[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT
=======================================================================
(110-131)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-581 PDF 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
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
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 CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice York
Chair CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Louisiana
Columbia JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Cherry, Lieutenant Governor John D., State of Michigan........... 4
Davis, Cameron, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes.. 21
Green, Emily, Director, Great Lakes Program, Sierra Club......... 21
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.................. 4
Gulezian, Gary, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.................. 4
Kuper, George H., President, Council of Great Lakes Industries... 21
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 32
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 33
Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin.................................. 35
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 37
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Cherry, Jr., Hon. John D......................................... 38
Davis, Cameron................................................... 48
Green, Emily..................................................... 53
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H........................................ 58
Kuper, George H.................................................. 68
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.008
HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT
----------
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Johnson. The Committee will come to order.
Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony
on the reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This
program aims to address the legacy of contaminated sediment
that degrades water quality throughout the Great Lakes and
threatens the health of populations who live in the region.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 was a good first step in
addressing the contaminated sediment that despoils the water
resources upon which a successful transformation of the region
will depend. Introduced by Congressmen Ehlers and Oberstar, it
is aimed to clean those many contaminated sites that have been
largely overlooked by ongoing Federal toxic waste site cleanup
efforts.
Not only was the Superfund process perceived as slow,
litigious and unwieldy, many contaminated sites in the Great
Lakes Region were not included on the list of sites that would
ultimately be addressed by the Superfund. Yet many of these
sites were too large and too toxic for States and localities to
deal with on their own.
In addition to many, many communities throughout the Great
Lakes Region were left with the chronically toxic effects of
contaminated sediment that relegated their towns and peoples to
health risks and economic under-achievement.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 sought to address these
largely abandoned sites and Areas of Concern by providing a
dedicated source of Federal funding for cleanup and
remediation. This morning, we look to what has worked over the
past five years with the Legacy Act, what challenges remain and
how these can be addressed.
The Legacy Act of 2002 authorized $50 million a year for 5
years to clean up contaminated sediment of hazardous waste
sites in 31 Areas of Concern. To this end, the program has been
successful but only to a degree. Of the 31 Areas of Concern,
one, Oswego Lake in New York, has been delisted.
Cleanup has been completed at four sites. I want to
highlight, however, this is a cleanup of only four sites, not
four Areas of Concern.
Many of the sites targeted by the original Legacy Act
remain as they were in 2002, untouched and continuing to leach
their toxic legacy into the lakes. Perhaps this is because the
program has been consistently under-funded by the
Administration over the past five years. Perhaps there are
structural issues within the Legacy Act itself that need to be
addressed.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that ten Areas of Concern in
Michigan, four in New York, one in Pennsylvania, three in Ohio
and three in Wisconsin remain wholly unaddressed.
Let me clear to my colleagues on the Subcommittee. The
scientific record is very well established on the health
impacts of these toxics on human populations. To be blunt, that
so many hazardous waste sites remain unaddressed is a public
health risk of the first order.
As a former nurse, I can say with clear conviction that as
a body we would be remiss if we did not find a way to clean
these toxic hot spots at a far faster pace than we have over
the past five years. We cannot shrink from our responsibility
on this front.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses
today in how we can improve the Legacy Act program.
I yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to welcome all the witnesses today. I look forward
to their testimony.
I also want to commend Dr. Ehlers for his years of work
with stakeholders from the Great Lakes to advance the Great
Lakes Legacy Act. When I was appointed to this position, it
probably was not five minutes later that Vern called and said,
I need to meet with you regarding this. So, as always, he is
very, very active.
The Great Lakes are a vital resource for both the United
States and Canada. The Great Lakes systems provide a waterway
to move goods, a water supply for drinking, industrial and
agricultural purposes, the source of hydroelectric power and
swimming and other recreational activities, but the
industrialization and development of the Great Lakes basins
over the last 200 years has had an adverse effect on the Great
Lakes.
Although safe for drinking and swimming in many places,
fish caught from the Great Lakes are not safe to eat. Lake
sediments contaminated from the history of industrialization
and development in the region are one of the primary causes of
this problem.
By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing
cleanup plans for the Great Lakes and for specific Areas of
Concern.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act passed in 2002 has helped
citizens restore the quality of the Great Lakes by taking
action to manage contaminated sediments and to prevent further
contamination. The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out qualified sediment
remediation projects and conduct research and development of
innovative approaches, technologies and techniques for the
remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes.
Legacy Act funding must be matched with at least 35 percent
non-Federal share, encouraging local investment. By encouraging
cooperative efforts through public-private partnerships, the
Great Lakes Legacy Act provided a better way to address the
problem of contaminated sediments.
At some sites, removing sediments will be the best way to
address short and long-term risk. At the other sites, the last
thing we want to do is go in and stir up the contaminated
sediments by dredging, causing more harm to the environment.
Obviously, how to address contaminated sediments at each Great
Lakes Areas of Concern will be very much a site-specific
decision.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act does not try to presume any
particular cleanup action. It simply encourages stakeholders to
take action and to make sure that the action they take will
make a real improvement to human health and the environment.
This legislation is strongly supported by both the
environmental groups and business groups in the Great Lakes
Region. The Great Lakes Legacy Act reflects a consensus
approach to addressing sediment contamination in the Great
Lakes.
The authorization for the Great Lakes Legacy Act expires
this year. Recently, the Act has been funded at a level between
$22 million and $35 million per year.
Today's hearing allow stakeholders to express their support
for the Great Lakes Legacy Act and offer any suggestions to
modify the Act. I look forward to hearing today's witnesses.
In reading the testimony, I want to compliment you in the
sense that it looks like that the stakeholders are working hard
together and appear to be in consensus in much that we are
going to hear today.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Are there other opening statements? Yes, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
certainly appreciate your having this hearing today.
I will enter my full statement for the record, but just
briefly let me certainly welcome and recognize our Lieutenant
Governor from the great State of Michigan. We work very closely
together at the Federal and State levels and the local level as
well to do everything we can to protect our magnificent Great
Lakes.
This Subcommittee, as you are aware, Madam Chair, just last
week held a week actually in my district in the City of Port
Huron, where we addressed the issue of water quality, and
Chairman Oberstar came. It was a great hearing. I think much
will come of it.
In the Great Lakes, we think of the Great Lakes obviously
as 20 percent, one-fifth of the fresh water supply of the
entire planet, and all of us in Michigan do recognize the
extraordinary work that remains to be done for restoration and
maintenance of the Great Lakes. We love the Great Lakes, but we
haven't treated it particularly well for many generations and
so, as has been articulated already, many challenges facing the
Great Lakes with industrial contamination, invasive species,
the combined sewer overflows, et cetera.
As people have said that the last century was perhaps about
oil and this century is going to be about fresh water, we are
certainly at the forefront of all of that.
Again, we look at it as a national treasure. Certainly, it
is long overdue that the Federal Government is recognizing what
a national treasure it is and having the political will and the
courage to stand up with their dollars as well and invest in
this fantastic treasure.
So, again, with that, I certainly look forward to the
testimony of all the witnesses but want to recognize Lieutenant
Governor Cherry for his participation as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller.
We will now introduce our first panel. We have Lieutenant
Governor John Cherry from the State of Michigan; the Honorable
Benjamin Grumbles, Environmental Protection Agency, Assistant
Administrator for Water; and Mr. Gary Gulezian, Director of the
Great Lakes National Program Office for the EPA, Chicago.
We will hear you as you were introduced. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JOHN D. CHERRY, STATE OF
MICHIGAN; THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY; AND GARY GULEZIAN, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES NATIONAL
PROGRAM OFFICE, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. Well, thank you, Chairwoman
Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
I am Lieutenant Governor John Cherry of the State of
Michigan, and I appreciate this opportunity to share the
perspectives of the State of Michigan and the Great Lakes
Commission on the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
I am honored to serve both as Michigan's Lieutenant
Governor and Chair of the Great Lakes Commission. The
Commission is a public agency established by the Great Lakes
Basin Compact in 1955 to help the eight Great Lakes States
speak with a unified voice and collectively fulfill a common
vision.
Let me begin by recognizing the Committee Members from the
State of Michigan: Representatives Vern Ehlers and Candice
Miller. I want to thank you and the other members of the Great
Lakes Region for your support for the priorities for the Great
Lakes.
In particular, Congressman Ehlers, you have been a key
champion for the Great Lakes, and it is because of your
leadership in sponsoring the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002
that we are here today reflecting on the success of this
important program.
The Committee's support for reauthorizing and strengthening
the Great Lakes Legacy Act is a necessary step forward,
advancing a strong agenda for the Great Lakes.
