[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION STRATEGY: CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED
TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE GREAT LAKES?
=======================================================================
(109-96)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-666 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
TED POE, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
CONNIE MACK, Florida Columbia
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Louisiana, Vice-Chair (Ex Officio)
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Ambs, Todd, Water Division Administrator, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources........................................... 9
Becker, Hon. Gary, Mayor, City of Racine, Wisconsin, and Vice
Chair, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.......... 9
Berwick, Brigadier General Bruce A., Commander, Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.............. 9
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 9
Scavia, Donald, Professor and Associate Dean, School of Natural
Resources and Environment, Director, Michigan Sea Grant,
University of Michigan......................................... 9
Wooley, Charles, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.............. 9
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 66
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., of Michigan.............................. 69
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Ambs, Todd...................................................... 36
Becker, Hon. Gary............................................... 56
Berwick, Brigadier.............................................. 61
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H....................................... 70
Scavia, Donald.................................................. 83
Wooley, Charles................................................. 132
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Ambs, Todd, Water Division Administrator, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources:
Letter to Hon. George V. Voinovich, Senator from Ohio, from
Hon. Jim Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin, and chair, Council of
the Great Lakes Governors, and Hon. Richard M. Daley, Mayor,
City of Chicago, Chair, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative, March 10, 2006................................... 44
Letter to President George W. Bush, from Hon. Jim Doyle,
Governor of Wisconsin, and chair, Council of the Great Lakes
Governors, Hon. Robert Taft, Governor of Ohio, and Chair,
Council of the Great Lakes Governors, and Hon. Richard M.
Daley, Mayor, City of Chicago, Chair, Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative, December 12, 2005................ 47
Great lakes Regional Collaboration Near Term Action Items,
report....................................................... 49
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in congress from
Michigan:......................................................
Letter, Peter M. Wege, Wege Foundation, August 8, 2006......... 7
Letter, Hon. Gerald R. Ford, former President of the United
States of America, July 26, 2006............................. 8
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, supplemental information. 80
Scavia, Donald, Professor and Associate Dean, School of Natural
Resources and Environment, Director, Michigan Sea Grant,
University of Michigan, Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem
Protection and Restoration: Avoiding the Tipping Point of
Irreversible Changes, December 2005, report.................... 93
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, Great Lakes Office of the National
Wildlife Federation, Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters---Great Lakes
Coalition, statement........................................... 136
O'Shea, Kevin, Minister, Political Affairs, the Government of
Canada, letter, September 27, 2006............................. 163
Zorn, James E., Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission, statement........................ 151
THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION STRATEGY: CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED
TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE GREAT LAKES?
----------
September 13, 2006,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John J.
Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding.
Mr. Duncan. Good morning. We are going to go ahead and call
this hearing to order. I understand that Ms. Johnson is on her
way.
I want to welcome everyone to our hearing on the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. In this hearing, we will
look at how the Strategy is serving as a framework for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.
Today we will hear from several important participants in
implementing the Strategy: the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corp of Engineers, the
Great Lakes region's governors and mayors, and the academic
community.
The Great Lakes are a high priority to our Members from
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York, particularly in the districts that
border the Lakes. However, the Great Lakes are also very
important to our entire Nation. With 6 quadrillion gallons of
water, the Great Lakes account for 18 percent of the world's
fresh water supply and 95 percent of the U.S. fresh water
supply, 95 percent of the U.S. fresh water supply. Over 33
million people live in the Great Lakes region, representing
over one-tenth of the U.S. population and one-quarter of the
Canadian population. The Lakes are the water supply for most of
these people.
The Great Lakes help support $200 billion a year in
economic activity in the region, including 50 percent of the
U.S. manufacturing output, 30 percent of all U.S. agricultural
sales, and transportation of 50 million tons of waterborne
cargo, half of which is exported overseas. Recreational
benefits in the Great Lakes region amount to over $35 billion
in economic activity and over 246,000 jobs.
Like many ecosystems around the Country, the Great Lakes
have been impacted by industrial growth, urban development, and
agricultural and commercial activity. While most areas of the
Great Lakes can be used safely for swimming, recreation, and as
a source of drinking water, the Lakes do not fully support
aquatic life and it is not always safe to eat the fish caught
in the Great Lakes. These water quality problems have a variety
of causes. Part of the problem is from ongoing wastewater
discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and air pollution,
the same problems faced by lakes, rivers, and bays all around
the Country.
The Great Lakes present a unique environmental challenge.
Because they are nearly enclosed water bodies, with limited
outflow, toxic substances have built up in the Lakes, sinking
to the bottom and contaminating lake sediments. In 2002, this
Subcommittee and full Committee moved legislation introduced by
Congressman Ehlers, our colleague, legislation entitled ``The
Great Lakes Legacy Act,'' to help jump-start remediation of
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. President Bush
signed this legislation into law in November of 2002. The
Legacy Act is one of many tools available for addressing
ecosystem restoration in the Great Lakes.
Invasive plant and animal species also are impacting the
Great Lakes. There are at least 25 major non-native species of
fish in those bodies of water. Zebra mussels invade and clog
water intake pipes, costing water and electric generating
utilities $100 to $400 million a year in prevention and
remediation efforts. It is said that invasive species are
discovered at the rate of one every eight months.
Efforts to improve Great Lakes water quality and restore
the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem are proceeding through
cooperative efforts with Canada as well as through the efforts
of numerous Federal, State, local, and private parties. The
EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Geological Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Great Lakes States, local communities, industry, and a lot of
other parties are involved. With so many parties involved in
trying to restore the Great Lakes, coordination of the effort
can sometimes be difficult.
To improve coordination, on May 18th, 2004, the President
signed an Executive Order creating the ``Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force.'' The Executive Order called for the
development of outcome-based goals like cleaner water,
sustainable fisheries, and system biodiversity. The President
called on the Task Force to ensure Federal efforts are
coordinated and targeted toward measurable results. The Task
Force, under the lead of the EPA, brings together 10 Federal
agencies responsible for administering more than 140 different
programs in the Great Lakes region, to provide strategic
direction on Federal Great Lakes policy, priorities, and
programs for restoring these great bodies of water.
In December 2004, under the leadership of the Federal Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force, the Great Lakes States, cities,
tribes, non-governmental organizations, and other interests
formed a group now known as the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration. The Collaboration was formed to develop a
strategic plan to restore and protect the Great Lakes. In
December of 2005, the Collaboration released a Strategy
recommending eight critical areas to address to restore these
areas. These eight areas include coastal health, toxic
pollutants, areas of concern, nonpoint source pollution,
invasive species, habitat and native species restoration,
information research, and sustainable development.
I look forward to discussing the Strategy's recommendations
and hearing from the witnesses how the various Federal, State,
local, and other parties plan to implement these proposals.
Let me now turn to the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for any
remarks she may wish to make.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This Subcommittee has had a long history of oversight on
the ecological and environmental health of the Great Lakes.
Over the past three decades, the Subcommittee has held numerous
hearings and has investigated and proposed legislation to
address Great Lakes water quality impairment, contaminated
sediments and other sources of pollution for the Lakes.
While some improvements have been made, after almost 20
years of effort, we have not seen significant progress toward
the long term sustainability of the Lakes. In fact, according
to scientists, quite the opposite is true. The Great Lakes are
hovering near the tipping point, toward total ecosystem
breakdown.
Today's hearing will focus on the recently-developed
strategy to address the continued environmental stressors to
the Lakes, as well as on coordinating Federal, State and local
efforts to restore and protect this vital natural resource.
As the then-General Accounting Office noted in a 2003
report, more coordinated efforts and funding are needed.
Otherwise, the Nation will witness further degradation within
the Great Lakes community. Unfortunately, this Administration
has chosen to abandon the more difficult task of funding
restoration efforts. While recent efforts to develop a
strategic plan for restoration and protection of the Lakes
should be applauded, without a corresponding commitment to fund
these efforts, the Collaborative Strategy will little more than
another dusty restoration plan on the shelf.
One has to question whether this Administration has used
the roll-out of the Collaborative Strategy to divert attention
away from its failure to fund restoration efforts. For example,
the Administration lauds its decision to increase funding for
certain programs, such as the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but fails
to mention the even larger decreases in programs such as the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, that are of equal if not
greater importance to overall restoration efforts. In the end,
it is clear that this Administration has chosen to walk away
from any real commitment to Great Lakes restoration efforts.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, these restoration efforts in
the Great Lakes have been made more difficult by a recent
Supreme Court decision which at least confuses the scope of the
Clean Water Act, and at worst severely limits its protective
reach. Although the real world impact of the Rapanos case is
still an open question, one thing is certain: limiting the
scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act will result in
more pollution, more fish kills, more beach closings, more
degraded habitat and increased risk of flooding from the
destruction of the wetlands.
According to EPA's wadeable streams assessment, roughly 50
percent of the waters that potentially drain into the Great
Lakes already have high to medium impacts from the nutrients
from the riparian disturbance and excessive sediment.
Presumably, some of the Supreme Court would advocate the
elimination of protection for these already impaired waters and
simply hope that these waters and the Great Lakes restore
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, if the reasoning contained in Justice
Scalia's opinion prevails, we will be able to point to June
19th, 2006, as the day when Federal efforts to protect water
quality ceased to exist. If this were true, perhaps those
prophetic statements on waters being as clean as they will ever
be may come to pass. I hope that for our sake and for the sake
of future generations that this does not happen.
Clearly, significant challenges remain in this Nation's
efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes. I am pleased
that this Subcommittee will expose these issues and hope that
the witnesses invited to testify will be able to identify the
successes as well as the failures in these efforts, and on ways
we can improve our efforts.
