[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman
JERRY LEWIS, California JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
KEN CALVERT, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
TOM COLE, Oklahoma JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
David LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Jason Gray,
Erica Rhoad, and Colin Vickery,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 6
Page
Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior.... 1
Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection
Agency............................................................ 149
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing. 247
Department of the Interior FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing...... 547
National Park Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........... 707
Bureau of Land Management FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing....... 763
Office of Surface Mining FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........ 855
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 6
MMCDOI
MMCEPA
EPA
DOI
NPS
BLM
OSM
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman
JERRY LEWIS, California JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
KEN CALVERT, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
TOM COLE, Oklahoma JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
David LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Jason Gray,
Erica Rhoad, and Colin Vickery,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 6
Page
Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior.... 1
Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection
Agency............................................................ 149
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing. 247
Department of the Interior FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing...... 547
National Park Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........... 707
Bureau of Land Management FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing....... 763
Office of Surface Mining FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........ 855
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-892 WASHINGTON : 2011
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\ NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JERRY LEWIS, California \1\ MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
KAY GRANGER, Texas ED PASTOR, Arizona
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DENNY REHBERG, Montana SAM FARR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JO BONNER, Alabama SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi
----------
1}}Chairman Emeritus
William B. Inglee, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
----------
Tuesday, March 1, 2011.
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WITNESSES
ANU MITTAL, DIRECTOR, THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION,
GAO
FRANK RUSCO, DIRECTOR, THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION,
GAO
MARY KENDALL, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order.
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
I want to welcome the members of the subcommittee that are
here as well as our panel of witnesses this morning from the
Government Accountability Office and the Department of
Interior's Office of Inspector General. We have about three new
members of the committee that we will introduce when they come,
Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Flake and Mr. Serrano, who are new to the
Interior Subcommittee, and we will introduce them when they
come and welcome them to the committee.
Our first witness today is Ms. Anu Mittal, Director of the
Natural Resources and Environment Division at the GAO. She will
be joined by Dr. Frank Rusco, also Director of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Division at the GAO. They will be
followed by Mrs. Mary Kendall, the Acting Inspector General at
the Department of Interior. We appreciate each of you appearing
before the subcommittee this morning.
This morning's session marks the first of two dozen
hearings that the Interior Subcommittee will hold between now
and mid-April. Our primary focus throughout these hearings will
be on oversight of the programs and budgets under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. Oversight is especially important
this year as we ask agencies to prioritize their funding needs
to separate the ``must haves'' from the ``nice to haves'' at
this time of rising deficits and shrinking subcommittee
allocations.
Assisting us in this effort will be the highly respected,
nonpartisan GAO and several independent agency IGs. In hearings
today, tomorrow and next week, we will examine in detail
programmatic concerns and management issues within the
Department of Interior, the Forest Service and the EPA. We have
asked our witnesses to identify and summarize specific concerns
about programs and policies within each agency. Together, the
GAO and the agencies' IGs will testify about the major
management challenges facing these agencies so our subcommittee
will be better informed to address these challenges and better
prepared to write the subcommittee's fiscal year 2012 budget.
The issues highlighted by this morning's testimony point to
some of the fundamental weaknesses within the Department of
Interior deserving of attention by the Appropriations Committee
and this Congress. The same is true for the testimony we will
receive tomorrow relating to the EPA and next week relating to
the Forest Service. Taken together, this testimony will help
members formulate questions when we hear from EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson at this Thursday's budget hearing and from
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the Forest Service Chief Tom
Tidwell at next week's budget hearings.
Because of the importance of today's testimony, the
subcommittee is allocating 15 minutes each for the GAO and the
IG for opening statements so that they can adequately present
their concerns for members. We will first hear from the GAO and
then from the Inspector General followed by members' questions.
I will turn the time over to Ms. McCollum if you have an
opening statement.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.
It is extremely important for Congress and especially the
members of this subcommittee to base decisions on facts, and we
need to gain the insights of the GAO and understand the work of
you folks here to ensure that the departments are well run,
efficient, and we are being wise with the public's money and we
earn the public's trust.
We all know that Interior is directly responsible for
carrying over 500 million acres. That is about 20 percent of
America's lands. We know that this Department generates more
revenue, largely from oil, gas and coal, than it spends. And it
also holds a sacred responsibility to fulfill the government's
trust and obligations to America's first people.
You cannot balance the federal budget on the back of this
Department, and I agree, we do need to see that each and every
federal dollar is wisely spent but we also need to invest
properly in the management of our priceless resources. The
fragile nature of our current economic recovery and, quite
frankly, of our environment, means that the decisions we make
in this room have a real impact on America, especially in the
West and the South where climate change is altering landscapes,
forests and fresh sources of water.
It would appear, based on today's testimony, that existing
law and policy does not pay America's taxpayers a fair market
price for the extensive fossil fuel, hard-rock minerals,
grazing rights that industry extracts from public lands. It
indicates to me that we need to invest in this part of America
and we need to invest wisely to manage the resources, not just
cut budgets.
I want to thank the GAO for their views on this and the
inspectors because we need to have better management of oil and
gas, both onshore and offshore. If we did not learn anything,
we should have learned from close scrutiny of the BP Transocean
oil disaster, that we need to be more mindful, more diligent
and we need to have more oversight on these issues.
Mr. Chair, I am glad you are having this hearing today and
I hope we can learn how to invest in America wisely and
safeguard the resources we have for future generations.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Mittal, it is your turn.
Testimony of Anu K. Mittal and Frank Rusco
Ms. Mittal. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
we are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing
on the major management challenges of the Department of the
Interior. Our testimony today is an update of our March 2009
testimony before this subcommittee. Specifically, we will
discuss management challenges in seven key areas. I will cover
six of the areas that relate to the overall management of
Interior's programs and then my colleague, Frank Rusco, will
cover the seventh area related to Interior's oil and gas
program, which, as you know, GAO just added to its high-risk
list.
The first area of management challenges that I would like
to cover relates to Interior's resource protection functions.
In fulfilling these functions, Interior has faced a number of
challenges in the past and we believe will continue to face
additional ones in the future. Based on our recent work, I
would like to highlight three specific resource protection
challenges.
First is the continuing challenge of protecting lives,
property and resources from wildland fires. While Interior
partnering with the Forest Service has taken some actions to
better respond to the wildland fire problem, a significant
amount of work remains to be done and many of the
recommendations that we have made in the past have not yet been
fully implemented.
The second resource protection challenge is that of
protecting federal land and water resources from the effects of
climate change. While Interior has begun to consider measures
that would strengthen the resilience of natural resources in
the face of climate change, we believe that in a fiscally
constrained environment, the Department will be challenged in
setting priorities and making resource allocation decisions to
address these impacts.
The third resource protection challenge relates to
protecting and securing federal lands from illegal activities.
Our recent work has found that although Interior agencies
consider information on the occurrence and effects of illegal
activities on federal lands, the agencies do not systematically
assess the risk posed by such activities when determining their
needs for resources and making resource allocation decisions.
The second area of major management challenges relates to
weaknesses in Interior's management of Indian and insular area
programs. For several years we have identified a variety of
issues that Interior faces with these programs. For example,
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to face
challenges in processing land and trust applications, and
Interior's Office of Insular Affairs continues to face
challenges in providing assistance to insular areas. Our recent
work has again highlighted the longstanding nature of the
financial program management and economic challenges that the
insular areas face as well as concerns with Interior's
oversight of the programs for these areas and the potential
that this creates for mismanagement.
The third major management challenge for Interior has been
in the area of land sales, acquisitions and exchanges. Our
recent work has identified additional weaknesses in this area.
Specifically, we have concluded that Interior faces a number of
challenges in completing future land sales and acquisitions
under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, known as
FLTFA, and we have identified a number of weaknesses in how
Interior's Bureau of Land Management manages land exchanges. We
have made recommendations to both Congress and Interior to
address these concerns. While some steps have been taken to
better manage the land exchange program, several of our other
recommendations have not yet been implemented.
The fourth major management challenge relates to Interior's
ability to adequately maintain its facilities and
infrastructure. For fiscal year 2010, the Department estimated
that its deferred maintenance backlog was between $13.5 billion
and $19.9 billion. Again, in a fiscally constrained
environment, we believe that managing such a significant
deferred maintenance backlog will continue to be a challenge
for the Department.
The fifth major management challenge area for Interior is
the need to enhance its financial assurance and bonding
programs for mining and oil and gas operations. For example,
our recent work has shown that while Interior requires oil and
gas operators to reclaim the land they disturb and post a bond
to help ensure they do so, not all operators performed the
required reclamation and the minimum bond amounts have not been
increased in almost 50 years. We issued a report last Friday
that recommends that Interior take a number of steps to improve
its bonding program for oil and gas operators including
increasing the minimum bond amounts. Similarly, hard-rock
mining operators are required to provide financial assurances
before they begin exploration or mining on federal lands.
However, we have found that the amount of financial assurances
posted by these operators has been inadequate and does not
cover the full cost of reclamation.
Finally, I would like to cover a new major management
challenge that we have recently identified relating to
Interior's information security. With an information technology
budget of nearly $1 billion, Interior relies on its
computerized systems to carry out both its financial and
mission-related operators. However, our work has found that
Interior has been challenged to effectively protect its
computer systems and networks and has not consistently
implemented effective controls to prevent, limit and detect
unauthorized access to its systems. In addition, Interior has
not managed the configuration of network devices to prevent
unauthorized access and ensure system integrity. We have made a
number of recommendations that the Department has agreed and
plans to implement.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
like to now turn it over to Frank, who will complete our
testimony by presenting the management challenges with the oil
and gas program.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Rusco.
Mr. Rusco. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to speak about the
Department of the Interior's management of oil and gas produced
on public lands and waters. The Department of the Interior
manages the leasing of federal lands and waters for oil and gas
exploration, development and production. These activities
provide an important domestic source of energy for the United
States, create jobs in the oil and gas industry and raise
revenues that are shared between federal, state and tribal
entities.
Revenue generated from oil and gas produced from leased
federal lands and waters is one of the largest non-tax sources
of federal government revenue, accounting for about $9 billion
in royalties alone in 2009. The deadly explosion onboard the
Deepwater Horizon and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April
2010 emphasized the importance of federal management of
permitting and inspection processes to ensure operational and
environmental safety. The National Commission on the BP
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and offshore drilling reported in
January 2011 that this disaster was the product of several
individual missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton and
Transocean which government regulators lacked the authority,
the necessary resources and the technical expertise to prevent.
In recent years, GAO has undertaken numerous evaluations of
many aspects of Interior's management of federal oil and gas
and have found many material weaknesses that have hampered the
agency's ability to strike the right balance between
encouraging domestic oil and gas production on one hand and on
the other maintaining operational and environmental safety and
providing reasonable assurance that the public is getting the
revenues to which it is entitled. In particular, three areas of
concern caused the GAO to place Interior's management of
federal oil and gas on the high-risk list in 2011.
First, Interior has been unable to complete production
inspections, maintain reliable royalty and production data and
provide reasonable assurance that the public is receiving its
fair share of oil and gas revenues. For example, in 2010, we
reported that Interior had not consistently met its statutory
or agency goals for verifying that oil and gas producers
accurately report the volumes of oil and gas produced on
federal leases, either onshore or offshore. Also, in 2009 we
reported that Interior lacked consistent and reliable data on
the production and sale of oil and gas from federal lands and
therefore cannot provide reasonable assurance that it was
appropriately assessing and collecting royalties. In 2008, we
reported that Interior collected lower levels of revenues for
oil and gas production than all but 11 of 104 oil and gas
resource owners including many countries and some states whose
revenue collection systems were evaluated in a comprehensive
industry study.
Secondly, Interior has had longstanding challenges in
hiring, training and retaining staff in key skilled positions.
For example, in 2010 we reported that BLM and MMS experienced
high turnover rates in key oil and gas inspection and
engineering positions. In addition to hampering production
verification efforts, these human capital challenges have
resulted in delays in issuing leases and caused Interior to be
unable to meet its statutory and agency goals for performing
safety and environmental inspections of oil and gas on federal
leases.
Finally, in May 2010, the Secretary of the Interior
announced plans to reorganize the offshore oil and gas
management and revenue collections function of the Department
into three bureaus. Under this reorganization, offshore
leasing, planning and permitting will be done in the newly
created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, offshore inspections
and enforcement by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, and revenue collection both onshore and offshore
by the newly created Office of Natural Resources Revenue. While
Interior's reorganization may eventually lead to more effective
and efficient operations, our past work has shown that
organizational transformations are not simple endeavors and
they require the concerted and sustained efforts of management
and staff alike. Interior's reorganization will be made more
challenging because it being undertaken at a time when the
agency is working to implement dozens of recommendations made
by GAO, Interior's Inspector General and other entities.
In addition, this reorganization will require increased
levels of resources, and this will be very difficult to achieve
in this time of tight budgets. Further, Interior's
reorganization of offshore oil and gas management and revenue
collection do not address significant challenges we have
identified with its management of onshore oil and gas
resources.
It is essential that Interior gets this organization right
as well as respond to all the material weaknesses GAO and
others have identified. The agency must be able to provide
Congress and the public with reasonable assurance that billions
of dollars of revenue owed the public are being properly
assessed and collected and that oversight of oil and gas
exploration and production on federal lands and waters
maintains an appropriate balance between efficiency and
timeliness on one hand and protection of the environment and
operational safety on the other.
This ends my oral statement. I will be happy to respond to
any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The statement of Anu K. Mittal and Frank Rusco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Kendall.
Testimony of Mary Kendall
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. Let me
summarize the most serious challenges we believe are facing the
Department of the Interior today.
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OVERSIGHT
Outer Continental Shelf energy oversight. As the offshore
oil and gas industry has reached farther offshore and deeper
undersea, the Department's oversight of the industry has become
more complex and challenging. The Department is making
significant efforts to address this challenge but it is now
challenged to comply with the recent judicial mandate to resume
issuing deepwater drilling permits.
REVENUE COLLECTIONS
Revenue collections. The Department collects billions of
dollars in royalties annually. Our work, like that of GAO, has
revealed many weaknesses in the oversight, collection and
management of royalties. The OIG has listed revenue collections
as a top management challenge for over 10 years.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Financial management. The Department manages tens of
billions of dollars in appropriations, revenues and funds held
in trust. The Financial and Business Management System was to
be the answer to DOI managing its funds effectively.
Unfortunately, implementation of FBMS continues to be a
significant challenge for the Department. Successful
implementation of FBMS is extremely important to the Department
because the system impacts virtually all aspects of DOI
operations. FBMS is replacing obsolete legacy financial systems
and will also interface or replace a number of other systems.
The Department has already spent over $300 million deploying
FBMS. Although FBMS has been deployed at four bureaus, the most
difficult deployments are still ahead.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Information technology. The Department's budget for IT is
nearly $1 billion annually. Historically, the Department had a
decentralized IT program which led to serious governance
problems. The Department is now addressing this challenge by
bringing all its IT functions under a single Department CIO,
and we hope to see some significant changes.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE
Health, safety and maintenance. Like GAO, we identified
this as a significant challenge to the Department. The
department is responsible for serving millions of visitors and
maintaining and protecting thousands of facilities and millions
of acres of property. Our work has documented decades of
deferred maintenance, health and safety issues that place the
Department's employees and the public at risk.
INDIANS AND INSULAR AREAS
Responsibility to Indians and insular areas. Responsibility
to American Indians has consistently been a top management
challenge for the Department. The myriad problems we have
uncovered for years portrayed programs that are sorely
understaffed and poorly managed. The Department manages its
responsibilities to the insular areas through the Office of
Insular Affairs. Our reviews have consistently pointed to
problems that might have been mitigated had the Office of
Insular Affairs provided better oversight or taken a more
active role in assisting insular area governments.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Financial assistance awards. The Department awards billions
of dollars in financial assistance annually yet it does not
have a consistent method for recording and reporting these
transactions. The Department simply does not provide the level
of oversight of financial assistance awards that it should.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Resource protection and restoration. The Department's
resource managers face the perennial challenge of balancing
competing interests for the use and protection of the Nation's
natural resources.
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
Acquisition management. The Department faced and for the
most part overcame a significant challenge to properly award
and oversee the expenditure of nearly $3 billion in Recovery
Act funds as well as other appropriated funds. The acquisition
workforce is still challenged to effectively monitor all
awarded funds and to take aggressive action against those who
fail to manage awarded funds responsibly such as termination of
contracts or suspension and debarment. The Department has made
significant progress in building a strong suspension and
debarment program to protect against recipients with a
demonstrated lack of responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share this
information with you today. I respectfully request that my
written statement be entered into the record, and I will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Mary L. Kendall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PAST GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and all of your full written
statements will be entered into the record.
Let me ask first, since everything I am sure that is said
in this room will pretty much stay in this room--yes, just
between us--many of the recommendations that you make or the
problem areas that you point out have been found in reports
before. As you said, this was an update of your 2009 testimony,
whether it is wildland fires, which has been an issue for quite
some time, or the backlog deferred maintenance, those types of
things, they continue to repeat in report after report after
report. How do you feel the Department takes your
recommendations and implements those recommendations when they
agree or works with you to try to find solutions when they
might disagree with what your recommendations are? Do you need
cooperation within the Department?
Mr. Rusco. Well, I guess I can start by saying some
positive things about the Department. In recent years, we have
seen kind of a sea change in how our reports on oil and gas
have been received and in the ability and willingness of the
agency to undertake our recommendations, and we have issued
dozens of them in the last three years alone but we went from a
period about five years ago where the agency sort of
automatically disagreed with everything we said and whether or
not they were going to do anything about it. The communication
lines were not very good between us. Now I feel like I can call
people there and ask what is going on with this recommendation
and I get a good answer, and we are rapidly closing a number of
recommendations that we have made over the last few years. We
feel they are making great progress. That said, we have
concerns that are ongoing, and a lot of those concerns are just
that they have such a large job to do and they have to manage
their day-to-day activities and they are undergoing this
reorganization which is going to take a lot more of their
resources.
Ms. Mittal. I would just like to add, we actually have a
very active recommendation follow-up process and for three or
four years after we make a recommendation, we continue to
follow up with the agency because our experience has been that
an agency will implement recommendations usually within the
three- or four-year period. After you get beyond three or four
years, there is less likelihood that they are going to actually
implement the recommendations. Our overall success rate with
agencies across government is between 75 and 80 percent of
recommendations implemented. We do not think Interior is very
different from our experience with other agencies. However, we
are sitting here today because there are a lot of
recommendations that either they have not implemented or they
have not fully implemented as we recommended.
Mr. Simpson. Do you find that there is more active
willingness on the part of the agency to look at some of these
recommendations and implement them if the committee is looking
at them also and asking you to come and testify?
Ms. Mittal. I would say absolutely. The wildland fire issue
is a perfect example. For 10 years, over a decade, we kept
insisting that the Interior and the Forest Service needed to
come up with a cohesive strategy and they would not make a move
in that direction, and until Congress passed the FLAME Act of
2009 and required them to actually implement our
recommendations, they did not start moving in that direction,
so yes, absolutely.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask one other thing. You all mentioned
the oil and gas program and the problems that have existed in
the past, and I find it almost stunning that we cannot
determine whether we are getting accurate amounts of revenue
due to the federal government from the amount of oil and gas
produced on public lands. Just out of curiosity, the bonding
requirement, you talked about the hard-rock mining and oil and
gas, are those statutory requirements? In other words, do they
have to change legislatively or is that something that can be
adjusted by the Department?
Ms. Mittal. The bonding requirements can be adjusted by the
Department. That is why we recommended that they change the
minimum bond amounts.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, you said they had not been updated in
like 50 years or something like that.
Ms. Mittal. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. But that can be done without legislative
approval? Okay. Do you feel that the reorganization of the
MMS--I keep calling it that because I know what it is--do you
feel that is going to adequately address these issues that have
come up with the oil and gas program?
Mr. Rusco. Well, we hope so but here are some specific
concerns. The first is that the reorganization does not address
the onshore management of oil and gas, and we have found many,
many issues there. Secondly, among the largest issues that this
program faces are human capital challenges. They have trouble
keeping people in these positions.
Mr. Simpson. Do you know why that is?
Mr. Rusco. One of the key reasons is that they are
competing with industry for skilled positions, so when the
industry is in a slump, which has not happened for quite a
while now but they were able to hire a lot of people in the
1990s that had the kind of skills they need, petroleum
engineers and technicians. And then when the oil industry picks
up and those skills are highly valued, they lose a lot of them
to industry. So they have trouble. They will hire someone who
has got a low level of training in the industry. They will
train them and then they will get hired away by industry. That
is kind of a systemic problem and it is a hard one to deal
with, and you could throw a lot of money at it but I do not
know that we can compete with industry there. And so I think
that is a problem that may persist.
There is another issue, though, that they can deal with,
and that is better coordinating and better using the resources
that they do have, and we have found that there is almost no
communication, no systematic communication between, say, the
BLM and the former MMS in terms of utilizing the expertise they
have in petroleum engineering and keeping up with industry in
terms of technology, updating their orders for what kinds of
technology can and should be used in oil and gas wells, and
they can make more efficient use of the resources they do have.
Mr. Simpson. One last question before I turn it over to Ms.
McCollum. You mentioned climate change as one of the challenges
facing the Department, and it has been kind of pet peeve of
mine, not really a pet peeve but an issue of concern, I should
say, in that we seem to be spending an awful lot of money on
climate change and I am not sure any of it is coordinated. It
is like in every agency in the federal government, the new key
words if you want to get funding for something is climate
change, and in fact, a lot of the science that was previously
done by different agencies has been now labeled climate change
money because it is obviously a concern to more people and
easier to get funding for it. Have you done any looking at the
coordination of all the money that is spent government-wide and
just within the Department on climate change and what the goal
is, whether it is just a means of--you know, I always used the
example after 9/11 that everybody came in my office added the
words ``homeland security'' to everything they requested. Now
``climate change'' is the key word that is attached to
everything. And my concern is not that we are spending money on
climate change, it is just that I do not know that there is any
coordination in there or what we are trying to find out with
the money we are spending.
Ms. Mittal. We actually have an engagement ongoing right
now. The report is expected at the end of April, early May, and
the report is focusing on four or five key objectives. The
first thing is to identify all of the federal funding that is
currently being used to fund climate change activities. It is
also going to identify what types of activities that climate
change funding is being used for. The report will focus on what
strategic priorities, are being set for climate change at the
federal level. It will look at whether the funding that is
being spent is aligned with those strategic priorities and then
if there are any other options to set strategic priorities for
climate change across the federal government. So that report
will hopefully answer a number of the questions that you just
raised.
Mr. Simpson. And I have talked with a variety of people
within the Department of Interior about whether it would be
smart to take a line item for the bill--because, I mean, we put
climate change money into the Forest Service, BLM, the
Smithsonian, the Park Service, USGS, you name it, they all have
climate change money in there--if it would be smart to have a
climate change line item that was overseen by someone or a
group that could then weigh the value of different proposals
from different agencies as to what they were trying to do and
essentially award grants, I guess for lack of a better term, to
different agencies. If the Smithsonian has something that is
important and the committee felt it was worthwhile to pursue
that, they could award them a grant, or the USGS or Forest
Service or anybody else. It just seems to me we have got to do
a better job of how we coordinate the funding. Otherwise we are
going to waste an awful lot of money. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are really tracking
here on the same things so I am just going to do a little bit
of a follow-up on the two areas that the Chair was referring
to.
In the 10 years I have been here, I have listened to a lot
of frustration about how the agency was not doing what it
needed to do, but then when I started digging deeper and got on
the Appropriations, it was like well, you can only take so much
out of a hide so a lot of it was not having all the tools in
the toolbox, whether it be reorganization, whether it be
looking at ways in which they could share information or work
together within the agency or sometimes it was just lack of
funds. I am going to do two questions.
One of them is to follow up a little more. Some of it is
going to be the will, and I think you mentioned that, and some
of it is going to be the means, either organizing the means to
be used more effectively or actually having the dollars needed
to do it. Could you talk a little more about what needs to
happen with information systems, computer systems or just
recovery systems to find out what is going on? I am not an
engineer. My brother is the engineer at home in Minnesota, not
me. But what do we need to either track fiduciarily or to track
information, retention and recruitment of personnel? I think
maybe you have touched on that but if there anything more you
want to add.
I want to ask about climate change but I want to discuss it
a little more specifically. I agree with the Chair that we need
to--acknowledge, dollars are tight, dollars are precious and we
need to get the biggest bang for our buck so maybe we should
look at a reconstitution of how we account for climate change.
But I am concerned about some of the debate that we had on the
Floor and that is why I want to know about the wills and the
means. There was $58 million in cuts to programs that the
Interior had going to climate change research, and I am excited
about seeing this report in April. But I just want to use
forestry, for example. We are seeing an increase in pests. Part
of it is just the mobility that the pests have, as we have
become a denser and denser population with trades and goods.
Part of it is climate change, and then the concern with not
having the right amount of funds available to do prescriptive
burns when appropriate, the contribution it makes to pests, and
other wildfires getting out of control and the rest.
Could you maybe talk about forestry, which is important for
recreation, important for industry, livelihoods and jobs, and
climate change and any gleans of information you might have
from the April report on that. And then the will and the means.
Mr. Rusco. Well, with regard to information systems, some
of that we will have to answer for the record. Our IT group
does most of the work that----
Ms. McCollum. If you could get that to the chairman, that
would be fine.
Mr. Rusco. But with respect to oil and gas information
management, what we found is that across the Bureau of Land
Management, the former MMS, both in terms of revenue collection
and in managing permitting and planning of leasing, we found a
wide assortment of legacy information systems that do not
communicate well. We found----
Ms. McCollum. Excuse me. Is legacy a nice way of saying
old, antiquated and they do not do the job?
Mr. Rusco. I am not going to disagree with that. We found
that sometimes when we were going to ask questions about how do
you provide reasonable assurance you are collecting the right
amount of royalties and where can we find the data to check
this, we found that people are using spreadsheets, individual
spreadsheets to do individual tasks that these things are not
recorded in a systematic way. Now, they have been working to
fix this but it still remains that there are information
systems that do not talk across groups and there are still
people working on paper and Excel spreadsheets when they should
be working on integrated systems.
One more thing is that industry long ago switched to
essentially real-time monitoring of oil and gas production so
they have second-by-second data that is recorded on computer
databases remotely from wells, and they monitor this in order
to efficiently manage the well so if anything is going wrong,
they see it and a red flag goes up and they send the technician
out there and they fix it, and that is great. It is efficient.
It cuts down on waste and issues like that.
Mr. Moran. If the gentlelady would yield, do they share
that information with us?
Mr. Rusco. There is a pilot program in the natural gas area
to do so.
Mr. Moran. The answer is no?
Mr. Rusco. It is not uniformly done, no, but these data
systems are essentially available off the shelf. There is even
a free version that has much more functionality. It talks to
all of the different systems that are in the industry, could
collect these data, could set up immediate flags if there are
problems at the well so that inspectors could more efficiently
decide where to spend their resources. Instead, they are not
using the information that industry has. That would be a great
innovation and it would not cost a lot of money.
Ms. Mittal. I can add to the data issue for the rest of
Interior. It is a perpetual problem and it is a systemic
problem. No matter what program we are looking at, no matter
what agency we are looking at, lack of data, inaccurate, not
comprehensive data, not reliable data is a standard problem in
just about every GAO audit, whether we are looking at the
Office of Insular Affairs, whether we are looking at BLM,
whether we are looking at any agency within the Department.
Poor data is a systemic problem throughout the Department.
In terms of your question with regard to climate change, in
2007 we specifically had noted that climate change was not a
high priority for the bureaus within the Department. However,
in 2009 the Secretary issued an order that basically said that
all of the bureaus and offices are to consider the impacts of
climate change as they develop their strategic plans, as they
determine how they are going to spend money on R&D programs,
when they develop their multi-year resource management plans
and when they determine how they are going to allocate
resources. We have not actually gone back into the Department
to see how they implemented that secretarial order so I cannot
tell you how they are actually going about making that a
priority but that was something that they were supposed to do
starting in 2009.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Kendall. If I could just add on the IT systems, the
sharing of information and then on the retention and hiring,
the Department has undertaken a new initiative to bring all IT
systems under a single chief information officer. Historically,
one of the issues that we always found was that allowing the
bureaus to operate their own systems has been a real problem
for anyone to really manage the IT systems at the Department.
This is a huge step. It is being met with a fair amount of
resistance but the IG office has actually offered itself up to
be one of the early adopters, which might set an example for
some of the bureaus who are putting up a great deal of
resistance.
INFORMATION SHARING
To Congressman Moran's question about information sharing,
the work that we did following the Deepwater Horizon disaster
last summer suggested that there are enormous opportunities for
sharing information that industry already has that would allow
the new ONRR, the royalty group, to much better monitor what is
really happening in terms of production. Historically, the
Department has--I do not know how far back this goes but in
recent years, I would say, maybe the past 10 years or so, the
Department has treated the oil and gas industry sort of with
kid gloves, not wanting to put too much burden, which I find a
word like ``burden'' to industry that brings in the kind of
revenue as the oil and gas industry does to be a little ironic,
but we have found several areas where the Department did not
want to burden the industry, and I think that there are many
opportunities to shift the burden back to industry, and it
would be essentially a no cost to the federal government
solution. Our work last summer suggested that there really is
this opportunity to make that shift.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
In terms of recruitment and retention, one of the other
things that we looked at last summer was this very issue that
Mr. Rusco identified. We recommended some fairly simple
solutions that might help. It will not solve it completely but
one thing that we found was that then-MMS had determined that
engineers and petroleum specialists were not eligible for
student loan repayment benefits through the federal government.
We have asked them to relook at that. I know that the BOEM is
now doing some active recruiting at some of the universities
and colleges that focus on petroleum engineering. I think that
is a great first step.
The other opportunity, now, both are not budget neutral but
petroleum engineers often operate in an environment that would
otherwise warrant hazard pay. It is another thing that the
former MMS had determined they were not eligible for and we
suggested that they reconsider that. There would be some
financial incentives that the government could provide that it
has not been doing that might balance some of the disparity
between industry and the government.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A very
intriguing discussion, and as has been suggested, all of us
seem to be kind of in a different way asking the same
questions.
COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION
At one time I had a chance to spend a lot of time with the
Department of Defense when I chaired their Subcommittee of
Appropriations, and one of the challenges was the fact that we
found that the Navy and the Marine Corps had great difficulty
communicating with one another. It seems they could not get
their software to interplay and the stovepipes were more than
stovepipes. We spent lots of money, lots of time and eventually
began to break that process down. Clearly, the climate change
challenges in the Joshua Tree National Park and in our national
forests in California in my district, those overlap a lot and
there is a great deal of similarity. I have been worried maybe
we are wasting a lot of money by not having effective
coordination, etc. Taking us back to Ms. McCollum's point is
that we do have a need to implement processes whereby these
communications by individual agencies are shared by other
agencies. Ms. Kendall, you mentioned a new thought or idea that
would suggest that we can coordinate this in a single spot. I
gather the agency might be considering a clearinghouse whereby
they will have a gathering of information, provide access,
provide some of the security you mentioned, Ms. Mittal, but is
that actually going forward? Is it likely to be something that
the Department will do?
Ms. Kendall. The Department is challenged to work across
its bureau lines, but it is something that because we have
tried to become financially neutral in our recommendations that
we recommend often that bureaus combine resources and
communicate better with one another and identify where they are
overlapping their efforts. I think there is a huge opportunity
in many realms including climate change but others as well
where the bureau could streamline, coordinate and focus its
resources much better.
Mr. Lewis. Well, much of that which we have discussed so
far is talking about the fact that there was not enough money
for X or Y, to implement X or Y program or effort, and my
colleague next to me said gee, you know when you get an
apartment house, collecting rent is not a big problem. Only in
government would we have difficulty figuring out and measuring
what kind of money flows there actually are. And if you do have
such a coordinated effort, information gathering, et cetera,
let's do not kid ourselves. That does not mean that
automatically the individual agencies are going to be willing
to share, work with one another and indeed save the taxpayers
and some of our funding challenges.
In connection with that, I remember a session with the
people from the Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and
from Forest Service in a discussion of the designation of the
East Mojave, literally hundreds of thousands of acres, if not
millions of acres, being put in a preserve. The three heads of
the agencies in that region in a serious extended discussion
with me essentially said look, we have got five or six pristine
areas out in this territory that deserve and need Park Service
protection. Their conclusion was that with such a vast area
there is no way we would have the resources or the people to
provide the management. So what was the answer? Throw all of
that open desert territory into one big package and then maybe
we can manage it better, and it does not seem to me that it is
much better managed.
CROSS-DEPARTMENT COORDINATION
Now, my question is, when we do not have these resources
and we have a shortage of personnel, should we be looking at
taking a new territory to be a part of the agency's
responsibility for management or should we be selling off some
of these assets in order to provide funding flows that will
allow the individual agencies to be ahead of time, ahead of our
curve, to be able to implement processes whereby effective
public policy goes forward? We do not want to sell off any
property, that is for sure. I know that.
Ms. Kendall. I do not know that I have an answer to your
question, Congressman Lewis. I think it certainly bears
consideration. But you identify cross departments in this case,
and I am not familiar with the particular instance you are
discussing. But in this case, it would be a cross-department
challenge to get the agencies to coordinate, something that we
already suffer internally in just the Department of the
Interior, so the challenge is even bigger.
Mr. Lewis. Much of the rare earths deposits in the country
are in the territory I am talking about, in the Mojave Desert,
and there is a worldwide challenge here in connection with
preserving these. But over the years my miners have talked
often about the fact that OSHA and MSHA almost stumble all over
each in order to get down in the mine first to see what
somebody is doing wrong. I mean, that is sort of lack of
effective coordination between agencies that cuts off our
ability to do a better job. It is pretty fundamental. And Ms.
Mittal, that is kind of why we wanted you to be here.
Ms. Mittal. Thank you, sir. I think what we keep finding,
and you know, whether you sell off lands or not, that is a
policy decision. That is a decision that only Congress can
make.
Mr. Lewis. Really? You mentioned that we gave you the
authority to raise the bond level over a 50-year period, it has
not been raised.
Ms. Mittal. Well, that is true. But I think there are three
fundamental issues that we see repeatedly when we look at
Interior's and management programs. One is the lack of
strategic planning, and you need to know what your strategies
are, you need to know what your goals are before you can
achieve what it is that your mission is supposed to be doing.
The second is, you have got to have the data. As I mentioned
earlier, they do not have good data. They are not making
decisions based on good data, whether it is resource allocation
decisions or it is program activity and management decisions.
And finally, you have got to have good performance measures.
One of the things that we see repeatedly when we look at
Interior's programs is a lack of good performance measures. So
if you are not accountable for your results, if you are not
looking at your performance and measuring it against your
goals, measuring it against the milestones that you have
established, you can never know exactly what point you should
take corrective action, when you should change your mode of
operation and change it to something different. So those are
the three fundamental problems that we see, and I think it
feeds right into your comment about coordination and
cooperation. You need to have some of these three elements in
place before you can effectively coordinate and cooperate with
other people because you first have to know what you are doing
as an agency.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you.
It is obvious to everyone that lives on this planet, the
United States is desperate to find any way of doing a better
job of balancing its budget. So let me ask you some questions
with regard to potential revenue raising.
In your testimony, you indicate that the Interior
Department collected lower levels of revenue for oil and gas
production than all but 11 of 104 oil and gas resource owners
including many of our states--Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
etc.--and any number of other countries. Can you give us a
sense for what kind of revenue loss we are talking about here,
if the royalty level was consistent with, say, the Gulf states,
and what other countries charge in terms of royalties for
taking the natural resources that belong to the taxpayers?
Mr. Rusco. Giving a precise answer to that is beyond any of
the work we have done. I can say a few things that give a
flavor of that. One of the problems with our revenue collection
system is that it does not respond to changes in industry
conditions, changes in economic conditions, changes to oil and
gas prices. So back in the 1990s when oil and gas prices were
very low, companies were in dire straits and they came to
Congress and asked for royalty relief, and that was granted.
And due to the way that that was implemented and some
subsequent court cases that essentially ruled that royalty
relief was effectively permanent for the wells that were
offered that in the deep water, that is going to cost the
federal government somewhere between $20 billion and $50
billion, depending on future oil and gas prices and how much is
produced.
The system of collecting revenues can reflect changes in
the environment and sort of make those kinds of adjustments
unnecessary, and so when profits go way up, you could take a
greater share of profits or you could take a smaller share.
That is one of the things we asked Interior to look at. They
are looking at that at this point and they expect to finish
sometime in 2011 with that study, doing a comprehensive
evaluation of what others are charging. And we expect that they
will have an estimate of what, if anything, they feel that they
can do to increase revenue.
Mr. Moran. So the answer is no, you do not have any
specifics, but the Interior Department is working on it and if
we look just at the Gulf Coast lost royalty revenue, it would
be $20 to $50 billion but we do not know. And is the Interior
Department determining what we could be bringing in if what we
charged was more consistent with what other countries charge
and the rate that other states charge?
Mr. Rusco. That is--my understanding of the study they are
doing is to look at just that.
Mr. Moran. They are looking at that? Now, you also say in
your report that the Bureau of Land Management has not met its
statutory, its legal obligations for oil and gas verification
inspections. I gather that it is quite likely as a result of
both the federal government and the states, because they get
half the royalties, maybe substantially shortchanging their
revenue as a result of BLM not meeting its statutory
verification responsibilities. Is that accurate?
Mr. Rusco. It is certainly possible. Again, we do not know
what we do not know, and if they are not making their
inspections, we do not know what they would find if they were.
Mr. Moran. The fact that Interior largely relies upon the
oil and gas industry to give its own estimates of how much is
being withdrawn and depleted, and you found that those
estimates are invariably short of what they actually are
drilling, that if there was better monitoring, it would be
apparent that there is more being taken and thus more revenue
would be coming into the federal government. One way to address
that, I gather, is in your response to Ms. McCollum, that if we
had more people and the right people, but most importantly the
kind of information technology and data that the oil and gas
companies already have on a real-time basis, that would tell us
what they are generating. So I gather the numbers they are
giving us are not even consistent with their own data in terms
of what they are taking out of both offshore and onshore
reserves. Is that accurate?
Mr. Rusco. I will say we have not found any systematic
underreporting. We have found instances of errors and instances
of missing data and instances of reports that should be there
that are not, but you are absolutely correct that the industry,
they collect these data. They can account for up to very small
amounts of oil and gas that they are producing and they collect
these data. Then they put this oil and gas into pipelines or
sell it to a seller who is also measuring it and they have
disagreements and they are both talking about sets of data and
they can get together and very quickly resolve those
disagreements about how much came from each producer and went
into a pipeline, but when they are both talking about data that
comes from a meter and is beamed to a computer, they have
something to talk about. Those things sometimes malfunction and
you get different answers but the meters----
Mr. Moran. I understand that, but are you telling us that
that data is not then given to the owner of the property, the
resource, the federal government? They are not sharing that
data in terms of how much they are withdrawing, that we sit
back and wait for when they want to give us the numbers that
they choose to give us?
Mr. Rusco. That is correct. We do not have third-party
verification or direct verification of production.
Mr. Moran. And a reasonable assumption would be then that
it is being somewhat underreported, that there may be more
revenue collection available to us if we simply were getting
more accurate and fuller data? Is that a reasonable conclusion?
Mr. Rusco. I cannot go that far. Again, we have not seen
systematic underreporting where we have looked but, again, we
do not know what we do not know.
Mr. Moran. You also noted that Interior is--that concludes
this line of questioning--but you underestimated the amount of
natural gas produced on federal leases that is released
directly to the atmosphere. So we have got a lost resource
here, we have got no collection of royalties and we have got
this intensive greenhouse gas that is polluting the atmosphere.
Can you give us any sense of how much in the way of loss we are
talking about in that regard?
Mr. Rusco. In this case, it could be as much as 2 percent
of total production on federal lands for the wells that have
not put in modern low-bleed pneumatic valves and better
equipment for monitoring vented natural gas, but it could be a
very significant amount. What we do not know and what Interior
cannot tell us is what kind of equipment is being used in each
case, but when we did look at specific instances, we found that
there is a lot of old equipment out there that bleeds a lot of
natural gas in the air and those valves can be economically
replaced with newer, low-bleed valves that would cut sometimes
very significantly the amount of natural gas, and it could be
as much as 2 percent.
Mr. Moran. Could BLM require that kind of newer equipment
so as to reduce the greenhouse gas which we then have to pay to
clean up?
Mr. Rusco. We have recommended that they evaluate the
equipment that is being used in every instance and identify
cases where it can be economically exchanged for more modern
equipment that leaks less.
REVENUE SOURCES: ADDITIONAL
Mr. Moran. Well, these are good, measured responses. I
appreciate your caution in answering them. I trust the
Inspector General is ensuring that the Interior management is
aware of this additional source of revenue and pursuing it?
Ms. Kendall. We have talked with the Department about a
number of other sources. Going away from oil and gas for just a
moment, one of the areas that we have an active evaluation in
is rights-of-way. There is a huge amount of land out there that
the Department we are finding basically almost gives away
rights-of-way. They are utilizing a process by which the
rights-of-way are--in one instance, and I cannot say this
across the board but we found one instance where an Indian
tribe negotiated a right-of-way fee 100 times what BLM is
charging for the same type of right-of-way. So we are looking
at some other options in terms of determining what the
appropriate right-of-way fees ought to be but there is a
considerable opportunity to raise much greater revenues there.
Mr. Moran. Well, good for the Indian tribe but not so good
for the federal government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And just to follow up on that, I
have heard the same thing, that what the BLM charges to put
wind turbines on BLM ground is significantly lower than what it
would cost on private land, and consequently the federal
government is losing a ton of revenue that they could be
collecting for renewable energy sorts of things.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Maybe we should contract out with Native
Americans to collect revenue.
Mr. Simpson. There you go.
Mr. Calvert. You know, this is going to be kind of a
bipartisan moment here, I think.
I come out of the business community. When you mentioned
$20 to $50 billion worth of revenue left on the table, that
gets my attention. And if I was going to enter into a private
lease agreement with a resource company to extract minerals
from property, I would have a lease that would state that I
would have access to all records and have a transparent process
so I would be able to collect revenue that is due. Is it in
your lease agreement that production records are shared with
the lessor and any records must be provided to the lessor? Is
that not required in a lease agreement?
Mr. Rusco. It is required. These data are collected from
the operators, which are not always the lease owners, but there
is an operator that operates a number of wells.
Mr. Calvert. But in the final analysis, that information is
required to be provided to the lessor in order for them to come
up with a proper lease amount. Is that correct?
Mr. Rusco. That is correct, and the issues we have are not
that those data are not required to be provided but that when
we have looked at those data, we have found missing data,
erroneous data and other problems because it is self-reported
and it is not checked with a third party.
Mr. Calvert. This is not rocket science. I mean, if we need
some rocket scientists, there are a lot being laid off in
Houston right now, I am sure we could pick up a couple. The
percentages on these various leases, I guess they change or
fluctuate from one lease to the next or do they pretty much
stay the same?
Mr. Rusco. Onshore, most of it is 12\1/2\.
Mr. Calvert. At what point in the process is that
collected? Is it collected at the point of sale? Is that 12\1/
2\ percent based upon market price that day and so fluctuating
through the lease process so you have to mark the royalty that
is due per that day? Is that not correct?
Mr. Rusco. Typically it is done on a month-by-month basis.
Mr. Calvert. So they have an average, a 30-day average of
the mineral value or the oil or gas or whatever you are
extracting, a 30-day running average, and then that royalty
then is charged. At what point is it due to the federal
government? What point does the lessor receive its rent?
Mr. Rusco. It is due, I believe, within 30 days.
Mr. Calvert. So the government then in effect bills the
lessee and the lessee comes up with the money within 30 days
from the point of billing. Is that correct?
Mr. Rusco. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Calvert. And they cannot do that?
Mr. Rusco. Not accurately.
Mr. Calvert. Have the agencies looked into contracting that
out for a small fee to a contractor that would have the
competence to collect rents or collect royalties? It would seem
to me if you are leaving $20 to $50 billion on the table there
ought to be a better way. I know there was royalty relief in
the 1990s when the oil prices went down but that should have
been credited on the books and then collected later on once
that resource recovered. The intent was not to forgive that
amount of royalty. Is that not the case?
Mr. Rusco. Now I have to be very measured. I am sorry. In
the end, this went through litigation and the courts determined
that the legislation required that royalty relief.
Mr. Calvert. Was that legislation or was that
administrative relief? That was done in the 1990s. Was that not
done by administrative relief at that point?
Mr. Rusco. There was the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of
1995 that implemented the royalty relief but then Interior
implemented the legislation.
Mr. Calvert. They implemented it incorrectly. At the time
the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act went into effect in 1995, was
it not true that the cost, the capital cost of installing the
drilling equipment in the Gulf was substantial? Congress was
trying to find a way to create an incentive for people to go
into the Gulf and to drill in deep water because at that time
they were not getting the bid prices up for the tracts within
the Gulf? Is that not correct? And so they created this
incentive where the capital cost would be booked for whatever
royalty amount that was until that capital cost was received
and then the royalty would be received thereafter. The lease
agreement, as I understand it, was written where they just gave
them permanent relief. Is that not correct?
Mr. Rusco. For two of the five years that there was royalty
relief, for reasons that we do not understand fully, there was
no price trigger put on that so that when prices went up, they
would collect.
LEASE PRICE THRESHOLDS
Mr. Calvert. Why did somebody not go back and find out who
the idiot was that wrote those leases? Again, this is not
rocket science. I mean, if any one of us at this table had a
resource that we were going to lease out and we understood the
basis of that lease agreement, we understood that the capital
cost was going to be credited and at that point forward a
royalty was going to be paid, why in God's name was the lease
written that gave them permanent relief? I mean, I just do not
understand it.
Ms. Kendall. We did conduct an investigation into the
failure to put a trigger into the 1998 and 1999 leases, and we
could not find, as you put it, the idiot, but we found a real
bureaucratic bungling is what I think Mr. Deveney defined it
where one group of MMS thought another group was responsible.
Mr. Calvert. You know, we are talking about real money
here.
Ms. Kendall. Oh, I know.
Mr. Calvert. When we get into $20, $50 billion here, you
know, we have been fighting and we are going to continue to
fight all year to save a similar amount, $50 billion, and we
left $50 billion out there in the ether. I find this amazing.
What is even more amazing is it continues to go on, based upon
your testimony, because of the inability of certain folks to
collect revenue from royalties that we should be collecting.
So it is distressing to me, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot
of out-of-work engineers out there at NASA. Maybe we ought to
send them on over and maybe they can straighten this out, or we
could get some good accountants. I will even volunteer. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I should
point out that we have had an amendment that would make the
corrections that we just talked about as being necessary, and I
hope that it can be dealt with positively. In any case, Mr.
Chairman, thanks very much, and thank you very much. Thanks for
what you have said and everything that you are doing.
I want to follow up with something that Mr. Moran was
talking about. As we know, for years now the GAO has been
examining the Department of Interior's royalty collection
program. We are dealing with a situation here where two weeks
ago this House passed a Continuing Resolution with draconian
cuts to some of our country's most vital investments and
services, cuts that would according to the most economic
analysis by Mark Zandy of Moody's lead to the loss of nearly
700,000 jobs. So we paid almost no attention to the
opportunities that are present in undercollected royalties of
our existing oil and gas operations on public lands. You
pointed out in your testimony that the Interior Department
collected lower levels of revenues for oil and gas production
and that lower level was connected from 93 out of 104 oil and
gas resource owners that you examined. You examined 104.
Ninety-three were producing less. Only 11 were not. You also
made specific recommendations on what the Department should be
doing to improve royalty collections ranging from comprehensive
review to better measurements to accounting for the amount of
natural gas that is being vented or burned.
So let me just ask you two little questions. How much
revenue does GAO estimate we are losing by not implementing the
suggestions that you have identified to improve and increase
the royalty collection? And secondly, how much effort and
resources would be required to make these changes?
Mr. Rusco. I will try to answer the most satisfying one
first. The effort, if Interior decides or determines that in
fact we are collecting less than the fair share of revenues for
oil and gas production on federal lands----
Mr. Hinchey. Well, you determined that already.
Mr. Rusco. Well, we determined that it was lower than a lot
and we recommended that the agency do a comprehensive review,
taking into account all the things that they believe are
important. We are quite confident that they are going to find
that they collect lower than many states and other countries.
If they decide that they can collect more revenue, then it is
not a costly or difficult endeavor to do so, at least going
forward. When you issue a different lease, you can raise
royalties, you can change lease terms.
Mr. Hinchey. So do you know how much revenue GAO is
estimating that we are losing? I mean, they have communicated
that to you so you must have some insight into it.
Mr. Rusco. No, we do not have an estimate of how much their
study will determine, if any, that they are----
Mr. Hinchey. They have done the study and they have
communicated this to you?
Mr. Rusco. No, we looked at other studies, industry studies
of revenue collection.
Mr. Hinchey. How much revenue are you losing? How much
revenue are we losing?
Mr. Rusco. Well, we do not know but there are some
countries that collect a huge proportion more. Now, it is very
difficult to make comparisons across countries because, you
know, some countries might collect a lot but they also do not
have a rule of law or a set of contract law that we have here,
and it is very difficult to compare. That is why we asked the
agency to conduct its own review using the expertise of
industry consultants and determine whether they could do this.
There is a trade-off between charging more revenue and
encouraging domestic oil and gas production. Where that trade-
off is, is something for the agency to determine.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, GAO has said that to you. They have
given you information. And you have come up with improvements
to increase the royalty collection, right?
Mr. Rusco. Interior increased the royalty rates in the deep
water twice, and they estimated that that would increase
revenue by about $5 million on----
Mr. Hinchey. Okay, if you do not have the specific answer
to these questions, I would very much appreciate if you would
look into this and communicate this back to us, give us the
specific answers to those two questions.
Mr. Rusco. I am sorry, but with respect, without looking at
Interior's study when it comes out, we would not have that
information at GAO. I certainly will----
Mr. Hinchey. Well, GAO has communicated to you. There are
estimates that they have produced. You have got that
information. You have looked into this. You have decided that
there are things that had to be done to change it, to make it
better. So I would like you to communicate to us the factual
information that you are looking into that you have got. You
cannot answer it now but please give it to us.
Mr. Rusco. I will give you every bit of information we have
on this.
Mr. Hinchey. So you know what GAO has done because, you
know, you are from GAO.
Mr. Rusco. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. You know what GAO has produced. You know the
recommendations that they have made, and all of that has been
put forward. So we would just like to understand this a little
bit more clearly and more specifically, particularly with
regard to the numbers, the estimates, things of that nature. If
you can provide that, and I am sure you can, we would very much
appreciate it.
Mr. Rusco. Yes, sir, will do.
Mr. Hinchey. Just one other quick thing that I would like
to talk about, and that is the danger of the drilling that we
are experiencing. We have seen a lot of danger with regard to
the frack drilling for natural gas in a lot of places, places
from Texas to Pennsylvania, a number of other states across the
country. You have looked into this, I assume, to some extent.
