    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           PROTECTING AND RESTORING AMERICA'S GREAT WATERS, PART II:
                    THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY

    =======================================================================

                                   (111-107)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 April 28, 2010

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    56-290 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the 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) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          Virginia
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    PHIL HARE, Illinois
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    VACANCY

                                      (ii)

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman

    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia     JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          DON YOUNG, Alaska
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              GARY G. MILLER, California
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice      Carolina
    Chair                                TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    PHIL HARE, Illinois                  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   CONNIE MACK, Florida
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico             LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    Columbia                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      PETE OLSON, Texas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon
    JOHN J. HALL, New York
    BOB FILNER, California
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    VACANCY
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                                   TESTIMONY

    Blumenauer, Honorable Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon................................................     4
    Dingfelder, Jackie, Senator, Oregon State Senate.................    15
    Gioia, John, Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.....    15
    Hastings, Honorable Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Washington............................................     4
    Kelly, Judy, Executive Director, San Francisco Estuary
      Partnership....................................................    15
    Lumley, Paul, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
      Fish Commission................................................    15
    Marriott, Debrah, Executive Director, Lower Columbia River
      Estuary Partnership............................................    15
    Speier, Honorable Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California............................................     4
    Stoner, Nancy, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...........................     9
    Wunderman, Jim, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bay Area
      Council........................................................    15

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri.................................    35
    McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, of Washington......................    36
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona.................................    37

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................    38
    Dingfelder, Jackie...............................................    44
    Gioia, John......................................................    46
    Hastings, Hon. Doc...............................................    52
    Kelly, Judy......................................................    54
    Lumley, Paul.....................................................    60
    Marriott, Debrah.................................................    66
    Speier, Hon. Jackie..............................................    78
    Stoner, Nancy....................................................    80
    Wunderman, Jim...................................................    90

                           SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

    Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, supplement to testimony.......................    41

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Bay Area Council, Jim Wunderman, President and Cheif Executive
      Officer, letter to Representative Speier.......................    98
    City of Portland Oregon, Sam Adams, Mayor, Amanda Fritz,
      Commissioner, Nick Fish, Commissioner, Dan Saltzman,
      Commissioner, Randy Leonard, Commissioner, letter to
      Representative Blumenauer......................................    99
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Harry
      Siniskin, Chairman, written testimony..........................   101
    County of Sonoma Board of Supervisers and the Sanoma Water
      Agency, Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane, Directors, written
      testimony......................................................   107
    Restore America's Estuaries, Jeff Benoit, President and Cheif
      Executive Officer, leter to Representative Speier..............   111
    San Fransisco Estuary Partnership, Strategic Plan for 2010-2012..   113
    Save the Bay, David Lewis, Executive Director, letter to
      Representative Speier..........................................   137
    State of Oregon, Thodore R. Kulongoski, Governor, letter to
      Chairman Oberstar..............................................   138

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     HEARING ON PROTECTING AND RESTORING AMERICA'S GREAT WATERS, PART II:
                    THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 28, 2010,

                      House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Grace
    F. Napolitano [acting Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Napolitano, Boozman and Taylor.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
        Today's hearing is on the current state of water quality
    and the ecological health of two of America's great water
    bodies, the Columbia River and the San Francisco Bay.
        This is the second hearing we have had in this Congress
    about our great waters, and I am very pleased the Subcommittee
    will receive oral testimony from Congressman Earl Blumenauer;
    from Congressman Doc Hastings; and from Congresswoman Jackie
    Speier; from the Environmental Protection Agency; the Lower
    Columbia River Estuary Partnership; the San Francisco Estuary
    Partnership; and the other stakeholders from the Columbia River
    and the San Francisco Bay regions.
        The Chairwoman will be with us shortly. She is detained in
    another Committee, so I will read part of the statement that
    she had prepared. It goes as follows:
        As I stated in my first hearing, my District in Dallas,
    Texas possesses neither coasts nor estuaries, but I continue to
    strongly believe that it is important for this Subcommittee to
    hold hearings on these issues because our Nation's coasts and
    oceans provide a wealth of resources for the entire Country.
        Amongst these areas, nowhere is more valuable than our
    estuaries. Estuaries are the bodies of water that receive both
    fresh water from the rivers and salt water from the sea. This
    mix of water makes for a unique environment that is extremely
    productive in terms of its ecosystem values. Estuaries are rich
    in plant life, coastal habitat, and living species.
        The ecological productivity of these regions translates
    directly into economic productivity. It seems to me that a
    central problem in the protection and restoration of the
    estuaries is that they ultimately lie downstream from all.
    Everything that enters the smallest stream, tributary or
    headwater in the watershed eventually runs into an estuary,
    impacting in some way all the biological elements of that
    ecosystem and all of the commerce that revolves about it.
        I am interested in hearing how the lower Columbia River
    Estuary Partnership and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership
    have addressed pollution issues in their respective regions,
    and what actions they propose to be addressed in the future.
        I would imagine that in order to restore and protect any
    large water system like these estuaries, there needs to be a
    coordinated effort between the Federal, the State and the local
    governments, as well as all stakeholders in that region. The
    Federal Government alone cannot restore water quality and
    protect our Nation's great waters. Rather, proper watershed
    management and estuarine protection must be a process that
    involves all levels of government and all manner of
    stakeholders.
        The Federal Government does indeed have a role to play.
    However, only through the active involvement of all levels of
    government will we be able to restore and protect our coast and
    estuaries.
        I look forward to hearing the witnesses' thoughts on the
    initiatives used to date to address pollution in the Columbia
    River and the San Francisco Bay, as well as ideas on future
    action and tools we can apply towards finally cleaning up these
    great bodies of water.
        That is her statement.
        I am Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power and I
    could not agree more. We have delved in a lot of these issues
    of pollution of our canals, our waters, and our streams, and we
    will need to work together. I am proposing that we do some
    joint hearings to be able to ensure further protection and
    ensure further assistance, not only from the Federal
    Government, but in partnership with all the stakeholders.
        So I am very, very happy to be here today and be Acting
    Chair.
        We welcome all the witnesses and I yield to Ranking Member
    of the Subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, for any comments he may have.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on two
    water bodies that are part of the National Estuary Program, the
    Columbia River and the San Francisco Bay. Estuaries are unique
    and highly productive waters that are important to the
    ecological and economic base of our Nation.
        Fisheries, wildlife, recreation and tourism are heavily
    dependent on healthy estuary systems. Yet, despite their value,
    most estuaries in the United States are experiencing stress
    from physical alteration and pollution, often resulting from
    development and rapid population growth in our coastal areas.
        The National Estuary Program identifies nationally
    significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution, land
    development and overuse, and provides grants to support
    development of management plans to protect and restore them.
    The program is designed to resolve issues at a watershed level,
    integrate science into the decision-making process, foster
    collaborative problem-solving, and involve the public.
        Unlike many other EPA and State programs that rely on
    conventional top down regulatory measures to achieve
    environmental goals, the National Estuary Program uses a
    framework that focuses on stakeholder involvement and
    interaction in tailor solutions for problems that are specific
    to that region in order to achieve estuarine protection and
    restoration goals.
        Currently, the Columbia River and San Francisco Bay are two
    of the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program, and both
    are implementing restoration plans developed at the local level
    through a collaborative process. We need to be sure that the
    individual estuary programs continue to effectively implement
    their management plans for protecting and restoring estuaries.
    We need to be careful not to add new layers of programmatic
    bureaucracy on the programs that could divert valuable
    resources away from implementing their plans.
        These are ecological treasures we are discussing today. It
    is clear from the testimony from the witnesses that progress
    has been made in the Columbia River and San Francisco Bay.
    However, at this unique time in our Nation's history, we should
    not just be careful in what we fund, but also in what we
    authorize.
        Each of these two estuaries has a corresponding bill that
    has been referred to this Committee. Each bill amends the
    National Estuary Program in the Clean Water Act and creates a
    separate program for funding the specific estuary. As this is
    not a legislative hearing, we are only going to hear from a few
    witnesses today. However, I would suggest that should we decide
    to move forward on the bills, and any bills that come before
    the Committee, that we hold a legislative hearing to more
    closely examine the issues in our jurisdiction.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and
    learning more about the progress that is being made in the two
    estuaries.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Our first panel this morning includes three of our
    colleagues from the House of Representatives. Our first witness
    is Congressman Doc Hastings. Welcome, sir, I am glad to be
    working with you.
        Next, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who is a former Member
    of this Committee, who will also testify. I am happy to welcome
    him back to this room.
        Our next witness is also a Member of Congress,
    Congresswoman Speier, a new Member of Congress, but who has
    gained a very solid reputation for defending and protecting San
    Francisco Bay. And welcome.
        As is tradition of this Committee, there will be no
    questions of the Members after their testimony. And with that,
    Congressman Hastings, please proceed.
        Mr. Hastings. Madam Chair, I wonder if I could just give
    deference to the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Blumenauer. I
    am more than happy to go first, and I appreciate that, but he
    is the sponsor of the legislation.
        Mrs. Napolitano. You yield to him, sir? It is your
    prerogative.
        Mr. Hastings. Well, I will yield my time as long as he will
    yield me his time.
        [Laughter.]