I welcome the witnesses here today and look forward to
their testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.
This Subcommittee has been interested in the Great Lakes
for quite some time. And as both Ms. Johnson and I mentioned,
we passed the Great Lakes Legacy Act and we dealt with that in
2001 and 2002, then we held two hearings in May of 2004 and
then a field hearing, a meeting at Mayor Daley's request in
June of 2004 in Chicago.
But certainly the member of the entire Congress who has
been most active in regard to Great Lakes issues and has always
done the most to bring some of these matters to our attention
is our colleague, Congressman Ehlers, from Michigan. I would
like to call on him at this time for any statement he wishes to
make.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for holding this hearing. Thank you also for your
statement which you just made, because in fact you and this
Subcommittee have been the most active, as you said, of any
committee or subcommittee in the House.
I would also like to take just a moment to disagree
slightly with my good friend from Texas, the gentlewoman from
Texas, about her comment on the Administration. As the Chairman
remarked, when we passed the Legacy Act, I was very pleased
that the President, every year since then, has in his budget
recommended maximum funding for that program, funding equal to
the authorization. Unfortunately, our Appropriations Committee
has not done as well. But the President certainly did his
share.
The other fact I would like to mention, that the
Administration has been very active in, I worked with Governor
Leavitt when he was Director of the Environmental Protection
Agency and since then have worked with Steve Johnson, who now
has that task. Through their efforts, the President had issued
a call for a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration with an
executive order. That has been carried through and is one of
the most outstanding guidances we have at this point, and is a
subject for our hearing.
I am extremely pleased that today we are talking about
Great Lakes protection and restoration. A great deal has
happened, as I just said before, since the last hearing we had
on this topic in 2004. It has been a very busy and most
productive time. I am eager to hear from our witnesses about
what they have been doing recently, and more importantly, about
the next steps they have planned. I am also interested in
hearing about what role Congress has to play in this. As you
know, I have introduced a bill to try to implement all the
recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. I am
very anxious to have that bill passed.
I have modeled it after the same process that we used for
the Chesapeake Bay and for the Everglades. I think those have
been successful efforts. Many of you have been involved in both
of those and we are trying to model the Great Lakes approach
under that.
The Federal, State and local officials and policy makers,
as well as advocates and experts involved in the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration have done a tremendous job of setting
out a comprehensive strategic action plan for making all the
waters of the Great Lakes swimmable, potable and fishable, all
the time, everywhere. My staff and I were very closely involved
in the work of the Regional Collaboration. I am eager to see
its recommendations implemented as soon as possible.
That is why I introduced H.R. 5100, the bill I just
mentioned, which will put in place many of the legislative
changes that are necessary to improve and expand Federal
programs to clean up and protect the Lakes. This bill has more
than 50 co-sponsors, including several members of this
Subcommittee. I hope we can take up that bill soon, Mr.
Chairman.
The longer we wait to implement the recommended changes,
the more expensive and more complicated the solutions become.
This is particularly true in two areas: preventing further
introduction of aquatic invasive species, as the Chairman has
just mentioned, and also cleaning up contaminated sediments in
areas of concern. I am very interested in hearing from the
witnesses on these two critical issues.
I also want to emphasize here at the outset of the hearing
that the Regional Collaboration Strategy should be used as it
was intended, not just as a wish list of program changes and
funding levels, but as a strategic action plan to guide
resource allocation, policy decision making and priority
setting. That is why we have structured my bill as indicated.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me bring one other matter to the
Committee's attention. During the August recess, I received a
letter from Peter Wege, a philanthropist in West Michigan who
has been very active in Great Lakes policy. The Wege Foundation
was instrumental in founding and supporting the Healing Our
Waters Coalition, an alliance of more than 80 environmental and
conservation organizations in and around the Great Lakes Basin.
Mr. Wege sent to me a letter from another old friend, former
President Gerald Ford. As you know, he represented the same
area in and around Grand Rapids, Michigan that I now have the
pleasure of representing. The Great Lakes are dear to him and
he recognizes their national and international importance.
President Ford wrote in his letter that the Great Lakes
enriched his life and that he shares my commitment to restoring
and protecting the Lakes for our children and grandchildren.
I would like to request that it be made an order to submit
a copy of the letter from President Ford for the record.
Mr. Duncan. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Congressman Ehlers.
We are pleased to have, as I mentioned earlier, a very
distinguished panel of witnesses. Representing the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative is the Honorable Gary
Becker, who is the Mayor of Racine, Wisconsin. Representing the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the Honorable Benjamin
H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, a graduate of
this Subcommittee who has moved on to bigger and better things.
Representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is Brigadier
General Bruce A. Berwick, the Commander of the Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division from Cincinnati. Representing the U.S.
Department of the Interior is Mr. Charles Wooley, who is the
Deputy Regional Director of the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He has come from
Minneapolis. Representing the Council of Great Lakes Governors
is Mr. Todd Ambs, the Water Division Administrator for the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, from Madison,
Wisconsin. And finally, representing the University of
Michigan, or from the University of Michigan, is Dr. Donald
Scavia, Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Natural
Resources and Environment and Director of the Michigan Sea
Grant at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
Gentlemen, it is a real privilege to have each of you here
and I thank you for taking time out of your very busy schedules
to be with us. Almost every committee and subcommittee asks the
witnesses to limit their statements to five minutes. I know it
is hard sometimes to do that, so I give the witnesses in this
Subcommittee six minutes. But in consideration of other
witnesses, if you see me start to wave this gavel, then that
means to bring your statement to a close, because we do, as I
say, you have other witnesses, and in addition, some of the
Members wish to get to the questions.
We also proceed in the order the witnesses are listed in
the call of the hearing. That means Mayor Becker, we will start
with you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GARY BECKER, MAYOR, CITY OF RACINE,
WISCONSIN, AND VICE CHAIR, GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES
INITIATIVE; THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
BRIGADIER GENERAL BRUCE A. BERWICK, COMMANDER, GREAT LAKES AND
OHIO RIVER DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; CHARLES
WOOLEY, DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; TODD AMBS, WATER
DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES; DONALD SCAVIA, PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE DEAN, SCHOOL
OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN SEA
GRANT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Mayor Becker. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee. I am Mayor Becker from Racine, and I am here
today in my capacity as Vice Chair of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today concerning the Great Lakes restoration
and protection and more specifically, how we can work together
to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
that was released in December of 2005.
The Great Lakes are a resource of tremendous value to the
people of our Country and of Canada. The Cities Initiative is
an organization with over 80 participating cities. Chicago
Mayor Daley is our founding chair and Toronto Mayor Miller
serves as our current chair. The goal of the Cities Initiative
is to advance water quality, water conservation and waterfront
vitality by being an active participant in Great Lakes
decision-making by developing and sharing local best practices
and by being strong advocates for the long term restoration and
protection of the Lakes.
Since 2003, when Mayor Daley established the initiative, we
have been actively engaged with the Bush Administration, Great
Lakes governors, tribal leaders, business leaders and a wide
range of advocacy groups on these issues. In May of 2004,
President Bush issued an executive order to develop a regional
plan for the Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy released in December 2004 is the product
of that executive order. The Strategy represents the most
comprehensive statement ever developed about the problems faced
on the Lakes and what it will take to solve them over the long
term.
Equally important, the Strategy represents the very first
consensus strategy from all relevant stakeholders in the Great
Lakes region about the current and future needs of the Lakes.
While the estimated cost to fully implement the Strategy is $20
billion, mayors and governors recognize that that is an
expenditure that will need to be spread over a number of years.
Accordingly, when the Strategy was released, mayors and
governors asked the President and Congress for an initial
investment of $300 million to focus on the top priorities and
address the most urgent problems.
In addition, mayors and governors requested several other
steps to help advance the restoration and protection of the
Great Lakes, including enactment of the Comprehensive Aquatic
Invasive Species Legislation, with a special emphasis on
ballast water and a more streamlined approach to Federal
wetlands protection. The mayors appreciate that some Members of
Congress have shown interest in moving forward on some of the
aspects of the Great Lakes restoration and protection. I thank
you for holding this hearing today.
In addition, various members of Congress have pushed hard
for action. However, no legislation has been enacted, and with
the exception of the Legacy program, no additional Great Lakes
funding is on the horizon.
The mayors are disappointed that there has not been more
progress from the EPA and other Federal agencies in terms of
supporting forward movement on the Collaboration. Moreover, the
Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, which was established by
the executive order to coordinate Federal Great Lakes policy
among numerous Federal agencies, still has not taken any
substantive action. We are also very concerned about other
Federal actions that are wholly inconsistent with the Strategy,
such as the proposal to continue cutting the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
However, the lack of Federal movement has not slowed the
momentum of Great Lakes mayors, governors and tribes in working
toward Great Lakes restoration and protection. Cities are
spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually in capital
and operating expenses to improve the Lakes and its watershed.
Activities are being undertaken in cities across the basin,
as mayors do our part to increase the value of this natural
resource for the enjoyment of our citizens. Mayors want to
continue as full partners with Federal, State and tribal
governments in the effort to restore and protect the Great
Lakes.
In summary, the Cities initiative remains strongly
committed to its initial request to the President and Congress
for a $300 million investment to begin work toward
implementation of the highest priority items in the Strategy.
The Cities Initiative also remains committed to working toward
passage of comprehensive invasive species legislation and other
priority Great Lakes bills consistent with the Strategy.
We have a unique opportunity with the Collaboration to make
a significant departure from business as usual toward a
consensus approach. The Cities initiative wants to make sure we
do that so future generations will look back with gratitude and
say that all levels of government made a positive change for
the Great Lakes by working together to restore and protect
them. I hope we do not wait until the levees break, so to
speak, before we act.