You understand it, to some extent, about what is happening and
what is going on. There was a very interesting article in the
New York Times on Sunday. I do not know if you had an
opportunity to see that. But this is another expansion of the
understanding of the cost of this kind of drilling and what
damages that drilling can provide, and in this particular case,
again with regard to the danger to water supplies, which are
critically important for the future of everyone's life. I would
appreciate it if you would take an analysis of that, look into
it and give us your understanding and recommendations as to
what is going on. We are in the process now of following up on
that information and providing a couple of pieces of
legislation that we are offering to this operation here, and so
I would appreciate anything that you could provide to us that
would be helpful and useful. Thanks very much.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Flake. Ms. Kendall, these financial assistance awards,
$3 to $4 billion a year that are given out, can you give us
some examples of what they might include?
Ms. Kendall. The easiest example, it would be the financial
assistance to Indian tribes and insular areas, but there are
financial assistance agreements which are basically grants and
cooperative agreements that go to any number of entities. Some
are sort of partner entities to the Department. The cooperative
agreements usually go to the partner entities. I can think of a
couple that come readily to mind that we actually looked at,
one being the George Wright Society with National Park Service.
They have a very close cooperative relationship and a
cooperative agreement that started out as about, if I remember
correctly, I think a $35,000 cooperative agreement escalated up
to over $800,000 without any significant change in purview and
very little oversight. We are going to be putting together what
I would call a roll-up report on cooperative agreements. We
think it is an area that is a very high risk because there is
so very little oversight.
Mr. Flake. You are saying there is no consistent method of
recording these transactions?
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERSIGHT
Ms. Kendall. It is another example where bureau by bureau
they will do it differently, sometimes even region by region.
There is not a consistent Department-wide guidance or
requirement in terms of how financial assistance is overseen.
For instance, and I realize I am speaking real generalities in
terms of the financial assistance that goes to Indian tribes
and insular areas, but using the insular areas for an example,
funds are pushed out to the insular area government and the
Office of Insular Affairs measures its performance on getting
the money out, not necessarily on how that money is spent and
whether it is spent wisely and well and it is accounted for.
Although we have not made this recommendation, one of my
personal thoughts is that there may need to be a complete
rethinking of how BIA and Insular Affairs provides money. In
the insular areas, for example, initially I had discussion with
staff that perhaps we should do it on a reimbursable basis
rather than put all the money out and then say tell us what you
have done with it, which is not working, or to have an
incremental requirement where a certain amount goes out, they
report back with some substantiated information in terms of how
the money was spent.
Mr. Flake. With regard to insular areas, how much of the
money that would come under what you term financial assistance
is mandated under the compact of free association, for example,
with Palau and the Marshall Islands? How much are we required
under those compacts to give? Is this money that we can say,
``we did not like how you spent it, so we are going to cut it
off''?
Ms. Kendall. That is an issue that would have to be
addressed. I do not know the answer to that. I realize that it
may require some changes in the compact language. The same
would hold true with Indian tribes, that there may need to be
some pretty fundamental and sweeping changes in terms of how
those agreements are reached.
Mr. Flake. Do you sense that the agency is moving ahead to
address or remedy this?
Ms. Kendall. We have really just started to engage in
discussions with OIA on this.
Mr. Flake. How can we speed that process along?
Ms. Kendall. I will let you know.
Mr. Moran. If the gentleman would yield, I am told that the
GAO has some additional information on that.
Mr. Flake. Please.
Ms. Mittal. Well, we have looked at the Office of Insular
Affairs grant to insular areas. They make about $70 million
worth of grants every year, and what we have found is that
about 40 percent of the grants that they make have at least one
internal control weakness and that those kinds of internal
control weaknesses are what lead to fraud, waste, abuse and
mismanagement, and so we have identified a number of issues
that we think the Office of Insular Affairs needs to address,
and one of them is providing much more proactive monitoring and
oversight of the grants.
Mr. Flake. What I am asking is: if this is part of the
compact that we have agreed to then how much leverage do we
have over how they spend the money?
Ms. Mittal. The grants that we are talking about are not
part of----
Mr. Flake. This is all discretionary? It is not part of the
compact?
Ms. Mittal. Right.
Mr. Flake. All right. That is what I was asking. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. A quick
point and then I want to go to my line of questioning. But just
on the oil and gas issue, when we are looking at comparable
returns, which I think we all agree we need to do a lot better
job than we have been doing around here, just foreign countries
usually are not a very good way to look at it, simply because
the costs of raising a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia versus
raising one anyplace in the continental United States are
dramatically different. So one of them in a sense is more
profitable, and there is more money available to flow back to
the government. Whatever the private people in adjacent areas
are getting is usually a pretty good way to look at it because
they are looking out for their own interest, so I would just
urge you as you delve deeper into this to look at that.
INDIAN FUNDS: MISMANAGEMENT
I wanted to question you more in another area, not
surprisingly, Indian Country. Ms. Kendall, I was reading your
report with a great deal of interest and your testimony and
there is a sentence that really bears repeating here.
``Responsibility to American Indians has consistently been a
top management challenge for the Department of Indian Country
programs managed by the Department,'' and then you go on and
list all the ones that are there and you go on, ``Approximately
25 percent of OIG investigations involve Indian Country
issues.'' That is a shocking number considering Indian Country
does not get anywhere near 25 percent of the Interior budget.
So clearly it is a problem area within a problem area. Could
you and Ms. Mittal sort of comment broadly on the specific
areas of mismanagement and concern that you have and whether or
not--and I do not mean to make this partisan with this
Administration or any, because I think this has been a problem
with both parties, multiple Administrations, and I actually
think there has been considerable progress made but I would
like for you to give us a little bit more on the range of
problem areas and the progress, if any, in recent years. And
then I have got two or three specific areas to ask about.
Ms. Kendall. The range of problem areas really runs the
gamut. We have focused in recent years on Indian schools,
Indian jails. Actually Indian jails have been a perennial issue
that we have addressed repeatedly. The actual handling of funds
that go to tribes internally, we have had any number of
criminal investigations that the tribal members or the tribal
council are mismanaging or taking money from their own people.
And I know that 25 percent is shocking but we have said
internally that we could dedicate all of our resources to
Indian Country and still not be wondering what to do with
ourselves.
Ms. Mittal. Our work obviously is much more focused and has
not been as wide-ranging as the IG's work. Our recent work has
focused on the land and trust issues that BIA is dealing with
and that has become a greater issue now with the Supreme Court
decision in 2009 and so we----
Mr. Cole. We will get to that.
Ms. Mittal. Okay. So it has raised a lot of uncertainty in
terms of how many of the pending land and trust applications
are actually going to be affected by the Supreme Court
decision. We recently looked at the Native American Graves
Repatriation Act and the extent to which federal agencies have
complied with the requirements of the Act, and what we
basically found is after 20 years of enactment, the agencies
are not in full compliance with the Act, and currently we have
other work ongoing looking at Indian arts and crafts issues. We
are also looking at sexual assaults and the ability of IHS to
provide services to victims of sexual and domestic violence on
Indian reservations.
Mr. Cole. This committee on a bipartisan basis has made
real progress in the last two or three years in trying to
upgrade some of the funding in Indian Country, which has been
very low. Have we made comparable progress on the executive
side of the equation in addressing this problem? Again, I do
not expect anybody to solve 100 years' worth of problems in 18
months but how much progress are we making in terms of
administering the dollars we have in a more efficient manner,
in a more transparent manner, making sure we are really
delivering help through the tribes to people that need it?
Ms. Kendall. Based on the areas that we have been looking
at, and I am drawing a blank right now on the one financial
area that we have looked at recently, but I cannot say that we
are making any considerable progress, that the problems that we
see are repetitive and really fairly entrenched.
Mr. Cole. Let me ask this to get to a couple specific
issues. One, let us just start off with Carcieri, which you
mentioned, which again this committee tried to address, and I
think very successfully. Mr. Moran, Mr. Simpson, working
together, we actually tried to correct the problem and we were
probably a little unorthodox legislatively in our approach but
we did it in a bipartisan manner to try and move through the
House an amendment but basically legislation that would have
ended this two-tribe distinction, because that is basically
what we have now. We have got obviously a situation where the
Department of the Interior is not sure what it can do for
tribes versus whether they are in the 1934 Indian
Reorganization Act or not, and we have got 80 years' worth of
decision involving billions of dollars worth of property that
we now really do not know what the status is, and the
Administration, to its credit, has tried to address this. We
tried to address it here. It got hung up in the Senate. How big
a problem is this going to be going forward for the Department?
And if you want to hazard an estimate on litigation if we do
not get this solved and basically have a uniform standard for
the Secretary in terms of putting land into trust?
Ms. Mittal. We believe it could be a significant problem
because there are at least a thousand pending applications
right now for land in trust, new applications for land in
trust. There are already two cases that have been filed, so it
will be interesting to----
Mr. Cole. Can I ask you a question on that? On that
thousand--and I know the answer--how many of them relate to
gaming? Because that is one of the big objections we have, this
is all a big game, but how many of these?
Ms. Mittal. The thousand are non-gaming.
Mr. Cole. Yes. It is less than 2 percent of all the
applications, which was the whole argument we heard on the
Floor that this was a backdoor gaming thing.
INDIAN LANDS: FRACTIONATION
Can I ask one other question? And you mentioned this in
your testimony, I believe, Ms. Kendall, but the fractionation
issue is of course a gigantic issue in Indian Country in just
dealing with the vision of land over time under allotments. We
tried through the Cobell decision and the Cobell legislation to
empower tribes to begin to deal with that themselves. We have
given them a considerable pot of money that they can go out and
purchase fractionated land from individuals, recombine it and
use it. I know the Department has been working on this as well.
What kind of progress are we making on the fractionation issue
and do you have any specific administrative things that we
ought to be doing to push it forward?
Ms. Kendall. We did issue a report not too long ago about
land fractionation. What we were trying to do was get in front
of the effort that will be undertaken by the Department as a
result of Cobell. The Department has been hampered by some
requirements, primarily by the Cobell court, where they are
prohibited from discussing openly what their efforts are but we
have been working with them. Our report identified a number of
some fairly practical things in terms of just communicating
among the various entities that will be involved in resolving
the land fractionation. There are three or four entities within
Interior that are going to need to work and coordinate
together. We made some recommendations about that coordination,
the level of communication, some elimination of duplication of
effort.
Mr. Cole. I would really appreciate it going forward if you
can keep us regularly informed, particularly on the Cobell
aspect. This has potential to make progress but it is also an
enormously daunting challenge administratively for the
Department. So if there are things we can do or ought to know I
would hate to miss a great opportunity here to actually deal
with the fractionation issue in the context of a court
settlement where everybody has agreed because we
administratively fumble the ball, and again, I do not think
that critically of anybody. This is a big challenge to deal
with but it is a great opportunity as well.
Ms. Kendall. I absolutely agree, and we have committed to
work cooperatively with the Department and collaboratively to
try to help them looking forward as opposed to what we
oftentimes tend to do, which is sit back and wait until they do
fumble. So we are actively involved in that right now. Our next
effort is to look at the Office of Hearings and Appeals process
for probate land but we have got a lot of maybe half a dozen
areas that need to be addressed and we are working with the
Department in that area but we will be glad to keep you
apprised.
Mr. Cole. Please do. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INDIAN TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Simpson. Before I call on Mrs. Lummis, let me follow up
on what Tom was saying. I think this committee in a bipartisan
way has felt like we have an obligation to meet our trust
responsibilities to American Indians and that we also have to
do it in an efficient way and help improve the operations of
the BIA, and here is one of the things I have heard in talking
with people at the BIA: if you look at this current Assistant
Secretary now, he has been there two years and he is probably
one of the longer-serving ones. Is it a problem that--and as I
have talked to Mr. Echo Hawk--he is a good friend of mine, we
have known each other for years from Idaho--this is a huge
agency that has a lot of responsibility that is very, very
complicated when you start looking at it. He has told me it is
two years now and he is really feeling like he is just kind of
getting his arms around what the problem is, and you have got
to know what the problem is before you can solve it or propose
solutions, and if this is one of the longer-serving directors
of the BIA, is that one of the main problems we have, the same
thing that you were mentioning with people working on the oil
and gas industry for the government, that it is hard to get
people who are going to stay around long enough to solve some
of these very complicated problems?
Ms. Kendall. I think that is fair. If I remember correctly,
we looked at the assistant secretaries for Indian Affairs and
the average, Mr. Echo Hawk has exceeded the average. The
average has been 16 months. And I know that the Department
recently put in place an acting director for the Office of
Special Trustee but had real difficulty finding someone to take
that position. So it is a perennial problem and it is a real
challenge for the Department.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I am not going to ask a question
but I think this might be something that I think several of us
would like to understand and get more into some of these
issues. I requested and got a breakdown of not only the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, but money that affects Indian Country and
other budgets, and for the first time ever in history, they
actually put together a budget so you can kind of holistically
see, so tribes can holistically see resources that are
available to them. I know you are putting together your hearing
schedule, but I would really encourage you to do this not only
for the Bureau, a hearing on that, but also have that budget
document so we can kind of look at it wholly because I will
tell you, the schools are a mess, and so are the health
clinics.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. To that last point, in Wyoming there are two
agencies in state government where they are considered so
important that the appointees transcend the terms of the
governor: the state engineer, which is water, and the
Department of Audit, which we want to make sure is nonpartisan.
And so those run for six years, and that person knows that for
six years they are appointed regardless of whether it is a
Democrat or Republican governor, and that may be something that
the federal government should consider with the BIA, an
appointment by the President that is confirmed by the Senate
but then it extends beyond that President's tenure.
ONSHORE REVENUE COLLECTION: CHALLENGES
And I want now to change to the subject of onshore oil and
gas drilling because that is another area where my state of
Wyoming has a considerable amount of experience. Going back to
Mr. Calvert's question that really got lost, I think, in the
stream of consciousness, he asked if there has been the notion
of contracting out to a private party. I would suggest that it
also should be considered to contract out to states because
states that have a lot of oil and gas and coal production, my
state, for example, is the number two energy-producing state in
the United States and unlike Texas, which is number one, has an
enormous portion of our oil and gas on public lands, both state
and federal. The state board of land commissioners, state lands
and investments, really has tremendous oil and gas lease terms
in terms of benefiting the state and the ability for the state
to monitor and audit. So I would say, as Mr. Cole said, looking
to other countries as an example may not be the best apples-to-
apples comparison. Look to states. And I would highly recommend
my state. I really think my state does a better job with its
collections, with its severance and tax collections, its
royalty collections, as well as the lease terms in our state
oil and gas leases.
There is a tremendous problem with onshore, and Ms.
Kendall, I would like to pursue that with you for a minute.
Does the federal government have the resources, both manpower
and financial resources to manage the program? There is a
report that indicates that over 90 percent of the leases in the
intermountain west were protested. In my state of Wyoming, it
is 100 percent. A hundred percent of the oil and gas leases are
protested, and that we know that revenues collected from oil
and gas declined between 2008 and 2009 to the tune of a quarter
of a billion dollars. So it is affecting revenues that these
are protested and that part of the protests come from the fact
that under the law, the agencies cannot seem to meet the
deadlines, so these are sort of pro forma protests. They are
cookie cutter protests that occur over and over because the
agency misses deadlines. Is it your opinion that the agency is
underresourced or are they just dragging their feet?
Ms. Kendall. I would say that they are underresourced. We
have not done any work in regard to protests in particular but
I was looking back at our report from last summer on the Outer
Continental Shelf. The levels of expertise in areas that are
involved in oil and gas extraction are really immense and there
are so many considerations that have to be taken into account.
You mentioned the protests. We have never even--I mean, we are
aware of it but we have not looked at that particular issue
specifically. So I guess I would say yes, the bureaus that
oversee oil and gas production and leases are really
challenged.
Mrs. Lummis. Is there any effort at the Department of the
Interior to aggregate human and financial resources in areas
where they are a revenue generator for the United States?
Ms. Kendall. Again, I think we face the chronic challenge
of bureau coordination. In fact, although I cannot say this
definitively, I have heard it anecdotally, that even BOEM and
BLM tend to steal from each other. So the coordination effort,
I think there may be some areas where they have that
opportunity. We have not addressed those specifically.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Questions for the GAO folks. Many of these leases that are
protested are by environmental groups that just file these
canned briefs and obviously when 100 percent of leases are
protested, they are protested by the same organizations over
and over, some of which because a deadline was missed that is a
statutory deadline and the deadline was missed by the agency.
Some of these organizations receive compensation under EAJA,
the Equal Access to Justice Act, out of taxpayer dollars for
suing the federal government and then the taxpayers are paying
them to sue the federal government. I support the intent of
EAJA but I believe EAJA has been hijacked, and we do not know,
though, there is no substantiation for how much money is being
spent, how lawyers are being compensated. There are allegations
and there is a university here in the East that has kind of
looked at this as a research project.
Is the GAO the right agency to be the repository for how to
monitor each award, whether they are made by the courts or by
the agency itself in a settlement? And how much money in
taxpayer dollars are agencies paying out? What are the sources
of the payouts? Are they coming out of the agency budgets or
are they coming out of the Department of Justice? Any thoughts
there?
Ms. Mittal. We have done work at the request of Congress
looking at appeals and litigation issues at the Forest Service
so I think the type of questions you are asking is something
that we could undertake as a review and we could try to get
those answers for you. We have not done any work to date on
those issues so we could not answer definitively today.
Mr. Rusco. With respect to protests for oil and gas leases,
we have done a recent report on that. We did not address in
that report this issue. We did find that most of the oil and
gas leases, their protests come from a wide range of sources
including, as you mentioned, environmental groups make up a
large percentage, but also hunting, recreation groups,
ranchers, state and local governments as well, and we also
found, as you said, that this has affected the timeliness of
issuing leases, so once a protest has been resolved and a lease
is going to be issued, we found that protested leases missed
their statutory deadline of 30 days' issuance. Ninety percent
of those were missed, and so it is an issue there. We have
found sustained, longstanding workforce planning problems at
BLM and they do not match their workforce planning with where
they expect the most work to be very well, and that is a
systemic problem.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Let me ask you further with regard
to MMS reorganization, this question also for our GAO folks,
have either of you looked into the Department's handling of the
leasing and permitting for coal?
Ms. Mittal. We have not. The only work we have done
relating to coal has been mountaintop mining, and that is the
Office of Surface Mining, but we have not looked in any great
detail at leases.
Mrs. Lummis. If I wanted to make a request that something
be studied as a Member of Congress, how do these studies--what
is the genesis of these studies? Do Members of Congress get to
ask you to study certain things?
Ms. Mittal. Sure. The genesis of most of our studies are
either mandates, committee requests or individual member
requests. However, because of our backlog, we generally cannot
get to member requests. We give highest priority to mandates
and our second priority is to committee requests. So if a
committee of jurisdiction was to request us to undertake a
study, we would definitely be able to do that.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Now I am going to switch to wildland fires, Mr. Chairman.
Is that all right?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Congress gave the Forest Service tools to manage fuel
reduction in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act but your report
indicates that they do not have a strategy to even identify
options for reducing hazardous vegetation and yet we are
spending, well, I think in 1999 a billion dollars on this
subject, now $3 billion in recent years. So how is it that the
agency does not even have a strategy to identify options about
how to reduce hazardous fuels?
Ms. Mittal. The wildland fire issue is a major concern for
us. It has been a major concern for us going back over a
decade. There are four specific areas that we feel that the
agencies have not moved forward in a timely fashion like we
have recommended. One is to develop a cohesive strategy to deal
with fuel reduction as well as respond to wild fires. The
second area is cost containment issues. They still do not have
cost containment goals and strategies on how to achieve those
goals. The third area, as you just mentioned, is the fuel
reduction options. They have not established good processes to
determine which fuel reduction projects should be undertaken
and what the costs would be associated with those. And finally,
we have been concerned about the planning tool that they are
developing, a budgeting planning tool that they have been
developing for several years now, which is behind schedule. It
is over budget and we have no guarantee that it is going to be
able to deliver the objectives that it was designed for. So we
have a whole host of issues related to the wildland fire issue,
both for Interior as well as the Forest Service, and we will be
talking about that next week some more.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran, do you have anything else?
Mr. Moran. I do, but I think given the fact that we have
been here for, what?
Mr. Simpson. Just an hour and 55 minutes.
Mr. Moran. Call it two hours. I would be happy to let them
go. They have done a great job. I do not think they are the
problem. The problem is DOI, and in fact, it may even be us to
some extent, you know, we have not provided sufficient
oversight in the past, but this has been excellent testimony.
It does seem to me there is some revenue here if we seek it
out, and all we are doing to generate ways to balance the
budget, this may be a very appropriate place to look, just
getting folks to be more conscientious about not only the
extraction of the people's resources but getting adequate
compensation. So hopefully we could pursue that in a bipartisan
manner.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Just a brief question.
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Hinchey. One of the things about natural gas that is
very interesting, the price of natural gas in 2008 went up so
high, it brought in a lot of revenue, then in 2009 it
collapsed. So it is just one of those things.
But I would like to talk about the Deep Water Royalty
Relief Act just briefly, just give a little background on it.
This was back in 1995 when Congress passed the Deep Water
Royalty Relief Act. It gave the Interior Department the ability
to provide royalty forgiveness for the energy industry, royalty
forgiveness. The idea was to spur deep-water exploration at a
time when oil prices were low, drilling was less profitable.
The measure was supposed to allow the Interior Department to
institute price thresholds into the leases so that royalty
payments would be made when prices were high. However, due to
something, allegedly a clerical error, whatever it might have
been, the Interior Department left out price thresholds on
contracts that were signed back in 1998 and 1999. That allowed
oil and gas companies to extract resources from public property
without paying royalties regardless of the price of oil or gas.
Making matters worse, thanks to an industry-led lawsuit, an
appeals court has ruled that companies would not have to pay
royalties for contracts signed, whether they were signed in
1996, 1997, or interestingly enough, in 2000. So we are looking
into this and trying to make some corrections about it, trying
to prohibit the Interior Department from issuing any new leases
to companies that refuse to recognize that the high price of
oil no longer justifies royalty.
So I wonder if you can remind the committee how much
revenue we have lost, the United States is now losing thanks to
this lawsuit?
Mr. Rusco. The amount is several billions already but it
will be somewhere in----
Mr. Hinchey. Several billions? What is more precise in
terms of ``several''? Is it three, seven?
Mr. Rusco. When we looked at it last, it was just over $1
billion that had accumulated but since then the lawsuit
entailed paying back royalties that had been paid, so that has
gone up and we have not yet looked at this issue since then.
But we did estimate at that time that depending on the price of
oil and gas, mostly oil in this case, the loss would be
somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion.
Mr. Hinchey. Twenty and 50 billion?
Mr. Rusco. Yes.
Mr. Moran. And we have actually paid money back to the oil
and gas companies. Are you finished, Maurice? I was just going
to suggest, Mr. Chairman, before you conclude this meeting, I
wonder if Mr. Cole might find that Indian tribe that got a
thousand times reimbursement what BLM is getting for the right-
of-way and maybe we can contact them on a consultant basis or
something to get a little better break on our right-of-way.
Mr. Simpson. I think that was something that----
Mr. Cole. I told Mr. Calvert at the time, look, we have
learned something negotiating with you guys over the last 500
years.
Mr. Simpson. Anyway, that will be the end of this meeting
then.
Mr. Cole. Can I make one quick point?
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Cole. First of all, I owe you an apology, Ms. Kendall.
I think I called you Shelly and I did not mean to, so I
apologize.
Second, it would not be a fair meeting if my friend, Mr.
Hinchey, and I did not wrangle a little bit over hydraulic
fracturing. So I just want to make one point as you study this
going forward. There are states that do this very well that
have literally managed hydraulic fracturing for over 50 years.
It is not a new technology. I think there are real problems
here. I agree with Mr. Hinchey on that. And I think there is a
lot of misunderstanding as well, and a lot of our problem I
think stems from a difference in the sophistication and the
experience at the state level in the regulatory arena, and I
would suggest just as Ms. Lummis did, a good thing to do might
be to go back to states that have a lot of experience and do
this well as opposed to starting a whole new federal regime
where we have no experience, no background. We already have a
department that does not manage the things that it is supposed
to do as well as any of us would like. I would be very careful
about taking on a whole other area because natural gas
production is rising in the country. This is a big thing, and
again, there are real problems in this growth area but there
are states that do this very well and it would be far better to
keep this at the state level, in my opinion, help those states
that have this challenge develop a regulatory regime than try
to all of a sudden create one at the federal level when we have
very little background in doing this, but just my observation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I thank both the GAO and the IG
for coming in and going through your reports today. My idea of
oversight really is that we are all working together toward a
common goal, so I appreciate your insights into this and
working with the Department and with this committee to try to
improve the operations of government. So thank you for being
here today.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 2, 2011.
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
DAVID TRIMBLE, GAO ACTING DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT
ARTHUR A. ELKINS JR., INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
WADE NAJJUM, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION, OFFICE
OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. Good morning, and welcome to our second
oversight hearing this week. Today we plan to discuss Major
Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector
General have identified a number of barriers to effective
implementation of EPA's mission and responsibilities through
past audits, investigations, and evaluations. These barriers
can be either self-imposed, internal constraints such as work
force management that the agency may have the ability to
address, or they may prove to be external challenges outside of
the control of the agency, including one area that I have long
had questions about, the lack of a government-wide coordinated
effort and approach to climate change.
We welcome the testimony from the GAO and EPA Inspector
General today and look forward to an honest conversation about
their findings and the next steps that either the EPA or the
Congress should take in order to address these shortcomings.
Mr. Simpson. I am pleased to be joined by our Ranking
Member, Mr. Moran. Would you like to have your opening
statement?
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Fine, Mr. Chairman. I will just say a couple
words.
First of all, when several of the members of the
subcommittee get up and leave, do not think or do not wonder if
was it something I said because it is just I know Mr. Cole is
on and I think Mr. Calvert, we have got Secretary Gates at
Defense Approps, so we are going to have to leave at quarter to
ten or so.
But we very much appreciate this, and speaking for the
minority in this subcommittee, we particularly appreciate
Chairman Simpson's focus on the management challenges in these
agencies. You know, they may draw quite as well, although we
have got good attendance today, but they are not as sexy, but
they are at least as important issues, and we are so dependent
upon the credibility of the Inspector General's Office and the
General Accountability Office.
So this is terribly important and what we are going to hear
about, and I have had an opportunity to go through the
statements, so I am just going to take a couple of minutes
because I want to ask some questions, if you do not mind, Mr.
Chairman, but these challenges that the Environmental
Protection Agency confronts from water and waste water
infrastructure, greenhouse gases, climate change, and so on and
the regulation of chemicals that are used by Americans every
day, they are enormous challenges, but what comes out from your
testimony, and this is what the Chairman alluded to, EPA cannot
fix it on its own. There has got to be an integrated
collaborative strategy.
And I have to say past administrators at times have ignored
and delayed action until the lawsuits and court orders to
implement legislation, and those court orders still exist
today, and they are still going to be in place regardless of
what we do in terms of providing federal resources.
But there has been too much stove-piping of policies, and
some of that is the Congress's fault in terms of the separate
authorizations. Now, we have been focusing through the
continuing resolution on de-funding some of the EPA
responsibilities, but the legal responsibility nevertheless
stays even if the Federal Government does not have the
resources.
I am particularly concerned about the Toxic Substance
Control Act because right here in the Washington area we are
seeing it in the fish and the Potomac River and other things
that there seems to be a real need to regulate the disrupting
effects of these chemicals, but we are not sure how to do that,
and EPA certainly cannot do it on its own.
But we also lack this national approach with regard to
infrastructure needs, and I know the IG's report is
particularly good on the issue of controlling non-point sources
of pollution. The storm runoff, for example. But it is
extraordinarily expensive, and now we are not going to have as
much in the way of resources through the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund. So this is very relevant to the policy decisions we are
making with regard to bringing about the kind of clean water
that our citizens except and take for granted really.
So this is a terribly important hearing, and again, I will
end where I started, Mr. Chairman. I very much thank you for
holding it. So thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and I also just want to emphasize
what Jim said. It is tough because we all have different
committees we have to serve on. I have Admiral Donald up in the
Energy and Water Subcommittee that I have got to slip out and
ask questions to, though we will have somebody here, but
believe me, we do read your testimony and the recommendations
and problems that you bring up, but we want to hear from you,
and the subcommittee is allocating 15 minutes each to the GAO
and the IG witnesses so they can adequately outline their
concerns to the members, after which we will follow with
members' questions.
We will first hear from Mr. David Trimble, Acting Director
of the National Resources and Environment Group at the GAO. Mr.
Trimble will be followed by Mr. Arthur Elkins Jr., the EPA
Inspector General. I thank both of you for being here today.
Please share your thoughts with us.
Testimony of David Trimble
Mr. Trimble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO's work on key
management challenges facing the Environmental Protection
Agency as it implements and enforces laws intending to improve
the quality of the Nation's air, water, and lands and protect
public health.
Our work examines the full range of EPA's programs, and we
have made numerous recommendations to enhance the agency's
effectiveness. These recommendations have frequently targeted a
lack of information necessary to make regulatory decisions,
challenges with the agency's management across headquarters and
ten regional offices, and the need for enhanced internal and
external coordination. My statement touches on five key
challenges beginning with improving agency-wide management.
First, EPA has not comprehensively analyzed its workload
and workforce since the late 1980s to determine the optimal
numbers and distribution of staff agency wide. We have
recommended that EPA identify the factors driving its workload
and develop accurate allocation systems for deploying staff
with the right skills and capabilities to areas of need.
In 2005, we reported that any efforts made by the agency to
develop a more systematic process will be hampered by the lack
of comprehensive and accurate workload data. In 2010, we
reported that the agency still had not developed a
comprehensive workload plan and that the only recent workload
analysis conducted was limited to the Superfund Program.
We have also identified challenges with managing its
enforcement of environmental statutes and regulations and
problems with incomplete and unreliable enforcement data. In
sum, EPA could improve its oversight of state enforcement
agencies and its regional offices and better inform the public
about state enforcement efforts.
Additionally, coordination on efforts such as the
Chesapeake Bay Program and Water Infrastructure Projects in the
border region with Mexico also needs improvement. In 2009, we
reported that EPA and six federal agencies obligated $1.4
billion for drinking water and waste water projects in the
U.S., Mexico border region from 2000, to 2008. We found that
with only one exception the agencies had not comprehensively
assessed the region's needs and lacked coordinated policies and
processes for selecting and building projects, potentially
resulting in programmatic and budgetary inefficiencies.
In 2008, we reported that while the Chesapeake Bay Program
had developed a strategic framework for the restoration effort,
it had not developed a coordinated implementation strategy for
restoring the bay that identified the activities needed to
reach its goals, resources needed to undertake the activities,
or the partners who would be responsible for funding and
carrying out the activities. We currently have work ongoing to
assess the bay restoration effort at this time, and we are
evaluating the steps EPA has taken since our report to improve
the coordination with bay program partners.
A second set of challenges involves the need to transform
EPA's process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals.
EPA's ability to effectively implement its mission of
protecting public health and the environment depends on
credible and timely assessments of the risks posed by toxic
chemicals. EPA assesses chemicals under its Integrated Risk
Information System Program, IRIS, and is authorized under the
Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, to obtain information on
the risks of chemicals and to control those it determines pose
an unreasonable risk.
Because EPA had not developed sufficient information under
these programs to limit public exposure to chemicals that may
pose health concerns, we added this issue to our high-risk list
in 2009. Last month GAO updated its high-risk series and
reaffirmed this as a continuing area of concern.
Let me illustrate, if I could, the scope of the challenge
in the IRIS Program. We reported in 2008 that of the 70 IRIS
assessments in progress at that time 48 had been in progress
for more than 5 years and 12 of those for more than 9 years,
and most of these were still in the draft development stage. In
addition, we reported that EPA indicated that about half of the
chemical assessments in the database may potentially need to be
updated.
Third, EPA faces challenges concerning its management of a
variety of clean water issues involving non-point sources of
pollution such as urban and agricultural runoff as well as
restoring large watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay.
Additionally, there is a challenge posed by the cost of
repairing and upgrading the Nation's deteriorating water
infrastructure. EPA finances infrastructure investments through
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These
funds represent two of the largest items in the EPA's budget,
$2.1 billion for Clean Water and $1.4 billion for Drinking
Water in 2010. These funds also received $6 billion in Recovery
Act funding.
However, as estimates predict that the cost to meet water
infrastructure needs over the next 20 years will total from
$485 billion to $1.2 trillion, additional federal, state, or
local funds or revenue from rate increases will still be
required to address future needs.
Fourth, our work on the cost and pace of cleanup at
Superfund and other hazardous waste sites has found that
despite progress in cleaning up these sites, EPA's future
cleanup costs at non-federal priority-listed sites will likely
be substantial and are likely to exceed current funding levels.
Incomplete and inaccurate data hinder estimation of the amount
of work remaining, as well as future cleanup costs at such
sites.
Key obstacles such as the absence of interagency agreements
have delayed cleanups at some priority sites at Department of
Defense installations. We have recommended that EPA assess
comprehensiveness and reliability of the data the agency
collects on the Superfund Program and make necessary
improvements.
Finally, the fifth set of challenges involves the agency's
role in addressing climate change. While our past work in this
area has addressed various issues concerning others'
experiences with cap and trade programs and technical issues
such as carbon capture and storage, the fundamental challenge
facing EPA concerns the agency's efforts to decrease greenhouse
gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
These efforts have led to an array of legal challenges and
uncertainty about prospects for further regulation. In 2009,
EPA found that emissions from motor vehicles were endangering
public health and welfare. This endangerment finding is the
basis for EPA's efforts to limit greenhouse gases under the
Act. Twenty-six lawsuits challenging this finding have been
filed and will be heard together by a panel of judges.
In addition, EPA has issued a rule for greenhouse gas
emissions from light-duty motor vehicles and additional rules
for certain stationary sources have also been challenged in
court.
Furthermore, five bills that would preclude EPA from
regulating greenhouse gases have been introduced in this
Congress. As a result, EPA's efforts to address greenhouse
gases face substantial obstacles and uncertainty going forward.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you all may have.
[The statement of David C. Trimble follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Elkins.
Testimony of Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr.
Mr. Elkins. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I also serve as the Inspector
General of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board as well. I am pleased to appear before you today for the
first time to discuss the significant management challenges
facing EPA that the OIG identified for fiscal year 2010.
Serving as Inspector General is an honor and a privilege
for me because of the opportunities presented to make a
positive difference by protecting taxpayer dollars from fraud,
waste, and abuse. Also, by making recommendations that assist
EPA to achieve its stated goals of protecting human health and
the environment.
Since becoming Inspector General in June, 2010, I have been
thoroughly impressed with the expertise, dedication, and
professionalism of my OIG staff. Their hard work serves as the
basis of my testimony this morning.
OIG conducts independent, non-partisan audits, evaluations,
and investigations. This independence is the source of our
credibility. While my remarks this morning are on our fiscal
year 2010 management challenges list issued last May, I should
note that we are currently updating our challenges list for
fiscal year 2011, and will have those ready by early this
summer.
We identified seven challenges which are detailed in my
statement for the record. This morning I would like to focus on
one of these challenges, which is cyber security. The challenge
of cyber security as we see it is that EPA has a limited
capability to effectively respond to advanced persistent
threats, otherwise known as APTs, conducted by outside
organizations which are designed to establish a beachhead
within EPA's computer networks to steal or modify information
without detection. APT-type attacks are an infestation much
like bedbugs. Once they are in, it is hard to get them out.
EPA lacks sufficiently-trained personnel and resources to
adequately address this type of threat. For example, EPA has
faced APT-type compromises across its network computer systems.
These compromises have resulted in proven thefts of
intellectual data. Our investigations have shown illegal
accesses to multiple key infrastructure components and high-
level personnel to include political appointees.
Now, why is this important? It is important because these
compromises places EPA infrastructure and data at risk. For
example, a risk to CBI, intellectual properties such as
chemical formulas, and water utilities vulnerabilities--data
that EPA is entrusted to protect.
It is also important because it could have an impact on our
economy and trade, environmental and human safety programs, and
potentially allow for compromises due to trusted relationships
between EPA's computer domain and other government computer
domains such as the USDA, Interior, and Commerce.
Discussing the challenges of addressing and responding to
cyber attacks is also a natural segue here to our budget
request for fiscal year 2012. The President's budget included
$56 million and 365 FTE, which includes a $10 million transfer
from the Superfund Trust Fund, about $5 million below our
original request.
Now, when Congress amended the Inspector General Act in
2008, it provided the IGs with additional safeguards to our
independence. One is the authority to provide comments in the
President's budget submission if we believe the budget request
for our operations would substantially inhibit us from
performing the duties of the Office. I do not take this
authority lightly. However, I felt an obligation under the law
to state my concerns about our 2012 budget, so I provided
comments with the President's budget submission because I
believe our budget request would inhibit us from doing our
work.
Additional funds would strengthen our Office of Cyber
Investigations and homeland security efforts to help the agency
address this security issue. We could hire more agents, obtain
needed specialized training for agents, and purchase necessary
hardware and software for cyber investigations. Specifically,
this would allow for the proper future funding of our existing
11 FTEs, increase investigative and analytical staff from 11 to
23, and establish an office in the west, thereby expanding our
presence beyond just DC and RTP where we are currently located,
closer to any west coast compromises.
Putting the OIG's budget request in perspective, the total
OIG budget represents an investment in oversight of less than
half of 1 percent of the agency's total budget. I see the OIG
as an insurance policy. During times of reduced resources is
when there is a greater need for oversight to promote
efficiency and address the heightened risk of fraud, waste, and
abuse.
Finally, in closing, management challenges are meant to
bring the big issues to the attention of senior EPA management,
Congress, and the public. I think we and GAO share the same
goal here. That is to see that EPA improves its performance.
The agency has made some progress in addressing some of the
challenges we identified. For example, in the cyber security
area, members of the agency have told my staff, ``we get'' it
as it pertains to cyber security, and they are taking steps
independently and with us through the development of an MOU to
address the ever-changing landscape of cyber security threats.
However, a more sustained and robust effort is needed to
fully resolve not just cyber security but the other challenges
that we identified as well. We will continue to monitor and
track EPA's progress and report on any other emerging issues,
but if the OIG is under-funded, it will impact the depth of our
reviews in these and other areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may
have.
[The statement of Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. I know that you have got to go here shortly.
Is there anything you would like to ask before you go?
Mr. Moran. I would, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask about the
Chesapeake Bay because that is particularly important to me and
otherwise it might not come up.
We have a new agreement that requires everyone to be
involved in terms of achieving the total maximum daily load,
but that requirement was then wiped out in the continuing
resolution. Do you see, either of you, as that being sufficient
to achieve our objectives? Because we are about 30 years behind
in terms of achieving the objectives that we had set with the
six states. Is there any comment on that?
Mr. Trimble. Well, I think as I noted, we have an ongoing
review. Under a mandate we have a recurring obligation to
review progress under the Chesapeake Bay Program. We have an
ongoing review looking at progress since we last looked at the
issue in 2008.
Part of that effort is to look at the latest plan taken by
the EPA and the Administration and then, again, looking at the
basic issues we have identified before in terms of identifying
strategic goals and coordination issues. I think our report
will probably get at a lot of the issues that you are asking.
Mr. Moran. When will we get that report?
Mr. Trimble. That will be early summer, I believe.
Mr. Moran. Early summer of this year?
Mr. Trimble. Yes.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Mr. Trimble. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. All right. Let me just ask you, we have had some
serious problems with regard to TSCA, the regulation of the
chemicals that consumers use every day. Is TSCA sufficient? We
have been considering reauthorization of TSCA, but again, you
bring out the fact that there needs to be more collaboration
than exists right now. Do you see the TSCA legislation as
sufficient? Can we just renew it, or should there be a
substantial reconfiguration of it?
Mr. Trimble. I know that in our prior work we have
identified substantial problems with TSCA both in terms of its
implementation and also we have made very specific
recommendations regarding legislative changes as well. So I
think both need to be addressed.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
Mr. Elkins. And I would concur with that assessment as
well. We found similar challenges as well.
Mr. Moran. So the existing legislation is insufficient to
achieve the tasks both with combinations of chemicals and the
existing authority.
Just one last thing, and then I am going to let it go. The
water pollution from non-point sources, this is a major
finding. Do we need more resources? I know we have cut the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the State Drinking Water
Revolving Fund, but you are telling us that these non-point
sources, the storm water runoff particularly, we are really not
making a whole lot of progress in terms of achieving the
quality of the water that we need.
Mr. Trimble. We right now have an ongoing review looking at
the 319 Program for non-point sources. It is clearly an area of
need. A lot of progress has been made in the past regarding
point-source pollution, and right now a lot of our focus in the
current review is looking at coordination efforts and level of
effort in the 319 Program. So certainly more is needed in that
area.
Mr. Elkins. And I do not know exactly whether or not we
have looked at that exact issue. You know, I would like to
state for the record here, too, I have been on board now for
about 8 months, so I am not going to claim to know all the
small details. That is why I brought some of my qualified staff
with me.
So at this point let me turn around.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Mr. Najjum. Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for
Program Evaluation. We have done work in the Chesapeake Bay but
not within the past 2 years. We thought the program office and
Executive Order did make some big steps, and also the
coordination with the Department of Agriculture, in particular
for non-point sources. And that has carried over, I think, into
other areas of the country where agriculture is looking at it.
That was part of a joint project we did with the USDA IG.
WATER NUTRIENTS
We also issued a report on nutrients standards for the
water. EPA accepted and began taking action on it to look at a
lot of the nutrients that come from the non-point sources. They
do have authority to deal with that. They just have to exercise
it, which was one of the things that we recommended they do.
Mr. Moran. More challenging in terms of trying to get out.
There are other issues, the important of the greenhouse gas
registry and so on, but I suspect Ms. McCollum, Mr. Chairman,
is going to pursue areas like that, so rather than be
repetitive, I thank you for the opportunity, and thank you very
much for having this hearing.
Mr. Simpson. You mentioned that workforce management is a
challenge. I find that, I guess, kind of surprising because
that would seem to be one of the primary goals of management is
to make sure your workforce is aligned with priorities that you
have established.
Why is that a problem, and how do we get at it, and could
workforce management or the lack of workforce management lead
to differences between the regions and how different rules and
regulations are applied? I continue to hear this from
businesses, industries that have plants in different parts of
the country that say rules applied one way in this region and
another way in another region and that type of thing.
Could the lack of workforce management lead to that type of
implementation?
Mr. Trimble. You know, I do not know if our work is
specifically tied to that, but that is certainly one potential
consequence. I mean, the fundamental issue is identifying your
workload, lining up your workforce with that workload, and then
linking it to your strategic objectives, and that is really
where we have found the agency has fallen down. I believe the
last workforce plan was in 2006, and I believe that was the
first one by the agency.
And so without the ability to line up your resources with
the workload, a natural consequence is that you have such
disconnects as you mentioned. I think the other area that leads
to that kind of disconnect is in the area of enforcement, where
we have repeatedly made observations or recommendations
concerning improving the data EPA has to manage enforcement
undertaken by the states and the regions in their oversight
capacity. And it is the absence of that data or the absence of
using that data to analyze why there are differences, I think
is also a potential cause of the situation you described.
Mr. Simpson. Speaking of data and data the states have, do
you know many of the environmental responsibilities are
delegated to the states, if those states demonstrate that they
can operate programs and they are at least as stringent as the
federal standards? The EPA IG is finding that more data
collection is required to ensure proper oversight of state-
delegated programs is in direct conflict with what we hear from
the states quite frankly.
The GAO has also identified the need for more consistent
enforcement and compliance data, yet some states already
believe that the EPA's data requirements are too burdensome. We
even saw a few states rejecting Recovery Act funds because of
the reporting burden that was too high for those states.
Have you heard similar complaints as you conducted your
reviews or since the release of your findings, or have you
found that states generally agree with the recommendations to
increase data collection?
Mr. Trimble. I would have to go back to check on specific
state responses. I believe a lot of the focus of our
recommendations concerns consistency of information across the
regions and the states as much as it is additional information.
So I am not sure it is necessarily an additional burden we are
talking about.
DATA: COLLECTION AND REPORTING
Mr. Elkins. Yes, and also on the work that we have done, I
am not quite sure that I have information on what the states'
reaction has been to our report because we do the review and
then release the report to the agency, although we have found
that data quality issues have been an ongoing challenge.
Again, I would like to turn to my subject matter experts
and see if anybody can give me----
Mr. Simpson. And your name is for the record?
Mr. Najjum. Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for
Program Evaluation.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. Najjum. What we have found is, yes, the states have
told us when we have talked with them about not liking some of
the requirements or the inconsistent requirements that EPA has.
What we found from our point of view is the real issue is there
is a difference in definition. It's not so much that we have
not looked to see that the requirements are burdensome
necessarily. But when we are looking at an enforcement function
it is to see do they have the information to make the right
decisions? And what you will have generally is through the
regions, EPA relies on the state systems to provide them the
information.
That information varies from state to state, and the
definition of what goes into the database varies from state to
state. So by the time it gets through the regions and their
interpretation and ten different regions' interpretation of it,
it is inconsistent.
I do not think it is one that you would blame any of the
states for having their own system, but what you do have is
that lack of a consistent definition so that when the data gets
brought in and consolidated, you don't have a real
understanding of what it means.
Mr. Simpson. How hard can it be to ask for consistent data
from the states or from the regions?
Mr. Najjum. Well, it is not hard to ask for it unless you
are asking the states to change their system to provide
information to a definition that they did not design their
systems to do. I think that is the issue. The states have their
systems which are to serve their own purposes. To the extent it
can, EPA draws their information from these systems.
There may not be a standard definition. We recently issued
a report on emergency drinking water wells. It is not something
that EPA looks at but based on the situation in Crestwood where
a town was blending water using contaminated water from an
emergency well to supplement their water supply. We looked to
see does EPA know where emergency wells are. Because it is a
data element that is reported but depending on which state you
are dealing with depends on how they categorize and report it.
So when you pull all the information together, it is
useless. I believe Colorado, for example, maintains emergency
wells strictly for firefighting. Does not have anything to do
with whether it is contaminated or not. Some other places in
Illinois, for example, maintained an emergency well of
contaminated water for firefighting, just for emergencies, but
there are two different types of wells there that we are really
talking about.
So I think that is the issue, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. This is baffling to me. I mean, I would think
that if we define what an emergency well was and there could be
many different types, potable water, emergencies for
firefighting, that would be pretty clear. You say states are
doing their own thing. If we ask somebody to report on
emergency wells and we say, okay, potable and for forest fires,
how hard is that?
Mr. Najjum. It would be hard if you wanted to use your
authority to tell the states, including the ones that do not
keep those records necessarily, they have to do it. I think
that is the issue there on lots of things.
If we use somebody else's system, unless you are willing to
tell them how to define all the data elements in it, if you are
willing to accept their system, then you accept the information
that is in it.
Ms. McCollum. Okay.
Mr. Najjum. And it may be of different definitions and
quality.
Ms. McCollum. I am a mom. So if I say drink your milk, it
means drink your milk. It does not mean drink the water or
drink something else, or go to the refrigerator and get juice
to drink. It means drink the milk. So if I ask people to report
on emergency wells and I have described what emergency wells
are to them----
Mr. Najjum. Yes.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. They might have systems that
account for things differently, but is it that they cannot or
will not? Because you could have a system that lists that
differently, but you still have it in front of you to pull it
out.
Will they not or they cannot?
Mr. Najjum. I do not think it is a will not or cannot. I
think there is so much information available.
Ms. McCollum. I think you are being very polite, sir.
Mr. Najjum. I try to be.
Mr. Simpson. Well, it is kind of surprising to me. You
would think that when the states accept the responsibility to
enforce the Clean Water Act or are delegated the authority to
do that, part of that delegation would be this is what we
expect, not only that you meet standards, but that you have
reportable data that fits within the system so that we know
what is going on.
DELEGATIONS TO STATES
Mr. Najjum. As a matter of fact, sir, we issued a report on
inconsistencies between the EPA State Clean Water Act
memorandums of agreement that have been put into place. They
are the basic underlying internal controls to that delegation
of authority, and depending on when that delegation was made
and when it has been updated or how it has been updated, some
of those memorandum of agreements were not complete as far as
changes, statutory changes to the act or things had changed
over time.
And what they covered, since they were individually
negotiated between the regions and the states, they were not
consistent, which may go back to your earlier point about
inconsistencies in enforcement. It is that delegation to the
states and then how the states actually do the work that is how
the inconsistencies come about. I think the memorandum of
agreement has been described as part of a layer cake. It is not
a sole defining document, but it is part of a layer cake of how
we do business with the states, and many of them were of our
date.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I have a couple of things I would
like to ask about, but I really want to take the time while I
have you here to learn, so I am going to just see how I go from
here. I would like to talk about Toxic Chemical Reform.
I come from a state that actually has invested and put
money into public health and toxic chemicals and is working on
even listing emerging chemicals of concern.
The EPA, as we were kind of talking before, something that
was even easier to describe, what is emergency water, states
have been working with the EPA in chemical reform. In the GAO
report, there suggests that there is a barrier to the EPA's
ability to assess chemical risks because of the lack of
authority under TSCA to require comprehensive health and safety
information.
Then I go to page 8 of your report, and you have in here in
the first paragraph, I read from it, ``In contrast to the
approach taken by the European Union which generally places the
burden on companies to prove the data on the chemicals that
they produce to address the risks posed by these chemicals to
human health and the environment.'' So we have just the
opposite here.
I would like you to, as you comment, have that in the back
of your mind as you respond.
Then you go on to say, ``Nevertheless, although 85 percent
of the notices lack any health or safety tests, EPA does not
often use its authority to obtain more information.'' So there
is someone out there kind of collecting and saying, jeez, 85
percent of this information we have on whether or not this is
toxic is really, really inconclusive.
And then one of the challenges that you kind of addressed
in your report is to shift more of the burden to chemical
companies for demonstrating the safety of their product, so I
am kind of concerned that we are not watching what is going on
there with these chemicals of emerging concern, let alone we
still have a lot of chemicals that are currently out there.
And then you go on to talk about nanotechnology, which is
even, I do not want to say frightening, because I think
nanotechnology possesses a lot of good, but we have no idea on
how to handle it as waste and what is safe.
Could you maybe talk to me about how you really think your
ability to guard and protect public health is not being
addressed because we are not sharing the burden with the
companies who are for profit, who sell these products and then
we end up cleaning or we end up as taxpayers cleaning it up or
dealing with the public health risk. Could you talk about that
and maybe what is preventing you from being more efficient in
that?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. Well, I think our work on EPA's Toxic
Chemical Programs, I mean, there are two pieces that form the
base for why it became a high-risk area. One was IRIS, which is
EPA's program for assessing toxicity, and the program you
alluded to is under TSCA, which regulates chemicals.
What our work has found and which is what has led to the
numerous recommendations in the area for both agency and
legislation is that there is sort of an overwhelming amount of
work to be done. When TSCA first kicked in, there were about
some 60,000 chemicals in use at the time, registered for use.
Currently there are about some 80,000 registered for use. Not
all are currently in use, but that is the number in the
registry.
The challenge has been to get information on the potential
health effects of those chemicals. The level of burden or what
kind of information varies depending on whether it was in use
or if it is a new chemical. For chemicals that are coming into
use, companies have to provide a pre-manufacture or pre-use
notification to EPA, and the 85 percent figure you allude to is
in reference to new chemicals coming into commerce. Eighty-five
percent of the notices coming to EPA did not have the health
effects information associated with that.