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON; THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS,
    A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THE
    HONORABLE JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
                          STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Doc.
        Madam Chair, Ranking Member, I deeply appreciate your
    allowing us to be here today, and I want to strongly echo my
    support for the concepts that both of you had in your opening
    statements. I think you got it right.
        I want to particularly reference the Columbia River, which
    is important to the economy and ecology not just of my State,
    but really to the entire Nation. It is the largest river in the
    Pacific Northwest, the fourth largest river in the Country by
    volume. It has a drainage area that extends to seven States and
    Canada, and includes all or part of five national parks.
        The Columbia was traditionally the largest salmon-producing
    river system in the world, and the salmon are still an integral
    part of the culture and livelihood of many people in the
    region, some of whom you will hear from today.
        The Columbia River Basin also includes more than 6 million
    acres of irrigated agriculture land, and its hydroelectric dams
    produce more power than any other in a North American river.
    There are approximately 8 million people who live in the Basin
    and depend upon its resources.
        The EPA recognized the importance of the river to the
    Nation when it named the Lower Columbia River estuary ``an
    estuary of national significance'' in 1995, and the Basin, ``a
    large aquatic ecosystem'' in 2006. But it has never really been
    funded persuant to these designations, which is the reason for
    the parallel legislation that we have introduced.
        For too long, sadly, we have treated the river like a
    machine. As a result, much of it is degraded. In the last 100
    years, wildlife habitat in the Lower Columbia River has
    decreased by as much as 75 percent. Many of the once plentiful
    salmon runs are now listed as endangered or threatened under
    the Endangered Species Act.
        In addition to the loss of habitat, the Columbia suffers
    from toxic contamination, including significant levels of
    dioxin, PCBs, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals, the
    result of human activities over the last 150 years. And I think
    my friend, Mr. Hastings, even makes some comment about
    radioactive activity in the Basin. He has been a leader in
    trying to lead the Federal Government to deal with that
    problem.
        The problems persist today as a result of continued
    industrial waste, stormwater runoff, sewer overflows and
    discharge water contaminated with new chemicals, including
    flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products.
    These contaminants impair the growth, health and reproduction
    of salmon, eagles and other fish and wildlife. They present a
    threat not only to the ecosystem of the Basin, but to the
    humans who depend upon it.
        The EPA has detected the presence of 92 priority pollutants
    in fish that are consumed by humans. And a fish consumption
    survey I believe you will hear about in more detail showed that
    Native American tribal members eat six to 11 times more fish
    than the EPA's estimated national average. This means that
    toxic contamination of the river is putting tribal members at
    risk.
        Unfortunately, the existing Federal investments in this
    area are not on a scale necessary to implement sustained
    monitoring or make significant progress towards reducing
    toxins. Despite being a major priority of the EPA's work in the
    Basin, toxics reduction receives very little funding.
        That is why I, along with Committee Member Brian Baird and
    other Members of the Oregon and Washington delegations have
    introduced this Columbia River Restoration Act to provide EPA
    and the stakeholders in the region with funding to identify,
    understand and reduce contaminant sources, expand toxics
    reduction activities, and coordinate toxics efforts with
    habitat restoration. Senator Merkley has introduced companion
    legislation in the Senate.
        This Act establishes a program team within the Oregon
    Operations Office of the regional EPA. The team will assist,
    support and coordinate implementation of toxic reduction and
    habitat restoration efforts on the river. The bill would
    provide resources to successful structures that are already in
    place, such as the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
    without duplicating efforts.
        EPA's most recent strategic plan, which designated the
    Columbia River Basin as a large aquatic ecosystem included a
    goal to ``protect, sustain or restore the health of people,
    communities and ecosystems, using integrated and comprehensive
    approaches and partnerships.'' This legislation captures that
    goal.
        The bill will ensure that the billions, billions with a B,
    we are currently spending to protect and restore endangered
    salmon runs on the river are being used efficiently. And we are
    not just saving salmon to have them swim in a toxic river.
        Efforts to clean up the Columbia Basin are complicated by a
    Superfund site in one of its tributaries, important industries
    along the river, navigation traffic, an economically important
    fishery in ESA-listed species. But the EPA set up the Large
    Aquatic Ecosystem Program to make progress on exactly these
    types of complex water management challenges.
        The bill will help the Federal Government be a better
    partner to local communities by supporting non-regulatory
    community-based programs that will achieve results, focusing on
    on the ground activities driven by local communities, with
    coordination and technical support and base funding coming from
    the Federal Government.
        By embracing this legislation, this Committee has an
    opportunity to contribute to the restoration of a nationally
    significant river. It is not just about conserving the
    environment. It is a public health issue, an economic issue, an
    environmental justice issue. The bill will also create jobs.
    Restoration projects will employ technicians, maintenance
    specialists, construction engineers, laborers, biologists and
    contractors. This is important to a State like ours with an
    unemployment rate that is in the double digits.
        I hope the Committee will work with us to move this
    legislation through the process quickly so we can begin this
    important work as soon as possible.
        Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman.
        And now we will hear from Doc Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate this.
    And Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for allowing me to be
    here to put my thoughts in order.
        In 1995, the Lower Columbia Estuary System was put in place
    as part of one of the 28 estuaries worldwide. And I applaud the
    work that they are doing. It is a public-private partnership
    between Washington and Oregon, with 28 cities and other
    entities involved.
        Since 1999, this plan that was implemented specifically
    defining estuaries as ``the area where the fresh water of the
    river meets the salt water of the ocean.'' And I point that out
    because this occurs about 146 miles from the Columbia River.
    Nevertheless, the partners management plan covers an area up to
    Bonneville Dam. That is 146 miles from the river. I totally
    agree with the work that they are doing in that area because I
    think it is connected.
        And while I appreciate the good intentions that are part of
    this bill, I must say that I have great concerns about what the
    scope of the bill does because the bill proposes to greatly
    expand the scope and management of the Columbia River beyond
    the estuary that I just talked about.
        For example, it will impact 500 miles of the Columbia River
    and its tributaries in my District alone. It also impacts above
    Bonneville Dam, 745 miles to the Canadian border. That is far
    removed from the estuary. In that area, there are 11 major
    Federal and non-Federal dams. There is a national monument.
    There is the Hanford Project that Mr. Blumenauer alluded to,
    and there are 600,000 acres of irrigated farmland that is
    irrigated by the Columbia River.
        So this has a huge impact in my District, but also goes
    beyond that to the Snake River in Washington and Idaho. There
    is a $10 billion economic impact from just commerce coming down
    that part of the river, and the tributaries of the Columbia and
    the Snake that goes to Eastern Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
    Montana, Wyoming, parts of Nevada and Utah. In other words,
    this goes far beyond the estuary as defined by the group.
        Now, I have to say, this expansion should not be minimized
    or understated. So as we move through on this bill and talk
    about this, I would like to say something that I am very
    concerned about. And that is that I was not contacted by the
    sponsors of this bill until the day before this bill was
    introduced.
        Now, I regret that because we in the Northwest have worked
    very closely on a lot of pieces of legislation that impact all
    of us, and I would have at least like to have had the courtesy
    to say, okay, this is what is being contemplated. And that
    simply was not the case.
        Now, let me be clear. I would support legislation that
    focuses on the Columbia River estuary. I want to make that
    absolutely clear. I have no problem with that. But when we
    greatly expand this, we ought to see exactly what the
    consequences of this bill are. For example, this bill is silent
    on litigation that is being involved in the whole Columbia
    River. And I might add, the Columbia River is probably the most
    litigated river in the United States.
        This bill also makes reference, giving EPA the authority to
    I guess have authority over issues that are given to other
    Federal agencies, like NOAA, like the Corps of Engineers, like
    Bonneville Power, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, like
    the Bureau of Reclamation, and like the Department of Energy.
        In other words, the bill as it is written could destroy,
    from my point of view, the collaboration that is going on among
    these agencies. And I think that is something that needs to be
    addressed very specifically.
        Furthermore, and let me just be very specific, section
    123(b) would authorize the EPA Administrator to establish, ``a
    Columbia River program team'' led by a team leader ``designated
    to coordinate all the functions or several functions, including
    the Endangered Species Act.''
        Now, I am the Ranking Member on the Committee on Natural
    Resources. We have authority on that, and I think that our
    Committee ought to have the ability to review what potential
    that would have.
        So Madam Chair, I just want to make this point. I support
    the Estuary Program. This bill as written greatly, greatly as
    it relates to the Columbia River, expands that scope, and not
    only to the Columbia River, but to all the tributaries, as I
    pointed out.
        And one last point that I think needs to be taken into
    consideration, because you are hearing two bills today. This
    bill alone authorizes $40 million, which is more than is
    authorized for all of the Estuary Programs in this Country
    combined.
        So as this legislation moves forward, if it moves forward,
    I would certainly hope that there is coordination and
    correspondence and talk among those Members that are impacted
    by this bill. But in short, I support the Estuary Program. I do
    not support the tremendous expansion that this would have on
    the Columbia River that is not defined as the estuary.
        Thank you allowing me to have the opportunity to be here.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman Hastings.
        We have a vote. We have 10 minutes, so we would like to
    move on to Ms. Speier and then we will recess until we take the
    next vote.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Just for 15 seconds. Now I see why my
    colleague wanted me to go first. I will provide information on
    this, but I want to give the Congressman a copy of the
    information where he was in fact invited.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Fine. Let's go with Ms. Speier. Thank you.
        Ms. Speier?
        Mr. Hastings. Could I ask unanimous consent my full
    statement appear in the record? I don't think I asked.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Speier. Acting Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking
    Member, Mr. Boozman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    this afternoon. Thank you also for your opening comments that
    recognize the importance of our 28 national estuaries and the
    importance they have to enhancing and protecting them in the
    future.
        San Francisco Bay is an economic engine for the entire
    world. It is a center of world trade and a gateway for goods
    from around the Pacific Rim. The Bay Area is also a beacon for
    the kind of ingenuity and groundbreaking discoveries that
    revolutionized the way we live, from advancements in medicine
    and biotechnology, to clean energy and environmental
    sustainability.
        According to recent estimates, the Bay Area generates more
    than $370 billion in goods and services annually, and is home
    to 3.5 million jobs, which contribute greatly to our national
    skilled workforce.
        Underlying the tremendous economic importance of the Bay
    Area, however, is a population of over 7.5 million people, most
    of whom live within five miles of the bay itself. Our progress
    has come at significant cost to the ecosystem upon which we
    depend.
        Today, much of San Francisco Bay estuary is under threat
    from pollution, invasive species, and habitat losses. Over 90
    percent of the bay's wetlands are now gone, and the size of the
    bay has been reduced by over one-third. Infill and development
    have polluted the water and diminished the fish and wildlife in
    the bay, which is now home to over 100 threatened and
    endangered species.
        Over 40 percent of California drains through the bay into
    the Pacific Ocean, taking a large amount of toxic runoff with
    it, contaminating water and air quality, and consequently
    threatening public health, tourism and recreation.
        We also face the urgent need to adapt to climate change,
    and this is particularly critical. San Francisco Bay Area is
    ground zero for the sea level rise that we will see along the
    coastline. Mid-range projections for sea level rise will put
    San Francisco International Airport, shoreline communities, and
    other development under water. The projected cost of such a sea
    level rise to infrastructure and property is estimated at more
    than $60 billion.
        We in the Bay Area live on the edge. The decisions we make
    today will help the bay flourish, or leave it to the mercy of
    both manmade development and a rapidly changing planet.
        For all these reasons, I have introduced H.R. 5061, the San
    Francisco Bay Improvement Act, legislation that authorizes $100
    million annually for 10 years to the EPA to fund San Francisco
    Bay restoration.
        I believe this legislation provides a responsible roadmap
    forward to preserve and protect the vital natural resource. The
    important needs of the bay have been well documented, but
    woefully underfunded for many years. Increased Federal funding
    is crucial to the Federal, State and local partnership charged
    with restoring San Francisco Bay, and will build on our strong
    track record of efficiently leveraging non-Federal resources.
        My bill also gives the EPA direct oversight of the Federal
    investment and ensures that any new funding is accountable to
    the master plan Congress set out for the Bay Area over 20 years
    ago. That plan has actually been revisited as of 2007. So the
    roadmap is there. The needs of the Bay have been well defined,
    and this bill moves us in the direction to restore the Bay.
        I thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congresswoman Speier.
        We have about a little over six minutes to get to the Floor
    to vote. I will recess. We have four votes, so we should be
    back here in about a half hour to 45 minutes. It depends on how
    long the votes are.
        So with that, this meeting is recessed.
        Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. This reconvenes the Subcommittee hearing
    of Water Resources and Environment on Protecting and Restoring
    America's Great Waters, Part II: The Columbia River and the San
    Francisco Bay.
        We will begin with our second panel, our witness from the
    EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Nancy Stoner, Deputy
    Assistant Administrator in the Office of Water and
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        Ms. Stoner, welcome. And I have to tell you that in my area
    in Southern California, we have great working relationships
    with EPA. They have done a lot of helpful things for us. And we
    hope that we will continue to have that for the other projects
    that we have. So for all of us here in Congress, thank you very
    much and you may proceed.