Thank you for holding this important hearing and for the
opportunity to provide testimony.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mayor. Fine statement.
How long have you been the Mayor?
Mayor Becker. Three and a half years, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Three and a half years. My father was city law
director for three and a half years and then mayor for six
years. And those nine and a half years were from the time I was
8 or 9 until I was 17. I sort of grew up at City Hall. I found
out how tough it is, how difficult it is. I believe being mayor
of a city is one of the toughest jobs in the Country. I also
found out that, I think everybody and his brother wanted to be
a fireman or a policeman. Then the day after they went on the
force they wanted a promotion or a raise or both.
[Laughter.]
Mayor Becker. Well, obviously things are not any different
in Tennessee than from here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Administrator Grumbles.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to be here before the Committee. It is an honor
representing EPA. It is also an honor to follow the Mayor and
to be part of this panel. It requires people at all levels of
government and the private sector working together. So this is
a very constructive effort, this hearing, on progress that we
are making.
The Great Lakes is a priority of this Administration. We
have taken several important steps. The President, when he
issued the executive order, made it very clear that there would
be a Federal Interagency Task Force and that we would focus on
improving the delivery, better coordination and collaboration,
streamlining and effectiveness to accelerate the pace of
environmental restoration and protection, while maintaining our
Country's economic competitiveness.
Also, an incredibly important part of that executive order
was to promote the concept of this Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration. The success of the effort depends on all the
partners, governmental, non-governmental, Federal, State,
local, tribal and working also in complementary fashion with
our important partners in Canada, because this is an
international treasure as well.
I would like to focus in on a few things in the amount of
time I have, Mr. Chairman. Some of the specific follow-ups to
the executive order, the Interagency Task Force and the
Regional Collaboration, the Strategy, the blueprint, if you
will, for further progress. I want to focus in on three
specific areas that represent fundamental progress and a reason
to be encouraged.
The Task Force is working, we meet periodically. The charge
for us is to improve the delivery, look for streamlining. A
perfect example of that is in the wetlands arena, streamlining
of process and improved protection of wetlands. One of the
near-term actions that this Administration is committed to on a
regional basis in the Great Lakes is to improve, to look at the
nationwide permit 27, modifying it or having an alternative
regional general permit to help good Samaritans have less red
tape and get to restore wetlands more effectively and
efficiently. So that is an important result of the Interagency
Task Force.
Another effort of the Task Force is to focus on
sustainability and strategic actions. So we meet periodically
and we identify using the Regional Collaboration Strategy as a
guide, as an overall guide. We identify priority projects for
scarce resources to be applied towards.
The Regional Collaboration resulted in a blueprint on
December 12th, 2005. Congressman Ehlers was there and was in a
way a master of ceremonies, bringing people together. That was
a historic document. There was a lot of important work to do.
All of the partners agreed that it could serve as an overall
guide, and that is what we are using it as.
I want to focus on three things, Mr. Chairman, and three
very important areas that various agencies under the
Administration are focusing on and others as well. One of those
is contaminated sediments. As you know, and the leadership of
this Committee has shown on the Great Lakes Legacy Act, you
know that one of the most important priority areas is to remove
those contaminated sediments, to get progress going. We have
five projects that have received funds. The President has made
it a priority, is seeking full funding. We want to work with
Congress to get those funds appropriated. I was just in
Ashtabula yesterday and it is a tremendous sight, Mr. Chairman,
to finally see after over a decade of talk to see real
progress, where the dredging is 24/7, they are moving 550,000
cubic yards of sediment out of the harbor. They are cleaning it
up, they are making progress, they are cutting red tape. That
has been a charge through the executive order and also
following the requirements of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. That
is a priority area.
Another priority area, near-term action that the
Administration is fully committed to is on wetlands, wetlands
throughout the Country, but also wetlands in the Great Lakes.
The goal of the Administration is to move beyond no net loss
and to gain wetlands. The way to do that is to continue to use
the Clean Water Act. We have aggressively defended it as a tool
before the Supreme Court. We will continue to do so.
But it is also to use cooperative conservation. Therefore,
through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, we have
committed as one of our near-term actions to restore, improve
and protect 100,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes and
work with the States to have an additional 100,000 acres on
their part, so we can see 200,000 acres. We recognize that
acreage is one part of the equation, value, quality of those
wetlands is another important one.
We have established a subcommittee to track and monitor for
progress, to work with the private sector to put a priority on
wetlands in the Great Lakes, to restore them, recognizing that
they are a key component, they are like nature's kidney. They
help not only provide habitat for waterfowl and a healthier
environment, they also protect against flooding and the threat
of loss of life. They help the economy.
The last area, Mr. Chairman, that is a priority among the
agencies, because we are using the Strategy as a guide, is
invasive species. Congressman Ehlers has been a leader in this
effort in particular. We recognize that that is a threat to the
economy and the ecology of the Great Lakes, and more work needs
to be done at the Federal level. The Coast Guard and other
agencies are working together using the guide as a blueprint.
We are committed to improving our efforts. One specific
example in just the last year, EPA issued a document guide for
response, rapid response, when you detect an invasive species,
to try to cut it off at the pass and reduce the adverse
impacts. But between the Asian carp and the zebra mussels and
the water fleas and various other types of invasive species,
that is a priority area.
So Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, I would say that the
President's budget for 2007 puts a priority on sediment
remediation. Other agencies put a priority on cleaning up and
reducing runoff. We look forward to working with the Congress
on finding sustainable ways and advancing the Strategic Plan
and the partnership among our colleagues in the Great Lakes.
I would be happy to respond to questions when you have
them, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Administrator Grumbles. As
you know, we have gotten into other aspects of your testimony,
even not in regard to the Great Lakes particularly, but
particularly on the invasive species problem for instance, and
other things as well.
General Berwick.
General Berwick. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
Committee, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you on the activities of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers that contribute to the protection and restoration of
the ecosystem of the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes ecosystem is a nationally significant
national resource. And Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on the
numbers. I had never heard 6 quadrillion gallons before, but
that is a remarkable number, although I am very familiar with
the percentages.
It is the world's largest freshwater ecosystem, and also
provides millions of U.S. and Canadian residents with water for
consumption, transportation, power, recreation and other uses.
The Corps is working together with other Federal agencies, the
Canadians and the affected States, tribes, local governments
and stakeholders groups to help protect and restore this
ecosystem. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr., is the Department of the Army's
representative on the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.
The Strategy to restore the Great Lakes which was produced
by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration addresses eight of
the nine priority issues identified by the governors of the
Great Lakes States. These eight issue areas cover a wide range
of environmental concerns, including invasive species,
contaminated sediments, loss of fish and wildlife habitat and
aging wastewater infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers has a
variety of programs and projects in the Great Lakes that
provide for both economic development and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. I will briefly mention two of these.
The Corps of Engineers is operating the electrical barrier
on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal with the goal of
preventing, if possible, the migration of the Asian carp and
other invasive fish species between the watersheds of the
Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. We are continuing to
operate the demonstration barrier, which was constructed in
2002, and we are constructing a permanent barrier. This project
has been challenging for technical reasons, but we recognize
its importance. I am committed to doing everything I can to
keep that line of defense in place and to doing it safely.
In addition, the Corps has launched an initiative which
focuses specifically on wetlands and aquatic habitat. Earlier
this year, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Mr. Woodley, announced the selection of the Great Lakes Habitat
Initiative Project for $1 million in 2006 funding. This two-
year Great Lakes Habitat Initiative is an example of the type
of integrated planning that can help bridge the gap between
general recommendations for the protection and restoration of
the Great Lakes and site-specific actions. This initiative will
identify on-the-ground projects for habitat protection and
restoration, develop performance metrics for prioritization,
create comparable cost and benefit data and link projects with
existing Federal, State, tribal, local and other sources.
The Corps is pleased to have had the opportunity to appear
before you to provide an overview of our activities on the
importance of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. We value highly
the water resources of the Lakes and the partnerships we have
formed. We look forward to continuing those partnerships.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this opportunity, and I
will be pleased to answer your questions when the time comes.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, General Berwick.
Mr. Wooley.
Mr. Wooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am Charlie Wooley, Deputy Regional Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Midwest Region.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and how it can be
implemented to restore and protect the Great Lakes. My
statement will address the Agency's collaborative role in
implementing the strategy. Fish and Wildlife Service survey
data indicate that fishing, hunting and wildlife watching
generate nearly $18 billion in annual revenue in the Great
Lakes region. In collaboration with others, the Fish and
Wildlife Service addresses natural resource issues that affect
the fish, wildlife and habitats of the Great Lakes basin, as
well as the 35 million people that live there.
As the only Federal agency whose mission is to conserve,
protect and enhance fish, wildlife and their habitats, the
Service is uniquely positioned to serve the natural resources
of the Great Lakes basin and provide leadership on the Great
Lakes governors' priorities in the areas of habitat and
species, aquatic invasive species and information and
indicators. Within the Great Lakes, habitat loss is a
tremendous concern. The Great Lakes region has lost more than
half of its original wetlands, 60 percent of its forest lands.
And the region only has a small remnant of other habitat types,
such as savannahs and prairies.
The Administration strongly supports wetland restoration
efforts as evidenced by the President's commitment to restore,
enhance and protect 3 million acres of wetlands nationwide over
5 years. The Federal Government and our many, many partners,
including the Fish and Wildlife Service, will join in a shared
effort via the Regional Collaboration process to develop
wetlands restoration plans that will enhance and protect a
total of 200,000 acres over the next several years in the Great
Lakes Basin.