I have submitted written testimony that I ask be made of
the part of the record for today's hearing. The testimony
includes the Great Lakes Commission's complete recommendations
for reauthorizing and strengthening the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
The Great Lakes are a unique and extraordinary natural
resource for our region and the Nation as a whole. More than 32
million Americans receive the benefits of the Great Lakes
including drinking water, food, recreation, commercial
navigation and water resources for industries and utilities.
Public interest in restoring and protecting the Great Lakes
is greater today than at, perhaps, any time in the past. The
Great Lakes Region has united behind the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy to restore and protect the Great Lakes.
As you know, Areas of Concern are the most heavily degraded
areas of the Great Lakes. There are 31 U.S. and binational
Areas of Concern including 14 in my home State of Michigan.
Cleaning up these areas is a longstanding priority for the
Great Lakes States.
The Legacy Act has proven highly successful in these
efforts. It has become a cornerstone of restoration efforts for
the Areas of Concern. In Michigan alone, the Act has
facilitated the cleanup of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments, using $20 million in Legacy Act funds
and leveraging nearly $13 million from State and local sources.
The Great Lakes Commission has prepared detailed
recommendations for reauthorizing the Legacy Act. I will
mention three important highlights.
Number one, increase the authorized funding level to $150
million annually. This funding will better match the long-term
cost of completing the remediation of contaminated sediments in
the Areas of Concern which is projected to be between $1.5
billion and $4.5 billion annually. I mean over time.
Number two, allow the use of Legacy Act funds to restore
habitat of cleanup sites. This is an appropriate use of Legacy
Act funds that will facilitate the complete restoration and
redevelopment of the site.
Extend the life of appropriated Legacy Act funds beyond two
years would be the third point. Given the lengthy and complex
nature of sediment cleanups and the possibility of
unanticipated delays, the two-year limit is inappropriate for
the Legacy Act program.
The Great Lakes States are united in their approach to a
comprehensive restoration strategy. A recent study found that
local governments alone are spending an estimated $15 billion
each year on Great Lakes restoration and activities.
Collectively, the Great Lakes States look to the Federal
government to be a critical partner in restoring the Great
Lakes. Reauthorizing, strengthening and, most importantly,
fully funded the Legacy Act would be a significant step in this
direction.
Let me conclude by reminding the Committee that the Areas
of Concern include communities and the rivers that run through
them that helped win our Nation's wars and fueled our economic
prosperity in the 20th Century. From the Buffalo River in New
York to the Rouge River in Michigan to the Grand Cal River in
Indiana, these are the rivers that suffered as our region and
our Nation prospered.
The Areas of Concern are the clearest legacy of our use and
abuse of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes will not be fully
restored until these areas are restored. The Great Lakes Legacy
Act is a key component of our strategy for restoring the Great
Lakes.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee for
your work on this important legislation. I welcome any
questions you may have.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor
Cherry.
Mr. Grumbles.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to be
here and to be joined by Gary Gulezian, the Director of the
Great Lakes National Program Office.
It is great to see you, Congressman Boozman, in your
position of leadership on the Water Subcommittee, and I am
looking at congressional leaders in the Great Lakes.
Congressman Ehlers, Congresswoman Miller, EPA appreciates your
work, your leadership on this effort.
Madam Chair, it is great to have the opportunity to discuss
the successes to date as well as some of the challenges ahead.
As you know, during this Administration, EPA has put a real
priority behind protecting and restoring the Great Lakes and
accelerating the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.
A key part of that is the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
So the first thing I would like to do is to say that we
believe that our major success to date has been the ability
under the Act to accelerate the pace of sediment remediation in
the lakes. Since 2004, when the first amount of funding was
made available under the Act, we have remediated over 800,000
cubic yards of sediment at a cost of almost $97 million.
For these remediation projects, we provided $53 million in
Legacy Act funding which, in turn, has leveraged $44 million in
additional funds. That has allowed us to remove over 1.5
million pounds of contaminants from the environment.
It is a model that may be used well in other regions of the
Country. It is about accelerating the pace of cleanup through
innovation and collaboration, and that collaboration is based
on partnerships. The 2002 Act envisioned stronger partnerships
among the agencies and with the public and private sectors.
EPA and other Federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of
Engineers, have been working, providing efforts to get this
environmental restoration underway. The Corps, in particular,
has provided technical assistance and disposal capacity at
their confined disposal facilities and working closely with
State agencies and industry and local governments to get
sediment remediated and to get environmental progress moving.
Another key component that we urge the Committee to keep in
mind is that the key to continued success is going to be the
continued ability of non-Federal sponsors to provide the
necessary cost share.
Remediating the remaining contaminated sediments will cost
in excess of $1 billion. While some of those cleanups will be
accomplished through Superfund and other authorities, the
potential demand for Legacy Act resources is expected to be
high.
Of course, how much we can utilize will be a function of
and limited by the availability of the non-Federal match. So we
think it is important to identify a non-Federal sponsor at
these projects and to move forward because we won't be able to
move forward if we are not able to identify non-Federal
sponsors with the requisite cost share. It is all about
leveraging, as you know.
So we are looking forward to working with States and other
interested parties to find creative ways to provide the
necessary funding.
Another major point to make is the polluter pays principle,
and I know Congressman Ehlers, in particular, has been
following this very closely.
EPA continues to honor the polluter pays principle. It is a
fundamental part of how we approach remediation in the Great
Lakes. We believe that is a key principle to continue to
follow.
We also recognize that there are situations where there is
an orphan share. There are situations where the projects, the
key to accelerating the cleanup is by using the Legacy Act
funding, using the authorities under the Legacy Act to help
fill the gap to help make restoration possible.
The Lieutenant Governor also mentioned the two-year life of
funding as one of the key issues to focus in on. The two-year
life of funds could be problematic. As in most cases, it takes
time to conduct the necessary up-front work to get these very
complex projects ready for implementation. So this time-
intensive up-front pre-remedial work is critical in order to
conduct environmentally sound and fiscally responsible
projects.
The last point, Madam Chair, is to underscore the point
that environmental cleanup is an economic engine for health and
prosperity. Recent studies have shown that there is an economic
benefit from contaminated sediment remediation. The Northeast
Midwest Institute and others are identifying the savings that
occur, the environmental benefits that occur, in fact, the
economic benefits that occur when these sites are cleaned up.
We agree with you that it is important to continue to use
this authority as a way to accelerate cleanup and avoid costly
debilitative litigation which has been something that has
occurred in the past.
So we look forward to working with you and others as
legislative proposals are introduced and as the Committee moves
forward on this very important and successful environmental
statute.
We would be happy to answer questions as you wish,
Congresswoman. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I want to start a first round of questioning.
Lieutenant Governor Cherry, in your view, what is the
current capacity for potential non-Federal partners like State
or local governments to contribute to the current cost share
level of 35 percent?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. In the State of Michigan, I
believe that we have been fortunate enough to be able to match
that work that the EPA has approved to do. We have had the
benefit of what we call the Clean Michigan Initiative, a bond
proposal that was passed back, I believe, in 1998 that has
allowed us to fund our match.
All total throughout the Great Lakes Region, and this is
through the eight Great Lakes States plus the two provinces of
Canada through the St. Lawrence River, roughly $15 billion is
spent annually by local units of government and the States on
Great Lakes remediation.
So I think that the funding would be challenging if we were
on a schedule that would complete cleanup in 10 years, but my
sense is that there is a public will to make those
expenditures. At least that has been the case in the State of
Michigan.
I would think that if you were able to fund at $150 million
a year over a 10-year period, the States would be probably able
to match that, I would believe, as required.
Ms. Johnson. Given the current economic climate and fiscal
environment, what is your impression of the capacity for State
and local governments to actually contribute to your
recommended cost share of 25 percent?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. I think you have to be
innovative as a State because your ongoing State budget is very
constrained, particularly in the upper Midwest. So you have to
be innovative.
That is why the State of Michigan chose a bond route in
which we floated a general obligation bond which gave us the
working capital to match, to be an active partner with the
Federal Government and our local units on remediation. That is
how we would probably proceed in the future.
So I think those States will have to be creative, but again
I think the upper Midwest understands that we are in a new era
of global economics and that we have to begin to understand
what our priorities are. Our economy is very much based upon
the Great Lakes and so as much an investment in the future as
it is an ongoing expense.
I would think you would find that the States and
communities would rise to the occasion, utilize that kind of
innovative funding that would allow them to have the capacity
to meet the Federal Government in the cost share arrangements
that we have.
Ms. Johnson. In the State of Michigan, there are currently
10 Areas of Concern that have not had any Legacy Act projects
on them at all. Similar situations exist in nearly every other
Great Lakes State. In your view, what is the reason for this
and what has been done?