      TESTIMONY OF NANCY STONER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
         OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Ms. Stoner. Thank you. That is wonderful to hear.
        Good afternoon. I am Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Water at the United States
    Environmental Protection Agency, and I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on two large aquatic ecosystems, the
    Columbia River Basin and San Francisco Bay, and the EPA
    programs that work to protect and restore them.
        First, I want to reiterate EPA's commitment to carrying out
    the Clean Water Act. The protection and restoration of
    America's waters is essential for our quality of life, economic
    potential and human health. Our water bodies are imperiled as
    never before from a growing number of threats that include
    excessive nutrient loadings, polluted stormwater runoff, and
    destructive invasive species.
        The Columbia River Basin Program is an EPA large aquatic
    ecosystem that covers a major portion of North America,
    including parts of seven U.S. States and British Columbia. The
    basin provides drainage through an area of more than 260,000
    square miles into a river nearly 1,200 miles in length. The
    Columbia River Basin provides an important North American
    backdrop for urban settlement and development, agriculture,
    transportation, recreation, fisheries and hydropower.
        The Columbia River Basin's unique ecosystem is home to many
    important plants and animals. Columbia River salmon and
    steelhead runs were once the largest runs in the world, but are
    now threatened and endangered in large part due to habitat and
    water issues, including toxics.
        The tribal people of the Columbia River have depended on
    these salmon for thousands of years for human, spiritual and
    cultural sustenance. Salmon restoration, together with toxics
    reduction in the Columbia River Basin is a key environmental
    justice issue for EPA.
        The Columbia River Basin Program is an EPA large aquatic
    estuary that has successfully reduced toxics in fish, water and
    sediment of the Columbia River Basin and implemented a
    collaborative monitoring and research strategy to understand
    toxic loads, emerging contaminants and overall ecosystem
    health.
        The Columbia River Basin Program has identified the
    following priorities that need urgent attention: strengthened
    water quality standards to protect tribal members and others
    who eat a large amount of fish from the Columbia River; long-
    term monitoring for the Columbia River Basin with an emphasis
    on emerging contaminants of concern; integration of Columbia
    River Basin salmon recovery efforts with toxics reduction;
    enhanced agricultural partnerships to reduce sediment and
    pesticide loadings; as well as more assistance to farmers in
    more sustainable practices; and increased application of EPA's
    Green Chemistry and Design for the Environment Program concepts
    within the basin to address pollution prevention.
        The San Francisco Bay delta estuary is the largest estuary
    on the West Coast of North America. Its 4 million acre
    watershed covers more than 40 percent of California and
    includes drainage basins for the Sacramento and San Joaquin
    Rivers, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco
    Bay.
        San Francisco Bay is the defining natural feature that
    makes the Bay Area a unique and beautiful place to live. Of
    national renown, the bay is valuable not only for its aesthetic
    qualities, but also for the critical habitat it provides for
    native and migrating fish and waterfowl, and its moderating
    effect on the local climate, the recreational opportunities it
    affords, and the tourist trade and fishery economies it
    supports.
        The San Francisco Bay is also confronted by a wide range of
    challenges that include rapid and unplanned urban development
    resulting in greater pollutant loading; legacy pollution; new
    emerging contaminants like pharmaceuticals; destruction of the
    bay's historic wetland habitat; and an aging infrastructure
    that releases sewage and other pollutants.
        To address these challenges, the San Francisco Bay Program
    is strengthening implementation of the San Francisco Estuary
    Partnership's comprehensive conservation and management plan by
    supporting its new strategic plan; reducing urban runoff
    impacts on water quality through more effective stormwater
    permitting and enforcement; creating incentives to utilize low
    impact development techniques; implementing a comprehensive
    grant program to improve water quality and restore the San
    Francisco Bay watershed; and increasing the effectiveness of
    regulatory programs to protect wetlands and streams, while
    continuing to support restoration of wetlands acreage.
        The two bills that we are discussing today are consistent
    with EPA's commitment to protect and restore these national
    treasures. EPA is fortunate to have excellent longstanding
    collaborative relationships with both the Lower Columbia River
    Estuary Partnership and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership
    through EPA's National Estuary Program.
        Efforts to expand needed support for these significant
    large aquatic ecosystems should be carefully reviewed to ensure
    that they effectively build on existing efforts.
        So I ask that my full written statement be made part of the
    record of this hearing, and I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have at this time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Without objection, so ordered.
        Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Stoner. And I will start
    off.
        And I guess maybe because I have dealt with some of the
    issues of water in California, and especially with contaminated
    waters from pollutants such as DDT going into the ocean from
    outfalls, to some of the contaminants in the drinking water
    from the Farrow River and especially water coming down from the
    delta. So we have a great inherent interest in what you are
    doing in EPA. Both Representative Blumenauer and Representative
    Speier introduced legislation to create more robust programs
    for the Columbia River and for the San Francisco Bay. But why
    aren't the existing programs under EPA and the authorities
    enough? And what else can we, the Federal Government, do to
    help in these large scale restoration efforts? But how do more
    of these programs help foster EPA's overall goal for the
    protection and restoration of the rivers?
        We are not doing enough to educate the public. We are not
    doing enough to outreach to the chemical community to come up
    with new or better ways of producing, using, and disposing of
    pesticides and all the other things that end up in the river,
    even pharmaceuticals, because all of that ultimately translates
    into our drinking water.
        How can we work better?
        Ms. Stoner. Thank you. Well, EPA is very proud of its
    National Estuary Partnership Program. And we do think that we
    are accomplishing a lot with that program and the collaborative
    effort that it represents, and the partners that we have made.
        I think, though, that there are additional needs in both of
    these watersheds.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Such as?
        Ms. Stoner. Additional work in terms of, as I mentioned,
    salmon restoration and toxics reduction; as you mentioned,
    education of the public; working with pollution sources on
    various different kinds of program. Erosion control, for
    example, has been one program that has been successful.
        There is plenty of additional work that could be done, and
    the two pieces of legislation we are discussing today would
    build on those existing successful efforts, and expand their
    scope, and provide additional funding.
        So those are all additional needs that could be met.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Okay, so in essence you are saying to a
    certain degree that there is not enough funding available to be
    able to do more in-depth research, development, addressing
    education.
        Ms. Stoner. There are lots of additional needs. There is
    additional monitoring which is needed that is discussed in the
    legislation. That is always a need; identifying sources;
    identifying solutions; working with partners to put those in
    place.
        As you well recognize, there is plenty of work to be done.
    But again, we are proud of what we have done so far and we were
    delighted to see that the National Estuary Program is the
    foundation of these bills.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And you do have collaborative programs
    with other Federal agencies?
        Ms. Stoner. Absolutely. We work with our Federal partners
    throughout these watersheds. That would strengthen those
    partnerships and that collaboration and coordination. That is
    one of the elements in the bills.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        I yield to Ranking Member Boozman.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Stoner, according to the EPA, the San Francisco Bay and
    the Columbia River are readiness fair. In fiscal year 2010, EPA
    requested $5 million in funding for San Francisco Bay and
    received $7 million through the annual appropriations process,
    in addition to what it receives from the National Estuary
    Program. While this is an important estuary, of the 28
    estuaries in the Program, how many are readiness poor and how
    much funding is provided for those estuaries? And in what case
    would a fair estuary get priority funding over a poor estuary?
        Ms. Stoner. I am afraid I don't know the answer to the
    question about how many were rated as poor, so I have to get
    back to you on that information.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay. In what case would a fair estuary get
    priority funding over a poor estuary?
        Ms. Stoner. I think it might depend upon the needs of the
    estuary, the size of the estuary, potentially the development
    of the plan; how well developed the plan is; how well the