Now, you may ask, what is the Fish and Wildlife Service's
role in wetlands restoration? Well, the Service brings to bear
a range of programs that contribute directly to restoration of
fish and wildlife species and their habitats within the basin.
For example, in 2005, the Service awarded $2.1 million in North
American Wetlands Conservation Act grants to restore, protect
and enhance approximately 4,000 acres of wetlands in the Great
Lakes basin.
In 2005, the Service awarded $4 million in National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation grants for partners to acquire over 1,800
acres of wetlands along Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.
Through settlements under the Natural Resource Restoration
Program, the Service has restored and enhanced 955 acres of
wetlands and protected almost an additional 900 acres of
wetlands in Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Additionally, in
the Fox River, Wisconsin area, the Service and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources restored and enhanced over
4,600 acres of wetlands and associated uplands and protected an
additional 5,000 acres in this area.
The Service's partners for Fish and Wildlife Service
program in 2005 and through 2006 have restored 270 individual
wetlands restorations, totaling approximately 10,000 acres in
the Great Lakes basin over the last year and a half.
Let me switch gears for a minute, please. An excellent
example of collaboration in action is the work of Ohio EPA,
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office are doing to remediate contaminated sediments
via the Great Lakes Legacy Act funding and restore injured
natural resources in the Ashtabula River in Ohio. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has received a settlement for injuries to
natural resources within the Fieldsbrook Superfund site, the
source of contamination to the Ashtabula River. Those funds are
being used to implement restoration projects along and near the
river, which will compensate the public for those natural
resources lost at the Fieldsbrook site, in conjunction with the
removal of contaminated sediments out of this river by EPA
utilizing Legacy Act funding. This is a fabulous example of
cooperation and collaboration, right in front of our eyes.
More than 160 non-native aquatic species are established in
the Great Lakes. And during the last several decades,
populations of non-native species have been discovered at an
average rate of one every eight months. The Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration's aquatic invasive species action plan
is an excellent example of how to prevent new introductions of
aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes and how to
eradicate, control, contain and limit impacts of aquatic
invasive species already introduced. Prevention of invasive
species introductions and control of established populations of
invasive species are critical to sustaining and enhancing
ecosystem integrity. We utilize the Binational Sea Lamprey
Control Program administered by the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to do this.
Successful restoration strategies for the Great Lakes must
also include informed decision making. The Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Act, initially authorized by Congress in
1990, has enabled the Service to develop partnerships with a
wide range of Federal, tribal, State and local governments and
private entities, as well as with Canada, to create a basin-
wide program to monitor the ecological health of the Great
Lakes.
Since 1998, 72 restoration projects totaling $6.6 million,
including $4 million in Federal funds, have been implemented
under the authority of the Restoration Act. More than 60
organizations have contributed matching funds and expertise,
and countless aquatic species, such as lake trout, sturgeon,
walleye and perch, as well as wildlife, have benefitted.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify in front of you this afternoon. I will be glad to
answer any further questions.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Wooley.
Mr. Ambs?
Mr. Ambs. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I come to you from the Freshwater Belt of the Nation, the
Great Lakes. I am happy to be here. I am testifying today on
behalf of the Council of Great Lakes Governors and its chair
and my boss, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle.
I want to take a couple of moments to talk about something
that hasn't been talked about yet today. On December 13th,
2005, ten governments of our water belt, eight States and two
Canadian provinces, came together with a shared vision to
announce a remarkable agreement. On that day they signed the
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Sustainable Water Resources Agreement,
and the governors endorsed the companion Interstate Compact.
These agreements reflect a unique commitment to shared goals
and objectives and reflect the leadership and collaborative
spirit of the eight Great Lakes governors.
These agreements also provide unprecedented protections for
the Great Lakes by banning water diversions with limited
exceptions, initiating water conservation programs in each
State and promoting the sustainable use of our water resources.
Now the effort has moved to the State houses for legislative
action that will put in place the authorities needed to
formalize the interstate compact. Once State legislative
actions are completed, we will together approach Congress with
a request for consent to formally enact the compact.
I mention this because it is an incredible collaborative
effort. It is the result of cooperation that fundamentally
poses the concept that we should treat the Great Lakes basin as
if it is all one ecosystem and that in fact what people do with
their water in Duluth can in fact have an impact on people in
Detroit and Cleveland and Toronto and Buffalo, and they ought
to have a say in that. We have been able to pull that off. We
have it on paper. It is a tremendous collaborative effort.
As a Great Lakes boy, somebody who was born and raised in
Michigan, who spent 12 years in Ohio and now 10 years in
Wisconsin, I can tell you in my lifetime I have not seen such a
collaborative effort. This effort on the Great Lakes quantity
was one of nine priorities that the governors identified in
2003, that the mayors quickly embraced, and which became the
cornerstones of a second landmark event that we have been
talking about today, the release of the Regional Collaboration
Strategy to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
This compact I just spoke of is one priority. But the other
eight are contained in the Collaboration.
We have talked about the plan being released. It is not a
State strategy, an agency strategy, a city strategy, a tribal
or advocacy strategy. It is a plan to move us toward our shared
restoration vision. More than 1,500 people, representing many
additional thousands, put it together.
But this strategy will not be fully implemented in one or
even ten years. Again, no single agency nor single government
can succeed without the full support and shared investments of
all of our partners. If we begin to do it now, if we don't act
now, the problems become bigger and more expensive.
Contaminated sediments don't go away, they just get more
expensive to remove. The same contaminants spread throughout
the lake beyond a confined harbor become impossible to manage
and solutions unaffordable.
We applaud the efforts of Congress in a number of areas: to
institutionalize the collaborative process, recent Senate
action to increase the authorization level in the Great Lakes
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, the Legacy Act, which has
been talked about before. However, as previously identified in
a joint letter from the Council of Great Lakes Governors and
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, we need the
shared investment from Federal partners to be stable and long-
term.
As the budget process began, we asked the President to
support a request of $300 million to jump-start the
implementation of Strategy recommendations. Unfortunately, it
appears so far that our message and the voices of our region's
citizens are not being heard. We know and hear about difficult
fiscal circumstances. We see that there are priority issues
receiving additional funding support. We need additional
support at the Federal level.
So what is it that we need to change? Four key areas. We
need stable, long-term funding commitments. We need more
efficient delivery systems. One example could be block grants,
to get funding to projects quicker. We need national programs
where none currently exists, contaminated sediment management
and exotic species being a couple that have already been
referenced. And we need to eliminate duplication, overlapping
programs and inefficiencies.
You have seen and heard how this region mobilized to
respond to the President's executive order. The people who live
and work in the Great Lakes States are counting on all of the
levels of government to come together and work on their behalf.
The many thousands who invested their time and energy into this
Strategy development at the request of their government expect
that the governments will respond with meaningful restoration
efforts.
We need the continued support of Congress to attain the
necessary long-term stable funding. We need the support of
Congress to try more efficient ways with reduced transactional
costs to move money into implementation. We need the support of
Congress to work together in a ``regional collaboration of
national significance'' as directed by the executive order. We
need the support of Congress to help restore faith in
government for the citizens of the eight Great Lakes States who
supported the restoration actions identified in the Regional
Collaboration Strategy.
Thank you again for this invitation to appear before you
today. I look forward to attempting to answer any questions
that you might have at the appropriate time.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambs.
Dr. Scavia.
Mr. Scavia. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Don
Scavia, and I come here in several capacities. In addition to
being Professor of Natural Resources and Environment and
Michigan Sea Grant Director at the University of Michigan, I am
also the science advisor to the Healing Our Waters Coalition
that has been referred to recently, and supported by Mr. Wege
from Grand Rapids.
Before joining the Michigan faculty, I served in NOAA as a
research scientist for 29 years, and research manager. I worked
15 years on the Great Lakes, 14 years at the national level. It
provides me with both a regional and a national perspective on
the significance of the Great Lakes, the need for restoration
and the role for science.
One thing I did notice is, testifying as an academic as
opposed to a Fed, no one sits behind you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scavia. My written testimony focuses on four areas: the
need to act now to protect these resources; the need to
identify priorities; the need for a strong science-based
restoration; and the critical role for an independent voice
that Great Lakes universities can provide. My oral statement
focuses on these first two issues.
A significant portion of my testimony is drawn from a white
paper entitled Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem
Protection and Restoration: Avoiding the Tipping Point of
Irreversible Changes. The report is included as part of my
written testimony. This white paper has been endorsed by over
200 scientists coming from every State in the Great Lakes
basin, as well as scientists from California, Florida,
Maryland, Hawaii, Colorado, and Tennessee. In fact, over one-
third of the endorsements come from outside the Great Lakes
basin, indicating that the Great Lakes and its restoration are
an issue of national significance.
Our first point is that it is critical to act now. There is
widespread agreement among scientists in the Great Lakes that
they are impacted by a wide range of stresses, and that key
areas are undergoing rapid changes where these stresses are
interacting. The Prescription paper points out that the Great
Lakes may be nearing a tipping point beyond which the ecosystem
would move to a new condition, one that is less desirable from
a recreational, commercial and aesthetic perspective, and more
importantly, one from which it may be very difficult, if not
impossible to recover.
Food web disruptions are a prime example with regard to
this tipping point. For example, NOAA has demonstrated the
dramatic and rapid disappearance of the once-abundant bottom-
dwelling animal called Diporeia. The dramatic declines are
likely linked to the invasions by the zebra and the cargo
mussels and may be one of the clear signs that the Lakes are
moving into a new regime where these mussels maintain high
populations and prevent any substantial recovery.