What has been the biggest impediment to not cleaning up
these sites or fulfilling these goals?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. Madam Chairwoman, it is my
recollection that we have completed three or four sites as of
today as it pertains to the State of Michigan, and I believe
that we are active financially with every project that the EPA
has proposed for those Areas of Concern in the State of
Michigan.
So, if anything, I think it is the Act as good as it is,
and I want to say I believe the Act has moved things forward. I
don't want to be critical of the Act, but I think the
limitations have been the limitations within the Act itself.
Ms. Johnson. You have done four. Have you used any kind of
priority out of the 10 that have received no Federal funding to
date?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. I believe that these proceed as
a collaboration, and I think this is one of the good things of
the Act. It does give a structure in which the EPA can work in
a collaborative way with States and local units of government
to establish the priorities for remediation, and I believe that
what we have done to date has been a reflection of the
collaborative efforts to decide with the EPA what the first
priorities are.
Ms. Johnson. Is it funding?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. I believe so. We have been able
to match the funding that has been available to us to date. I
think we could go further if we had more funding available to
us.
Ms. Johnson. You have indicated that there might be some
shortcomings in the law. How would you suggest it be changed?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. I think one of the issues is
the two-year limitation. As Mr. Grumbles pointed out, this is
sometimes a lengthy process to determine what is actually there
in an Area of Concern. So the actual process can drag out more
than two years, and so I think the availability of that funding
being secure would be terribly helpful in that respect.
Additionally, the match level, I think, if it were reduced
to 25 percent would allow us to engage. At least if it brought
more Federal money into the picture, it would allow us to
engage in more cleanups.
I also believe that remediation should include, as well,
restoration of the habitat. I mean much of this is done to
encourage a healthy ecosystem, and so the habitat goes beyond
just the removal of sediments. The securing of a riverbank and
other aspects of the habitat are all part of the overall
project.
So to the extent that the Legacy Act could allow that, that
would be helpful as well.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Gulezian, in March of 2006, the Great Lakes National
Program Office briefed the congressional staff on
implementation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. In that briefing,
EPA identified potential impediments of the projects, and one
of these impediments was a lack of available cost share.
Now, in the current cost share of 35 percent, has it been
an impediment?
Mr. Gulezian. Cost share and having sufficient non-Federal
funds to match the Federal funds is very important to moving
forward with Legacy Act projects. To date, it has not been a
problem in terms of utilizing the funds that we have received
under the Legacy Act.
In the future, it could be more of a problem. I really see
that as one of our challenges in the coming years, to make sure
that we have sufficient non-Federal cost share to make these
projects a success.
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, I would just add that local
and private industry investments are unlikely to be sufficient
to make full use of the Federal funding that is provided. So
State bond funds such as Michigan's Clean Michigan Initiative
will be key to future success on meeting the cost share, which
we feel is an extremely important principle of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act just as it is for the Corps of Engineers Water
Resources program.
Ms. Johnson. What problem under the current circumstances
do you see in accomplishing the goals of the future? Is it
still going to be a shortage of share on each end, both ends or
one end?
Mr. Grumbles. Gary may want to elaborate on this some, but
I think the key for us is following the priority system that is
currently laid out in the statute and laid out well about
focusing on remediation and also honoring the polluter pays
principle and not providing some duplicative program or
something that undermines the Superfund program when there are
responsible parties.
In the context of the funding in the future, I think for us
a key part of it, Madam Chair, is to work with the authorizing
Committees and the appropriations Committees to think about
innovations, innovative approaches.
The water enterprise bonds that aren't directly related to
the Legacy Act but that we feel are the wave of the future when
it comes to meeting Clean Water Act infrastructure needs is
critically important to bring in more innovative funding, not
to change the cost share that has worked well, we believe so
far, but to remove barriers to potentially innovative
approaches both at the Federal level and at the State level.
Mr. Gulezian. On the issue of innovative funding and
generating non-Federal cost share, I think the concept of
return on investment really needs to be taken into account. On
the economic valuation work that we have done at some of the
Legacy Act sites such as Waukegan, we were able to estimate
that there could be increases in property value in the City of
Waukegan of $250 million were we to do a Legacy Act project
that would cost about $30 million.
If you look at non-Federal cost share, that would be $12
million of the $30 million. The return on investment from
property tax receipts from that kind of a property value
increase would pay for that in just several years.
So, to the extent that that kind of thing can be taken into
account, it may be a way of generating non-Federal cost share
through bonding.
Ms. Johnson. Well, I understand that 76 million cubic yards
of toxic sediment remain to be corrected. Is that your
estimate?
Mr. Gulezian. Based on the work of the regional
collaboration where States and cities and nongovernmental
organizations came together, some estimates were made of the
remaining contaminated sediments within the Great Lakes Basin.
The total amount that was estimated was on the order of 75
million. We think, of that 75 million, approximately 40 million
will need to be remediated in some way.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Grumbles, in your testimony, you note that
EPA has successfully remediated 800,000 cubic yards of sediment
over the past 4 years. What percentage of the total potential
volume of contaminated sediment does this 800,000 cubic yards
represent?
Mr. Grumbles. Based on our current estimates, it is about
10 percent.
Ms. Johnson. So, based on these calculations at the current
rate of Legacy Act funding recommended by this Administration,
it seems that it will take over 300 years to accomplish that
and to remove all the toxic sediment?
Mr. Grumbles. You put a time frame on it, and I am not
comfortable with making estimates like that.
Ms. Johnson. I mean at the current funding level.
Mr. Grumbles. What I am comfortable in saying is that we
recognize, just like our non-Federal partners recognize, there
is a tremendous amount of work that remains to be done, that
the Great Lakes Legacy Act is an excellent framework for
addressing some of the sediment problems. Existing
environmental statutes like the Superfund statute or other
regulatory authorities are also important ones.
We think the key is not to view this as a public works
project but as a public-private works project and to use
authorities and continue to focus on streamlining the program
under the Great Lakes Legacy Act and identifying the challenges
ahead. Some of them are funding, but others are making sure
that we can also see the environmental benefits and work with
the communities on the concept of restoration and restoring the
impaired biological, chemical and physical integrity of these
special sites.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. My concern is with the current situation
of clean water supply in this Country. It seems to me that we
could get into a public health problem if we could not move any
more rapidly to clean these sediments out.
Mr. Grumbles. As you know well and as Congresswoman Miller
mentioned about the importance of water in the 21st Century, it
really is the oil of the 21st Century.
We see clean water as more than just an environmental
protection issue. It is a public health issue, and that is why
all of us, I think, are supportive of efforts to accelerate the
pace of cleanup, using tools like the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
It is a threat to public health over time. Particularly
when you look at the water flow patterns within the Great
Lakes, it is important to come up with ways to remediate or to
prevent the spread of potential toxins that could pose a risk
to public health.
Ms. Johnson. Now I know that the U.S. shares some of this
with Canada. What kind of cooperation has occurred there? Are
the Canadians moving at a more rapid pace to remediate their
contaminated sites than the U.S.?
Mr. Gulezian. We have a strong cooperative program with
Canada. There is a Binational Executive Committee where the
U.S. agencies meet with the Canadian agencies, and we also have
a Binational Toxic Strategy where we specifically review the
progress that is made on both sides of the border in cleaning
up contaminated sediments.
The Canadians are making similar progress to us. These
projects are complex. They are expensive. They have had some
recent appropriations on their side to assist them with moving
forward with their contaminated sediment problems.
We learn from each other too in terms of how best to
approach these problems.
Ms. Johnson. You know we had a hearing on the Great Lakes
here a couple of months or so ago, and there was testimony from
one of the House Members that open sewage was being dumped from
Detroit or somewhere in that area into the lake. How do you
measure that with the rate of cleaning the sediment and it
getting recontaminated or do you consider that accurate?
Mr. Grumbles. The principle of pollution prevention is a
key principle. That is why EPA has, for the last several years,
been putting a priority in terms of our enforcement program, an
enforcement priority on sewer overflows.
In the Great Lakes, we know, based on the age of the
systems and climate and various factors, that combined sewer
overflows as well as sanitary sewer overflows is a threat to
the health of the Great Lakes. It doesn't make the situation
any easier in remediating contaminated sediment if you are not
also working upstream in the watershed to reduce sewer
overflows.
We feel that it is a collaborative effort, and the Great
Lakes strategy recognizes that sewer overflows is a key area, a
priority, just like sediment remediation. The two need to be
thought of together. So we are working with the States and we
are working with the cities.
It is not just a question of more Federal funding. It is a
question fusing the various tools to improve the management of
those community assets and to find financing ways based on
rates, local rates and also State efforts to finance the
upgrade of those systems so that the sewer overflows are
reduced.
We see progress, but it takes time. It takes years for
these control plans to get developed and implemented.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Grumbles, one of the common threads from the testimony
we are going to hear in a little bit and then also with Mr.