    partnership is working; and whether there are additional needs
    that could be appropriately funded and achieve the most
    benefits.
        There are always very tough decisions in budget
    negotiations, as I am sure you know, and many important needs
    and priorities. I don't think there is just one particular
    scale that is used. To my knowledge, I am sure there are lots
    of factors that are considered.
        Mr. Boozman. According to the National Estuary Program's
    brochure, NEPs have obtained over $10 for every $1 provided by
    EPA, generating nearly $4 billion for the on the ground effort
    since 2003. Does EPA track what has been accomplished with the
    $4 billion? If so, what benefits have been derived from the $4
    billion? And what has the $4 billion been spent on?
        Ms. Stoner. This is $4 billion from what, Congressman? I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Boozman. The NEPs.
        Ms. Stoner. The $4 billion that is the Federal
    contribution?
        Mr. Boozman. No. In other words, they generate $10 for
    every $1 provided by EPA.
        Ms. Stoner. Okay. Thank you. We are proud of the fact that
    one of the benefits of the NEP is that it does leverage private
    contributions as well, through the partnership efforts and the
    voluntary collaborative efforts that we work on together. We do
    track the progress of the NEP with regular reports on the
    accomplishments and the progress that is being made.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay. In the last 10 years, how much EPA
    funding has been dedicated to the San Francisco Bay? How much
    EPA funding has been dedicated to the Columbia River? And can
    you quantify for us the benefits that have resulted in the
    investment?
        Ms. Stoner. The information that I have is, you are looking
    for the past how many years, Congressman?
        Mr. Boozman. Five or 10, really whatever you have.
        Ms. Stoner. Okay. All right. Well, the total for the NEP
    from 2000 to 2010 is $243,776,000. And for San Francisco, the
    funding information appears to be $16 million. If I have the
    Columbia River number, I don't see that in front of me right
    now, so, I would have to get back to you on that.
        We do have a number of accomplishments in the toxics action
    plan and the development of the comprehensive conservation and
    management plans for both watersheds. In the recent update of
    that plan for San Francisco, we have monitoring that has been
    done. We have toxics reduction. We have in fact a delisting in
    the Yakima River due to toxics reduction. We have wetlands
    restoration numbers that we could give to you in terms of
    acreage of wetlands that have been restored.
        We feel like these are programs that are very successful in
    addressing the habitat issues, the toxics issues, the
    stormwater and infrastructure issues. And I would be happy to
    provide more information for the record on that.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Stoner, it is our understanding, and
    you just mentioned you couldn't find anything for the Columbia
    River large aquatic ecosystem, but it is my information that
    along with the Pacific Islands, it is the only member of the
    Council of Large Aquatic Ecosystems that has not received any
    dedicated funding. Could you verify that?
        Ms. Stoner. That is what I will get back to the Committee
    on, yes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Okay. Because that is a question that, of
    course, that deals directly with Mr. Boozman's question.
        What are the implications of this to the health of the
    Columbia River Basin then?
        Ms. Stoner. Again, there are definitely additional needs in
    the Columbia River Basin, and I am sure additional funding
    could be utilized to address those needs.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Right, but specifically to the health of
    the river itself in so far as the fish, the health of the
    ecosystem, the environment, any of the cities that are
    alongside that draw water from the river, all those things.
    What would be the implications?
        Ms. Stoner. The Columbia River system has a number of
    impairments associated with it. As we have been discussing, one
    of them is toxics and fish consumption issues associated with
    it. So that is a human health issue. It is an environmental
    justice issue. It is a very significant issue.
        And so those needs are great for the river.
        Mrs. Napolitano. In your testimony, ma'am, you note that
    salmon restoration is the key environmental justice issue for
    EPA. Would you please explain how you will therefore act on
    this matter, given it has been identified as a key
    environmental justice issue? And I can tell you in Jackie
    Speier's area, the salmon fisheries just started after, this is
    the third year that they have not been able to do salmon
    fishing because of the decline of the population. So has any of
    this happened along the Columbia? Along with the other
    question.
        Ms. Stoner. Right. Well, the toxic reduction action plan is
    designed to address this problem. As I mentioned earlier, one
    of the approaches that we have used and has been working to
    address toxics as it comes from eroded land is through efforts
    at erosion control. That is one of the methods that we are
    currently doing studies on where the sources of toxics come
    from, and identifying those sources is the best way in
    identifying the collaborative partnerships that we can use to
    then address toxics.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And the potential sources are?
        Ms. Stoner. Well, a lot of these are legacy pollutants, so
    a lot of them have been in the water for some time in the
    sediments and so forth. Sometimes they are in the soil.
    Sometimes you also have toxics that come from runoff from the
    streets; could be stormwater pollution; can be air deposition;
    can be farm runoff. There are lots of different potential
    sources.
        And so figuring out where these are most available and can
    be addressed most effectively is our approach.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I notice that selenium was not mentioned.
    Is that also a problem?
        Ms. Stoner. Selenium is often found in soil and definitely
    can be a significant issue.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Boozman?
        Mr. Boozman. Yes, ma'am, a couple of things. I guess really
    what I would like to know, and I think the Committee would--we
    have really spent a lot of money--and the idea that things are
    getting better really doesn't get it. I guess what I would like
    to know is, and you might not have the specific information now
    or your staff that is with you might not have it, but I think
    the Committee really would like to know some specifics as to
    exactly what is going on, if we are moving in the right
    direction and how you measure that. I think it is important to
    measure that.
        The other thing is that EPA requested specific line item
    funding in 2010 and 2011 for San Francisco. Again, the Columbia
    and San Francisco are both readiness fair. So I guess what I
    would like to know, and it sounds like you don't really have
    the information now as to how you make that determination.
        Ms. Stoner. No, sir, I was not involved in the budget
    decisions with respect to this. And so I don't know the
    criteria that were considered. I can inquire.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay. Well, again, like I said, so you don't
    have anything to do with the--they don't ask you?
        Ms. Stoner. I wasn't involved in the budget decisions last
    year. I actually joined the agency a couple of months ago.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay. Well, again, and like I said, I
    understand then that you don't have it, but hopefully somebody
    has some information laying around somewhere as to how they
    made that determination. And so if you would send that over for
    the record, we would appreciate that.
        Ms. Stoner. Again, yes, I am confident that it was well
    thought through and that a number of factors were considered. I
    do know that those decisions are very difficult and require a
    lot of discussion. And so I am confident that there were people
    who were involved in those discussions. It just wasn't me.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Stoner. And I may say that
    the San Francisco Bay Area is not in my area, but we treasure
    it deeply, especially because we get a lot of the water from
    the northern part of California and it is an area that if it
    affects them, it will affect Southern California. So we look at
    it very, very closely.
        Ms. Stoner. Well, these are both beautiful areas of the
    Country and fabulous resources. So it is very important to us,
    as I am sure it is to you, to ensure that they are protected
    and restored.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Very much so. Thank you for your
    testimony. You are dismissed. And we would like to call our
    third and last panel of the afternoon, consisting of additional
    stakeholders in the Columbia River Basin and the San Francisco
    estuary.
        First, Mr. John Gioia will testify. He is on the Contra
    Costa County Board of Supervisors. Our second witness is Mr.
    Jim Wunderman, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
    Bay Area Council. And following will be Ms. Judy Kelly,
    Executive Director of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership.
    Our fourth witness is Mr. Paul Lumley, Executive Director of
    the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, followed by
    Debrah Marriott, Executive Director of the Lower Columbia River
    Estuary Partnership; and last but certainly not least, Senator
    Jackie Dingfelder from the Oregon State Senate joining us
    today.
        Welcome to our panel, and your full statements will be
    placed on the record. So we ask that you try to limit your
    testimony to your salient points, to five minutes as a courtesy
    to the rest of the witnesses. And we will begin with our first
    witness. Mr. Gioia, you are it.