For example, the abundance of the critical member of the
Lake Michigan food web declined from over 5,000 individuals per
square meter in 1994 to less than 300 per square meter in 2005.
And Dave Jude, a colleague of mine from the University of
Michigan found for the first time enormous quantities of quagga
mussels in Lake Michigan at depths where only a few have been
found before. At a 100 meter depth, he pulled up almost 400
pounds of quagga mussels in just a 10 minute bottom trawl. So
many members of the fish community depend on this Diporeia
species that their replacement with this lower food quality
mussels may result in tipping the entire ecosystem toward a
whole new food structure, far less valuable to society.
The problem with ecological tipping points, though, is you
can't be sure you have reached it until it is too late. So we
urge a precautionary approach to avoid passing that critical
point by acting now to support high priority restoration and
protection efforts. So our second point is about setting
priorities. The Strategy and Collaboration does a really good
job of identifying major problems besetting the Great Lakes,
recommending concrete solutions, identifying programs to
implement those solutions and recommending funded need for
those programs to be successful.
The Prescription paper recognizes four categories of
efforts. The first is prevention. That includes efforts to stop
new invasive species, new chemicals, new physical modifications
from adding stresses to the already stressed Great Lakes. The
second category is protection. That includes efforts to protect
areas that currently possess the characteristics that we are
striving for in restoration.
The third category is restoration itself. That focuses on
repairing the buffering capacity or the resiliency of the Lakes
themselves. It will be impossible to eliminate all stresses,
and even when it is possible, it will likely take decades to
achieve. So we must restore the Lakes' natural buffering
capacity to be able to cope with the stresses. And the highest
priority project should address near-shore regions,
tributaries, watersheds and the connecting waters, because
these provide effective buffers between the human enterprise on
land and the valuable resources of the Lakes.
The fourth category is to monitor and assess progress.
Because without effective monitoring and assessment, it will
not be possible to know if the resources spent on the other
three categories are producing the desired result or simply
being wasted. The collaboration strategy lists a wide range of
efforts in each of these categories, and some estimates of the
overall cost of implementation reach $20 billion over the next
decade. While we support those efforts and the appropriations
needed for implementation, it is clear that priorities must be
set within each category, because the Nation can neither afford
to pay for all this all at once nor wait for the future
funding.
We have been working with the Healing Our Waters Coalition
and others to help identify priorities, and we suggest the
following criteria. First, does the project improve or protect
ecosystem resiliency, functioning and sustainability? In many
places, this neutral buffering capacity has been lost, and one
of the highest priorities is to re-establish it.
Second is, do the projects address all the relevant
stresses. While progress has been made in addressing some key
stresses on the Lakes, the interactions of these stresses have
now complicated the Lakes' recovery and to be most effective,
projects need to take into account cumulative impacts and
interactions.
Three, do the projects address clearly documented impacts?
The highest priority should be those projects that demonstrate
clear connections between proposed actions and ultimate
impacts. And finally, is there a plan to measure, assess and
communicate results? Many if not most protection and
restoration efforts are likely to take a long time and
therefore need to be designated with an adaptive framework. To
be adaptive, they need to have a clear plan to monitor
activities and results, assess progress and potentially make
adjustments to maximize their likelihood.
I would like to close by highlighting two significant
impediments that must be overcome before progress can be made:
lack of funding and inflexible implementation. Even with
priorities set and the willingness of all stakeholders to work
together, the lack of funding remains an enormous impediment to
making progress. I understand the overall efforts for
restoration funding are quite significant. But it is time for
the Great Lakes to receive support commensurate to the national
significance. This is particularly true when one compares not
only the range of stresses that impact the Lakes, but their
enormous size and their contribution to the economy.
Finally, we do need to have an adaptive capacity, which
means we have to have a science base for the monitoring and the
effort that goes forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Just so you won't think I am too bad, I let you
run a minute and 15 seconds over the six minutes.
Mr. Scavia. I see that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. All the other Members, with the exception of
me, have to get to a Science Committee meeting. I told Ms.
Johnson I would let her go first, and then I will come to the
others as soon as we can.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I expressed in my opening statement, I am pleased with
the overall efforts to develop a comprehensive plan for the
Great Lakes restoration. But I remain concerned about whether
this plan will ever be implemented. After hearing the witnesses
that are working with the plan, I wonder if you feel optimistic
or whether you feel it might be a wasted opportunity.
What specific actions are your respective agencies taking
to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Plan?
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, I will just start and say, we
view the plan as an overall guide. So some of the specific
actions we are taking, one is, we are working with our
partners, we all agreed to an implementation framework. That is
an infrastructure, a process to track and follow through and
progress on actions that all of us are taking.
The second thing is that the Administrator, Steve Johnson,
Administrator of EPA, designated Gary Gulezian, who is behind
me, the Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, to
specifically track and monitor Federal agency actions that
advance the Strategy.
The third thing I would mention is that each of the
different areas, each of the eight major categories of themes
of recommendations, we do have specific near-term Federal
agency actions that we have committed to take and that we are
on track to completing. So we are focused on that and committed
to the Regional Collaboration and getting results such as
through the Great Lakes Legacy Act, cleaning up the sediment
sites and seeking the funding at the Federal level to do just
that.
Ms. Johnson. It is my expectation that you are probably
already putting together the President's budget request for
fiscal 2008. Is that right, that would include this plan?
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, our agency, like other
agencies, is working internally on developing their
recommendations for a 2008 budget, that is correct.
Ms. Johnson. My colleague said here, which happens all the
time, that the requests have come over, it has been the
Appropriations Committee that has cut the funds. How much has
the Appropriations Committee cut each time?
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, the most accurate and
responsive approach for me to follow up on that would be to say
that we can provide you with specific numbers on items,
comparing items in the President's budget request with the
Appropriations Committee's or what Congress ended up
appropriating. A good example is in the areas of concern where
for the second year in a row, the Administration has requested
virtually full funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Program and
Congress has made progress and has appropriated more each of
those years, but still falling short of the full funding
requested.
Ms. Johnson. Has this interfered with the implementation of
the plan?
Mr. Grumbles. We feel that, specifically with the Great
Lakes remedial actions on the areas of concern, we feel that we
have specific work plans, we have a Great Lakes Legacy rule. We
are moving forward with the dollars that we have. We do have a
surplus in the fund right now for the Legacy Act, but we also
have a lot of work in the future in the pipeline that we know
we can get done. So we are committed to the Great Lakes Legacy
Act.
Ms. Johnson. When you start working on the restoration, and
you don't have the funds, will the delay cause some roll-back
in some of the progress you have made?
Mr. Grumbles. We think that the most important component of
accelerating environmental protection is working together. As
other witnesses have pointed out, it is a shared
responsibility. Many of the projects, in fact most of the areas
recommended, or the areas in the blueprint for action
contemplate a variety of shared responsibilities. So we think
the key, when there are budgetary constraints, and there are
significant budgetary constraints, we want a realistic plan and
to move forward to see real results. So we work with our
partners to leverage the scarce dollars.
So that is the key, improved coordination and improved
leveraging.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.
I might just explain to the witnesses, I sit on seven
subcommittee and three different full committees. Four of those
subcommittees are having meetings that started at 2:00 o'clock
today. I think that because, there must be half the
subcommittees in the Congress meeting at this time.
Unfortunately, this is the fewest number of Members that I have
ever had at a subcommittee meeting that I have chaired. But I
do think this is a very important topic, the status of the
Great Lakes, and I do appreciate all of you being here. There
are many other Members, I think, who realize the importance of
what we are talking about. But I want to go at this time to Mr.
Gilchrest, he did not have a chance to give an opening
statement, for any comments or questions that you might have at
this time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding the hearing, along with the Ranking
Member. I also want to thank Vern Ehlers for his lifelong
commitment to this issue and the Great Lakes. I think he enjoys
living in the belt. I have never heard it called that before,
that is interesting.
I read a book maybe 20 years ago and I can't remember the
name of the author, but he was connected with Gerald Ford, I
think maybe even worked for Gerald Ford when they were
beginning the whole Great Lakes program. The title of the book
was Making of An Environmental Republican. It was fascinating.
If you can Google that up somewhere and take a look at it, it
is interesting. Because it was the first time I had ever heard
of problems with persistent toxic chemicals and their
disruption, not only in the ecosystem, but in the endocrine
system of species within the ecosystem. So it was really
fascinating.
Just a quick couple of comments, because I have learned
some things that I want to now initiate with the Chesapeake Bay
program, which I think will be helpful in this way. A hundred
years ago, we did not know what human activity did to the
degradation of nature's design and how it disrupted that
process. We know about it now, in extraordinary ways, we know
about it. So we have this magnificent level of science that we
haven't known before.
But people, to some extent, and I see that in my district,
outside that arena of scientific information, who are in fact
the people that make the decisions about land use at the local
level, the town level, the county level, municipalities, have
this monstrous certainty that more is better. Consequently,
much of the problem with the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes
is a direct result of the local land use decisions as far as
degradation from persistent toxic chemicals, from stormwater
runoff, from sewage treatment plants, from a whole plethora of
things that result from local land use.
Now, we can connect like we are doing here today, with
invasive species, with the Federal Government, the Clean Water
Act, air deposition, those kinds of things we can collaborate
on. But it is the idea now to integrate the information, I am
glad to see the Mayor, Mr. Becker here today. Because to some
extent you have seen this in communities near where you are
that feel more construction, more development. What is a non-
tidal wetlands? Are we still dickering about the makeup of the
soil, or the plant or the hydrology? What about forested
buffers?