Now, some of that may be because it is known, it is a no-
brainer. But a lot of it is an unknown. It is a question mark,
and the challenges that we have reported on and previously have
been that the thresholds, the legislative, the statutory
criteria EPA must meet in order to demand more information has
been a very high hurdle and has impeded EPA's ability to get
the information on the potential health affects of those
chemicals.
Ms. McCollum. Do you know if the EPA requires if you were
able to have the information, what would be the level effect on
pediatrics versus adult?
Mr. Trimble. That kind of question goes more into the
Integrated Risks Information System, which is on the potential
health effects of a chemical, and that would be the kind of
thing that would go into that study, and that is the area where
we have noted problems just because they have been, again, long
in tooth in terms of getting these things out. They have not
been keeping up with the pace and then a lot of the assessments
already into their Integrated Risk Information System are
already in need of updating.
So I believe in my opening statement I made the reference
to the 70 that were in the process and about 40 of those or 48
of those were already over, I believe, 5 years old and 12 were
over 9 years old. And the IRIS process is what is the
foundation for EPA's other regulatory actions, because that
provides the human health effects information which then
becomes the basis for regulating it in air and water and for
Superfund cleanups.
So that is why that is such a critical program.
Ms. McCollum. So you have a list of the backlog and how far
behind we are?
Mr. Trimble. I believe we touched on that in our report
from 2008. I do not know if we have current information. In
2008, I believe we had said there were about 70 ongoing IRIS
assessments, and at that time I think we had been told that
about half of the assessments were already in the database, and
I believe the database had around 500 or so chemicals already
in potential need of updating.
Ms. McCollum. There was some legislation that passed
through our university system, so we are not necessarily
growing the Federal Government larger to do all this, but have
emerging centers of excellence with our university systems. Are
you aware of that, and how do you interface with other people
who are working on it so we are not, you know, trying to create
another wheel when there is somebody out there who can do it,
and we can work with them more effectively and efficiently with
the taxpayers' dollars?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. GAO has not looked at EPA's interaction
with the universities and centers of excellence and whether
that is part of their current strategy for reforming the
process. I know they have a lot of initiatives ongoing
regarding both IRIS and TSCA, but I am not familiar. That is
not an area we have done work in recently.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trimble, to you
first. The Environmental Protection Agency has obviously, and
you mentioned it, caused controversy with some of the actions
that have been taken, including overreach lawsuits, legislation
introduced on greenhouse gas regulation, push back on Clean
Water Act regulations that have been interpreted to include
virtually every body of water including those created when a
truck tire makes an indent in the surface of the earth. It just
seems that there is over-zealousness everywhere.
What roles does the federal oversight community, including
the GAO and the Inspector General, play when such overreach is
occurring? Is it your role or is it the Inspector General's
role to say, ``hey, is it time to back off a bit here''? Like I
said, whether it is greenhouse gas regulation or any of the
other areas, there seems to be a chorus outside of the agency
saying there is overreach here.
What role do you play?
INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT
Mr. Elkins. I will address that. Under the IG Act, the IG's
role is clearly laid out by statute. One of the prohibitions
for IGs is not to get involved in operational issues of an
agency, which would include making policy decisions or policy
judgments. The type of issue that you raised is a policy issue.
What the IG's role is is that once the agency has
implemented a policy, then the IG can take a look at what the
impact of that use of discretion is. That will be our proper
role. So I would be out of my lane to comment on issues related
to the agency's exercise of policy beyond the impact issue.
Mr. Flake. Mr. Trimble, has the GAO been commissioned to
study this issue by any members?
Mr. Trimble. No, we have not. The one observation I would
make is that GAO has a policy of not getting involved in areas
where there is ongoing litigation, so for example, I think one
of the areas----
Mr. Flake. Then how do you get involved in anything?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. Exactly. One of the areas, for example,
is I believe there is a lawsuit challenging the TMDL for the
Chesapeake Bay by I believe the Farm Federation or Farm Bureau.
That is an area which, while it is related to ongoing work we
are doing, we are going to shy away from because it puts us at
risk of getting right in the middle of the litigation, and we
do not want to sort of have our records subpoenaed and be
called out. So as a policy matter we will shy away.
So I think the fact of what happens is because this is such
a litigious area, we sort of get bumped out of it for other
reasons.
Mr. Flake. Then it is up to us, I guess. Right?
Mr. Elkins, you noted in your testimony that the agency is
implementing a sustainable water infrastructure policy that
includes finding ways to expand and incorporate green
infrastructure options.
Now, given the limited funding that is available right now
for new initiatives, have you done any assessment or has
anybody on what new costs that might incur, what relative
effectiveness and efficiency of using these new green
infrastructure options?
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: GREEN
Mr. Elkins. You know, I hate to do this, but it seems that
this is turning into the Wade Najjum show here, but he seems to
be my subject matter expert. He has all the details on this, so
Wade.
Mr. Najjum. Wade Najjum. The short answer, sir, would be
no.
Mr. Flake. You work just like my staff. So, we will turn to
the GAO then. Has that been the subject of a study commissioned
by any member?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. We have not looked at that directly. It
came up incidentally in our work looking at the Recovery Act
money that went to the Revolving Funds, and there was a 20
percent set-aside for green projects. So we looked at more sort
of technical implementation issues regarding that.
We have an ongoing review due out I think at the very end
of May, beginning of June. That report is sort of an update on
our monitoring of the Clean Water, Drinking Water Funds, and I
think we will get a little bit more in detail, but nothing
specific as to the cost implications, I believe.
Mr. Flake. So you have not issued any reports that you can
report on or give a summary of now?
Mr. Trimble. No, I do not believe, not on the efficiency of
the costs of those initiatives.
Mr. Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. I think Mrs. Lummis has a problem with her
voice today and so she came to listen more than anything else
because the voice is gone. I understand that.
Let me ask. In the report the GAO released yesterday
entitled, ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars and Enhance Revenue,''
the GAO identified coordination with other agencies as an issue
in the U.S.-Mexico border region leading to an ineffective and
fragmented use of resources. I think you mentioned this in your
testimony.
The GAO suggested that Congress establish a taskforce to
review and coordinate those activities. Any idea how that
taskforce would work and why Congress should do it rather than
the Administrative Branch of government? As I understand seven
agencies are the EPA, the USDA, the Army Corps of Engineers,
IHS, EDA, the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Trimble. Yes. I am not that familiar with the details
as to why that became a matter for Congress other than, of
course, when you have that many agencies it is not something
one agency can do unilaterally. So obviously having sort of
another force to tell them to do it, I think, is the obvious
answer.
That was an area, I think as I mentioned in my opening
statement, you have seven agencies involved in the border
region of Mexico, providing similar services for clean water,
drinking water projects. Only one of those agencies has
actually done a comprehensive sort of needs assessment of the
region. That was the Indian Health Service at the reservations
or the Indian lands.
And so what you had then is both Ag and EPA as the big
players, sort of working potentially across purposes because
the actions were not coordinated.
Moreover, you increase the burden on the local communities
because a lot of the application requirements for those
projects, which can involve a lot of engineering drawings,
which could cost you $30,000 to put a package together, they
are not identical. So if you are going to apply to both funding
streams, you have to do it twice, and then sometimes people
would do it, and then they would choose one funding stream but
not the other, and then you have had a waste of resources in
that regard.
So there is clearly a potential for improvements at the
local level just to make the program more effective. And
moreover, the way the program is constructed is that the areas
perhaps of greatest need may not be communities that have the
technical or financial wherewithal to go through the
application process for these federal programs. So you need to
have a strategic outlook to target those communities because
the ones who will be silent may be the ones who are most in
need as well.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Mr. Elkins, you mentioned and talked
some about adequate funding within the EPA for cyber security.
Tell me about that need more if you would. When I think of
cyber security, the EPA is not something that I really think
of. Yesterday when we heard about the Department of the
Interior and other agencies uniting cyber securities, I always
think of that with Homeland Security and Defense and some of
the other agencies.
Why is it important within EPA, and what would be the
results if we did not pursue that, make sure they had a secure
system?
CYBER SECURITY
Mr. Elkins. Sure. That is a fair question. Most people do
not realize that EPA has information that is of a sensitive
nature. For instance, treaty information, information on
climate change that someone might have an interest in to be
able to use that information against the interest of the United
States.
There has been evidence and we have investigated intrusions
into EPA systems. I cannot get into the specifics of that
because it is of a classified nature, but it suggests that this
is a real issue.
Also, I think, just looking at the recent press releases
would indicate, generally speaking, this is not just an EPA
issue. This is a global issue, and it is a Federal Government
issue. Other agencies than EPA are also being attacked as well.
The challenges and the threat changes. The players change.
You know, these are organized operations that are specifically
set up to infiltrate, to get into the system, to bury
themselves in there, and then to use the systems against EPA.
That compromised information then goes out to some of our
partners. So it is a very insidious type of an operation.
So it is a major management challenge for the agency. It is
ongoing. It is complicated to the extent that the current
authorities, for instance, the IG Act provides that the IG is
responsible for overseeing the operations and programs of the
agency. However, on the other hand the agency also has certain
responsibilities in terms of security and how it protects its
assets.
So sometimes there is a disconnect between the agency's
desire to run its show and the IG's responsibilities to
oversee. So we run into conflict and where we have that gap is
where those who have an interest in taking advantage of that
can play and can get in and cause a lot of harm.
So to have some sort of consistent approach to dealing with
cyber security would be helpful, and it may require legislation
to do that. I am not quite sure. But every day we see more and
more attacks. It becomes more and more serious, and I am not
quite sure we totally have a coherent strategy to be able to
address it.
Mr. Simpson. Is it more of a focus issue within the
Department or a resource issue?
Mr. Elkins. It is a little bit of both. From our
perspective it is a resource issue because it does take money.
This is not an issue where I can just take criminal
investigators from one shop and just detail them over to do
cyber work. Cyber folks come with a certain skill set and also
requires investment in certain types of software to be able to
detect when there has been an intrusion. So from our standpoint
it is a resource issue.
I believe the agency, as I said, gets it. They understand
that this is a challenge, and it is a threat, and we are
working hopefully as a team, the agency and the IG's office, as
we move forward to be able to address this.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. One of the things that sometimes
we do not think about when we talk about growth and potential
and expansion and everything else is what is changing in the
world. Now, we touched on the chemicals a little bit. One of
the things, nanotechnology, when these legislation and these
agencies were set up, nanotechnology was not on anybody's radar
screen, and there you are dealing with it. Cyber security was
not anything that people were worried about. There we are
dealing with it.
Another thing that has kind of come up of concern is
coordinating climate change activities, and the chair touched
on this yesterday. One of the things that, when the EPA was
looking at and people were not talking about fracking and
people were not talking about, capturing carbon and storing it
and all that.
And these are things you have to look at because they
impact clean water for populations to drink. It is a public
health issue. It is a conservation issue for future
generations.
Has GAO or the Inspector General, have you looked at, and I
mean, this is not about growing government bigger. These are
responses to technology. Have you looked at just doing the
basic mission of the EPA plus these new, whether it is new
chemicals, new technologies, new production methods, how they
impact your budget, and when you are talking about building in
for inflation, are we building in for how we have to respond to
technology so that you can really do your job efficiently?
I think we still need to look for ways, and I think climate
change is one way where we can start molding the interagency
cooperation better.
Mr. Trimble. Well, I mean, I think you make some excellent
points regarding sort of the evolving, fast-changing world and
the evolving challenges, and I think, you know, to go back to
the importance of workload and workforce planning, that is sort
of why you need to do that. That is why that is so important,
and I think in our prior reports what we had noted was EPA,
even though they had identified changes in their workload and
their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and these
other duties, that there is not a systematic process by which
they look at those evolving responsibilities and make sure both
that their staff are aligned to address that, as well as to
make sure that their staff's skill sets are aligned to address
that to meet their changing strategic goals.
So I think that is sort of the heart and soul of the
importance of that issue. In general, in sort of an incidental
way, we come across this repeatedly, so in terms of the
coordination issue, we have done a report on carbon capture and
storage, and in that report we noted that to do this is not
something the EPA can do alone. You are talking about massive
technology, you are talking about massive transportation
systems to ship this stuff across the country, plus storage. So
you are talking, you know, the Department of Transportation,
Department of Agriculture and Interior. All these guys are
going to be involved in some effort like that, and we had made
recommendations along those lines, and I believe the President
last year or the end of the prior year had started a coalition
or an executive level group to look at this issue.
But absolutely most of these big changes, these challenges
are going to require large amounts of coordination across the
agencies.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS
Mr. Elkins. And we agree with you. We think these are
important issues in areas that we should be looking at from an
IG perspective. As a matter of fact, currently we do have
ongoing projects right now looking at the nano-material areas
as well as endocrine disrupters as well.
So I guess what I can say to you is stay tuned because
there will be reports coming out within the near future.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I think that makes it a real
challenge for you and for this committee putting the budget
together, and we have to do a lot of belt tightening right now.
I am not saying that we do not, but we have a responsibility
for not only today's public health issues but being smart for
the next generation, because if we are not, it is going to be
even more expensive for them to deal with that.
If I could, it is quick, and it is short. It is the Great
Lakes, which I know everybody is just so excited to hear about
it. The EPA has been given an initiative, and it came together
primarily working with the governors and the elected officials
from Canada and then working out things between the two federal
governments and so there has been a lot put in at the local
level, not driven necessarily at a national level.
And you have some initiatives that have come out as a
result of that, the Great Lakes Initiative. Now, I understand
that there was money to fund this, and the Canadian government
is doing its part, too. I was just with an official from Canada
in my office yesterday, and we were talking about the Great
Lakes Initiative. They are concerned that the United States and
so are the states, Minnesota in particular, that we are not
going to live up to our commitment, and it goes to
infrastructure needs, testing, innovation and other things.
So can you tell me how much of that might have been from
lack of resources because I am hearing different things from
different people so I am not judging. I am just asking for your
factual/opinion on this.
Did we have funds there before you were able to scale up
with a staff to do that? Was there a hard time attracting the
right staff with the right tool set? And then the other
interesting thing that I have heard, believe it or not, is that
weather has been a problem because there are only certain
times, as you know, that you can do certain things with bodies
of water because they get hard at certain points during the
year.
So part of it is that funds are obligated but they were not
being able to be used because we have a little thing called a
cold climate.
Mr. Trimble. The GAO's work on Great Lakes, we have not
done anything in the last couple of years on that. That is an
area we definitely believe needs attention and some focus. The
work we have done in the past in that area noted some
coordination issues as well as some issues concerning questions
about how they would monitor progress on the plans that they
had talked about.
I think the issues and concerns you speak of will probably
be echoed in the work ongoing in the Chesapeake Bay. So I think
the issues and the lessons learned from that effort will
clearly have applicability to the ongoing effort. You have the
same, you know, budgetary pressures among the states versus the
Federal Government and then the questions about who is going to
pick up what piece of the load and whether or not people can
still meet those commitments given the pressures at the state
and the federal levels.
Ms. McCollum. And I am not trying to be funny about it, but
I know from even serving on a city council, you do road bids,
you put things out, and then weather just does not cooperate.
When the GAO looks at timeliness of being able to fulfill
obligations in reports, I mean, seriously, do you look at the
impact that there are certain times of the year where we just
cannot do certain things? And does that factor in? If it
factors in, then is it a help, or is it never accounted for at
all, and then we could look like we are not doing our fair
share when we are just prohibited to do it because of climate?
Mr. Trimble. I mean, we have not done a recent review of,
you know, specific milestones and progress, so we are not in a
position to talk about any potential delays. I can speak from
experience. I was involved in tracking the Recovery Act money
for water projects specifically across the country and then
also mostly I did a lot of detailed work in Ohio. And clearly
the weather impacts the progress of those projects, and that is
all accounted for both in the state's planning and the layout
and distribution of those funds.
So it is clearly something that is foreseen and accounted
for both in the planning and then in the evaluation of those
efforts.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
indulgence.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. No more questions. Just a comment. How can
people with so much water still complain so much?
Ms. McCollum. We are protecting it for you or from you. I
am not sure which.
Mr. Flake. No more questions.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that, and I appreciate you both
being here today. As I said, or as Mr. Moran said, there are a
number of hearings, unfortunately, that are going on. We
appreciate the staff for being here also and answering
questions. I can tell you that we do take your reports very
seriously. I still would repeat that I am kind of stunned that
a concern of yours is the workforce development within the EPA
when you look at the fact that 25 percent of their budget is
spent on employees and salaries. You would think that that
would be a high priority of making sure the workforce fits the
task that you ask them to do and the priorities that you have
asked them to do.
And that is certainly questions that will come up during
the hearing with the EPA, but you have given us a basis of
questions that will be asked, and we appreciate your work on
this, and thanks very much for being here.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 3, 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BARBARA BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The hearing will be come to order. Good
morning, and welcome to the third meeting and the first budget
hearing of the 2012 season for this Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies. I am pleased to kick off the
2012 debate with the Environmental Protection Agency, whose
programs and funding are of great interest to this
subcommittee. Administrator Jackson, thank you for being here
this morning and testifying on your 2012 budget proposal. We
find ourselves at a critical juncture as we begin to focus on
our work for the fiscal year 2012 while we continue to finish
the 2011 budget. The overspending has gone on too long, and now
it is time to tighten our belts. Difficult decisions await this
subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee in general. The
House took the necessary first steps to move in a fiscally
responsible direction on February 19th by passing $100 billion
in discretionary spending reductions. The package included $4.4
billion in cuts from agencies funded through this subcommittee,
of which $3 billion came out of the EPA budget.
We did so, in large part, by reducing the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by almost $2 billion in
order to return those programs to the 2008 funding levels. In
2009, the SRFs received $6 billion in stimulus funding,
equivalent to five years of appropriations at the 2008 level. I
think we can all agree that a 5-year infusion of funding in one
year is a huge influx for any program to absorb. I raise this
not because I am opposed to the purpose of the SRFs, but as the
clearest example in this bill of too much, too fast which could
be the mantra for the EPA whether we are talking about spending
or regulations.
The House full-year CR also cut $303 million from the
geographic programs, including $225 million from the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative. This is another program that has
struggled to place funding on projects within a year, following
a staggering seven-fold increase in 2010. The CR also cut $68
million in climate change funding and targeted reductions to
the EPA's air, water and policy offices, which continue to
develop what I believe to be job killing regulations.
We also put a halt to the EPA's clear attempt to legislate
through regulation on a number of policy issues, including
greenhouse gases and navigable waterways. It should be up to
Congress, not the administration, to determine whether and how
to regulate greenhouse gases, but the litany of overreaching
regulations does not stop there. Jobs in the cement industry
are under attack by the Portland Cement Rule. The oil and gas
industry has been unable to obtain air permits to work in the
Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska and agriculture is under
attack as EPA considers whether or not to regulate farm dust.
The coal industry, which is of great importance to Chairman
Rogers, is under attack on multiple fronts, whether it is where
industry can place a mining fill materials, whether coal ash
may now be labeled as hazardous waste, or whether a company may
be able to use existing permits to work in Appalachia and keep
mines open. We put a hold on all of these regulations and the
House passed the CR in order to relieve the burden on industry
and to give our authorizers the opportunity to address these
issues in a more comprehensive fashion this year.
EPA's 2012 budget request provides $8.973 billion, a 12.9
percent decrease from the 2010 enacted level. Generally
speaking, the EPA 2012 budget is balanced on the back of States
as State grants have been reduced by 22 percent while EPA
operations and research budgets have received only a 2 to 4
percent reduction in order to reduce spending by $1.3 billion
from current levels.
The 2012 budget cuts $947 million from the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, $125 million from the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, $70 million from the
Superfund Program, which cleans up the most toxic hazardous
waste sites and eliminates $179 million for earmarks as every
administration does. This is not the blueprint for reduced
Federal spending and debt reduction that the American people
and Congressional Republicans are demanding. In stark contrast,
we cut more spending out of the SRFs in the House passed full-
year CR than has been proposed in your entire 2012 budget.
The demand for 2012 is simple, spend less and regulate
less. Furthermore, I question the rationale for some of the
2012 proposals, most notably eliminating the diesel emissions
reductions grants to retrofit old diesel engines while
proposing new start programs to regulate greenhouse gases.
I am not sure it makes sense to eliminate a grant program
with clear, proven, quantifiable benefits in favor of new
programs with no demonstrated benefits. I am also not sure that
it makes sense to eliminate a grant program with broad
bipartisan support and the support of the States and industry
in favor of climate change initiatives that you know are most
likely dead on arrival in the House. As my good friend and
colleague Mr. Calvert said on the floor during the CR debate,
the DERA Program is a win-win. So either the President is
playing politics with his budget or this further illustrates
that the EPA is simply out of touch. We have a number of issues
that I know all members are interested in discussing with you
today.
So I will save additional remarks for questions following
your testimony. I am pleased to now yield to our distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Moran.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
really appreciate your commitment to the important programs
that are contained in this bill. And I certainly want to
welcome Administrator Jackson and Ms. Bennett, the chief
financial officer for EPA. You represent the best of our civil
service. And I don't take that lightly. I mean it, and it is a
high compliment. The Environmental Protection Agency has worked
so hard on behalf of all of the American citizens to protect
the nation's environment and public health. And for that, you
certainly deserve the praise of all and the appreciation of all
Americans. EPA's budget request, though, is $9 billion, $1.3
billion or 13 percent below fiscal year 2010.
And below the current continuing resolution level. That is
too low. While I understand that the budget request aims to
reflect the fiscal constraint, all agencies must operate on, I
am troubled that most of EPA's reduction comes at the expense
of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, as the Chairman has referenced. These funds were
collectively reduced by $947 million, or 27 percent. But they
are prudent investments that help maintain the infrastructure
that makes clean and healthy water available to all Americans,
which we have all taken for granted.
I guess when most governors have claimed that the Federal
stimulus money was wasteful spending, then they won't object to
a reduction in these important grant programs. What do you
think? Although I am not sure that is going to be the case, I
suspect most of the governors are hoping that we will take all
the heat and yet provide all that money for them. But if we
don't, I don't see how they come up with it. When I had the
privilege of chairing this subcommittee last year, I suspect at
the behest of local and State governments, members from both
sides of the aisle--and I know the Chairman is aware of this,
they requested more than 1,200 projects, just in fiscal year
2010, for water and wastewater infrastructure. That source of
funding has now dried up. It is gone.
So you make the cuts to the State revolving funds a much
larger issue for State and local governments. With a reduction
in the Federal commitment, I don't know who tackles these
problems. Certainly individuals can't do it unless they want to
start digging wells in their backyard, and we go back to
outhouses or something. Because the State and local governments
don't have the money themselves. But this is our national
plumbing system. And like our home plumbing, it doesn't get
noticed until it backs up and makes a mess.
Cutting billions from Clean Water and Safe Water Drinking
programs is ignoring a problem that will require much more
expensive investments and upgrades to our water sources down
the line. While the Appropriations Committee has the authority
and the duty to exercise Congress' constitutional role in
providing funds to the executive branch, the appropriation
bills have become ground zero for contentious policy debates.
I ask the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky if he
remembered that quaint phrase, ``this is out of order because
it is legislating an appropriations bill.'' I didn't get a full
response, but I know he is fully aware of this issue. The full
year continuing resolution we call H.R. 1 included 22
amendments that were hostile to EPA's and other government
agencies' current work on climate change, wetlands, air toxics,
renewable fuel standards and mountain-top mining. And most of
them were adopted on the House floor. Beyond this, several
riders were included in the base bill, one would stop EPA from
updating rules or guidance pertaining to the definition of U.S.
waters that will perpetuate delays in permits and land use
decisions.
We are hearing from a number of people in the private
sector saying, look, this is not helpful, we need to have
clarity, we need to know what is appropriate or not. A lot of
the builders are saying we can't move forward until we have
clarification and permits that allow us to do our work. The EPA
needs to be allowed to carry out the laws and the Congress and
the courts have authorized them to carry out. The Bush
administration's EPA administrator, as well as you, Ms.
Jackson, determined that greenhouse gas emissions do, in fact,
endanger the health of our citizens.
Ms. Jackson, you have done your job, and you actually
issued an endangerment finding, and thus you are now required
as we know to regulate these harmful emissions. The law
requires you to. If Congress no longer wants certain pollutants
cleaned up to improve America's health, then Congress should
change the underlying law, not simply stop funding EPA.
Otherwise, EPA is violating the law by not enforcing it.
And actually, if you want to cut costs in this country,
then you should allow the Clean Air Act to do its job. A report
released Tuesday by EPA estimates that the benefits of reducing
fine particles and ground level ozone pollution under the 1990
Clean Air Act amendment will reach $2 trillion in 2020, while
saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone.
230,000 people in one year will live longer because of the
Clean Air Act. It is still my hope that this committee will
refrain from controversial policy riders and leave these issues
to the authorizing committees where they belong so that we can
return to the bipartisanship that has defined the
Appropriations Committee in previous years.
I am glad we have been joined by Mr. Dicks. I know he feels
strongly about this as I do. On this side of the aisle, we are
going to continue to try to pursue that tradition because it is
time we started enacting our appropriation bills. We understand
that the more we work together, the better chance these bills
have in moving forward in the Senate and getting them signed
into law by the President. So Administrator Jackson, we all
look forward to receiving your testimony and again thank you
for your leadership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We are also joined today by our
chairman of our full Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers,
and I thank him for taking the time to contribute to this
important conversation. Mr. Rogers, do you have an opening
statement?
Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations,
by the way, on your elevation to this great post. We know you
will do a great job. This is truly a historic time. I don't
need to remind us that the Nation has found itself at a
crossroads. The 112th Congress has been solely focused on
reining in out of control spending, getting our economy back on
track and putting Americans back to work. It is all about jobs.
I reiterate, getting our economy back on track to create jobs
and provide opportunity. With unemployment still hovering
around 10 percent under this administration, this is
unquestionably our top priority as a country and our chief
responsibility as legislators, policymakers and yes,
administrators.
Chairman Simpson alluded to some of our concerns about your
$9 billion budget submission. The EPA's third largest in
history. While we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we
spend, we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar of the 9
billion that you are asking for. That staggering figure is, in
and of itself, disconcerting. But I have to tell you for the
record that I am not confident that the budget you are
defending today, or frankly your Agency's actions in the last 2
years align with our important goals of creating jobs and
opportunity.
In fact, I believe you have been a great hindrance. The EPA
is headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and
overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority of
this Congress that you have been given. And I think we have a
responsibility to rein you in. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform recently released a report identifying over
60 regulatory actions recently taken by EPA that could have
negative impacts on job creation, 60 different ones. I have to
wonder whether you are taking heed of the President's January
21st executive order to account for the cumulative costs of
regulations because EPA is running absolutely roughshod over
our country's small businesses. The very engines that propel
our economy forward and provide most of the jobs.
And you have hit every sector of the economy, agriculture,
manufacturing, construction, transportation and the lifeblood
of my region of the country, Appalachian coal miners,
wrongheaded greenhouse gas regulations, so-called guidance on
surface mining, the retroactive veto of a coal permit that has
undergone more than a decade of environmental review, reopening
a longstanding definition of ``fill material'' that could have
devastating impacts on the mining sector nationwide.
All represent constitutionally dubious legislation by
regulation. I think you have exceeded your authority by far. A
number of these matters are being adjudicated by the courts
even as we speak. We have corresponded, you and I, on a number
of these topics. So you are aware that my people feel like EPA
has taken dead aim at an industry that sustains 20,000 high
paying jobs in my State of Kentucky and supplies the fuel to
power 50 percent of our Nation at a low cost. Our Speaker, in
recent weeks, has reiterated the need for adult conversations
about the fiscal challenges that confront the country and I
hope that is what we can accomplish here today, an adult
conversation. Thank you, chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairman. The Ranking Member of the
full committee, the former Chairman of this subcommittee,
Congressman Dicks, is also here today. I know these issues
remain of great interest to him. Mr. Dicks, do you have an
opening statement?
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
congratulations on you becoming chairman. And being from the
Northwest, I know we will work hard together to get some
positive things done. I want to welcome Administrator Jackson
and Barbara Bennett, EPA's chief financial officer. In fiscal
year 2010, this committee provided you with the largest budget
in EPA history. Your current budget request of 8.9 billion is a
reduction of 13 percent and reflects the fiscal restraints we
find ourselves in today. I am glad to see that Administrator
Jackson submitted a reasonable budget request that will allow
essential environmental cleanup and monitoring.
That is in stark contrast to the long-term continuing
resolution approved by the House 2 weeks ago, H.R. 1. That bill
cut EPA by nearly 30 percent and includes 22 environmental
riders to defund EPA and other government agencies' activities
ranging from limiting greenhouse gases to reducing water
pollution and those were done without any hearings. They were
just put into this bill and they are all legislative language
that have a negative impact.
I am also pleased that the request includes language
started by this committee that allows the use of the Drinking
Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds for loan
forgiveness and other affordability tools, green
infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or
other environmentally innovative activities. I do, however,
have concerns about this budget request but not as much as I do
with H.R. 1. My biggest concern is that we are shifting the
problems of today for bigger problems tomorrow. We talk about
saddling our children with debt. That concerns me greatly. But
by cutting these important environmental infrastructure
programs like the drinking water and wastewater revolving
funds, we are saddling future generations with deferred
maintenance costs and a crumbling infrastructure that will cost
more to fix than if we did it now.
Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of
New Jersey, when she was administrator of EPA said we have a
$688 billion backlog on wastewater and drinking water treatment
facilities. And a group of scientists looked at all of the
things that happened in civilization and what had made the
greatest difference in health to the world and it was
wastewater treatment facilities and clean water. I was on the
staff up here when Richard Nixon was President of the United
States and we passed a Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act. And all of those things were
passed in a bipartisan manner and signed by a Republican
President. And the country is better today because of
environmental protection than it was 40 years ago.
Remember when we had these rivers on fire? Think of how
terrible those things were. And now we have turned this thing
around. And I think what you are doing on climate change is
absolutely essential. Some people are just turning their head
away from scientific reality and just saying it isn't going to
happen. They are saying they care about their grandchildren's
future. If we don't deal with climate change, if we don't deal
with ocean acidification, the world is going to be a disastrous
place in 50 to 100 years. And to say this doesn't exist is just
preposterous. The best scientists in the world have said this
phenomenon is going on. Our committee held hearings. We asked
the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
USGS, can you tell us on the ground, can you see manifestations
of global warming already and they said, ``yes''. The fire
seasons are longer, the oceans are rising.
We are having more drought, more bug infestation because of
this. We are watching what is happening in the Arctic. I don't
know how people don't understand the importance of these issues
and addressing these issues. And I am not--I am going to fight
every step of the way against efforts to weaken and take back
the environmental improvements we have made starting with
Richard Nixon and the Congress back in the 1960s and the 1970s
when people worked on a bipartisan basis and cared about the
environment.
These riders have got to go. And we are going to fight them
to the end. Don't be intimidated. You are doing your job and
you have to do it under the law. And the Supreme Court said you
had to do certain things. And don't be intimidated. Do your
job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, thank
you for being here this morning, Administrator Jackson. And we
look forward to your proposed 2012 budget. And after those warm
welcoming remarks from all of us, the floor is yours.
Testimony of Administrator Jackson
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to
you, Ranking Member Moran and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to testify about President Obama's
fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Environmental
Protection Agency. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act and America's other bedrock environmental
protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to
protect American children and adults from pollution that
otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy and less
prosperous. It did so to make the air and drinking water in
America's communities clean enough to attract new employers. It
did so to enable America's local governments to revitalize
abandoned and polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard
the pastime of America's 40 million anglers. It did so to
protect the farms whose irrigation makes up a third of
America's surface fresh water withdrawals. And it did so to
preserve the livelihoods of fishermen and America's great
waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Dicks. Don't forget Puget Sound.
Ms. Jackson. And Puget Sound. And the Great Lakes. Congress
gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those
laws, and each year Congress appropriates the money that makes
EPA's implementation and enforcement work possible. As head of
the EPA, I am accountable for ensuring that we squeeze every
drop of public health protection out of every dollar we are
given. So I support the tough cuts in the President's proposed
budget, but I am equally accountable for pointing out when cuts
become detrimental to public health. Without adequate funding,
EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that
protect America's health, livelihoods and pastimes.
Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping
contaminants into the air, into rivers and onto the ground.
Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water
supplies because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There
would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water
treatment systems and the standards that EPA has set to
establish for harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and from
tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources
that is not static, but growing.
So if Congress slashed EPA's funding, concentrations of
harmful pollution would increase from current levels in the
places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike and hunt.
The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and
workdays, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature
deaths and more polluted waters.
Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply
appreciate continued bipartisan support in Congress for funding
the essential work that keeps American children and adults safe
from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped
into the water they drink and the air they breathe. President
Obama believes that our Federal Government must spend less
money. Decreasing Federal spending is no longer just a prudent
choice, it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly, the
President has proposed to cut EPA's annual budget nearly 13
percent from its current level. That cut goes beyond
eliminating redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful
choices. We have done so, however, in a careful way that
preserves EPA's ability to carry out its core responsibilities
to protect the health and well-being of America's children,
adults and communities.
You have been reviewing the budget request for more than 2
weeks now, so I will not march through all of its details.
Rather, than I would like to provide just a few examples of the
difficult choices we have made while preserving fundamental
safeguards. This request provides $2.5 billion, a decrease of
947 million for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds. Future year budgets for the SRF will adjust,
taking into account repayments to the funds. EPA, the States
and community water systems will build on past successes while
working towards the fiscal year 2012 goal of ensuring that over
90 percent of the population served by community water systems
receives drinking water that meets all applicable health
standards.
This budget requests an additional $6.4 million to conduct
integrated pilot projects in several communities, including
disadvantaged ones to evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air
pollution through regulatory enforcement and voluntary efforts.
An additional $3.7 million will improve our monitoring of toxic
air pollution and our dissemination of that data to State,
local and tribal governments and to the public. The budget
contains $350 million for programs and projects strategically
chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in
the Great Lakes ecosystem. That represents a cut of $125
million from fiscal year 2010, which was the first year of the
initiative. We will implement the most important projects for
the Great Lakes restoration and achieve visible results. With
this budget, $16 million investment in enhancing chemical
safety initiatives, we will take action to reduce chemical
risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments and
provide the public with greater access to information on toxic
chemicals. We will use the funds to implement chemical risk
reduction steps that address impacts on children's health and
on disadvantaged, low-income and indigenous populations. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the subcommittee's
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 1 AMENDMENTS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate again your being here
today. Because of the interest in this, we are going to try and
enforce, to the extent possible, the 5-minute rule. We have a
timer up here and we will keep time with that so that we can
have several rounds of questions if that is possible. First let
me just make a general comment and question. During the debate
on H.R. 1 that has been mentioned up here by just about
everybody, we talked about authorizing on an appropriation
bill. Most of these amendments were limiting the funding to be
used for certain things, which is appropriate within an
appropriation bill. I also noticed after all of the criticisms
about some of the underlying riders, if you will, that were
greenhouse gas provisions and that dealing with navigable
water, I don't remember any amendments being offered by anyone
to remove those from the bill.
If they were such a concern to the Ranking Member of both
the full committee and this subcommittee that maybe there would
have been an amendment to remove those. But I didn't see any of
those and I wonder why that was. And I think you and I have
discussed many times the concern I have about what I hear when
I go home, not just from businesses that are trying to operate
and trying to do the right thing, they don't want to pollute
the air and water, but from cities, counties, State government
and others about the concerns about the direction that the EPA
has gone.
And I have always wondered if it was just in my region, or
it was across the country. And I have got to tell you, in all
honesty, I was surprised by the number of amendments that were
offered that addressed the EPA concerns from people all over--
representatives from all over this country, and I am wondering
after that debate and the 22 amendments, if any other agency
had that many amendments directed at them or their actions, if
you will. I am wondering what message you took from that.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, there have been a number of discussions,
some of them on the Hill, some of them outside in the
countryside. I spend a lot of my time meeting with people and
dealing with people around the country. And I think
overwhelmingly there are also some other truisms that haven't
come out yet and that is that the American people believe that
EPA plays a very valuable role in safeguarding the health of
their families and their communities.
Mr. Simpson. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
Ms. Jackson. And that the American people believe that the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, other things like the Safe
Drinking Water Act, our environmental laws are there to protect
them from polluters who otherwise would not have any controls
on them. And last but not least, that the American people
believe that there are lots of laws on the books that aren't
enforced. And when they look at something like the Deep Water
Horizon spill or other environmental catastrophes, they say we
are not sure we need new laws, we need people to enforce the
laws that are on the books and protect our air and water
quality.
So while I have great respect for the deliberations of this
body, of course, and I am happy to sit down and meet with any
of the members individually or together. I think we must also
bring back to bear as we look at what is the appropriate role
of an independent agency.
NAVIGABLE WATERS
Mr. Simpson. When you look at, as an example, navigable
waters, the attempt there was to prevent the EPA from expanding
the definition of what waters are regulated by EPA under the
Clean Water Act to all waters of the United States. It is not
as if those waters are not regulated at all. They are, in fact,
regulated by the States. And now the EPA, by removing
navigable, or attempting to remove navigable, expands what EPA
controls instead of the States. And that is the problem and
that is what concerns me and many other people.
Ms. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, that is not the intent. Almost
all of the States, about 46, I believe, implement the Clean
Water Act under delegations from EPA. So EPA has a couple of
roles there. The first is to ensure some uniformity so that the
playing field is level for businesses and for citizens across
the country. And the second is to look at issues that are
regional. So when we look at the confusion and we see genuine
confusion right now about what is covered jurisdictionally
under the Clean Water Act and what is not. That confusion stems
in part from two Supreme Court cases that are a bit murky in
terms of when you put them together what they mean.
One of the things the EPA can and should do is offer
clarity within the law. We are not looking to change the law,
and we are not looking to change the Supreme Court's ruling; we
respect them both. But we can certainly, I think, use our
expertise to offer clarity to protect headwaters. If you don't
protect headwaters, then the waters downstream will most
certainly be polluted.
EPA WORKFORCE
Mr. Simpson. I would suggest that the States do a good job
of that in most areas. And I don't want you out controlling and
regulating drainage and irrigation ditches in Idaho, frankly.
The State of Idaho can do that. Let me ask another question. We
heard from the Inspector General yesterday, that one of the
problems with the EPA's workforce alignment--and this has been
kind of an ongoing problem that the workforce hasn't been
aligned with the roles and missions and goals of the EPA. This
is a management issue. Where are you on that and what is your
take on that recommendation or that concern by the GAO?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I certainly appreciate the management
challenge of constantly working to improve our workforce
allocation and planning. I disagree with some aspects. Frankly,
I believe that the most effective workforce planning has to be
local. We have moved around in the last budgets, the ones that
I have been involved in, our agency talent to address concerns.
When we look at cuts to programs, what we are reflecting is a
need to move talent around. I think that we have to manage our
people efficiently. And I disagree with the IG that we aren't
doing that right now. And I also think we have to work closely
and realize that some of our tools, the 1982 position
management system, I don't believe we should be going back to
try to make a new one.
I think we should look at the programs we have right now
and do as we have done, which is constantly strengthening our
capabilities and working within a strategic planning process,
that we have given real time and attention to make sure our
resources match up with our priorities.
Mr. Simpson. But the GAO disagrees with you.
Ms. Jackson. I think they do in part and I don't want to--I
don't want to say that I don't agree with them, that it is
important to manage people effectively. I certainly believe we
have done that consistent with OPM guidelines, but we probably
have some differences in terms of management of the Agency. And
I believe that the local management of resources, whether here
or in the programs or adjustments that we make as part of our
strategic planning has done a lot of that work.
STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND REDUCTION
Mr. Simpson. Another question. During the debate on the CR,
we were criticized as undermining and destroying the State
revolving loan fund because we took it back to the 2008 level,
about a $2 billion reduction in the Clean Drinking Water Fund
and the State Revolving Loan Fund. Your proposal decreases it
by about $1 billion. Are you destroying the revolving loan
fund?
Ms. Jackson. Half as much as you.
Mr. Simpson. So you are destroying it? Is that right? You
are destroying it?
Ms. Jackson. Destroying, I don't know what that word means.
We will be doing half as many cuts as is proposed in CR 1. And
that was a tough decision. It is made based on the fact that
when we are being asked to cut back, we do know that there is
still some money that will hit the streets from the Recovery
Act. It has almost all been obligated, but it hasn't all been
spent.
Mr. Simpson. How much has been obligated but unspent? It
was supposed to be spent two years ago, at least shovel ready
projects.
Ms. Jackson. It is within the States. These are contracting
issues. I think it is all under contract. But the obligation, I
think, is close to 100 percent. The actual spending, I think,
might be around 60 percent.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jackson. 75 percent.
Mr. Simpson. Why did you decide $947 million in reductions
of the State Revolving Loan Fund? Where did that number come
from?
Ms. Jackson. The number was designed to reflect a
significant cut, but to try to keep us above the last Bush
budget which we felt was so low that we increased it in both
the Recovery Act as well as in our fiscal year 2010 proposal.
So we are at $2.5 billion for the two combined funds. That is
still higher than we saw before the President's administration.
UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
Mr. Simpson. In the Recovery Act, you got essentially six
years worth of 2008 funding levels for the State revolving loan
fund. As most of it is obligated, some of it, I think about a
billion and a half or something like that, is unspent yet but
it is obligated. There is still about $1.47 billion in
unobligated funds from last year that are unobligated for the
State Revolving Loan Fund in last year's appropriation. And is
the reduction due to the fact that we have all of the
unobligated funds sitting out there? That is what we looked at
frankly when we were looking at H.R. 1 and trying to reduce the
overall budget. We were trying to find savings. Because believe
it or not, I know there is a lot of people in government that
don't believe this, a lot of people here in Congress that don't
believe this, but the fact that we have a $1.6 trillion deficit
is an issue and we have to reduce spending. And is that how you
decided to come up with the $1 billion, is that you had all of
these unobligated funds from last year?
Ms. Jackson. I certainly think that is something worth
considering, Mr. Chairman. I don't disagree with you that we
can look at the money that is on the street. It is very much a
pipeline, though. So having run a State agency, having seen how
funds work--these are revolving funds. The money goes out in
loans to local governments, to municipalities, to small
systems. And if it is not forgiven, and in some cases it is,
then it comes back in.
So our goal over time will be to fund about 5 percent of
the need annually through a combination of direct
appropriations and paybacks. But this is a tough year and we
recognize that in a tough year, we may not be able to fund the
5 percent we would like to. So it is a cut. It was simply
intended not to be as drastic a cut as has been discussed in
the House.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, just briefly.
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Dicks. On this revolving fund, some of the newer
members may not realize, this money goes back to the States and
these funds are loaned out and then they are paid back to the
revolving fund. So from time to time, if you increase the
revolving fund funding, they can make more loans and they get
money coming back.
So you can make a reasonable cut here. There is no question
about that because we added a lot of money in the stimulus bill
for these revolving funds.
The other thing that the committee agreed to and you as
ranking member helped on this, was that some of the money can
be forgiven for the low-income communities. What I worry about
is now that we have taken away earmarks for STAG grants, a lot
of these poor communities are going to have a hard time doing
the projects without some grant money. So I hope we can figure
out a way and maybe the Department has already done this, of
putting a pot of money together that will be competed for
across the country by low-income communities to do projects
that will help them deal with their problems. If not, they
simply will not do the projects.
That is the reality of it and the environment will suffer
from it. But I just wanted to give that little history.
Mr. Simpson. I will have some more questions in the second
round. Mr. Moran.
RULE: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Jackson, you have testified that from 1990 through 2020, the
benefits of implementing the Clean Air Act are projected to
exceed the costs by a factor of 30 to 1. We also have EPA's
current report that the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion by
2020. The growing talking point that we heard on the House
floor and so on from the other side is that the EPA's
regulations are destroying the economy when we, in fact, have
seen quite the contrary. Back during the Clinton
administration, Carol Browner made very serious strides in
cleaning the environment by issuing rules on the ozone, air
toxics from the chemical industry, refineries industries, et
cetera. And yet with all of that environmental protection,
regulation, the economy grew at an unprecedented rate during
the Clinton administration. Twenty-three million new jobs, 3
successive years of surpluses.
So the point is we achieved substantial surpluses while
very actively enforcing the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Now, Administrator Jackson, could you walk us through your
Agency's cost-benefit analysis? Because it does seem to me that
it is at the heart of whether this is a prudent investment or
not.
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, sir. Of course we have to do these
analyses every time we do a rule. The Clean Air Act, a report
that you cited, talks about $2 trillion in benefits by 2020. In
2010 alone, 160,000 cases of premature mortality avoided,
130,000 heart attacks avoided, 13 million lost workdays
avoided. Certainly an economic impact. 2.4 million asthma
attacks.
So essentially, there are two ways the environmental
regulations help the economy, not hurt it. The first is it is
preventive medicine. It is as though we took all of those
health care costs, however they are borne through our economy,
and zeroed them out and said now spend all that money that you
would have spent dealing with your asthmatic child or your own
heart disease issues and put it into the economy, spend that
money somewhere.
And the other way is, I think it is now generally accepted
that the air pollution control sector of our market is a world
leader. It is net positive in our U.S. trade balance. It
generates $11 billion surplus in our trade balance. We export
air pollution control commitment to countries like China who
need it because we have invested and have the resources,
innovation and expertise in this country and have stepped up to
deal with air pollution as a challenge.
Mr. Moran. Thank you. I have got this information. Boy, we
have wonderful staff. I don't know what we would do without
them, Mr. Chairman. They are so good. But it turns out that the
Bush administration did an analysis; they thought the results
were going to be that the regulations were more costly than the
benefit, but in fact, the health benefits alone were
substantially greater than the cost of a ratio from 16 to 1.
From 1997 to 2007, the Bush White House estimated that EPA
regulations promulgated during those years cost between $32 and
$35 billion, but the health benefits alone were between $83
billion and $592 billion. So interesting.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Let me ask one other particular question here on the
Chesapeake Bay, if I could. You mentioned the Chesapeake and
the Puget Sound, of course, and the Great Lakes. I will mention
the Puget Sound again when Mr. Dicks is paying attention. But
you got a request for $67 million. It is an increase of $17
million. We have got six States and the District of Columbia
working on this because we lost so many jobs in crabbing,
fishing, tourism and so on. So you are aware, I am sure, my
colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte sponsored an amendment
that passed the House to stop Federal funding for the cleanup
of the Bay. His reasoning was that the total maximum daily
loads take control away from the States. He claimed the States
were making progress, even though it has taken more than 2
decades to get to this point, and, of course, the Bay isn't
clean. What prompted EPA's issuance of the total maximum daily
load standard? And if the Goodlatte amendment was included in
the final appropriations bill, how much of that $67 million in
EPA funds would localities lose out on in terms of their
efforts to clean the Bay?
Ms. Jackson. TMDL, the total maximum daily load, the
pollution diets in the Bay, was a result of lawsuits which were
basically joined by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others
who said that our progress was woefully inadequate on meeting
the goals that had been set by EPA for improvements in the Bay.
We have seen some slight improvements, but I don't think--I
would not characterize it that we have turned the corner on the
issues we have. And the TMDL is meant to assign to each State a
load. It is your diet, here is how much pollution you can put
into the Bay and still see the Bay improve. That is our job. It
is a regional approach.
Then it relies back on the States through what are called
watershed implementation plans, WIPS, to meet those numbers. So
we are not, every day, working inside the States. The States
are. I want to salute the States that have really taken a
leadership role and stepped up to come up with these watershed
implementation plans. The $67 million is a $17 million plus-up,
about 60 percent, almost two-thirds of it, goes back to the
States in support of those watershed implementation plans.
We are also working very closely with USDA, because as you
might expect, agriculture is a significant player, not the only
player here. So States have really done an amazing amount of
technical work, and I would hate to see us lose time on the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Moran. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have got a number of
questions on greenhouse gases, but I suspect we want to try to
get everybody in the first round. We are going to have other
rounds so I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
APPALACHIAN SURFACE COAL MINING PERMITS
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In June 2009, EPA
signed a memorandum of understanding with the Corps of
Engineers and the Interior Department to ``reduce the harmful
environmental effects of Appalachian surface coal mining.'' And
in conjunction, EPA then later released what was called
guidance, which puts in place unachievable thresholds for water
quality measurements, which everyone but you believes are
arbitrary and based on unsound science. Preempted, well-
established State water quality programs target only coal
mining, specifically Appalachian coal mining when the Clean
Water Act applies to industries such as road construction,
development, farming, construction and the like.
A Senate committee told us that these so-called guidances
are ``having a deleterious effect on rural jobs, energy
production and small businesses in Appalachia.''
One hundred and ninety permits were expected to produce 2
billion tons of coal, support over 80,000 jobs and 81
businesses, and yet the 190 applications have been practically
all denied. Only six permits issued since 2009. One company in
my district still doesn't have a permit after wading through 3
Army Corps colonels, at least 6 EPA reviewers. They have
invested an additional $1.5 million to deal with the EPA
regulatory hurdles, and the longer the permitting process
takes, the higher these costs become. On average, coal
companies can expect to pay 2 to $3 more per ton to mine coal
with a 5-year permit process. And guess who pays the cost of
that? It is the people that use electricity.
According to your Web site, there are 79 permits that are
being flagged. The Senate committee says there are 190.
Whatever. You have only issued six in over 2 years. In your
budget request, you are asking for more reviewers, I think four
or five people. Thanks a lot. How much faster will these people
be able to process these permits through their regular order?
Ms. Jackson. I cannot commit to a time frame, sir. We are
working very diligently on those permit requests.
Mr. Rogers. Who is working on them?
Ms. Jackson. Primarily staff in our regional offices, but
also staff in our Washington office.
Mr. Rogers. Can you explain why there have only been six
permits issued out of 190 applications in over 2 years?
Ms. Jackson. The enhanced coordination process covered
approximately 79 permits. We are down to, I think, two to three
dozen permits, many have been withdrawn, a few have been
issued, and many have gone back and are working diligently
through the State and through EPA, as mentioned in your State,
Mr. Chairman, to try to find ways to reduce the environmental
impacts.
This is about clean water and impacts on water. And, sir, I
have to say that this is not unscientific at all. It is the
result of peer reviewed studies that have gone through both
EPA's scientific advisory board and independent scientists who
agree that without intervention, there would be irreversible
harm to waterways in the region.
PERMITTING GUIDANCE
Mr. Rogers. But since the issuance of the so-called
guidance in June of 2009, you have only issued six permits.
That is a drastic change, is it not?
Ms. Jackson. We are not waving permits through. We are
reviewing them with the States and the Corps of Engineers and
with the applicants to try to decrease their impact on water
pollution.
Mr. Rogers. The question is, it is quite a change.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I absolutely agree with you that the
enhanced coordination has changed the landscape in that part--
--
Mr. Rogers. And it was a substantive change from prior
regulations, right?
Ms. Jackson. It is guidance that has been out for comment,
and will be finalized quite shortly, I think.
Mr. Rogers. But the guidance does represent a big change
from prior regulations, correct?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, it reflects the latest science that shows
that the way that permits were being issued was not protective
of water quality.