     TESTIMONY OF JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF
       SUPERVISORS; JIM WUNDERMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
    OFFICER, BAY AREA COUNCIL; JUDY KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN
    FRANCISCO ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP; PAUL LUMLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
     COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION; DEBRAH MARRIOTT,
     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP;
             SENATOR JACKIE DINGFELDER, OREGON STATE SENATE

        Mr. Gioia. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John
    Gioia. I am here today to testify from the perspective of local
    governments in the San Francisco Bay Area about the great need
    for increased Federal investment for San Francisco Bay.
        I am the Chair of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and
    serve on a number of Bay Area regional commissions.
        The restoration of San Francisco Bay is of national
    importance and warrants substantial Federal investment. The
    bay's health impacts both local and national economies. The bay
    is home to about 3.5 million jobs.
        While San Francisco Bay benefits the national economy,
    local governments are increasingly bearing the primary cost of
    stewardship of the bay. One of the biggest challenges to
    maintaining the bay's health is the fact that it is the most
    urbanized estuary in the Nation. Nearly 7.5 million people live
    in the Bay Area and half of this population lives within five
    miles of the bay.
        The good news is that over the past few decades, local
    governments in the Bay Area, working with citizen and
    environmental groups, have taken proactive steps to reverse the
    steady decline in the ecological health of the bay. They set in
    motion a comprehensive planning effort to improve the health
    and vitality of the bay.
        Local agencies around the bay maintain the highest
    standards of pollution control in the Nation. But today, we
    find that we are unable to meet our own high standards due to
    the deterioration of an aged infrastructure system in the face
    of a growing population and declining revenues. The cost to
    improve this system are well beyond the ability of local
    agencies.
        We face substantial costs to upgrade our wastewater
    collection and treatment systems to ensure prevention of sewage
    outflows that damage the bay. We need to upgrade regional
    treatment plants and build new distribution networks to replace
    the wasteful use of potable water with recycled water.
        An even bigger problem is stormwater runoff, which is the
    largest contributor to bay pollution and the most difficult to
    manage. In addition to runoff from communities within the Bay
    Area, urban and agricultural runoff from our vast central
    valley also ultimately reaches the bay.
        Bay Area communities are aggressively tackling the problem
    of stormwater runoff, but face a major financing obstacle.
    Local governments need a two-thirds vote of the people to raise
    funds for stormwater management programs. As a result,
    management of stormwater quality is significantly underfunded.
    Consequently, our region is spending the least amount of money
    on one of the biggest pollution problems. A Federal investment
    will leverage increased local dollars.
        Bay Area agencies are working cooperatively to solve our
    region's problems. We are tackling transportation, air and
    water quality, and land use issues on a regional level. All of
    these issues impact the health of San Francisco Bay. Federal
    assistance to support these efforts will leverage greater local
    dollars to sustain these initiatives.
        Bay Area leaders recognize that land use planning has
    enormous impacts on water and air quality. As a result, the
    Association of Bay Area Governments has led a regional effort
    to focus on infill development in areas where there is access
    to transit, jobs and utility capacity.
        The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has
    established a climate change planning program to identify and
    report on the impacts of climate change on the bay and identify
    strategies for adapting to climate change. Communities around
    the bay have been working collaboratively on a variety of
    scientific endeavors to improve the health of the bay.
        Finally, and probably most exciting, is the establishment
    of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, which is a new
    regional government agency charged with restoring San Francisco
    Bay through the raising and granting of funds to restore the
    bay's critical tidal wetlands. Today, over 36,000 acres of
    restorable bay shoreline is in public ownership and proposed
    for restoration to tidal wetlands. Restoring these 36,000 acres
    will cost up to $1.4 billion.
        While there is identified Federal and State funding
    available to complete some of this work, the Authority's
    mission is to formulate a strategy for raising local revenues
    to fill this funding gap. Additional Federal investment in this
    effort would greatly increase support for local funding.
        In conclusion, the San Francisco Bay Area is on the verge
    of implementing a successful plan to restore our treasured
    estuary. We have a blueprint for restoring the bay, strong
    regional leadership on this issue, a history of successful
    collaboration among local and State agencies and active citizen
    groups, and we have the commitment and expertise to carry this
    out.
        All we need is a strengthened partnership with the Federal
    Government, along with an increased investment, and we will be
    able to make great strides in improving the health of this
    critically important estuary for the region, the Nation and the
    world to enjoy for generations to come.
        Thank you for the chance to testify before you today.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Supervisor.
        Now, we turn to Mr. Jim Wunderman.
        Mr. Wunderman. Good afternoon and thank you, Madam Chair.
    It is a pleasure and honor to be here today.
        My name is Jim Wunderman. I am the President and CEO of the
    Bay Area Council, which represents 275 of the largest employers
    in the nine county San Francisco, Oakland and Silicon Valley
    Bay Area. Almost all business sectors are represented in our
    Council, and as is the case throughout America, there is
    tremendous pressure on our region's as well as our State's
    economy. Our unemployment rate exceeds 12 percent and our State
    government is facing a daunting fiscal crisis, which you are
    aware of.
        I want to thank Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her
    leadership in introducing this important legislation. You have
    already heard about the environmental conditions in the bay and
    the estuary that necessitate Federal action. What I would like
    to do is focus on the economic side of the equation because in
    our region the environment and the economy are inextricably
    interlinked.
        San Francisco Bay is very much the centerpiece of our
    region's environment, but it is also at the center of our
    region's economic vitality. We should not kid ourselves. The
    defining feature of our region is now under serious threat. The
    bay itself is under assault by sea level rise, serious runoff
    pollution, changes to water salinity, invasive species and
    trash.
        We need Federal help to address these issues, and we submit
    that it is in the national interest to do so because the San
    Francisco Bay Area, note that we have named our region after
    the bay itself, is one of the most important and successful
    economic hubs in this increasingly knowledge-driven world.
        Here are just a few facts about the Bay Area's economy and
    why its continued vibrancy is so important to our Nation. If it
    were a country, our region would place as the 25th largest
    economy worldwide. We have a huge pool of public and private
    research institutions that are among the best in the world.
    There are more Fortune 500 companies, 27 of them, than any
    other region in America other than New York.
        We are also an important global center, with the fourth
    highest amount of Forbes Global 1,000 companies, behind only
    Tokyo, London and New York. Thirty-six percent of all the
    venture capital invested in America is invested in the Bay
    Area, which underscores why and how innovations, ideas and
    startups are so prevalent there.
        We are the birthplace of the biotech industry and more life
    science companies are headquartered in the region than any
    other place on Earth.
        We strongly believe that the ability to maintain these
    knowledge industries ties directly to the quality of life
    afforded by the bay.
        In addition to the knowledge-based industry that the Bay
    Area is so well known for, the region's economy is actually
    quite diverse, and a good portion of it is directly dependent
    upon a healthy San Francisco Bay. The Port of Oakland by itself
    is the fifth largest container shipping port in the United
    States and a major point of exports for agricultural products
    grown in the central valley and other parts of the Country.
    Through that port, plus eight smaller ports and three
    international airports, the Bay Area handles nearly 30 percent
    of West Coast trade.
        Tourism generates over $7 billion each year and is one of
    the largest industries in the region. Whether it is Fisherman's
    Wharf or the Golden Gate Bridge or Fleet Week or one of the
    many sailing regattas that take place throughout the year, the
    Bay Area is the destination or the backdrop for the activity.
        Commercial fishing, which is completely dependent on a
    health bay and estuary, remains an important and relied-upon
    regional industry. And Madam Chair mentioned the problems that
    we have been facing with our salmon these last few years.
        Our bay and therefore our region is under threat, as you
    have heard today. And the point I would like to leave you with
    is that it is not only in our Country's environmental interest,
    but also our economic interest to take action and begin turning
    back the chain of events which have led to the current
    situation.
        We recognize that the Federal Government cannot and should
    not be responsible for all the costs associated with what must
    be done. As has been the case with other environmental
    remediation and restoration projects in other key parts of the
    Country, like Chesapeake Bay, the Florida Everglades, the Great
    Lakes, Congresswoman Speier's legislation requires that there
    be local and State matching efforts to draw down Federal funds
    appropriated for the purpose.
        We further believe that there will be many instances where
    private investments, coordinated with public jurisdictions, can
    contribute mightily to restoration efforts. Such private
    investments can deliver valuable new housing and other public
    benefits, while producing other significant environmental
    results like reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle
    miles traveled. These are all detailed in my written statement
    which I have provided for the record.
        Today, I would like to specifically urge you to help
    complete a vulnerability assessment of climate change on the
    estuary, update floodplain maps, strengthen response to oil
    spills in the estuary, make good use of public-private
    partnership opportunities, and to make a 10-year commitment to
    fund priority objectives for the bay estuary.
        Thank you again. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
        We now turn to Ms. Judy Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee,
    good afternoon.
        It is really my honor to talk to you today about the
    largest estuary on the West Coast, known throughout the world
    for its breathtaking beauty, the iconic bridges that span its
    water, and the great cities that surround its shore.
        The estuary, despite 150 years of alteration, is still a
    key engine that provides enormous economic and environmental
    benefits to the people of the region, the State and the Nation.
        Cargo ships from all across the Pacific Rim depend on the
    ports and infrastructure of the estuary. The San Francisco Bay
    Area, as has been mentioned, is the United States' fourth
    largest exporting region, accounting for 36 percent of
    California's exports alone.
        In 2008, just the City of San Francisco hosted 15 million
    visitors, generating some $7 billion into the Bay Area economy
    and many more billions of dollars to our Nation's wealth. The
    Bay Area estuary helped power this economic engine and the
    health of the estuary is vital to keeping it running.
        While over 7.5 million people call the Bay Area home, the
    San Francisco estuary does not belong to the citizens of
    California alone. In 1987, Congress recognized our estuary as
    one of being nationally significant. And hundreds of citizens,
    agency staff, business representatives, and non-profits came
    together to do the hard work of crafting a master plan for
    restoring the health of the estuary.
        The partnership between the Federal Government, the State
    and the region on estuary issues has been a very strong one.
    Over the past 10 years, in spite of budget problems, California
    voters approved a series of bond issues that support both water
    supply and ecosystem restoration efforts.
        In fact, just last year, as Mr. Gioia mentioned, the
    legislature created the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
    and tasked the region with exploring local funding options for
    restoring some of those 36,000 acres of wetlands we currently
    have in public ownership.
        Also, as a major landowner and stakeholder in the region,
    the Federal Government also has a vested interest in the
    estuary. The Federal Government owns and maintains seven
    national wildlife refuges around the bay. Over 25,000 acres of
    Federal military bases on the shores of the bay and the estuary
    have been decommissioned over the past 30 years. In many cases,
    those bases left pollutants that have compromised water quality
    and contaminated wildlife habitat.
        The Estuary Partnership's comprehensive plan completed in
    1993 and revised again in 2007, addresses all aspects of
    estuary restoration, from reducing pollution to conserving
    wildlife habitat to preserving the productivity of the
    estuary's commercial enterprises. The plan needs the active
    support of the Federal Government and Congress, working in
    cooperation with the State, localities, business and citizen
    groups to make it happen.
        Clean water and healthy habitats remain stubborn problems
    due to several issues, including the dispersal of toxic
    substances within our watersheds and funding limitations to
    address all the issues. Currently, the region has over 88 water
    bodies identified by USEPA as being impaired.
        Expanded Federal funding alone, with continued State and
    Federal support, matched by new local funds which would come
    through the Bay Restoration Authority, will help enable us to
    work on critical restoration efforts throughout the estuary