But it is those answers, prevention, hold on to what you
have, protection, don't let it be degraded any further,
restoration, bring back the buffers, the forested buffers and
non-tidal wetlands, and then monitor that. So Dr. Scavia, your
idea of prevention, protection, restoration, monitor and assess
progress is for each local community to take a look at the big
picture and the Great Lakes is connected across that huge,
beautiful belt.
I apologize for my lecture, but I go through the same kinds
of things with the Chesapeake Bay. I think what we know now
about nature's design, we know that if we do the right things,
human activity can be compatible with nature's design and
people will see a cleaner Great Lakes 10, 15, 100 years from
now than the see right now.
I want to thank Vern for all his efforts in that arena. And
I have to exit myself. But the staff is going to listen closely
to your recommendations and follow up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, MR. Gilchrest.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I give my thanks to
Mr. Gilchrest, too. He has been one of the heroes of the
environmental movement, particular as it relates to water
resources.
I agree with the comment by Mr. Grumbles earlier that
Legacy Act funding that the Administration has proposed every
year has been right where it should be, right at the top, and
unfortunately, the Congress hasn't done as well. But at the
same time, I am very disappointed that the Administration has
taken the position that it will only undertake those
recommendations of the Collaboration that can be done within
existing budget projects. We simply cannot accomplish what we
need to do as outlined in the goals and objectives of the
Regional Collaboration Strategy teams with the current funding.
As I said in my opening statement, the solutions to the many
problems facing the Great Lakes, contaminated sediment, sewer
overflows, loss of habitat and so forth, will only become more
expensive, more complicated and more daunting the longer we
wait.
So my question here for the Federal witnesses is, can we
expect that the Administration's position will change as you
develop your budget proposal for the coming fiscal year? We can
just go right down the line. We will let you go first, Ben.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Congressman.
The hard work that was put together in this unprecedented
infusion of ecology and democracy in putting together that
Regional Collaboration Strategy, that overall blueprint, was
one that we continue to see the value in. We agree with other
partners that it could be used as an overall guide.
We did want to stress at the time that we are focused on
using the resources that we have, having a blueprint, so that
in recognizing what are priorities areas, given the fiscal
constraints or the out-years, we would have the document, have
something that help us all focus in on key areas.
The contaminated sediments is an example where we are
seeking new resources, additional resources, more funding. The
last estimates we have indicate that the Federal agencies
collectively have been providing half a billion dollars for
direct water quality benefits in the Great Lakes among the
various programs. So for us, the key, without knowing what
future budgets will entail, and I certainly can't make
predictions, Congressman.
I think for us the key was to focus in on the areas that we
know within our current budgetary resources we can take action,
specific actions and to really look for areas to better
leverage and to cut process and red tape to get more with the
dollars we have, but to also have out there, as a result of the
Collaboration and the partnership, a blueprint for future
action if there are additional resources, both governmental and
non-governmental, and looking at various levels and sectors of
government, to have a real blueprint. I think that is a key
part to not lose sight of.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me just comment on that. I am a great fan
of zero-based budgeting. What I see, it seems to me what you
are saying is all your funding is already budgeted and you are
going to try and squeak out what you can to deal with this new
area. What I am asking for, and not a commitment now, but just
asking you to do, by that I mean all governmental agencies,
just look at the whole program and say, this is the world's
greatest water ecosystem. We now have a program of what to do
about it. What can we reduce elsewhere in the agency that is a
lower priority than dealing with the world's greatest water
ecosystem?
Mr. Grumbles. Right.
Mr. Ehlers. Let's get the others in before my time expires.
General Berwick?
General Berwick. Thank you, sir.
I, like Administrator Grumbles, am not in a good position
to forecast future budgets. But I will cite a couple of things
that give me some reason for optimism. One is as a result of
the activity of the Collaboration, some real national attention
has been focused on the challenge of the fish barrier in the
Sanitation Canal. In fact, Administrator Johnson last December
specifically highlighted that and indicated a willingness to
work with our agency and with Congress to try to bring about
further redundancy in that barrier. So I am encouraged by that.
I was also encouraged by our successful competition to have
$1 million for the Great Lakes Habitat Initiative that the
Corps of Engineers is undertaking, which will specifically look
at wetlands and implementable projects. So I thought that $1
million doesn't sound like much, but since that is study money,
that is seed money, that is quite significant.
Then along the same lines, in terms of developing synergy,
I am encouraged by the activities at Ashtabula, where work is
currently underway under the auspices of the EPA to remove
contaminated sediments. But we are prepared to follow closely
behind that and develop synergy by doing some navigation
dredging, which will remove further contaminated sediments, and
we are able to use the same placement facility and therefore
get significantly more work done.
So I think there are some good things that are happening
with regard to resources. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ehlers. My point on this, just very quickly, one thing
I have learned many times in my life, acting quickly can save a
lot of money that you will have to spend otherwise. It makes
sense to act quickly when the situation develops. I have just
been totally dismayed, and I am not totally blaming you, the
Congress bears some fault for this, too, at how long it has
taken and how difficult it has been to put up the carp barrier.
Now, that is a non-brainer. And we are talking about a couple
million dollars here, you heard the testimony. It is an $18
billion a year system that we are dealing with. And right now,
just from the zebra mussels alone, we are spending $2 billion a
year just in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Nationwide, it is a
cost of $13 billion a year dealing with the invasive species
and the aquatic invasive species. The Asian carp could easily
wipe out the fishery in the Great Lakes.
So we are worried about how we can fund a couple million
dollar project. But we have $18 billion hanging there as the
penalty if we don't do it right. That is the point I am trying
to make here. Let's really prioritize these and go back and
look at some of the other things we have and say, are they
really as important as saving $18 billion a year? Or I should
say preserving the $18 billion a year industry.
My time has expired. I would love to have Mr. Wooley's
comments, if you can do it very, very briefly.
Mr. Wooley. Very quickly, Congressman Ehlers. Last Thursday
in Traverse City, Michigan, the Fish and Wildlife Service
dedicated and christened a 100 foot long vessel called the
Spencer Barrett. That vessel, sir, will be used to increase
lake trout stocking in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. It will
also be utilized to assess lake and fish populations,
particularly stocked fish populations in Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron. I think it is a great example of the Fish and Wildlife
Service contribution to the collaborative nature of this work,
and it is certainly identified in the collaborative report that
we need more of that stocking assessment data. So that is an
example, sir, from the Fish and Wildlife Service's viewpoint.
Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. I appreciate that, because as you know, the
zebra mussel and the goby are really entering the fishery in
the Great Lakes. That is a potential huge economic loss. My
apologies for running over, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers. I would
just ask the panel as a whole, since Dr. Ehlers ended up just
mentioning the money and how much we could save, but also, I
have noticed that in the Collaboration that we are told that
they really need to do what needs to be done, probably $20
billion over the next five years. That is $4 billion a year.
Where is the money going to come from? Anybody got any
suggestions? Mayor?
Mayor Becker. We always look to the Federal Govenrment.
[Laughter.]
Mayor Becker. Understand, cities haven't been sitting back
doing nothing as the Collaboration was formed and worked
through and the thousands of hours of work done. Cities have
been moving ahead throughout the whole process. I believe the
city of Toronto is investing their own city dollars. This isn't
any province or national dollars, $25 million a year, just in
the city of Toronto, on their shores over the next 20 years,
$25 million per year, a half a billion dollars they have set
out to plan.
In Racine, we have totally rebuilt our wastewater plant,
our water intake plant. We have built wetlands. We have
continued to move ahead on planning and ideas to do more.
We again, as Congressman Ehlers said, what can be more
important? It is every group ahead of you, I realize, is the
most important group, and as it should be, they are advocates
for their issues. But truly, as I said in the opening comments,
we have heard people talk about that tipping point. That is
probably in pretty good relation to the levee breaking in New
Orleans, that once you go beyond, now you are going to spend a
whole lot more trying to bring those Lakes back to where they
are in balance as opposed to letting them go in the first
place.
So if you want, I can put together a list of $4 billion in
cuts for you. But as Congressman Ehlers said, I think we have
to look at our priorities. I know we don't do zero-based
budgeting. But there certainly have to do things that the
Federal Govenrment can step up and play their part like the
local and the State governments have right along to complement
each other, really work together. Because you can talk about a
collaboration, but a collaboration without a lot of money and
resources makes it very difficult to do. It is better than no
collaboration and things will get done better. But certainly we
all need the resources to move ahead.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I will get on into some other questions.
But I do think that those of you who are serious about this and
involved in it, and I think most of you are, you need to come
up with suggestions or proposals about where the money is going
to come from. One of the most interesting things in Dr.
Scavia's testimony that I read, he said the view from the
majority of the science community is that we know enough now to
take action to restore and protect the Great Lakes.
The reason I found that to be so interesting is that most
Members of Congress, we don't always get it, but we want
action. And we get sick and tired of all these things being
studied, studied, studied, studied, studied for years. So we
would almost get the impression everything has been studied
that could possibly be studied. There comes a time when you
have to take action and do something. I was pleased that that
was in his testimony.
But I also know that we are discussing now, some of our
staff is meeting right now about the Water Resources
Development Act. And while that bill passes overwhelming in
both the House and Senate, it may end up being in the end
difficult to pass or difficult to get the funding for
everything that is in there. That is a bill that probably is
going to end up $13 billion or $14 billion for the water needs
of the Nation as a whole.
So while I regard the Great Lakes as very important and
want to do as much as we can, we need almost as a first step to
determine where the money is going to come from. And that is
something that those who are directly involved in this really
need to take a hard look at. And Administrator Grumbles wants
to comment on that, and that is fine. You go ahead and comment
on that.