CLEAN WATER ACT: PERMIT VETO
Mr. Rogers. And that is why a lot of people are saying that
when you issued those guidances, you violated the law on how
you come up with regulations because there were no hearings,
there was no advance notice, no one had a chance to weigh in on
this substantive change in your prior regulations and that is
why you are being sued by the State of Kentucky, the National
Mining Association, several other States and coal operators on
the grounds that the guidance constitutes a violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act, APA, which requires that any
major changes to existing regulations must go through a formal
rulemaking process, to include public comment and peer review
science.
And in January, the U.S. district court for D.C. ruled in a
challenge to you on this APA. Violation would ultimately
succeed on merit. So what do you say about the charges that you
violated the Administrative Procedures Act?
Ms. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with them. I
wouldn't want to violate it. It is guidance. It is subject to
public comment. In fact, we have just concluded a lengthy
public comment period and our responsibilities have not changed
under the Clean Water Act. It is simply a matter of ensuring
that as these permits are issued, we are not trading future
water quality for issuance of permits hastily today.
Mr. Rogers. Now, the coal mining industry that provides
over half of the power--the electricity around the country, is
being shaken to its boots because of a ruling that you issued
in Logan County, West Virginia, where you repealed
retroactively a mining permit and shut down a mine even though
they had been granted a permit previously by the Corps of
Engineers in 2007 after a 13-year, 1,600 page environmental
review by State and Federal agency, including EPA, you said it
is okay, you got the permit. Three, four years later, you come
back in and say we are going to revoke your permit. Now, every
construction company that is building highways, every coal
mining company and everybody that does the business that has to
be done is unsure of themselves. They are--and it is having a
very destabilizing impact on this industry. Where do you
think--where do you claim to have the authority to
retroactively go back and undo a permit that has already been
issued for several years?
Ms. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I think it is
inaccurate to say there is a retroactive undoing. EPA has the
authority under the Clean Water Act to veto a permit issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if we believe it is not
protective of water. That is what the Clean Water Act says on
its face. The reason the Spruce permit has been hanging around
since 2007, is that it was in litigation. When it was issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, not with the concurrence of
EPA, and in fact, without taking into account significant
comments by EPA, it was litigated.
And in the course of that litigation, EPA was asked to
determine whether or not--EPA had to determine--we were not
asked to, we had to determine whether or not we would stand
behind a permit that we did not agree with and instead we chose
to use our veto authority under the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Rogers. But the permit issued by the Corps in 2007 had
approval of EPA.
Ms. Jackson. No, sir. No, sir. The EPA commented on several
versions of the permit discussions. And I know the permit
applicant has said over and over again that we approved, but we
did not. Our comments were taken, many of them were not
addressed, and the final permit issued by the Corps, in our
opinion, was not protective of public health and not protective
of the water quality, not consistent with the language of the
Clean Water Act and I do admit that that is being litigated.
Mr. Rogers. I guess you noticed that during the debate on
the CR a couple of weeks ago, 240 Members, bipartisan, voted to
strip EPA of your authority to retroactively veto existing
permits. I don't guess you noticed that.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, of course I did. I certainly noticed the
vote.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I am sure there are others who want to
ask questions.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Dicks.
PUGET SOUND
Mr. Dicks. Administrator, again, welcome.
One of the things I just wanted to bring up was, I think we
are making some real progress in the State of Washington on the
Puget Sound Geographic Program. I appreciate the fact that
there is money in the President's budget for this program. I
wish it were at the higher level that Congress had approved,
and I just want you to know that we have developed in
Washington State an action agenda, a scientifically credible
plan for restoration. And it really depends now on being able
to get State and Federal funding to make this thing work. I
know that the administration has a tremendous interest in the
Chesapeake Bay, but you know, the difference in funding between
the Chesapeake Bay--not the Chesapeake Bay, but the Great
Lakes. And I wish--I wish they had a similar positive view of
the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound.
We feel like we are the orphans here. And these are two
extremely important bodies of water. It has been obvious that
the administration can't spend all the money that has been
given to the Great Lakes. I mean, it is just not going out the
door. I just hope, one, that you will insist that both the
Great Lakes and the Chesapeake develop an action agenda too.
They need a scientifically credible plan. EPA now is in charge
of the recovery in the Chesapeake Bay, and I hope that we will
take that seriously, and a lot of the run-off issues that have
been neglected by the States should be addressed. And I know
you are trying to do that.
Mr. LaTourette. Will the distinguished ranking member yield
for a minute?
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I yield.
Mr. LaTourette. You are not suggesting to take money away
from the Great Lakes for Puget Sound, are you?
Mr. Dicks. Oh, no. That would be wrong.
Mr. LaTourette. That would be horribly wrong. All right,
well, thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Dicks. I would just like to see the budget give a
little more help to Puget Sound. And I would also like to see
the Great Lakes have an action agenda, a plan. I don't think
they have a plan yet----
Mr. LaTourette. We have all kinds of plans.
Mr. Dicks. Wait a minute--that is scientifically credible
and verified by independent sources. That is what I think you
need to do. And that is what we did in the State of Washington.
Mr. LaTourette. I would just say to the distinguished
former chairman and now ranking member that when the Puget
Sound has 20 percent of the world's fresh water, perhaps you
could make the case and take some money away from us but not
now.
Mr. Dicks. But when we have the most endangered species in
the country in Puget Sound, it also is a priority. All I am
saying is, let's try to be fair. And the administration's
budget again I don't think was fair to budget Puget Sound. Now
Tom Eaton is out there doing a good job. He is working hard.
But we have been the forgotten party here. It has always been
the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Everglades. And
Puget Sound has been, I think, not as important to the
administration as it should be. I mean, this is a very
important body of water. So anyway, I have used my time up. But
again, we want to work with you on this, but we hope to get
that budget request up in the future. I think it is totally
justified. And I think we have done what we need to do out
there with our action agenda, and the Puget Sound partnership
is moving forward. So I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you, Mr.
Chairman, that with the passion of my colleague, the ranking
member, Puget Sound will certainly not be forgotten.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
AIR QUALITY
Mr. Lewis. In the meantime, Madam Administrator, Ken
Calvert and I, the gentleman sitting to my left, represent the
Inland Empire in southern California. Years ago when I first
became involved in public affairs, for something over 250 days
a year, you could not see the mountains that surround this
valley for almost 360 degrees. It is a beautiful valley. And
over many a year, many of us have been involved in air quality
questions because of that.
Today you can see those mountains almost every day of the
year. But indeed, I will never forget taking a trip. I spent a
whole month one weekend in Detroit, to talk to the Big Three
about air quality questions and what the American automobile
industry was not doing in terms of improving the impact of auto
emissions on air quality questions. It was not until foreign
manufacturers produced cars with better gasoline mileage that
there began to be a change, and that has contributed
significantly to the cleaning of our air.
But also I will never forget that during those years, there
were voices heard, including my own, that we should be very
cautious as we go forward with developing regulations and
policies in the arena of air quality because often times we
just plain don't know what we are talking about. It is easy to
point to the big smokestack and say that if we can solve that
problem, we will solve 95 percent of the problems and so forget
about the rest of it.
And you, Madam Administrator, and I know that that
automobile continues to be the problem. And I would be very
interested in what EPA is thinking about and what your experts
are thinking about relative to having a direct impact upon how
people deal with their own transportation needs. Automobiles,
et cetera. Please don't talk to me about high-speed rail. That
is hardly a solution to some of these problems. In the
meantime, the Air Quality Resource Center, which was then
located at the University of California at Riverside, helped us
a lot in trying to deal with some of these problems. I once
converted a very beautiful and wonderful convertible that I had
to propane. The car never ran again, by the way. But that was
by way of legislation that was moving that would suggest that
we ought to take all automobiles that have a stationary source,
major pools of cars, and convert them experimentally to propane
to see what effect it might have.
The Research Center came to me as that bill was moving and
said, Jerry, we ought to be kind of cautious about this because
our research is beginning to show us some things that we didn't
anticipate, that it would appear that propane, when it goes
through the combustion process, creates a thing called
propylene and the emission in that form may be even worse than
the standard automobile emission that we are concerned about.
We talk a lot about scientists and research and independent
peer review, et cetera. But oft times in these arenas, we don't
know what we are talking about. If we are going to promote
regulations that dramatically impact people's lives and spend a
lot of money in doing it, we should know what we are talking
about.
Just by way of asking you to comment on that general area,
let me mention also that back in those days, a community known
as Chino was in my district. They had the largest cowherds in
the country. Cows in numbers of 1,000 per farm, et cetera. And
I note that within your air quality arena, you talk about
animal gases. I must say, it astonishes me. And I would really
like to see the background of those experts who talked about
animal gases for indeed the people of Chino who would wonder
whether we know what we are talking about. So thank you, Madam
Administrator, for being here. I would be very interested in
your thoughts and where you would be taking us by way of
research and otherwise relative to air quality.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Just a few things. I will begin by hailing your State as
being one of the engines that has driven us towards cleaner
vehicles in this country. EPA's history with vehicles includes
things like taking the lead out of gasoline, which I think
single-handedly made a tremendous difference in children's
health. But also enabled the catalytic converter which is an
American invention that is now on cars all over the world that
has made our cars run cleaner.
Mr. Lewis. California Legislature, as a matter of fact, led
the way.
Ms. Jackson. California has a history of leading the
country with respect to vehicles, sir. And of course, there is
a large market. The Clean Air Act actually recognizes
California's leadership by giving your State a special role.
I simply would say this, we have probably a million more
cars on the road than we had in 1970, just in absolute numbers.
And the emissions from all those cars is much lower than the
emissions from 1970. That means we are driving more cars, but
they are much, much cleaner and more fuel efficient. That was
the genesis of the fuel efficiency greenhouse gas deal, the car
deal that was worked out last year. And so as cars become
cleaner, Americans, of course, as the population grows--I have
two young sons, both who want to be drivers sooner than I would
like--we need to continue to sort of push that envelope so that
we make our cars cleaner.
You asked about research. I am a scientist by training. I
just recently visited our Ann Arbor laboratory which, sadly, is
not in the State of California, but is an impressive place. I
would invite you to see it. But if you ever have a chance to
see it, you are struck by what an engine of economic
development that it is. Many of the car companies locate the
parts of their research lab that deals with emissions near us
as they do in parts of California because they know that they
are going to have to design cars that continually ramp down on
efficiencies.
The last thing I will say is that with respect to animal
emissions, I assume you mean greenhouse gas, methane emissions.
EPA has no plans to regulate such. The number of agricultural
sources that are even being required to report their greenhouse
gas emissions is zero. So I know that has been discussed and is
a source of worry. And I find myself often giving some amount
of reassurance to people, to ranchers about that matter.
AIR QUALITY: MOBILE SOURCES
Mr. Lewis. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just kind of add,
the bottom line there for the administrator, I really want to
hear from you how you think this committee can help you
accomplish EPA's mission relative to air quality without overly
impacting our already very fragile economy. There is little
doubt that we could take a small piece of the money that some
people are touting for high-speed rail and at the other end of
that line, use that money--small piece of money--and buy more
buses than we would know what to do with to replace that high-
speed rail, move a lot more people and help clean the air in
that fashion, assuming we could get those engines to operate
considerably more efficiently. Please tell us how we can help.
Ms. Jackson. I will be happy to work with you in any way I
can, Mr. Lewis. I think obviously my colleague, Secretary Ray
LaHood, your former colleague, I think very, very highly of.
And I think his work--and EPA is working closely with DOT as he
looks at the transportation acts of the future, we are happy to
share with you the information we are sharing with him. I think
that communities are differently situated when it comes to
transportation choices. And our interest is simply to ensure
that we are not going to sacrifice air quality. And my belief
is, with technological innovations, including mass transit, we
don't have to do that.
Mr. Lewis. I haven't thought about asking Ray LaHood to
talk with you about this. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for this.
But, indeed, those buses at the other end hopefully have
cleaner driven engines as it were. You could perhaps put
together a major study to help us change the pattern of what
people are willing to do in terms of transporting themselves.
We can buy those buses but we can't get folks to ride in them
in southern California. It is an incredible challenge, and we
are a long, long ways away from turning that corner. Thanks,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But representing the
Great Lake State of Lake Superior, the gentlemen from Lake Erie
were here first before me. I respect seniority and I respect
their ability to make my life miserable if I went first.
Mr. Simpson. Representative Hinchey.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. First of
all, it is a great pleasure, Administrator Jackson, to be here
with you and to be involved in this situation with you. I want
to commend you for the courageous way in which you have led the
EPA and the kinds of things that you have been able to do
quickly already in the context of the kinds of circumstances
that you inherited and had to deal with. Your mission is to
protect human health and the environment, and that is exactly
what you have been working to do. So I deeply applaud you for
it. I think your work on the Clean Air Act particularly is
saving lives, keeping people healthier and, as a result,
providing enormous benefits across the country, in communities
across the country and in our economy.
So, as you know very clearly, we need a strong EPA to
safeguard our children, safeguard the community, safeguard our
future. There was a recent series of articles in The New York
Times which are absolutely fascinating and which are producing
a significant amount of new information that is presented in
ways that are more understandable than they have been in the
past, for many people. And in fact, stories like little or no
testing for radioactive levels, and the radioactivity of those
levels can be very important.
So I just want to ask you a few questions along these
lines. Along the many issues raised in The Times series was
that hydraulic fracturing wastewater contains radioactivity at
levels much higher than previously known. And it is being sent
to wastewater treatment plants that cannot safely remove the
radioactive materials. These plants are then dumping this
contaminated water into rivers and streams and those rivers and
streams supply drinking water. And as a result of that, there
is a threat to the health of millions of people. Such material
such as barium, strontium, radioactive elements, little or no
testing is going on.
So I am wondering if there is anything that can be done to
deal with this. Given these reports, will the EPA, for example,
order the immediate testing of water from these facilities that
accept fracking wastes as well as testing at drinking water
intake systems downstream from these treatment plants?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. I think that EPA is
very interested in ensuring we get data on radioactivity and
flow-back water. And the only hesitance I have to say--and
absolutely yes, we will order the testing--is that I would like
to have an opportunity to speak to the States involved--
specifically Pennsylvania--who has done some amount of work. I
actually intend to go tomorrow to our office in Philadelphia to
have those discussions. But I do believe additional information
is due the public as a result of that series.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I appreciate your saying that. And I
think that is absolutely true. A lot of these States are doing
things that are not really strong enough. And Pennsylvania I
think is one of them. There is an awful lot of drilling going
on in Pennsylvania and the rapid increase of that drilling is
going on over the course of the next few years. It is going to
cause a whole host of problems, particularly if there is no
oversight as to what is going on. And if you live close to
Pennsylvania--like, for example, in New York--and you find that
Pennsylvania is dumping a lot of these radioactive materials
and other toxic materials into rivers that are on the border of
your State, then you have got to be concerned about it too.
Just leaving these situations open to individual States is
not going to do it. So that is part of it, and I am glad that
you are very interested in this.
EPA STUDY OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Let me just ask you something else. The narrowing of the
national fracking study and the squelching of other researches.
Again, in The Times, they also raise serious concerns about the
process behind EPA's study on hydraulic fracturing. In general,
what I believe is that EPA has put forth to the study advisory
panels that are positive. I commend the Agency for not falling
into the industry's trap of narrowly defining the drilling
process, and we are seeing that all over this country in State
after State where these things are going on. And they are doing
this--the industry's trap of narrowly defining the drilling
process because you were able to overcome that because you were
under some real pressure to do so. However, it is what has been
left out of the study scope that I would like to discuss, what
is outside of that study scope.
According to The Times initial versions of the study scope
recommended research on a number of dangers, dangers of toxic
fumes. The risks of contaminated run-off from landfills where
drilling waste is disposed. Whether rivers can sufficiently
dilute hazardous gaswell wastewater that is discharged from
treatment plants and more, a whole host of other things.
However, the scoping document sent to the advisory board
late last month included none of these topics, interestingly
enough. So Agency officials expressed concern about the
public's reaction if it was discovered that the study scope was
being narrow and staff were discouraged from putting anything
in writing about the national study unless vetted by managers.
So it could not be in the Freedom of Information Act, for
example.
One regional administrator apparently instructed his
subordinates to not spell out their grandest visions about what
the study should examine, less the public see all of these
concerns. These are the kinds of things that we know are very,
very dangerous. And we know there are a lot of activities that
are going on to try to keep adverse circumstances too quiet.
Now EPA did have recommendation from Congress on what it
should study, specifically drinking water. But if the Agency's
scientists felt there were additional areas to examine because
of concerns over human health, such as with air emissions, then
the public and Congress should have been made aware of those.
Contrary to assertions from the industry, the report language
was a congressional recommendation, not an order. And EPA had
the authority to ignore or expand on it. Instead, what we see
here are deliberate attempts to shield from the public
additional concerns expressed by EPA's scientists. There is a
lot of positive things going on by the scientists, particularly
in EPA under your leadership and under your direction.
So there are clearly other risks worth examining that have
come to light since this report language was first drafted in
June of 2009.
Shouldn't the public and Congress be made aware of all of
the concerns EPA's scientists had about the risks that fracking
poses to public health? Why would EPA managers believe this
information should be withheld? Why is that? Why would EPA not
allow these additional topics to be submitted to the advisory
board? Furthermore, at a January meeting in Washington,
regional directors were informed that the national study would
be the only forum for research on hydrofracking.
While I understand the Agency might want to ensure there is
no redundancy, there is absolutely no justification to stop
research outside the scope of this study. So one other issue,
should the national study be the only forum for research on
fracking, even if regional offices and other scientists and
researching risks outside the scope of the study in response of
public health concerns just keep rising and getting more
serious?
Mr. Simpson. Why don't we give the Administrator a chance
to answer that.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson. There are several questions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Hinchey.
On the issue of the public and Congress having access to
what we know, absolutely, I have committed the Agency to
transparency in information. And I would like to point out that
the issues seem to stem from some concerns that are really
located in Philadelphia. We have 10 regions. We have 10
different offices of EPA across the country. The one that
handles New York is in New York City. I think they have
submitted strong and principled comments to the State on its
draft EIS and we await the State's actions on the EIS. Many of
the States are very involved in this issue. It is affecting
them now while we do this big study, which is going to take
about 2 years.
Texas, we have actually taken enforcement actions there,
and we are in something of a dispute with the State because our
belief is that we needed to take those actions to assure
protectiveness. So I want to first just start by saying we
believe natural gas is important. It is a homegrown source of
energy, but it must be sustainably and responsibly produced.
And future generations shouldn't somehow bear the burden of a
rush to produce it. We think it can happen, both can happen.
You asked about withholding information. I just want to clarify
one thing. The article--the series is very important. But we
are looking at radionuclides as part of the study.
So somehow the reporter reports today that that was left
out of the study. That is not true. But I am sure it is just an
inaccuracy, something he read. But the study is with our
science advisory board. We have used a transparent consensus-
based process to scope this study. We expect the science
advisory board to have a meeting on the study parameters on
Monday. All of that has been open. We have vetted the people
who sit on the board to make sure they don't have undue
conflicts of interest so that we don't have folks later worry
that the study was somehow skewed. With all those safeguards
that we have put in place, I am certainly not going to be
closed-minded to say we don't need to look to make sure we are
doing everything right.
So that is why I am going to go tomorrow to Pennsylvania to
Philadelphia to our office to try to understand what the state
of play is there. Your last question was about the national
study. The budget this year calls for $6 million for that
national study. And I thank Congress for last year or the year
before--I can't remember--for authorizing it and for your
leadership in ensuring that we have the study money.
The only thing I will say is, we have to spend money
wisely. So I will not say that the national study should be the
only study, sir. But after a process that open, that
transparent, that rigorous to try to outline a study, I would
want my science adviser, my head of research and development,
to understand what additional work is happening so that we are
not somehow being redundant. We don't want to stifle science,
but we want to make sure if we are doing work that we are not
doing the same work over here.
I think that is only fair. It is a wise use of money. But
otherwise, I think we should certainly not be tying the hands
of our scientists and trying to understand this. While at the
same time recognizing maybe the article didn't do the greatest
job of portraying that many States who are used to drilling
have done significant work in regulating the fracking and
drilling and natural gas recovery process. States like your own
have sort of taken a time-out so they can make sure to get it
right.
Mr. Hinchey. I deeply appreciate that. If I could respond
to that briefly.
Mr. Simpson. Very briefly.
Mr. Hinchey. I deeply appreciate that, and I know that you
are doing a lot of things that are very, very important and
need to be done. But also there is a lot of damage that is
taking place right now and that damage is going to increase
dramatically, rapidly over the course of the next couple of
years. And if nothing is being done to try to just control and
oversee what is happening, then there is going to be a lot of
damage to a lot of people.
So all of that is critically important. There are a number
of things that can be done by this Congress, and one of the
things that could be done and should be done by this Congress
is to go back and correct a piece of legislation that took out
an important Federal Act which was put into place back in 1974
to regulate this frack drilling, and to ensure that whatever
frack drilling is being done, it is being done honestly and not
being done in ways that are corrupted and corrupted quietly so
that nobody knows about the corruption, nobody knows about the
danger, nobody knows about what is going on, including what is
being injected into the context of this drilling.
Mr. Simpson. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Calvert.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Mr. Calvert. I thank the chairman. I wanted to follow up on
Mr. Lewis's comments regarding nonstationary sources. And I
think Jerry certainly has credibility on the issue. He wrote
the Clean Air Act in the State of California, which is probably
the most stringent set of clean air regulations in the United
States. Because we understand that nonstationary sources are
the problem--automobiles, trucks, trains--and cause a
significant part of pollution, especially particulate
pollution. One of the programs that has been very successful at
EPA has been the DERA program, the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act.
And Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, myself and others
have been very supportive of that program because it is
removing old diesel engines from the inventory and replacing
them with clean diesel, which has a significant positive effect
on reducing particulate pollution. We know that is a program
that works and there are a lot of things that we do in
government that don't work.
So a lot of us were concerned when you zeroed out the DERA
program. I just want to bring that to your attention.
In my home State of California, as you have mentioned, we
have our own environmental laws. And I would say in almost
every case, we meet or exceed Federal standards. We have a
process in California called CEQA, the California Environmental
Quality Act, which exceeds the NEPA requirements almost in
every requirement in the State of California. One agency after
the other--because obviously we have a significant job problem
in California, our unemployment rate is at 12.5 percent.
In my district, one out of every four people are either out
of work or underemployed. And the NEPA requirements are causing
significant delays in permitting processes and in getting
projects underway. Have you ever given any thought to States
such as mine? Where permit applications that are submitted from
States such as California, which exceed NEPA requirements, can
NEPA be waived in States such as California? I can't think of a
State that has more stringent environmental laws than the State
of California, but don't you think that is a way that we can
work toward getting these projects underway quicker?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I haven't focused on the NEPA process,
you know, that is run out of the Council on Environmental
Quality from the White House. So it is not really entirely
within our jurisdiction. We comment as part of the NEPA
process, but it is not mine to manage.
Mr. Calvert. Well, wouldn't EPA certainly have some input
into this and supporting a new process in which NEPA can
potentially be waived?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I am happy to take a look at and/or
discuss it along with the chair of the council. I will say this
for our environmental permits, like our Clean Air Act permits
in the State of California almost across the board is delegated
the permit authority for those issues. So there is no
duplicity. We don't issue the permit, and then in California,
they issue one permit.
Mr. Calvert. Any comments on the DERA program?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir. I do not disagree with you in terms
of both the popularity and the effectiveness of the program. I
think it is around 13 or 14 to one, health benefits to dollars
spent. It is a tough, tough budget, full of tough choices. And
the only consideration I would offer for you, sir, is that
there was DERA money included in the Recovery Act, and that
money is about 60 percent spent I believe. So the thought was
in a year of tough budget choices that we could let that money
hit the street, if you will, and retrofit more engines.
So that was the basis for the very difficult decision to
not add money to the program this year.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator Jackson, for coming to testify here today. I want
you to know on behalf of my constituents and the citizens of
Minnesota, your hard work in ensuring the EPA's protection of
public health and the environment is much appreciated. In fact,
I got Valentines to pass on to you. We support your mission to
enforce our Nation's laws to make the air we breathe cleaner
and the water we drink safer. We know that we do face tough
fiscal times and difficult choices must be made. But the one
thing that can never be sacrificed is the health of our
children, our seniors and our most vulnerable populations,
which you addressed in your testimony. There has been a lot of
talk about jobs and what can happen and what can't happen. This
morning I was looking at Politico and there was a story that
talks about what happened when we as a Nation were working on
controlling and removing ozone-depleting CFCs. Some of the
quotes in the story were from the air conditioning and
refrigeration institute, who warned that we will see shutdowns
of refrigerator equipment in supermarkets. It went on to say,
we will see shutdowns of chiller machines which cool our large
office buildings, our hotels and our hospitals. According to
the EPA--and this will be the last quote I do from the
article--the phaseout happened 5 years faster than predicted
and cost 30 percent less than expected.
I was working for a company that is called Sears Roebuck in
major appliances, and it was doom and gloom about what was
going to happen. People got it when they came in to buy their
refrigerators to replace them. People understood that what they
were doing was making the air better for their children. I
never heard a consumer complaint about what was moving forward.
And in fact, it caused a lot of great improved technology.
Thank you for the work that you do. I think lots of times, we
focus on what our problems are and trying to understand
regulations and why we are moving forward and we don't
celebrate our successes.
EPA BUDGET
I do want to talk about something. I am concerned when you
are talking about balancing your budget. I think the chairman
has been very thoughtful on how we work to coordinate climate
change. You were mentioning that too about using the best
science and not duplicating it. But yesterday, we heard from
the GAO and Inspector General about the increasing new demands
on the EPA. They listed in their reports things that you didn't
even have to deal with a few years ago. Nanotechnology,
cybersecurity, contaminants of emerging concerns in our water.
So one of my two questions is, is the EPA's budget
significant to address these issues as well as working on past
issues and the mandate that you have in front of us? Because I
think you can roll these together, I will do my second question
too.
CHEMICAL SAFETY
We also heard from the GAO and the Inspector General the
difficulties that the EPA has in regulating toxic chemicals.
That is due to the fact that for-profit chemical companies are
not required to fully disclose health and safety data
information. This puts the burden on the EPA and the taxpayers
to prove the safety of the chemicals that are being sold for
profit. This is in contrast to the European Union's approach. I
am heartened to see you have made toxic chemical safety one of
your priorities. But I am concerned about how you are going to
do that with a decreasing budget and fulfilling all the other
things that we have heard about today and backlogs and the
evolving water counts and the concern that the gentleman from
Kentucky had with ongoing litigation.
My question is, how are you going to be able to carry out
your enhancing chemical safety initiative that has been given
to the EPA, not the chemical companies, to determine the safety
of these chemicals?
Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you. The reason I smiled when you
said Sears Roebuck is my dad worked there in hardware for many
years, so it brought back a very nice memory.
Ms. McCollum. I was in division 1, 2, and 3, you can tell
him.
Ms. Jackson. So your question was about the new challenges
that we face at EPA, and that has been our management challenge
in trying to put together this budget. We understood the
President's strong call, and actually I very much agree with
that we just have to find efficiencies and do what Americans
are doing, which is trying to find ways to get our job done on
lower budgets. That is fair, and I think we should be, at EPA,
embracing that and be a part of it.
I just want to note, for example, on toxics which I do and
we have identified as a real area of focus and concern. We have
also called for modernizing our Nation's toxic chemicals, laws.
I am still hopeful that we will get around to that soon, that
Congress will continue its work there. But we have increased
our funding for toxics in this proposed budget. It is a plus-up
of $16 million to deal with some of the issues you mentioned
including--and we are really proud of using the existing law to
challenge confidentiality claims where we can. We are going to
add some people simply to do the legal work of challenging
these companies to open up the window shades, if you will, and
let scientists see what is in some of these products. That
takes legal resources though because there are challenges under
the law. So we have made cuts but we have tried to preserve and
actually, in some areas, increase those places where we believe
with the challenges we see before us we really need to increase
our resources.
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I was in a cab today and the
cab driver didn't know what I do for a living. But he asked me
where I was from and I said I was from Minnesota. And he asked
me if I fish. I said do you fish in the Potomac? We were at a
red light so he turned around and he gave me the slightest
smile and he said, Do you think I am crazy? We have no idea
whether they are boy fish, girl fish, what kind of fish they
are. And the cab driver used the term endocrine disrupter.
Mr. Moran. It is getting through. It is getting through.
Mr. Simpson. His message is getting through.
Ms. McCollum. We have our work to do to protect future
generations. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Cole.
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
couple of specific questions, and one in particular that my
colleague asked--and I have a more general one--but he asked me
to put to you, Mr. Young from Alaska, so I am going to read the
question. He asked, "Were due processes and basic notions of
fairness considered when you rescinded a properly issued permit
on the Desert Rock power plant? If built, it has been said that
this plant would be the cleanest coal plant in the United
States. If this doesn't meet clean air standards, would any
coal plant be able to do so going forward? So I wanted to tell
you ahead of time, I don't know this issue particularly well,
but he asked to be given the opportunity for you to address it.
Ms. Jackson. It is in New Mexico, does that sound right to
you?
Mr. Cole. Again, I wish I could tell you more. It just said
the Desert Rock power plant.
Ms. Jackson. I believe he is talking about a title 5
petition for a coal-fired power plant in the four corners
region of New Mexico.
Mr. Cole. He was particularly worried because this has a
Native American angle to it as well. There was a tribe that was
going to benefit tremendously financially had this gone ahead.
Ms. Jackson. Yes. We had significant petitions and concerns
raised by the State of New Mexico in downwind areas that were
very concerned that this plant would contribute to regional
haze, visibility issues over the Grand Canyon as well as some
significant additional pollution issues. I can get more
information.
Mr. Cole. Please do. I would appreciate that very much.
ASSISTING SMALL WATER SYSTEMS
I have got one other specific question. And that is on
drinking water issues. What is the EPA doing right now to
assist small water systems and meeting compliance on the Safe
Drinking Water Act?
Ms. Jackson. Our work there continues. I have had many
discussions with the chairman about that very issue. We have
two roles. The first is to put out health-based standards but
the other, the Safe Drinking Water Act, acknowledges that there
are affordability issues. So we are looking at both. We have
encountered some amount of resistance understandably from
communities who say, because I choose to live in a rural area
or small town doesn't mean I choose to have water that doesn't
meet Federal standards. That is a tough, tough spot to be in.
So we tend to err on the side of trying to bring resources to
communities to meet the standards, although we are increasingly
looking at providing guidance on affordability as well. I don't
think we have finalized that.
REGULATION
Mr. Cole. Let me ask you a more general question. And I
don't mean this to be adversarial. I really don't. I want to
give you an opportunity to state a broader case. As was
mentioned earlier in some of the questions, we had an awful lot
of amendments on H.R. 1 aimed obviously at the EPA. And I can
just say to you, when I go home, I get more questions about
your Agency and concerns than I do any other agency in the
Federal Government. And they sort of run the gamut. If it is
farmers in the southwestern part of my district, they are
worried you want to regulate dust in the area. Well, you can't
farm in southwest Oklahoma without having dust in the air. If
it is oil and gas people--and again my friend Mr. Hinchey and I
sometimes disagree on hydraulic fracturing--as a matter of
fact, we always disagree on hydraulic fracturing, to be fair.
But again, I recognize the legitimacy of the issue that he
raises, particularly in areas that haven't had oil and gas
activity on the scale we are seeing for decades. In Oklahoma we
have. Hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology to us. We
think we regulate it very well. We have been using it since the
late 1940s. We think they probably ought to talk at the State
level to other regulators who do this.
But I have got a whole industry that worries they are on
the verge of having a Federal regime they have never had to
deal with imposed upon them when it is a practice they have
been doing safely for a long time. And I have got communities
that come to me continually and say they keep raising the
standards on water. And we get unfunded mandates.
So while you pointed out in your testimony the environment
is bipartisan--it was Nixon that created the EPA, Roosevelt the
National Park Service, and air and water is better today than
it was 20 years ago and I think everybody appreciates that--but
somehow this administration, whether deliberately or not,
stumbled into a situation where it is becoming very ideological
and very partisan. Is that because you think the science or the
technology has changed so much? Again, we clearly have a clash
here in an area that we don't need a clash. So are you more
aggressive? Are you going further? I would just ask you to
reflect a little bit about why all this political controversy
is happening around the Agency.
Ms. Jackson. I wish I had the benefit of history so I could
look back and reflect on these times. But I will say this, it
is fair to say that there is a backlog of--especially under the
Clean Air Act, but not only under the Clean Air Act--standard
setting that has been overdue for a while, either because the
previous administration--and, again, not to be adversarial--set
the standard and the courts overturned it. That is the case for
mercury and other toxics in air. Or transport of pollution from
sort of the western half of the country because of course the
air blows from west to east.
Mr. Cole. In Oklahoma it is north to south.
Ms. Jackson. I should have said in general. There are
always exceptions. So there is a backlog of updating the
standards under the Clean Air Act. None of the standards are
without cost. It is my job, as administrator, to do and make
sure that the analyses show they are done in a way that is
transparent that protect, first and foremost, public health but
don't surprise business but give them a clear set of rules to
operate by.
We have been in sort of a stasis for quite some time. The
other issue, quite frankly, and many of them--and I make this
offer with some trepidation. But many of them I think have to
do with our ability to communicate what is really going on
inside the walls of EPA to people who shouldn't spend most of
their time worrying about that.
So especially with the agricultural community, we have
endeavored to redouble our efforts with USDA to communicate
better. For example, on coarse particulate matter which most
people would call dust in parts of rural America, there has
been no regulatory change proposed. There has been a study. The
study, interestingly enough, says it gives equal weight to
retaining the current standards as it does to changing them.
And there has been absolutely no regulatory decision made. We
have committed to listening sessions. We just had a bunch in
Iowa and Missouri about that very matter. So I think we need to
find ways to get out and speak to people where they are and
explain to them because I absolutely agree with you. Americans
don't want dirtier air. Certainly farmers rely on clean water
for their livelihood. We just need to be able to ensure that we
are doing everything we can to communicate with USDA but also
in the States.
Mr. Cole. Well, I am going to have a series of questions
later on. I know my time is about up. I would just ask you to
recommit or think through that in the Agency. Because I can
assure you that the political backlash is real. It has real
consequences. So I don't know if we are going too far or too
fast. I have opinions on all these things individually where I
may well differ with the EPA. But I can just tell you,
attitudinally and atmospherically in a political sense, there
is a reason why all this is happening. So sometimes you can be
too zealous or too quick or not--I don't mean you personally. I
am just talking about in general. Agencies or people in
government can get ideas, move a lot further and faster than
the public wants them to go. And I think we are in one of those
situations right now where the EPA is concerned and we are
going to continue to have clashes in Congress unless we can
find some more cooperative way to move forward. And we have
done that in the past and hopefully can do that going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
a member of this subcommittee.
Mr. Simpson. It is an honor to have you here.
Mr. Serrano. It only took me 21 years.
Before I begin to ask my questions, let me just say that in
those 21 years, I always realize that every day you learn more
or you hear things a little differently. For instance,
listening to the gentleman, since he goes back and he hears
from farmers and he hears from people who are drilling for oil
or whatever, gas and so on. I don't have in the south Bronx any
oil wells, and I don't have any farmers. We enjoy the results
of the hard work they do.
But on the other hand, in looking for a balance in how we
deal with the EPA and all that, I have the highest asthma rates
in the Nation. So I know that people want, yes, whatever
balance we need to strike but not to go back into the days when
the air in New York was totally, totally, totally polluted. I
also have a river. And for most people, they say, you have a
river in the middle of the Bronx? Yes, the Bronx River. It is a
great name for it. And most of you live in communities where
rivers and ponds and waterways are just a way of life that you
even take for granted.
Well, that the whole community worked on cleaning up that
river and that river became a very special place is so
important and EPA played a major role in making sure that fish
came back to the river and animal life in the neighboring area
that didn't exist before.
So again, some may say, well, that is a little
melodramatic. But in the middle of a city with a lot of cement,
that is extremely important. So as we look forward to the
balance of not hurting industry, we also have to make sure that
we don't move back on the advances we have made. And that is
just my comment.
Thank you so much for your work and for your service. I
know the next couple of years will be rough ones, but we all
stand here ready to assist you in any way we can.
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
As you know, I have been actively involved in working with
the EPA on finding ways to address the public health impacts of
PCBs in both window calking and light ballasts in our schools.
This past week, New York City announced that it is moving
forward with a 10-year plan to remove and replace all PCB-
contaminated light ballasts throughout the New York City school
system. So I have three questions. Based on the current science
and the EPA guidance that was issued in December 2010 on PCB-
contaminated light ballasts, do you think that in order to
protect our schoolchildren that the city needs to resolve this
problem sooner than the announced 10-year time period?
Secondly, as you know, separately from the light fixture
problem, there is also an immediate and real concern about the
PCBs contained in window caulking in our schools.
Could you please take a moment to update me on your efforts
to have New York City also address this issue as well? When the
safety of our children is at risk we cannot afford any further
delays. And lastly, is this something that is in the inner city
in New York more than other places? Or is this an issue
affecting the Nation as a whole?
Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you. I will start, Mr. Serrano,
with your last question because I had just written down that
this is not a New York City-only issue. It has to do with
basically the generation of the buildings. So to very quickly
summarize, PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls are cancer causing.
They are found in ballast, in fluorescent lights, old
fluorescent lights. They can be found in caulk. They were a
component of caulk until they were phased out beginning in the
1970s, I believe.
So I do think that we were gratified to see the city's
announcement that they are going to move forward to address the
ballast issue. The reason that came to be was that the city had
signed up to do an investigation of PCB in caulk because PCB
was showing up in the air, and they came to understand, I
think, through very quick sampling that the bigger problem
might well be these PCBs in the ballast. The ballast get old.
They start to leak and PCBs can be a concern.
So I think our next move is to meet with the city and
encourage them to--10 years is certainly I think part of their
budgetary impetus and they are looking at, to their credit, an
energy efficiency and sort of an updating revamp that would be
beneficial to the schools in terms of their operating costs. So
they may well be able to do this work, replace the lights and
the ballast and it may well be able to pay for itself or nearly
pay for itself over time. We are going to encourage them to
focus on the places where we think there is contamination
leaking so that we don't have some child, God forbid, or
teacher who ends up being on the 10-year side of that.
We would like to at least give some assurance that they are
triaging this situation. But I do think that has been a
tremendous step forward. The city in general has been dealing
with this issue. Other areas around the country--and we now
have guidance up on our Internet site. It is not a regulation.
It is not a requirement to help school districts who are
dealing with either caulk or PCB.
Mr. Serrano. Well, you answered the last question which I
was going to ask you which is, has the city been cooperative?
And you do feel that they have. Well, maybe you don't feel that
they have.
So let me ask you a question, has the city been cooperative
in moving ahead on this? And again, 10 years may be a budget
piece, but can we wait 10 years? Should this be dealt with at a
much quicker pace?
Ms. Jackson. I think when you are talking about a health
issue, especially one that is a children's health issue, young
bodies still developing, we don't have a lot of data on how
pollution or toxics affect them more or less than adults.
Urgency is always called for. I have not been dealing with the
city in day-to-day negotiations. I will suffice as to say that
where they are now is a good thing. They have stepped up after
some period of time to say, we now know and understand that we
need to be aggressive here. And I don't think we should
discount that. Our goal now is to ensure that they improve even
their 10-year plan, which is a wonderful improvement and a step
forward to try to make it as effective as we can always with
children in mind, always with children and doing it within
their budget. I mean, the city schools have their own set of
challenges, and the mayor and officials are quick to point that
out. So we are trying to help them deal with this issue in a
way that is protective but also mindful.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAM
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ms. Jackson.
The theme seems to be, at least from this side of the aisle,
that there seems to be overreach by the EPA. I don't know how
it can be classified otherwise, and we saw this in response on
the CR. And, just to give you an example, a couple of weeks ago
the Wall Street Journal talked about a new rule promulgated
just 6 weeks ago by the EPA finalizing a rule that subjects
dairy producers to the spill prevention control and
countermeasure program. This was created in 1970 to deal with
oil spills near shorelines and navigable waterways. This is
done, as the EPA put it, because of the percentage of animal
fat that is a nonpetroleum oil in milk. Now my understanding
is, this rule requires mitigation measures be put in that
include dairies training first responders in cleanup protocol
and building containment facilities, berms, and dikes, if
possible. I can tell you, I grew up milking a cow and I would
have loved to have told my dad, ``sorry, there is no berm here
around the barn. I am not going to do it.''
How with a straight face can anyone in the EPA say that,
given all of the problems and the need to maintain the progress
that we have made in a budget environment like this, we need
promulgate new rules like this? We understand it is not going
to cost the EPA much, but it costs the dairy industry and
farmers a lot. Those who produce cheese and other milk products
are required to be in this as well. I mean, what is next? Sippy
cups in the House cafeteria? What are we going to do? But,
please, explain how that is not overreach. Many seem to deflect
any criticism of anything the EPA is doing, saying there is no
overreach and they are not going too far. Is this not
overreach?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, it is not accurate. I can just read to
you from the letter to the editor that we wrote that I think
the Wall Street Journal has yet to find time or space to
publish. EPA has already proposed to exclude--exclude--milk
storage tanks from this spill prevention program. This
commonsense decision was announced months before the Wall
Street Journal chose to write their inaccurate article.
Moreover, EPA stayed enforcement. Compliance requirements were
changed pending the final agency action.
It is widely known that EPA will take action on this this
spring, and I can give you a personal update. EPA has already
sent the draft final exclusions to the White House. So we are
on schedule to do that, which we had announced months ago. I
have no idea why the Wall Street Journal chose to inaccurately
report. We have tried to fix the record, but I don't believe
they published it.
Mr. Flake. Well, it sounds like this rule has been
promulgated and now you are just looking to make exemptions to
it. Would that not be accurate?
Ms. Jackson. No, that is not entirely accurate, sir.
Because when we promulgated the rule, at the same time we made
clear that we were announcing and proposing an exemption. So it
does take a bit of time for the regulatory process to ensure
the exemption is through. And so to ensure no producer was
subject to a rule that we did not intend for them to be subject
to, we have also announced that we won't enforce it. So there
has been no period of time where anyone has been subject to
worry about whether milk and spilled milk was going to be
regulated. We have announced that we don't believe that is an
area where regulation is necessary.
Mr. Flake. It would be accurate to say that the EPA has
spent a considerable amount of time promulgating this rule in
the first place.
Ms. Jackson. The rule is for oil. The rule is for inland
oil facilities that need containment to ensure our waterways
are protected, but we wanted to ensure there was an exemption
for milk and the fats in milk.
Mr. Flake. There has been no effort to include or to
subject dairy producers to the spill prevention control and
countermeasure program then? No effort then?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir. There has been an effort to exempt
them, but there are rules under SPCC, if we can just use the
shorthand, to deal with preventing spills of large amounts of
oil into inland waterways. That is part of our requirements.
But because this unintended consequence came up, EPA announced
an exemption so there would be no confusion.
Mr. Flake. But it is still inaccurate to say that this was
not being considered by the EPA and time was not spent on it
because there was a rule finalized to subject dairy producers
to this that is now being considered or exempted or held back,
correct?
Ms. Jackson. At the same time as the rule was finalized for
oil containment and storage facilities, large ones, I think
over a million gallons, sir, but I can double-check that, EPA
proposed to ensure that milk was exempted. So there has been
time and effort, in my mind, my opinion, spent on just the
opposite of overreach, which is underreach. We made it clear
through our rules that we were not going to or intending to
have milk, milk as a substance, regulated, regardless of
whether it is over a million gallons.
So you ask why I cannot entirely buy into this idea of
overreach. Many of the things that EPA is accused of are, in my
mind, attempts to misinform people of what is actually
happening. What is happening on the ground is that we are not
intending nor do I believe will ever regulate milk. As soon as
the rule becomes final, that will be quite clear.
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Mr. Flake. Let me move to Arizona here. Arizona counties
and municipalities are very worried about a review of ambient
air quality that could result in the lowering of the coarse
particulate standard. You talked about this being considered
before. I understand the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee has recommended that the standard be lowered or
raised or bettered, I guess you would say. Is that correct? Is
that why the EPA is moving ahead with consideration of changing
the standard?
Ms. Jackson. The actual language in the Scientific Advisory
Board document says that it is equally--I don't have the exact
quote. I will try to find it for you. It is equally like
possible to retain the current standard. There is a standard
now or to lower it. So, as far as I know, they have not made a
determination or a recommendation to lower the standard to EPA.
Mr. Flake. We know that they have made a recommendation.
And is it safe to say that EPA tries to or often follows
recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Committee?
Ms. Jackson. We are required by law to consult with the
Case Act. There has only been one case when EPA did not follow
the recommendations of Case Act. That was the ozone standard
promulgated at the end of the Bush administration which we are
now reconsidering.
Mr. Flake. This clean air advisory----
SCIENCE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Ms. Jackson. Scientific Advisory Council----
Mr. Flake. They recommended that EPA establish a new coarse
particulate standard for rural dust, but my understanding is
that EPA has rejected their recommendation in the past; is that
correct?
Ms. Jackson. My understanding, sir--and I will get the
backup--is that their recommendation says that they support
either retaining or revising. So they did not take a position.
But I will make sure and get you the exact language.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Flake. The concern would be that the EPA is following
one recommendation and not following the other recommendation.
The one recommendation would impose considerable costs. And
when the other recommendation made might spare the cities and
municipalities that cost, the new standard or separate standard
for rural dust was to be adopted. So my concern would be that
the EPA would be picking and choosing which recommendations to
follow and only following those that impose significant costs.
And then the problem is, and we have been through this
again and again, every time the EPA comes in to say they are
going to change the standard there has already been lawsuits.
There has already been action forcing cities and counties to
take action to reach a new standard. And while they are in the
middle of trying to comply with this, here comes EPA again
saying you might have a new standard.
And it would behoove all of us to sit back and say, all
right, can we have a 10-year standard and here are the
benchmarks. Here is what we have got to reach. This would be
instead of putting the cities and counties through the wringer
every couple of years that they find very difficult to comply
with.
That is my concern. I will wait for the next round of
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have much of
a voice today, so thanks for your tolerance.
I would like to start, Ms. Jackson, by associating myself
with the remarks of Mr. Cole. I have never heard the vitriol
during town hall meetings that I hear towards the EPA from
everyone from coal miners to ranchers to people who do believe
climates are changing but believe that the EPA's heavy hand
towards regulating greenhouse gases will put us out of business
and just send those jobs into countries that do not have
environmental regulations that match ours, thereby causing
greater pollution elsewhere in the world that will eventually
get to us as well.
Most of us have more confidence in our own country's
ability to manage environmental issues with the latest
technologies than is capable around the world. So I think that
we should concentrate on trying to keep jobs and technology in
the United States. We can actually be the leader in those areas
and export those technologies elsewhere in the world.
So please do take careful heed of Mr. Cole's remarks. I
believe they were right on target.
I do have some questions for you, some of which I will
submit in writing.
REGULATORY ACTIONS
Mrs. Lummis. How many regulatory actions is your agency
currently undertaking under the Clean Air Act or the Clean
Water Act?
Ms. Jackson. I don't have the exact number in front of me.
We classify regulations according to their economic
significance I believe over the course of a year. Are you
asking about maybe this year?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson. I think we have two or three economically
significant requirements, maybe four under the Clean Air Act
that are in our regulatory calendar.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S JANUARY 18, 2011, EXECUTIVE ORDER
Mrs. Lummis. Are you complying with President Obama's
January 18th executive order that requires agencies to take
into account--and this is among other things--the costs of
cumulative regulation?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lummis. And do you have some data you can share on
that?
Ms. Jackson. We have been asked to do a retroactive look-
back of regulations to determine impacts, and we have begun
that scoping process, but I don't have anything to share at
this time.
Mrs. Lummis. And when will you?
Ms. Jackson. I cannot give you a date today, but we will
get you a date.
Mrs. Lummis. When you get us the date, can you also give us
information?
Ms. Jackson. When we have it. We will get you a date when
we will have information that we are able to share, absolutely.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
CRITERIA FOR REGULATORY CHANGES
What criteria do you use to determine when a regulatory
change must follow the open rulemaking process or where
guidance will suffice? I can tell you we hear a lot of concerns
that guidance has broadened the scope of the Clean Water Act in
ways that skirt the rulemaking process.
Ms. Jackson. We follow the Administrative Procedure Act in
determining what should be a regulation; and, of course, once
we have a regulation, we have made a determination about a
regulation, it goes through full public comment, usually a very
long and detailed process. And we are pretty proud of the fact
that we think we have a very transparent rulemaking process.
The guidance issues are for those issues which generally EPA
needs to offer guidance and clarification, doesn't rise to the
level of a rule.
And, increasingly, EPA's guidance is subject to public
comment as well. For example, you heard perhaps earlier the
discussion about the mountaintop removal mining guidance and
surface mining guidance.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
HYDRAULIC FRACKING
I want to follow up on the conversation on hydraulic
fracking, something that occurs commonly in my State, and there
has never been a connection proven in spite of frequent
revisiting of the hydraulic fracking issue between the
diminution in water quality and modern hydraulic fracking
techniques.
I would also point out to those that are concerned about
it, especially those that are concerned about the New York
Times article, that the former director of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Quality and the former governor,
Governor Rendell, submitted a rebuttal to the New York Times
that the New York Times wouldn't print because it was too long.
But it addressed many of the concerns that were raised in the
article.
And, of course, the article also was not a peer-reviewed,
scientific expression of hydraulic fracking. So I would refer
those who are concerned about it to former Governor Rendell and
the former director in the State.
And following up on that, using that as a segue, can you
tell me what does the EPA do that States are incapable of doing
through their own departments of environmental quality?
EPA AND STATES ROLES
Ms. Jackson. Well, ma'am, as you know, water moves between
States, and air moves between States and countries. And so I
think EPA's most important role over its history, EPA often
helped States to set up their program. Now we have moved more
into a role where we oversee programs to ensure that the Clean
Water Act is implemented the same way, for example, across the
country.
Where I think EPA has made some tremendous progress and
where we have work to do is on regional issues, on places--for
example, the transport of pollution from the Midwest to the
East or water quality issues that are regional in nature that
require the cooperation of several States. I think a national
environmental body--as well as research. EPA has a very fulsome
environmental research budget. Most States can't afford that. I
used to run a State program, and we just didn't have the money
to put in research we would like.
We still set international standards for risk assessment.
And our work still--I am always amazed wherever I go
internationally, almost every slide, if it is an environmental
issue, is attributed to many of the scientists and researchers
at EPA, car standards. I could go on and on and on.
But the States are extremely important in the day-to-day
implementation of our environmental laws. They write permits.
They enforce the law. But the EPA's role is one of oversight as
well as scientific knowledge and working on regional issues.
EPA RESEARCH
Mrs. Lummis. Do you believe that research is your highest
priority expenditure at EPA?
Ms. Jackson. Our mission is protection of public health and
the environment. So I wouldn't call it our highest priority,
but I would say increasingly environmental issues are so
complex that you need very, very good science. So we spend a
lot of money and a significant portion of our budget on science
issues, whether in applied research or in grants to do
research.
EPA PRIORITIES
Mrs. Lummis. In making decisions about prioritizing your
funding, do you look at what States can do versus what they
cannot do or what you believe they are incapable of doing and
prioritize for the EPA to do those things that you believe the
States are incapable of doing as well as EPA is capable of
doing it?