    system and result in multiple ecological and economic benefits.
        New challenges and opportunities create an urgency to act.
    Restoring our bay wetlands is one of those key opportunities.
    As I mentioned, nearly 36,000 acres of bay lands are currently
    in public ownership waiting for funding to proceed through the
    restoration phase. These lands play a critical role in
    protecting our bayside communities.
        The bay has already risen eight inches over the past 90
    years, and we expect to see a rise of an additional 16 inches
    by mid-century. The value of Bay Area shoreline development,
    buildings, roads, airports, parks, at risk is estimated at $62
    billion.
        Tidal wetlands are the region's first line of defense
    against a rising sea. These marshes form natural levees and act
    as buffers that protect developed areas from flooding at far
    less cost than building engineered barriers.
        Our sense of urgency has led the Estuary Partnership to
    conduct a strategic planning process completed late last year,
    which identifies key actions on which to focus. Increased
    Federal assistance will not only provide benefits to fish and
    wildlife, but will also provide critically important services
    to the human community. It will help preserve a national icon
    and a vital economic and environmental resource beloved by the
    Nation and the world.
        I want to thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks also to
    Chairmen Oberstar and Johnson and Ranking Members Mica and Mr.
    Boozman for their dedication in restoring this Country's great
    water bodies. I would be glad to answer any questions or assist
    you and the Committee in any way.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Kelly.
        And we now will hear from Mr. Paul Lumley.
        Mr. Lumley. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and thank you
    to Members of the Committee for the invitation here to testify.
        I am Paul Lumley. I am the Executive Director of the
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and a citizen of
    the Yakima Nation.
        The Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission was formed in
    1977 to ensure a unified voice in the overall management of the
    fishery resource. Our member tribes are the Confederated Tribes
    and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes and
    Bands of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes
    and Bands of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the
    Nez Perce Tribe.
        Each of our four tribes have similar treaty language. In
    those four treaties, though, combined we ceded 40 million acres
    of land to the Federal Government in exchange for certain
    rights. In each of those treaties, we reserve the right to fish
    and hunt in all usual and accustomed fishing places.
        Those rights were not granted to the four tribes. Those
    rights were primarily to preserve and protect our first food,
    which are traditional to our cultural way of life: [word in
    native language], which is water; salmon, the [word in native
    language]; and elk, roots and berries in that order. And that
    is the way that the Creator has delivered those resources to us
    and we are entrusted to the protection of those resources for
    seven generations. That is why the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
    Fish Commission exists.
        I can't stress enough the importance, though, that when we
    signed our treaties in 1855, implicit in those treaties was the
    understanding that those fish would be healthy and edible to
    eat. The land that we fish on is not necessarily limited to our
    reservation boundaries. The right to fish and hunt in all usual
    and accustomed fishing places is a place-based right and we
    cannot move our fishery around to find other fish that are
    healthier for us to eat.
        I want to bring your attention to some comments regarding
    the state of salmon restoration in the Columbia River Basin.
    First, I want to point out that the Columbia River, or Nch'i-
    Wana, which means Big River, once produced more salmon than any
    other river basin in the world. Now, it produces more
    electricity.
        Obviously, we have had more problems in the Columbia River
    Basin than we ever expected when we signed our treaties in
    1855. We have had a major crisis occur in the mid-1990s when
    several species were listed under the Endangered Species Act.
    There is no doubt that our recovery efforts are complicated. We
    have found ways to achieve some level of success with
    increasing populations. However, no salmon species have been
    de-listed to this point. In fact, just a month or so ago, we
    have had another listing of smelt in the Lower Columbia River.
        Another species of extreme concern to the tribes is Pacific
    Lamprey, which are also declining at an alarming rate. So while
    we have made progress in some areas, we haven't made enough
    progress to get to full recovery.
        After the listings in the 1990s, the Columbia River Inter-
    Tribal Fish Commission sponsored a report called Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi
    Wa-Kish-Wit, which stands for Spirit of the Salmon. That is our
    gravel-to-gravel management plan to restore salmon in the
    Columbia River Basin.
        There is no doubt that there is a major Federal investment
    in the Columbia River Basin to restore salmon. However, one
    very major missing link to the puzzle is a coordinated basin-
    wide approach to addressing toxics in the Columbia River.
        In 1991, we signed a cooperative agreement with the
    Environmental Protection Agency for a two-phased approach to
    address toxics in the Columbia River. The first phase was to
    complete this study, which is to evaluate the consumption rate
    of salmon that we are eating, and we found out that our members
    were eating approximately nine times more fish than the general
    public.
        The second phase was to look at the contaminants that were
    in the fish tissue. And so this was phase two, which was
    completed in 2002. What we found out was that there are
    significant concerns with the criteria to protect our people.
    The criteria that is currently established protects the general
    public, but not our tribes. These findings are referenced in
    the proposed legislation.
        I would like to turn my attention to the Columbia River
    Restoration Act. First of all, I want to applaud the efforts
    for this legislation. It is sorely needed in the Columbia River
    Basin. Nch'i-Wana is a major river. It is a huge river
    worldwide. It deserves to be protected.
        There has been a significant lack of attention to toxics in
    the Columbia River Basin, and we stand here ready to assist you
    and the Committee any way we can to improve this legislation to
    address comments that we heard earlier today from the
    Congressional panel.
        We do have three recommendations on the bill. The first is
    to provide that the EPA Regional Administrator be in charge, be
    the primary leader in the bill. We have concerns about the
    allocation of funds and programmatic authority. We want to have
    a discussion about increasing financial resources in up-river
    locations. And third, we think that a single Columbia River
    Basin strategic planning document is needed, and we suggest
    that EPA's Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Plan should be
    that plan. We fully support LCREP in their initiatives. They
    have a wonderful management plan that should be nested there as
    well.
        I would like to turn my comments, if I could, for a little
    bit longer to address some concerns that were raised by the
    Congressional panel. Is that all right?
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry?
        Mr. Lumley. Some concerns that were raised by the
    Congressional panel? I know I am out of time, but if I could
    just address their concerns real quickly?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
        Mr. Lumley. Thank you.
        We share the concerns that contaminants in the estuary have
    long been overlooked. However, we cannot ignore the fact that a
    substantial amount of contaminants in the estuary originate
    from sources throughout the Columbia River Basin. We also do
    not want this bill to compromise collaborative efforts or legal
    positions. The bill as drafted did not intend to do that.
        We are prepared to work with you to improve the language.
    The intent of the bill is to add value to collaboration, reduce
    contamination, and contribute to salmon restoration.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank
    you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for being brief, and thank you
    for that testimony.
        Ms. Marriott?
        Ms. Marriott. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the
    Committee. My name is Debrah Marriott. I am Executive Director
    of the Estuary Partnership. I would like to thank you and
    Congressman Blumenauer for your leadership in protecting our
    estuaries and great waters.
        This bill does address the Columbia Basin as a large
    aquatic ecosystem, a status it shares with the Chesapeake Bay,
    Great Lakes, Everglades and the Gulf of Mexico. It unites the
    Columbia Basin as a whole, including the NEP, the National
    Estuary Program in the lower 146 miles. The Columbia NEP and
    the large aquatic ecosystem are not the same geography. The NEP
    is nested within the larger basin.
        The Columbia, as you have heard, is the fourth largest
    river in North America; 8 million people, 2,000 species live
    here and depend on it. It provides 75 percent of the power for
    the Northwest. Sales from farm and ranch exceed $10 billion a
    year and it carries $13 billion worth of cargo a year.
        You have heard today about its degradation. Ninety-two
    priority pollutants have been identified. The entire main stem
    is impaired. Thirteen species of salmonid are listed as
    threatened or endangered. Legacy toxics are still present in
    fish, sediment and water quality. New contaminants in flame
    retardants and pharmaceuticals are causing male fish to morph
    to females within their life cycle, and other contaminants have
    impaired the reproduction of male river otters.
        Contaminants that start far up in the basin end up
    deposited in lower river ports, putting our port operations at
    risk. The loss of fish has decimated our commercial fishing
    industry, dropping from $41 million in personal income in 1980
    to $4 million by 1998. The fish consumption rates of tribal
    people are high.
        We have conducted many one-time studies that give a very
    clear snapshot of the problems. The planning has been done. We
    have six Federal plans, and our management plan, and the State
    recovery plans that all call for restoring habitat and reducing
    toxics.
        The infrastructure is in place. The Estuary Partnership has
    15 years working in the lower river. We have done a lot with
    restoration; EPA has four years of working with the Toxic
    Reduction Working Group in the upper basin.
        In the lower river, EPA has invested approximately $4
    million in the Estuary Partnership since 2000. We have
    leveraged that to bring another $20 million, and with that we
    have restored 16,000 acres of habitat, mostly targeted for
    salmonid fish. It restores less than half of what we have lost
    in settlement.
        There is no sustained monitoring on the main stem Columbia
    and no concerted toxic reduction effort. As we have learned
    more about the problems, we have actually been investing less.
    We know what we need to do. All of these studies tell us that
    we need to collect and analyze a full suite of contaminants at
    the same locations at regular intervals over time. We need to
    expand toxic reduction collection sites for farmers, mercury
    collection on tribal lands, and pharmaceuticals to keep them
    out of the water and out of the hands of teens.
        The States have increased their investments in the water
    bodies within their States, but the Columbia mainstem lags
    behind and the estuary lags even further behind. Of the $877
    million invested by Bonneville Power in five years from 2004 to
    2009, less than 7 percent was in the lower river. This needs to
    be reversed.
        Every threatened and endangered salmonid in the entire
    basin uses the estuary at least twice in their life cycle. They
    are contaminated and their habitat is contaminated. Fifteen
    years ago, we identified over two dozen toxic hot spots in the
    lower river. We need to clean them up and we need Federal
    assistance to help us do that.
        We would suggest adding language to codify EPA's current
    stakeholder process using an NEP model in the whole basin to
    ensure a community-based process. It has been tested and it is
    trusted in the lower river. It ensures all interests are
    considered. It focuses on results and it is completely
    voluntary.
        This bill recognizes the basin as one geography. The
    Estuary Partnership is part of EPA's basin efforts. Keeping
    those linked for consistency is critical. Implementation can
    happen effectively through existing entities to keep momentum
    and recognize local needs. The bill sets a unified approach and
    it begins to reverse the lack of investment in the estuary, at
    least in the initial years.
        Funds targeted to us go out to local partners. We set the
    regional strategic prioritization with them and provide
    coordination. The 75 percent cost share is essential to local
    partners. This secures the region. It keeps ports operational.
    Every $2.5 million in restoration creates 55 jobs, from
    construction laborers for bridge repairs to foresters. It aids
    farmers and it opens markets for local supplies.
        It is a national priority. The Columbia is an estuary of
    national significance and the entire basin is a great water
    body, a large aquatic ecosystem. Yet unlike the Great Lakes or
    Chesapeake, we receive no funding pursuant to it. These
    problems have been here for a while. They come from many
    different activities. They can't be corrected in one or two
    years, and the current investment does not match the magnitude
    of the problem.
        This holds us accountable to our kids and it lets us take
    action now.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, Ms.
    Marriott.
        And now, Senator Dingfelder. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Dingfelder. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and
    Members of the Committee. My name is Jackie Dingfelder. I am a
    member of the Oregon State Senate, and I chair the Senate
    Environment and Natural Resources Committee back in my State.
        I represent Senate District 23, which includes portions of
    northeast and southeast Portland and is adjacent to the
    Columbia River.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
    Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010.
        The State of Oregon has made significant investments even
    in these difficult economic times to improve watershed health
    within our State. Most notably during the 2007 legislative
    session, the legislature increased funding to our Oregon