Cherry's was this two-year problem that you mentioned in your
testimony about having the two-year time frame. Can you talk a
little bit more about that and maybe give us some examples of
how that affects things?
Mr. Grumbles. We appreciate the decisions that are made in
the appropriations process of the amount of funds. I think the
Act contemplated no-year funds that could remain available
until expended, but in the decisions made and the realities of
the appropriations process, these funds are essentially two-
year limits.
As was noted and I think everyone would agree, as was noted
in our testimony, these are complex projects and they take some
time. The key to sustainable projects is building the
partnership up front and having local community support and
also having the necessary technical information at these very
complex sites. And so, we do run up against a lot of pressure.
We want to streamline and accelerate cleanup projects, but
one observation we have had in the five successful cleanup
projects to date is that two-year time frame can be a real
challenge. So that is an area that we agree there needs to be a
discussion, and we look forward to having that discussion with
you and your colleagues in other Committees.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. Right now, it looks like the
appropriators are appropriating about $35 million or so a year
for these things. If all of a sudden they say that we were able
to do the $150 million, what capacity do you have?
How much money? With your staff and things like that, how
much capacity do you have to actually do as far as
appropriations?
Mr. Grumbles. I know we are continuously looking into the
future and what is in the pipeline. I think we are looking at
nine projects, potential projects, adding to the five that we
have seen great success with.
In terms of the capacity, how quickly we could move towards
those, it depends on a variety of things.
I would just say we know there is a tremendous need out
there. We also know that an authorization level like $150
million is a very significant one that I think we would need to
work with you on getting a more specific answer in terms of the
timing and the capacity to actually make use of that type of
funding in the near term.
Do you want to add anything to that? Okay.
Mr. Boozman. I think that is all I have right now. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, Mr.
Boozman, our Ranking Member, for holding this hearing.
Mr. Grumbles, I just wanted to ask you. It is good to see
you again, sir.
I am just looking for clarity, myself. Out of the 31 Areas
of Concern, how many individual sediment remediation projects
are located wholly within the United States?
Mr. Grumbles. Go ahead, Gary.
Mr. Gulezian. I can respond to that, Congressman Hall.
There are approximately 70 sites that have contaminated
sediments. Of the remaining 30 Areas of Concern on the U.S.
side of the border, and some of those are jointly shared with
Canada, each and every one of them has a contaminated sediment
problem of one kind or another.
Mr. Hall. So where are those 70, approximately 70 sites in
the process?
What I am asking, I guess, is that the 5 sites that are
listed in written testimony are 5 of the 70, not 5 of 31. Is
that correct?
Mr. Gulezian. Right, that is 5 of the 70, not 5 of the 31.
Mr. Hall. Also, Administrator Grumbles, I hear you. I
didn't see it in your written testimony. I thought you said you
estimated cost to clean up, to remediate all of the
contaminated sites at a billion dollars, roughly. Did you say
something like that?
Mr. Grumbles. I said it could be more than a billion, but
we are looking at a cost in excess of a billion dollars.
Mr. Hall. Okay. Well, it doesn't faze me when you are
talking 85 percent of the fresh water of the United States and
20 of the fresh water in the world. I compare it to $12 billion
a month in Iraq. That is how I calculate things nowadays in my
own mind to determine national priorities, but anyway that is
getting off topic a little bit.
I wanted to ask Lieutenant Governor Cherry. First of all, I
guess, one of the recommendations of the GLRC (Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration) was to encourage clean disposal and
treatment technologies. What are some of the best technologies
in your mind that have come out of this?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. Congressman, I am not an expert
on that.
Mr. Hall. Do you want to hand it off to the EPA?
Mr. Grumbles. The question is what are some of the
promising technologies?
Mr. Hall. Yes. The GLRC recommended encouragement of clean
disposal and treatment technologies. Outside of different kinds
of dredging, is there anything else that has surfaced?
Mr. Gulezian. There are a number of approaches that we have
looked at over the years in terms of innovative approaches.
There are different kinds of dredging that can be done and, as
part of the Legacy Act, we have experimented with different
kinds of hydraulic dredging which are more efficient and do a
better job of scavenging the contaminated sediments. That is
something that we have worked on at the Ashtabula River
project.
There are also other possibilities out there in terms of
things like carbon mats that can absorb some of the toxic
substances, where you might be able to have a more efficient
cleanup that would actually not involve dredging at all. So
there are a number of possibilities that we evaluate each and
every time we do a project under the Legacy Act.
Mr. Hall. A carbon mat?
Mr. Gulezian. Right. This would be like activated charcoal
built into a mat that you would place over the contaminated
sediments that would prevent those sediments, to the extent
that they are organics, from leaching out into the water. So it
is something that can supplement an existing cleanup.
Mr. Hall. As we have examined at length in this Committee,
the Supreme Court's rulings in the Rapanos and Carabell cases
have created the potential for serious delays in issuing Clean
Water permits and protection activities. What impact is this
having or is this having an impact on the Great Lakes
protection and the ability to meet the goals of the program?
Mr. Grumbles, do you care to comment?
Mr. Grumbles. Sure. Yes. I would say that one of our first
priorities in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration is on
wetlands, and that is to restore, improve or protect 200,000
acres within the Great Lakes ecosystem. For 100,000 acres, the
Federal agencies have stepped up to the plate and said we are
going to do that.
We have made progress. We are at about 62,000 acres of
restoring, improving or protecting, and that has not been
hampered by the legalities of the Supreme Court decision. It
has been more of the Federal agencies all focusing in, as was
envisioned in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, and
saying what tools can you use to really make progress. We look
forward to working with the States on the other 100,000 acres.
Congressman, frankly, when you do get into the
jurisdictional complexities, what we are doing is we are
surveying the regions and the Corps district offices of what
experiences are they finding on the ground when it comes to
that significant nexus analysis and the various tests that were
laid out in that Supreme Court decision. We will be happy to
provide the Committee with our observations or insights from
that as we continue to use that guidance.
Mr. Hall. That would be helpful. Thank you.
My time is up, but I want to thank you for the work that
you are doing, and I hope that we can provide resources for you
to do more of it.
As a Representative from New York State which is connected
to the Great Lakes by the St. Lawrence seaway and, of course,
bounding Lakes Ontario and Erie and the Hudson River which I
represent a district from, which is connected by the Erie Canal
and Champlain Canal to the Great Lakes, I am happy to see this
rising high on our to-do list. It is certainly important that
we protect this great resource.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much
for having this hearing. This issue is a very important one to
me and I think to most of the people around the Great Lakes.
I thank Governor Cherry for taking the time to be here and
speak on it. We spent many years together in the Michigan
Senate and got a lot accomplished together, even though he is
an outrageously leftist Democrat and I was an outrageously
conservative Republican. You know that is not true from knowing
me, but at any rate we worked very closely together on a number
of these issues.
It is good to see you again, John. Thank you for being here
and thank you for your kind words.
I also apologize for being late. I was speaking at another
meeting. I would just ask that my opening statement be entered
into the record. Without objection, I hope you will do that.
The first version of the Legacy Act, which is the version
that we have been discussing here, has been fantastically
successful. I normally don't brag about my work to that extent,
but I keep hearing it from the people around the Great Lakes.
They are extremely pleased with the Act.
I think what has made it so successful is that we designed
it to be a combined Federal, local, environmental and State
project with funding coming from all the parties in some fair
and equitable arrangement that we developed. That is really
been a strong inducement to the business community and to the
locals and to the environmental groups to really promote the
program.
We could have, in fact, accomplished much more had the
Congress allocated the funds. The President, to his credit, and
the EPA advocated full funding every year that the bill has
been in effect. Unfortunately, the Congress cut back the
funding every year.
But, in spite of that, I have been told by numerous
individuals who have worked in Superfund and have worked in
this that this is by far the best cleanup activity that they
have ever engaged in because everyone worked together, everyone
knew what the parameters were, we managed to keep most of the
attorneys out of it, and it would just set up a structure where
all the parties could work things out together and get the job
done.
I really appreciate your cooperation and work in that.
In response to the comments about the increasing funding, I
have no doubt that the Congress will appropriate the money that
can be usefully used. I think setting the goal at an
authorization of $150 million is imminently reasonable
I know the Congress will not throw money at the problem
unless it can be used effectively. So I am not worried about
increasing the authorization since I know the appropriators
will allocate the appropriate money.
I think it is important to increase it because we are
poised in a number of areas in this Nation to rapidly go ahead
with cleanups. Local communities and States are rounding up
funding to be able to deal with. Environmental communities are
excited and ready to go, building local support. So I think it
is imminently reasonable to increase the authorization, and I
hope the appropriations will match the local enthusiasm and
energy, both of the local and State Governments.