But I also want to ask you, the Great Lakes Office in the
EPA was established, I am told, in 1987. I am wondering, over
this past 20 years, you mentioned going to Ashtabula yesterday.
In what area have you seen the most progress, and in what area
are we having the least progress, are we falling the shortest
in?
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
mention on the question about funding and where does it come
from, I think everyone agrees that it has to come from a
variety of sources, and certainly not just governments and not
just the Federal Government, but the private sector, the
corporate community. One of the things that I think is very
exciting, Todd mentioned it with respect to the compact and the
water quantity and the work that the States and provinces in
the Great Lakes are pursuing is, it embraces the ethic of water
efficiency and water conservation.
I wanted to mention that one of the ways EPA feels very
strongly that you can reduce the costs on wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure, maintenance and construction, is
by coming up with more efficient ways that save water and
reduce the energy and water demands on infrastructure. So our
new program that is modeled on Energy Star, the WaterSense
Program that will have labels available so the public can
choose products that actually work as well as competing
products, but are 20 percent more water efficient, is going to
have a significant impact and will reduce the demands on the
local infrastructure systems. Because they don't have to use as
much energy to run them and will also reduce occurrence of
sewer overflows, which is a real threat in the Great Lakes. But
sustainable infrastructure, innovative financing and water
efficiency are key.
On your question about the Great Lakes National Program
Office, Gary Gulezian is a real resource for the agency and for
the Great Lakes region-wide. I will ask him, he can provide
more specifics for the record for you, Mr. Chairman, and your
Members.
But I know that one of the areas where we have seen
progress over the years is first of all, toxics. There has been
a lot of work and accomplishments that have been made over the
last decade, last couple of decades. Tremendous amount of work
that remains. But the awareness and the goals that people in
various levels of govenrment are working toward, toward the
virtual elimination of toxics, is an important one. It is a
threat to the ecosystem and to public health.
But there has been progress made because of the awareness
and specific actions, the strategies to reduce persistent
bioaccumulative toxics, for instance, PCBs or others, which is
a key culprit of a lot of the legacy contaminated sediment
sites that we are putting a priority towards.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. I really do
think you do a great job in a very difficult position. I also
knew, and everybody in here knew that the funding for all this
work is going to have to come from a variety of sources, as you
said. And everybody is for things like innovative financing.
That is a good high-falutin term and everybody is in favor of
things like that.
But I think it would be a good idea for the people who are
in charge of this and the EPA is supposed to be the lead
agency, get everybody together and sit down and say, let's come
up with some specific plans and details about who is going to
come up with what money and what kind of schedule and so forth.
So we actually start getting some things done.
General Berwick, along that line, I chaired the Aviation
Subcommittee for six years and I sit on the Highway
Subcommittee. All these things that we deal with in this
Committee, we have heard, this is my 18th year on this
Committee and I enjoy the work on this Committee, I think it is
very important. But we always hear that all these
infrastructure projects, of whatever type, water, highways,
aviation, whatever, that they take three or four times as long
as they really need to because of all the rules and regulations
and red tape, particularly the environmental rules and
regulations, and that these projects are taking on average 10
years, 12 years, where they could be done in 2 or 3 or 4 years
if we streamlined the process. And you know about that, we are
trying to do that, trying to make some improvements in the
Highway Bill.
But when you make these projects cost three or four times
as much, it doesn't hurt the wealthy, but it hurts the poor and
the lower income and the working people. And I can tell you
this, everybody says we are in a global economy, and all these
countries that are coming on the strongest, particularly China,
boy, they don't take long to do these projects. They get them
approved and they do them.
What I am getting at is, is the Army Corps doing anything
about streamlining and improving the permitting process so that
we can start getting these projects that need to be done along
the Great Lakes and in the Great Lakes done in a little faster
way?
General Berwick. Sir, we are absolutely taking a look at
that at a national level from a number of different
perspectives. We are excited at the prospect of trying to
streamline that process and move it more swiftly.
In doing so, we are also mindful of the fact that many of
these projects are indeed very complex. So there is a balance
that needs to be struck between going faster and making sure
that we have the right solution before we launch too quickly.
So there is a balance there that we are pursuing. But there is
no question that streamlining is being very carefully looked
at, and in particular in the regulatory arena there is a very
specific look at trying to advance the opportunity to get
permits more quickly.
Mr. Duncan. I agree with you that a balance needs to be
struck. That is my point. Because I think that we are out of
balance right now. And when we have rules and regulations that
make projects take three or four times as long as they should,
and take 10 or 12 years when they could be done in 3 or 4
years, that is not a good thing.
Mr. Wooley, what is the Fish and Wildlife Service doing
primarily about the aquatic invasive species, and specifically
what I am asking about, one of the things, did you hear General
Berwick say that there are technological or technical
difficulties with the barrier?
Mr. Wooley. Yes, sir. We have worked very, very closely
with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Illinois over
the last four years on that project. We have provided, when
requested by the Corps, technical assistance. We have done an
awful lot of electrofishing and survey work in the area where
the barrier is in the Illinois River, supporting the Corps,
supporting the State of Illinois on that project, sir. We have
also brought in at times, when requested, electrical expertise
that we have gathered as we utilize what is known as
electrofishing techniques there to assist the Corps in
assessment work.
Mr. Duncan. I'm sorry, what fishing technology?
Mr. Wooley. It is called electrofishing.
Mr. Duncan. Electro?
Mr. Wooley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Tell me about that.
Mr. Wooley. It is a means where we just put a controlled
amount of electricity into the water and we are able to assess
fish populations by utilizing that method. That gives us the
ability to survey, to look at the efficiency of the electrical
barrier. It is a very good assessment tool fishery biologists
use throughout the Country, sir.
So our work with the Corps in the State of Illinois has
been one of providing technical assistance and providing some
fishery management expertise when requested, sir.
Mr. Duncan. How big is that problem? I just heard Dr.
Ehlers talk about the $13 billion that is being spent
nationwide and the possible savings of $18 billion if we get
some of this done. What do you say about all that?
Mr. Wooley. It is a very, very important issue in the Great
Lakes, sir. The impacts that just sea lamprey have on lake
trout populations currently is costing the taxpayer about $15
million a year. That is a shared project between the United
States and Canada where we control sea lamprey populations in
the Great Lakes.
It is working. It is very labor-intensive and it takes a
lot of coordination between the two countries to make it work.
So there is a small but significant example, sir, of how
controlling exotics is paramount in the role of the mission
that the Fish and Wildlife Service has working with the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ambs, you are here representing the Council of
Governors from the region, the State governments. From your
point of view, are the local governments doing as much as they
should be doing in handling their pollution or waste from their
stormwater and wastewater runoffs, their sewage runoffs,
discharges?
Mr. Ambs. Yes, I do think the local governments are going
to great lengths to address those issues. The challenge that we
have, as I think you well know, is that 30 years ago when the
Clean Water Act went into place, we had a lot of Federal money
that helped set those systems up. Now, 30 years later, the same
level of commitment to maintain that infrastructure has not, is
still not there.
So the concern is, while local governments are going to
great lengths, and frankly, in many cases, having to raise
water rates significantly to pay for those infrastructure
improvements, and while State governments are stepping up, we
see unfortunately a backsliding at the Federal level of a few
things like the current proposal to cut a lot of funding for
the State revolving loan fund.
I think one of the excellent questions that you have asked
and certainly excellent comments of other members of the
Committee, when you look at this, look at what the local
governments can do, the States can do, and then tie it into
what the Feds can and should do and use it to prioritize, I
think we have a very specific blueprint for action. We
recognized that the $20 billion figure over 10 years actually
was a big number. We broke it down, along with the mayors and
other collaborators a $300 million item over one fiscal year,
with specifically identified places where strategically
spending money could really pay benefits.
And it is not just Federal money. We are asking for, as an
example in that blueprint, $28 million more for wetlands
restoration. But if we get that $28 million more from the Feds,
State govenrment, local govenrment, tribes, non-governmental
organizations, a whole range of folks have promised to match
that money. If the Feds can come up with $28 million, we will
figure out a way to come up with $28 million and to address the
very critical infrastructure needs that we have.
It is also not just a funding issue. The last comment I
would make in terms of what the Feds can do, we are glad the
Federal Interagency Task Force is formed, but we are eagerly
awaiting them to identify places where they can have more
efficient delivery of services. And we are also hoping that we
can see some action on things that don't require a lot of
additional money but certainly require some action.
And aquatic invasive species is right at the top of the
list. It is a critical problem. You talk about a tipping point.
We have 165 exotic species in the Great Lakes. It is not only a
question of the fishery, it is a question of the economic
vitality of the region. And we have, for example, in the State
of Wisconsin, the second highest number of out of State anglers
come into Wisconsin, second only to Florida. It is a critical
piece of our economy.
And if we don't do something about the impact of aquatic
invasives on just Lake Michigan, it is going to have a huge
impact. So a few thoughts, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Let me say this. We have heard over the years,
nothing but good comments, I think, in this Subcommittee and
this Committee about the State revolving loan funds program.
Yet in both Democratic and Republican administrations, that
program seems to not be real popular. And what I am wondering
about is if the program is as important and as good as people
from State and local governments tell us, and water agencies
and so forth from around the Country, perhaps it might be a
good idea of groups like your Council of Governors got in touch
with OMB and people like that and other people in the various
administrations and let them know of the work that has been
done through that or with those State revolving loan funds.
Might be something to think about.
Dr. Scavia, you mentioned an ecological tipping point.
Would you go into that a little bit more and how close are we,
how urgent do you feel these needs are, or these problems are?