Ms. Jackson. We have seven priorities that I established at
EPA. One of them is working in partnership with our States and
tribes. Because many of our managers, including myself, came
from State government and know very well that there is a
synergistic relationship.
There are also times, quite frankly, when we don't agree
and the laws carve out a role for EPA and implementation of the
environmental laws that we must also uphold. We are ultimately
accountable for implementation of those laws.
AIR QUALITY AROUND GRAND CANYON
Mrs. Lummis. There are State and tribal groups that form
commissions such as the Grand Canyon Air Visibility, the
Transport Commission. That is not the exact name of it. But it
was the western governors, the tribes near the Grand Canyon and
others who worked diligently together to address air quality
issues in the airshed around the Grand Canyon. I know there are
similar intrastate and intratribal interagency efforts around
the country. Do you look to those as a primary driver or do you
look more to the Federal Government as the primary driver?
Ms. Jackson. No, of course. And, in fact, those groups, if
they are the ones I am thinking about, are authorized under the
Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act realized that haze is a
regional problem, visibility is a regional problem, and so
there are several regional haze groups that protect Class 1
visibility areas around the country, and they are authorized
under law, and we work very closely with them.
EPA BUDGET
Mrs. Lummis. Since President Obama became President, it
looks to me as if, in terms of percentage increase, the EPA has
received the highest percentage increase in its budget. Do you
agree?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly we received the highest increase of
any EPA budget under President Obama in fiscal year 2010, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. So as I understand, it was about 39 percent
total for the previous administration's budget and so your
current proposed 13 percent cut really amounts to a 24 percent
increase over previous EPA budgets. Do you agree with my math?
Ms. Jackson. Top line, yes. It is essentially so, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. So you are still dealing with about a quarter
increase over previous administration's budget?
Ms. Jackson. With the very vast majority of that money
going out to States, either for the Great Lakes or for water
and wastewater infrastructure grants. What the President
thought was very important was investing in water and
wastewater infrastructure but in a tough year we have had to
basically give some of that back, reluctantly, but we are part
of the team and we think we have to make those tough choices.
Mrs. Lummis. And among those were the State revolving
funds, the safe drinking water?
Ms. Jackson. That is what I referred to.
Mrs. Lummis. Excuse me. You are being very generous, Mr.
Chairman, with my 5 minutes. So I will yield back. I do want to
pursue that if there is another round. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is nice to see you, Madam Administrator, again; and I
want to thank you for the courtesy that you have extended to me
personally and to my constituents.
And, also, on the issue of the Great Lakes, I want to
commend the President and you for the emphasis placed on the
Great Lakes.
I am sorry that the distinguished ranking member of the
full committee isn't here anymore, but I think he was engaging
in a little bit of revisionist history. It is actually this
administration that is the very first administration that has
put real money behind the Great Lakes cleanup initiatives. We
sort of limped along at $50 million here and $50 million there,
and the President's original vision of $475 million would have
actually let us move forward in a lot of important areas. And
if the gentleman from Washington is short on species, we would
be happy to send him the Round Goby, the sea lamprey, the zebra
mussel, or the Asian carp. Perhaps he could repopulate some of
his areas.
Mr. Moran. Is the Asian carp edible? That is a heck of a
big fish. What can you do with it?
Mr. LaTourette. I would say to the distinguished ranking
member of the subcommittee that I will bring him one and maybe
we will check it out.
Mr. Moran. I bet it is a tough one to fillet. It is about 6
feet long.
Mr. LaTourette. Some of them go 100 pounds. So I hope it is
good eating.
MISLEADING PESTICIDE PRODUCT BRAND NAMES
With those things, there are a couple of things that are of
concern to me; and I would like to get through in the 5
minutes, if I could. And one is something that Ms. Kaptur and I
sent you a letter on. It was a draft PR Notice 2010 Act and you
were kind--actually, you didn't send the letter back to me. It
was Mr. Owen, the Assistant Administrator.
The U.S. EPA draft PR Notice 2010 Act has to do with false
or misleading pesticide product brand names. And here is my
concern. There are two companies in Ohio. One is Scotts, which
is pretty well-known, and the other one I didn't know about
until this sort of dustup started, and that is Anderson's Golf
Pro. And the proposed PR Notice, which isn't going to go
through rulemaking, it is going to be guidance, as you were
discussing with others, wants to take a look at trademark
names.
Now, I have a lot of problem with that from a legal
standpoint. A trademark name is a trademark name. But on the
draft guidance that comments are being solicited on, names that
apparently the agency is going to have problems with are
eradicator, germ shield, professional grade, pro, safe, safer,
safest, and green.
Now, when I was growing up, green was a color. And if
somebody has gone through the process of having its fertilizer
trademarked, I have no problem with the EPA looking at what is
in the bag to make sure it is safe for human health and
everything else. But, obviously, a lot of time and money----
Some of these trademark names have been around since the
1960s, and there is just a--Scotts Lawn Pro, I have trouble on
a couple of levels. One, I don't find anything deceptive in
having a trademark name called Lawn Pro; and, two, I do have
trouble with the EPA proposing without the rulemaking process
to move forward with a guidance that would say that the word
``pro'' was inappropriate.
In the case of the Anderson's company, the reason Ms.
Kaptur signed the letter--it is in her district--they make a
product called Anderson's Golf Pro; and apparently in
correspondence with the agency they have been advised--because
it can be used on your front lawn and not just a golf course--
that they have trouble. They find the word ``golf'' as
deceptive. So they are going to be able to call it Anderson's,
I guess, because they can't call it Anderson's Golf and they
can't call it Anderson's Pro.
The problem moving forward is that--I said to the people at
Scotts who are down in Marysville, Ohio, I think Mr. Tiberi's
district, I said you are really only scratching the surface
when you talk about things like pro and green and everything
else. Because the one Scotts product that I use is Miracle-Gro.
And how the heck are they going to be able to establish that a
miracle has occurred when they put their stuff--they are going
to have all of these little old ladies take their tomato plants
over to Rome to present them to the College of Cardinals to
determine whether a miracle has occurred.
So that is the trouble I have got with this thing; and I
would hope that at the very least, because we are dealing with
trademarks and the fact that they have been in place for a long
time--I could argue it is an unconstitutional taking of
property without due process of law. But I would hope that
perhaps because I find you to be a reasonable person, that
maybe you could pull back the people that want to take the word
green and pro and everything else out of the trademark. And if
you want to proceed in this direction, that you put it through
the rulemaking process and not through this guidance process.
And your letter--again, the letter from the Assistant
Administrator at the end of January--indicates that that is not
the position of the agency. But that is my request, if you
would take a look at this. And if you want to really get into
what lawn care products are called, that it go through the
rulemaking process and not just solicits comments from people
but also lets the Congress also weigh in and make some
observations. So that would be request number one.
FLY ASH OR COAL AS REGULATION
Request number two has to do with fly ash. And you know
that there was an amendment during the CR. One of our new
members, Mr. McKinley, offered the amendment to deny funding to
the EPA relative to declaring coal ash to be a hazardous
material. I think that amendment passed.
Regardless of that amendment--and I am not a big fan of
amendments limiting funding. But the history of fly ash or coal
ash, to my understanding, is that there was a series of
studies, the Bevill studies, that the agency actually presented
a recommendation to Congress that coal ash should not be
regulated as a hazardous material. And now, without
consultation with the Congress, it appears that the EPA is
about to do a 180 degree turn.
And so, one, I have the same problem. Why would Congress
direct the EPA to make a study and a recommendation only to
have the EPA go in the other direction? And then, two, just the
folks that are engaged in waste tell me when you increase the
amount of fly ash that needs to be treated as a hazardous
material, it is going to be about 40 to 50 million tons a year,
which is going to exhaust our landfill space in just about a
couple of years.
So your comment on Miracle-Gro and your comment on fly ash
would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Jackson. I believe in miracles.
Mr. LaTourette. I do, too.
Ms. Jackson. So I will take a look at the issue you raise
seriously, sir. I am sorry for the joke.
And on the second issue of coal ash, let me just say a
couple of things in terms of where we are. EPA continues to
support the beneficial use of that material. We proposed a
rule. The rule did not take a--it proposed two different
approaches and took comment on it. The approaches were to
regulate it under Subtitle C, which are the hazardous
provisions of the law, of RCRA, or Subtitle D, which is the
solid waste provisions. Either way, increased regulation, which
I believe is warranted because there is certainly real and
potential public health and environmental issues.
All this was in the aftermath of the failure of the big
impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee. We received over 450,000
comments on the proposal, and that is going to take quite a bit
of time to work through. So we remain committed to rulemaking
on this matter; and we are going to analyze that information
and make a final decision based on comments, science, and the
law. But we will almost certainly not do that this calendar
year. I think it is going to take quite a bit of time.
Mr. LaTourette. I had understood that you had come up with
actually three different proposals to have comment on--C, D,
and D prime--and that there were actually three different ones.
The only concern that I have, if you look at the Tennessee
incident, which was obviously serious, it seems to me that it
is a matter of engineering and studying and dams and things of
that nature. But to just reclassify fly ash as a hazardous
material I think is a big step. And just like in the case of
the fertilizer, I hope that if you, as the leader of the
agency, reach a conclusion that that is the direction you are
going to go in, that you would at least consult with the United
States Congress before moving in that direction.
Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaTourette, I hope that that is not your Alexandria
lawn where you are using all of that fertilizer stuff.
Mr. LaTourette. Nothing but natural green products go onto
my property in Virginia. But thank you for asking.
Mr. Moran. I hope that is the case. We have got some people
using all that stuff, and it is getting into our water supply
and then we have to spend all this taxpayer's money trying to
clean it.
Mr. LaTourette. I think that is probably how you got the
doghead fish in your----
Mr. Moran. I suspect so. But we have been trying to find
our neighbors who are accountable for that, and maybe we found
the problem.
Anyway, that is not really what I want to focus on here,
but thanks for raising it. We will send the lawn police out
after you, Steve.
GREENHOUSE GASES
First of all, greenhouse gases. We have heard so much from
so many people on how aggressive you have been on greenhouse
gases. We have got this old coal-fired power plant in
Alexandria that is redundant, and we still can't get it closed
down. So some of us would like a little more aggressive action.
But I know how differential you want to be to the industry, and
you want to make sure that everything is done right.
But there is another point of view from the one that has
been expressed, particularly on the floor of the House when we
were considering the CR. During consideration of the CR, Mr.
Poe from Texas, who was the author of the amendment to stop
EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases, said, and I quote, this
amendment will rein in EPA and prohibit them from implementing
the so-called cap and trade philosophy on States such as Texas.
Other Members said that the EPA was trying to implement cap and
trade. So I want to ask you, do the greenhouse gas regulations
that EPA finalized in December actually institute cap and
trade, and do you intend to implement cap and trade at EPA in
the future without congressional action?
Ms. Jackson. That is no and no. EPA has taken no steps to
establish a cap and trade program, and we do not need to do so.
I joined the President in calling for legislation in the
absence of that. We do not----
Mr. Moran. So, without congressional action, you are not
going to be acting on that. So thank you, Ms. Jackson.
We heard also from Mr. Barton, who had been the ranking
member on the Commerce Committee, that carbon dioxide is not a
pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act, so EPA has
no authority to regulate that. Is that true?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir, that is untrue.
Mr. Moran. So all the members are clear, what have you
asked of industry in the greenhouse gas regulations and have
you seen evidence of refineries and power plants actually going
out of business as a result of your actions?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir. Actually, we have seen some permit
activity that would be encouraging, I think. We have had about
100 PSD applications that are now in process. PSD are Clean Air
Act permit applications that are needed before either
undertaking a new facility or a significant modification that
would raise the amount of greenhouse gases quite significantly.
Twenty-six of those 100 have already done their analysis for
greenhouse gas emissions, and that is before the permit riders.
Two have already received their greenhouse gas permits. I
believe one is in Louisiana; one is in California.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Mr. Moran. Now, on clean waters. This dump truck of a bill,
known as H.R. 1----
Mr. Simpson. Dump truck?
Mr. Moran. A dump truck, because we dumped everything--or
you guys dumped everything you could imagine into it and
weighing it down so we are having trouble getting it passed, of
course.
But it contains language that prohibits EPA from updating
its rules and guidance pertaining to the definition of waters
under the Clean Water Act. So, without question, there are two
Supreme Court decisions, one in 2001 and another in 2006, that
have created some confusion and uncertainty over the scope of
the Clean Water Act. But the prohibition in H.R. 1 is anti-real
estate and anti-business, given the past position of industry
groups that they do support a rulemaking process that would
provide all sides with clarification, with an ample opportunity
to participate in that regulatory process.
So I ask you, Madam Administrator, how would the
prohibition that was dumped onto H.R. 1 impact the permit
process in EPA's future actions on limiting water pollution?
Ms. Jackson. I believe it would prevent EPA and the Corps
from offering clarification to permit writers who work for
either EPA, the Corps, and authorize States under the Clean
Water Act. That level of confusion is having a real-world
impact in implementation of permitting and enforcement and in
my belief will have an impact on water quality if not
addressed. So if we are prohibited from making any
clarification possible, it will have an impact on our ability
to move as we try to develop and invest money as we try to
create jobs.
Mr. Moran. Well, that is what I was concerned about. We are
trying to grow this economy, and real estate developers who
have plans that have been worked out with the locality, a
number of smart-growth ideas in metropolitan areas, we are
being told that they can't move until they can get
clarification on the Clean Water Act. And they are asking you
to do it, and now you are stopped because of H.R. 1.
LIMITING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
One last question with regard to H.R. 1. This is Section
1746. It would fund the government through the remainder of the
fiscal year, but it would stop EPA from limiting greenhouse gas
emissions. But what is less clear is the impact of section 1746
on renewable fuel standards. So I want to ask you, is the
language included--and I shall use that expression once more--
in that dump truck of a bill known as H.R. 1, I mentioned on
the floor that it had more poison pills than Rasputin's
medicine cabinet. That is the kind of thing we would have
expected out of Representative LaTourette.
But here we are burdened with all of this stuff, and we
have got this language in H.R. 1 that stops EPA's renewable
fuel standards for the remainder of the fiscal year. How do you
deal with that, with the impact of the consequences of Section
1746 in H.R. 1, Madam Administrator?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I think we agree that the greenhouse gas
prohibitions and the riders thereto have an impact on our
ability to implement the renewable fuel standards because they
are, after all, greenhouse gas based or based on a lifecycle
analysis with respect to greenhouse gas compared to
conventional gasoline. So I think that is one of the
consequences as well.
FUNDING RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Moran. Well, just one final comment to address--we have
talked a lot about the Great Lakes restoration. And I happen to
agree. We ought to be investing money because it has an
immediate economic benefit and a deleterious one if we don't
make that investment.
But I think Mr. Dicks is right with regard to Puget Sound,
and that affects the quality of water all the way downriver and
Chesapeake Bay. And on Chesapeake Bay we have had support on
both sides of the aisle, but now we have this language that
says you can't use any Federal funds, even though we have had
the Agriculture Department, we have had EPA, we have had any
number of agencies working in a collaborative manner,
particularly with the States and localities, to clean up the
Chesapeake Bay.
We have got miles of dead zones from all the fertilizer, as
Mr. LaTourette referenced, that is killing the vegetation at
the bottom of the water; and now we have got this legislation
that says you can't use any Federal funds to implement the
total maximum daily load, which is precisely the tool that we
are using to try to clean up the Bay.
If you have any further comment, that is fine. Otherwise, I
will let you go. I appreciate the opportunity, though, to make
these points, Mr. Chairman. And I trust that you would agree,
we ought to get back to a regular interior appropriations bill
so we can deal with these very difficult regulatory and
legislative issues in an appropriate document and not in that
dump truck of a bill known as H.R. 1.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but
funding limitation amendments are appropriate in an
appropriation bill because we are the Appropriations Committee
and hence the definition, funding limitation amendment, which
is what was offered.
And I would also say that I think you are incorrect.
Section 1746, that was stationary sources of greenhouse gas. It
had nothing to do with fuel standards. So it would have left
those completely untouched.
Whenever we put something in, everybody throws out this,
oh, the world is going to fall; we won't be able to do
anything. Originally, when it was proposed, the Energy Star
standard wouldn't be able to do Energy Star anymore. That is a
program that existed before there was ever any mention of
greenhouse gases. There was nothing that would have affected
Energy Star. But yet all of those comments are made.
And, of course, people that don't like it throw out the
worst-case scenario. I am surprised that the world just didn't
fall apart the day after that passed. But, unfortunately, or
fortunately, I guess, it didn't.
Maybe some of those things that were said aren't true. And
it seems like the agency--I am smart enough to understand the
agency on almost anything it does overstates a benefit and
understates the cost. And I am also smart enough to understand
that businesses that maybe don't like it overstate the cost and
understate the benefit. And the truth is somewhere in the
middle. And the problem is having an honest discussion about
this stuff because of all the bull that is thrown out, and that
is the reality.
Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you that you
are a very smart guy.
Mr. Simpson. I didn't say that.
Mr. Moran. You suggested that. And I agree that you are a
smart guy, but I think you would also agree that we shouldn't
be deciding these issues with 10 minutes of debate. For
example, the Chesapeake Bay, it didn't mention EPA. It just
said all Federal funds. And that is the problem with
legislating in that manner at 2:00 in the morning.
Mr. Simpson. Just to clarify that. You will notice that on
the greenhouse gas regulation or limitation that was put in
there, we only did it through the CR, through the 7-month CR,
because we didn't want the EPA and business to spend a ton of
money implementing a rule that was being taken up by the
authorizing committee.
The one thing I don't want to do is I don't want to have
this committee substitute its judgement for the authorizing
committee. But working with them, they said, through the term
of this CR, that is fine; let us work. They are currently
holding hearings.
I don't know what Congress will ultimately decide. I may
agree or disagree with whatever Congress decides. But let us
let the authorizing committees do their work, because sometimes
there are things that have to be done on an appropriations
bill.
I will also tell you that there are an awful lot of
statutes out there that are unauthorized. They have expired.
And what do we do? We extend the authorizations through the
appropriations bill. If you want to just stop doing that, we
will close down the Indian health clinics across the world. We
will do a lot of other things that are unnecessary.
Mr. Moran. So who is exaggerating now? I don't want to be
argumentative with you, Mr. Chairman, because you are a good
guy, and you want to do the right thing. But I do think we have
got a real problem with all of those riders that were put on to
that continuing resolution. But thank you.
Mr. Simpson. And, as I said, they were so devastating that
no efforts were made by your side to remove them.
Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Chairman, thanks very much.
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
I just have one brief question, and it is about the most
recent article in the Times. I think it is coming out today or
tomorrow. According to the report, what they say is that some
EPA lawyers believe that Federal pollution laws are being
violated in Pennsylvania. And I know that you are going up
there tomorrow, and you will get some deep insight into this
whole situation, and I deeply appreciate your spending the time
up there.
So they believe that the pollution laws are being violated
in Pennsylvania; and, specifically, drilling waste is being
discharged into rivers and streams with minimal treatment.
According to one EPA lawyer that was cited in this most recent
story in the Times, and this is a quote: ``Treatment plants are
not allowed under Federal law to process mystery liquids,
regardless of what the State tells them. Mystery liquids is
exactly what this drilling waste is, since its ingredient
toxins aren't known.''
That was an interesting statement by him. Nevertheless, the
agency has not intervened in Pennsylvania mostly because of
resistance, as we understand it, resistance from upper-level
staff within the EPA Region 3 office. And, of course, they
oversee the operations of the State.
This may be something that you might be interested in
checking out in going up there. So I think that it would be
interesting--maybe you know something about this already. A
disagreement in Region 3, something about what is going on
there, what about this disagreement, how this disagreement is
taking place, what the contexts of it are. Maybe you will just
find out about this and look into this tomorrow.
And enforcement officers there believe the law is being
violated. You have some enforcement officers there who believe
that this law is being violated. So I wonder if you can give us
some insight into why no action has been taken, despite calls
to do so from enforcement personnel.
Ms. Jackson. Well, I will be in a better position after
speaking directly to my staff tomorrow.
What I want to also assure them from the highest level of
the agency are those things I have said publicly, which is we
are going to do a study. We are going to base our work on
study. If at any time we find a situation that we believe
violates the law, we need to be clear, and we need to either
work with the State as the primary enforcer to take an action
or to address it.
I will say one other thing. When it comes to the water that
comes back up and potentially goes into a treatment plant or
surface water, that is regulated. That is absolutely regulated
under the Clean Water Act. That is wastewater when it comes
back up.
Now, there are some places that reuse it. They call that
recycling, and that may be an opportunity. But there are still
wastewaters that are produced even in a recycling operation.
So one of the things that I think is important is that as
an agency we ensure that--for example, the New York office has
made clear to New York State that EPA can at any time set
additional standards for what we call pretreatment, for waste
that may go to a treatment plant. So I need to speak to the
professionals out in the Philly office and ensure that they
hear from the top of this organization that there is no look-
the-other-way standdown. We need to do our jobs, and we need to
do that with respect for the fact that, when a State is doing
the work, we are not there to simply poke them but to ensure
that we are providing information.
So I am happy to report back, but I cannot give you much
more than that, Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, Administrator Jackson, I just want to
thank you very much. Thank you for everything that you are
doing and thanks for everything that you have done here today.
And I appreciate you going up to Pennsylvania tomorrow. Thanks.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the
voice.
First, I want to tell you that I had a good experience with
the EPA out of the Denver office a number of years ago with
regard to our requests that they work with my State's DEQ on a
compliance issue that was right next to my land, which is right
next to an oil refinery; and I am not sure that we ever would
have got it solved without the EPA. So I want you to know I am
not a person who is anti-EPA. I saw it work in our instance,
and a cleanup occurred that I really don't believe ever would
have happened but for the EPA.
So please don't view me as a detractor, but I do have some
questions about the efforts to prioritize funding that I
believe may be detracting from efforts that really work on the
ground. I am concerned with the boots-on-the-ground dollars
that EPA uses that really do help businesses comply and
communities comply with EPA regulations.
EPA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS BUDGET
This first question is about rural water systems. Does your
fiscal year 2012 budget set aside money to assist small rural
water systems to remain in compliance?
Ms. Jackson. Within the funding for the revolving funds is
money for rural systems; and, of course, that is added to the
money from USDA, who spends an awful lot of rural development
money as well.
Mrs. Lummis. In 2007, over 200 representatives and senators
asked the EPA to fund technical assistance and training grants
to small water systems; and I believe that the EPA chose, under
your leadership, to go a different route. So I am going to
write to you and work with you to encourage you to revisit what
seems to be working well in my State of Wyoming with regard to
training grants for small water systems, because these small
communities just don't have the expertise.
You were in Pennsylvania, correct?
Ms. Jackson. I was in New Jersey.
Mrs. Lummis. There may be some communities in New Jersey
that even are small enough--you know what I am talking about.
They really do struggle to comply, and they want very much to
provide clean water to their water users, but that technical
assistance just really does seem to go a long way. So we will
visit further about that.
MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Another question I have is about MACT. Has EPA conducted or
asked for an impact analysis of the proposed utility MACT rule
on electric reliability jobs, consumer and business electrical
prices?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Yes. The MACT--the toxic rules for utilities is what you
are asking for on that. And the air toxics rule is not out, but
it will include a benefits analysis. It will include in its
proposal a jobs analysis as well. But that is not yet out for
public comment.
Mrs. Lummis. And do you know when that is coming?
Ms. Jackson. It is required by a court order for, I
believe, March 16th.
Mrs. Lummis. And you anticipate being able to meet that
deadline?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Did your agency consult with the SBA on the
proposed rule?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, we did a brief consultation, as required
by law.
Mrs. Lummis. And did they comment and could you provide
those comments or should I follow up with you?
Ms. Jackson. We will provide them. Absolutely.
Mrs. Lummis. That would be great. I would be most
interested.
I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but my voice
just isn't cooperating. So I will submit them in writing.
And I do want to thank you very much, Ms. Jackson and Ms.
Bennett, for being here today.
Ms. Jackson. Gladly.
And if you wouldn't mind, I do want to compliment--I
visited your State 2 years ago, or last year; and your drinking
water program is wonderful. Water is obviously quite a
commodity there. So thank you. And feel better.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much.
I served on the Board of Land Commissioners and the State
Loan and Investment Board which administered the SRF, the State
Revolving Fund for safe drinking water and the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you those programs in my State are
hugely helpful at making safe drinking water available around
the State of Wyoming. So it is a great program.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Madam Administrator, I am all that stands between you
and freedom, so I will attempt to be--oh, and----
Ms. Jackson. Do we need another miracle?
Mr. LaTourette. You are in deep trouble.
Mr. Simpson. Who knows? Mr. Moran is staying----
Mr. LaTourette. I am glad that the distinguished ranking
member is still here, because I don't think I can let him call
H.R. 1 a dump truck several times without making an
observation.
H.R. 1 I don't think was a dump truck. The dump truck was a
majority party that didn't produce a budget, didn't produce any
appropriation bills of significance except on the defense side,
and abandoned regular order. So I think what you saw in H.R. 1
was pent-up frustration.
Someone mentioned to me that we had more recorded votes
during the consideration of H.R. 1 than we had in the entire
year of 2010, the last year that Mrs. Pelosi was the Speaker of
the House. And the reason for that, quite frankly, was that we
didn't have any open rules.
And I don't want to embarrass Mrs. Lummis, but she actually
at a meeting I was at said, what is this open rule thing? What
is an amendment? How long do I get to talk? And I think it is a
sin that somebody who had been here for 2 years didn't know
what an open rule was, but nobody did know what an open rule
was.
So I agree that a lot of stuff got piled onto H.R. 1, but
it was 4 years of frustration on both sides of the aisle in not
having decent ideas brought to the forefront. So if there was a
dump truck, the dump truck was the decision by the previous
majority to not finish its business and basically dump this
thing on our lap with an expiration date of March the 4th,
which was no accident.
I always say that the former chair of this committee, Mr.
Obey, is a very, very bright man. He knew exactly what he was
doing. And that was the dump truck.
REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION
The question that I have for you, however--and I think it
comes from Mr. Hinchey's observation when he talks about
District 3. I have District 5 out of Chicago. And so the EPA
structure has the headquarters and then 10 regional offices and
then guidance from the Department of Justice.
And while I think we all appreciate flexibility and
regional nuances, one of the things you see--it is a lot like
the different appellate districts in the United States District
Court system, where you get all of these conflicting
interpretations. And while regionalism is great, I think that
some uniformity across the country when it comes to enforcement
and regulation would be welcomed. You shouldn't have one set of
rules for Mr. Hinchey in Pennsylvania and another set of rules
for Ohio and Illinois, at least on the implementation.
So I am just interested to see whether you think there is a
variance between regions in terms of how different is a wetland
in Ohio different from a wetland being interpreted by the
regional office than in Wyoming and what are you doing to sort
of strive that the agency speaks with one voice.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you. Certainly our goal is consistency
and enforcement and a level playing field across the country.
And our challenges in meeting that goal are that oftentimes the
vast majority, if not all, of the enforcement action is taken
or undertaken by the States. And so EPA plays a sort of dual
role, and we try to do them both well. First work in
partnership on training or capacity building or technical
assistance or interpretation of the law and also in oversight
for a State that might, for whatever reason, not be so inclined
to implement the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act.
Those are tough discussions. And the regional office, the
district offices are on the front lines of trying to maintain
those relationships over many, many elections. So those
relationships are long standing. I worked for almost 12, 13
years in our office in New York City, and so I have a very
strong belief and respect for the hard work of the on-the-
ground work with the States. And usually those relationships
are very good ones. So I think we play both those roles. I
think we do have challenges.
Our head of enforcement work, Cynthia Giles, who worked in
the region, now works in the office. What we try to do is give
national enforcement priorities because we could enforce--we
have so many laws, and so many are important. We try to go
where the public health threats are the greatest. And we hope
to succeed, but we certainly are constantly trying to improve.
There is actually money in the budget for an initiative
that Cynthia Giles came up with which is based on transparency
of information. Because what we find is that communities and
States love to know what is being emitted into their air or
their water; and if you can get people information on what is
in their drinking water, they will do a lot of our work for us,
because no one wants contaminated water. And so that regaining
ground, she calls it, initiative is really based, first and
foremost, on using electronic information, reporting data, and
getting that out to the public.
Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate that, and I would appreciate
your further efforts in that.
Some of the disconnect--when Mr. Cole talks about people
getting upset, and Mrs. Lummis talks about the same thing, one
of the things that the people in my part of the world and even
further west, you have the east coast where they have paved all
their wetlands and they have eaten all their endangered species
and are now trying to impose a set of standards on--and it gets
people upset. So we are just looking for evenhandedness, and I
trust you to do that.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Administrator Jackson.
I am going to bring this to a close. You have been gracious
to spend three hours with us this morning and address many
concerns that, as you can tell, Members of Congress have that
we hear these from our constituents and actually a couple of
budget issues, also.
I have a whole list of questions that go from everything
that I will be submitting for the record. Again, some of them
actually deal with the budget, and others are other issues that
the EPA deals with.
One of the things I do want to sit down with you--not right
now, but at sometime either I will come down to your offices or
you up to mine. But I would like to sit down and talk about how
you come up with a cost-benefit analysis on the regulation,
what goes into it, who makes those determinations, those type
of things.
And I use this example. We have talked many times about the
arsenic rule and what it does to small communities trying to
comply with this. Sometimes when they are trying to reduce
their arsenic levels from 12 or 14 parts per billion down to 10
parts per billion, there is an incredible cost to getting those
last few parts per billion down. Do you take into
consideration--and these are the questions we will discuss, but
do you take into consideration the fact that a city council
sitting here of a town of 500 or 600 or 700 people has to
decide that their volunteer fire department is going to use
buckets instead of using fire equipment because they can't
afford it anymore because they are putting all their resources
there. And that affects human life, also. They can no longer
have their police officer because they have to comply with
these standards. That affects human life, also. Do those types
of things come into the consideration, the decisions that they
have to make because of the imposition some of these rules have
on them?
The same would be true of businesses. They have to make
tradeoffs and decisions as they try to comply with some of the
rules and regulations that are coming down.
Again, I do want to thank you for being here. I want to
associate myself with the words that Mr. Cole had, that the
concerns being expressed are real.
And you are right. If you go out and ask the American
people, do you want clean water? Do you want clean air?
Everybody does. Every Republican in Congress, every Democrat in
Congress wants clean air and clean water.
We sometimes have differences of opinion about the impacts
of some of the regulations and how we get there and the costs
of some of those regulations. So it is not a matter of whether
they are in favor of clean water and we are not or we are in
favor of clean air and they are not. It is trying to achieve a
common goal.
And one of the things I have heard--and maybe the best
description of all of the concern out there that I have heard--
and I have mentioned it to you before. Whenever I go to a
meeting, I don't care whether it is with local city councilmen,
whether it is with the chambers of commerce, whoever it is,
once the word EPA comes up, that is the rest of the discussion.
That is the concern that is being expressed out there.
And when I talk about funding and reducing funding that we
had to do in H.R. 1 and what we will have to do in the 2012
budget to get our budget back in balance, some will raise their
hand and say, defund the EPA. And it is the only applause line
during this whole thing. That is the kind of concern that the
American people have. They don't feel like the EPA is working
in concert with them to try to clean up the air and water. They
feel like the EPA is imposing on them, and sometimes for
limited benefit. And if we don't change that attitude around, I
fear that the EPA is going to have more difficulty trying to do
its job.
But one person described it to me as if you look at some
regulatory agencies like they use the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, they set a standard, and then business will come in
to them and say, okay, this is the standard we can meet. They
don't impose how you are going to meet the standard. They set
the standard and let businesses develop the plans; and they
will sit down and discuss, yes, this will do it; no, this won't
do it.
They say the EPA is different. They set a standard, and
then they tell you exactly what you have to do to meet that
standard, and it prevents innovation and development of new
technologies and new ideas of how to meet certain standards out
in the real world. And that is a difference in attitude.
So I want to work with you to try to hopefully solve some
of the problems and hopefully address some of the concerns that
I think a vast majority of American people have about the way
that the EPA is moving and addressing some of the concerns that
we have.
So I appreciate it. Thank you very much for being here
today. I know it has been a long time. Three hours sitting
there is not always easy. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 8, 2011.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESSES
HON. SALAZAR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DAVID HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PAMELA HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY--BUDGET, FINANCE, PERFORMANCE
AND ACQUISITION
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Mr.
Secretary, I would like to welcome you along with David Hayes
and our good friend, Pam Haze, to today's subcommittee hearing
addressing the fiscal year 2012 budget priorities for the
Department of Interior. Let me begin by wishing you a belated
happy birthday. I understand last week was your birthday. Happy
birthday from all of us.
My colleagues and I hope to cover a lot of ground with you
today on energy production, grazing, land acquisition, climate
change, and other issues. From our recent conversations I know
that you are continuing to set an ambitious agenda for the
Department on many fronts, and while I do not necessarily agree
with every decision you have made, I appreciate the fact that
we have had a productive conversation about these issues. It is
in that spirit that we look forward to today's hearing.
I would like to begin by making several points on a few
specific issues before we receive your testimony. First, it is
no secret the western members of both parties, including
myself, have some very strong objections to your Wild Lands
Secretarial Order granting BLM the authority to identify and
manage lands in the west as wilderness. We have talked about
this, and I believe, frankly, it is a troubling precedent. I
believe that only Congress has the authority to make new forms
of land designations, and I can guarantee you that any bill
emerging from this subcommittee this year will probably include
a funding prohibition relating to Wild Lands policy. If not on
the underlying bill that comes from the committee, then it will
be offered on the floor certainly by some western member and
will probably be adopted.
Secondly, the second largest increase in the Department's
budget request falls within the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, which is fully funded at $900 million. My biggest concern
is that the budget request proposes historic increases for land
acquisition while also proposing dramatic reductions in other
areas like maintenance of existing facilities, construction
which is reduced by 46 percent Department wide, and wild land
fire. The DOI budget eliminates rural fire assistance and cuts
hazardous fuels funding by $49 million.
A reasonable person could conclude the Department is
increasing land acquisition too quickly and at the expense of
other very important deserving priorities.
The last issue I will mention is the most important, and
that is energy. Oil prices have risen by more than 10 percent
this year, and with the unrest in the Middle East and north
Africa, we are already seeing $4 a gallon gas in some areas of
the United States. According to a March 3 Raspis poll, 58
percent of the public is now convinced that they will be paying
$5 for a gallon of gas by July. The survey also found that 76
percent believe the United States does not do enough to develop
its own gas and oil resources.
The moratorium put in place following the Deepwater Horizon
accident was lifted last fall, but the Administration has
issued just one Deep Water permit in the Gulf since that time,
and that permit was issued just last week. A federal judge has
called this de facto Deep Water drilling moratorium
unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustified.
The public will have no patience and Congress will have no
patience for more delays and more excuses as oil prices begin
to rise, especially when we have untapped resources here in the
United States not being utilized. We need to pursue a domestic
energy production on the grand scale of the Manhattan Project
or putting a man on a moon so that we can put people to work,
boost the domestic energy production, and lessen our dependence
on foreign oil.
In closing, Mr. Secretary, no hearing with you would be
complete without expressing our thanks to your fine
professional staff. The truth is that the committee could not
do its work without the assistance of Pam Haze and the folks in
your budget shop and other professionals who work every day to
help find solutions to some very difficult challenges, and we
welcome you here this morning.
Mr. Simpson. And with that I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, for an opening remark.
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Chairman Simpson. Secretary
Salazar, it is nice to see you, and thank you for your
leadership and that of Mr. Hayes, our Deputy Secretary, and of
course, Pamela Haze, our Deputy Assistant Secretary, for all
things, fiscal management as well as the budget.
The Interior Department, as we all know, is directly
responsible for managing 20 percent of America's land as well
as all of its Indian trust responsibilities. It is a terribly
important mission, generates millions of jobs, produces energy
for our economy and to maintain our standard of living and is
entrusted with protecting our natural heritage for future
generations.
As we all saw far too plainly after the BP Transocean
Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, the way we manage these
resources is terribly important and can have huge consequences
if not done correctly.
Last year I had a habit of quoting a great conservationist
at the beginning of each hearing. I have one for us, and it is
from one of my very favorable, most favorite Republican,
actually he and Abraham Lincoln are two of my favorite
presidents whether they be Republican or Democrat, this is
Teddy Roosevelt's quote. So let me quote this quote, and listen
closely, Mr. Lewis, if you would not mind. I think this is
terrific. ``The greatest good for the greatest number includes
the number within the womb of time compared to those which now
alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the
whole, including unborn generations, bids us to restrain an
unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of
these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of
wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all of
our natural resources is essentially democratic in spirit, in
purpose, and in method.''
So for anyone that wants to read further, they can get it
out of Roosevelt's publication called, ``A Book Lover's
Holidays in the Open.''
Following a marathon of public listening sessions, the
Secretary has moved forward with a responsive plan to increase
funding for Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know you
received an enormous amount of public support for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, and so you have raised it to a $900
million authorized level.
But moving in the opposite direction the new House Majority
reduces the same account in the fiscal 2011 budget to less than
$57 million, just virtually wiping it out. My heart, of course,
and I know in this respect I speak for the ranking member of
the full Appropriations Committee, who I hope we will hear from
also, but it is with the Secretary's budget. That is the
responsible budget. But, of course, the increase comes at the
expense of other ongoing Interior Department programs.
While we need to see that each and every federal dollar is
wisely spent, we also do not want to abandon the opportunity to
invest in the proper management of our priceless natural
resources and ensure that essential habitat, scenic vistas,
outdoor recreational opportunities that are now at risk of
disappearing are not lost to future generations. The fragile
nature of our current economic recovery and quite frankly, the
fragile nature of much of our environment, means that the
decisions we make in this room will have a profound long-term
impact on the United States of America, especially in the west
and the south, where changing climate is altering landscapes,
forests, and fresh sources of water.
Last week we heard from the GAO and the Interior
Department's Inspector General, and it was a very informative
hearing, and I thank the chairman for holding it. One thing
that we learned is that existing law and policy does not allow
the American taxpayers to recoup a fair market price on the
extensive fossil fuel and hard rock minerals that industry
extracts from the publicly-owned lands in this country. The
royalty rate is too low, which is clearly shown by the GAO
testimony. States get a higher royalty rate when they manage
similar natural resources on state-owned lands, not to mention
what the private sector will charge.
We also need to determine if the fees imposed on the oil
and gas industry to drill in public waters and on public lands
reflect the current value of that oil and gas.
Now, one other thing in terms of the Wild Lands Policy,
because this, I know, we are going to get into more discussion,
I suspect you have the votes, Mr. Chairman, but the Wild Lands
Policy is not something new. I am not sure why this change of
Secretary Norton's, which was a recent policy change in the
Bush Administration, why it is such a big deal for the Forest
Service planning has considered wild values of land since the
1920s. So it is consistent with overall Federal policy.
But we will have further discussion on that. I am glad we
are having this hearing today, of course, and hearing from the
Secretary, and I hope we can continue our commitment to
America's great natural resources, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Dicks.
Opening Remarks of Congressman Dicks
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing, and I want to welcome Secretary Salazar,
Deputy Secretary Hayes, and Deputy Assistant Secretary Pam
Haze, who we worked with for many years and appreciate greatly.
I want to join those welcoming you to testify before the
Interior and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee, to hear
your views on the ongoing effort to finalize the budget for
fiscal year 2011, and to hear about the Obama Administration's
budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. I want to echo the
sentiments of Mr. Moran in highlighting the difference between
the Obama Administration's budget proposal for fiscal year
2012, and the bill the House passed last month to fund the
government the remainder of this fiscal year.
I do not think that this is hyperbole to label H.R. 1 as
one of the most short-sighted bills with regard to the
environment that has ever been considered in the Congress. H.R.
1 cut more than $860 million from the 2010 spending levels for
the Department of Interior. In order to reach this level of
cuts H.R. 1 eliminated the Fish and Wildlife Service State and
Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, as well as the North American
Wetlands Conservation Program.
In addition, this legislation would cut climate-change-
related activities in the Department of Interior by nearly 30
percent. If one of the definitions of conservatism is to
preserve resources for future generations, then unfortunately
this bill does not do that.
And, again, I want to point out that cutting spending in
the Department of Interior and across the federal budget is the
wrong economic policy. I am joined by a large preponderance of
economists in the belief that the Republican plan to cut and
grow does not work in the real world.
In contrast, the Obama Administration's fiscal year 2012
budget request would provide modest growth to the Department of
Interior, which is a much more responsible position. Before I
list some of the budget highlights contained, I need to remind
everyone that during the previous Bush Administration, spending
for Interior programs were cut more than 16 percent in real
terms.
Highlights of the fiscal year 2012 budget request include
full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an actual
increase in the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, and a
small increase for the North American Wetlands Conservation
Program, which, again, was eliminated in H.R. 1. The
Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request also increases
the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Centers
by $10 million to $25 million.
I also look forward to hearing about the Administration's
proposal for its Great Outdoor Initiative and what the Interior
Department is going to guarantee that energy extraction from
public lands and off shore areas is done in a way that is
environmentally sound and is a good deal to the taxpayer.
And I agree with Mr. Moran. I think that we are not getting
adequate royalties, and we should do something about that in
this time of concern about the deficit. The royalties would
help us reduce the deficit, and it would be a positive factor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, looking forward to
your testimony. The floor is yours.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Simpson.
May I ask Your Honor how long I have for my opening statement?
Mr. Lewis. An hour and a half.
Secretary Salazar. An hour and a half?
Mr. Simpson. We will generally give the Secretary 15
minutes or so.
Secretary Salazar. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. We are not going to call you on time.
Secretary Salazar. Okay. That is good. I just wanted to
make sure that I was doing what the chairman or the ranking
member would want me to do.
Opening Statement of Secretary Salazar
Let me, first of all, say to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you
for your leadership of this committee and Congressman Moran and
the Ranking Member, thank you for your leadership as well. In
the same spirit, Chairman Simpson, you and then Chairman Dicks
and I had meetings about the future of Interior and the budget,
I think this committee has long recognized the importance of
how we husband the natural resources of America and American
citizens. The bipartisan spirit which the two of you templated
last year is hopefully something that can continue this year as
we deal with some very difficult times across the country on
many of the issues you addressed ranging from energy to what we
do with respect with the conservation agenda for the country.
Thank you for your service from all parts of the country and
for all you do. I look forward to engaging in this
communication this afternoon, as well as in additional
communications moving forward in the months and perhaps years
ahead.
Let me also thank your staff because without the staff on
both the majority and the minority sides we would not be able
to have the kind of oversight and the continuity of the
programs that we have had. I think on both sides we have seen
great work on behalf of the staff working with Pam Haze, who
has worked for multiple administrations, Democrats and
Republicans. To my Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, I appreciate
how hard he has worked at being a real problem solver for the
American people on so many fronts over the last 4 years.
We have tough problems ahead of us no doubt, both budgetary
and policy issues that we need to address, but at the end of
the day I do believe and have confidence that in working
together we can resolve these issues in the best interest of
the American people.
As Secretary of the Interior let me assure you as I have
now begun my third year of service on behalf of the American
people, I value the opportunity and it is a privilege to serve
all of you and to serve the American people. My job, I think
you have heard before, is one that I define very simply. It is
to be the custodian of America's natural resources and
America's natural heritage.
I work on it every day. I am proud of the fact that in each
of America's 50 states and out into the oceans there are great
responsibilities that I have on behalf of the American people.
From the north slope of Alaska and down to the Everglades to
the great national parks of Idaho and Virginia, to 553 wildlife
refuges. We do a lot on behalf of the American people. We
certainly could not do it without the help of this committee,
and we need to continue to move forward on that agenda.
2012 BUDGET
Let me say, at the bottom line as I look at this budget and
other issues we will discuss here, it is a budget about the
creation of jobs. It is a budget about the creation of jobs
relative to a robust energy future for the United States of
America, both onshore as well as offshore. It is about the
creation of jobs as we look forward to the renewable energy
future of America which affects many of your states. I would
say, in fact, all of your states. It is about a robust
conservation agenda because of the number of jobs associated
with hunting and fishing and biking and the many aspects that
really make tourism, both an economic generator as well as a
conservation legacy we want to pass onto our children.
Our budget for 2012 as presented to this committee and to
the Congress by the President is essentially a freeze budget.
It is a freeze budget. Inherent in this freeze budget we have
done what the President instructed us to do, to go over the
budget of the Department of Interior line by line and see where
it is that we could make cuts and how we could find
efficiencies which is something that this committee I am sure
has wanted us and instructed us to do and that is to find
savings where we can find savings.
BUDGET CUTS
The cuts presented in this budget are a total of $1.1
billion. That is a significant amount of money given the size
of this budget, and these are not just the kinds of cuts that
are ordinary. These are significant cuts. When you look at what
we did on the administrative side of the budget, which is a
good place to always look for greater efficiencies, you have a
$42 million cut in travel by the Department of the Interior.
Even in these days of great need for information technology, we
have been able to find savings in information technology that
will save the taxpayers $36 million. We have reformed and are
reforming the procurement practices of the Department of the
Interior so when these procurement reforms are put into place,
there will be an additional $53 million in savings for a total
of $179 million.
You can go through the cuts, and we can tell you we have
tried to make some tough choices but also have made some
reviews of the Department of Interior so we can be a more
effective government on behalf of the American people.
ENERGY
I would like to speak briefly about energy because that is
an issue which all of you are interested in and concerned
about, and I am sure will be focused on in some of your
questions. First, with respect to conventional energy, we have
had a robust program on energy because we believe it is
necessary for us to be able to power the economy of the United
States. All of you have lived through the very difficult times
in the last year where we have had the most difficult economic
times that this country has seen probably since the Great
Depression. We are coming back, and we recognize the importance
of making sure that we are powering our economy, and that does
include the importance of energy, both conventional as well as
renewable.
The oil and gas side of our program has, I think, been
clear. To have a robust oil and gas program for the United
States, both in America's oceans as well as on America's lands.
With respect to America's oceans and the production that we
have in the Gulf of Mexico, which is about 30 percent of the
oil that is produced domestically and about 11 percent of our
natural gas, it is important we have the support of this
committee and of the Congress if you want us to move forward
with a robust energy program in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf is
a huge and important resource for us, but you lived with me
through the Deepwater Horizon nightmare, which was a national
crisis that affected each and every one of you. I am sure that
you agree that we ought to move forward in having a safe
program that is safe to workers as well as protective of the
environment. The funding request that we have here for the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
will allow us to move forward in that regard.
In addition, we will continue to move forward with a robust
onshore program, leasing public lands through the Bureau of
Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. I can get into the
specifics of the numbers of oil and gas permits and acreage
that we have leased out.
One statistic that sticks out in my mind because I think it
paints a picture of what is happening on the public land in the
west. In 2010 alone we have issued over 5,000 permits for
drilling on the public lands onshore. In 2011, the year that we
are in, our hope is that we exceed 7,000 permits onshore. Those
are statistics that I think illustrate the fact that the
President's program has included a robust oil and gas component
to the energy portfolio of America.
With respect to renewable energy, it has been a priority of
mine since I became Secretary of Interior. It is a high
priority of the President of the United States, and a high
priority of the members of this committee as well. I am proud
to report that in 2010, we were able to permit about 3,700
megawatts of renewable energy power, much of it solar energy in
the southwest, particularly in the areas of Arizona,
California, and Nevada, where there is a huge amount of
interest and opportunity, as well as wind energy in places like
Wyoming and all across the country as well as in the Atlantic
offshore.
Our 2012 budget will continue to build on that renewable
energy effort with the goal of having 10,000 megawatts of
renewable energy power that has been authorized on the public
lands of America and America's oceans by the end of 2012.
CONSERVATION
I would like to briefly move from energy to saying a word
or two about conservation. I think, the conservation agenda for
this country is the greatest precedent this country has
recognized, and is a very important agenda for future
generations. As Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil
War, which was the most difficult crisis that this Nation has
ever gone through as a Nation whose future hung in the balance,
set aside the lands of Yosemite because he thought those lands
should be forever preserved for the American people.
It was at the beginning of the last century when Teddy
Roosevelt became the wilderness warrior on behalf of the
American people when he saw the wasteland that was occurring as
America continued to develop a sense of protecting the great
lands for hunters and fishermen and others who enjoyed the
Great Outdoors of America, and the same with Franklin Roosevelt
during the Great Depression. During those very difficult times
they became the great conservation leaders of America.
The investments that you see here with respect to
conservation are continuing with that tradition, and let me say
that at the end of the day this is about jobs. When you look at
outdoor recreation, the outdoor recreation foundation itself
has studied the number of jobs that come from outdoor
recreation. It is about six and a half million jobs created
just from outdoor recreation every year. That does not account
for all the other jobs that come with heritage tourism in each
one of your states.
When we look at the jobs that are created through
conservation investments and the investments that are made in
this budget, it is part of making sure that we stand up the
economy, again, because these are jobs that cannot be exported
elsewhere.
WATER
Finally, I want to make a comment with respect to water.
For many of your states, Congressman Calvert and others, I know
how carefully you watch the water issues of our country. We
have moved forward with a WaterSMART Program with Reclamation
where the investments that Congress has authorized are already
paying significant savings. In 2010, 37 WaterSMART projects
will enable us to save about 490,000 acre feet of water because
of the efficiencies that are being put into place. We need to
continue those kinds of investments in the water infrastructure
and water programs of America.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Moran and
all the members of the committee, we look forward to working
with you on this budget as we address the very difficult issues
both budgetary and policy, that the United States of America
faces today.
[The statement of Ken Salazar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you
being here again today.
OIL SPILLS
First let me say thank you to the employees at DOI for the
work they did during the Deepwater Horizon disaster that
occurred. Most people do not understand how much time you and
DOI employees spent down there trying to deal with that mess,
and there are always fingers to point, saying we could have
done this or should have done that or whatever, but it is a
difficult time reacting to a natural disaster like that. And I
know I kept in close in contact with many of the agencies and
stuff that were working down there, but I do want to thank you
and the employees publicly for the work they did during that
difficult time.
BOEMRE REORGANIZATION
Having said that, you have proposed a reorganization and
are reorganizing MMS to what is it now, BOEMRE. When we spoke
with the IG when we had a hearing with the IG and the GAO, they
said a couple of things. One was that we are uncertain about
royalties that the Federal government is receiving, whether it
is the correct amounts, because we do not have a way of making
sure that what is being reported is the actual amounts. Not
that anybody out there or any company is trying to falsify
records, but sometimes it is just inaccurate. We have no way of
checking that to make sure that we are getting the right amount
of revenue.
And secondly, that this organization is having a difficult
time keeping the people onboard so that we have professional
people onboard, experienced people, to oversee the oil and gas
industry, particularly in the Gulf, you know, offshore.
Could you go through the reorganization, what you plan to
accomplish with this reorganization, how you think it might
improve our oil and gas leases, and so forth?