I will defend a $150 authorization. I don't think we can go
wrong with that. Obviously, we won't spend it all if it is not
all needed, but I think it is a good way to go.
I just thank the State of Michigan for its work. As you
mentioned, there are four sites there. I visited several of
them, and the cleanup went amazingly rapidly.
I say this after having spent a lot of time on the county
level working with Superfund and on the State level working
with Superfund. I was just astonished that in the space of two
years, we could clean up sites that under the Superfund Act
would have taken seven years to clean up. So I think this is an
effective program.
I believe Mr. Oberstar and I will be introducing a bill on
this fairly shortly, and I hope we can have a lot of support
from our colleagues and from people across the Nation.
The real key, as has been pointed out by our witnesses, is
the cooperative aspect of it. I recall when we had our first
hearing on the original bill, Congressman Duncan was the Chair
of the Committee at the time. We had testimony from the Federal
Government that this was a good program, testimony from State
and local governments that it was a good program, testimony
from the business community that it was a good program and
testimony from the environmental community that it was a good
program.
Congressman Duncan turned to me after the hearing was over,
and he said that is the first time in his 20 years of
experience in the Congress that he has ever had all of those
groups agree on something. He said, we will report this bill to
the floor immediately.
I am very pleased that that cooperation has continued and
that all of you involved, not just this panel but the next
panel as well, have worked on this so well and made it such a
success. I thank you for that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
Dr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member
Boozman for being here and for having this hearing.
I thank you for coming to give your testimony that I
missed. I was on the House floor, giving a presentation about
our oil crisis.
My question has to do not just with the cooperation, which
I appreciate, but the fact that we still have 30 Areas of
Concern that have not been remediated. I am wondering if you
could, Mr. Grumbles, clue me in as to why it is taking so long.
I think we have cleaned up one site, Oswego, and yet there
are 29 others or 30 others remaining.
Mr. Grumbles. A priority for us, a goal for us is working
with all our partners to clean up those sites, but I am going
to turn to Gary Gulezian as the Director with the most
knowledge on the specifics of that, Congressman.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you.
Mr. Gulezian. The biggest barrier to cleaning up the Areas
of Concern is cleaning up contaminated sediments. The only area
that we have delisted is the Oswego area, and the Oswego area
was the only area where we don't have a contaminated sediment
problem.
These problems are complex. They are expensive to deal
with. Even once you get the contaminated sediments cleaned up,
before we can redesignate the areas, we have to see the
beneficial uses come back. For example, we need to have healthy
fish and wildlife populations there amongst other things before
we could delist an area, but the primary barrier is cleaning up
contaminated sediments.
Mr. Kagen. Is there a ranking order of locations that you
are going to take on? Is there a certain order in which you are
attacking these and, if so, where does the Menomonee River and
Fox River stand on your list?
Mr. Gulezian. We are trying to take on all of them at once
with all of the authorities that are available. The work that
we are doing at the Areas of Concern is work that is shared by
the local communities, the States and the Federal Government
and, within the Federal Government, there are a number of
programs that can be brought to bear.
For example, at the Fox River, the approach that we are
using is the Superfund law. As you know, that has been
progressing. It is going to be a very, very significant cleanup
there, and we are really looking forward to that one moving
forward.
We had been working in the Menomonee area with the local
committee that is working at the Area of Concern to define the
problem and to define the needs for cleanup there, and we have
similar activities going on at each and every one of the 30
Areas of Concern across the Great Lakes.
Mr. Kagen. On a related matter, the Brownfields program has
a relatively high number of applications that are ready to go.
They are on the shelf. Is there a hang-up there?
Is it the funding? Is it appropriations?
Mr. Grumbles. In terms of prioritizations, again, as Mr.
Gulezian mentioned, for us on the Areas of Concern, we follow
the statute which lays out remediation of contaminated sediment
and then goes through a variety of specific factors in the
statute itself about innovative technologies and other
approaches.
When it comes to the Brownfields program, Congressman, I
would say the best thing to do is for us to commit to get back
to you with our folks back at the agency who really have more
knowledge of the Brownfields program than we do.
But, Congressman, just like the Brownfields program, the
contaminated sediments program under the Legacy Act as well as
the proposed legislation on Good Samaritan cleanups at hard
rock mines, which is something we hope the Committee will act
on, are three examples of environmental progress by taking
innovative, collaborative approaches.
In terms of the prioritizations, we think it is an
important role for Congress. In the Legacy Act, they laid it
out, and we will work with our partners.
A key part of that is finding projects where there is the
local community support which is often reflected in their
ability to provide a cost share, but it is more than that. It
is having the buy-in from the community. That is why we feel
the Legacy Act and the Brownfields program and those Good
Samaritan cleanups are all very positive and promising programs
for environmental restoration.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you for your answers.
I ask that my opening statement, which I was unable to
deliver, could be placed into the record.
I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. No objection; all opening statements can be
placed in the record
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I certainly look forward to working with all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we do
reauthorize and hopefully appropriate $150 million for this,
this year. I think it is critically important.
I am going to follow up a little bit. Mr. Kagen was asking
about some of the sites in his district, and I would also like
to, just trying to get a handle on where all of these are and
how you have prioritized the various sites.
I know in my neck of the woods the St. Clair River and the
Clinton River, the Saginaw Bay, the Saginaw River are all AOCs.
I am just wondering. I don't think they are in the nine sites
that you talked about, Mr. Grumbles, but does anyone have any
information on where they may fall and if you are not having
much success because of the lack of match available or what is
happening there?
Mr. Grumbles. Gary, do you want to?
I know we are going to want to commit to you to get back
with you with far more specific information on this, but if you
want to add on.
Mrs. Miller. Okay.
Mr. Gulezian. No. We can get back to you with specifics on
those sites
Mrs. Miller. Okay. I appreciate that. I am, obviously, very
interested in that and want to assist in any way that I can to
be a conduit to assist with that.
Mr. Grumbles, you mentioned about how sedimentation
remediation needs to be accelerated, and I certainly do agree
with that. I think we all agree with that.
Hopefully, we have enough places to put all of the
sedimentation as we are remediating. I just raise that, not to
get too much in the weeds on this, but as I mentioned the
Clinton River. The Confined Disposal Facility for the Clinton
River, the CDF for the Clinton River, because of dredging that
has occurred and we have been all earmarking to get dredging
projects because of the historic low water levels, et cetera.
The dredging that is going to occur on the Clinton River
this year will essentially fill, as I understand it from the
Corps of Engineers, our district director there, fill the CDF
for the Clinton River. So I am just wondering how.
The EPA and the Corps of Engineers, are they working with
the States to identify disposal facilities if we do get all of
these funds and then we have nowhere to put this? How is that
all working?
Mr. Grumbles. I am going to ask Gary Gulezian to respond to
that.
I know from my own observation so far, over the last five
or six years since the Legacy Act or since 2004 when
congressional funding began to be provided, and I can tell you
that we have been working with the Corps closely on that issue
of Confined Disposal Facilities and capacity for remediation. I
know it is an issue that is going to depend on the site.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that, and I did want to raise
that because that is one that I happen to be familiar with
because it is literally in my back yard, but there may be other
areas like that. So we do need to be, I think, working
cooperatively to recognize this if we are going to increase the
funding.
You can get back to me on that as well.
Mr. Grumbles. Okay.
Mrs. Miller. Let me go on to my next question since I don't
have too much time here.
We have talked today about the cost share. It is no secret
that the State of Michigan is facing unbelievable economic
challenges. The Lieutenant Governor mentioned about the Clean
Michigan bond which passed overwhelmingly in Michigan.
I am not even sure how much money we have left there. I
know there is a phased-in area as the drawdown on some of the
funding. I am not sure how much we have left in that, but I do
know that it is difficult, obviously, for the State and the
local municipalities, counties, what have you to come up with a
cost share.
We saw this most recently with the water quality monitoring
system, actually. This Committee had a field hearing, I
mentioned, in Port Huron in my district last week, and we
talked about the initial expense of the water quality
monitoring system where we were able to get Federal earmarks.
We split it between two counties pretty equally. That was a
60-40 match that the counties themselves matched. There has
been money for maintenance, some of which was vetoed by the
State, but I think was put back in.
Everybody is concerned about the money, obviously. I just
wonder if anyone has a comment about the appropriateness of the
percentage of the match here. Is there some feeling that
perhaps the Federal Government should take a look at this
again?
In the State of Michigan, whatever we clean up is not just
advantaging us. It is advantaging the entire Great Lakes Basin.
We don't want to not be able to have a dime to make a buck. So
I am not sure. Perhaps we should look at the formula.
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. Congresswoman, that is a good
question. I mean the Great Lakes Commission, which represents
the region, is suggesting that the match be dropped so that in
fact we can stimulate more cleanups.
