have projects that I know of that people have been working on for 30 years trying to get a 404 permit. Thirty years. That is too long. And it is a process, and it is a bureaucratic process, and it is the expansion of government that is causing people to go without drinking water today. So with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I look forward to the testimony. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Westmoreland. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a very important hearing. The Clean Water Act has been the subject of quite a bit of legislative speculation quite recently, as well as legal interpretation over the years. And one thing I believe that hits a lot of us as we deal with our districts and our constituents is we can agree that the permitting process is not equally administered everywhere, and in some districts it is broken and needs to be fixed. What those fixes are and how they are made are issues that all of us will have to work through. What is clear is that we need to start somewhere in addressing the immediate and long- term water quality issues facing our country and our communities. My district is Sacramento, California, located at the confluence of two rivers, the Sacramento and the American. As my colleagues have heard me say before, we are the most at-risk river city for catastrophic flooding in the country. The Sacramento region and the Sacramento River watershed as a whole is undergoing dynamic changes. We are experiencing a huge population growth. We expect almost 2 million more people in the Sacramento region alone in the next 4 years. As we grow, we need to make sure the tools, whether they be policy or regulatory, are in place so that communities like Sacramento can address this type of growth and ensure that the overall health of our watershed and its communities remain intact. Today's hearing is a good step in sharing perspectives, concerns, and experiences in this complex area, and I look forward to working with Madam Chairman on these issues as we move forward, and I look forward to hearing today's witnesses. And I thank you very much, and I yield back. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. I would like to, at the request of our Chairman---- Mr. Bishop. Would the Chairman yield for a second? Thank you. I was very interested and truly troubled to hear Mr. Westmoreland's comments about a 30-year delay. And could I ask that you submit to the Committee the details of the case or cases that have a 30-year delay? I think all of us on the Committee would like to see those. Mr. Westmoreland. I have those coming. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you for yielding. [Information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.545 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.546 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.547 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.548 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.549 Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. Our Chair is unable to be here. Just before I introduce our first witness, I will read his statement. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons and scheduling conflicts, only our esteemed colleague, Administrator Browner, was able to join us this afternoon. However, I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of former Administrators William Ruckelshaus, Russell Train, and William Reilly, as well as former Assistant Administrators for EPA's Office of Water, Bob Perciasepe and G. Tracy Meehan, be a part of the hearing record. Any objections? Hearing none, so ordered. Combined, the testimony of these four Administrators and two Assistant Administrators span the nearly 35 years of implementation of the Clean Water Act, and represent both Republican and Democratic administrations charged with protecting the Nation's waters. I would like to read a few excerpts from the testimony for my colleagues to consider. First, from William Ruckelshaus, former EPA Administrator for both the Nixon and Reagan administrations: "EPA supported a broad definition of `navigable waters' as `waters of the U.S.' Like Congress, we recognized that the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters could not be maintained and restored unless pollutants could be controlled at the source, before they entered traditionally navigable waters. To faithfully interpret the key jurisdictional term 'navigable waters' that Congress had just broadly redefined as 'waters of the United States,' EPA proposed a regulatory definition of the term "waters of the United States" that included interstate and intrastate waters. Broad Clean Water Act jurisdiction is not only necessary to clean up the Nation's waters, it is necessary to ensure that the responsibility for maintaining and restoring clean water is shared equitably throughout the watershed and from State to State. ``In passing the Clean Water Act, Congress recognized that the State-by-State approach to water pollution control had failed, and that it was necessary to maintain a Federal floor for water pollution control to ensure that discharges in one State do not jeopardize water quality in another.'' Next, from Russell Train, former Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and former EPA Administrator during the Ford administration: ``A fundamental element of the Clean Water Act is broad jurisdiction over water for pollution control purposes. It has been well established that water moves in interrelated and interdependent hydrologic cycles and it is therefore essential that pollutants be controlled at their source to prevent contamination of downstream waters. When focusing on controlling pollutants, navigable waters, portions of those waters, their tributaries, and wetlands all must be included in the scope of protected waters. If we did not protect these streams, creeks, and wetlands, the course of abating pollution in this country would be much more difficult and more expensive because of the additional costs of technological fixes that would be necessary and in the absence of what nature has provided. Simply put, we cannot protect and restore our Nation's water resources without providing appropriate safeguards for the entire resource. ``Comprehensive jurisdiction is necessary to protect the natural environment. It is also important to avoid unfair competition. Unless Federal jurisdiction is uniformly implemented for all waters, discharges located on nonnavigable tributaries from larger rivers, lakes, and other water bodies would not be required to comply with the same procedural and substantive standards imposed upon their downstream competitors. Artificially limiting jurisdiction to only certain waters will create comprehensive disadvantages for certain dischargers.'' Also, from William Reilly, former EPA Administrator during the first Bush administration, and participant in the creation of the national goal of ``no less loss of wetlands:'' ``EPA has worked closely with the States over the last 30 years to make steady progress in reducing water-borne contamination and restoring the commercial, recreational, and ecological health of our country's aquatic resources. This successful Federal-State partnership and the long-settled administrative practices on which it is built should not be weakened by an excessively narrow interpretation of the Clean Water Act. ``Since the Clean Water Act passed, U.S. courts and regulatory agencies have consistently complied with Congress' intent by interpreting the term 'navigable waters' to cover all interconnected waters, including nonnavigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands, as well as other waters with ecological, recreational, and commercial values, such as so- called `isolated' wetlands and closed basin watersheds common in the Western United States. ``This interpretation of the statute's jurisdiction is to ensure a robust State-Federal partnership. The key phrase at issue, 'waters of the United States,' applies to all the water pollution control programs established in the Clean Water Act, not just the wetlands permit program. ``Perhaps the most important implication of any change to the definition of 'waters of the United States' is found by looking at the Act's basic prohibition against discharging pollutants into waters without a permit in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program established by section 402 of the Act and the Act's water quality requirements. ``By using a broad definition of 'waters of the United States,' Congress recognized the need to address pollution at its source, no matter what size water. In reality, there are few isolated waters. Indeed, many are linked in their hydrology. Congress needs to step up to clarify its intent. It is reasonable and sensible to have a broad definition of 'waters of the United States' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. The goals of the Act require it. We need the commonsense approach that Congress intended the Clean Water Act to protect our Nation's waters broadly so that we can reduce discharges of pollutants and ultimately achieve the goals of the Act, making all waters swimmable, fishable, and safe for other uses.'' And finally, from G. Tracy Meehan, former Administrator for the Office of Water during the current Bush administration: ``Mandating navigability as a basis of jurisdiction is inconsistent with the Act's overall objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. It is an artifact of an earlier law, dating back to the 19th century, which was designed to avoid obstacles to waterborne commerce rather than to implement integrated watershed management or environmental protection. ``I believe that our unique approach to `environmental federalism' under the Clean Water Act, and a science-based watershed approach to protecting America's aquatic resources, merit congressional action to clarify an extremely confusing and Byzantine situation which now exists in our law and regulation.'' I thank my colleagues and our witness for their indulgence. This is requested by our Chairman, and which is completed. I now recognize Congresswoman Norton. Ms. Norton. I thank you, Madam Chairman. I had desired to stay at this hearing. I have another hearing. And I did want to make a short opening statement because of the nexus between what has been reported in chlorine spikes in water here in the Nation's Capital this very day and the condition of the Potomac River. Lest we believe that rigid circumvention of the definition of a river or a waterway is the way to health and safety for the American people, we have already had a water scare in this region, a lead water scare, where people were not informed of lead spikes. And we are using a new chlorine in the river they want to refine. There is a report this morning of chlorine toxins found in water by a national environmental group. With 1.1 million consumers, including the Federal sector, northern Virginia, and, of course, the residents of the District of Columbia, the Agency is very much between a rock and a hard place. The chlorine toxins come from what is necessary in order to make drinkable water from the Potomac River. Now, if that water gets toxins of every kind, in order to make sure we are not truly in a Third World country, you pour in all kinds of chemicals. And now you get another reaction. What is the answer? All informed experts say the answer is go to the water itself. You will always find yourself, it would appear, in the position we in this region are in. We have responded to lead in the water, we have responded to toxins in the water with a chlorine chemical. It now is producing the possibility of chlorine toxins. That kind of seesaw is as dangerous to the health and safety of those in this region, and we are informed that this is the choice in other regions as well where this particular derivative is being used as what we are trying to combat. The answer is that there is no way to avoid the source of the problem. The source of the problem is in the water itself. We will never decontaminate enough the water without, in fact, producing new issues for us. And in the process we do not know how many men, women, and children, and especially children, may be put in danger. So I could not be more grateful for this hearing, this series of hearings, to deal with water and try to correct the Supreme Court decision. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Now the Committee will hear from our witnesses. Our first panelist is the Honorable Carol Browner, who is a principal at The Albright Group, but she was the Administrator under the Clinton administration of EPA. Thank you for being here, and you can begin your testimony. TESTIMONY OF CAROL M. BROWNER, PRINCIPAL, THE ALBRIGHT GROUP, LLC; AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Ms. Browner. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and Congressman Baker, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today about the status of our Nation's waters. If I might take a moment to congratulate Chairman Oberstar for his lifelong leadership on the issue of clean water for the people of this country. In fact, I think it dates back to his role as a staff person here before he was even elected, a quite admirable commitment. I want to speak to you today as a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I specifically want to lend my support to Chairman Oberstar's bill, which reaffirms the long understanding of which waters in this country are protected by the Clean Water Act. As the Chairwoman noted, I am joined in supporting this bill by a number of former Administrators, both Democrats and Republicans, and by the former Deputy Administrator for Water under the current administration. The issue that has brought us here is obviously the Supreme Court decisions as they relate to wetlands. And there is no denying the importance of wetlands for our Nation's public health, our economy, our ecosystems. Wetlands protect and purify our waters, they shield our homes and businesses from flooding, and they provide valuable habitat to a wide range of wildlife. We have already lost far too many of these valuable resources and, in all, the United States has lost nearly 50 percent of its wetlands, and continues to lose about 60,000 acres of wetlands per year. Having said that, I think it is very important to remember that the definition which is the subject of this legislation would not only be applied to which wetlands are protected, but it would impact all of our water bodies, because the Clean Water Act also looks at what can be discharged from a pipe into the river that becomes our drinking water, what can be discharged into the streams and the tributaries that then flow into our rivers. And so when we think about this legislation, we can't simply think about the wetlands that sort of brought this bill front and center, but we should think about the entirety of our commitment as a country to protect our water resources. For three decades, 35 years following the Clean Water Act's passage, agencies and courts have agreed on what waters are protected. We can go back and forth on what this or that word meant, but when you look at the day-to-day interpretation and the application of that understanding, there has been widespread agreement. Obviously, with these recent Supreme Court decisions, there are some ambiguities. As a former regulator, I believe very strongly that the Congress should clarify and resolve these ambiguities. What will happen is in the permitting process, either in the wetlands permitting process or in the discharge permitting process, these ambiguities will lead to delays, they will lead to litigation. If Congress can make the decision to embrace the interpretation that has withstood the test of time, we can resolve the ambiguities that have risen up because of the decisions. In the most recent Supreme Court case, the Rapanos case, I was joined by three former Administrators in filing an amicus brief supporting the 35-year interpretation of the definition. It is also, I think, very important for the Committee to note that we shared the same position in that litigation as the current administration shared before the Court. Let me close by encouraging you to move as quickly as possible. These ambiguities are a real problem for the regulators. And let me also close by noting that before I joined the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton, I served as a State Secretary of the Environment. I served as the Secretary of the Environment for my home State of Florida. We ran a very, very serious wetlands protection program in Florida. Wetlands are essential to our economy in Florida. Even with as serious a program as we had in Florida, we could not have done the job of protecting our citizens' water resources without a Federal program. It takes both a Federal and a State program. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look forward to answering any questions. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much for being here. Congressman Baker. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Browner, in order to understand more fully your view of scale or scope of the subject at hand, you make reference in the written testimony to the hydrologic cycle of water. Can you give me just a brief description in your mind of what that hydrologic cycle narrative would look like? Is it groundwater which flows into a wetlands which flows into the oceans, or is it broader than that? What constitutes your picture of that cycle? Ms. Browner. Well, I would actually probably explain it slightly in the reverse of what you said, but along those lines. There are any number of parts of the country where a wetland essentially is filtering water. It may be rainwater, it may be water that has come from a tributary, it may be floodwaters that are filtering those waters as they seep down into the groundwater. That, in my mind, is a hydrological connection. Mr. Baker. So it is surface water through the geologic structure that winds up in some sort of discharge ultimately to an ocean. I am trying to get your big picture. Ms. Browner. Not necessarily to an ocean. A good example would be in Florida. The State of Florida is dependent upon an underground aquifer for its drinking water. And so that doesn't have a connection to the ocean--at least none that scientists have discovered yet, maybe someday they will. But you want to protect that drinking water source. And the best way to do it is to think about what is happening in the recharge areas above that underground aquifer, which may be a wetland, which may be a river. You know, the connections can happen in many ways. Mr. Baker. In the case of the Baton Rouge aquifer, we have rainfall in Mississippi that does go through the sandstone to a depth of about 12,000 feet. The trouble is we do have oceanwater intervention coming from the gulf that is creating a wedge of saltwater intrusion, so I got it. My point is larger than that. You look at water in the universal context, from pond inland to ocean international. That would include rainfall. That is a way to recharge the aquifers. Ms. Browner. Correct. Mr. Baker. The scope of your jurisdictional reach is that if it is subject to any of those moving parts and there is a problem, the Clean Water Act protections should be invoked to cure that problem. Ms. Browner. I believe that the interpretation that the EPA, the Corps, and the Congress relied on for 30-some years is the proper interpretation. I am not here advocating an expansion of those authorities. Mr. Baker. I understand. Ms. Browner. Just preserve what we have been relying on. Mr. Baker. I understand. I am not suggesting you need an expansion. I think your definition is an expanded view. And I am merely trying to get a clear understanding of the moving parts of the water systems you think should be subject to the Clean Water Act. And I will move on, because we can't get resolution here. Ms. Browner. With just a point of clarity, I am not suggesting to expand the definition. I am simply saying reaffirm the definition that has been relied on for 35 years. Mr. Baker. Well, I am standing on the definition that comes from the debate on the House and Senate floors from the 1972 amendment adoption in which the scope of argument was not beyond navigable waters, because there were navigable waters not then subject to the Clean Water Act. And the scope of the definition in that context was to make the act applicable to all navigable waterways, not bodies that were not adjacent to or abutted navigable waterways. And I can provide you that text. But, secondly and more importantly, even in the Rapanos case, when you read the holding carefully, one of the principal elements in the finding that led to the conclusion that that wetlands were subject to Clean Water Act's jurisdiction was because one of the justices said you could literally go from ankle to waist-deep water directly into a navigable waterway. And it was because of the abutment of the wetlands to a navigable waterway that made jurisdiction attach. But navigable waterway was the block on which all of this jurisdictional claim was built. That is the troubling aspect in the current debate. By removing the term "navigable" from "navigable waterway," we will now make waters of the United States literally any pond holding of water anywhere in the country, without the requirement of its ultimate relationship to a navigable waterway, as the principal regulatory component. That is why I was pressing on the subject of hydrologic cycle, because I believe your definition of hydrologic cycle and jurisdictional reach of the CWA is much broader than that which abuts to a navigable waterway. In any event, I asked the question about your view of the hydrologic cycle. If it were to rain, and that rain then becomes the recharge mechanism for the aquifer, shouldn't that area where the rain fell be subject to clean water concerns? And the reason why I bring that up is the Chairlady earlier had in the year a very educational and interesting hearing on atmospheric deposition of mercury. If we are worried about pollutants, and we are worried about water quality, and we are worried about getting it right, shouldn't be worried about mercury coming down in rainfall on a plain in west Oklahoma? Ms. Browner. As you might be aware, I tried very hard to regulate mercury while I was at the EPA. Mr. Baker. I am fully aware. Ms. Browner. And this administration has not chosen to continue those regulations. I do share your concern about mercury. Mr. Baker. And rainwater? Ms. Browner. No. Again, I want to be very clear, I am not advocating an expansion of the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. If the rain falls in what is currently covered under the Clean Water Act, a wetland, then I think that wetland should be protected under the Clean Water Act. It doesn't mean someone can't get a permit and go through the process, or it doesn't mean where there are exclusions in the permitting process. They can't take advantage of those. But if that rainwater falls in an area that is currently protected under the Clean Water Act, I would hope that all of us would agree to continuing to protect that area so that rainwater which is polluted, as you noted, can be cleaned by nature as it seeps through the wetland into the recharge area. Mr. Baker. And this will be my final question, because I know my time has expired, but that presses the question a bit. And that is, if the wetland is not connected in some form or fashion, by tributary or other means, to the navigable waterway, in my view that is not a regulated wetlands. However, when someone makes a tractor tire in an agricultural field, and it is filled with water--and I have cases that I will provide the Committee, 46--when the tractor tire filled with water it became a regulated wetland. Secondly, construction projects under the Interstate between Baton Rouge and Lafayette, where there are isolated wetlands under the elevated expressway, those were maintained by law by the contractor during the course of construction as isolated wetlands. If the bad rain we don't like falls on either of those two wetlands, your view would be that is subject to the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. You don't think it is? Ms. Browner. If there is a connection to a water of the United States, it is covered. But you know, there are many ways those connections have to be demonstrated. And you know, it is obviously a scientific question. And there are experts in the field who do this. And it is quite possible--the hardest thing about this issue, and I fought this for the 20 years I have been involved in it, is that the least best indication of what is a wetland is water. We are far better off looking at what is the hydrology, what is the---- Mr. Baker. Vegetation. Ms. Browner. --vegetation. Mr. Baker. Porosity. I have spent a lot of time on it, and I have innumerable cases in my files which I intend to--and am in the process of providing to the Committee--where the hydrology, the porosity, vegetational quality, all of the elements that go into south Louisiana, where it is constructed of seven different Mississippi River deltas, most of which is beyond the Continental Shelf by depositional factor. We have 42,000 feet of squish. It is all put there by Mother Nature. It is not part of the Continental Shelf. But there is stuff that is there that does not constitute wetlands. Ms. Browner. I don't doubt. I don't doubt. Mr. Baker. Well, the EPA does and so does the Corps, because people can't get permitted. I yield back. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony, and welcome back to Capitol Hill. Ms. Browner. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. I just want to make sure that your position is well understood by all of us. The current law, the Clean Water Act, defines navigable waters as, quote, "the waters of the United States." and then the Army Corps of Engineers has developed a set of definitions which in effect flesh out that rather broad statement, and the EPA has done the same. And what you are indicating to the Committee is that it is your position that you believe we should continue to honor those definitions. Ms. Browner. Correct. Mr. Bishop. You are not advocating any expansion of those definitions? Ms. Browner. No. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Now, the Rapanos case severely limits the definition of navigable waters, or defines navigable waters in a way that is much less expansive than current law. Can you walk us through the environmental implications if that becomes our guiding principle in terms of how we regulate waters? Ms. Browner. Let me just say one quick thing about the Rapanos case. It is a very confusing case, because Justice Kennedy sort of moves back and forth, if you will. On the technical aspect of the decision, there are five of them agreeing. And then on the procedural aspect, Justice Kennedy joins with another four, and so the case gets sent back. So it is a confusing case. The concern that I have with respect to Rapanos is that there are waters of the U.S. that are--that would have historically been protected may no longer be protected. It could depend in part on how the administration chose to read Rapanos. The simplest thing to do is for Congress to clarify that those things which we have been protecting under the Clean Water Act for 30-some years we will continue to protect. The real day-to-day problem if we don't continue these protections is that we could see changes, not just in the wetlands program in terms of what is protected, but potentially changes in terms of which water bodies are protected from discharges, pollutants, that then get into our drinking water supplies and have to be cleaned up. Mr. Bishop. Okay. Thank you very much. I have a bill that I am hoping that will get a fair hearing in this Congress called--I need a better title--but it is called the Raw Sewage Community Right to Know Act. And---- Ms. Browner. A good one. Mr. Bishop. If you can come up with a title, I would appreciate it. But that is--what we are hoping to do with that is create a standard for notification of the kind of discharges that right now take place without any form of national standard for what the notification requirements are. Ms. Browner. I assume what you are talking about are combined sewer overflows. Mr. Bishop. That is indeed what I am talking about. Ms. Browner. If I might, we worked with Congress to pass a national Safe Drinking Water Act during the Clinton administration. And one of the things that we were able to secure in that bill was a right-to-know program. So people now receive on an annual basis from their drinking water company a list of what pollutants were found, where they had exceedances. And you might want to take a look at that, because I think it has been a very successful public right to know. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. Congressman Coble. Mr. Coble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Browner, good to have you with us today. Ms. Browner, in the original drafting of the Clean Water Act, Congress carefully chose to divide regulatory authority between the Federal Government and the States, recognizing the vital interests that the States have in protecting their own waters. Would H.R. 2421 undo this partnership, and therefore transfer virtually all regulatory authority over to the EPA and the Corps? Ms. Browner. No. It does not change the partnership between the States and the Federal Government. It simply codifies the definition, if you will, that we have relied on for 32 years. Mr. Coble. Well, is this bill an appropriate reorganization of authority, considering the structure of the original Clean Water Act and the States' knowledge of their own water issues? Ms. Browner. This bill doesn't change the relationship, if you will, between the Federal and State governments. I should have noted in my testimony 34 States also filed amicus briefs in the Rapanos litigation, taking the same position as the former Administrators, which is we wanted to preserve the level of protections. I think there is absolutely no State in the country that doesn't share a water body with at least, you know, one other State. My home State of Florida, we share 18 different rivers with our neighbors to the north. And so you need a Federal program and you need a Federal-State partnership if you are going to be able to provide a level of protection. And nothing in this legislation would change that. Mr. Coble. Well, let me ask you this Ms. Browner. This may be a quasi-hypothetical question. In North Carolina we have a vast number of wetlands, particularly in the east, as well as river basins and tributaries that drain from the Appalachian and the Blue Ridge Mountain range. Much of this runoff comes through the district I represent via the Yankton River Basin. What is your comment--Strike that. Let me ask it a different way. I think you and I may not be in agreement, but we can disagree agreeably, however. Ms. Browner. There you go. Mr. Coble. Let me ask you to comment about the effect of federalizing waters, if in fact that would be the case in the United States, particularly as it pertains to runoff from higher elevations. Ms. Browner. I can't imagine why anyone would want to federalize runoff. I simply can't. You need the Federal and State government working together if you are going to deal with the ongoing issues of what we call surface water pollution. So the runoff as you are referring to frequently ends up in a river or a lake or a stream, a surface water. It may on occasion move through a wetland into the surface waters or through a wetland into a groundwater. But it requires both Federal and State actions to protect those surface waters and those groundwaters. I don't know why you would have one or the other entity with exclusive responsibility. We have been very, very successful in this Federal-State partnership. Mr. Coble. Well, I thank you for that. I think much of this is very likely, Madam Chairman, subject to interpretation. I think some of us believe that this is going to probably be over-federalizing. Perhaps others think that perhaps will not be the case. So that is the beauty of a hearing such as this. We can probably get to the core of it. Ms. Browner. Madam Chair, it might, just quickly to remind people of how the program works. EPA delegates the day-to-day operation of permitting to States. I can't speak to how many States have those delegations today. I can tell you when I was at EPA, we were very aggressive in turning over the operation of the permitting programs, both wetland permitting authorities and NPDES, or discharge permitting authorities. You know, the idea of quote, "federalizing," one, I don't think it's a good idea. But let's say you went down that path; you would then have to provide the resources to EPA to handle all of those permitting programs that the States are currently handling. And I can't imagine anyone intends to do that. And so I think the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, a number of our Federal environmental laws have very wisely-- Congress has very wisely said, EPA, you look at the big picture. But then when it comes to day-to-day operation, if the States have their State authority, if they have the resources, if they have the personnel and the expertise, let them do it. Mr. Coble. Thank you for that. Madam Chairman, do you award credit for yielding back time before the red light illuminates? If so, I yield back. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Congressman. The Chair recognizes Congressman Larsen. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a note for Mr. Bishop. It is a rare bill in Congress that actually describes what it does. That is why that title is a good one. Ms. Browner, thanks for helping us out today. As I understand the Scalia reasoning versus the Kennedy reasoning on Rapanos, Scalia basically said there is a line to be drawn. Over this line is navigable water and then on the other side is nonnavigable. What Kennedy said is that there is some confusion about what is navigable or not, but there is a--he called it significant nexus test. Is that pretty accurate? Ms. Browner. Correct. Mr. Larsen. What I didn't get from our staff memo was what are you saying Scalia used to determine, to draw that line? Ms. Browner. Well, Scalia starts by looking to Webster's Dictionary for a definition of wetlands. I do not agree with that. I think Webster's definition is something that has water. And as I said previously, water may be the least--presence of water may be the least best indicator of whether or not something is a wetland. So you have to go to where his reasoning starts, and it gets you to this point where waters that are currently protected would no longer be protected. You know, I think this is more logical than perhaps it can appear at first glance. I mean the waters--the fact that for 32 years everyone could agree on what was the scope and, you know, there weren't any real debates about that, is a pretty good test in my mind of a successful definition. Mr. Larsen. Let me just pronounce it the SWANCC decision. Ms. Browner. SWANCC is how it is pronounced. Mr. Larsen. The SWANCC decision. Ms. Browner. Sounded better than SWANCC. Mr. Larsen. At least in the staff memo we have, it discusses a footnote in which the majority, the 5-4 majority-- well, actually Rehnquist opines that Congress must have intended that there be some nexus to actual navigation, but the majority referenced the legislative history, and noted Congress intended the phrase "navigable waters" to include at least some waters that would not be deemed navigable under the classical understanding of that term. That was a 2001 decision. What then informed the Court in 2006? Ms. Browner. I think the change in the makeup of the Court. Mr. Larsen. Okay. Perhaps I was getting there. So what did Scalia mean by intermittent or ephemeral waters? That is the waters that would be on the other side of the line that would not be included as navigable water? Ms. Browner. I am not sure what he means. There are scientific definitions which I would be happy to have someone provide to you about what those terms mean. Mr. Larsen. I would appreciate that. And I would have the staff follow up on that question for me. I would appreciate it. Ms. Browner. What is complicated in Rapanos, you have to remember, are what are the facts, which is there clearly was a connection in the most obvious sort of way at one point in time, and then a berm gets put. Mr. Larsen. In the actual case. Ms. Browner. Yes, in the actual case. So this manmade structure comes along and suddenly we are going to have a different interpretation of what is protected because of a manmade structure? That is what I think is particularly troubling. Mr. Larsen. Uh-huh. So in moving forward perhaps on Mr. Oberstar's bill, the issue--I mean what is the issue facing us if we--what do we have to do if we are going to--if the majority of the Congress, regardless of how the majority is made up in Congress, is going to fix this to be responsive to the Supreme Court? Because essentially we have to do something that is responsive to the Supreme Court. Ms. Browner. I think you could, obviously, do nothing. The problem is that with the SWANCC and the Rapanos decision there is an ambiguity. A lot of people can read that ambiguity-- different people can read it different ways. And I think that clarifying that the original jurisdiction is what the Congress intends to be carried forward is the simplest thing to do. And that is essentially what Oberstar does. If you don't clarify that, I suspect there will be permitting delays and there will be litigation. So a clarification I think for those people who seek permits could be very valuable. Mr. Larsen. Just to restate what we believe the original intent of the CWA is? Of the Clean Water Act? Ms. Browner. To protect the waters of the U.S. Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Ms. Browner. I mean it is very clear. Mr. Larsen. All right. Thank you. Ms. Browner. Thank you. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. Congressman Brown of South Carolina. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Browner, glad to have you here today. Let me see if I can get my questions together. Here I am. I apologize. You stated that H.R. 2421 defines "waters of the United States" and they are nearly identical to the definition promulgated in rules and used by the Corps and EPA for over 30 years. However, when the text of the rule you mentioned is compared to the text of the bill, there is substantial differences in the wording, including major omissions and changes that would expand the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to all waters and all activities affecting those waters to the fullest extent under the Constitution. Neither current law nor the Corps' current regulations say that. Further, the bill's definition leaves an important exemption in the regulation for prior converted croplands and waste treatment systems. If you would please explain how you can characterize the bill's definition as nearly identical to the definition promulgated in the Corps and EPA's rules. Ms. Browner. Mr. Oberstar's bill simply picks up the definition that has been relied on by EPA and the Corps for the last 30 years, the regulations which EPA and the Corps have adopted pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and that definition will remain in effect. There is nothing in this legislation that changes those regulations. So when people talk about some of the exemptions that EPA and the Corps have seen fit to put forward over the years, there is nothing in this that changes those exemptions. This bill is not amending those sections that EPA and the Corps may have relied on in putting forth those exemptions. Mr. Brown. So I guess the bottom line is you feel like that this bill does not further encroach on undefined wetlands as we see them today. Ms. Browner. I do not think it further encroaches. I don't know that I would use the word "encroach," but---- Mr. Brown. And all the exemptions that have been identified in the past will be continued; the farming practices and some of the other issues? Ms. Browner. Correct. I should be clear, I don't get to speak for the current administration. That is probably obvious. And they may decide, if the bill passes, to read it and change some regulation. I will tell you if I were sitting at the EPA, I would look at this bill and I would say it is a recodification of what EPA has understood to be the definition for 32 years, and therefore the regulations would be maintained. Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, if I might just give one example. In my region in South Carolina along the coast, we have lots of isolated rice fields, I guess for better word, which means they are diked-in wetlands, but they don't have a traveling path to the navigable waters unless there are reasons to lower the levels within that confinement. How would this bill---- Ms. Browner. If they are not currently regulated, they would not be regulated. If they are currently regulated by Federal law, then whatever that permitting program is would continue. I don't know what the State law implications might be. I don't know what your State law is in terms of those areas. Mr. Brown. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Congressman Baird. Mr. Baird. Administrator, thanks for being here and for your many years of service to this country. Ms. Browner. Thank you. Mr. Baird. As we look at the challenge of trying to protect clean water for all the things that the Clean Water Act was meant to, when I hear from folks it is not just a matter of who has jurisdiction over what, which is really the focus of the bill we are kicking around today, but it is also the permitting process itself which can be lengthy, which can be idiosyncratic, which can sometimes be inconsistent with one agency telling an individual landowner or business to do one thing and another saying another. So for me, I think there would be a great deal of less trepidation or concern about this particular language in this bill if the process at the permitting agencies were itself reformed. Can you give us any insights from your experience, if you could wave the magic wand and improve the permitting process across all the various agencies that could be impacted by the regulatory process, what kind of things would you recommend? Ms. Browner. Well, we are talking about two different permitting processes under the Clean Water Act. We are talking about 402, which is the NPDES program, and then we are talking about 404, which is managed by the Corps, and is the wetlands permitting. I think a very important thing to do is to turn over the day-to-day operation of these permitting programs to State programs that have the resources and the qualifications to handle them. You know, the States--I come from State government originally. I think States will generally make a very, very suitable decision. You need to retain Federal oversight, because you do have these instances, as I mentioned earlier, where waters are shared. You know, Florida shares rivers with Alabama and Georgia. And so you need some sort of Federal oversight. Ms. Browner. But I do not know, as of today, how many of these permitting responsibilities have been delegated to individual States, but I think that that has certainly proven, in many instances, to be successful. Secondly, I certainly think where there are well-recognized exemptions and practices, that will not require a permit. On that, we can all agree. We did a streamlining initiative when I was at the EPA, and we articulated a set of those. I do not know if those have been maintained. I presume they have. Look, practices change in ways in which development can occur. Ways in which dredging and filling can occur also change, and so it is the responsibility of the Agency to sort of keep up with what are those changes and whether or not any of those practices might fit into--it is not really an exemption. There is a legal process that gets sort of created in a regulation, so you do not have to go through a permitting decision individually, but nevertheless, you know, those activities can be on a list and be respected as activities that the Agency thinks can be handled in a way that are protective of the Nation's waters. Mr. Baird. Do you---- Ms. Browner. The other thing I would just say is, you know, throughout my tenure at the EPA, we heard from many Members of Congress of situations that appeared to be very, very troubling. You know, we always did our best to fully understand those situations, and there were situations where there were some troubling matters, but in the vast majority of them, what was going on was the Department, the Agency, the State thought that "no" was the right answer, that you had finally found a resource, and the kind of impacts that the permitter was seeking were just inappropriate under the law. The Agency is not free to act outside of the law--under the law. So, you know, as people talk about various stories, I think it is really important to have all of the facts. Mr. Baird. I think that is true, and my guess would be that almost everybody in this body has had some calls from people who want us to intervene and try to move the Agency in one direction or another, and as you looked at the case, you thought they just got a "no" they did not like, but at the same time, my guess would also be that many of us have heard several horror stories of people who are trying to do fairly reasonable things. We had a meeting on permit streamlining in my district, and one old-time guy, a farmer, got up, and he said, "You know, sometimes I think agencies could never be on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' because they could never say, 'That is my final answer.'" Ms. Browner. Well, I think the problem is agencies frequently say, "It is my final answer," and no one wants to hear it as their final answer. ``No'' is not a word that many people like to hear. Mr. Baird. The other question arises when you have got multiple agencies with multiple jurisdictions for multiple pieces of legislation, all of which have a piece of the pie. Any quick comments before my time runs out on that? You have got EPA, NPDES, plus possibly State and local agencies. Ms. Browner. Well, the State and local authorities stem from the Federal authority, so it is for the EPA to delegate and to oversee it. I think, certainly during my tenure, we did a pretty good job of working across agency lines. I mean it is not a clean water example, but with the passage of the Food Quality Safety Act, I mean there was a huge amount of cooperation that had to go on between the Department of Agriculture and the EPA, and it went on, you know, respectfully and fairly successfully. You know, I cannot speak for this administration what level of cooperation is going on. There will be differences, but that is why you have a White House. That is why you have a President. You know, they ultimately get to decide between the two views that departments or agencies might take. Mr. Baird. I appreciate the input. I will just close by saying that I asked similar questions yesterday, and I think if we as a Committee address the issues of permit streamlining, efficiency and fairness, there will be a lot less concern about some of the other matters addressed in this legislation. Thank you for your services. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Congressman Westmoreland. Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Browner, how long were you a public servant with the State and with the Federal Government? Ms. Browner. In public office or--I also worked as a staffer. Mr. Westmoreland. Just working. Ms. Browner. Working for government? Gosh, more than 20 years. I have not added it all up. I was really young when I started. Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. You still are. Ms. Browner. No, I am not. Mr. Westmoreland. Now you are a principal of the Albright Group? Ms. Browner. Uh-huh. Mr. Westmoreland. What do you all do? What does the Albright Group do? Ms. Browner. At the end of the Clinton-Gore administration, Secretary Albright, myself and several others formed a consulting firm. We work with companies outside of the United States--American companies, mostly American companies--when they have problems outside of the United States. I also serve on a number of nonprofit boards. I chair the National Audubon Board. I am a founding board member of the Center for American Progress. I just joined the League of Conservation Voters with your former colleague, Mr. Boehlert, and the list goes on. Mr. Westmoreland. So your company mainly works out of the country? Ms. Browner. Most of our representation--I am not a registered lobbyist. I do not lobby. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. Ms. Browner. I do not have clients with matters--I might have clients who might have matters before the United States Congress, but I do not represent them. I leave that to my husband. Mr. Westmoreland. But environmental issues, is that what the issues are that you are involved in? Ms. Browner. No, not necessarily. Mr. Westmoreland. A wide variety? Ms. Browner. A wide variety. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. I want to ask you a question about the savings clause, if I could; and I am assuming you have read the bill and have read the savings clause. Ms. Browner. Uh-huh. Mr. Westmoreland. It has been suggested by supporters of the bill that the savings clause, section 6, should address the concerns of farmers, forest landowners and others who benefit from certain statutory exemptions enumerated in the clause. Given the limited scope of these exemptions, however, I fear that this legislation will sweep many of these agricultural and forestry activities into the scope of the Clean Water Act regulation simply because they are conducted in or are simply near some ditch, swell, gully or ephemeral stream that will now be deemed "a water of the United States." Let me raise some specific examples, if you would consider them, and perhaps you can offer your views on how the savings clause benefits any of these activities. It seems that the list of statutory exemptions in the savings clause is incomplete because it includes only agricultural return flows, but not the agricultural storm water discharges. Agricultural return flows are exempted from the clean water regulation by exclusion by the statutory definition of the "point source" and by an additional permit provision as provided in 4201. Ms. Browner. 402. Mr. Westmoreland. 402, that is right. Agricultural storm water discharges, however, are exempt only by virtue of being excluded from the "point source" definition. Nevertheless, equally exempt, can you fathom any reason why the agricultural storm water discharges have not been listed as a specific exemption in the savings clause? Ms. Browner. I think there are a couple of questions, so can I kind of go through them? Mr. Westmoreland. Sure. Ms. Browner. Your first question is--the gist of it is: Are the current exemptions in any way shape or form changed by this legislation? As I said previously, I do not believe so. Then I think your second question is: Does the savings clause in some way or another preserve some exemptions, existing exemptions, and delete others? Well, if that is your concern, get rid of the savings clause. You do not need, in my opinion, a savings clause, because the bill is very clear. It is amending one section; it is not amending the sections that the exemptions fall under, so those exemptions are retained. I do not fully understand what the logic of the savings clause was, but I suspect it was an effort to speak to some concerns that had been raised, but I do not actually think you need a savings clause. Mr. Westmoreland. So you think that it would not hurt to put the same exemptions that are in the Clean Water Act now into this bill? Ms. Browner. Well, I am not sure that--I will have to say that I am not sure your premise is accurate. I am not sure there actually is an exemption for agricultural point source discharges from the 402 permitting process. I would suspect there is not, but I do not know for a fact. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. Let me ask you this: In the Corps-- -- Ms. Browner. I do not think under any scenario--the reason I am here supporting this is, it simply reaffirms what we have been doing for some years. Mr. Westmoreland. So you do not have a problem with using the same language? Ms. Browner. I have a problem if you change the exemptions. If you add a few more practices to the list of exemptions in this bill, I will oppose the bill. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay, but even if we add---- Ms. Browner. That is probably what you want. Mr. Westmoreland. Well, no. Even if they are the ones that are in the Clean Water Act now? Ms. Browner. But I think you are asking me about one that might not be in the Clean Water Act now. We are moving back and forth. Mr. Westmoreland. Let me rephrase my question. Let me rephrase my question. If we put exactly what is in the Clean Water Act now in this bill as it relates to farming, ranching, mining-- agricultural uses--you would be okay with it? Ms. Browner. Any current exemption. Mr. Westmoreland. I said, as to exactly what is in there now. Ms. Browner. But you said "exactly what is in there," and I said "exemptions," and exemptions are found in the rules. Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. As to the Corps and the EPA definition of "navigable waters," do you know why they never used the word "navigable"? Ms. Browner. I was not in office in 1972. Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. Ms. Browner. I do not know why. Mr. Westmoreland. Did you ever question that, being the Administrator, why the bill said "navigable waters"; yet, the Corps' and the EPA's regulations never mentioned the word "navigable" or anything about navigation or anything else? Ms. Browner. Well, I think it is important to remember that the law says "the waters of the U.S." and that the regulations were intended to put a fine point on exactly what was protected and how it would be protected. It is very common that an EPA regulation does not--because it is going down to another level of detail---- Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. Ms. Browner. --it might not use a word. Mr. Westmoreland. Excuse me. I understand, but since the term "navigational waters" was used in the bill 81 times and it talks about the navigational waters and the definition of the Corps and the EPA says the term or the definition for "waters of the United States," are you saying those are interchangeable? Ms. Browner. I am not sure I understand your question. Mr. Westmoreland. "navigable waters." what is the definition to you of a "navigable water"? Ms. Browner. It does not really matter what my definition of it is. It is what the Congress said and how that has been interpreted and how that has been supported over 35 years; and I think that is pretty clear. If I might, Madam Chair, just add one point, I think the real test, and perhaps what we should all be looking at, is, has this law provided us with a program that has led us toward cleaner water in this country? That is not to suggest that the job is done and that all of our rivers, lakes and streams are pristine--they never will be. But we have certainly made real progress when it comes to cleaning up our surface waters, and that has been, in part, because we have a definition that has provided the agencies with the ability to regulate activities that impact those rivers, lakes and streams in a detrimental manner. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I have a question or so. Currently, under the Rapanos guidance, some point sources that may have been governed by the Clean Water Act at one time may no longer be required to get a 402 permit. What are the likely implications to our efforts to protect water quality if the point sources are excluded? Ms. Browner. Well, the most significant progress we have made in protecting our Nation's waters is through the point source program, without a doubt, through the 402 permitting program. If Rapanos is interpreted by the administration to change that program to limit the ability of the EPA in the States because the States use this authority to require reductions in point source or discharges from pipes, then we could see, and probably would see, an increase in pollution loadings in certain water bodies. It would be bad for water. Ms. Johnson. Now, currently about, I guess, 30 States have State water pollution laws that are less protective, actually, than they would be under the Clean Water Act. If no changes are made to the Clean Water Act under this Rapanos guidance, is it likely that all of our States will strengthen their laws to protect these waters that are no longer protected by the Clean Water Act? Ms. Browner. I do not know that I would--I would be concerned that not all States would actually strengthen their State laws. So rather than having sort of this broad Federal level of protection, you would have varying degrees of protection; and what would then happen is a downstream State would, no doubt, turn around and sue the upstream State because their lower water quality standards were suddenly endangering the drinking water or the oyster beds or, you know, some other fishing activities. I think that you want a strong Federal floor for protection of water because, you know, we are one country--we travel, we move around, our commerce moves around. If States want to choose to go further in protecting their rivers, lakes and streams, I believe they should be able to. You know, the Florida Everglades is a very different place than some of your water resources in Texas, and therefore, Florida might want to have a tougher phosphorus standard than, perhaps, another State might want to have; but you still need this Federal infrastructure to ensure sort of a level playing field between the States. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Congresswoman Drake. Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Browner, for being here today. I hate to keep asking the same question, and I have heard you say very clearly that this is not expanding, it is simply defining and that we are going to do what we did before. What has been confusing to me is that there are many people who think this language will encompass things that were previously never covered by the Clean Water Act, whether it is groundwater, whether it is roadside ditches or things of that nature. So it has been interesting hearing you and hearing, you know, what I have heard about it. I am wondering if you think there could be different language suggested to make sure it is doing exactly what you say but different from how people are interpreting it. We listened to the little exchange between you and Congressman Westmoreland where there was a lot of disagreement over what does that word actually mean, what exclusion and where is it? So I think that is part of what the public is dealing with and with what, I think, Congressman Baird just said, that the reason the public is so alarmed is because they do not feel the system is efficient, they do not feel the system is fair. There are multiple agencies and people who do everything exactly like they think it should be done, and a year later, you have someone at the EPA come back, and all of a sudden, they are in court; and now they have been in court for years and years. So the public does not feel they have been treated fairly. So while we are having this discussion, I am wondering-- because what I am hearing and what you are saying are two different things. So is there a problem in this bill that needs to be clarified, maybe, with language that is much more specific? Ms. Browner. I actually think this bill does exactly what Mr. Oberstar intends it to do, and I will be honest with you. To start adding a lot more language will only lead to confusion as opposed to resolving confusion. That is my opinion. Mrs. Drake. Well, one of the questions about it is that the Clean Water Act does not use the term "activities"; it uses "discharges," but this bill, the way it is currently drafted, does reference the regulation of activities. I mean, why is that? If it is just redefining, if it is the same thing, why wouldn't you use the same terminology that was used before? Ms. Browner. I would be happy to look at the section. I do not know which section you are in. Mrs. Drake. This is dealing with---- Ms. Browner. Do you know what page? Mrs. Drake. Yes. I am not looking at the---- Ms. Browner. I will be happy to look at it after the fact. Mrs. Drake. Yes. It deals with "activities" in the actual bill. So that is a question and a concern as to why it would be "activities." Then my last question is: Will there be any increased workload either to the Army Corps of Engineers or to the EPA under the language of this bill? Ms. Browner. I cannot speak to what the current administration will do. I will tell you, if I were at the EPA, this would not increase our workload. In fact, it would probably decrease the workload because you would have a level of predictability. The problem with Rapanos is, there is a level of uncertainty; and that is going to lead to more litigation, which obviously means more annoyance to the public, more delays to the public, but also more work for the Federal agency. Mrs. Drake. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Browner. Thank you. Mrs. Drake. I yield back, Madam Chairman. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney. Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Browner, I have heard significant feedback from constituent farms that the Oberstar bill will, in fact, negatively impact their day-to-day operations all the way to their saying, "If this law gets passed, we are going to have to close our farms down." Now, I would like you to address that concern in a way that would make them comfortable. Specifically, do the savings clauses in section 6 offer them some sort of protection or are there other provisions that would help out? Ms. Browner. All of the agricultural activities that are currently allowed under the Clean Water Act can continue; nothing in this changes. And whether those activities are being undertaken because there are exemptions in the regulations or because there have been interpretations of the underlying statute, nothing in this changes. The sections that the agricultural community relies on for their exemptions are not amended by this bill. You know, obviously having run the EPA for 8 years and having run a large State agency prior to that and having worked on the Hill as a staffer, this debate about wetland protection has gone on for a really, really long time in this country; and it is probably going to go on for a really long time. I want to be clear. This bill, Mr. Oberstar's bill, in my opinion, does not change the playing field. Everybody is going to be in just the same place as they were before in terms of what they can do, what is permissible and what needs a permit. Remember, there is always a permitting option that is available, but this is not changing. If you do not need a permit today, you are not going to need a permit after this passes. Mr. McNerney. Well, there must be some basis for their concern. Would you be able to address that or--I mean, they want an explanation. Ms. Browner. Well, I think there are--and I do not want to speak to your particular constituents. I do not know them. I can simply tell you, from my experience, there are organizations that have for the last 15, 20 years gone about changing how our wetlands and how our surface waters are protected and have gone about minimizing the protections, and I think some of that effort is caught up in this discussion, but as I said before, for individual parties, what they are allowed to do and what they need a permit to do does not change. Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I think Congresswoman Drake had a clarification. Mrs. Drake. I am sorry, Madam Chairman. Ms. Johnson. Did you have a clarification? Mrs. Drake. Yes, I did, and thank you very much. If you would, look at section 4 on page 8 and on line 14 where it is defining waters of the United States, and on line 14, it says "or activities affecting these waters." Ms. Browner. I have not found it yet. Hold on. Mrs. Drake. Section 4. Page 8. Line 14. Ms. Browner. Got it. Mrs. Drake. The question was because, in the Clean Water Act, it used "discharge," not "activities." so that was another question of what does that actually mean? Ms. Browner. I am happy to answer the question, but I need the current law in front of me. I need to understand what section you are referencing versus what section this is speaking to. No doubt, the Clean Water Act uses the word "discharge." this may not be amending the section that you are talking about. I cannot do this without all of the sections. I am happy to do it after the fact. If you want to send them to me, I will be happy to look at them, but the fact that the word "discharge" appears somewhere in the Clean Water Act and does not appear here---- Mrs. Drake. Well, I think the difference is "activities" does not appear in the Clean Water Act, and in this it does; and so it is like--is this expanding the current, where you are saying it is not redefining, but that it is simply clarifying the definition? So, Madam Chairman, I think, if we could, let us submit that to her---- Ms. Browner. I would be happy to look at it for you. Mrs. Drake. --and ask her to do that. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Congresswoman Fallin. Ms. Fallin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for being here today and for lending your expertise and tremendous background to this important topic. And I appreciate your comments about supporting cleaner water for the United States; I think we can all support that. And I think we have made some progress on your statement about permitting in the States being best left done by the States, and your concern that you stated that you support States' being able to permit whenever possible and whenever they have the systems in place that need to be there; and then, also, your express concern about any unfunded Federal mandates and the lack of money that might come with that when it comes to---- Ms. Browner. Well, I actually did not say that, just to be clear. Really, I am not concerned about that. Ms. Fallin. Well, I am when it comes to---- Ms. Browner. But States charge for permits. Ms. Fallin. Right. Right. Well, passing down things to States and then States' not having the money to do what the Federal law requires---- Ms. Browner. But the States in the instance of the Clean Water Act ask for the permission. It is not just handed down to them. They seek it. Ms. Fallin. Right. Right. What I wanted to ask you was--you said you support permitting whenever possible. It has proven to be successful, and I agree with that, too. But I have been contacted by some major groups in my States, some that have authority over water in Oklahoma--some of the farmers, the ranchers, the ag community--who have expressed concern about the change of language in this piece of legislation from striking "navigable waters" to "waters of the United States." My industry leaders state that the EPA already has full jurisdictional rights, and they have been pretty much opposed to changing that language about the "navigable waters" to "waters of the United States" and believe that this would impose upon our States' rights. Some have said, in light of imposing upon the States' rights, that it could result in massive permitting delays on projects, that it could preempt State and local rights and that it also could cause some unfunded mandates. So, in light of your general support that States have the right to do the permitting and of making sure that States have the resources to uphold the Federal law and the permitting itself, when we talk about the language in this bill encompassing water that has never previously been subject to the Clean Water Act by permitting requirements, including the groundwater, the roadside ditches, the waste treatment ponds, prior converted croplands, ditches, drains, pipes that convey wastewater to sewage treatment plants---- Ms. Browner. Can you refer me to the section of the bill that you are quoting---- Ms. Fallin. Well, I am not quoting it. I am talking about-- -- Ms. Browner. --just so I can read it? It would be really helpful. Ms. Fallin. I will get that for you. I am talking about the general summary of the bill that I am looking at. Ms. Browner. Oh, okay. Ms. Fallin. I am just talking about, conceptually, do you think it is necessary? To accomplish the goals of just having cleaner water and having a permitting process that works, could we just leave the language as "navigable waters" versus changing it to "waters of the United States" and accomplish the same goals? Ms. Browner. Well, a couple of things if you do not mind. I think a number of the activities you mentioned are not in the bill. I will go back and read it carefully, but I do not think they are in the bill, so I think we need to be careful about what is in the bill and what is not in the bill. I support what is in the bill. I believe, after a careful reading of this bill, that it is a reaffirmation of how the Clean Water Act has been interpreted through the better part of three decades. With respect to the States, I think if a State wants to take responsibility under the Federal law, as passed by Congress, to handle the permitting on a day-to-day basis, that is a good thing. Obviously, because they are exercising the Federal authority, not State authority, it is absolutely the responsibility of the EPA to ensure that that Federal authority granted by Congress to the EPA and now down to the State is handled accordingly. It is not an unfunded mandate. Not all States have sought the authority; some States have and some have not. It is an individual State decision. When they seek the authority, they generally attach a permit fee so that they can cover some parts of the costs associated. I think more States have actually sought the discharge permitting authority, the section 402 authority, than the section 404 authority, but certainly some States have sought both of those. Ms. Fallin. I think the section I was asking about--and I do not have it in front of me right now, but the concerns I have had expressed, to me, are when you change the definition of the waters, that it could encompass those things that I mentioned before; and that is what I am hearing back from my community. Do you think it could? Ms. Browner. I do not. I do not think this bill suddenly will have the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers regulating activities to protect our Nation's waters that they have not previously regulated. And all I can tell you is that, you know, I have read it. I have worked on the Hill for a number of years. I wrote a lot of laws; I got to interpret some of the laws I wrote as the Administrator of the EPA. You know, based on that experience--I am not a legislative scholar, but based on that real-world experience, I am very comfortable that this will not change the activities that EPA and the Corps have historically been engaged in. I do not know what they are doing today. Ms. Fallin. Well, I appreciate your telling me that because I would like to go back home and tell my folks that you have told me in the hearing that it will not cover those kinds of things. I think it is important to know. Ms. Browner. When you say "those kinds of things," what I am saying is things that are not currently--I do not know if those things are; I would have to go back and research each of them. Thank you. Ms. Fallin. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Congressman Carney. Mr. Carney. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Browner, this horse is not quite dead yet. We have got one more beating on it here. What would be the implications of actually leaving the phrase "navigable waters" in the bill? Ms. Browner. Here is what I have to think about--and I will think about it, but let me tell you what I think has to be thought about. I will have to go back and look at two Supreme Court decisions to understand the word "navigable," but let us just use some common sense here, all right? Mr. Carney. That would be great. Ms. Browner. You know, for 35 years, as the EPA and the Corps were implementing this program either for wetland permitting--or let us not forget the discharges of pollutants. I mean, if we do not clarify things that could also be negatively affected--and we have done a really good job of getting that pollution that comes from point sources under control, and I think we want to stay there, and we want to continue to get even better about it. But, you know, it is not like the EPA was sitting around or the Army Corps was sitting around with a map and saying, "Well, a boat can fit on that, but a boat cannot fit on this, and therefore, we are not going to regulate this." They were saying, "When we look at the waters of the U.S., when we look at our major rivers, we have to also think about the tributaries to those rivers and about the streams to those tributaries if we are going to actually protect that waterway." and I know we keep going around and around, but it seems so commonsensical to me that if you are going to protect something that is down here, and there are bad things going on up here, you had better protect and regulate what is going on up here; otherwise, you are not going to have a lot left down here. Sorry. Mr. Carney. No. I appreciate common sense. It is a rare commodity around here. I am glad to have it. I am kind of on the same tone, though. Ms. Browner. You know, if you lived on a stream and you lived down at this end and somebody were doing something bad up here that was affecting your ability to swim down here, you would be really thankful that the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers thought they should be able to regulate that thing up here. Mr. Carney. I am grateful to them anyway. Thank you very much. In your experience at the EPA, did you ever hear big influxes of complaints about the permitting process? I mean, were you getting feedback from the States that people were just up in arms? Ms. Browner. We heard directly from the people. We did not have to wait for the States. Of course. I mean, you run a permitting agency. Mr. Carney. Right. Ms. Browner. You know--I apologize if I said this while you were not here, but you know, a lot of times when you dug around, the problem was that the answer was "no," and somebody did not like it but not all of the time. I mean, look, the EPA has 18,000 people. You have got, you know, States of 1,000 people per agency or so. You can get some bad things going on, but a lot of times when you actually went digging, you found out that the real problem was that people did not like the answer. Mr. Carney. Boy, that makes sense. We have actually heard from other folks that Governor Schweitzer from Montana, for example, said that the folks actually liked the idea of a process where they knew what the process was; and the permits were there, and they had them in hand, and they could do what they wanted to do. I think that makes a lot of sense. Of course, we hear the same complaints in our offices when we vote "no," that we should have voted "yes," and when we vote "yes," that we should have voted "no." so I get that. Ms. Browner. There you go. Mr. Carney. I just want to thank you for your testimony. In fact, you bring a breath of fresh air to this whole process, and I want to work with you and continue to keep the waters of this country clean. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan. Congressman Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Browner, let me see if I can partially explain why there is so much concern on the part of farmers from California to Oklahoma and Virginia and people in Tennessee--not just farmers, but home builders to private landowners. I am told that, you know, when the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 and then for several years thereafter, there were a great many disputes about prior converted cropland, so much so--so many across the country--that a Farm Bill in the mid-1980s put an exclusion in there. Now, this bill as it is presently written takes that exclusion back out, and potentially you are talking about thousands of farms and pieces of land that are going to be back covered again; and that uproar that occurred between 1972 and the mid-1980s is going to start back up again, and that is what is creating a lot of the concern. Then, too, you have got this from--I have heard this decision pronounced different ways, the "Rah-pan-ose" or the "Rap-ah-noes," whatever the pronunciation is. Mr. Rapanos moved a few dump truckloads of dirt a few hundred yards on a piece of property that he owned that was 54 acres. The decision says this was sometimes saturated soil. The nearest body of navigable water was 11 to 20 miles away. Then you go on over here, and it says, "The average applicant for an individual permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process, and the average applicant for nationwide permits spends even more days and money." Now then, it goes on down further, and it talks about the immense expansion of Federal regulation of land use that has occurred under the Clean Water Act, and it says, "In the last three decades, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency have interpreted their jurisdiction over the waters of the United States to cover 270 million to 300 million acres of swampy lands in the U.S." Now---- Ms. Browner. I am sorry. Is that from the opinion? Mr. Duncan. That is from the opinion. Ms. Browner. Okay, from Scalia. Mr. Duncan. That is from the opinion. What people are concerned about--I mean, I read this morning that where they are having the British Open golf tournament, they have got soggy fairways. What a lot of people are concerned about is that they think now we are going to see this big expanse. You see, when you make government so big and so bureaucratic, as we have done over these last many years, you go in and you require individual farmers to go through a permitting process that takes hundreds of days, on the average of 788 days, and $271,596, I mean you can wipe somebody out. And who you end up hurting in these deals is not the big, giant farmers or not the big, giant developers; who you hurt are the poor and those in the lower income and the working people and that small farmer and that small developer. That's who gets eaten up and chewed up and thrown out by all of this, and that is why you are seeing all of this concern about this already, even though we are just starting this process. And yet, I get the impression that you do not really believe that people should be so concerned about this. Ms. Browner. I think anytime there are abuses in a government, any government permitting program, that is cause for concern. I absolutely share that concern. I did a lot of things while I was at the EPA to try and address problems that I thought were genuine, including, for example, in the Superfund Program where small businesses were being, I thought, needlessly drawn into the Superfund net. We created a whole program to protect small businesses from the Superfund liability. So I do not want to--where there are legitimate concerns, they absolutely need to be addressed. With respect to the Rapanos situation, I do want to just remind everybody--I am sure you know, but it is just worth noting, once again, the Bush administration--the current Bush administration--took exactly the same position with the Supreme Court that I took, that Mr. Reilly took, that Mr. Train took, and that Mr. Costle took, all former EPA Administrators, so---- Mr. Duncan. The Bush administration sometimes makes mistakes. Let me ask you this. Ms. Browner. I did not say that. I might have thought that. Mr. Duncan. Do you have any suggestions as to what we could do to this law that you said you have read thoroughly; do you have any suggestions or recommendations that you could make so that we could do something with this permitting process that would not make it take an average of 788 days and $271,000 for small people or small landowners? I mean, over 75 percent of the wetlands in this country are on private land. Ms. Browner. I think, in the short term, the single most important thing you can do is pass this legislation to clarify the ambiguities that have been created by SWANCC and Rapanos, and that will help mitigate some of the permitting problems that are going to arise. There are going to be permitting problems because of Rapanos; I strongly believe that. I think this is an important step to ensuring that those problems do not occur. Mr. Duncan. Well, if we pass this law, would you find it acceptable to exclude small farm operations or small landowners who cannot possibly afford these types of court challenges? Ms. Browner. This law is about protecting the Nation's waters. There will be times when small businesses and small farm owners have waters that need to be protected. Now, having said that---- Mr. Duncan. You are protecting the big guys, not the little guys. Ms. Browner. No. Mr. Duncan. That is what it amounts to. You can say what you want to, but that is what it amounts to. Ms. Browner. I will speak for myself, thank you very much. I am not on the side of the big guys versus the little guys. I am on the side of making sure that we honor our Nation's laws and do it in a fair and commonsense way. The best way to do that, I believe, is to embrace this, to pass this. There are, no doubt, problems in the permitting system that will extend beyond the impact of Rapanos, and they can be addressed, but I do not think they need to be addressed in this law. Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I was just looking at some of the Corps of Engineers' opinions, and they think that 80-some percent of the permits can be done in under 60 days---- Ms. Browner. Right. Ms. Johnson. --and a total of 61 percent have been done in under 120 days, so it might be that efficiency set in somewhere. Let me thank you so very much for being here today. It has been very helpful. Ms. Browner. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. We appreciate your spending your time. Ms. Browner. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. The second panel: Mr. Steve Moyer is the Vice President of Government Affairs and Volunteer Operations for Trout Unlimited in Arlington, Virginia; Mr. Joe Logan is the President of Ohio Farmers Union; Mr. Marcus Hall is the Public Works Director and County Engineer in Duluth, Minnesota, for the St. Louis County Public Works Department; Mr. Norman Semanko is the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Idaho Water Users Association, Inc. in Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance; and Mr. Larry Forester is a City Councilman of Signal Hill, California, on behalf of the Coalition for Practical Regulation; Thank you very much for being here. STATEMENTS OF STEVE MOYER, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND VOLUNTEER OPERATIONS, TROUT UNLIMITED; JOE LOGAN, PRESIDENT, OHIO FARMERS UNION; MARCUS J. HALL, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ENGINEER, ST. LOUIS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DULUTH, MINNESOTA; NORMAN M. SEMANKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION AND THE FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE; THE HONORABLE LARRY FORESTER, CITY COUNCILMAN, SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA Ms. Johnson. Mr. Moyer, you may begin your testimony. Mr. Moyer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to participate in the hearing on this very important subject. Because of the two recent Supreme Court decisions and the Federal Government's flawed guidance in interpreting those decisions, the status of the Nation's waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act is threatened, shrinking and confused. If we, as a nation, are ever to have any prospect of achieving the Clean Water Act's most laudable goal to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, the situation needs to be rectified soon. T.U. supports the Clean Water Act and the Clean Water Restoration Act, H.R. 2421, as a critical step for restoring the historic scope of the act and the jurisdiction in placing the Nation back on track of achieving the goals of the act. T.U. is the Nation's largest cold water fisheries conservation group. We are dedicated to protecting and restoring the Nation's trout and salmon resources and the watersheds that they depend on. We have about 150,000 sportsmen and -women who are devoted to restoring trout and salmon. They devote a lot of time and energy to restoring the waters in their home waters and the fisheries that are there. We are not constitutional lawyers, though. T.U. staff and volunteers are not constitutional lawyers, but we think we know a good bit about restoring and maintaining the Nation's waters. We always view these waters from a watershed perspective. Water resources within a watershed are all connected from the top of the mountain down to the smallest headwater into the remotest wetland to the majestic rivers in the valleys to the coastal bays and to the oceans. One of the most valuable lessons that we have learned is that watershed restoration is impossible without maintaining the health of headwater streams; and that is my main plea for you to consider here today, the health of headwater streams. Headwater streams, especially the intermittent and ephemeral streams that are dry for parts of the year, are the "Rodney Dangerfields" of the aquatic world. They do not get enough respect, but they really do deserve respect because the best science we have tells us how extremely valuable these headwater streams are. They really are the "roots" of all of our watersheds, and if we damage or kill the roots, we damage the trees, the large rivers that flow through the valleys and towns and cities. The two Supreme Court decisions and the guidance that followed each have done a great deal of damage to put these headwaters at risk, and H.R. 2421 is the bill that is needed to be passed as soon as possible to fix this situation, and here is why. I have just a few points to highlight. The two decisions have really narrowed and confused the extent of the act's jurisdiction; and the plurality in Rapanos' decision, in particular, was especially unfriendly to small headwater streams. Secondly, the EPA and the Corps responded to each of these decisions with guidance that went even further than the decisions themselves in curtailing the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. In particular, on the Rapanos' guidance--on nonnavigable waters and wetlands, the Rapanos' guidance insists on a narrowly focused, case-by-case evaluation that promises to be both highly time-intensive and unnecessarily narrow. The waters that are most at risk from the Rapanos and SWANCC decisions are small headwater streams, as I mentioned, and other intermittently flowing streams and wetlands associated with such streams and geographically separated wetlands, like prairie potholes. Far from being isolated or remote, these waters are, in fact, the lifeblood of larger waters and some of the most vital waters to fish and to wildlife. These resources are vast. These headwater streams comprise a very large portion of a lot of watersheds, especially in the western United States, and these waters are very valuable. They perform a whole variety of functions. Of course, the ones most useful to us are producing trout and salmon, but they also have great pollution controlling functions. Also, then, you have to talk about activities. If you do not have geographic jurisdiction, then you do not have activity regulation; and we are very concerned about the loss of section 404 and, potentially, the jeopardy of section 402, the point source discharge programs, because of the loss of geographic jurisdiction. T.U. members use these programs to make sure that development is done wisely and does not pollute or destroy aquatic resources. So, for those reasons, T.U. strongly supports H.R. 2421 and urges the Committee to pass it as soon as possible. Thanks for having me today to testify. Mr. McNerney. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Moyer. Thank you for your testimony and for attending here this afternoon. Mr. Logan, you are up next. Would you begin when you are ready. Mr. Logan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify. My name is Joe Logan. I am the President of the Ohio Farmers Union. I am a fifth-generation family farmer from northern Ohio, where I graze cattle, produce row crops. We make maple syrup, grow grapes, and produce wine. I am here today on behalf of the National Farmers Union, a general commodity farm organization that represents family farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and rural residents from across the country. The NFU recognizes that the purpose of the Clean Water Act is to provide clean water--clean, safe, usable water--for all of the citizens of the United States. At the same time, the act reminds us that preserving clean water is a shared responsibility to be borne equally by all who use, benefit from and rely upon a healthy and safe supply of water. The NFU believes that family farmers and ranchers have historically been the best soil and water conservationists when given the economic incentives and the flexibility. Two Supreme Court cases involving the Clean Water Act have resulted in considerable confusion among the Corps of Engineers, the EPA and those seeking to abide by the law. Bipartisan legislation introduced by the House and Senate is seeking to clarify that act. However, considerable confusion exists surrounding the intent of the proposed legislation, which I hope can be clarified here today. Our members spend the vast majority of their time on their farming and ranching operations, day-to-day. They have not experienced a drastic difference between the pre- and post- SWANCC Supreme Court decisions. Some in the agricultural community have suggested that legislation introduced will expand the jurisdiction and scope of the original Clean Water Act and eliminate 32 years of regulatory precedent. It is my understanding that the legislation simply aims to clarify the responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers while, at the same time, it maintains the statutory and regulatory exemptions for agriculture; and I hope that the Chairman can clarify that intention to the agricultural community. It is important to keep in mind that although agriculture sometimes contributes to water pollution, the damage is uneven in scope and in severity. The highest vulnerabilities occur most often where farming is done at an industrial level. Therefore, blanket regulations are unwise and very hard to justify to the producers. Any legislation impacting the Clean Water Act must be clear enough for those in the agricultural community to be able to predict which lands and which waters will be covered. Farmers and ranchers have long acknowledged that clean, safe water is critical to the long-term success of their operations. What will help farmers and ranchers in the future is a less cumbersome and more expedient process when the agricultural community, the EPA and the Corps can come to a consensus about what problems do and do not need to be addressed and the most practicable way to address those challenges. As National Farmers Union members have demonstrated for generations, farmers, ranchers and fishermen are effective environmental stewards. Their astute understanding of natural resources deserves to be recognized and rewarded. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to take any questions you might have. I thank the Members for their efforts in this regard. Mr. McNerney. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Logan, and for working with family farms, which, I think, is an important part of our national heritage and, hopefully, our future, our Nation's future. Mr. Marcus Hall, representing the St. Louis County Public Works Department. We look forward to your testimony. You can begin when you are ready. Mr. Hall. Thank you. My name is Marcus Hall, and I am the Public Works Director with St. Louis County, Minnesota. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for allowing me to testify today, and I hope to give you a glimpse of the national wetland issue from a county highway department perspective. St. Louis County is located in northeastern Minnesota and is a very large county. It extends from the most westerly tip of Lake Superior and goes north to the Canadian border. It is the largest county east of the Mississippi River, covering over 7,000 square miles. Between the rivers, lakes, marshes, and swamps, over 35 percent of our county is covered with wetlands. Covering this vast region is an extensive State and county transportation system. St. Louis County, itself, is responsible for over 3,000 miles of roadway, and we have an annual highway construction budget between $25 million and $30 million. It typically takes 3 to 5 years to go from the conception of a highway construction project, through a public input phase, a preliminary design phase, an environmental permit phase, a final planned phase, the right-of-way acquisition and bidding phase just to get to a point where you can begin construction. During this whole time, our constituents are watching this process, and most of the time, they are shaking their heads, wondering why it is taking so long. Now, Minnesota recognizes the importance of wetlands to both our natural environment and economics. We adopted the Comprehensive Wetland Conservation Act in 1991, and in many cases, our State and local regulations are more restrictive than the Army Corps and PCA regulations. I believe that the recent Supreme Court decisions have thrown the Federal regulatory agencies into turmoil and both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers into a scramble on how to implement the new rulings. The latest Agency guidelines, dated June 5th of this year, are very complex. The typical 60- to-120-day permit process has now slowed to a crawl. What the guidelines do is take a one-step process, consisting of applying for a permit, and turn it into a two-step process-- first, applying to review your project to see if it falls under their jurisdiction and then, two, applying for a permit. Mr. Hall. Our current best estimate is that this will add anywhere from 4 to 6 months to the process, more than doubling the current process time. And in Northern States, this will mean a delay of our projects for a full construction season. With construction inflation running between 4 and 7 percent, this represents an annual cost of between $1- and $2 million in delays for St. Louis County each year. Please remember that in the State of Minnesota, the local and State regulations and requirements are more restrictive than the Corps, so this delay comes with no increase in environmental protection for us. A typical St. Louis County reconstruction project is our County State Aid Highway 47 project. It is a 4.7-mile project that is scheduled for reconstruction in 2008. The current estimated value of the project is $4.5 million. And under the new guidelines, the two-step process, it is my understanding the Corps will have to perform a jurisdictional determination on each of the 36 separate individual wetland crossings that we have on that project. If this forces a delay in our project, it will cost St. Louis County between $200,000 and $300,000 for this one project. With numerous projects like this in the area, the local Army Corps of Engineers field personnel are currently overwhelmed by the amount of field work and paperwork that they are required to perform. I believe that the long-term solution to this issue is legislative action that clearly defines which wetlands falls under the Corps' jurisdiction, and eliminating this current first step of the two-step process. However, a short-term solution would be to allow the permittee to waive the analysis portion, and on an individual case-by-case basis concede the Corps' jurisdiction and move right to the permit phase. Needless to say, either solution is preferable to the guidelines, which are presently unworkable. In summary, I want to point out the county engineers understand the importance of our environment, and understand that our society has placed a great value on our wetlands. However, they have also placed a great value on a good transportation system, and it is up to us to balance these values and come up with a system and process that produces a great transportation system without harming our environment in the process. That concludes my oral statement, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. McNerney. [presiding.] Well, thank you for that testimony and for the insight into the operations of your municipal system, and how the Clean Water Act and the--how important it is that the Clean Water Act be clear so that people can follow its rules. The next witness is Norm Semanko of the Idaho Water Users Association. Thank you for coming, Norm, and you can begin your testimony when you are ready. Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name is Norm Semanko, and I am here representing the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance. The Family Farm Alliance advocates for family farmers and ranchers in 17 Western states. The National Water Resources Association is a collection of State associations that together represent the agricultural and municipal water providers that take very seriously their role in providing safe and reliable water supplies to their consumers and their customers. I would like to review with you three areas today in the brief time that we have. Number one is the history and the intent, this definition question with regard to waters of the United States. Second is the impacts this legislation, H.R. 2421, is likely to have on the Federal-State partnership that has existed over the last 35 years under the act. And then, third, I would like to talk about the impacts on water delivery providers, on our members. First, with regard to the definition of waters of the United States, trying to boil down what we heard here over the last hour and a half or so, there were three camps, three decisions really in the Rapanos decision. Number one, there were the folks that were able to get four votes, headed by Justice Scalia, that took the view that waters of the United States are the traditionally navigable waters, the ones that you can find the definition of in a dictionary or that you can look on a map and see blue lines. That got four votes. And then there were the folks represented by the prior panelist and other folks that advocated for an interpretation that all waters, interstate and intrastate, should all be covered by the Clean Water Act. The Federal Government should have jurisdiction over all of that. And if the State wants to have some jurisdiction, too, that is fine, but the Federal Government is always going to be there. That got four votes in the dissent. The middle vote was, of course, Justice Kennedy, which is widely considered the controlling opinion. And what he decided and what he said is that in addition to the traditionally navigable waters, you also have those waters that have a significant nexus to those navigable waters, those waters that actually have a physical, chemical, biological impact on the water quality. That is the real goal of the Clean Water Act. Now, the folks with Scalia and the folks with the dissent didn't agree with that. If the folks that were with Scalia did what the folks in the dissent did, you would have a bill before you today that, instead of saying "navigable waters," said those waters that are navigable in fact. In other words, they would want to have the jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act just be those blue lines on a map or those things that are defined as "waters" in the dictionary. That is not what happened. Instead what we have is the folks that lost on the dissenting side coming in with their argument as to what they believe waters of the United States should be, and that is the definition that is included in H.R. 2421. It represents a tremendous expansion, no matter what has been said here today, with regard to the definition of waters of the United States. By including the language that all interstate and intrastate waters to the fullest extent, that those waters or their activities are subject to the legislative powers of Congress under the Constitution, that includes all waters in the United States. What does this do for the Federal-State relationship? Well, traditionally the States, under section 101(b) and 101(g) of the Clean Water Act and other Federal acts, have had a tremendously important role with regard to the waters in the United States. Whether they were under Federal control or not wasn't important. The States had control over their water. That would be upset. When you increase Federal jurisdiction, you are reducing, necessarily, the State jurisdiction. It is not enough to say that the States are delegated this responsibility by the Federal Government; that in essence they are given, if it's not paid for, an unfunded Federal mandate. It drastically upsets the delicate balance between the States and the Federal Government. Then, third, the impact on our water delivery folks. There is no doubt with regard to section 303 if you are a waters of the United States, then water quality standards apply. If you are not meeting the water quality standards, cleanup plans have to be developed. So all the canals, and the drains, and the laterals, and the stock ponds--and the list can go on and on-- they will all need to have TMDL plans developed. And the focus on the traditional waters of the United States that we have done such a good job of cleaning up will be lost. Under section 402, NPDES permits will be required in places they haven't been. Section 404, permits will be required for routine maintenance activities, and things that are done in canals and laterals now. Most importantly, the view of what the Clean Water Act will mean, what that jurisdiction means, isn't up to Carol Browner or to me or any of you. Any citizen can, with the cost of a stamp and a typewriter, put together a citizen lawsuit and file a lawsuit. Eighty percent of the enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act are brought by citizens, and they are able to convince a judge what the Clean Water Act means. And that is where you will have the encroachment and these vast interpretations under the act. I appreciate your time, and look forward to answering questions. Thank you. Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Semanko. That was very enlightening and precise testimony. Thank you very much. The next witness is Larry Forester from Signal Hill, California. And I look forward to your testimony. You can begin when you are ready. Mr. Forester. I have a PowerPoint. I opened with the title The "Unintended and Foreseeable Consequences of Extending the Clean Water Act--the Southern California Experience." We are living it. Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify. Again, my name is Larry Forester, council member from the city of Signal Hill. Signal Hill is a member of the Coalition for Practical Regulation, 43 cities of the 88 in L.A. County working to improve water quality. CPR testified before this Committee in 2003. And we are pleased that you are taking a retrospective look at the Clean Water Act. I believe I am qualified. I have a degree in civil engineering, and master's degree in ocean engineering, and with 9 years of local elected experience. To explore unintended and foreseeable consequences to local government by extending the Clean Water Act is my duty. CPR's testimony--let's see if I can work this--talks about what happened in Southern California, where we began to extend the Clean Water Act to public storm drains, isolated lakes, ponds, intermittent flood control channels. The problems in Southern California are now systemic, manifesting all Clean Water Act programs, from basin planning, NPDES permits, and Total Maximum Daily Load programs. Congress should see Southern California as a microcosm of the impractical, inflexible, unworkable, and costly approach which would be the result of expanding the Clean Water Act nationwide. Although well-intentioned, proposed legislation like H.R. 2421 will have unintended and foreseeable consequences, requiring numeric Federal quality limits, including applying Federal toxic rules to local drains, gutters, ponds, reclaimed water, and drinking water reservoirs. A major consequence of extending the Clean Water Act will be to expose thousands of local governments to legal actions taken by third parties, as authorized by the Clean Water Act. Southern California is now the watershed of litigation. The majority of the litigation can be traced back to the imposition of Clean Water Act standards by regulators to what are clearly nonnavigable waters. My written testimony details examples of what I want to highlight. We will look at the San Diego permit. In 2001, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board defined a municipal storm drain as waters of the United States. The entire storm drain system, starting at the curb, is regulated by the Clean Water Act. This permit has widely been copied by local regulators. The consequences are deeply troubling, since the Clean Water Act requires compliance at the point of discharge into the waters of the United States. This literally means compliance with the Clean Water Act at the driveway, house, or business. Constructed wetlands. Regional engineers have found that constructive wetlands will capture many of the pollutants in urban runoff. However, engineers have found that water within the constructed wetlands may not be capable of meeting Federal water quality standards. Proposed expansion of the Clean Water Act could preclude the use of constructed wetlands, since they are part of the drain system. Vertical box culverts. When I look at vertical box culverts, I am talking about channelized rivers. Engineers constructed hundreds of vertical, walled concrete-lined, box flood control channels in Southern California to deal with historic flooding beginning in the 1930's. With the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972, water quality standards have been attached to these culverts. Many were designated for swimming use, even though public access is restricted. These designations were made at a time when the regulators stated that the Federal standards were impractical to apply to urban runoff, and said local government had nothing to worry about. However, regulatory personnel changed over time, and so did the reach of the Clean Water Act. Regulators began requiring these channels meet recreational standards, but local governments protested, and the U.S. EPA regulators replied that the Clean Water Act required a Federal permit to approve or to remove impractical uses. There is a 4-year process to remove swimming from the L.A. River. There are hundreds of similar channels. Drinking water and reclaimed water. Many communities rely on above-ground storage of reclaimed water, for example, in small ponds and lakes. These ponds and lakes are isolated from rivers and oceans, yet many have designated habitat or other beneficial uses under the basin plan. The water quality objectives of these would require better water quality, a higher degree of treatment than for reclaimed water, absent these designations. Clearly, the application of the clean water standards to these reservoirs would require treatment with no tangible benefit. A similar contradiction exists when applying beneficial uses to drinking water reservoirs, several of which are uncovered and open to the environment. Although public access is denied, most of these reservoirs have been designated for potential recreational uses. As a result, they are regulated for uses that are not compatible with their actual function as closed water distribution systems. The applicable Clean Water Act standards of these reservoirs would create some illogical treatment, and especially the applicability of the toxic rule. In conclusion, our water board estimates the cost to local governments to comply with the metal TMDL of the Los Angeles River is $2.4 billion--"B" as in boy--dollars. This is just one of hundreds of TMDLs that must be adopted on dozens of water bodies in the region. Local governments in Southern California do not know how they are going to afford these regulations. Expanding the scope of the Clean Water Act will create a major Federal mandate. These examples are illustrative as you contemplate the scope of the Clean Water Act. Well-intentioned regulations can have unintended consequences. Many of these unintended consequences can be seen in advance. Hopefully, practical regulations and common sense can prevail. Thank you for the time, and I am sorry I went over a little. Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that testimony. That does shed some light on the concerns that you are facing in the municipalities, a different set of concerns. Unusual circumstances, so we are going to be called to a vote within the next 15 or 20 minutes. And it is expected to take an hour or so of voting, or maybe an hour and a half. So I am going to ask the panelists from the third panel, Mr. Yaich and Dr. Meyer to come forward and join the panel so that we will have the testimony before we start our questions and answers. And that way we can combine, and every one of the panelists will have an opportunity to speak this afternoon. So I would like to ask Mr. Yaich from Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee, to take the stand and address this body. And I look forward to your discussion. And you can begin when you are ready. TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT C. YAICH, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION OPERATIONS, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC., MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; AND DR. JUDITH L. MEYER, DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, ATHENS, GEORGIA Mr. Yaich. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. Scott Yaich, and I am the Director of Conservation Operations at Ducks Unlimited's national headquarters. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Ducks Unlimited and our more than 1 million supporters, as well as Pheasants Forever, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wildlife Management Institute, and the Wildlife Society. DU's mission is to conserve, restore and manage wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl and for the benefits they provide other wildlife and the people who enjoy and value them. DU and our partners are science-based conservation organizations, so our perspectives on the Clean Water Act are grounded in wetland and water-related scientific disciplines, and I offer our comments today from that perspective. To ensure that we begin with a common understanding, it is worthwhile to state that from a scientific perspective, a wetland is an area that has hydric soils, is subject to being flooded for a portion of the growing season, or at least saturated, and supports or is capable of supporting wetland vegetation. Our written testimony provides much more detail, but I would like to emphasize five primary points this afternoon: The first is that of the original 221 million acres of wetlands in the U.S., over half have been lost. This has significantly affected the ability of the remaining wetlands and other waters to fulfill Federal and public interests. For example, the capability of the Nation's wetlands to support international waterfowl populations has been much reduced. I spent 17 years working in Arkansas, much of it in the Cache and White River Basins, historically among the most important wintering waterfowl habitats in North America. Arkansas has lost more than 80 percent of these wetlands, and the number of waterfowl coming to the region now are consequently much lower than they once were. My second point is that wetlands serve important ecological and societal functions, including providing habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Wetlands hold water and provide natural flood control during times of high rainfall, and subsequently slowly release it and help maintain base flows of streams and rivers. In Minnesota, for example, watersheds with higher percentages of wetlands and lakes have been shown to have lower levels of flooding. Wetlands recharge aquifers, such as the High Plains Aquifer, that provides water to eight States. Along the South Platte River in Colorado, geographically isolated wetlands provide water directly to the river via groundwater connections. The water from some wetlands takes 12 years or more to move from the wetlands to the river, but because of the certainty and predictability of these significant hydrologic nexuses, this water has real economic value that is being bought and sold as part of an interstate and Federal agreement. The negative side of these ubiquitous kinds of connections between geographically isolated wetlands and flowing waters, however, is that the water can transport pollutants. For example, there are a number of Superfund sites in one county in Michigan from which compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metals have leached from an isolated wetland into aquifers, private drinking wells, and ultimately to the Clinton River. A wealth of scientific studies and wetland systems across the country documents these hydrologic and ecologic linkages between wetlands and other waters. These studies support my third point, which is that virtually all wetlands, in combination with similar wetlands in a region, do possess significant nexuses with navigable and other waters and have a direct effect on their quantity and quality. In the Rapanos decision, Justice Kennedy gave a strong indication of the importance he placed on consideration of the aggregate impacts of wetland loss when he stated an example of the public purposes that should be served by the Clean Water Act was to address water quality issues such as the Gulf of Mexico's hypoxic zone. This problem can only be addressed by approaching it at a landscape scale, a piece at a time, including protecting or restoring some of the 60 million acres of wetlands in the Mississippi River watershed, whose loss has contributed significantly to the growth of the problem in the first place. The fourth point is that, as a result of the Supreme Court decisions and subsequent agency guidance being based upon something other than the best available wetland science, tens of millions of acres of wetlands across the country are now at significantly increased risk of being lost. Although Justice Kennedy's significant nexus test provides a science-based conceptual approach to wetland regulation, the nature of the nexuses between wetlands and navigable waters makes such a test virtually impossible to apply scientifically and efficiently within a regulatory context. We believe the effect will be decreased protection of wetlands and increased regulatory uncertainty, as well as increased administrative burdens and processing time required for permits. So my final point is that due to the nature and almost universal scope of the connection between wetlands and other waters of the U.S., fulfillment of the primary purposes of the Clean Water Act, which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, requires that the wetlands protections that existed prior to the SWANCC decision be restored. Legislation that clarifies that central point is the only apparent remedy for restoring the necessary Clean Water Act protections. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this, and I will be happy to answer questions when the time comes. Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Yaich. I appreciate your testimony and your expertise. And next we are going to turn to Dr. Judith Meyer. I look forward to your testimony, and you can start when you are ready. Ms. Meyer. Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and for the opportunity to provide the Committee with the scientific evidence for the importance of headwater streams in maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of our Nation's waters. My name is Judy Meyer, and I have been a professor at the University of Georgia, and conducted research on headwater streams for three decades. The scientific evidence is clear that small streams must be protected if we are to reach the goals of the Clean Water Act. Rivers are networks whose navigable portions are inextricably linked with headwaters, just as our own circulatory system is dependent on the functioning of healthy capillaries. Reaffirming a broad definition of waters in the text of the Clean Water Act is critical to the goal of the Clean Water Act, which is maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of our Nation's waters. Longstanding and robust scientific evidence demonstrates that interdependence of small streams and navigable rivers. Today I am going to summarize four key points. But, recognize these points are supported by hundreds of peer- reviewed scientific publications. References to this extensive scientific literature are included in my testimony submitted for the record, and also have been more completely summarized in the document "Where Rivers Are Born." These points have also been made in a letter to Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica from the North American Benthological Society, which is a scientific society whose members study rivers and streams. The first point on the critical importance of headwater streams is that they are ubiquitous. The smallest streams comprise the greatest number and length of channels in a river network. This is illustrated in this figure, which shows the percentage of stream miles in the smallest streams. The darkest colors are where small streams are over 59 percent of channel lengths, so that you can see in many parts of the U.S., well over half of the stream miles are in these smallest streams. Yet even this is an underestimate of the total length of small streams because of the scale of the maps. For example, standard topographic maps with the blue lines that were referred to earlier identify only 21 percent of the stream channel length in a North Carolina watershed. In addition, a sizable fraction of the channel length in a river network is in streams that do not flow permanently. This is shown in this figure. In this case, darker colors indicate where over 80 percent of the stream length is in intermittent channels. In arid States such as Arizona, 96 percent of stream miles do not flow continuously. Intermittent streams are also abundant and significant in States that get more rainfall. For example, intermittent streams in Michigan comprise 48 percent of the length of streams in that State. My second point: Headwater streams contribute to the physical integrity of the river network. Small streams are an important source of water for large rivers. Over half of the water in large rivers in the northeastern U.S. is delivered by headwater streams. Small streams hold and store water during storms and recharge groundwater. Where human activity has eliminated or degraded small streams, both the frequency and intensity of flooding increases downstream. In the face of global warming and increased threats of flooding, small streams will play an even more critical role in reducing flood damage. Small streams also retain sediments. If the storage is reduced, sediments are flushed downstream during storms. This reduces water quality and negatively impacts fish feeding, spawning, and overall stream health. Point number three. Tributaries are essential to the maintenance of the chemical integrity of navigable rivers. The basic chemical composition of unpolluted streams is largely established in their headwaters. For example, over 40 percent of the nitrogen that is found in navigable rivers in the northeastern U.S. originates in headwater streams. So therefore, pollutants and contaminants that are introduced into headwaters will make their way down to navigable waters. Small streams in the network are also the sites of the most active uptake, transformation, and retention of nutrients. When headwaters streams are eliminated or degraded, more of the nutrients that are being applied to lawns and farm fields are delivered to downstream lakes and estuaries. Nuisance algal blooms, low oxygen concentrations, and fish kills are potential consequences of these excess nutrients. My fourth and final point on the importance of headwaters is that they contribute to the biotic integrity of river networks. And they do this in three ways. They are the primary habitats of many aquatic and terrestrial species. My colleagues and I have found 290 taxa in tiny little streams in North Carolina. Secondly, headwaters provide spawning habitat, serve as nursery areas, and offer a refuge from threats such as predators and stressful temperatures. Species may use small streams only part of the year, but it is essential that those streams are present and accessible when needed. For example, brook trout in the Ford River in Michigan retreat to cooler headwaters in summer. In coastal streams in Oregon, young coho---- Mr. McNerney. We were called to a vote, so if you could wrap this up. Ms. Meyer. I will. I am on my last point. Headwaters supply food resources to downstream and riparian ecosystems. Fishless headwater streams in Alaska export enough food to support hundreds of thousands young-of-the-year salmon in each mile of salmon-bearing streams. So in conclusion, decades of scientific research have shown that permanent and intermittent headwater streams are an integral part of a river network. They are not isolated. They provide ecological goods and services. Whether they have a direct hydrologic connection to a navigable river, these headwater streams have a direct impact on the physical, chemical, and biotic integrity of navigable waters. They have traditionally been protected by the Clean Water Act. Recent court decisions and agency guidance have not adequately incorporated scientific understanding that the entire river network requires protection. Legislation to reaffirm the original intent of the Clean Water Act is needed to reunite the law with the science. Thank you. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That was very informative. Unfortunately, we had to cut that off. Mr. Gilchrest has been very patient. I would like to give him an opportunity to ask a couple of quick questions, and then I will ask Members of the Committee to submit questions in writing to the panel, and ask that the panel respond to those questions within 2 weeks. Mr. Gilchrest, would you like to begin? Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I thank the Chairman. I would like to ask three questions. And maybe since the panel is so large, and we have a vote pending, I could also get the response to these questions to the Committee. First question is which waters of the United States should be clean? And keep in mind physical, chemical, biological factors. Number two, how should we think about gravity and its relationship to water and the Clean Water Act, keeping in mind the nexus that Mr. Kennedy is talking about? And number three, does it matter whether or not human activity regarding the hydrologic cycle of water, and understanding its necessary services to us human beings, is important? Does it matter whether or not human activity regarding the hydrologic cycle is important? And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. I don't know how to characterize those somewhat philosophical--certainly the deepest questions we have had here today. So I thank the panel very much for their expert testimony. It has been very interesting. As I mentioned in my questions of the first panel, a lot of my constituents are concerned about the impact of the Oberstar bill. So this has been helpful. Hopefully you will get some questions from the Committee, and you will be able to answer those within a 2-week period. At this point I would like to adjourn this hearing. [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.550 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.551 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.552 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.553 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.554 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.555 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.556 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.557 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.558 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.559 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.560 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.561 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.562 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.563 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.564 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.565 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.566 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.567 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.568 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.569 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.570 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.571 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.572 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.573 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.574 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.575 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.576 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.577 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.578 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.579 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.580 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.581 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.582 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.583 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.584 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.585 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.586 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.587 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.588 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.589 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.590 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.591 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.592 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.593 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.594 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.595 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.596 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.597 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.598 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.599 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.600 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.601 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.602 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.603 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.604 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.605 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.606 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.607 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.608 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.609 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.610 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.611 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.612 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.613 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.614 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.615 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.616 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.617 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.618 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.619 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.620 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.621 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.622 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.623 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.624 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.625 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.626 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.627 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.628 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.629 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.630 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.631 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.632 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.633 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.634 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.635 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.636 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.637 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.638 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.639 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.640 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.641 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.642 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.643 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.644 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.645 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.646 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.647 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.648 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.649 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.650 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.651 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.652 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.653 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.654 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.655 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.656 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.657 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.658 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.659 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.660 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.661 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.662 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.663 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.664 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.665 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.666 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.667 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.668 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.669 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.670 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.671 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.672 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.673 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.674 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.675 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.676 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.677 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.678 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.679 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.680 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.681 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.682 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.683 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.684 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.685 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.686 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.687 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.688 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.689 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.690 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.691 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.692 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.693 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.694 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.695 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.696 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.697 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.698 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.699 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.700 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.701 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.702 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.703 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.704 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.705 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.706 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.707 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.708 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.709 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.710 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.711 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.712 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.713 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.714 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.715 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.716 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.717 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.718 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.719 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.720 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.721 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.722 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.723 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.724 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.725 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.726 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.727 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.728 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.729 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.730 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.731 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.732 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.733 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.734 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.735 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.736 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.737 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.738 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.739 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.740 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.741 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.742 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.743 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.744 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.745 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.746 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.747 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.748 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.749 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.750 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.751 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.752 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.753 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.754 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.755 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.756 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.757 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.758 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.759 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.760 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.761 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.762 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.763 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.764 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.765 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.766 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.767 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.768 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.769 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.770 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.771 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.772 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.773 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.774 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.775 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.776 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.777 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.778 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.779 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.780 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.781 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.782 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.783 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.784 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.785 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.786 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.787 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.788 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.789 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.790 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.791 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.792 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.793 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.794 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.795 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.796 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.797 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.798 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.799 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.800 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.801 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.802 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.803 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.804 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.805 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.806 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.807 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.808 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.809 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.810 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.811 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.812 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6734.813