Secretary Salazar. I would be delighted to do so, Chairman
Simpson. First, let me just say thank you for the comment on
the Deepwater Horizon. It did occupy a significant amount of
time of more than a thousand employees of the Department of
Interior. We did it for the right reasons. We have over 40
national wildlife refuges and national parks in the Gulf, and
it was important to protect the people and the environment of
the Gulf. It was also important for us to make sure the
production in the Gulf of Mexico continued, and as you know
from the statistics I think have been shared with you, 2010
continued to be a time where we continued to produce a
significant amount of oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico. Even
in the midst of crisis we were able to continue that effort and
continue to do the kinds of changes that will assure us that we
have safe development of our oil and gas in the Nation's oceans
in the future.
With respect to your question on revenue and on the
reorganization, let me take the revenue side first. We have
been reforming the revenue side of what the Department of
Interior does over the last several years and have as part of
the reorganization created an Office of Natural Resources
Revenue. As a Department with such an important mission, which
is to collect more money for the United States of America and
its taxpayers than any other agency other than the Department
of the Treasury, the Department's mission, which we take very
seriously, had difficult problems when I became Secretary of
Interior.
The elimination of the Royalty-in-Kind program as well as
the implementation of the recommendations from the GAO and
others have been those efforts that have helped us move forward
to achieve the goal here, and that is to get a fair return to
the American taxpayer. I will have David Hayes, my Deputy
Secretary, comment on that in just a minute because we are
conducting a study on returns, and I want him to comment on
that if he will for a second.
On the reorganization we are proposing to all of you, the
essence of what we did there was to take a look at how other
countries had organized themselves with respect to ensuring
they had safe ocean energy exploration drilling, and production
and looked at the models of Norway and the UK and other places
as well as our own issues here internally in the United States.
The result is we have de-conflicted the missions that existed
with MMS for the last 30 years, ever since it was set up by
Secretary Watt back in the beginning of the 1980s.
The missions we saw were first a mission of revenue
collection on behalf of the American taxpayers, and that part
of the agency was completely split off, and those are the
revenue collectors. They have nothing to do with the permitting
or with the environmental reviews. They simply are the money
collectors. That mission is de-conflicted from the other
missions of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation
and Enforcement.
The second de-conflicting part of this effort has been to
develop a program within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement that actually does the management of
the leasing programs, and will go into the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management.
The other part of the mission will be to make sure we have
the safety and environmental enforcement. These are essentially
the cops on the beat to make sure there is compliance with
regulations and with the requirements of federal law.
We are in the midst of the implementation of that
reorganization, and part of it has been completed. We hope to
be able to complete the rest of it in this fiscal year.
I would like Deputy Secretary Hayes to respond as well.
ROYALTIES
Mr. Hayes. Thank you. I will be very quick. On the
royalties side, we are finishing a very substantial study to
make sure our royalty rates onshore are competitive and fit
with what private parties are getting as well. We are proposing
a rule in the near future to consider raising the onshore
royalty rates from the 12 percent that goes back to 1920,
substantially lower than the offshore. That is in the offing,
and we will have a public process in the near future on that.
EMPLOYEE RETENTION
The final point speaks to Chairman Simpson's point that it
is hard to keep folks on board because of the salary issues,
these are serious issues. We were supporting the legislation
proposed last year that would provide more flexibility in our
hiring, and of course, there is a budgetary aspect of this.
Because of the thin funding traditionally of MMS, we have not
been able to be as aggressive as we would like to with hiring.
Director Bromwich is very much involved in recruiting good
folks, but we will need your help in order to get those folks
onboard and keep them.
PERMITTING
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Secretary, could you tell me what is the
outlook for issuing permits in the future, the deep water
permits and others in the Gulf? There has been criticism that
there has only been one permit issued since the moratorium.
That was last week, I guess. What is the outlook in the near-
term future?
Secretary Salazar. I think the outlook is good. In the
shallow water part of the Gulf of Mexico we have issued 37
permits for those rigs so they can move forward to drilling. In
the deep water we moved forward with the first one last week
and expect there will be others that will be forthcoming, and
they will be the templates for how we issue oil and gas
drilling permits in the deep water.
I think, Chairman Simpson, for you and the members of this
committee, the last thing you would want us to do is to issue a
permit that essentially creates another Macondo Well situation.
In order for us to make sure that that does not happen, we
needed to look at what the oil spill containment capabilities
were within the oil and gas industry and the Gulf.
Deputy Secretary Hayes, Director Bromwich, and I on Friday
a week ago, were in Houston where we spent a whole day with the
Marine Well Containment Corporation, as well as with the Helix
Containment Program, where they gave us a preview of what it is
they have manufactured to deal with another Macondo Well oil
spill, and those mechanisms are just coming onboard now. I
applaud the industry for having moved forward with it, and
based on those programs we expect to be able to issue
additional permits in the deep water.
I will say this, we still have significant additional work
to do. Industry has significant additional work to do so we can
ensure the American people we do everything we humanly can do
to prevent another Macondo Well Deepwater Horizon national
crisis again.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Moran.
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1
Mr. Moran. Mr. Secretary, by now you have had a chance to
look over the full-year continuing resolution, referred to as
H.R. 1, passed the House. It includes a dump truck load of
anti-environmental riders. Never before have so many bad
provisions been discussed in so little time. Literally in the
early hours of the morning when sane people were sleeping, I
trust you have a sufficient life that you were asleep, Mr.
Secretary, instead of watching us debate these things, but
besides the objectionable environmental riders, H.R. 1 does
real harm to essential Interior Department programs.
So can you please tell us about some of the cuts that this
bill contains? For example, which are worse, the elimination of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the elimination of
State Wildlife Grants or many of the other reckless cuts?
Would you identify some of the cuts that are of greatest
concern in H.R. 1 today, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member Moran. Let me
just say, I think it is going in the wrong direction while the
principle of trying to get Deficit Reduction is something which
I think has bipartisan support. I think the cuts included in
H.R. 1 as they affect the Department of Interior will be a part
of what keeps our economy from moving forward.
Let me be specific. When you think about the hunting
heritage of America, the 87 million Americans who hunt and fish
and the money they spend in hunting and fishing, and the fact
that the conservation programs we have in this country have
been built on the backs of hunters and anglers of America for
over 100 years to date. The $48 million cut that is proposed in
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund will essentially
keep us from protecting 400,000 acres of wetlands.
To the duck hunters and to others who view the importance
of these conservation lands as recreation but also to everybody
who should view them as an important economic contributor to
the Nation, I think that is one great example of a cut which is
misplaced.
Mr. Moran. Absolutely. The anti-environmental riders beyond
the program cuts that you mentioned, we tried to restore that,
we lost overwhelmingly, of course, but we tried to take money
from the Diesel Emission Program, which the Administration does
not seem to support next year, but we failed in that. But it
seems that many of our dirtiest industries have stepped forward
to undo decades of bipartisan pro-environmental progress.
Which parts of H.R. 1 do you think are the greatest
problems for the Interior Department and our Nation's
environmental and public health? Is there anything that stands
out in that regard in terms of the environmental riders?
WILD LANDS
Secretary Salazar. Let me take the opportunity, Chairman
Moran, maybe to answer a question which I know the chairman and
others have asked, and it has to do with respect to wild lands
and the concerns I have heard from some members of Congress.
The fact of the matter is how we take care of our public
lands is a very important responsibility which we at the
Department of Interior have and which this Congress has. The
Wild Lands Order which I issued in December is simply an effort
to, one, honor what the law requires of us. The courts have
said we have to do this in the BLM, and we have not been doing
it. To create an inventory of these wild lands, and in addition
to that, to make sure that we are doing it with the kind of
public outreach that is required in the process of putting
together these plans around the country, so there will be
significant outreach to the governors and to affected
communities before anything is put into place.
It does not at all infringe on the authority of the
Congress. We recognize and I submit to all of you here it is
only the Congress that can designate wilderness areas, and
indeed, even in this Congress I have already seen legislation
introduced by both Republicans and Democrats to designate
certain areas as wilderness.
Our approach on the Wild Lands policy has been to try to
get it from the bottom up. What it is communities want us to do
with these places that are special and should, in fact, be
protected. I think there is good bipartisan support for that
concept. You know, I believe the Wild Lands Order amendment in
the CR gets in the way of executing that policy and the law.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I just have one other question for
this round, if you do not mind.
AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS
With regard to America's Great Outdoors, you have talked
about a substantial funding increase for the national parks,
stateside park and recreation grants. You have got a pretty
significant increase to a total of $200 million and 60 percent
of it is going to be competitive.
Some of my good friends on the other side have said that we
should not be buying anymore land when we cannot afford to take
care of what we have. That is the response we are going to get.
But we are not really talking about buying new national
parks and wildlife refuges, are we? Does not the Land
Acquisition Program purchase in-holdings which can increase
management efficiency and protect sensitive areas of high
interest to the public? Would you just address that bit within
the context of the Great Outdoors Program, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. We will, Congressman Moran, move forward
with land acquisition that I think is best exemplified by what
the ranching community did in the Flint Hills of Kansas where
I, along with former Senator Brownback and the Kansas
Cattlemen's Association and Livestock Growers and the Farm
Bureau inaugurated a national conservation area of 1.1 million
acres by having the ranchers themselves preserve these ranches
in working order so they can pass it onto their fifth and sixth
generations and preserve the last of the remaining tall grass
prairie habitat in the United States of America.
It is a good thing for conservation and for hunters and for
anglers. It is also a good thing for the ranchers who care so
much about the preservation of their heritage. That is the
approach at the heart of these investments from America's Great
Outdoors.
IN-HOLDINGS
With respect to in-holdings, there are crown jewels in our
National Wildlife Refuge System, as well as the National Park
System, which we need to make sure we are protecting. Part of
what is in this budget is the preservation of the Grand Teton
National Park in dealing with the in-holdings within Grand
Teton. I do not think that Americans would want to see those
in-holdings essentially become the trophy homes of people,
because I think it is inherent in our concept of our national
park systems that those national parks belong to the people of
America for their enjoyment.
Mr. Moran. Very good. Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Rogers.
STREAM PROTECTION ZONE RULE
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Let me
talk to you a bit about the Stream Protection Zone Rule at OSM.
In December, '08, OSM issued a clarification of the stream
buffer zone rule after a 5-year process that included 40,000
public comments, two proposed rules, and 5,000 pages of
environmental analysis from five different agencies.
That final rule in '08 provides coal operators with greater
leeway with the 100-foot buffer provision if compliance is
deemed impossible, but it requires mining companies to minimize
the amount of debris they dump outside the mined area and to
minimize the footprint of the disposal area.
That clarified and codified surface mounting practices that
had been in effect over 30 years. Now, despite finalizing that
rule in just '08, after all of that work, OSM is proposing to
amend the rule already, which by its own admission is much
broader in scope than the 2008 stream buffer zone rule. This
proposed rule would result in significant changes to 15 major
elements of its coal-mining regulatory program, representing
the largest rewrite of surface mounting regulations in the past
30 years.
And according to the Department's own Environmental Impact
Statement, which was inadvertently leaked, this proposed
regulation could eliminate more than 29,000 coalmining and
related jobs and wipe out a significant amount of coal
production, more than 20 percent of surface mining in the east
and up to 50 percent of underground mining nationwide.
What is your justification for such a significant rewrite
of existing regulations when your own economic analysis
indicates it will eliminate thousands of high-wage American
jobs and jeopardize our domestic energy security?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Let me first
say the rule that had been in place until 2008 had been in
place since President Reagan was President, and the Department
of Interior had put together a rule from OSM that essentially
governed these kinds of activities.
In our view the rule which was published in the last days
of the Bush Administration essentially repealed what had been a
good practice that had been in place since the days of Ronald
Reagan being President of the United States. We have engaged a
public process to do a rewrite of a stream protection rule. I
will ask the Deputy Secretary to comment on where we are on
that process, if I may.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. As you know, the
final rule that came out the end of the prior Administration
was challenged in court. There was a substantial legal
challenge. We were not sure we could defend the rule based on
the challenge. We thought the prudent thing to do would be to
address the issues raised in the challenge through a public
process, and we have started a new rulemaking. We have yet to
come out with a proposed rule.
With regard to the Environmental Impact Statement you
referenced, that was not a Department product. We had a
contractor on board who did a draft, an early draft of an
economic analysis that we disagreed with. It was leaked. It is
not our work. We are looking at completely revamping it. We
have no intention of going forward with a rule that will not be
appropriate. We are looking forward to coming out with a
reasonable rule with sound economics, and we will look forward
to working with you as we proceed through the public process.
Mr. Rogers. Well, there are thousands of jobs on the line,
not to mention the supply of the Nation's coal energy, which I
remind you produces 52 percent of America's electricity. So
this is no insignificant thing we are talking about, and I am
puzzled that you would take this effort after we had spent so
much money and time and effort on addressing this issue in just
'08. This is not a political thing. This is important to the
Nation's wellbeing, and so I am puzzled.
Now, will this new regulation if it is enacted comply with
the President's executive order to account for the accumulated
costs of regulations?
Secretary Salazar. It will comply with that order.
Mr. Rogers. And what will be the estimated cost of putting
an impact statement in place?
Secretary Salazar. Deputy Secretary Hayes, do you have that
number?
Mr. Hayes. No, sir. We are doing the economic analysis now.
We thought that the economic analysis done by this contractor
was inadequate. As soon as we have that information, we will
share it with you, Congressman.
Mr. Rogers. Who was the company that you are referring to?
Mr. Hayes. I do not recall the name of the company offhand.
I would be happy to provide it to you. We were actually so
unhappy with their work that we issued a demand that they
provide us with a new version of the work, and if it is not
adequate, our plan is to terminate them as a contractor.
Mr. Rogers. Well, was that done before or after the '08
rule was put in place?
Mr. Hayes. That is part of the current rulemaking. We want
to make sure we have sound economics. The numbers that you
provided are not numbers that we agree with. We do not want to
have that kind of impact. We do not think the proposal would,
in fact, have that kind of impact.
Mr. Rogers. So the company you are referring to did their
work after the '08 rule was in place?
Mr. Hayes. Yes. It is part of the current rulemaking
because the prior rulemaking, as I mentioned, was challenged in
court, and we did not feel it could be defended.
Mr. Rogers. And was this company involved in the '08 rule?
Mr. Hayes. I do not believe so.
Mr. Rogers. So after the '08 rule was put in place after 5
years of work, you then hired a company to look at it.
Mr. Hayes. No.
Mr. Rogers. What did you do?
Mr. Hayes. We hired a company to help us do the economic
evaluation associated with the new rulemaking we were
proceeding with.
Mr. Rogers. And you did not like what they came back and
told you.
Mr. Hayes. No. The work product they provided that was
leaked was not adequate from our point of view. It was not a
good work product.
Mr. Rogers. So you were not satisfied.
Mr. Hayes. That is correct.
Mr. Rogers. You did not like what they told you.
Mr. Hayes. We did not believe it was a good work product,
and we challenged them. It is a normal back and forth in terms
of a contract, Congressman. We challenged them to improve it.
We are not going to go public with an economic analysis that is
not sound.
Mr. Rogers. So is this company still engaged?
Mr. Hayes. As of a few days ago I believe so. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. You should know one way or the other.
Mr. Hayes. Well, we are watching it very carefully, but we
were unhappy with their work product.
Mr. Rogers. Well, are they still involved?
Mr. Hayes. As far as I know they are. We just asked them to
provide us with a better work product, and I have not seen the
evaluation yet.
Mr. Rogers. You told them what you wanted to hear.
Mr. Hayes. No. To the contrary. We want a good work
product.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Chairman Rogers, I think that
the important thing to note are first the policy and where we
are. There are two important policies that I think members of
this committee can agree on.
One is that we need to protect the environment as coal
mining continues, which means the protection of streams.
Secondly, we need to continue to support the coal industry with
rules that are reasonable.
We will try to draft a rule that is reasonable, which is
now still in process. There is no final rule that has been put
on the table. The President's energy package, which is
something we try to implement, has coal as being a part of that
energy package. We recognize the amount of coal that powers our
economy today. It is not our desire here to put the coal
industry out of business.
We want to come up with a rule that achieves the policy
objective here of protecting the streams. The rule which had
been in place since President Reagan was President until 2008
is part of what we are considering along with other options as
we go forward with this rulemaking process.
REPROGRAMMING FROM STATE REGULATORY GRANTS
Mr. Rogers. Well, is any of the monies that is being spent
on this procedure, is any of that money reprogrammed from state
regulatory grants?
Secretary Salazar. You know, I am not sure of that answer,
Chairman Rogers. We can get back to you on where exactly the
money has come from. We will get back to you on that. We do not
know the answer.
Mr. Rogers. Well, if it is reprogrammed from state
regulatory grants, would you also supply us your authority with
which to do that? Is that agreeable?
Secretary Salazar. Chairman Rogers, we will get back to you
on that. I do not know where the funding stream has come from
for the contract that you were speaking about with Deputy
Secretary Hayes. I will get that information to you.
Mr. Rogers. Would you also furnish to the committee the
report of that company with which you disagree?
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Now, has OSM worked with states to rectify
their concerns over this procedure?
Secretary Salazar. The answer to that is Joe Pizarchik, the
Director of the Office of Surface Mining, has had multiple
meetings with state officials, including officials in Kentucky,
and he continues to work on the rule, and as the Deputy
Secretary said, the rule is still in process. There is no final
rule.
Mr. Rogers. And finally what kind of time table do you see
on that proposed rule?
Secretary Salazar. David.
Mr. Hayes. We are several months away yet, Congressman. We
are looking for a draft rule perhaps in the summer to fall, so
we are proceeding. There is a court-supervised schedule,
because this was instigated through litigation. We are working
with the court to make sure that we have adequate time so this
rulemaking will be solid.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Dicks.
COBELL
Mr. Dicks. I was very pleased that we were able to get a
deal on the Cobell case. Could you tell us where we are on
that? What has happened?
Secretary Salazar. First of all, thank you for your
leadership and the leadership of Congressman Cole and so many
people on this committee who helped get that through. David
Hayes, who led the negotiations on it, has been overseeing what
is happening with Cobell implementation. I would like him to
comment on that.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Congressman Dicks.
We are in the phase of the case where the court has notified
all of the class members as to whether they want to opt into
the class or not. The court will have a fairness hearing likely
mid-year at which time we hope that the court will approve the
final settlement.
Once approved, again, hopefully mid-year, we will move out
with the implementation. There are two streams of
implementation, of course. There are the payments out to the
class members. That will be administered by essentially a bank
that has been engaged by the plaintiffs under court supervision
and then there is the Land Consolidation Program, which is a
$1.9 billion program that we will administer to help buy back
fractionated interest of Indian lands.
We are not able to begin the public implementation of the
effort until after the final settlement, which we hope will
occur in mid-year. We are gearing up internally so as soon as
the court approves the settlement, we will be able to go out to
Indian Country, begin our government-to-government
consultations, and move out with the Land Consolidation Program
without delay.
Mr. Dicks. Is there any indication that the court who was a
big advocate----
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Mr. Dicks. Is there any indication that there would be any
problem in the court?
Mr. Hayes. We do not believe so, Congressman. We are
expecting the class action to be approved and the full
settlement to be approved.
Mr. Cole. Would the gentleman yield for a related question?
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. There is some discussion in the House
about legislation to cap attorney fees. As I understand it, the
court really would ultimately make the determination on
attorneys' fees. We set an upper limit, but we gave the court
some latitude.
I would like your opinion as to whether it would be wise
for us to get back into this at the attorney fee level. I have
serious questions that this is a very good idea.
Mr. Hayes. Well, I agree with you, Congressman. The
attorneys' fees issue was part of the settlement. We did have
an agreement with the plaintiffs to cap those fees. The
plaintiffs' attorneys have nonetheless asked the court for some
approval to go beyond that cap. That is a live issue right now
that is being briefed in front of Judge Hogan, and the Judge
will apply ruling law. We expect the decision will come down
relatively soon.
I think it is in the hands of the court where it should be
with the background of the back and forth that I think is well
understood.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman.
DELISTING OF THE NORTHERN ROCKIES WOLVES
Mr. Dicks. Before I forget it I want to say how much we
miss Tom Strickland and appreciate his good work, and he did a
very good job and was very, you know, very responsive and so in
his memory I am going to ask this next question about the
delisting of the Northern Rockies wolves. This is an issue that
affects Idaho, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and Minnesota,
too. Of course.
But this particular decision, can you give us an update on
kind of, you know, where you are on this, and what you think
the best outcome is? Now, I understand this is very sensitive
in Idaho, very sensitive in Montana and in Wyoming, but Idaho
and Wyoming have moved further ahead in terms of their plans to
protect the wolves. Wyoming still is resisting. Give us an
update on this.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Dicks, and
let me just say that I appreciate the work and the leadership
of Chairman Simpson and the committee in coming up with
language that would help us get beyond the issue, so let me
talk just a little bit about wolves.
First on Tom Strickland. Tom is a soldier, came and did his
job for 2 years as he had committed, did an extraordinary job,
and we have a great team at Interior that will continue to
carry on the great work we do on behalf of the country. We miss
him, but he has finished his mission and I think he is getting
ready for his second mission.
On the wolf issue, it has been our view that the Northern
Rocky Mountain wolf population has been recovered, and one of
the requirements in order to de-list a species is we have
recovery plans approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service that
would comply with the law.
In the case of Idaho and Montana, they have those kinds of
plans in place. We attempted to issue a rule allowing for the
de-listing of the wolf in those two states and allow the hunt
to move forward as a management mechanism for the wolf
populations in those states.
We believed then, as we continue to believe today, the
Wyoming recovery program needs some revision in order for it to
come into compliance. The new governor of Wyoming, Governor
Mead, has been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
we are cautiously optimistic we will also be able to develop a
program that is legally sufficient within the State of Wyoming.
At that point we will be able to say the Endangered Species Act
essentially has achieved a victory here, and the wolf in the
Rocky Mountain range has been prevented from going into
extinction. The states have a management program in place that
will ensure that the wolf will not become extinct, and that is
what we have been working on.
I think through a combination of the legislative efforts
going on here, and we will continue to see whether or not there
are other administrative approaches we could take. We are
hopeful that we will be able to get to a resolution on the
issue.
Mrs. Lummis. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I yield.
Mrs. Lummis. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did approve
Wyoming's wolf management plan based on its sound science, it
was subsequently a court, based not on that science but other
matters not included in the legal criteria, that ruled the
Wyoming plan was inadequate. Now that has been overturned by a
federal district court in Wyoming.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Salazar. If I may just to complete the colloquy
here, whenever you get involved in any of these issues, you are
bound to get yourself in litigation. I do not know how many
times the Department of Interior has been sued over these
issues, and you have conflicting opinions relative to the legal
adequacy of the wolf recovery plan, including the one in
Wyoming.
But we are practical people, as I said. Both Tom Strickland
and David Hayes, I see them as problem fixers, and that is what
we have been trying to do. We have agreement we have a
recovered wolf population in the Rocky Mountain region. We just
need to figure out a way of threading the needle to get to the
result that will withstand those kinds of challenges within the
court system, and that is what we are trying to do.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lewis.
OPENING COMMENTS BY CONGRESSMAN LEWIS
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
It is a pleasure to be here with you.
I have had the privilege of working with David Hayes for a
lot of years, a very competent professional, but I have not had
the privilege of working with the other Haze in our audience,
but her reputation goes before her as a very talented and
competent and serious public official. We do appreciate your
work very much.
Mr. Secretary, last week as has been indicated, the
subcommittee met to talk with both GAO and the Office of
Inspector General to discuss many of the matters and the
challenges faced by the Interior Department. My line of
questioning today will very much flow around those
circumstances.
STOVE PIPING
In our hearing last week I specifically described a
parallel challenge that Norm Dicks and I faced together over a
number of years in a Defense Subcommittee, where for many,
many, many a year we struggled to get the, believe it or not,
the Navy and the Marine Corps to be able to communicate with
each other. Just could not seem to get their software to match
each other, and it is a process that is maybe an extreme
illustration of the propensity for bureaucracies to build these
smokestacks or walls between each other in order to protect
their own bailiwick.
And, indeed, I believe some of those challenges faced by
your Department that came to our attention last week involved
questions like resources protection, financial management, and
IT infrastructure, the problems that one has there could be
greatly aided or improved or overcome by way of adopting one of
the systems around that allow people to communicate with each
other.
David Hayes has had some exposure to a guy in my territory
who develops GIS systems, probably has the most significant
development of such systems anywhere in the world. He is a
fellow who has been immensely successful across the government
in terms of agencies using these systems, including the
Department of Interior.
But within your subcommittee-agencies they use these
systems, many of them overlap, parallel, and otherwise and yet
a fellow who is not worried about profits it would seem since
he and his wife are going to leave all stuff to the environment
eventually, he literally would urge you to develop an internal
mechanism to coordinate between so that these sub-agencies of
Interior are talking to each other.
And I do not know whether you have examined that kind of
prospect, but it is very clear that between your agencies
talking to each other is going to be kind of basic making some
of the progress that I think we should be making.
I would be interested in your comment regarding that.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Lewis, I fully agree with
you. I think you are right in terms of the analogy you made to
the Department of Defense initiatives that you and Congressman
Dicks have worked on in the past relative to Interior. Where
you have had historically each one of the agencies upgrading in
a silo, and one of the things that we have tried to do over the
last 2 years is to try to break down those silos, and as you
well know it is a very difficult thing to do.
If you take, for example, one of the issues that was raised
in the GAO report, information technology. When I became
Secretary of Interior, frankly, it was impossible to use e-mail
because of the fact that we had the overhang of the Cobell case
and the protections that had been put into place. The
technology at the Department of Interior was a very old
technology, notwithstanding the fact that as I recall there was
a billion dollars plus that was being invested in technology
across different bureaus, but there was no coordination among
the different silos.
The Deputy Secretary working closely with the Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget has taken on the
information technology reform effort so the Department could
operate more as a department and communicate across bureaus. In
fact, what we have done is we have also said as we get better
on information technology, we also have to find ways of doing
it more efficiently.
One of the significant reductions in dollars is to
information technology, knowing that we are trying to cut down
the silos of the Department and believe we can do a much better
job than has been done in the past.
WATER
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. When I first got to
know Deputy Secretary Hayes, he was wallowing around in the
waters of Colorado, and as you know in the southland and the
west we particularly are concerned about water issues and
problems.
I cannot say that Secretary Hayes has done all that I might
want to see him do or accomplish relative to our problems along
the delta, but I will leave that to others to discuss perhaps
today, because I want to raise a parallel challenge that is a
very, very real challenge.
One of the great successes we have had over the years in my
judgment in the arena of flood control and water conservation
has to do with the Santa Ana River Project, controlling the
flooding impact along the Santa Ana River that impacts many,
many a community and eventually it affects them, to the ocean.
The very peak of that project is an operation known as the
Seven Oaks Dam. Seven Oaks Dam initially was a major flood
control effort that would be the beginning point of controlling
flooding and damage and otherwise along the river line.
We altered that Seven Oaks Dam project to the tune of
several hundreds of millions of dollars to also have the
project, Seven Oaks Dam, be one of conservation, providing
significant conservation, and indeed, as a result of our recent
flooding out there, there is almost a Lake Gregory behind the
Seven Oaks Dam, kind of sitting there with much silt our people
would suggest.
SANTA ANA SUCKER
It is my concern that as we have dealt with the problems
along the delta, that the Santa Ana sucker could have similar
impacts in the Santa Ana River basin. A species about to be
declared in a fashion that could have huge economic impacts
within all of southern California. We were talking about a
study earlier that we were very concerned about making sure was
carefully evaluated because it might be full of some holes.
Some were suggesting even that it might not tell you what you
want to hear.
Well, the Santa Ana sucker study that was done to say the
least is far from a professional piece of work. I hope you
would look at that study with the same kind of careful analysis
as you suggest we are doing with the other. The sucker along
the Santa Ana River could literally have dramatic impact upon
development, opportunity for living, the entire environment
along the Santa Ana.
And, indeed, it is not our business in the Interior or in
the Federal Government at a regional level or local level to
use, if you will, to use endangered species or potentially
endangered species, as essentially a regional planning
mechanism. And it is the concern of some that we are about to
do that with that Santa Ana sucker, and thereby cut off not
just the flood control flows or the impact of flood controls
along the Santa Ana but cut off dramatically the potential for
conservation, providing huge new water supply for a very
important basin that could be very directly linked in the
future to whether we have rationing or do not have rationing in
southern California.
I do not think this President or this Secretary or
otherwise want to be anywhere closely tied to the eventuality
of water rationing in the southland. Indeed, it could destroy
federal policy directions in a manner that perhaps would
undermine even your wildest dreams relative to the Interior.
So with that I would be interested in comments about the
Santa Ana sucker or otherwise.
Secretary Salazar. I will ask David to comment if he knows
anything at all on the Santa Ana River issues. I frankly spend
a lot of time working on these water issues in California, as
many of you on this committee know, including Congressman
Calvert. Much of that has been spent up in the San Francisco
Bay Delta and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers where we
have done a lot in the last 2 years under the leadership of
Deputy Secretary David Hayes and Mike Connor from the Bureau of
Reclamation. I think without knowing anything at all frankly
about the Santa Ana Sucker because this is the first time that
someone has raised it with me, Congressman.
What I would say is it is important for us to be proactive
and to get ahead of these issues so we avoid the kind of train
wrecks we have seen in the San Francisco Bay Delta. We worked
very closely with Governor Schwarzenegger and with the water
users to try to move forward with a comprehensive plan on the
San Francisco Bay Delta. We are doing that now with Governor
Brown and his people and are hopeful we will be able to do
something there that hopefully will deal with the issues for
the long term.
Getting ahead of these issues is important, and let me have
David comment because he works on these issues and he may know
something more on the Santa Ana Sucker than I do.
Mr. Hayes. First I want to thank you for all your
compliments sent my way. It is very energizing, and I really
enjoyed working with you on the 4.4 plan and dealing with the
issues on the Colorado and have continued to enjoy working with
you on the ongoing issues.
I am not familiar with the Santa Ana sucker issue, but you
can be sure after this hearing we will be making some calls as
soon as we get back.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, if we could
kind of fill our record with some of those issues. It could
become one of the major items over time here. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum. Congresswoman McCollum.
BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, this
Administration has taken great strides in rebuilding the
trusted relationship with the 565 federally-recognized Tribal
Nations, and the Administration with the Democratic caucus
working together, we finally passed the Indian Healthcare
Improvement Act, which will not be tied to reauthorization time
and time again. Bipartisan, we passed the Tribal Law and Order
Act, and I want to thank you for making tribal issues a
priority and for your commitment to tribal sovereignty.
Now, since being elected to Congress, and even prior to
Congress, I have worked with the Tribal Nations in Minnesota
and have been aware of some of the pent-up needs that many
Tribal Nations have. I could talk about healthcare facilities,
but today I am going to focus on schools.
I want to talk to you specifically about the Bureau of
Indian Education School Construction. This is an issue where we
still have a long way to go, and I am interested in learning
more about the backlog and what we can do as a committee
bipartisan to help you put an end to this, what I am going to
describe is a tragic situation.
I have visited schools across this country, but I am going
to talk about two, one in Leech Lake, Minnesota, and one at the
Pueblo Laguna, New Mexico. It should have been condemned. In
fact, it is my understanding at one point, Pueblo Laguna, New
Mexico, was condemned, but a coat of paint miraculously took it
off the list.
These schools still tend to serve Native American children.
Now, the Buy-O-Nay-Ge-Shig High School in Leech Lake is ranked
as number 42 in the IBE's 50 worst schools list. Nearly 300
students go to the school. They have serious structural,
mechanical, and electrical deficiencies, leaky roofs, poor
lighting, sewer backups, mold, overcrowding. Well, I could go
on and on. But bottom line is that they do pose an immediate
life, health, and safety risk to students and faculty.
Now, I want to work with this Administration to become more
focused on the success of Native American children. High school
students' graduation rate for Native students hovers at 50
percent. We know that if we invest in educational needs, that
we will ensure that we can increase that from 50, I believe
working together, to 100. We do that by giving students a safe
and appropriate place to learn, and these students know that
their future is valued, and it is a priority not only for their
parents, but for our country.
My question to you, Secretary Salazar, is how do we work
together, because I know there is bipartisan support in this
area, how do we work together with the Administration to fix
this? Where can we help you discover more urgency to address
this? These schools either need to be renovated or replaced,
and I would like to hear how a priority list for school
construction is being determined, how it will be updated, and
how much funding it will take to fix up the necessary backlog.
I want to point out the Laguna, which had suffered an
earthquake that I was at, they have seismographic units taped
to the wall where the cracks are. I was in one part of the
building, which is totally condemned, and another part of the
building is being used.
Now, I am not an engineer, but commonsense would tell you
that that is not a good environment for children. I know this
is something you want to work on. I am asking you to tell all
of us how we can work together to address this huge backlog of
unmet needs for our Nation's school children of the first
Americans.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Congresswoman
McCollum, for your leadership on these issues. I think
sometimes in our history as a country, in fact, very often in
our history as a country we have left Native American issues to
a very low priority. The consequence is we have a huge backlog
of issues that we have been addressing in the Native American
world.
Let me say first from the President's point of view and my
point of view this is an issue of urgent priority, and we have
done a number of things over the last several years to
demonstrate our commitment to the Native American communities
of our country. They include some of the things that you
reviewed, but in addition I will say for a long time before I
became Secretary of Interior we did not have even the official
positions filled within the Assistant Secretary of Indian
Affairs and the related bureaus.
I am proud to say at this time we have a Director of the
Bureau of Indian Education in place who is serving with the
great leadership of Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk. The
rest of the entire team are able to now, for the first time,
address many of the issues which are important for us to
address, and they include economic development issues, energy
issues on reservations, implementing the Cobell litigation, and
the trust reform issues we are working on.
With respect to education, we have put in a significant
investment into the renovation of many of the schools. We
recognize there are more than 40,000 Native Americans who
attend these BIE schools all around the country, but even as we
have made those investments with the help of the Congress over
the last 2 years, we recognize that there is still a long way
to go.
What we are doing is engaging in a consultation process
with the Tribes to come up with a list of priority needs.
Knowing there is a significant backlog and significant amount
of money it would take to provide the kinds of upgrades to be
the kinds of schools where any American should be happy to send
their children to school. Unfortunately, that is not the case
with Indian Country right now.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, are you in a position, because
I know you have been working very, very hard on this issue, but
are you in a position to give the chairman of the committee,
the ranking member of the committee, not only a list of schools
but, tentatively, how much it would cost to just get up to
standards? Some of these schools are going to have to be
replaced so that when we are looking at the budget, Mr.
Chairman, we are making cuts, we know whether or not we are
adding to the backlog. We will not be able to solve the entire
problem, but at least start moving in the right direction.
Thank you, Secretary Salazar. Thank you for your work all
of you.
Secretary Salazar. We would be delighted to provide you
with that list.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
ROYALTIES
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for coming today. I have just a quick comment before I get
to questions. We have had these issues about oil and gas
royalties. We had some testimony as you heard about recently,
but it seems to me it is not so much the royalty fee, it is the
collection that is the problem.
In the private sector, you are going to make sure you
collect every nickel and every dime in royalty. You are going
to understand exactly what that lease states, the transparency
of that lease, and get that information.
So as a comment I wonder if you might look into a pilot
program to use private collection contractors to collect those
royalties and compare that success rate with your government
collections along with your associated costs and see who does
better. And if, in fact, private collections are a better way
to go, and if you need legislative authority to do that, I do
not know if you do or you do not, you know, let the chairman
know. I am sure we can work that out, but it would seem to me
based upon that testimony we had you had up to $50 billion left
on the table. That is serious money. So we should not let that
happen.
GAS PRICES
So just as part of a comment. As you know, the price of
gasoline today in southern California is $3.88 a gallon. In
some areas it exceeds $4 a gallon. This is a short-term problem
and a long-term problem. In California we have over 12 percent
unemployment. I am hoping that we are getting through this
recession, but something like this, if it goes for any period
of time, will tank any recovery that may be going on.
I am hopeful you have a short-term plan to modify these
gasoline prices. Supply is the long-term issue. Scarcity is the
problem. And a long-term plan to make sure that not every
Gaddafi in the world comes along and brings this country to our
knees, which it seems to be right now.
So do you have a short-term plan and a long-term strategy
to lower these energy costs? Especially in the short term. I
think most folks back home want to hear what we are going to do
to try to get these gasoline prices down.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Calvert, let me just say
this is an issue of high priority which we are watching. I
think with respect to the latter part of your comment I think
this is an opportunity where we might be able to work in a
bipartisan fashion to put together a long-term framework for
the energy independence of the United States. We should not be
in the position where Gaddafi and Libya essentially are able to
create these kinds of disruptions.
I am hopeful that this is one area where we can be able to
find some common ground where we have a robust energy portfolio
that takes advantage of some of the energy opportunities we
have here in this country, including oil and natural gas and
the renewable energy portfolios we have spoken about.
I hope we have that kind of an opportunity for
collaboration. What we have done as I said at the beginning of
the hearing is we have, in my view, what has been a robust oil
and gas program. The critics sometimes say we do not, but I
think when you look at the statistics and the numbers over the
last several years, we have a program and a direction from the
President that goes through the Secretary of Interior that says
we look at oil and gas as a very important part of our economy.
We have taken significant steps to make sure we are doing it in
the right places and with the right kind of safety measures in
place. That is where we need to work with the Congress and with
this committee to make sure the funding we requested, to make
sure activities in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere are able to
continue are ones that can continue.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, and you might take a look at that
royalty problem.
WATER
Getting back to water, California has a population of over
40 million people. We have got a lot of demands on our water.
As you know, water has been a big issue and continues to be a
big issue even though we have had considerable rainfall and
snow pack this year. No state has experienced a greater
unemployment rate, and within any state has seen worse economic
activity than the Central Valley in the State of California.
Some areas are experiencing up to 50 percent unemployment.
There is a lot of hope out there in the Central Valley. I
guess, Secretary Hayes, you are going to make a decision here
to increase those allocations again. Is there any word on what
you are going to do as far as increasing water supply in the
Central Valley? Or is that an answer for the Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. I am going to have David comment on it
because he has spent a huge amount of his time as Deputy
Secretary attempting to resolve the issues both for the short
term and the long term. I will say we have an action
orientation to this, Congressman Calvert, and even the
forecasts that we have made, unlike the last 20 years, knowing
it is so important for farmers to be able to know what their
water supply looks like in the months of January and February
we are providing much more timely projections so farmers can
then make their plans as they go to the bank and decide what
they are going to plant or not.
We have made a number of those changes as well as major
investments in infrastructure. In terms of this year's
allocations I am going to have the Deputy Secretary speak to
those.
Mr. Hayes. Yes, and per the Secretary's comment we are now
doing our projections and our allocations on an every-2-week
basis instead of every month. The last projection had most
water users at 100 percent. South of the Delta was at 50
percent, I believe.
There are some constraints such as the San Luis Reservoir
was full. It could not take more water. We are approaching the
period now where there are some restrictions on some pumping
because of the endangered species, although I am happy to
report, as you know, that a couple of weeks ago all the
parties, the water users, the conservation organizations, the
state and federal regulators, reached an agreement to modify
the current operational approach and to settle the litigation
for this year to free up some additional water for delivery
south of the delta.
Of course, we are pleased, we are all fortunate with Mother
Nature helping out so much in California this year. We will
continue to monitor it, Congressman, and work with you and your
office. There are structural problems as you well know in
getting water south of the delta, and the good news here is all
the parties are working very hard toward a long-term solution
through the Bay-Delta Conservation Planning Effort, and
Governor Brown and his new team are really engaged. We are
excited to be working with them. We are working very closely
with all the water users and the conservation interests, and
that holds the hope of actually solving this problem long term,
which we are all so anxious to do.
MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
Mr. Calvert. Well, I appreciate that. Do I have 1 minute
left, Mr. Chairman? Just another comment on the Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plans. As you know, there are a few of
them around the country, the largest is in my area of Southern
California. And there is a comment that we do not see a lot of
people in the Department of Interior that are trained on multi-
species habitat conservation. They tend to look at these plans
species by species, and they need to be a little more proactive
in that. I do not know if there is a training program for these
employees to deal with that or field managers that are
experienced with Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans, but,
a lot of time and effort went into creating them.
This was Secretary Babbitt's thing, to do, and we have put
a lot of time and effort to put them together in southern
California, and we need to get some more positive interaction
with the Department of Interior. That is just a comment, so I
would hope you can take a look at that constructively.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Before we go on with Mr. Hinchey I am going to
take a 5-minute break and give people a chance to stand up, and
then we will come back and hear about fracturing.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. We will be back in order. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This may
not work. Oh yeah, it is working, all right. Secretary Salazar
and Secretary Hayes, thank you very much and it is a pleasure
to be with you. And it is a great pleasure to listen to you. I
deeply appreciate everything that you are doing and I commend
you for the way in which you have operated this department.
Over the last year we have seen very dramatic and very
important reforms that will strengthen, preserve, and protect
the country's amazing array of natural resources as well as
improve out economy. The reorganization of that en masse as we
know and the Wild Lands Policy so much more welcome
developments. For all of these things we must thank you very
much and hopefully you will be able to continue to do the kinds
of positive things that you have been doing over the last year
or so.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
I wanted to ask a question about the hydraulic fracturing
operation which is getting a lot of interesting attention now.
The natural gas drilling has gotten a lot of attention; for
example, in the New York Times over the last week or so some
very interesting stories that they have produced. And I have
been in touch with your department about this topic on a number
of occasions over the past few years.
Specifically I believe that the Department should require
the drilling companies publicly disclose what chemicals, what
materials they are injecting into the ground during this
hydraulic fracturing process while still on public lands. I
think it is just common sense, something that really should be
done. Some states like Wyoming, very exemplary have strong
public disclosure requirements, but a lot of other states do
not. When it comes to public lands, the department has the
authority to require disclosure.
In late November the Department announced that it was
developing a policy to address disclosure of hydraulic
fracturing chemicals for these leases on public lands. I wonder
if you could speak to us and talk a little bit about the status
of the initiative and what we can expect to see some form of a
proposal in the context of this issue.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Congressman
Hinchey, for raising this issue or putting it on the radar
screen of this committee and this Congress. First, I think the
future of natural gas is a very positive one. I think this is
one area where perhaps as the Congress looks at the future of
energy programs for the country this is an area where there may
be some bipartisan support to craft energy legislation that
does get us energy independence given the abundance of natural
gas we have in the country at a very fractionated cost of what
we are having to pay for a barrel of oil today.
If we could figure out a way to use more of the natural gas
we domestically produce, I think it is one of those great
opportunities to help us power the economy of the United States
as well as address the imperatives of energy independence. I am
very hopeful we can have a robust natural gas feature and as
the President has often said, natural gas is one of those key
components of the energy portfolio needed for America.
I will also say from my point of view I think one of the
areas that can inhibit a robust natural gas program in the
country is if we see the kind of backlash that we are seeing in
places like New York and other states where citizens and
certain groups have become very concerned about the injection
of pollutants into the underground where they don't know what
is being injected into the underground. I think in this
committee, where the members of this committee are so familiar
with the importance of preventing pollution because it is a lot
less costly to prevent it than have to address it after it
occurs.
It seems to me this is an area we need to explore together.
At the end of the day, disclosure is something that is
important and something that not only states like Wyoming, but
very responsible companies in the oil and gas industry have
been advocates of disclosure of what is being injected into the
underground. We will move forward with a policy that addresses
hydraulic fracturing, but we are doing it in a way where we are
reaching out to companies who have been participating in forums
that we have held on disclosure. We hope in the next several
months to be able to have a policy we can move forward with. I
am hopeful the industry will be able to be supportive of the
policy for disclosure because I think it is the Achilles heel
that could essentially kill the future of natural gas as a
significant part of our energy portfolio for the future.
Mr. Hinchey. I thank you very much for what you are saying
and I agree with you completely. The energy situation that we
are experiencing now is something that is very challenging; the
price of oil going up so dramatically and if we could utilize
this very significant organization of energy in our country as
natural gas elements we could be a lot stronger on this whole
issue. But we have to do it in a way that is not going to
provide us with serious problems that are going to then occur
as a result of the drilling. So I deeply appreciate your
insight into this and the work that you are doing because this
is something that really needs to be done.
A lot of damage is being done in a lot of places across the
country. And a lot of the damage that is being done is only a
minimal exposure of the damage now. Over time it is going to be
a lot more serious in this reckless way in which materials are
being injected without any honest organization and revealment
of what these materials are. So thanks, thanks very much. I
appreciate this and this is something that we are going to have
to continue to work on very closely and effectively.
WILD LANDS
Let me ask you a question about Wild Lands Policy, if I
may. Last week the House Natural Resources Committee held a
hearing on the Department's recently announced Wild Lands
Policy which incidentally was the subject of a rider in H.R. 1.
There has been a lot of discussions about how this policy was
developed and whether the Interior Department has the authority
under the Federal Land Policy Management Act to take some steps
to preserve lands with wilderness characteristics.
The Wild Lands Policy was developed to deal with the Norton
Levitt Settlement which prohibited BLM from carrying out one of
its core missions: identifying and administratively protecting
public lands with wilderness characteristics. This legacy
policy of the Bush Administration exposed some of our Nation's
most sensitive wild places to development activities that would
have undoubtedly destroyed their special character. It needed
to be reformed. So I wonder if you might be able to tell us,
for example, can you compare for us the process that led to the
Wild Lands Policy and how the Department intends to implement
its going forward--how it is going to do that? With the process
that the Department undertook in 2003 when it developed and
implemented the Norton Levitt Policy and its Utah Resource
Management Plans and also in addition does not the definition
of multiple use set out at the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act specifically contemplate that BLM will not
uniformly permit all uses on all places on public lands,
meaning that in some areas oil and gas development will be
prioritized when in other places wilderness will be
prioritized?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Congressman Hinchey. You know
it is an important question. Obviously it has drawn a lot of
sparks from many different places, especially BLM states in the
west. Let me say the following: first, we believe that
conservation for the 243 million acres or so that BLM manages
is one of the multiple purposes for which we should manage
those lands. When the Congress passed the Federal Land Policy
Management Act, it clearly stated that BLM would manage its
lands for multiple purposes. From our point of view, that
includes conservation and the management of lands with
wilderness characteristics.
We believe and I believe, the issuance of a Secretarial
Order was something I was required to do by the law as set
forth in FLPMA and has had been set forth by circuit courts of
appeal that had actually ruled on the question. Second, it is
the right thing to do in terms of managing our public estate
for multiple purposes, including more wilderness
characteristics. I would make a few key points with regard to
the policy, how we intend to go forward. First, it will be part
of a BLM land use process and nothing will be done to designate
these lands with wilderness characteristics without going
through the process of receiving input from the states and
affected local communities.
Secondly, the Secretarial Order, if you read the language
specifically in the order, recognizes the need for the
protection of existing rights. Lastly, to the last point you
made, it is a multiple use governance set out in the
Secretarial Order so it may be that you do have oil and gas
moving forward in areas that are sensitive, if that is seen as
what is required in terms of the multiple use management of the
BLM. I would hope as we continue to have conversations with the
members of Congress and others we can find that the commonsense
conclusion here is the conservation purposes of the BLM lands
is one of the important purposes for which we should be
managing these lands.
OIL AND GAS ROYALTIES
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, absolutely, I agree. I thank you very
much for what you are talking about. I think it is very
important. One more brief question on oil and gas royalties. At
a hearing this subcommittee held just last week, it was a
consensus that we need to make sure the taxpayers are getting
the best return possible when it comes to our oil and gas
leasing program. Given that this House is considering drastic
cuts to vitally important domestic investments along with
record high oil prices and profits, I think these oil and gas
companies can afford high royalties without it impacting the
price at the pump.
The 2012 budget assumes that Interior will administratively
implement oil and gas royalty rate reforms including
adjustments to the standard onshore royalty rate. So I wonder
what kind of benefits to the taxpayer will these reforms
provide? Do we know that yet and when can we expect to see this
policy be enacted?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Hinchey, our driving
principle from day one has been to get a fair return to the
American taxpayers. We have studies under way both with respect
to the offshore as well as with respect to the onshore. Shortly
before the Bush Administration left office, the offshore
royalty rates were lifted to above 18 percent. On the onshore,
the 12.5 percent royalty rate has been in place since the
Mineral Leasing Act was passed in 1920. What we are looking at
is to make a determination of what the appropriate royalty rate
would be and the BLM and Interior have been working on a study
so we can place the royalty rate at a position where we can
ensure that the American taxpayer, the American citizen is
getting a fair return on the property they own.
It is always interesting to me to take a look at the places
like Texas and others which have a much higher royalty rate
than we do for any of our federal public lands concerning oil
and gas. How we exactly will come out with the reform is
something we have under way as part of our study. It may be if
you are drilling an oil and gas well into areas where you
already know there is all the geophysical information that you
know you are going to hit the riches of the oil and gas, it may
be there you need to have a different kind of royalty rate than
where you are just doing wells. But that is something we are
looking at--how we move forward with a royalty structure which
at the end of the day will ensure a fair return to the American
taxpayer.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Secretary, I thank you very, very much and
I deeply appreciate everything that you have said to the
questions asked of you. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Cole.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you very much for being here. I did not mean to get into
hydraulic fracturing, but we would have no hearing complete
without it. I just want to make this point because I actually
have a series of other things just for the record. As you know
this is not a new technology. It has been used for over 50
years and we have many states that regulate this very well.
Certainly Oklahoma does, Wyoming does as you mentioned in your
remarks. I would be very careful about a national regulatory
system when this is already done pretty well at the state
level. So I agree with your remarks that this extraordinary
natural gas find that we have has an enormous potential for the
country and frankly great potential for bipartisan cooperation
because it does work across the board for many constituency
concerns. But I also worry that you can overregulate it and we
have a lot of fear mongering going on, particularly in places
that are not used to oil and gas protection. And frankly it may
well be a problem in a sense that they do not have strong state
regulatory traditions and expertise built up over decades. So I
would just ask you look at this at the state level solution if
you can. Let me----
Mr. Moran. Would the gentleman yield to the Department?
Mr. Cole. I would certainly yield.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Cole. There may be another factor
and again that whereas Wyoming, Oklahoma, and so on have
regulated it well, they have a different geology as I
understand it than some of the areas in Pennsylvania and New
York that are now getting into hydraulic fracturing. That may
be one other factor that you know the geologic strata that they
are fracturing is different in these--the Atlantic states than
it is in Oklahoma and Wyoming. I am just throwing that out as
one consideration.
Mr. Cole. I am not sure that is actually the case. I think
it has more to do with the timing of the oil and gas industry
and when it was introduced. Pennsylvania is actually an old oil
and gas state. And we have a lot of people that moved to
Oklahoma 100 years ago from Pennsylvania to develop oil wells.
But the technology has changed dramatically. But anyway, I
would be happy to have that discussion with you because I do
think it is an area we can find some common ground on.
LAND INTO TRUST
I want to take you to another area, if I may. I have got
three or four things that I want to talk to you about that are
very different, one of which is that I really appreciate what
you and the Administration have done in Indian Country. We
talked about the Cobell Settlement. Frankly, this committee has
done a lot on a bipartisan basis to raise funding levels where
they needed to be, working with the Administration in the Law
and Order Bill. But I know one of the things that you are most
concerned about and I would like for you to address for this
committee because again this committee tried to help you last
year and I think did. We just were not able--one thing we can
all agree on here is we all beat up on senators for a change.