You are right about the economic difficulties, budget-wise,
to find the extra dollars. In spite of that, we should
understand as well that throughout the Great Lakes Region and
the St. Lawrence that local and State Government and provincial
government have spent $15 billion a year on Great Lakes
remediation. So there is clearly a will to engage here.
I believe that if, for instance, there is more money
available in the form of an annual authorization or
appropriation, people will think of innovative ways to get
there, such as the bond proposal that we used. We have about 25
million left, I believe, and we are contemplating renewal. So
we understand that the Great Lakes issues of remediation are a
long-term effort and that we need to be in position to engage
in the long term.
I think what ultimately we all need to do--local, State and
Federal Government--is step up because it is an enormous
problem. It is an important issue.
These are problems that emerged in the time of
industrialization, and much of it is the result of the Great
Lakes Region being an economic engine for the Nation and an
arsenal of democracy for the Country. And so, these are
problems we all created, and we all need to remediate.
We believe that you need additional money but also the
match should drop.
Mrs. Miller. Lieutenant Governor, has the Commission
actually advanced a recommendation, a percentage of what they
would like to see the match drop to?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. Twenty-five percent.
Mrs. Miller. To 25, 75-25?
Lieutenant Governor Cherry. Yes, correct.
Mrs. Miller. Okay.
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, I know that time is short, but
I just wanted to add. Almost it is a statement of the obvious,
but there is also intense competition in the Federal
appropriations process. The importance of having a cost share
that helps to stretch the Federal dollar as far as possible is
important. So we look forward to having further discussions
with the authorizing Committees as well as the appropriations
Committees.
I think that one very important aspect of the whole debate
is to ensure that more information is made available of the
State and local economic benefits of cleanup. The more
communities, the more all of us see the value of cleanup and
how it stimulates economic benefits, that can help bring more
parties to the table to help meet the 65-35 share.
There is some degree of flexibility in our regulation, but
essentially we are operating off of the statutory framework
that you and others have been involved in. So we look forward
to further discussions with you and other Members on that
issue.
Mrs. Miller. Yes, I appreciate that. I think everybody does
recognize the economic advantages of the cleanup of the Great
Lakes.
I guess I am somewhat embarrassed to still see the huge
amounts of combined sewer overflows going into the Great Lakes.
On the other hand, the cost to the locals to right-size the
inadequate underground infrastructure is mindboggling. By some
estimates, in southeast Michigan alone, $54 billion just to fix
what we have which is not particularly inherent to Detroit. All
the old industrial cities are dealing with that kind of thing.
There is enormous need, that is for sure, and never enough
resources.
I know my time is expired. Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions?
Then we will thank the first panel and appreciate your
coming for testimony.
We welcome the second panel: Mr. Cameron Davis, President
and CEO of the Alliance for the Great Lakes of Chicago,
Illinois; Ms. Emily Green, Director of the Great Lakes Program,
Sierra Club, Madison, Wisconsin; and Mr. George Kuper,
President of the Council of Great Lakes Industries, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Mr. Davis, you can begin your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF CAMERON DAVIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE FOR THE
GREAT LAKES; EMILY GREEN, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES PROGRAM, SIERRA
CLUB; AND GEORGE H. KUPER, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES
INDUSTRIES
Mr. Davis. Well, good morning and thank you, Chairwoman
Johnson and Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the
Subcommittee.
I am Cameron Davis, President and CEO of the Alliance for
the Great Lakes. We are the oldest citizens Great Lakes
organization in either the U.S. or Canada.
I am also representing the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes
Coalition as one of their co-chairs, representing roughly 100
or more organizations from around the Great Lakes Basin who are
vitally concerned about this issue.
With 90 to 95 percent of the Nation's fresh surface water,
the Great Lakes could cover the United States in roughly nine
to nine and a half feet of water, the continental United
States, but their size belies their fragility.
Because they are relatively closed ecosystems, they do not
flush like rivers. What goes in, tends to stay in. That is true
of legacy pollutants, persistent toxins that remain at the
bottom of industrial harbors which are a legacy of the
Midwest's past.
The result of this is contamination that can continue to
circulate through the food chain from fish to people especially
children, women and other sensitive populations. The
contamination can also suppress property values as we heard
before.
Since more than 30 toxic hot spots were listed on the
cleanup list of Areas of Concern more than 20 years ago, only 1
has been removed from the list. The longer we wait to remediate
these Areas of Concern, the more expensive cleanups get and the
more they threaten the health of our children and families.
Simply put, it is time to act.
We consider revitalizing our Nation's waters through the
Clean Water Restoration Act, combating invasive species and
other efforts to be important in addition to reauthorizing the
Great Lakes Legacy Act which has, as was mentioned before, a
proud history of bipartisan and multi-stakeholder support.
Reauthorizing this Act will help greatly.
Since Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Ehlers
introduced the first generation of the Act several years ago,
the Legacy Act has been extraordinarily helpful. But several
years of experience under the first generation of the Legacy
Act shows that there are ways we can get more mileage out of
the law.
Several years ago, roughly 1,500 stakeholders from around
the region including agency officials, elected officials, NGO
representatives and businesses put together this plan of attack
for helping to clean up and restore the Great Lakes. One of the
series of recommendations that came out of this Great Lakes
restoration collaboration strategy was that we do want to see
the Act boosted in terms of its authorization.
We want funds to go for aquatic habitat restoration. It is
not enough to just clean the contaminants out. We need to make
sure that these Areas of Concern are fully restored with
habitat so that they function again.
We want to see public information and education be part of
the funding effort as well. Research shows that when there are
coordinated, proactive public education efforts that precede
cleanups, those cleanups can be facilitated and accelerated,
which I know is our goal through much of the reauthorization of
the Legacy Act.
Enhancing matching opportunities by allowing potentially
responsible parties to contribute and dropping the non-Federal
cost share to 25 percent, which we heard a great deal about
earlier from the first panel.
Focusing on sediment cleanups is a top priority. It is
incredibly important. Removing the maintenance of effort
requirements, eliminating the need for exclusive Federal agency
project implementation so that contractors can execute cleanups
with agency oversight and extending the life of Legacy Act
funds beyond two years which, as we also heard today, is a time
frame that is difficult for many of these complex cleanups to
meet.
In conclusion, we urge you to act quickly to pass the next
generation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act to address these
recommendations.
Thank you for your efforts so that we can ensure that we
leave a legacy of health for our families in the future, not a
legacy of pollution.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
Ms. Emily Green.
Ms. Green. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity
to speak with you today.
The Sierra Club is the Nation's oldest and largest
grassroots environmental organization with over 1.5 million
members and supporters nationwide.
I am here in Washington today to ask for your help in
addressing the toxic pollution in the Great Lakes.
Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Ehlers, this
Committee and others, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 has
been an extraordinarily successful program that has allowed us
to clean up toxic sites despite being under-funded.
I am here to ask you to pass legislation reauthorizing the
program this year, increasing the authorized funding level and
making some minor policy changes to increase its effectiveness.
Reauthorizing this program is one of the major recommendations
of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy which, as
you have heard, is a comprehensive blueprint for the long-term
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.
It is critically important that this legislation move this
year to avoid gaps in the implementation of the program and to
allow us to more effectively address one of the worst problems
that our region faces. The longer we wait, the more difficult
and expensive this problem will be to solve.
As you noted in your introduction, Chairwoman Johnson,
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are linked to
numerous and very well documented human health and ecological
impacts as well as economic impacts. Really, it doesn't have to
be this way.
We know how to clean up these sites, and we can gain much
by doing so. A recent Brookings Institution study found that
cleaning up toxic pollution in the Great Lakes will directly
raise property values by 12 to 19 billion dollars. We simply
need the funding and the political will to act.
Before the Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed in 2002, we
attempted to clean up these sites through a variety of
programs, most of which were designed for other purposes and
none of which were adequately funded. This approach, in short,
did not work.
In 2005, the U.S. Policy Committee for the Great Lakes
identified 75 remaining contaminated sediment sites in U.S.
Areas of Concern.
I believe that reauthorizing, expanding and, most
importantly, funding the Great Lakes Legacy Act is the single
most effective and important thing we can do to advance the
cleanup of these sites.
The program has arguably been the most effective
contaminated sediment cleanup tool that we have had to date,
even though it has been chronically under-funded and some of
its provisions have created unintended obstacles to cleanup.
Despite its limited funding, it has removed almost two million
pounds of toxic contaminants to date and has completed cleanups
that otherwise languished for years.
As I noted previously, reauthorizing the Act is also a top
recommendation of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy. The strategy, as you probably know, contains a number
of recommendations that are important to the Great Lakes, and
we are implementing those recommendations in stages.