    Department of Environmental Quality known as DEQ to institute a
    statewide Toxics Reduction Program.
        As part of this program, DEQ is working in 18 basins
    throughout the State to monitor for toxic pollutants in water
    fish and sediment, and the agency is assessing current use of
    legacy pesticides, industrial chemicals, chemical byproducts,
    pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
        In 2008, Oregon targeted the Willamette River basin for
    toxics monitoring and reductions, and the State is currently
    looking at about 20 sites that are sampled twice a year. It
    costs the State about $1 million a year, so we are making those
    investments.
        Some of the findings so far include high levels of
    herbicides, which was the most frequently detected class of
    pesticides in surface water. Pharmaceuticals were detected at
    low concentrations; heavy metals such as copper, lead, arsenic,
    silver and zinc; levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, and these
    were measured in composites of fish fileted offsite; and also
    combined mixture of dioxins and purons in fish. And last but
    not least, we found pesticides that were detected at above the
    EPA screening levels. And this is of great concern to us.
        Mercury concentrations in fish tissue has significantly
    increased from 2002 to 2008 when it was found at concentrations
    that exceeded screening levels established by the EPA for
    subsistence fishers and often exceeded the threshold value used
    by the Oregon Department of Human Services to issue fish
    consumption advisories.
        Although these are findings from the Willamette River, it
    eventually flows into the Columbia River. Thus, we are
    concerned about contaminants that are also entering the
    Columbia River system.
        The State of Washington shares many of Oregon's concerns
    regarding the Columbia River and in fact Washington is making
    its own investments in improved water quality. Yet, the State
    simply cannot provide all the needed resources that are
    required to protect this most important river system. The
    Columbia River is, after all, as I am sure you are well aware,
    a shared water body, a Federal navigable waterway, a major U.S.
    transportation port, and a national treasure.
        Federal investments in the lower river and estuary are
    considerably less than what has been made in the remainder of
    the basin. Currently, the Bonneville Power Administration is a
    major funder through the Biological Opinion, and their
    investments have been focused for decades above the Bonneville
    Dam. In fact, EPA began investing in lower river only as
    recently as 2003, and has targeted less than 7 percent of its
    entire funding source to that area.
        The unfortunate reality is that the Lower Columbia River
    and estuary are significantly impaired. And this impairment is
    due to contaminants entering the river below Bonneville,
    notably from the Willamette River and from runoff from the 31
    towns in the lower river, but also from contaminants that start
    far up in the basin and ended up deposited in lower river
    sites.
        As you have already heard, every ESA listed threatened and
    endangered salmonid migrates through the estuary at least twice
    in their life cycle, and I am also sure that you are very aware
    of the economic challenges facing States. Oregon has one of the
    highest unemployment rates in the Nation. Washington is not far
    behind.
        This bill will provide a major investment in reducing
    toxics and cleaning up the Lower Columbia River, but this bill
    will also be a central component to our economic recovery. As
    we work to improve the Columbia, we can provide immediate jobs
    through work as monitoring, analysis and other cleanup
    activities. Plus, this bill secures our region's long-term
    economic advantages; cleans up the sediment and water quality
    to bring back fish and keep ports operational; and provides
    cleanup assistance to farmers to keep them producing and
    shipping products to international markets.
        We need to act now to improve the Lower Columbia River and
    estuary. Our region has developed many plans over the past 10
    years and they all say the same thing: restore habitat and
    reduce toxics. I am confident that the Columbia River
    Restoration Act of 2010 will greatly assist us in reaching this
    goal, and I urge support of this bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I
    would be happy to answer any questions.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Senator. I am very interested
    in what your State legislature has done in the past to go after
    the potentially responsible parties for pollution, and also
    whether or not the potentially responsible parties are part of
    the solution, as well as provide training for the agricultural
    folks in terms of use of pesticides and fertilizers, and then
    on to educating the general public as to what they can do to
    not flush stuff down the toilet or to be able to be more
    careful about things that are polluting our waters.
        Are you embarking on that? Are you including the business
    community? Are you doing outreach to the general public to
    begin to tell them how vital your river is to the health and
    welfare and your economic well being?
        Ms. Dingfelder. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
    Committee. Again, State Senator Jackie Dingfelder and thank you
    for that question.
        The State of Oregon has made great investments in watershed
    health in both protecting and upgrading our watersheds.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am not talking about the investments. I
    am talking about the outreach.
        Ms. Dingfelder. As part of those investments, we have
    funded grassroots Watershed Councils. We have over 90 Watershed
    Councils in the State of Oregon. I will say that Washington
    also does a lot of grassroots work.
        And one of the main themes that these grassroots
    organizations are doing is outreach in education with the
    business community, with the farming community, with the
    forestry industry, basically all the stakeholders that operate
    within these watersheds.
        I myself served as a Watershed Coordinator for several
    years prior to joining the State Senate, so I know first-hand
    about the work that is being done.
        Certainly, more can be done. Always, prevention is the best
    investment because it is a lot less expensive than cleaning up
    afterwards and restoring our rivers and stream sites.
        So we have 15 percent of our lottery funds in the State are
    dedicated towards this purpose currently.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But are you going after the potential
    polluters is my question.
        Ms. Dingfelder. Madam Chair and Committee Members,
    absolutely. We have a very aggressive program through our
    Department of Environmental Quality. We have a voluntary
    cleanup program and of course work very closely with USEPA in
    our Superfund program. We have a very aggressive Portland
    Harbor cleanup as well.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And I would ask the same question of the
    Supervisor and of any of the others who care to answer that,
    the cleanup part of the solution would be the potential
    responsible parties for that pollution. And sometimes they
    disappear because it is years down the road. However, there
    still has to be made an effort to be able to have that funding
    so EPA can do a better job.
        Anybody?
        Mr. Gioia. Just a note. There is always an aggressive goal
    of going after those who are the responsible parties. As you
    know, sometimes Federal law dictates how far local agencies can
    go. Sometimes it is State law.
        In the case of the oil spill that occurred in San Francisco
    Bay within the last couple of years, there is a lot of effort
    by a number of agencies to go after responsible parties. So
    that is always part of it.
        And in California, when the Regional Boards find polluters,
    that money gets used as well for restoration or public
    education or outreach of creek cleanups. So I know that one
    funding source we use for restoration are the fines that are
    levied against those who actually do the polluting.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Supervisor Gioia, you mentioned in your
    testimony the Bay Area's Regional Water Quality Control Board
    recently issued a regional stormwater permit for Bay Area
    counties. Could you elaborate some more on this permit and
    explain what the benefits of this approach are? And is there a
    way to incorporate the approach into the San Francisco Bay Area
    Estuary Program?
        Mr. Gioia. Yes, thank you for the question.
        I think we have been very progressive in the Bay Area about
    looking at how this development occurs in ways that have the
    least impact on the bay. And the Regional Water Quality Control
    Board came up with a permit which mandates that a number of
    actions be taken by local cities and counties when development
    gets approved.
        The positive part of that is the steps that must be taken
    will improve runoff and reduce pollution into the bay. The
    challenge is that it costs a significant amount of money to
    implement that rule. And so that burden is falling on local
    agencies, and any help from a Federal investment will allow all
    of us to achieve that goal quicker.
        For example, requirements with regard to impervious
    surfaces, that has been incorporated so that we don't have as
    much runoff into the bay. But again, because the Bay Area is
    also looking at having more infill development, what we have is
    a situation where the cost of these new regulations, which we
    all want to see, we are all looking at the best way to raise
    funds to implement those so that good development happens.
        And probably the most promising thing that has happened in
    the Bay Area there is the establishment of the San Francisco
    Bay Restoration Authority. A couple of years ago, Save San
    Francisco Bay Association did a study and basically recommended
    and sponsored this legislation that sets up one regional
    government agency in the Bay Area to work on wetland
    restoration and most importantly to raise local dollars to do
    that.
        I serve as Vice Chair of that and we are currently looking
    at polling to put a measure on the ballot in the Bay Area where
    local residents will participate in the funding of wetland
    restoration and any Federal investment will greatly, greatly
    increase the likelihood of local voters putting up local
    dollars, so the leverage factor is really important.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But do you have the ability to enforce?
        Mr. Gioia. We do. Yes. And the great work has already been
    done. The Estuary Partnerships plan. So we have done all the
    planning. We have done all the work. We just need some
    additional investment. And we are fully willing to have our
    local communities help foot the bill. We are not shying away
    from that. But the Federal investment will just be the third
    leg to the stool: Federal, State and local investment.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Many years ago, I remember going into San
    Francisco and seeing on the sidewalks in some areas the little
    fish stencil right on the drainage areas. I thought what a
    great idea, because people don't realize that that goes into
    the ocean and the rivers.
        Mr. Gioia. Right. And that has been one of the stormwater
    management policies, to educate the public to understand that
    what goes on the roadways into the storm drain system ends up
    in the bay.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Mr. Boozman?
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Gioia, in your testimony, you said it takes a two-
    thirds vote from property owners in the Bay Area to increase
    fees or rates in order to provide improvements to stormwater. I
    guess we sit here week after week listening to testimony from
    all over the Country with areas like this. And I am from
    Arkansas, and we are blessed. We have a number of not
    estuaries, but we have a number of areas that are in need of
    this or that.
        And I guess our concern is that it is so difficult for you
    all to participate. It almost seems like we want Federal
    funding.
        Mr. Gioia. No, that is not what we are saying. I think
    first of all, as you know in many States, it is elected
    officials at the State and local level that can actually raise
    the fees to run stormwater programs. We are unique in
    California. It is just harder to raise those funds.
        We are not saying that we don't want to do that and the
    public wouldn't support that. We are just saying it takes a
    little more effort. And in fact, the effort to set up the
    Restoration Authority is a perfect example of where our local
    voters want to step forward and fund restoration activities
    themselves.
        It is just that there is a greater challenge, and what we
    are saying is we would be able to raise even more local dollars
    with the leverage of Federal investments. Because in many
    States, you don't need to go to the voters. You can get the
    leverage by having an elected official vote to increase fees,
    and then attract Federal dollars.
        We are just saying we have to show the public. It is a
    little higher threshold and we are prepared to do it, but we
    want to partner with the Federal agencies.
        Mr. Boozman. Of course, what is going to happen eventually,
    the EPA is going to make you do it.
        Mr. Gioia. On stormwater? You are talking now about the
    stormwater control issues? We already have requirements now
    with the regional permit to implement a higher standard. And
    local agencies are paying for it currently.
        Mr. Boozman. I am sorry. I don't mean to interrupt.
        Mr. Gioia. Yes, sure.
        Mr. Boozman. Again, I understand what you are saying.
    Again, in Arkansas the City Council can vote and raise the
    other. Do you have any alternative financing schemes that you
    have looked at in lieu of maybe not doing it in the
    conventional way?
        Mr. Gioia. There has been foundations and private
    businesses. And foundations have stepped forward to partially
    fund restoration projects around San Francisco Bay. They have
    also said we are willing to leverage our dollars with State,
    local and Federal dollars. We have issued bonds.
        So I think we are probably the only metropolitan area in
    the Country that has established this new mechanism to place
    one measure on the ballot in all nine counties among all 7.5
    million residents to be able to vote on this issue. So again,
    we are willing to step forward. That is new as well, but yes,
    we are being as creative as we can.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay. I think Ms. Kelly testified that there
    were $7 billion worth of economic benefits. Is that correct?
        Ms. Kelly. As I recall that part of my testimony, I think I
    was referring to something specific relative to the visitors
    impact.
        Mr. Boozman. Yes, exactly.
        Ms. Kelly. Just the visitors impact.
        Mr. Boozman. So I guess what I am saying is it is a