But the Carcieri issue I know has got to create enormous
strains and burdens for you in Interior as to whether or not
you can put land into trust and for whom. Could you tell us a
little bit about what the consequences will be if we cannot get
a clean fix for the Carcieri Supreme Court decision through
Congress?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Congressman Cole,
and thank you for your leadership on so many Native American
issues over so many years and particularly your great work on
Cobell along with Congressman Moran and many others who were
involved on that particular issue. On the Carcieri fix, we need
to have it in order to avoid the uncertainty that currently
prevails with respect to Tribes that were recognized in the
post-1934 timeframe. The consequence of not having it is it
throws into question a whole set of initiatives as we try to
make sure Indian Country has an opportunity to build the
detention centers and schools and mental health facilities and
anything else where rural property is involved.
It is creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty with
respect to a subset of the 564 Tribes that we recognize here in
the United States. The Carcieri fix will be very helpful for us
to move forward.
Mr. Cole. And just for the record, it is my understanding
that most of the cases of Land and Trust, Carcieri or not, that
you are dealing with have nothing to do with gaming. Is that
your insight? The overwhelming majority really are economic
development, housing, senior citizens, those type of things?
Secretary Salazar. You are absolutely correct. Gaming is
the issue that creates a tremendous amount of controversy, but
the vast majority of all the applications have nothing at all
to do with gaming.
2012 FUNDING
Mr. Cole. Okay. Let me take you to another place. I know
there is considerable disagreement over H.R. 1, but as I am
sure you are probably aware right now you are operating of
course under the 2010 budget because we did not get a budget
done last year. The BIA funding and the Indian Healthcare
funding under H.R. 1 is actually higher than what you are
operating under today thanks to Mr. Simpson. He actually
plussed it up. And so those are two areas you would actually
get more money in as opposed to less. I would ask you under
your own budget are those gains preserved in 2012?
Secretary Salazar. I will have the Director of the budget,
Deputy Assistant Secretary Haze answer that question.
Ms. Haze. Representative Cole, if we were to remain at the
2010 level that is a higher level than was proposed in the 2011
President's budget for a number of programs.
Mr. Cole. So in other words the current H.R. if it were to
become law would actually be higher than the President's
budget?
Ms. Haze. Correct. Correct in construction and--
Mr. Cole. From an Indian standpoint the Republican budget
is higher. I just want to make that point--it is usually lost
in debates somehow. Let me ask you something very parochial and
this is more an attitudinal question than one I would expect to
be answered definitively.
WATER RIGHTS
Oklahoma has probably the last undefined water rights west
of the Mississippi and this is an area that is now becoming not
necessarily contentious, but there are states around us that
have legitimate water claims on the Red River. We have Texans
that are interested in buying water from Oklahoma. Within our
state most of the excess water is located in southeastern,
south central Oklahoma. We have urban areas that are trying to
buy up rights--Oklahoma City and what have you for their future
growth. And we have obviously local people that are concerned
that they will lose the quality of their environment through
all of this.
What I wanted to ask you, is there also an Indian component
here as there always is in Oklahoma. The Chickasaws and the
Choctaws have historic claims to these water rights as well.
And it is my understanding that in any kind of negotiated
settlement and that is where we would hope to be at some point,
the Department of Interior, Department of Justice would have a
trust responsibility to make sure that whatever the final
settlement was, you know, the appropriate involvement,
recognition of Indian rights would be part of that. Is that a
fair statement? Will you be drawn in just by your trust
responsibilities to be at least an overseer of any settlement
that was ultimately reached?
Secretary Salazar. The answer to that, Congressman Cole, is
yes. Since Deputy Secretary David Hayes is leading all of our
Indian water rights negotiations I think it would be
appropriate for him to remark on your question. I will say this
at the outset I think you are so right in terms of focusing in
on these water issues because I think as Chairman well knows in
the west we always say that whiskey is for drinking and water
is for fighting.
These are the kinds of cases which in many of the states
which have gone on for 20, 30, 40, 50 years without any kind of
resolution. They end up creating a cloud of uncertainty on
water rights in a state and frankly provide a significant
amount of money to lawyers and engineers for decades at a time.
Frankly, if a semblance can be put together that is a tough way
to follow Idaho and Montana and Colorado, and I think there is
in Arizona. I think it is applicable as well to Oklahoma.
Let me have David comment just a little bit on the capacity
and our process. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. Yes, Congressman, we do feel that this is an
important area of our trust responsibility to help tribes with
their reserve water rights and typically we are involved. There
are some capacity issues. We have negotiating teams, but we
have budget constraints. At any one time we may have some
constraints in our ability to work with tribes. Particularly
when those issues are maturing we make every effort to put a
team in the field to work with the tribal attorneys and with
the state interests and ultimately with Congress to put a
settlement together.
Mr. Cole. I think we are reaching that point in Oklahoma
that these issues are now very mature and I think the new
governor wants to work on--there are a lot of different parties
there. This does not have to be a contentious thing. Nobody has
drawn their guns at one another yet, but I would--along the
lines which was mentioned earlier when Mr. Lewis made his
comment, ask that on this settlement--on Oklahoma that you
start looking down the road because I have no doubt at some
point in the next few years there will be some sort of effort
for a grand settlement. And again if the tribes are not
involved in it in some sort of equitable way I am sure you will
start hearing from them at Interior and in Justice asking for
your help. So this may be a case where your early involvement
could be really valuable in preventing 30, 40, or 50 year
lawsuit and frankly letting us use the resource in a
responsible manner that numerous parties can participate in.
Secretary Salazar. Happy to help.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
SOUTHWEST BORDER
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me
turn to Arizona and the border region in particular. As you
know, in the 2,000 mile border with Mexico, there are about 820
miles or 43 percent that are tribal, federal, or some form of
public ownership. The Department of Interior manages most of
that through the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land
Management or Fish and Wildlife Services or other agencies.
In particular, the Tucson sector, which is central Arizona
and eastern Arizona on the border, has a high concentration of
this kind of diverse federal/private/state lands and it makes
it difficult there. For example, the Tucson sector has to deal
with two national wildlife refuges, two national parks, a
national forest, and the Tohono O'odham Indian nation as well.
GAO did a study late last year and noted that the majority
of the 26 stations responsible for patrolling federal lands
along the southwest border indicated that they have experienced
delays and restrictions in patrolling and monitoring due to the
public lands issues. And specifically they noted it has
routinely taken several months for the Border Patrol to obtain
permission from land managers to move mobile surveillance
systems because of the need to perform the complete
environmental historical assessments. Sometimes the Border
Patrol notices that by the time they get permission it has been
several months and the need has changed and the traffic has
shifted. Are you aware of these kinds of delays? If so, what
are we doing to mitigate the problem?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Flake, thank you for your
question and let me say that the Department of the Interior
recognizes the role that we play on the southern border where
41 percent of those lands are managed by Interior, either as
wildlife refuges, national parks, BLM lands, or tribal lands. I
personally have taken three trips as Secretary of the Interior
to different parts of the border including, one to the Tucson
sector which you discussed. We have a good working relationship
with Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. We addressed the
issues on border crossings and I believe the best thing that
happened in the last several years is the relationship we now
have is a very coordinated response. We have I think at least
100 law enforcement officers working very closely with the
Border Patrol of Homeland Security to make sure we are doing
the right things to secure the border.
Mr. Flake. So taking several months in some cases to get
permission for the mobile surveillance unit to change no longer
occurs?
Secretary Salazar. You know because I was at Tucson sector
and I actually spoke with the officials both from Interior as
well as from the other agencies involved. I can tell you as
issues have arisen we have made sure we are addressing them as
quickly and as effectively as we can. I think problems that
were there historically are not problems, at least that was
reported to me by the different federal agencies I met with
when I was in Tucson sector.
Mr. Flake. Specifically in the Oregon Pipe National
Monument GAO reported that ``when border patrol requested
additional access, the monument's land manager determined that
additional border patrol access would not necessarily improve
protection of natural resources.'' Obviously that is something
that has to be taken into account. But how do land managers
factor into decision making the effect on border security? How
are those decisions made and who is consulted? Is that a
decision made locally? Does it go up the chain? Of course you
would say, ``yeah, it might have an effect on the environment
if you put a mobile unit here but that is not our only
consideration.'' I would just like to have some sense of how
those decisions are made.
Secretary Salazar. The decisions made are intended to
achieve the objective of securing the border. The task forces
we have put together under the MOU which we have with Homeland
Security are intended to do that. As issues arise we have a
person who is in charge of coordination on these border
security issues. To the extent, Congressman Flake, that you
have specific examples, of issues of concern I would be happy
to address those. When I was at the Tucson sector what I did
was I pulled together all of the federal agencies who were
involved on the border security issue. When I was informed by
the lead from each one of the agencies within those Tucson
sectors that the issues between the different agencies which
caused historic problems, which I think were addressed in the
GAO report, that we have addressed those issues effectively. If
we have not I want to know.
Mr. Flake. So you have an individual there that we can
contact to address that issue?
Secretary Salazar. We do in the Tucson sector as well as we
have a person who is overall in charge of border security
within the Department of Interior.
Mr. Flake. I met with several of the ranchers when I was
there and they have a lot of issues. They have issues with the
border patrol sometimes not being actually on the border, but
rather inland a little too far. They did note that they work
well with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the preserves and I
appreciate that.
SOUTHWEST BORDER MITIGATION
Let me just talk for a second about mitigation efforts. In
a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Representative
Bishop noted that between 2007 and 2009, Homeland Security
provided about $10 million for mitigation projects. There is
also an agreement that an additional $50 million in mitigation
funds be transferred, if they have not already. Obviously the
mitigation efforts Homeland Security undertakes are due to
impacts to the environment in wilderness areas. But, if you
take Oregon Pipe National Monument for example, everyone has
noted the prevalence of trash and other things that come with
illegal immigration. How is that factored in? Is not having
greater control or monitoring, and not just allowing hot
pursuits but allowing more effective monitoring, a benefit?
Does that impact some of the mitigation, or lessen the need for
some of the mitigation costs, because it is actually a help to
the wilderness areas? If we stop illegal immigration through
these areas, a lot of the problems that we see that are very
detrimental to the environment there are helped out. And yet,
it seems that the Department of Homeland Security is paying
mitigation costs for simply doing the job that we need to do.
Secretary Salazar. Let me say first, I think when anybody
litters on our public lands whether they are here illegally or
whether they are here legally, it is wrong. Frankly there is
too much littering that happens in our public lands all across
the country. The question on Oregon Pipe specifically--I have
flown over it. I have visited it and I recognize the whole
issue of border security has a consequence on the national park
itself and on the ecological values associated with the
national park. The mitigation monies were agreed upon as
provisions of the law and the funding by the Congress to build
a fence between Mexico and the United States. It was intended
to mitigate against the ecological consequences of the fences
being built. Frankly in many of those areas the kind of fencing
that has gone in has been sensitive to some of the ecological
concerns that we had. Notwithstanding, there are still these
issues we are working through to make sure there is appropriate
mitigation for areas where the environment is being impacted.
We are working very closely with Homeland Security to make sure
those measures are appropriate.
Mr. Flake. All right, just in closing I just want to say
that the nature of border crossings have changed substantially
over the year. It used to be the exception to the rule that
crossers would have ties to smuggling rings or drug cartels.
Now, it is almost the exception that they are not. And the
detrimental impacts on the environment, and more particularly
in Arizona on the taxpayers with respect to healthcare,
education, and criminal justice costs, are substantial. If we
could have a better working relationship between the land
managers on our federal lands near the border and our federal
agents who are charged with protecting them, it would help us
all. And so I look forward to working with you on that.
Secretary Salazar. Appreciate that very much. Let me just
say in closing, I spoke in my opening comments about importance
of conservation. The national parks and refuges and BLM lands
are part of the economic engine of America. As we look at the
difficult economic times we are facing as a country, looking at
places like Oregon Pipe and so many of the other natural
resources, assets you have in Arizona I believe need to be
looked at in that perspective as well. For me when I am in the
border country as I was in Oregon Pipe, I recognize that there
are parts of it which have been closed because of issues
relating to criminality on narco-trafficking. It is an issue of
great concern to me. I think there are ways in which we can
continue to work together, Congressman Flake. I know that you
have a particular interest in the area and I look forward to
working with you to see how we can move forward. Secretary
Napolitano spends a great amount of her time working on these
issues and I think this is another place where there is a
possibility we can put together a bipartisan way forward as we
deal with these border security issues.
Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Lummis.
COSTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, my
first couple questions are about the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act and its costs. What is your most recent
report on how many Endangered Species Act listed species have
recovered and been delisted and at what cost to the taxpayers?
Secretary Salazar. Let me ask whether the Deputy Secretary
or would the Budget Director have an answer to the question. If
we do not we can try to get something back to you that will be
the response. I will say this, Congresswoman, as you look at
the issue of endangered species you know just over the last
several years in our delisting of the whooping crane and other
iconic species I think it is important to recognize that there
have been major successes with respect to the implementation of
the Endangered Species Act. For our children and our
grandchildren, I think it is important that they will be able
to know a bald eagle or a golden eagle or a whooping crane
still walks this planet. We do have significant successes in
terms of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
Now it does not mean it is perfect. It does not mean it
cannot be improved. I think Congressmen Calvert earlier was
mentioning how we should be perhaps looking at multispecies
conservation in a better way. A lot of what we are trying to do
with the landscape conservation cooperatives is trying to look
at how we can manage a habitat in a better way that is more
effective. If there are ways in which we can improve it then we
will be doing it.
Mrs. Lummis. Now I share your interest in conserving
species and in species diversity in America. I am just curious
about which ones really have been successfully recovered and
delisted.
Secretary Salazar. You know what we could do is I can get
you a list, Congresswoman Lummis, on that exact question on
which species happen to be covered and which ones have been
delisted. We can get it to you.
Mrs. Lummis. And are you able to assign costs to those
programs?
Secretary Salazar. We will get you information. I do not
know how precise it will be but we will get you some
information on cost.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLVES
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Thanks very much. You may be aware that
with regard to wolves in the Rocky Mountains, the original goal
was 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves and that was going to be
the initial recovery goal. Right now the official count is more
than 1,600 wolves and 113 breeding pairs and the real number is
probably higher. That is just the latest official count. At the
same time we have seen one herd of elk and another of moose
just decimated. It is the moose in the Gros Ventre in Wyoming
and the Lolo elk herd in Montana that have been the most
decimated by wolf recovery.
And so my question is about the cost of balancing the
recovery of wolves with other species that are sacrificed in
the process. At what point is the Department obligated to step
in and prevent the complete destruction of the Gros Ventre
moose herd which is declined by 90 percent in terms of
survivability of the young moose calves and the same with the
Lolo elk herd. It has been a 90 percent mortality of the calves
in the elk herd at Lolo. When do you step in?
Secretary Salazar. Well, I think the events of the last
several years have indicated where we are very clearly. We
believe the wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountains has
been recovered. I think the numbers tell us that. I think the
numbers in Wyoming as well tell us that. The law requires us to
make sure we have recovery programs in place. Idaho certainly
has done that as has Montana. Wyoming, we believe, needs to
improve on its recovery program and we are engaged in very
constructive conversations right now with Governor Mead.
Hopefully we will be able to move forward with a program that
one, keeps the wolf from going extinct and is on the program
where we can take it off of the endangered species list. And
two, allows management of the population that will include the
hunts which have been authorized in places like Idaho and
Montana.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, you know I appreciate our different
perspectives on this. I can tell you that this issue is the
biggest source of frustration for not only people in Wyoming
but for hunters who want to, and who have spent a lot of money
to restore a very robust elk and moose population that is now
being decimated by a predator who was introduced under the
nonessential experimental population section of the ESA.
WILD LANDS
Be that as it may, I will move on now and talk about wild
lands which is also creating some interesting conversations in
my State of Wyoming. I know you issued your wild lands
initiative in December and last week issued further guidance on
the wild lands program and the guidance indicates that the BLM
field offices must inventory all its lands for wilderness
characteristics, then during the RMP process the lands have to
be protected so as not to foreclose on the option of
designating them as wild lands in the final plan. The catch I
see is that the authority to designate WSA's ended in 1993. So
my first question is what do you believe is the authority that
you possess to prioritize wild lands above other designations?
Secretary Salazar. Since the Deputy Secretary was involved
in helping me draft the Secretarial Order, he can look at the
law as well as I have. I will have him answer the question
because I think I had answered it as well.
Mr. Hayes. Congresswoman, the authority is Section 201 and
202 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. This is not
Section 603 Wilderness Study Area Designation, that did expire.
The general provisions in FLPMA per the Secretary's previous
comments give the BLM the authority, really the responsibility
to determine which of the multiple uses make the most sense for
a given area of public lands and at a certain time that can be
managing for wilderness characteristics. That is not for all
time. That is why the RMP process is so important, the planning
process.
This is a public process, there is essentially a two step
process. One, identify the lands with wilderness
characteristics. Then have a public process and decide during
this period of the management plan--are we going to have
leasing for oil and gas in those areas? What uses are we going
to have or should we during the period of the RMP process keep
those wilderness characteristics and keep them in conservation
from hunting, angling, and other sorts of uses. Those decisions
can be revisited with the next RMP. This is not a permanent
designation. It is not a permanent protection. That is for
Congress to do. Only Congress can make a permanent wilderness
area designation. This is just common sense looking out and
deciding what to do.
The circumstance where we saw this need really,
Congresswoman Lummis, was the situation in Utah where there is
a huge amount of land that has wilderness characteristics that
was recently inventoried in connection with the last RMP. There
is no guidance provided to our BLM folks, industry folks,
recreation folks as to how to manage that landscape, no
guidance whatsoever. Decisions should be made as part of the
RMP so folks will know whether those lands are going to
continue to be managed with wilderness characteristics and
identified as wild lands or perhaps some of them not because
they are close to oil and gas and there are some resources
there that should be developed. The idea is to have clear
guidance.
In the absence of guidance in Utah virtually 50 percent of
every oil and gas lease is now protested because a lot of those
are in these areas with wilderness characteristics. There is no
guidance so they are protested. We want more clarity from all
parties involved. We think the RMP process and public process
is the right way to go to provide that clarity.
OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Deputy
Secretary. I would also like to talk a little bit about some
energy development issues. On May 10 of 2010, Interior issued a
directive that state offices must reform their leasing
procedures for oil and gas development. You have delayed
approval of leases for an additional year to 14 months due to
the additional process that is going to be required in my
state, which of course delays the production and the jobs and
the revenue. At the same time your budget request in the fiscal
year 2012 touts your approval of 12 renewable projects on
public land that when operable are worth 4,000 megawatts of
energy. There are budget increases proposed for funding solar
and wind but decreases for conventional fuels. Of course you
know in my state in the Green River Formation in Wyoming, Utah,
and Colorado as well there is enough oil shale to supply the
entire U.S. with energy for somewhere in between 100 and 400
years. And so I am curious about these 12 renewable projects on
public land that are still not on line and how many taxpayer
dollars were spent to approve those while we are not approving
traditional sources that are sustainable over the next century
and multiple centuries?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Congresswoman Lummis. If I
may, bottom line is we continue to approve permits for oil and
gas drilling on public lands and I think the record will speak
for itself. In 2010, we approved about 5,000 permits and in
2011 we expect we will approve 7,000 permits. If you will
permit me, Mr. Chairman, maybe for purposes of the record I
ought to review some of the energy information. I think it is
important to you and to this committee to understand it. First,
we have had a decrease in oil imports over the last several
years. We are down from importing 60 percent of foreign oil to
50 percent in 2010. That is an important thing to happen.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Secretary, is that because we are
producing more energy in the United States?
Secretary Salazar. We are as a matter of fact. In the last
2 years the oil production from the Federal U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf has increased by more than a third from 446
million barrels to 600 million barrels in 2010. On the lands
you are concerned about, onshore public lands, the production
increased by five percent over the last year. The total U.S.
natural gas production in 2010 in the United States was a five
percent increase over 2008 and is at its highest level for more
than 30 years. I could continue to review more statistics, but
the point I want to emphasize here is we have had a program
that has said oil and gas is essential to the energy economy of
the United States of America and we have been implementing the
program.
The reform issues you raised are in part trying to address
the uncertainty created with all the protests and all the
litigation occurring when we came into office. By having a
roadmap knowing where it is appropriate to develop oil and gas
and where it is not will help us in the development of our oil
and gas resources in the right places, and that is what those
reforms are.
URANIUM
Mrs. Lummis. I would like to switch, Mr. Secretary, to a
question about uranium deposits in Arizona. You issued a draft
EIS that has one alternative for a full withdrawal of an area
carved out of the Arizona wilderness that would disallow
extraction of high quality uranium that is near but not in
Grand Canyon National Park. And producers of uranium in Wyoming
tell me that that would be a real blow to domestic uranium
production even if Wyoming's resources came online. Because as
you know, we import 90 percent of the uranium that we consume
here in the United States in our own nuclear facilities. And so
my question is does the draft EIS indicate a threat exists of
irreparable environmental harm from the time of exploration to
mining that has gone on that is significant enough to justify a
withdrawal or even a partial withdrawal?
Secretary Salazar. Let me say in the EIS there are, I
believe, four alternatives from no action to the withdrawal of
I think 1.1 billion acres to numbers in between. I think it is
important to say the Grand Canyon and its water resources and
the importance of maintaining the quality of those water
resources are important to the seven states sharing the water
of the Colorado River and important to the economy of all of
those states.
In addition, we also recognize that nuclear energy is part
of our energy future. It is a part of the President's energy
program and there are resources available within the United
States. We will move forward with the process in the Grand
Canyon to reach a decision, that is a best decision to protect
national interests and will not prejudge the outcome of the EIS
process which is underway at this point in time. I will suffice
it to say it is an important enough issue that I have been
involved in the issue for the last several years and will
continue to be involved until we make the final decision.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Secretary, do you know whether the draft
EIS indicated that the threat exists of irreparable
environmental harm? Did it say that in the draft EIS anywhere?
Secretary Salazar. In the draft EIS I will say this, the
decisions I made on the temporary withdrawal were in fact based
on the possibility of irreparable harm. When you look at the
water issues and the other interests which we are protecting at
the Grand Canyon National Park and that environment, my view is
this is a serious issue that merited the kind of consideration
it was getting through the EIS processes involved.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLVES
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
just make a personal plea to the Secretary that in working with
Governor Mead on the issue of wolves that you give it the most
sincere effort you can muster. When I go home the wolf issue
dominates discussions over things that should be higher
priorities in Wyoming, and more important issues to our country
in my opinion. It is because of the loss of hunting
opportunities and the number of third and fourth generation
outfitters that are going out of business in these areas--
families that are looking for work elsewhere because their
family outfitting business has gone under.
In Wyoming those businesses go under because hunters cannot
get elk permits. These little businesses are in the areas of
Cody, Dubois, Jackson, Star Valley, those are all the areas
where the wolves are reducing the number of animals that can be
hunted, so of course, the Game and Fish issues fewer permits.
So I will tell you there are cultural and jobs involved in
the management of these issues. I would appreciate your most
sincere and earnest intention in working with Governor Mead to
try to develop a solution. And thank you for your testimony
today.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
LITIGATION COSTS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Secretary Salazar for being here
today. I would suggest before we close this hearing that as you
know there are differences of opinion obviously on the Wild
Land designation of this country--I think it is going to
increase losses because I think every decision you make on Wild
Lands, whether you are going to allow for oil and gas drilling
or wind turbines or recreation or whatever, you will be sued
over it. That is a concern to me and I would like at some point
in time to get into a broader discussion how much of your
budget is actually spent to try to defend your decisions in
court. How much money have you spent in court rather on
managing the lands? Between the Interior and the Forest
Service, I think it is huge amounts of money. And yet on the
other hand you do not want to take away people's rights to have
a say in how we manage our public lands. How do we do that? How
do we find some compromise where we can maintain people's
rights to have a say in management of the lands but not spend
so darn much money in court and instead spend it on the
management of our public lands.
So I will be happy to work with you on the Wild Lands
issue. I know that there--I am tempted to ask since Mr. Moran,
my good friend, came back, how many proposals or acres in
Upstate New York or Alexandria is BLM looking at to designate
as wild lands, but I am not going to ask that. There are many
other questions that we have but most of them will be for the
bureau heads, whether it is the wild horse program and the
amount of money which we are spending on trying to maintain
that herd and what we are doing there. I think the request this
year is something like $78 million or something like that.
Whether it is the Idaho bull trout--I will ask Fish and
Wildlife Service about that, its impact on them. But I do
appreciate you being here today and taking the time and
answering the questions of the committee.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman would you yield for a moment since
this came up----
Mr. Simpson. Not if you are going to respond to what.
Mr. Moran. No, I am not now, that is----
Mr. Simpson. I know.
Mr. Moran. Since this has come up so much, the legal cost,
maybe you could supply us with a figure on the percentage of
the budget that is attributable to legal defense in the court
system? I know Mrs. Lummis has raised that on many more than
one occasion, so let's just find out what it actually is
costing in terms of the rest of the program. Whether it is--
really is debilitating our ability to implement other programs.
Mr. Simpson. If I could, it is not--and I do not know how
you come up with this--It is not just the amount of money you
are spending in court. It is the amount of money you are also
spending trying to make a decision bulletproof so that it is
not taken to court. I have asked a former chief of the Forest
Service, I said how much money when you make a decision to do,
say, a timber cut, how much of the money is spent actually
making what is you consider a good, sound, scientific decision
and how much trying to make it bulletproof in court because you
know you are going to end up in court? And he said depending on
the decision, probably somewhere between 25 and 50 percent is
making what we believe to be a good, sound, scientific
decision, between 50 and 75 percent trying to make it
bulletproof. How much money are we spending that we should be
spending on managing our public lands that end up in court in
trying to prevent it from going to court that ultimately you
are not going to preempt it? So it is a difficult issue. And if
somebody has the answer to it I would be a happy camper and
retire happy.
Mr. Cole. The answer is loser pays, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moran. It would be good to get a sense of you know if
you have any idea of what that is costing us and you know what
the risk such as C-Y-A policy. You know if a risk adverse
approach it would be good to know how much that is factoring in
the decision making. Fifty percent seems a little high, but you
know what I think both sides are going to go up in
understanding.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Moran, we will get some information to you that will be
responsive to your question. I have a personal view on this and
I do think so much of the money that ends up being spent on
litigation could be avoided if we were smart relative to what
we do with respect to our planning for conservation. When you
look at, for example, the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives,
I think Congressman Calvert raised the question about how we
manage more multispecies when we are appealing with issues in
southern California.
So much of it has to do with how we manage the habitat that
will serve multiple species. Part of what we have right now in
place is such a high level of fragmentation, we are not able to
do that. Because of the silos some of you have addressed we are
not able to do that very effectively across the public lands
and with the private land owners as well on the willing,
voluntary participation approach. As we move forward with the
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, that is an effort to try
to manage these issues across a whole landscape as opposed to
coming in and dealing with one species at a time and one issue
at a time.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
I would submit to you that I know one of the major
questions this committee has raised questions about today is
the Land and Water Conservation Fund of $900 million in the
President's budget. I think when we look at the United States
today in 2010 and have a population of 307 million people, but
we know that by the year 2040 our population is going to
increase by more than 100 million, where are we going to
shoehorn in those 100 million people in a way that allows us to
make sure we still continue our conservation ethic? We hope to
move a couple million of them into Wyoming, Congresswoman
Lummis. Maybe a few into Oklahoma, but there is an urgency in
my view to be proactive in terms of how we do conservation
planning over the future. A way of doing it in a way like I
illustrated with the Foothills National Conservation Area in
Kansas where we can take care of these lands protect private
property rights, protect the ranchers and farmers and at the
same time make sure we are doing right by the way of protecting
critical habitats.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I have you know--I agree with you. One
of the reasons we have been working on some wilderness
legislation in Idaho and other things is that I honestly think
these lands that become wilderness designations are going to
become more important in the future rather than less as we get
more and more people. We are going to look for places we are
not going to get away from people, you know. How can you go--
how can you find solitude in this world? And I think those
states that have those are going to be increasingly sought
after. And that is why we have tried to resolve some of those
issues and help.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I would add that the
acquisition, because of that very point, the acquisition of
property by the federal government I do not believe is always
the best answer. I think frequently the best answer is the
acquisition of conservation easements on working landscapes.
You get three times the bang for your buck if you have a
conservation easement versus acquiring fee title to the
property. In addition, the steward of the land comes with the
land. So you do not have the same management issues of having
either an absentee land owner or a semi-absentee land owner.
There are so many advantages to conservation easements as a
tool that we should be using more of rather than acquisition of
these simple acts would. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moran. Well, I can understand the tax incentives and so
on, too, but the only thing I was going to raise with regard to
what the Secretary was saying, Mr. Chairman, is if we are going
to expand our populations as has been done into the southwest
Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Wyoming is not really
in the southwest, but in particularly in those southwest areas,
the quantity and quality of our water supply is just so
essential and a lot of this land acquisition is so we can
maintain the water sources that--a lot of what Interior is
doing is trying to maintain those water sources. And if you can
go back into why we established the National Forest and the
National Parks a lot of them was to try to--you know we had
deluded these forests and we had to acquire the land to clean
it up so we could get the water flowing smoothly and not allow
it to become filled with sediment and contaminants.
So anyway, I know there are probably are some areas where
we can find agreement and I certainly appreciate your testimony
and your leadership, Mr. Secretary. I know the Chairman does as
well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Again, thank you, Secretary
Salazar. It has been a pleasure to work with you over the past
years. I look forward to working with you to solve some of
these problems.
Secretary Salazar. It is my honor. Thank you, sir.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 9, 2011.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESSES
JONATHAN JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
MARGARET ``PEGGY'' O'DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE
BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order.
Director Jarvis, I want to thank you and your colleagues
for being with us today to discuss the work of the Park Service
and your priorities for the coming year. I am going to keep my
comments brief so that we can hear from you and provide members
the opportunity to ask questions before we attend this
morning's joint session with the prime minister of Australia.
I want to make two observations. First, your budget request
for next year makes some decisions that I find a little bit
puzzling. On the one hand, the budget request for the Park
Service land acquisition represents a $234 million increase
over the enacted 2010 level. That is an unprecedented increase
in just 2 years. On the other hand, the budget request cuts
construction funding by $77 million. It seems to me that we
ought to be addressing long-term maintenance and repair needs
within our parks before acquiring additional acquisitions that
will only add to the historic funding backlog.
Secondly, I want to commend you and Bruce Sheaffer for the
progress you have made over the last couple of years to address
the issue of high unobligated balances within the Rec Fee
program. We included report language in the fiscal year 2010
bill raising concerns over these high balances and directing
the Park Service to take corrective action. When we first
raised this issue, the carryover balance was approaching $300
million. Your written testimony suggests that this balance is
now below $90 million.
One of our subcommittee's primary goals is oversight, and
your work in the Rec Fee program demonstrates that we can work
together to meet our common oversight goals. I look forward to
focusing on these and other issues this morning.
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran
Mr. Simpson. But first let me yield to Mr. Moran for any
opening remarks he might have.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some great quotes here but I am not going to take
the time. Do you want me to?
Mr. Simpson. If it will make you feel better.
Mr. Moran. Seriously? Okay. All right. If you want me, Mr.
Chairman. He is the boss. As one of the prime movers of the
national park movement, Chairman Simpson's old friend John Muir
wrote: ``Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to
play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to
body and soul.'' He also wrote: ``Society speaks and all men
listen''--he meant to say all men and women listen--``mountains
speak and wise people listen.'' So as the caretaker of so many
wonderful places, some of the Nation's preeminent mountains,
you have to speak and represent the interests of the mountains,
and you also have to lead 25,000 employees, provide quality
services for over 280 million visitors every year and provide
all kinds of technical assistance and conservation education.
The fact is with the exception of the Great Outdoors
initiative, which I do support, this is a very tight budget,
but given the importance of the parks to our Nation, I trust
that there will be bipartisan support for most, if not all, of
your budget requests because we need to continue to care for
these priceless resources and make them safe for our visitors
and make sure they last for our children and their children to
enjoy.
So we look forward to the hearing, and we will get on with
it. I am sure we will be able to finish up by 11:00. Thanks,
Mr. Chairman.
Opening Remarks of Director Jarvis
Mr. Simpson. Thanks, Jim. As Tommy Smothers once said, I
talk to the trees but they never listen to me. I do not know if
any of you are old enough to remember that.
Thank you. We look forward to hearing from you, Director.
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman and the members, thank you for
this opportunity to appear before you and present our fiscal
2012 President's budget request for the National Park Service.
If I may, I would like to submit the written testimony for the
record and just summarize here.
We really appreciate this Committee's support for the work
that we do as stewards of our Nation's most cherished natural
and cultural resources. We look forward to continuing to work
with you as the National Park Service prepares for its second
century of stewardship beginning in 2016, this year being our
95th.
As any resource manager can tell you, wise stewardship
sometimes involves making very difficult choices. The National
Park Service's fiscal 2012 budget request reflects a careful
and serious response to the need to reduce federal spending by
supporting our highest priorities while proposing significant
reductions to a number of worthy programs.
In addition to the program reductions, the budget request
includes substantial management savings and efficiencies. The
National Park Service is making significant progress in
reducing unobligated balances, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
The aim of these efforts is a more targeted and focused use of
our existing funds limited to those strategic areas we have
determined to be the highest priorities of the National Park
Service. By focusing available resources on the areas of
greatest need, the NPS can maintain its existing
responsibilities while supporting some new initiatives.
The fiscal 2012 budget proposes total discretionary
spending of $2.9 billion. That is a net increase of $137.8
million above the FY 2010 appropriation. The budget request
includes an increase of $39.5 million for park operations that
will serve more than 100 park units. This amount is intended to
address operations in new parks, support other new
responsibilities, improve mission-critical operations, engage
youth in employment and educational opportunities, and protect
historical assets at parks commemorating the Civil War
sesquicentennial.
Our operations budget is key to helping us continue to
protect the critical natural and cultural resources we are
entrusted with and to serve visitors who this past year
numbered 285 million.
We are supporting the America's Great Outdoors initiative,
which includes fully funding the Land and Water Conservation
Fund programs at $900 million. The Park Service's budget
component of that includes $160 million to acquire around
98,000 acres of land within the authorized boundaries of units
of the national park system. These proposed acquisitions were
determined through a coordinated process within the Department
of Interior among our bureaus as well as with the U.S. Forest
Service in the Department of Agriculture. The criteria we used
emphasize opportunities to jointly conserve important
landscapes, especially river and riparian areas, wildlife
habitat, urban areas that provide needed recreational and
threshold experiences and those containing important cultural
and historical assets. We also looked at the ability to
leverage those funds with partners and with other agencies.
Also included in the budget is $200 million for the State
side of Land and Water Conservation Fund which would enable
communities to enhance outdoor recreational opportunities. A
portion of these funds would be allocated through a competitive
component targeted at community parks, green spaces, landscape
level conservation and recreational waterways. This is a new
approach we are taking. These grants would address public
concern about the lack of open space and outdoor recreation
areas in certain urban and other areas. This was frequently
conveyed to us in the listening sessions we held around the
country for the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. In
conjunction with the State conservation grants, the request
includes a $1.1 million increase for the NPS Rivers and Trails
Conservation Assistance program to assist communities with
technical assistance.
The fiscal 2012 budget maintains funding of $9.9 million
for the Secretary's Cooperative Landscape Conservation
initiative. This will bring together networks of resource
professionals and promotes science-based understanding of the
effects of climate change. This will produce practical
applications that have broad benefits for resource managers
seeking cost-effective approaches to conservation in the face
of these economic times.
In order to fulfill these stewardship responsibilities and
these critical increases, they are offset by some cost savings
and some program reductions. The proposed budget requests no
funding for Save America's Treasures and Preserve America
grants programs or the Park Partnership Project Grants program.
The request also eliminates funding for Statutory Aid and
proposes significant reductions in Construction and the
National Heritage Areas program. It also includes budget
efficiencies and savings totaling $46.2 million.
I would like to speak to you, and we can discuss in the
questions about the efforts we are taking to restrain spending,
but I also would like to remind everyone of the economic value
of parks. The national parks are drivers of economic growth,
particularly in gateway and rural communities. They stimulate
spending and job creation. Taxpayer investments in the national
parks result in far more than the obvious recreational and
educational dividends. In 2009, park visitors spent $11.9
billion and supported 247,000 private sector jobs. So it is not
just a matter of stewardship but it is also a great economic
investment.
In closing, I would just like to say how much we appreciate
the support of this committee and of all the members here. It
has been a great relationship and I am sure it will be in the
future.
That concludes my remarks, and I will be pleased to take
any questions.
[The statement of Jonathan Jarvis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Let us start off with the backlog
maintenance. What is the level of backlog maintenance that we
currently have, and what would it take in each year to address
it to get that amount coming down substantially?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, the current level of maintenance
backlog--and let me just say right up front that the Park
Service over the last 10 years, particularly in the last
Administration, put a lot of emphasis to really understand this
number, and I think we have a better handle on the actual
number with a fair amount of real quantitative analysis than we
have ever had in the past. The number is about $10.8 billion in
terms of our total maintenance backlog. The National Park
Service has an extraordinary number of assets--buildings,
roads, wastewater treatment facilities across the country--and
it tends to be an old infrastructure, much of it built 30, 40
years ago. So the maintenance backlog number is quite high.
Within that subset, though, there are high-priority assets
and then there are medium-priority assets. What we have been
doing over the last few years is really beginning to shift our
focus to the resources that we do have, on our high-priority
assets, those that rank very high in the asset priority index
system, those considered mission-critical assets. And then
there are some assets that are still lumped within that $10.8
billion that are more low priority and in some cases we need to
focus on actually getting rid of those assets and getting them
off the books as well.
Mr. Simpson. Assets like what? Do you have some examples?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. In some cases it may be an acquisition of
a property that has a house on it and the house was acquired as
a part of the acquisition process and although it is not needed
for public use, it is still sitting on our books. It was
assessed and added to our inventory. Those kind of places need
to be removed. That is one of the priorities that I have set
for our regional directors: to look at those and get them off
the books and use whatever discretionary funding they have to
get those down and then to focus our funding that we do have.
I will say, though, I am concerned that the construction
budget in this budget will not really help us keep up with
that. There will be a growth in the maintenance backlog as a
result of this level of funding in terms of the deferred
maintenance.
LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Simpson. Is it wise to do additional land acquisition,
to put the emphasis on additional land acquisition and decrease
that emphasis on our backlog maintenance?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, it is a tradeoff. There is no question
about that. The Administration put a priority on full funding
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for this year at $900
million and I believe the Park Service got an appropriate
allocation of that request both for State side and Federal
side, but in these tough economic times, of course, it is a
tradeoff. Keep in mind, these are inside of the boundaries.
Mr. Simpson. All of the proposals are inside the boundaries
of----
Mr. Jarvis. They are all inholdings, and in all cases there
is a willing seller. In all cases, frankly, they create some
efficiency of management in terms of consolidation of assets.
So it might appear in many cases this is adding cost to us but
in most cases it is actually creating a certain level of
efficiency for park management. The other thing that we did is
look at if we are acquiring lands that have structures on them
that are non-historic that we will work to have those removed
as a part of the acquisition process so we are not adding to
the backlog by gaining non-critical assets in the process.
Mr. Simpson. Is one of those acquisitions going to solve
the problem in Grand Teton?
Mr. Jarvis. It is. It is going to solve a significant
potential threat to the Grand Tetons through the acquisition
that we recently negotiated with the State of Wyoming to
acquire a highly developable set of properties right in the
center of the Jackson Hole Valley.
PROGRAM ELIMINATION
Mr. Simpson. Part of the funding that you ended was the
Park Partnership program, Save America's Treasures. What was
the reasoning behind that?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I will say up front both of those are
good programs, and these were hard decisions we had to make in
order to reach the bottom line. I think Save America's
Treasures had a positive effect on historic and cultural
resources around this country and been quite popular within the
historic preservation community as well. The Park Partnership
program was originally the Centennial effort that Secretary
Kempthorne and others built, and it was a great program for
leveraging. It was a program set up to draw matching funds from
non-Federal sources. But ultimately, in order to achieve this
particular budget, we gave priority to preserve the operational
budget of the National Park Service, which is the bread and
butter, the park operations, the protection of resources, the
providing of public services on the front line of our 394
units. It was certainly my priority to keep that functioning.
That is where we provide great services to the American public
and to communities. Then with the full funding of the LWCF we
had to take the hits in other places, and those are the ones
that were chosen.
Mr. Simpson. In this limited budget year and probably for
several years to come, we are going to have to prioritize as we
appropriate money in this budget. Is park operations the
highest priority that you have?
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. From my perspective, I
believe park operations provides the primary benefit to the
American public and to these resources so that is our priority.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Mr. Simpson. One other question back on backlog maintenance
that I forgot to ask, what would it take in terms of an
appropriation to start reducing that amount of backlog
maintenance?
Mr. Jarvis. We have been doing quite a bit of analysis on
this. As a matter of fact, our leadership in the Park Service
sat down recently to go through this in excruciating detail. We
would need to be allocating about $677 million a year
(currently allocating $590 million a year) to maintain the
current level.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Jarvis, the land and water conservation program does
have the one increase that is significant that you mentioned.
Would you get a bit into how the competitive part of the State
side land and water conservation program would work? What kind
of criteria might you follow and what types of projects do you
think the States are most interested in pursuing?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great
question, because it is new. As you know, the State side of
Land and Water Conservation Fund for many years has been
relatively small and almost inconsequential but by increasing
it, what we wanted to do and what we heard from the public in
the 51 listening sessions around the country related to
America's Great Outdoors, was an interest in urban parks. There
was an interest in blueways or waterways, and connectivity to
rivers. Secretary Salazar has said many times for most of our
history we turned our backs to the rivers and we are now
turning our faces to the rivers and looking at them as a strong
community asset, but in many cases there is no access. Also,
there is interest in creating open space and recreational
opportunities for young people, and looking for where we can
connect communities and link up schools, state parks, city
parks and those kinds of things. Those were the broad criteria
that came out of the America's Great Outdoors listening
sessions.
To get down to the next level of specific criteria, we are
going to be engaging in a discussion with the states. We think
that is an absolutely essential component. Next week, as a
matter of fact, the National Recreation and Park Association,
the National Association of State Park Directors and the
National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison
Officers, who are the ones that really work on the state side,
will all be in discussions with us about those criteria
specifically because we think that this is a partnership with
states and cities about how this should be allocated. Plus,
there is a step or two in the way. The state side of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund allocation is based on each state's
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, or SCORP, and so
we are going to be working with the states over this coming
year to amend their SCORP so that every state in the country
will be competitive for this new process. Forty percent of the
money will still be equally distributed to the States. Sixty
percent of the $195 million will be for competitive grants;
and, $5 million will be for administration.
Mr. Moran. Great. I think personally that is a terrific
idea, the states participating partners in what you develop,
and we get some real innovative approaches that can then be
replicated in other comparable areas, so it is terrific.
MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES
Ms. O'Dell may want to address this. You have got a $39.5
million increase in the base park operations for more than 100
park sites but on the other hand, the budget has decreases for
management efficiencies and there is no clarification of what
specifically that is all about. So maybe you could better
explain how the park base increase is going to be used and to
what extent, though, that is offset by these other across-the-
board cuts.
Mr. Jarvis. I will take that. The total in terms of
management efficiencies was $46 million, which is roughly a 2
percent reduction across our many programs, though in theory it
is focused strategically on some areas. There are areas that we
have already begun to apply some efficiencies: travel, for one.
The Park Service has a travel ceiling that we have imposed
administratively, much to the chagrin of many of our field
folks, while looking to use technology, such as video
conferencing and teleconferencing, to reduce our overall costs
in travel. We have also consolidated some of our operations,
particularly in the administrative fields, such as human
resources and contracting, focusing them into servicing offices
and consolidating those kinds of things. There is also a
reduction in there in terms of supplies and materials. In some
cases, that makes sense but, frankly, there is lack of a plan
about how that is actually going to work.
The challenge with the National Park Service is that we are
geographically distributed across the country. We have parks
from the Virgin Islands to America Samoa, and it is difficult
for them to share the same pile of gravel. But at the same
time, we are attempting to mine as many efficiencies in the
organization as possible.
Mr. Moran. We have got this kind of stuff throughout the
budget, these management efficiencies. So this is not a new
concept. How successful have you been in the past roughly in
achieving it, you know, whether it is waste, fraud and abuse,
management efficiencies or whatever, across-the-board cuts?
When I was a budget officer, we used to round things out that
way, if we could not quite balance the budget.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, ultimately it comes down to in many cases
as an across-the-board reduction, and so each park winds up
with a 1 or 2 percent reduction in their overall operating
costs. So you get on one hand 100 or so parks get a base
increase, $39 million distributed and then everybody takes a 1
or 2 percent reduction. Park superintendents are smart people
and they figure out where they can find that efficiency. One of
the things we have been doing around the service is, there are
assets that can be shared between parks, there are positions
that can be shared, there is equipment that can be shared when
parks are in relative proximity. In Idaho, I know parks such as
Craters of the Moon and Nez Perce and others share individuals
such as safety officers and others. So instead of every park
having one of everything, there can be those kinds of
efficiencies that can be mined.
NATIONAL MALL
Mr. Moran. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have one other area of
inquiry that I wanted to get into. Do you want to do a second
round or do you want me to raise it now? Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
National Mall--I think it is a problem frankly. It needs to
be cleaned up. It needs to look a little better and a lot of it
is just because so many people use it. It is going to look
frayed eventually. So I would like to know what is in this
budget for the National Mall and the extent to which you think
the nonprofit sector could be raising additional revenue to do
some of the restoration that is needed, and I have a couple of
follow-up suggestions on that.
Mr. Jarvis. I am going to ask Deputy Director Peggy O'Dell
to take that question as she served not only as the
Superintendent of the Mall but also as the Regional Director
for the National Capital Region.
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you for that question, Mr. Moran. I know
you have been a great supporter of the Mall for years, so I
appreciate that.
I will start with the second half of your question. The
Trust for the National Mall has grown in the last 3 years to be
a very viable nonprofit for us. They have completed a
feasibility study that says they will be an effective
fundraiser at a very high level at about the $350 million level
over about 7 years. They are working hand in glove with the
park staff to determine the best way to apply those private
dollars that supplement the appropriation that we have for the
National Mall going forward. The increases that we requested
for the National Mall include a base increase for the operation
of the new Martin Luther King Memorial that will be opening
this August, which is a critical facility to staff, and we are
requesting to continue to invest in the turf improvements for
the grass on the Mall. We are making sure that our management
practices will support keeping that turf in good condition.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chair, I want to direct this to the chairman
as well. There are going to be innumerable demands for more
museums and memorial sites on the National Mall, and all of
them have their political support base, and if you have a
memorial for one ethnicity or cause, every other group is going
to want something similar.
Now, to accommodate them all without violating the intent
of the Commemorative Works Act, which is authorized in the
legislation, it would seem that we need to do what Congress did
a century ago with regard to the Lincoln Memorial, and that is
to expand or enlarge the mall on available nearby federal land.
None of the current federal plans address this mall expansion
or the larger future needs of the mall across jurisdiction,
whether it be the Smithsonian, the Park Service, the National
Gallery, Architect of the Capitol, Department of Agriculture
and so on, so they all have jurisdiction over some federal
land. But these are ad hoc expansion plans we are dealing with
now. You know, they float around there, groups come to see us.
We do not want to say no. And they want everything on the mall.
We need more of a unifying concept, it would seem, but most of
the land is under Interior's jurisdiction designated by
Congress for future memorials.
Now, there is a private group of scholars, designers,
academics that want a larger, more visionary planning effort to
go forward. I think you are familiar with it. What do you think
about that, a larger concept of the mall so we do not throw
everything into this already crowded space trying to
accommodate everybody's interests? Have you given some thought
to that?
Ms. O'Dell. We have, Mr. Moran, and I would say that we
largely have that already with the way that Congress has
structured the Commemorative Works Act that protects what we
know today as the Mall proper by having it designated as the
reserve and then the land bordering that is Area One, and it
takes a lot of Congressional support to get any future
monuments or memorials in that area. In addition to that, we
have a citywide plan that has been developed in concert with
the District that designates memorial sites throughout the
city, which in effect does what that group was calling for: to
enlarge the space of the National Mall.
Mr. Moran. Well, they need to call it the Mall. For
example, West Potomac Park, we have land there. I want to
register this concern because it seems to me, Mr. Chairman,
that our generation particularly thinks every iconic figure
needs their own memorial and no generation is going to be as
important as our generation, and we really ought to be doing a
better job of preserving space for future generations. So I
just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Part of the problem with the Mall is that we
love it to death. It is overused. There has been some
contention about the Folk Life Festival that the Smithsonian
puts on regarding the use and so forth and where the displays
are located. Have you worked with them? Are we resolving the
issue for the coming year?
Mr. Jarvis. I will take a shot at that. Actually, let me
just suggest that, frankly, for maybe the first time, we have
very strong support in the Administration to really protect the
Mall and invest in it. I think Solar Decathlon is a perfect
example of where we were able to find a solution. Actually,
Peggy was the lead on that. They are still holding the event,
but in West Potomac Park not here on the main part of the Mall.
It satisfies their desire to be in downtown Washington but not
right in the center, and that was a fight. Frankly, there was a
lot of interest and a lot of pressure on both sides. Secretary
Salazar stood up for us and said no, we are not going to allow
these large impactful events to occur on the Mall. That has
been our position for a long time. We have been working very
closely with the Smithsonian to still have the Festival of
American Folk Life on the Mall but reduce its impact. And then
part of the design of the Mall, the record of decision that we
signed last year really begins to look at the Mall and to
create these spaces that are hardened and protected and have
the infrastructure that can manage these things and not have
negative long-term impacts. I think we are on a good path with
the Mall.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I will tell you that most people who
come to Washington from Idaho who have never been here before
see pictures of the Mall and they see the aerial photographs
and everything is green and beautiful, and the biggest
complaint they have when I talk to them is how disappointed
they were in how rundown the Mall is--not that we do not
maintain it but that it is just rundown from overuse--and I
think you will find great support among this subcommittee and
Congress in general for bringing the mall up to the standards
that I think we all expect it to be.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, the ARRA funding is a really great first
investment, about $34 million. We are working on the reflecting
pool right now and then we are taking the Mall piece by piece.
I mean, it was never designed, like you would a sports
field. The Mall has a thin layer of organic soil and clay and
grass----
Mr. Simpson. We went out a couple years ago and tried to
dig into it.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, it is hard as a rock.
Mr. Simpson. I am still trying to fix my leg.
Mr. Serrano. You know, you are making me feel very guilty.
I just ran a couple miles there this morning. Maybe I should
stop running on it.
Mr. Simpson. That is the problem. There are too many people
running on it.
Mr. Jarvis. You are compacting the soil out there,
Congressman.
SAVE AMERICA'S TREASURES GRANTS
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three things I
want to touch on. First is more just a comment.
Save America's Treasures, I was very disappointed in the
President's decision to do that, and I understand that there is
a limited amount of funds and we have to make tough choices,
but it was a collaboration. It was a collaboration many times
that connected the Park Service with urban core and small rural
areas to save another story. The national parks tell one story
but there is another story of the different cultures that came
together to weave the fabric of our society. So I am struggling
in this tough time. We are all making sacrifices on what to
save and what to protect but America's Treasures is something
that also has another ripple effect to it too. In some of the
inner cities where they are saving some of these historic
buildings, they are saving them in older parts, the urban
areas. The building gets saved. It looks attractive to the
neighborhood. It has an impact on the economy that sometimes we
did not even foresee and then it also is providing
opportunities for tradespeople to keep crafts and artisanship
going which we are close to losing them in this country. So
there are many parts of Save America's Treasures, and I just
wanted to be on the record and I think I am going to try to
figure out what I can do to be helpful.