For 2008, our top legislative priorities are to reauthorize
the Great Lakes Legacy Act, pass legislation that prevents the
introduction of aquatic invasive species and pass the Clean
Water Restoration Act. We appreciate the Committee's interest
in all of these issues.
The recommendations to expand and reauthorize the Legacy
Act are the product of a strong collaboration of industry,
environmental organizations, agency staff and scientists. We
are all in agreement on these recommendations. We all believe
that Congress should reauthorize the Legacy Act this year and
make the policy changes that have been discussed by both of my
colleagues here today.
In summary, and I am happy to talk about these in more
detail in questions, these would be:
To increase the authorization level to $150 million per
year;
Add a habitat restoration component;
Clarify the intent of the Act to allow potentially
responsible parties to contribute to the non-Federal share;
Ensure support for public education and outreach as part of
the cleanup process;
Remove the maintenance of effort requirements;
Allow the disbursal of Legacy Act funds to non-Federal
contractors;
Reduce the local cost share to 25 percent; and,
Extend the life of Legacy Act funds beyond two years.
In our view, these improvements are essential to cleaning
up these sites in the Great Lakes.
In closing, I urge you to reauthorize and expand the Great
Lakes Legacy Act this year and to build support for the full
appropriation of funds. This is one of the most important
things that Congress can do to this year to implement the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and to protect the
irreplaceable treasure that is the Great Lakes now and into the
future.
Thank you very much for your time and for inviting me to
speak to you today.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Ms. Green.
Mr. Kuper.
Mr. Kuper. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you very much.
My name is George Kuper. I represent three dozen large
Canadian and U.S. companies focused on sustainable development
policies in the Great Lakes Basin, and it is a privilege to be
here.
We are here in the spirit of an old industrial operating
principle, namely that of continuous improvement. Industry has
really appreciated the opportunity to work with U.S. EPA Region
5 and other stakeholders such as those sitting on my right in
the region, both on the specific projects that you have heard
about and those that are in the pipeline; but also on
identifying ways to improve the Great Lakes Legacy Act itself
with the consistent and overriding objective of reducing
contamination to the Great Lakes from contaminated sediments.
To that end, I would like to emphasize five improvements
among the ten that we are here collectively representing that
are more detailed in my submitted testimony.
The first is the eligibility criteria for non-Federal
match. The original intent, which was clearly expressed in the
statute, was to allow Potentially Responsible Parties, PRPs, to
participate in the non-Federal share. The implementation policy
that has been pursued has severely curtailed the ability of
PRPs to participate.
Our recommendation is that you affirm that PRPs are
eligible to participate, using the added value criteria
proposed by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
Secondly, pilot and demonstration projects: Innovative
pilot or demonstration projects that could lead to more
effective or efficient remediation techniques for contaminated
sediment are not now being funded because of the perception
that these are ``research,'' not projects, and no research
funds have been appropriated.
Our suggestion is that you give discretion to program
administrators to fund pilot or demonstration projects as
projects, not research.
Thirdly, the pick and stick rule, a wonderful name for an
old rule administered by the OMB: Pick and stick prevents using
two Federal sources of funding on the same project at the same
time. It is raised as a barrier to using Great Lakes Legacy Act
funds at Superfund sites even where little progress is being
made under Superfund due to the lack of viable PRPs.
We think the application of the pick and stick rule yields
counterproductive results, precluding or significantly delaying
cleanups. This 1800s rule does provide an option for co-funding
as long as there is express statutory authority to do so.
Our recommendation is that you need to remove the
application of the pick and stick to Great Lakes Legacy Act
projects in the reauthorizing legislation.
A couple of administrative improvements, seemingly small
but important, that you have heard others mention:
Maintenance of effort requirements, inappropriate because
sediment cleanup costs often vary widely year to year and
excellent projects are being disqualified because larger
expenditures happen to occur in a previous year. Attempts to
work around the maintenance of effort requirements may force
delays or detrimental changes to proposed remedial projects.
Our recommendation is the maintenance of effort requirement
should be removed from the legislation.
Lastly, project implementation, currently the Great Lakes
Legacy Act requires exclusive Federal agency project
implementation which precludes disbursal of funds to other
entities. This is inefficient. It is really inefficient to have
multiple contractors onsite because of the limitations of
disbursal funds.
Disbursal to non-Federal contractors is allowed under the
Water Resources Development Act, and the proposed fix utilized
the WRDA approach. Our recommendation is that you should allow
disbursal of funds to other entities.
In conclusion, our recommendation are, obviously, that you
reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act and do so in a timely
fashion so there is no interruption of the program and do so
for five years at $154 million per year. That is $150 million
for projects, $3 million for research and $1 million for public
information and participation programs.
We hope that you will take the opportunity in this
reauthorization to correct the inefficiencies and issues with
implementation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important
program.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We will begin the first round of questioning now.
I would like each of you to comment on this question. There
has not really been that much accomplishment in attempting to
clean these hazardous areas, the waste sites, and I would like
you to give me your opinion of the reason for this.
Is it money? Is it structural changes that are needed in
the law or should EPA implementation of the law be improved?
Tell me what you think the handicaps might be.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
I do think that whether or not much has been accomplished
is relative. We have a lot of work that has been done under the
Legacy Act that otherwise wouldn't have been done, which I
think is very commendable.
That being said, we still have a long, long way to go. It
is a little bit like climbing a mountain and seeing that you
have a long way to go and not really appreciating where you
have been. So we do have a long way to go on that.
Why? Why do we have so much further to go? Why haven't we
made as progress? I do think funding is a key piece of that
answer.
Many of the Great Lakes States are struggling. You heard
from Lieutenant Governor Cherry earlier today that Michigan has
the Clean Michigan Initiative. Many of the other States don't
have that kind of bonding for these kinds of purposes.
So while that has put Michigan in a decent position, many
of the other States have not had the luxury of matches to be
able to reach that 35 percent. I do think that that is one
thing that could be addressed.
You mentioned the structure of the Act. Certainly, we think
that many of the recommendations that we have made today will
help accelerate the pace of these cleanups.
I do know this: Since the list was created, it is
unacceptable that we continue to make as little progress as we
have. We have done some good work. We need to speed that pace
up.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Green?
Ms. Green. Thanks for asking that question.
I think I would agree with Cameron that we actually have
made some good progress, and I take sites like Ruddiman Creek
as an example of a site that sat for years, and the local
community had advocated for years and years and years for
something to be done about this. The Legacy Act came along, and
finally it is cleaned up, and lake salmon are now back in that
creek.
But why not faster? I would love it to see it go faster. I
think there are three things, and I think it is really all of
the things you mentioned.
It is the lack of funding. The Act has been consistently
under-funded, under-appropriated since it was started.
The cost share, I think, is an issue in some sites, and it
is hard to pinpoint because what you have is with the 35
percent cost share you likely have communities that don't even
apply for Great Lakes Legacy Act funds because they can't raise
that cost share. So it becomes an unnecessary barrier to
application.
At least in the case of orphan sites, we ought to look at
reducing that cost share.
Then the administrative changes that you have heard all of
us bringing up. Some of them small and I think were really not
intended to be barriers like the maintenance of effort
provision and the disbursal of funds to non-Federal
contractors, but together they have really kept a number of
sites from flowing through the process.
I think if we could tackle those as part of the
reauthorization, it would help make this Act and program more
efficient.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kuper?
Mr. Kuper. Madam Chair, there are probably eight or ten
points that I would try to summarize for you.
First is the eligibility of Potentially Responsible
Parties. Were they able to participate in the cost share
portion, you would have more projects.
Use of project funds for pilot or demonstration projects:
There have been several demonstration projects proposed that
have not been accepted by the program administrator.
The problem created by the pick and stick rule needs to be
fixed so that we can spend Great Lakes Legacy Act money at
Superfund sites.
We need to drop the maintenance of effort requirements.
That clearly has been a barrier to projects.
We need to eliminate the current limitation that requires
exclusive Federal agency project implementation. We need to
have everybody in that project that can possibly make a
difference.
And, we need to use Legacy Act funds for the restoration of
habitat. We ought to be prioritizing those funds for remedial
projects.
We ought to have a public participation program to make
sure the public information that is getting out about these
projects is in the spirit of the Act and the objectives we are
all trying to work on.
As Emily Green said, we need to have cost share that is
more affordable, and we need more money in the program.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
I guess one of the things I don't quite understand is you
just mentioned that we need more money in the program, but I
don't understand, if you reduce the cost share significantly,
how that gets more money in the program.
Ms. Green. Well, I think we are talking about expanding the
authorization pretty significantly to $150 million a year. So,
despite a slight reduction in the cost share, there is still
going to be more money to go around.
Mr. Boozman. But if we did that, though. I mean ideally we
would like to get as much Federal money as we can into the
program. I am very supportive of that.