Mr. Scavia. Sure. As I mentioned in my testimony, the
problem with the tipping point is you don't know until you have
passed it. So we are very concerned about it. I think some of
the examples of the approach of the tipping point include the
following. One is this loss of this animal that all the fish
species in the Great Lakes really depend upon. The loss of that
species and its replacement by the zebra mussels and the quagga
mussels has been described as the difference between eating a
Big Mac or eating a Big Mac with the styrofoam shell on it.
The fish in the Great Lakes are already coming up thinner,
less weight than they had been in the past, and we are very
concerned that eventually that fishery may in fact collapse in
one way or another. A second example is the Asian carp. If the
Asian carp does get into Lake Michigan, it is a voracious top
predator and it may decimate the population in very short
order, completely shifting that population.
There is another dimension I think is important. That is
backsliding.
Mr. Duncan. Backsliding?
Mr. Scavia. Backsliding. Thirty or 40 years ago, the poster
child for the Great Lakes was Lake Erie.
Mr. Duncan. I usually hear that at Baptist churches.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scavia. Lake Erie was the poster child, Lake Erie was
dead, the Cuyahoga River was burning. That was the beginning of
a lot of actions that have taken place. A lot of money was
spent to build sewage treatment plants and to take care of the
loads into the Lakes. A lot of progress was made. Lake Erie got
a lot better. The dead zone went away or got very much smaller.
It is back. The dead zone is now back and it seems to be
growing again. The question is, it is because of increased
population and inability to maintain the infrastructure that
was put in place 30 years ago? Or is it the combination of
those loads and now the introduction of the zebra mussel? There
is concern that the zebra mussel is now changing the dynamics
of the material in the Lakes that is actually stimulating the
growth of that dead zone again. So we may be backsliding in the
sense of losing progress that we have made in the Lakes as well
as moving toward the tipping point.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much. I emphasized to all of you
not running over your time and I have gone way over my time.
But I usually try to stick a little closer to the time limits
if we more Members. But I like to get as many of the witnesses
to participate as possible, and hopefully gain as much
knowledge as possible from each of you and you have each been
very helpful and very informative.
Dr. Ehlers has a couple more questions or comments.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, a few comments.
You mentioned in one of our previous hearings that Americans
now pay $8 billion a year for bottled water. We could clean up
the Great Lakes ecosystem in three years with the amount of
money that people pay for bottled water. The issue is
priorities and what is important to people. Clearly clean water
is important to them. But putting the money into bottled water
is not necessarily the most efficient way of dealing with
achieving clean water.
I think what had made the Legacy Act work so well, aside
from the good work this Committee did on perfecting that bill,
is that we included sharing of expenses in that bill. As you
recall, 35 percent comes from the local communities or non-
profit groups or industries, what have you. And because
communities are eager to get their particular area cleaned up,
in my experience none of them have had any trouble raising that
local match, the 35 percent.
So we get a good deal for our money from that program. And
that is partly why it has been so successful.
I did want to ask a question. One of the primary goals of
the executive order and the regional collaboration, as we have
heard, is coordination across programs and levels of
government. It is not just about funding, although we have
talked about that. But the real issue is trying to get
everything together so we can work well. This is not true just
in instances where your agency decided to undertake a project
or decided to change course in an existing project.
But I am curious, are your agencies incorporating the
Strategy's recommended goals, milestones and tasks into your
short range and long-range planning. Are you really grabbing
hold of what the Collaboration came up with and incorporating
it into your plans? This time we will go the other way and
begin talking, just the Federal witnesses. Mr. Wooley?
Mr. Wooley. Congressman Ehlers, absolutely we are doing
that from the Fish and Wildlife perspective. I can cite two
examples, sir. One is we have utilized the collaboration and
the weekly phone calls that we have with our Federal partners
to be more efficient in the Great Lakes. An example is we are
doing some assessment over in the Detroit River where we are
utilizing Fish and Wildlife Service employees and dollars, but
utilizing an EPA vessel in the Detroit River to do that
assessment in concert with EPA and the State of Michigan. So
there is efficiencies, coordination and effectiveness there.
The second example is the Ashtabula River example that I
cited earlier in my testimony, where we are doing that in
concert with the State of Ohio and with GLNPO, the EPA Great
Lanes Program Office in Chicago, taking our tool, utilizing it
collectively, cooperatively with the State and with EPA to make
a more efficient restoration occur in the Ashtabula River. So
those are two examples, sir, that I can cite, just off the top
of my head.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. General?
General Berwick. Congressman, my short answer would be yes,
absolutely. I see one of the great advantages of this
collaboration as the beginning of discussions and the
opportunity to search for synergy and efficiencies and
especially amongst our Federal partners, but even a larger
circle beyond that. It has been very helpful in that regard.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay, that is what I suspected. I know the EPA
is already doing it, so we don't have to ask them. I am just
very pleased it is accomplishing that, because I think that is
one thing that the President hoped to accomplish, and I really,
really admire him for putting this Collaboration together.
But the fact that it is paying off I think is indicative of
that, it was a very worthwhile effort.
One other thing that came out of this when we were
discussing this with all the tribes, the Governors, the mayors,
et cetera, a great deal of concern, and it is in the report and
also in the GAO report that preceded this. There are many
strategies and coordination efforts ongoing. There is no one
organization that is coordinating restoration efforts. And
during the collaboration discussion at one point I argued for a
Great Lakes czar, it is a favorite term around here, even
though it comes from another country. That of course is not
included.
But I want to ask you, any of you who wish to respond,
where is the locus of direction coming from? I know you are
working together, but is there some overarching direction
coming from one agency or another? I will open that to anyone.
Mr. Grumbles.
Mr. Grumbles. I would like to mention a couple of things,
Congressman. One of them, there is a tremendous amount of
effort and collaboration and there will be progress, continued
progress in implementing the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration. In our EPA, because of the President's executive
order and history of the Great Lakes National Program Office, I
think we are in a position through the Administrator and also
through Gary Gulezian, who has been designated within the EPA
organization as the czar to manage progress on the regional
collaboration.
The other point to make, though, Congressman, as you know,
probably better than anyone, there are other forums and
mechanisms, too, particularly the international one. And our
partners in Canada are very much a part of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement and the review process. That is equally
important and provides an opportunity to coordinate actions on
an international level, whereas this Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration is more of what can we do among the Federal
agencies and working with our partners.
But we do recognize, as you stated, the importance of
having some accountability and a focal point to help measure
and monitor for progress.
Mr. Ehlers. I appreciate your doing that. Because my
reading of Section 118 of the Clean Water Act clearly gives the
EPA the authority to do it. And I just want to emphasize, I
think it is extremely important for you to do that.
Yes, Mayor?
Mayor Becker. Thank you, Congressman. I agree. I think all
parties to the Collaboration need to make a more significant
commitment to the implementation from the top leadership on
down. If you don't have the senior leadership involved, it is
very hard to move it forward.
One of the things we would like to see is that there would
be a much clearer set of expectations of actions and some sort
of time line. One of the things I always do with my staff
before we leave a meeting is who is going to do what and when
are you going to get it done. And I understand this is a much
bigger project than most.
But if you don't have specific things laid out and set up
to do, it is very hard to do. The more agencies you have, the
harder it is. I would very much support having a Great Lakes
czar. One of the things the mayors' group did, there used to be
the Great Lakes Cities Initiative and the International
Association of Mayors. We merged that, we had basically two
groups of mayors doing the same thing. Not that would ever
happen in the Federal bureaucracy, I am sure.
But we merged them into one to make our voices as one, to
have one agenda to drive forward. So any time we can get
specific things with time lines, I think you have much more
ability to hold people accountable for moving the Collaboration
Strategy forward.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. I was hoping that was
developing and I have heard areas that it is developing. I am
glad to hear that it is that extensive.
One last point I want to make is, so that we can continue
this, and I always think long-term, the bill that I have
authored, people are swallowing hard at $20 billion, et cetera.
That is a press-generated figure. The point is simply, we are
not asking for a $20 billion authorization. But two years from
now, we are going to have a new President. The President is
going to appoint new administrators to the EPA and other
agencies. I want to make sure that this continues on and that
the pattern is in statute and developed, so that it will be a
blueprint for the ages, not just for the Bush Administration.
So I am very interested, Mr. Chairman, in having my bill
come out. And I recognize we are not going to get all that
money all at once. That is fine with me. We have to take it
bits and pieces. But we have to establish that pattern for the
future. That is the whole purpose of my writing the bill. Not
changing what the Collaboration has come up with, but just
instituting it in statute so that it is going to be there for
the future as well.
I thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your patience.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Dr. Ehlers has a good
memory. My Tennessee grandfather was a subsistence farmer and a
Presbyterian minister. But I heard my father say, and I knew my
grandfather well, I was in high school when he passed away, but
I heard my father say Papa Duncan probably never made $100 cash
money any one month in his life. They had 10 kids and an
outhouse and not a whole lot more. I did express amazement in
here, express that I thought my grandfather would have been
amazed at how much people are paying for bottled water now.
They pay a lot more than they pay for gasoline, for instance.
But I will tell you that my other grandfather spent the
last 28 years of his career as a professor and writer at the
University of Iowa. He and my grandparents, though, were both
born and raised in Illinois. They actually had a little tiny
cabin on Lake Michigan. So I have had a lot of relatives, I had
an aunt and uncle and three cousins in Wisconsin, aunt and
uncle and six cousins in Indiana, near Chicago, so I've had a
lot of people in the region or close to the areas that some of
you have been discussing here today.
I thank you very much. To me at least it has been a very
interesting and informative hearing. I thank you very much for
taking time out to be with us.
That will conclude this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the subcommittee was concluded.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]