[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]