As Mr. Grumbles said earlier, we have this problem, and we
have many other problems that you all are dealing with as you
mentioned earlier. The reality is there is a finite amount of
money.
If we get as much Federal as we can in there and with an
authorization of $150 million when we have steadily crept up, I
think, from $9 million to $35 million, and maybe we will get a
little bit more this go-round. But the reality is unless you do
an awful lot of legwork with the appropriators, it is not going
to happen.
I think the danger is you get a significant increase in
authorization, you don't get a whole lot more money
appropriated, you have a decrease in the cost share, and then
you are not going to see a significant increase in your
dollars. Does that make sense?
Ms. Green. Absolutely.
Mr. Boozman. That is the scenario that I see happening with
this.
Mr. Kuper. I understand the principle. The problem is we
are trying to lower the barriers to getting projects up and
underway, and it is clear that the local cost share is one of
those barriers. So, to the extent that we would have more
projects in the pipeline appealing for those Federal funds, it
would hopefully make the appropriators more aware of what is
possible with the Federal dollars.
Does that make sense?
Mr. Boozman. I understand, but again I think the scenario
that I just said is more realistic in the sense that you raise
the appropriation, you lower the cost share, some more dollars
hopefully. Again, I am very supportive of that.
But the reality is, as Mr. Grumbles said, who is I think on
your side and trying to get as much money pushed in that
direction as possible, you have a problem. You have less cost
share, you have some more dollars, but I don't see how that
really helps you a whole bunch.
The other thing is you mentioned increasing or actually
diverting some money to habitat. What percentage would you
divert?
We have cleanup money now. If we did habitat money, what
percentage would you see going to habitat?
Mr. Davis. I guess I will take a shot at that, Congressman
Boozman.
I don't know that we need to slate a percentage.
What I would do is think of this more in terms of
prioritization. First prioritization, get these contaminated
sediment sites cleaned up. Get the pollutants out.
To the extent that there is money left over, then look at
helping to rebuild these aquatic habitats so that these sites
function, so that the river fronts and harbor fronts can again
be gathering places for these communities, so that fishing can
help boost the local economies. In many instances, these are
places that have been hit hard for decades as a result of this
contamination.
So I would think that more in terms of a prioritization
scheme than slicing up a pie with various percentages that way.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Again, I would agree that the priority
needs to be the cleanup.
Again, politically, you have to think through this in a
sense that what you don't want is communities that have
powerful people that happen to be in Congress pushing habitat
over the other. Those are the political realities that we deal
with.
So I would agree. I think cleanup is the major thing.
Ms. Green, you mentioned an ecological tipping point with
the Great Lakes. Could you comment and tell me what you mean by
that, kind of your reasoning behind that?
Ms. Green. Sure. Recently, sort of a collection of
scientists around the Great Lakes were just looking at the huge
number and variety of stressors on the ecosystem as a whole and
released a report that suggested that the impact of all these
stressors was pushing the ecosystem towards what they call a
tipping point, towards the point at which it would no longer be
able to respond to additional stressors. It would change
permanently beyond the point of repair so that even if we made
changes to kind of enhance restoration, clean up some of these
sites, the ecosystem wouldn't respond.
That poses a real threat in my mind because it would change
the way that all of us are able to use and interact with the
Great Lakes, whether it is for recreation or industry or
drinking water, whatever it is.
So I think it puts the onus on us to act quickly to sort of
address some of these issues and increase the ecosystem's
resiliency, its adaptability to stressors including climate
change, by the way, which is going to have some sort of impact,
before it is too late.
Mr. Boozman. Very good.
You mentioned pilot projects which, again, makes sense if
you can do things more expeditiously, less expense. Do you have
any specific things that you are thinking about in that regard?
Mr. Kuper. There have been several that have been proposed.
I would like the opportunity to tell you about them from an
expert rather than myself. So I will get back to you with that.
Mr. Boozman. That would be fine. If you could respond to
that, that would be very helpful.
Again, if we could come up with things that are more
expeditious, I think we have certainly allocation in that way
in the Highway Bill and some other things that has precedence.
I want to compliment all of you. In reading your testimony,
you seem to be working very, very together which is so
important and really are a model. I wish that we could
duplicate your united front with a lot of other things that we
deal with. So thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Dr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks for
bringing up, Ranking Member Boozman, the idea of a united
front. I like that idea across the aisle as well.
Emily Green, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
work with the Sierra Club, and I appreciate all of your
testimony and the work you have done over the past number of
years.
In case someone is watching back home, you didn't change
your last name to Green because of your belief in a green
economy, did you?
Ms. Green. I did not.
Mr. Kagen. Can you be any more specific with regard to
habitat restoration money, if any, with regard to the Legacy
Act?
Ms. Green. Sure. What we were really thinking about there,
and this gets a little bit to your question as well, is
limiting the type of habitat restoration work we would do to
actually just restoration at the site of cleanup. So it is a
relatively small expenditure compared to the price of cleaning
up a contaminated sediment site, but it is what it would take
to return the cleaned up site back to a functioning habitat.
For example, in the case of Ruddiman Creek, and this was
actually done by the local community, they replanted the creek
bank with native grasses and plants and vegetation and got it
back to a wetlands state which is what it was before it was
dredged.
Mr. Kagen. So you would like funding to be ramped up
sufficiently to cover the complete restoration of the toxic
site.
Ms. Green. That is correct.
Mr. Kagen. Or Area of Concern, as we call it.
Ms. Green. That is correct.
Mr. Kagen. Okay, so that is where that stands.
Mr. Kuper, I want to thank you for delineating very nicely
the different definitions or redefinitions of pick and stick
and research.
You know whenever a physician takes care of a patient, it
is really research. You are getting a prescription, and it
might or might not work. It might have some toxic effects. You
could call that research, and it might not be covered by your
insurance carrier.
In much the same way, a pilot project. Have you got any
pilot projects in mind?
Mr. Kuper. As I responded earlier, the answer is yes, but I
would like the opportunity to supply those to you subsequently
because there are a lot of people involved in generating these
pilot projects.
Mr. Kagen. Right. You also highlighted the problem at the
level of the toxic site where the local community might have
some speed bumps or resistance to joining and applying for a
program. If I heard you correctly, you really want everyone to
be able to apply for this funding, is that correct, including
the responsible parties?
Mr. Kuper. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Kagen. Is there any reason not to include them? Aren't
we really rewarding them for their bad behavior?
Mr. Kuper. This is not to replace their obligations. This
is in addition to their obligations.
Mr. Kagen. So you are focusing on the Area of Concern, on
the environment itself and not those who may have caused the
problem.
Mr. Kuper. Correct.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. In terms of local cost-sharing components,
how does that factor into a community? Can you give me a
specific example?
Mr. Davis. I am not sure I understand the question.
Mr. Kagen. Well, if the local community has to do cost
sharing, can you give me an example where a community may not
have applied for the money?
Mr. Davis. I think we heard from Gary Gulezian earlier
today that while that has not been a barrier up until right
now, there is some anticipation that in the future that we
could see sites that are not able to apply because of that cost
share problem.
Mr. Kuper. Congressman, the problem with the answer to your
question, which is an excellent question, is that we don't know
about a lot of the applications that don't become applications.
Mr. Kagen. You can't measure what you don't see.
Mr. Kuper. A negative, correct.
Mr. Kagen. You can't manage what you can't measure. Is that
about it?
Mr. Davis. That is correct.
We have heard anecdotally that Buffalo may fall into the
kind of scenario that you are talking about, Dr. Kagen, where
the cost share may be a speed bump.
Mr. Kagen. Can you educate me about the participation or
nonparticipation of non-Federal contractors?
Mr. Kuper. A tough issue, it is a matter of whether or not
you can spend money with an expert who may not be a Federal
contractor on the same site that Federal contractors are
working, and the answer is you can't under the current way the
program is administered. It ought to be fixed.
Ms. Green. So, say you have a dredge in the water that is
being paid for by, say, the State of Minnesota under some other
authority and there is a little bit of extra part of the site
that could be part of the Legacy Act orphan share, you can't,
right now, pay that contractor to do the cleanup. You have to
bring in your own federally-funded dredge. It is inefficient,
wasteful.
Mr. Kagen. I understand. So, if it makes sense, it might
not be happening. We should change the legislation so that it
makes sense.
In the area in which I am familiar with in terms of
research projects with NIH or any other kind of funding, it is
not uncommon to get funding from a number of different grantors
to study the problem of cancer of asthma or any number of other
problems. It is the question of commingling of the funds and
making sure there is an accurate accounting of the money that
Congress, I think, is most interested in.
I want to thank you for your testimony.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
With no other questions, we will consider the hearing
finished, and we thank you very much for being here to testify.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Ms. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Kuper. Thank you for the opportunity.
Ms. Johnson. The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2581.051