    tremendous resource that is generating a tremendous amount of
    money. And it is a challenge. I mean, we have to take care of
    it, but it is a tremendous revenue generator also for the area.
        Mr. Lumley, changes in the operation of some of the dams in
    the Columbia River Basin has led to progress in salmon
    recovery. How has this affected some of the other activities in
    the basin? For instance, has this led to loss of hydropower
    generation? And if so, how to residents in the basin now get
    their power?
        Mr. Lumley. I don't believe that there is a limitation on
    the amount of power that is being provided to the residents.
    There are alternative sources. I don't know if you have driven
    through the Columbia River in recent times.
        Mr. Boozman. No, if we could get on the stick and have a
    trip to check things out.
        Mr. Gioia. You have to come to San Francisco Bay as well.
        Mr. Boozman. I agree.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And put it to the Chair.
        Mr. Boozman. And there truly is no substitute for actually
    getting out and seeing the areas that you are talking about. I
    agree totally.
        Mr. Lumley. And I would welcome a field hearing. I would be
    happy to do whatever I can to assist you in that endeavor.
        If you drive through the Columbia River, you will see a
    series of dams and you will also see on the hilltops a series
    of wind turbines that produce wind power. So we have a
    plentiful source of renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest.
        There were changes to the way the hydropower system was
    managed, and it was a result of the listings of salmon under
    the Endangered Species Act, but it hasn't provided any kind of
    dramatic downfall of the amount of electricity that is being
    provided to the public in the Northwest.
        So we found ways to manage the Columbia River in a manner
    that is more protective of salmon, at the same time providing
    enough funds for a mitigation program to help keep the salmon
    from going extinct and to rebuild salmon runs.
        Mr. Boozman. Very good.
        Final question. Ms. Marriott, 40 percent of the funds are
    to go to the Estuary Partnership in the bill to manage
    implementation of the plan. Can you tell us a little bit more
    what that means?
        Ms. Marriott. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I
    would be happy to. The bill as it is currently drafted would
    set 40 percent of the future appropriations to the lower river.
    That is in part because the lower river through the National
    Estuary Program is a little bit further ahead in knowing where
    we need to invest those funds than the upper basin effort that
    EPA has been working on in the past four years. We are a little
    bit more ready to go, essentially.
        Where it would go, the first ask that we would make through
    an appropriations would request several million dollars to
    establish a network of monitoring at 26 sites for a full suite
    of contaminants. We would invest also with Oregon DEQ and
    Washington Department of Ecology in hosting take-back programs
    for farmers, pesticide take-back programs, pharmaceutical take-
    back programs.
        We would do consumer education, Madam Chair, to help people
    understand how to dispose of these materials and then also talk
    about some of the impacts of our daily activities on stormwater
    runoff and some of those problems associated with that.
        That is where we would make our initial investment with
    these resources.
        Mr. Boozman. So would Oregon DEQ, would they help decide
    that and EPA? Or would that just be the pretty much at your
    all's discretion?
        Ms. Marriott. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, the
    Estuary Partnership management plan was developed by a large
    stakeholder group. Our governing body is a stakeholder group
    that is comprised of Federal, State, local and tribal
    officials, as well as other public and private interests.
        We are accountable to EPA. That management plan is reviewed
    by them periodically to ensure that we are consistent with the
    Clean Water Act in helping them implement aspects of the Clean
    Water Act.
        The monitoring program in particular has been developed by
    a subset of our management group, our Science Work Group, which
    is comprised of over 40 scientists from our region, again from
    the public and private sectors. They are the ones who have
    looked at the data, looked at where the problems are, and put
    together a monitoring strategy for us.
        Mr. Boozman. Okay.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
        I would like to then ask a couple of questions of Mr.
    Lumley, if you wouldn't mind.
        In your testimony on page four, you write that water
    quality standards for toxics are traditionally based on
    consumption rates for non-Indians. Could you elaborate a little
    more on that and provide some kind of explanation of what you
    mean and what the public health implications are for the tribal
    members that you represent?
        I know there are a lot of contaminants. Have there been any
    assessments to review the health and welfare of the tribes and
    how they have been able to determine that?
        Mr. Lumley. Thank you for the question. Excellent question.
    Thank you.
        The criteria are established by Federal and State
    standards. It is for the general public. But there are certain
    subsets anywhere in the public that tend to consume natural
    resources more than others. The Columbia River Basin tribes are
    not the only group of individuals out there who consume large
    amounts of salmon. There are other ethnic groups that also
    consume large amounts. However, the tribes consume more than
    any other group that we are aware of, between 6 percent and 11
    times more.
        So the criteria that was established for the general public
    is not sufficient for protection of the tribes. The Umatilla
    Tribe in particular has been working with Oregon Department of
    Environmental Quality to change the State standards, and it
    looks like that will be increased by about 10 times, and that
    will be more protective for the tribal population.
        Salmon are a healthy source of omega 3 fatty acids, and I
    do not recommend to our members to stop eating fish. There
    might be different ways to consume them, but the Columbia
    Inter-Tribal Fish Commission is not a public health agency and
    I would defer any specific comments on public health to the
    tribes to get back to you through the process of having an open
    record on this hearing.
        But there are concerns about certain populations in
    specific areas where there is a high consumption in areas that
    are known to have high contaminants, and that is a public
    health concern for some of our tribes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Has the BIA or any of the tribal entities
    had any reviews of the health effects that the contaminants
    might have on the tribes, especially the ones that consume more
    salmon than others?
        Mr. Lumley. I am not aware of any comprehensive study that
    looks at the salmon as a cause for, say, higher cancer rates.
    Perhaps we should be conducting more studies like that, but you
    have to look at the entire lifestyle and food that is consumed
    by tribes. You have to separate out salmon, which should be a
    very difficult study.
        There was talk about a phase three approach with the
    Environmental Protection Agency, but there didn't appear to be
    any funding to take it to that level.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And you also mentioned in your statement
    it is beginning to affect the smelt.
        Mr. Lumley. Contamination, not necessarily. Well, it may or
    may not be affecting smelt. My point, though, is that even
    though we are making progress for recovering salmon
    populations, our work isn't done yet for protecting all fishes
    in the Columbia River Basin. In fact, some are being still
    listed. The smelt is a population of fish that have just
    recently been listed by the Endangered Species Act. I fear that
    the Pacific lamprey, a traditional food of the tribes, might be
    listed next. So there is still quite a bit of work to do to
    recover fish in general.
        Mrs. Napolitano. My mind is slipping. The Bay Delta issue
    with the water pump up north of Sacramento has involved the
    endangered species of Delta smelt that has been diminishing
    rapidly and furiously. At first, it was thought that it was
    only the pumping that was killing the fish because they loved
    the cold water near the pump.
        It is now more evident that there are many other effects
    that are causing the decline of the Delta smelt. Part of it is
    the toxins, whether it is the different things that we have
    already mentioned; also, the warming of the waters; as well as
    the invasive species that have been introduced into the rivers.
        So many of those things have been found already in our
    area. You might want to maybe compare notes to see what might
    be the cause of some of the effects of the decline of the smelt
    in your area.
        But it is a problem and we need to get to the bottom of it
    and begin to look for whether it is the contaminants, the
    pesticides and the fertilizers, or the other toxins that are
    discharged into the river; whether it is untreated sewage,
    waste and many other things that we look at.
        So Ms. Kelly, in earlier testimony, EPA's Deputy Assistant
    Administrator stated that Federal efforts to improve water
    quality in the San Francisco Bay are ongoing, but serious
    environmental challenges still remain. And from your
    organization's perspective, why are ongoing State and Federal
    efforts not currently sufficient to address these impairments?
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairwoman.
        There are a couple of aspects to the question I just want
    to touch upon. One of the things that I think it is healthy for
    us to remember, in the program we sometimes feel like we are
    Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill. But we are in an
    estuary that has had incredibly rapid development for the last
    20 years.
        And the fact that we actually have had improvements in a
    lot of areas, and yet had millions of more people within the
    watershed develop homes there and businesses there, and roads
    and networks, is actually I think something of a testament to
    how well we are actually doing in the face of some of these
    assaults on the environment. So that was one point I just
    wanted to stress.
        I think your question is more towards what are the things
    that we would do continuing now with new Federal funds. We
    mentioned, as the panel has mentioned, a couple of
    opportunities, especially relative to the 36,000 acres that are
    currently being held in public ownership are just waiting. They
    are permitted. They are waiting for funding to actually be
    restored, which will help with water quality. It will help in
    our efforts to protect our communities against a rising tide.
    And of course, it does wonderful things for the fish and
    critters that live in those environments, to restore those
    habitats. So that is a priority for us.
        We also have areas around the bay and the watershed where
    we know that there are toxic hot spots. I was mentioning
    earlier to someone there is an entire watershed, the Guadalupe
    Watershed in the southern part of San Francisco Bay had a
    historic mercury mine in the upper watershed of that bay. In
    fact, it is written in a wonderful book by Wallace Stegner,
    Angle of Repose.
        The beginning of that book actually takes place in this
    mercury mine, which is one of the largest we had in the Nation.
    During the gold mining, they needed mercury to extract the gold
    and it is part of the area that they got the mercury from.
        So we have this incredible legacy pollutant system, if you
    will, around the bay. And we know where some of those toxic hot
    spots are. We would like to get those sediments out of our
    rivers that are continuing to contribute sources even as we
    speak into the bay proper.
        So we have an opportunity to take action along those lines.
    And as Mr. Gioia mentioned, we do have this new regional
    permit. We are working. The Partnership is working with 101 bay
    cities on looking for ways to reduce the trash impact. In fact,
    we have a whole process right now and a project working with
    the bay cities to put trash capture devices around many of the
    cities to try to address that.
        So we are working in a number of fronts.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
        And now for last questions, and thank you for bearing with
    me.
        Ms. Marriott, you mention in your testimony that the
    Columbia River watershed lies within the largest urban area in
    the State of Oregon, and the second largest urban area in the
    State of Washington.
        What is the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
    currently doing to address the impacts of polluted stormwater
    runoff from these urbanized areas? And how do you envision a
    more robust program will aid in the effort to address
    stormwater runoff?
        Ms. Marriott. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee,
    thank you very much.
        One of our partners is the City of Portland, and another is
    Clark County and Vancouver on the Washington side of the river.
    We are working with them to I guess celebrate is a word we like
    to use, celebrate the development that is occurring that is
    what we call water quality friendly, where they are retaining
    stormwater onsite, preventing runoff, eliminating runoff of
    contaminated water into the streams that feed into the Columbia
    and the Columbia main stem.
        We do a lot of what we call peer to peer workshops so we
    will meet with developers and have developers that are aware of
    these and using these techniques, talk to their colleagues who
    aren't using them, to share how you do it, how it is cost-
    effective, et cetera.
        The City of Portland is actually known nationally for its
    work in sustainability and green infrastructure, with eco-roofs
    and rain collection sites. Green Streets is a huge program as
    well.
        So we are trying to take those lessons and share them
    through our entire study area, both electronically using the
    Web to do that, as well as in our workshops throughout our city
    area.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much for answering that
    last question because to me the important question is how do we
    partner, what do we do?
        But to all the witnesses and to everybody here who have
    been so patient, thank you for your testimony. There will be an
    open period, I believe it is 10 business days, for any
    additional testimony and anybody who is of the Committee, of
    the panel, or of the general public who wishes to add to this
    hearing can submit it in writing to this Committee within 10
    business working days.
        So with that, thank you so very much everybody, and this
    hearing is now concluded.
        [Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]