LAND ACQUISITION
The point also about backlog of maintenance and being
careful about acquisition, Voyageurs National Park was a very
contentious park when it was founded starting with Barb West.
She did a fabulous job when she was the superintendent there.
Our current superintendent is not here right now. He is
fabulous. But we have a chance, and it is number 10 on
holdings, to I think resolve, put to rest and give some ghosts
of Voyageurs National Park a chance to move on to the other
side. So I really hope as you go through that that we are
mindful of creating that balance and once-in-a-lifetime
opportunities.
So those are more comments to the chair on where my head is
at on some of this budget process as it deals with the Park
Service and Save America's Treasures.
ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER
All politics is local and so I am going to focus for a
second on the Minnesota border with the St. Croix River. And by
the way, just for people who are not familiar, Stillwater is an
old river town and has an old lift bridge. You call it two
lanes. It is basically one. Trucks do not belong on there. They
get stuck on there. There is no weigh station, no one kicks
them off. The bridge needs to be replaced. I am for replacing
it. The Park Service has never objected to the bridge being
replaced but just wants it done in a good way.
So here I go, Mr. Director. In 1996, the Park Service
evaluated a proposal for a four-lane freeway-style bridge over
the lower St. Croix. This is in a historic river town. Ten
miles down the river, there is, by bridge standards, a pretty
good bridge called I-94 which the States of Minnesota and
Wisconsin are looking at adding more lanes to. So having said
that, they need a bridge. The Park Service looked at this in
1996 and concluded that the bridge would irreparably harm their
river of scenic and recreational values. So then in 2005, when
considering another proposal for a freeway-style bridge in
approximately the same location, the Park Service issued a
draft. It was a draft evaluation which found that the bridge
would not adversely affect the river. It was a draft. It was
still in a working stage. Then in October 2010, after a federal
court struck down the 2005 evaluation, the Park Service
conducted a more thorough evaluation and proposed that in fact
the bridge's scenic and recreational impacts would be impaired,
so it concluded that this massive $700 million bridge could not
be built under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I would like you
to talk about the history of how the Park Service comes to
these conclusions.
But more importantly, I am concerned about a piece of
legislation that has been put forward and has been put forward
by my colleague Congresswoman Bachmann, and it seeks to reverse
the decision of the Park Service last October on the proposed
bridge. Now, she claims that her bill is not an exemption for
the bridge under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act but I am going
to read from the legislation. ``Construction of a four-lane
highway bridge over the lower St. Croix River in accordance
with section 7 evaluated by the National Park Service October
2005 is hereby deemed to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.'' Now, it seems to me that this is Congress telling
the Park Service that it needs to create an exemption, and I am
quoting from the legislation, ``hereby deemed to be
consistent.'' Can Congress deem things to be consistent and
then say it is not an exemption? I want to be really clear. A
bridge does need to be built there. Stillwater does need
relief, and there is a way we can do one with scope and scale
and save the taxpayers a lot of money and be prudent and
efficient with what we are doing on the 94 corridor, which also
crosses this river. So can you tell me, this has got to be
happening in other spots than just Minnesota, but I am really
familiar with Minnesota here. Is this Congress telling the Park
Service what it should do?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, these are all great questions and I know
this issue quite well, and----
Ms. McCollum. That is why I said Voyageurs is done. We are
moving on. I have been through Voyageurs and the boundary
waters. I know you guys tackled the problem.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, we are not afraid of tough issues. And by
the way, there is a request for land acquisition in Voyageurs
in 2012 for $1.5 million, so we are on track to do some good
acquisition there.
In terms of the Stillwater bridge, that particular area of
the Wild and Scenic River, is an undeveloped section of the
shoreline and the Park Service has its responsibilities there
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In the first proposal for
that bridge in the 1990s, the professional staff of the
organization determined that it would have a significant impact
on the outstanding, remarkable values of the Wild and Scenic
River for which it was set aside by Congress.
In 2005, a draft resolution, draft opinion, was built on
some work around mitigation. There were a variety of design
proposals, but a lot of it was offsite kinds of mitigation
about what would be done. When challenged by the court, and
that ruling was determined to be arbitrary and capricious, as I
came on as Director and this issue was boiling up, we did a
thorough review of the past opinions and the past analyses as
well as the court's ruling and determined that from a legal
standpoint, you really cannot mitigate a direct adverse impact
on the river with offsite mitigation. That is just not legal
according to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. And so this was an
important precedential issue for the National Park Service and
our management of Wild and Scenic Rivers. We really had no
choice because frankly, Congress had never given us that kind
of authority to say you can mitigate this kind of impact on a
Wild and Scenic River.
So that is where we are. We have a very strong legal
opinion on this. So then, if there is to be a bridge built, it
will require some sort of legislative action on the part of
Congress. I cannot speak in any detail as to Congresswoman
Bachmann's bill because we have not evaluated it, nor developed
an official position at this point.
Ms. McCollum. It is eight lines. It probably will not take
too long. I just want to stress again to the Park Service that
Stillwater deserves to have the bridge replaced, but there is a
way to do it, and I know, Mr. Chair, that this is not the
Transportation Committee, but this decision could be impactful
to rivers all across this country and other rulings of the Park
Service, so I do not think it is one that this committee or the
Policy Committee can take lightly.
Mr. Chair, just also for the record, a four-lane, $700
million bridge which does not have a weigh station at the end
of it, how are we going to pay for it?
Mr. Simpson. I do not know, but I did notice that Congress
did waive pretty much all the environmental laws and everything
else to build the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We just said that we
complied.
Mr. Serrano.
NATIONAL MALL
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry my ranking
member left because I usually do not disagree with him in
public, and I was going to do that very diplomatically. It is
not that our generation wants to honor everybody, it is that
our generation has been very much involved in dealing with past
injustices where a lot of people were not honored that should
have been honored and so basically my generation just reminds
people that there were women in our history that played a great
role, that there were Native Americans, that there were African
Americans, that there were Hispanics, that there were
territories, and that is what that was about. It gets crowded
but it is a national symbol.
TERRITORIES
Speaking about territories, yesterday I left our hearing
before I could show a little dismay at the fact that Secretary
Salazar makes a very common mistake, which I noticed you did
not make, and I congratulate you for it, that is, that they
always refer to the 50 states. Well, there are 50 states and
there are territories, and you well know that the parks
department plays a major role, a major role, perhaps more than
a lot of other agencies because what you do with the
rainforests in Puerto Rico and what you do with all the other
parks is very noticeable and very much seen by tourists and
very much a part of what stands out when you speak about the
territories. So I congratulate you on that.
SAVE AMERICA'S TREASURES GRANTS
On a personal note, you know, every so often I talk in
subcommittee and in committee about the fact that the Bronx has
a river, and a lot of people say ``what?'' and I say, yes, we
have a river. We also have Poe Cottage, where Edgar Allan Poe
did a lot of writing at the end of his life, and it stands
there because the Save America's Treasures has been involved in
maintaining it and helping us, and because of what we did when
we partnered our office with you folks. It inspired the city
and the state to chip in and now they are opening up a visitors
center and it is totally revived. The kids in the neighborhood
had no clue that this person that they spoke about all the time
wrote those eerie things right on the Grand Concourse.
Ironically, and this is just a personal side note, he moved
there because his wife was ill and he wanted her to breathe
fresh air.
Ms. McCollum. And he moved to New York.
Mr. Serrano. Well, because at that point at Poe Cottage,
you could see Long Island.
Mr. Simpson. That was a long time ago.
Mr. Serrano. In the 1800s, you know, and now at the expense
of getting in trouble with my fellow New Yorkers, you would
maybe move your wife out of New York to some other district.
But I know these are tough times, and you face a larger
challenge, a stronger challenge than anybody else, I think,
because when we begin to maybe come around to negotiate on
these dramatic budget cuts, we probably will be able to make
good arguments about some things that we all believe should not
be cut as drastically as initially proposed. Unfortunately,
parks may not fall in that category, and it is not just at the
federal level, it is at the local level too.
My son, like us, lost his majority so he is no longer
chairman of the parks committee in the New York State Senate,
but he is the ranking member of the parks committee, and it is
a constant battle to get the governor and the legislature to
understand that the parks are important to New York, the state
parks, the city parks, the federal parks, the national parks.
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
We will do the best we can to make sure that we give you
the resources so that at least in these very difficult times
you can survive and keep these treasures going for us.
I am reminded, unfortunately, of something that happened
during the last government shutdown. If you recall, Mr.
Chairman, it would not be a shutdown like if we have one this
time where we haven't passed a bill. We had actually passed
some bills, appropriations bills, so some agencies were open,
others were not, and the number one complaint was that there
were parks that were not open and people came to Washington to
see the mall, to see the monuments, you know, things they take
for granted. They would come to our offices and say it is
closed. I would say yes, we know, and we are trying to get it
reopened. So this is a very serious situation.
But let me ask you a question, and I am sure it has been
asked before. How much of a cut can you take and still maintain
our parks and our facilities to the point where we will not
destroy them? And I do not expect you to give us numbers
perhaps but just, we all have to be ready to cut. I mean, we
took a cut in our staff allocations. We are going to have to
cut in many other areas in how we operate Congress. But at what
point does it become a problem? And I am not asking you to do
what all agencies do except one. All agencies come and say we
want more money. Incidentally, there is only one agency in the
history of Congress that actually said they needed less money,
and that was before my subcommittee and that was the Securities
and Exchange Commission, because they did not want to oversee
anybody so they just did not want money, and we know about that
story. At what point does it become a big problem?
NATIONAL PARKS IN NEW YORK CITY AREA
Mr. Jarvis. Well, thank you, Congressman, for those
questions and let me just say about New York, New York has an
extraordinary array of national park units in and around New
York City and it is an area of strong emphasis for us. There
are 11 parks there. We own 23,000 acres within the city of New
York, most of it at Jamaica Bay and Floyd Bennett Field, the
Statue of Liberty and other places. We also have partnerships
such as with Edgar Allan Poe Cottage and Lower East Side
Tenement House and others where we work together with the city.
So we are bringing those together to raise their prominence in
the communities as well as all of our other programs where we
assist with community conservation and historic preservation.
This is a strong emphasis of mine and the Secretary's as well.
We have a meeting coming up with the mayor to talk about these
things.
PARK OPERATIONS
In terms of cuts to the Park Service and where they begin
to have an impact, the majority of our budget is operational.
That is the operational figure, ONPS. It is $2.3 billion out of
$2.9 billion. So any significant reduction has a direct effect
on park operations. Now, small parks, you know, the small units
that might have 10 to 15 employees and a historic home or a
visitor center have limited abilities to absorb any type of
significant cut and stay fully operational, to keep open seven
days a week and meet the expectations of the American public.
You really wind up reducing services. You begin to close during
low-visitation seasons or midweek, etc. when you reduce the
operational budget. Some of the larger parks have perhaps a
little more discretion to shift things around, but you are
moving money from one operation, such as maintenance or repair/
rehab, to keep the doors open.
You know, one of the great things about the National Park
Service is, we are very proud to provide these places to the
public. It hurts our pride to not be able to open to the
American public and to protect these places, these
extraordinary resources that have been given to us one at a
time by either the President or the U.S. Congress, and so we
will do just about anything to try to keep them operational--
volunteers, docents, friends' groups, cooperating associations
and others. But as the budget is reduced, absolutely it will
have some effects on those kinds of operations, because that is
the bulk of our budget.
TROPICAL FORESTS
Mr. Serrano. On the issue of the territories, we have a
rainforest in Puerto Rico, right? Where else do we have a
rainforest that is a national----
Mr. Jarvis. Well, the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is a
territory as well. I was just there. And then in the Pacific I
also have responsibilities in the territories of Guam, Saipan,
America Samoa, and then we have freely associated states in
Palau and Micronesia where we assist with conservation work. We
have tropical forests in Puerto Rico as well as the Virgin
Islands.
Mr. Serrano. Did you say one in Hawaii?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, absolutely in Hawaii.
TERRITORIES
Mr. Serrano. Okay. One last point. You know, a couple of
years ago, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan fashion we inserted at
my request language which allowed the territories to be
included in the 50 states quarters program. When that program
ended, we added D.C. and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and
it just ended. Because we did that, it was a no-brainer that
the next set of quarters which are coming out which are the
national park set of quarters will include the territories. It
is too bad that that wasn't a medal in a way that could be sold
on behalf of the parks department because it is going to be a
huge success having collectors, and the beauty of this is,
people buy them just like the stamps.
So I just hope that as these cuts come down that you become
more innovative in servicing our parks and that you continue to
be aware of the parks that are in the territories that are very
much a part of who we are as a country, and I thank you for
your service.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you. The territories are eligible for the
state side of land and water conservation funds so they will be
a part of that program.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you.
FORD'S THEATRE-PETERSON HOUSE
Mr. Simpson. I will ask you about becoming more innovative
in just a minute but let me ask you first, I have always been
and still am a big supporter of historic preservation. Peterson
House, where are we with that? And I have also had a Member of
Congress come to me, and we were voting on the Floor, and now I
can't remember who it was, but we talked about, I think it was
the Surratt Boardinghouse, Mary Surratt, where part of the plan
to assassinate Lincoln was----
Ms. McCollum. The Peterson House.
Mr. Simpson. The Peterson House is where Lincoln died.
Surratt Boardinghouse is where the plan was kind of hatched. We
talked about the potential of buying that and adding that to
the Park Service. Have you heard anything about that? Okay.
What about the Peterson House? Where are we on that?
Ms. O'Dell. The construction for Peterson House is moving
forward as planned. We are working cooperatively with Ford's
Theater Society on construction. They are building it with the
eventual push through of the wall so that we can have a
connection between the two facilities. It is moving ahead as
planned, sir.
Mr. Jarvis. And Bruce indicated that it would be complete
by June of this year.
PARTNERSHIPS
Mr. Simpson. By June of this year? Good.
About being more innovative. When the national parks
started, they were sponsored by industries or companies.
Yellowstone was the Union Pacific's national park, not
literally but all of their advertisements were to take visitors
to Yellowstone National Park. Have we thought of a way to try
to involve the private sector more in sponsoring our national
parks and supporting our national parks? Is there a way to do
that where they could actually be the primary sorts of sponsors
and they could use it in their advertising? You know, they
would be licensed to do that sort of thing? Have we thought
outside the box in this period of reduced funding? I think we
have to look at new things to do things.
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, and I appreciate that
question very much because I think we are becoming a much more
entrepreneurial organization than we ever were even in the
early days when, as you indicated, there were great sponsors. I
think the Burns film talked a lot about that, and you know,
Steven Mather, the first director, was very much of a
businessman and very entrepreneurial. He had to build it from
scratch. And I think in these economic times, we have to be
that way.
We have done some extraordinarily innovative projects with
the private sector in the last 10 years. One that comes to mind
is the Argonaut Hotel in San Francisco, which is a long-term
lease of a historic building to Kimpton Hotels, a boutique
hotel that took a historic structure of ours, turned it into a
hotel and via the funding that they create through their
program, they help fund our visitor center, which is on the
first floor right off the lobby. You know, that would not have
been thought of years ago, but we are now experimenting with
those kinds of historic leases and partnerships. The National
Park Foundation, which is our legislatively created partner, I
think is really on a good path right now to develop these kinds
of partnerships with the private sector.
It is always a balance that the private business would like
to rename the Washington Monument in their honor or something
and we just say, well, you can't do that. But you can do this
instead. I think there are always negotiations for what the
private sector would like to achieve. We have some great
corporate sponsors out there that we are currently in
discussions with.
I was actively involved with the redevelopment of the
visitor center at the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, and we had
significant contributions from the private sector and it
resulted in a great way to recognize them in such a manner that
their contributions were not confused with those that
contributed their lives in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Keeping
that kind of appropriate recognition and balance is a core
responsibility of the National Park Service, but I think that
the brand of the NPS is a very, very powerful brand, and we
want to both protect it, but also find partners with common
values.
Mr. Simpson. I thank you.
Any other questions, Mr. Serrano?
Mr. Serrano. Just a quick comment, and I am glad you
mentioned it the way you did. I was going to ask you what
possibilities there were of corporate America getting involved,
but it has to be done so carefully, because in New York for a
while, the New York Mets stadium, it was going to be the
Robinson-Clemente Stadium, after Jackie Robinson and Roberto
Clemente, who were pioneers for their respective communities,
and it ended up being Citi Field. That is fine. The Yankees for
all of their bad reputation as big corporate giants refused to
advertise other than Yankee Stadium.
So yes, we have this need but we have to be so careful. I
would hate to see the Goya Foods of Puerto Rico Rainforest or
the----
Mr. Jarvis. You won't see that.
Mr. Serrano. I just got in deep trouble with Goya Foods.
They make great food, by the way.
Mr. Simpson. Well, you are absolutely right. It is a
balance. I do not want to see Union Pacific Yellowstone
National Park, but is there a way that you could use a
corporate sponsor that could use what you are trying to
protect, the National Park Service symbol, as ``We are sponsors
of Yellowstone'' in their advertising? It is a careful line you
have to walk.
Mr. Jarvis. It is a careful line, right.
Ms. McCollum. I worked in the private sector long ago, and
Sears did that with Weather Beater paint when they were
restoring some of the early founders' homes, and it was not
that Sears owned the home, it was the proud supplier, the proud
sponsor. So there are models out there.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Energy efficiency--I know that there are some great things
that have happened down in the Grand Canyon, I have never been
to the Grand Canyon. I have heard that there are some great
energy efficiency and solar things that are going on which not
only reduce your energy costs but also gives a chance to kind
of talk about America's ingenuity to international visitors and
to today's children. Just a quick comment. Are you in this
budget able to continue with those innovations?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, absolutely. We just developed what we call
our Green Parks Plan, which is all about sustainability: the
use of alternative energy and biofuels, reduced lighting and
night sky, electric vehicles, and a wide range and use of
solar. We just succeeded within this last week of accomplishing
net metering agreements with major energy producers in southern
California which will allow us to have relatively large solar
arrays inside parks. You know, you are not going to put a big
solar array in Yosemite Valley without having a visual impact,
but there are places that you can, and right now Joshua Tree
National Park is producing over 65 percent of its power with
solar. We have Death Valley that has one of the largest solar
arrays as well. So absolutely, and there are efficiencies.
Recently, talking about working with corporations, Musco
Lighting, they predominantly light stadiums, their president is
a good friend of the National Park Service and he has been
helping us relamp parks. Big Bend National Park, they came in
with his team. We relit the entire developed area, reduced
annual electric costs by $60,000 and completely preserved the
night sky. At the same time we still safe lighting, so by going
from a 60-watt incandescent to a quarter-watt LED bulb we still
achieved the same objectives. We are doing a lot of that around
the country.
Mr. Simpson. Anything else?
Mr. Serrano. No, that is it.
Mr. Simpson. Well, listen, countries that have monarchies
have the crown jewels, like England or other countries. You
truly are the overseers of America's crown jewels, so we
appreciate the work you do and look forward to working with
you. We will try to do our part to make sure that you can do
your job.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 10, 2011.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FY 2012 BUDGET
WITNESSES
ROBERT ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
KAREN MOURITSEN, BUDGET OFFICER, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Abbey, I would like to welcome you to today's
subcommittee hearing addressing the fiscal year 2012 budget
priorities for the Bureau of Land Management. My colleagues and
I hope to cover a lot of ground with you today on the new Wild
Lands policy, grazing, wild horses and burros, energy and other
issues. While I do not necessarily agree with all of BLM's
priorities in this budget, I appreciate the fact that we can
have a productive conversation about these issues.
I would like to begin by making several points on a few
specific issues before we receive your testimony. First, as we
have discussed, Western members including myself are very
concerned with the new Wild Lands policy. I believe this is a
troubling precedent, and as I told Secretary Salazar earlier
this week, any bill that comes out of this subcommittee this
year will most likely include language to defund the Wild Lands
policy, whether it is included in the base bill or an amendment
that is offered in the House.
Secondly, it seems that this budget chooses the full
funding of land acquisition and America's Great Outdoors at the
expense of other important programs like the operating account,
Management of Lands and Resources, which actually supports
private sector jobs in grazing, forestry, mining, and oil and
gas development. As you know, I support the Land and Water
Conservation Fund but it does not make sense to me that we
would fully fund land acquisition by diverting money from land
management accounts. With our current budget crisis, I find it
puzzling that the BLM requests $50 million for land acquisition
and $1 billion for America's Great Outdoors when it has
difficulty managing the lands it already holds and has
significant problems with many of its current programs.
I am deeply concerned about this proposal, that this
proposal will exacerbate an already out-of-control problem
facing the BLM, and that is the increasing costs of litigation.
When you shift resources from land management to acquisitions
you are unable to provide the land managers in your field
offices with the resources they need to make environmentally
sound decisions, leaving the door wide open to environmental
groups looking for an opportunity to sue. I have said this
before and it bears repeating, that there are certain things in
life that are unavoidable. One is death, one is taxes and the
other is the fact that the BLM will be sued on any decision
that it makes.
It does not take an expert accountant to figure out that a
large amount of your budget is spent fighting lawsuits in court
or attempting to bulletproof your decisions against an
inevitable lawsuit. These dollars represent a tremendous amount
of taxpayer funding that is being shifted away from on-the-
ground management and spent instead in courtrooms. This is a
bad deal for the public lands, a bad deal for your agency and a
bad deal for the taxpayers. Even more troubling is the net
result, that our public lands are increasingly managed by
judges while your professional staff and their judgments are
being undermined. I know you recognize this problem as do your
employees, who are on the front lines of this battle every day
in Idaho and other Western states, yet I am very concerned that
this budget fails to adequately put resources on the ground to
address this situation.
On that note, I am also very concerned that the BLM in
Idaho will not be able to hire the seasonal workers needed for
grazing and recreation management. Many of the ranchers in my
district have been told they will not be able to turn out their
livestock until late June. This has a significant impact on the
bottom line of the ranching operations and could mean the
difference between finishing the year in the red or in the
black. These basic important responsibilities of BLM need to be
met before it considers other program increases. Mr. Abbey, I
hope to work with you on this issue to solve this problem.
The hardrock mining proposal in the budget is also
problematic although I believe revising the General Mining Law
of 1872 is long overdue. This should be carefully reviewed by
the authorizing committees similar to the oil and gas
legislative proposals. The budget would basically raise taxes
on hardrock mining and use the proceeds to fund land
acquisition.
I also want to briefly mention the potential merging of the
BLM forestry and range staff in an effort to improve
efficiencies. This seems like a solution in search of a
problem. Forestry and range programs have different authorizing
statutes and different staff and expertise. Both programs are
very important to the day-to-day operations of the BLM. I hope
that you will reconsider merging these two programs.
In closing, I look forward to working with you on many of
these issues and thank you and your staff for the hard work and
assistance that we have had in putting together this budget.
Mr. Simpson. With that, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, for any opening statement
he might have.
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran
Mr. Moran. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Good morning.
Mr. Moran. Welcome, Mr. Abbey.
Mr. Abbey. Nice to see you.
Mr. Moran. BLM is the largest manager of federal lands.
Even though most of these lands are in the West, all Americans
should appreciate the special places and habitats that are such
an important part of our Nation's great heritage of public
lands, the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS),
especially. It includes 27 million of the most special acres
under BLM jurisdiction.
I do have concern for the wild horses and burros which
primarily live on BLM-managed lands in the arid West. I am
encouraged by new announcements which we can talk about today.
The wild horse program I do think needs to change.
BLM also manages vitally important watersheds and habitat
as well as fossil energy resources that are important for our
citizens but also for our economy. At our GAO hearing last
week, we had real concerns about BLM's ability to balance its
energy development mission and its environmental stewardship
mission. We do not want to develop the publicly owned fossil
energy at the expense of our native lands and species. We need
to ensure long-term sustainability. Too much of the fossil
energy development has permanently and adversely impacted vast
areas of public lands. I am encouraged by the direction in this
BLM budget request. It is about time that the Congress
instituted reasonable fees to help cover the cost of oversight
of extraction industries. As the GAO and the IG pointed out,
there is a great need for better oversight and for enhanced
financial management of the many billions of dollars worth of
fossil energy taken out of the public estate.
I am also concerned that in our understandable haste to
increase reliance on wind, solar and geothermal energy, we
might be choosing in some cases expedient courses that we could
later regret. We do owe it to future generations to get it
right.
I look forward to a constructive hearing, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding it.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Abbey, we look forward to your testimony.
The floor is yours.
Testimony of Mr. Abbey
Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Chairman Simpson and members of
the committee, and with me this morning is Karen Mouritsen, our
budget officer from the Bureau of Land Management, and we both
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to talk about
the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau
of Land Management.
As many of you know from the Western United States, the BLM
manages more than 245 million acres of public lands, and
approximately 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate
nationwide. We believe the funding requested is a sound
investment for America. Management of public land resources and
protection of public land values results in extraordinary
economic benefits to local communities and to this Nation. The
BLM's management of public lands contributes more than $100
billion annually to the national economy and supports more than
500,000 American jobs. Revenues generated from public lands
make the BLM one of the top revenue-generating federal agencies
positively affecting the U.S. Treasury and directly benefiting
the U.S. taxpayer. For example, if our budget request was fully
funded, for every dollar that the United States Congress
invests in the Bureau of Land Management, we anticipate
bringing back $5 in fiscal year 2012.
The BLM's fiscal year budget request is $1.1 billion, a
decrease of $12 million from the 2010 enacted level. The
proposed budget for the BLM makes strategic investments in
support of important Administration and Secretarial initiatives
including America's Great Outdoors, the New Energy Frontier,
Cooperative Landscape Conservation, and Youth in America's
Great Outdoors. Investment in these programs today will reap
benefits for years to come.
To enhance the conservation of BLM-managed lands and
reconnect Americans to the outdoors, the budget calls for a
$29.9 million increase in support of the America's Great
Outdoors initiative. This includes $15 million for the BLM's
27-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System, which
includes special areas such as wild and scenic rivers,
wilderness, national monuments and national conservation areas.
The budget also includes $8.6 million to support programs and
partnerships that engage youth in the outdoors.
The New Energy Frontier initiative recognizes the value of
the environmentally sound, scientifically grounded development
of both renewable and conventional energy resources on public
land. President Obama and Secretary Salazar have stressed the
critical importance of renewable energy to the future of the
United States. Developing renewable energy creates jobs and
promotes innovation in the United States while reducing the
country's reliance on fossil fuels. To encourage development on
public lands, the BLM proposes a $3 million increase for
renewable energy environmental studies.
In the conventional energy arena, the BLM expects its
onshore mineral leasing activities to contribute $4.3 billion
to the Treasury in fiscal year 2012. We will focus on
implementing our oil and gas program reforms that have placed a
continued emphasis on oil and gas inspections, environmental
enforcement and production verification. The budget proposes an
increase of $13 million for processing oil and gas applications
for permits to drill. Also, the budget proposes to shift a
share of the cost of oil and gas inspection activities from
discretionary appropriations to industry fees for a savings of
$38 million. A fee for non-producing leases and an increase in
the onshore oil and gas royalty rates are also included in our
budget proposal.
Another BLM priority in our fiscal year 2012 budget request
is the Secretary's Cooperative Landscape Conservation
initiative, which calls for bringing better science to the
management of BLM-managed lands and includes a $2.5 million
increase. Also, putting the BLM's wild horse and burro program
on a sustainable track while ensuring humane treatment is a top
priority, and I look forward to discussing that particular
program with you. The BLM budget proposes $75 million for this
program in fiscal year 2012 and places much greater emphasis on
fertility control. Finally, the BLM's budget for fiscal year
2012 assumes legislative proposals to reform hardrock mining on
both public and private lands.
Our budget request provides funding for the agency's
highest-priority initiatives, maximizes public benefits and
reflects difficult choices for reductions.
Mr. Chairman, as always, we appreciate the opportunity to
appear before your committee to talk about the public lands and
the programs that we manage on behalf of the American public.
[The statement of Robert Abbey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Because other members have some
committees, I am going to pass right now and allow Mr. Flake to
take my time.
SHIFTING INSPECTION COSTS
Mr. Flake. Thank you, and thank you for the testimony.
I have a question with regard to shifting some of the
energy and mineral inspection costs. You say you have a
reduction in budget by 1 percent but you have an increase in
spending on select programs by $93.3 million, and that is
achieved by shifting $42.4 million in inspection costs to the
industry. Can you just explain a little more about where those
shifts are and how they are picking up the slack there?
Mr. Abbey. Thank you for the question, Congressman Flake.
We had to make some difficult decisions relative to how we
could reduce costs. One of the decisions that we did make as
part of our budget request was to shift the inspection and
enforcement expenditures to the industry that we were
inspecting. In the case of the oil and gas industry, that
reflects almost $38 million of inspection and enforcement (I&E)
costs from the appropriations to the industry. We also are
seeking I&E fees from the coal industry for the inspection and
enforcement that we do on coal mines.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Mr. Flake. With solar power, Arizona is moving ahead with
siting a lot of facilities on some BLM-managed land or seeking
to. I am not a fan of some of the subsidies provided here, but
we do not want unnecessary delays with regard to BLM. You say
that you have a streamlined procedure now. Can you tell a
little more about that? There are some complaints that the
process is too long and putting it on BLM-managed land is far
more troublesome than elsewhere.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, last year we used the term ``fast
track'', and as a result of that, I think there was a
misunderstanding of exactly what ``fast track'' meant. That is
not to shortcut the analysis process. You know, we were
fortunate to move forward last year to approve the first
commercial-scale solar project on public lands ever. At the end
of calendar year 2010, we had approved nine commercial scale
solar projects that will be built on public lands. As we go
forward, we are selecting the applications that are before us.
We have over 100 applications for solar projects on public
lands. We have screened those applications to determine which
ones we believe would have the least impact on sensitive
resources that we manage on these public lands so that we could
move forward more expeditiously to review and analyze the
project proposals to make a determination of which of those
projects should be approved to be built on these lands.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, and the name is Flake.
Mr. Abbey. I am sorry, Congressman.
Mr. Flake. No, I realize nobody wants to call you a flake
unless they are really sure that is the case.
Mr. Simpson. But you give us so much flack.
Mr. Moran. I was going to say, if you give the witnesses a
little less flack, maybe they would not confuse the
pronunciation.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IMPACT OF H.R. 1
Besides the oil, gas and grazing responsibility, you have
tremendous visitation and recreational activities that are a
mainstay of local economies, particularly in rural areas,
especially in the West. Given the substantial operational
funding cuts that are in H.R. 1, the ongoing Continuing
Resolution, can you give us a sense of how this might affect
the hundreds of gateway communities all over the country that
depend on tourism, hunting, fishing on public lands? Is there
going to be any impact on rural jobs and in local
jurisdictions' ability to collect the revenue that they have
become used to?
Mr. Abbey. Well, that is an excellent question, Congressman
Moran, and the impact as I determined from my review of the
proposal would reflect primarily in construction projects and
land acquisition projects. It would also reduce substantially
the monies that we had anticipated for climate change projects
including some of the ecoregional assessments that are underway
today. Without that funding, we would have to shortcut that
analysis and not do any more work relative to those ecoregional
assessments which we believe provide us some valuable data that
would allow us to move forward and do the appropriate analysis
for some of the renewable projects and even conventional energy
projects that are before us. So those would be where the
primary impacts would occur.
But you did raise the fact of the amount of recreational
use that is taking place on these public lands, and we had 59
million visitors to public lands last year. That is fairly
significant to those local communities that are adjacent to
these public lands where people are visiting. We provide
tremendous opportunities, not only for such activities as
hiking and horseback riding and bird watching but also for
hunting and fishing, which are very important to the
constituencies in the West and to those who live throughout the
United States who go out West to do that activity.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT
Mr. Moran. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, we have already mentioned
how difficult the wild horse issue is, and I appreciate your
effort to make changes. I know that BLM has announced a new
approach, but with more than 40,000 horses in long-term holding
facilities at a cost of $37 million a year and growing, we
cannot afford to wait much longer to make some fundamental
changes, it would seem. The Federal Government's management of
wild horses and burros should be based upon sound science,
transparency and I would hope the input of all stakeholders.
Can you briefly elaborate on what specific steps the BLM will
be undertaking to achieve increased transparency and openness
in this program?
Mr. Abbey. I would be happy to. You know, first and
foremost, I believe the status quo is unacceptable as it
relates to our wild horse and burro management. If we are to
have any chance of reducing the expenditures related to this
particular program, we are going to have to learn to do a
better job of managing horses on the range versus rounding them
up on an annual basis, gathering them and then shipping them to
holding facilities for the rest of their lives. That is a great
deal of the expense. It is a high percentage of our total cost
of managing wild horses, going as far as holding and feeding
horses for up to 30 years in some cases.
So the changes that we are pursuing in concert with the
public and many of the stakeholders that have provided input to
our program is that we are moving toward a program to achieve
greater fertility control of wild horses that are remaining on
the public lands. To that end, our proposed action would
increase the fertility control of mares on the public lands
from approximately 800 this year to 2,000 next year. We believe
fertility control is the primary tool that we should be using
to control populations. In the meantime, we do have challenges
that we face in that particular program. It is one of the more
controversial programs that we manage in the Bureau of Land
Management, and that is saying a lot given the controversial
nature of our programs. There is a lot of passion, there is a
lot of emotion attached to those wild horses, and rightly so.
They are icons of our Nation's heritage.
So again, we have contracted with the National Academy of
Sciences. They are conducting a two-year study to report back
to us in 2013 with their findings to help us better understand
how we could better use science to help manage wild horses and
burros on the range, how we can better control populations on
the range so that in the future we have less need to actually
remove horses from the range and to hold them in these long-
term holding facilities.
Mr. Moran. With regard to transparency, can the public
observe roundups where they are done by BLM or contractors from
a reasonable range?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we certainly hope so. We certainly make
that opportunity available to the people who wish to come and
observe our gathers. We have had some criticism in some of our
gathers relative to the locations of those public viewing
areas. We have taken that criticism to heart. We are continuing
to work with our contractors as well as our own personnel to
make sure that we provide ample opportunity and appropriate
opportunities for the public who wish to observe, to have a
platform where they can actually observe all the actions that
are taking place.
We do need to take into account, as we always do, the
safety, not only to the visitors who are out there observing
the gather themselves but also safety to our contractors and
our own employees.
Mr. Moran. When I was chairing the subcommittee last year,
we included in the bill additional contracting authority to
give the BLM the opportunity if you chose to enter into 10-year
agreements with those nonprofits and others to care for wild
horses. Do you think it would be useful to the BLM to have
additional options for the care of horses that have had to be
removed from the range?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman Moran, we would welcome that
opportunity. You know, we will be soliciting proposals within
the next two weeks from individuals who have an interest in
working with us on proposing options for holding wild horses on
private lands and also potentially in partnership to hold
horses on private lands and working with us to hold horses on
public lands, again, as part of our new strategy of trying to
devote our financial resources to managing horses on the range
rather than expending all the monies that we are spending today
on gathering and removing and then holding horses.
OIL AND GAS ROYALTY RATE REFORM AND DISCLOSURE OF FRACKING CHEMICALS
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I have one further question on
royalties if I could. This current budget assumes that Interior
will administratively implement oil and gas royalty rate
reforms including adjustments to the standard onshore royalty
rate. At our hearing last week, and I noticed she has joined us
now so I thought I would bring this up, our distinguished new
member from Wyoming pointed out that the state receives a
higher royalty on its lands than the BLM charges and that the
state requires disclosure of fracking chemical composition,
even though the BLM does not. Is there any reason the BLM----
Mrs. Lummis. Excuse me. Even in my state----
Mr. Moran. I will yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. Lummis. And I apologize for interrupting.
Mr. Moran. No, it is fine.
Mrs. Lummis. Drilling on BLM lands in Wyoming, they have to
report to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission just
like on private lands, so whether it is state, private or BLM
lands, if a well is drilled in Wyoming and they are going to
frack it, they have to disclose the contents of the fracking
fluids to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Mr. Moran. No, I understand that, and that is consistent
with what I think I was saying.
Mrs. Lummis. Excuse me. I yield back. I apologize.
Mr. Moran. No, that is fine. I am glad you clarified
because that is exactly the point I wanted to make.
But I want to ask Mr. Abbey, is there any reason why the
BLM cannot raise its royalty rates to at least, for example,
match those of the state? Would there not be a considerable
benefit to the American taxpayer and to the states since they
get half of those royalties?
Mr. Abbey. We firmly believe that the American public
deserves a fair return to the national Treasury from any
resource that is developed from public assets. To that end, we
are currently analyzing the rates that we have assessed over a
number of years. I mean, the 12\1/2\ percent has been in place
for several decades. So we are reviewing that analysis. We have
not only looked at what states are charging as far as royalty
rates but we have also looked at what other countries are
charging, in many cases the same companies, for operating in
their countries. We are pursuing or will be pursuing a
regulatory change based upon our analysis to reflect a fair
return to the American public and that will likely include an
increase in royalty rates that we would assign to development
of oil and gas resources on public lands.
Mr. Moran. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Abbey, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
I will be interested in watching the wild horse and burro
program, $75 million proposal, and you said you want to put
this on a sustainable path. How much do you think you are going
to be spending on this at an annual rate once you have it on a
sustainable path?
Mr. Abbey. Well, over time the monies would come down, but
initially the $75 million is going to be needed for at least
the next three or four years and primarily because in order to
apply fertility control, Mr. Chairman, we still have to gather
horses. We still have to hold horses in order to apply the
vaccinations before releasing them back to the range. So again,
while we would save some funding from our holding costs, that
savings would initially go back to rounding up horses and
applying the vaccination.
Mr. Simpson. As you know, there are private entities that
have approached the BLM regarding taking upwards of 10,000
horses onto land that they have leased in Nevada and other
places, and as I talk to them they say they have met with
resistance from BLM. I am not saying they are right or anything
else. Are you looking seriously at these types of proposals
that are being offered?
Mr. Abbey. We are, and again, I think those proposals have
merit. Again, it provides us greater flexibility than what we
have applied in the past relative to our actions. We have been
working very closely with one individual, Ms. Madeline Pickens,
on a proposal that she has introduced to us that would use
certain lands in the State of Nevada to hold horses. We do not
believe that the lands that she has identified could hold
10,000 but nonetheless that is something we will work through.
But there are some issues that we do need to work on with
Ms. Pickens and other individuals who have also approached us
with similar ideas and similar concepts. We have not received a
detailed, specified plan from Ms. Pickens. We have asked for
one so that we could do the appropriate analysis to make a
determination based upon what that analysis reflects. You know,
I admire Ms. Pickens' passion. I admire her willingness to want
to work with the Bureau of Land Management to help us find
solutions to keeping additional horses on these public lands or
on private lands. We are committed to continuing that dialogue
and with anyone else who has similar ideas and willingness to
work with us to try to find solutions to these challenges.
GRAZING-JARBIDGE PERMITS
Mr. Simpson. I have an issue of particular concern to
Idaho. As you may know, on February 28, 17 grazing permits
managed by the Jarbidge field office were closed indefinitely
as a result of a court order by Judge Winmill. In a 2005
settlement with Western watersheds, BLM had agreed to complete
a resource management plan and conduct a more robust EIS on the
allotments by 2011, allowing the permits to be reissued under
an interim grazing management plan. The sunset date of the
interim plan coincided with BLM's own deadlines for completing
this work' yet the deadlines have passed and there is no plan
in place. As a result, ranchers on those grazing allotments
have to move thousands of cattle off the range. I am very
concerned that the delay in completing the resource management
plan is impairing the stability of activity and transactions
that implicate public lands. It is now projected that there
will be at least a three-year delay in completing the RMP,
which is directly impacting management. I recognize that there
are a number of excuses for the delay and that most of them
come down to the lack of resources. What are you doing to
ensure that field offices like Jarbidge have the resources they
need to effectively manage the land in a complex and litigious
environment?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the first time I
have heard about a three-year delay. I do know that our offices
in Idaho have been working diligently to complete that resource
management plan for that particular field office. We have
completed a draft resource management plan. We have received
quite a few comments regarding that proposed plan. There are a
lot of complex issues that have been addressed as part of that
draft resource management plan including such proposals like
major wind farms in that part of the state, but we are moving
forward diligently and expeditiously to complete that resource
management plan, so again, I have not heard about a three-year
delay, so if you have that information, I need to probably
follow up with a phone call.
Mr. Simpson. Do you have an idea of when it will be
completed?
Mr. Abbey. Well, our hope was to get it completed this
fiscal year.
GRAZING-PERMIT BACKLOG
Mr. Simpson. Grazing in general--as you know, we have a
backlog of grazing permits and BLM has been trying to address
that. We put $1 million into the budget two years ago to
address that backlog of grazing permits, and it seems like
those in Idaho are the most backlogged. Could you tell how much
of that $1 million actually went onto the ground to address the
backlog and the problems that the backlog is causing and how
you plan to address the backlog of grazing permits? As I said
in my opening statement, you are going to get sued no matter
what you do, but ultimately we have got to get these grazing
permits done.
Mr. Abbey. You are absolutely right, and permit renewals is
a high priority for us in our grazing management program. Idaho
received from the $700,000 increase in the 2010 Appropriations
Act approximately $105,000 based upon a chart that I have here.
You know, we not only received an increase due to your being a
primary proponent for that increase of $700,000 but we also
redirected $300,000 from our base budget toward permit
renewals.
The backlog continues to increase, Mr. Chairman, and we are
continuing to devote as many resources as possible because, as
I mentioned earlier, this is a priority for us. We are making
some progress but we are continuing to be dependent upon the
general provisions language that you have been successful in
including in our appropriations bills for the last several
years so that we can move forward, and where there are no
changes in the terms and conditions of the permits that will
allow us to continue to issue those permits without going
through an elaborate and time-consuming environmental
assessment or even an EIS.
Mr. Simpson. I mean, the backlog continues to grow. How do
we address that and try to get it down to--I mean, because the
reality is, there are people who want to get all cows off
public lands and they are going to sue no matter what happens.
How do we address that in a reasonable way? Instead of just
putting money into it, is there something that needs to be done
fundamentally in how we do grazing permits?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, I do think there are some aspects
of our grazing program that we can streamline including
transfers of grazing permits from one individual to another
individual instead of having to go through an elaborate
analysis to approve such transfers. I do think that there could
be an administrative remedy but we may need some help from
Congress to pursue that.
At the same time, grazing is no different from any of the
other programs that we manage. We have to apply our best
efforts up front prior to moving forward and making
authorizations so that we can defend those actions that we know
are going to be scrutinized and likely litigated, and our hope
is that, you know, over time that we will continue to have
greater successes in the courts in being able to defend our
actions.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
OFF-ROAD RACING
I am going to shift around here and talk about something
that is pretty different. Director Abbey, on August 14, 2010,
as you are aware, an accident in off-road racing permitted on
BLM at the Johnson Valley vehicle open area resulted in eight
spectator deaths and 12 injuries. This is a senseless and I
believe a totally needless tragedy. The report on the incident
issued last November by BLM makes it obvious that BLM is
incapable of monitoring events such as the California 200
event, during which the casualties occurred. The BLM report
states that in the California Desert District, there are 51 law
enforcement officers responsible for 11 million acres but only
38 law enforcement officer positions were filled. On the night
of the race that resulted in the eight fatalities, the incident
report states, and I am quoting from your incident report,
``The BLM had one law enforcement officer and no special
recreation permit compliance staff or any other personnel on
duty on the Johnson Valley open area. The law enforcement
officer was on established patrol in this sector covering
roughly 500,000 acres.'' And I am going to read from page 3 of
your report: ``Of the CDD LEOs, 10 are assigned to the Barstow
Field Office, where the California 200 event was held. On
August 14, 2010, seven of those positions were filled. However,
one LEO was on medical leave, one was at basic law enforcement
training, one was on vacation, one was temporarily detailed to
another BLM office. Of the three available officers, two were
originally assigned to work the permitted race but one called
in sick.'' One officer.
So in other words, BLM turns over thousands or tens of
thousands of acres of public land, taxpayer-owned land, to a
private company--in this case called Mojave Desert Racing--
willing to pay a completely insufficient permit price of $95.
Not only does this organization make a profit to operate off-
road vehicles, but they do it at night and they do it with
2,000 spectators in attendance without any official oversight
from BLM on the monitoring, and that is pretty unbelievable.
Now, I have seen the news videos and I am sure you have and
other members of the committee have. It shows hundreds of
spectators standing a few feet away, literally the width of
this table, from vehicles traveling on a dirt road at 50 to 70
miles per hour. Seeing that video, I could almost say certainly
that there was no effort whatsoever to put in public safety,
and in fact, BLM, executive's summary of the Johnson Valley
incident states, and I quote from that, ``Public safety is
always the BLM's highest priority.'' The facts of this incident
would indicate that to be a false statement. Tragically, the
facts appear to indicate gross negligence on the part of MDR in
either the inability or disregard on the part of the Bureau of
Land Management to ensure public safety.
So my questions for you are based on what I have been
reading in the report that has come out. This is a tragedy, and
it highlighted the BLM's permitting process and lack of
staffing, and by that, you secede your obligation to protect
public safety at these events. In light of the fact that the
BLM obviously does not have the resources, the personnel or the
permitting process to ensure public safety when racing
companies seek to use taxpayer-owned land, one of my questions
is, how can the BLM guarantee that it will be responsible for
ensuring public safety on federal lands and doing event
oversight rather than ceding that to event organizers? Why is
there not a permitting process in place where event organizers
are sufficiently financially responsible to ensure an
acceptable level of BLM law enforcement staffing presence to
monitor permit compliance and public safety? Should that not be
a financial obligation of the event organizers in seeking
permits? You addressed some of that in your report, which I
will refer to here as I close.
In regard to taxpayer exposure, I would like your office to
provide me and the committee with an event-by-event breakdown
of 2010 of how much race organizers paid the BLM in the
permitted event and what was the benefit to taxpayers of
allowing companies to use public lands for their events? And I
hope it is more than just $95.
So with that, this is from your office. It is the special
recreation permit. It goes on to say, and I quote again from
this, ``Proper administration of the SRP requires numerous
steps and the full engagement of the BLM staff and managers.
The authorized officer may issue an SRP''--which is a type of
permit they had--``only after it has been determined that the
BLM has the capacity to properly administer the permit. If the
field office cannot fulfill or complete all the necessary
steps, then no SRP shall be issued,'' and then you go on to
talk about cost recovery. Can you let us know what steps you
are taking? Because if you do not have the staff to manage
this, then we should not be doing it.
Mr. Abbey. Well, it definitely was a tragedy that occurred
and it happened on my watch and I take that seriously.
Ms. McCollum. I know you do, sir.
Mr. Abbey. And there is nothing wrong with our permitting
system. There is a capacity issue, and the statement that you
just read, the paragraph you just read relative to our new
expectations of our own employees, if we do not have the
capacity, if we do not have the resources to properly manage
those events, then those events should not be permitted. That
is the way that we are conducting business today. It has not
always been the case. There has been some fear on the part of
our employees that if they said no to a promoter at one of
these events that they would be chastised for saying no. But we
have an obligation to the safety not only of the event
competitors but also to the spectators who are out there on the
land observing these events.
Now, that having been said, nationwide, we average about
one law enforcement personnel per 1 million acres that we
manage. We are putting our law enforcement personnel in really
an awesome, I guess, task or assign them awesome tasks of
monitoring and patrolling these public lands, and the only way
that we can be successful is in partnerships with local
sheriffs departments and with other federal agencies and state
agencies out there, and we have done a good job of developing
those partnerships.
But as it relates to the competitive event that you made
reference to in Johnson Valley, there were errors made on the
part of the Bureau of Land Management. We acknowledge those
errors in our own investigation, in our report and in our
determination of what the facts are. We have taken actions to
correct those deficiencies and our hope is that that type of
event will never occur again through any activity that we
permit through our recreation program. That is also another
reason why we have requested some additional funding through
our recreation program in the 2012 budget request. It is to try
to help us provide some additional oversight through the hiring
of additional law enforcement personnel to monitor these type
of activities but generally speaking just monitoring all
activities that are occurring on public lands because with one
law enforcement officer per 1 million acres, we cannot do a
very good job.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, and I think that what we have
asked the law enforcement to do is very dangerous. They are out
there alone, single patrol, and I notice that you said that you
have asked for increased revenue. Part of that increased
revenue, the balance side of it, what I saw here on the fee
permit, could you address that a little more.
I do not want to put you on the spot but I am going to put
you on the spot. I hear clearly what you are saying about not
wanting to say no, not wanting to say no because of what the
chairman was just talking about with the leasing and the
reputation that, you are environmentally driven and everything
like that, and environmental issues come up in these kinds of
races too. But that is not what I am talking about, and if you
do not have the capacity to make sure that sufficient oversight
is taking place and there is compliance taking place, then I
think that you can hold your head up high and come to this
committee and say this is why we said no, it is public safety,
and we are not going to fall under political pressure in this
arena from other groups because that is not what this is about.
I would be very supportive of you saying no and I think the
Committee would as well talk a little more about what you are
going to do, because taxpayers should not be footing the bill
for for-profit companies on this.
Mr. Abbey. Well, the----
Ms. McCollum. Do you need legislation or any help from us
in order for you to capture those dollars to let these events
go forward? I am not trying to stop them. They just need to be
done properly.
Mr. Abbey. No, I fully understand that, and we do not need
additional legislative authority to conduct business the way it
should be conducted. These type of events come under our cost
recovery process. That means the proponent is supposed to be
covering the full cost of the Bureau of Land Management
employees on the ground providing the oversight and management
of those events. It happens throughout our recreation program.
The OHV communities have been very good about paying the
majority of those recovery costs. In this particular case, I
cannot give you any excuses for why that proponent was not
assessed the full recovery of what it cost the Bureau of Land
Management to staff that event appropriately. I am not saying
even if we had the staff out there on that day, the two, three
or four employees that should have been there that the event
would not have happened, but I think it would certainly have
lessened the risk if we had had the appropriate people there on
site and doing the necessary patrols to ensure that the
spectators were not getting within 15 feet of the actual route
that the race competitors were using.
So we have gone back, we have looked in great detail at our
permitting process. We have found there is nothing wrong with
the permitting system. It is just that we need to implement
what we say we are going to do.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, I stand ready to help
you but I am also going to hold you accountable.
Mr. Abbey. You should.
Ms. McCollum. So if there is help that you need, please ask
for it.
Mr. Chair, I am going to go to my fourth niece's wedding.
My brother was blessed with four daughters. And there will be a
police officer there at the wedding. They are paying for it,
not the city.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being
here today, Mr. Abbey. I am of the opinion that the Federal
Government owns more land than we can afford to manage or that
we can manage, and so the fact that you are spread very thin
and your staff is spread very thin is understandable and I
appreciate the job you are trying to do with the resources you
have been given, the vast amount that you are trying to juggle
and all the many demands on that land.
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL
I have several questions. I am going to start with APDs.
Why is that you anticipate a $13 million shortfall in APD
application fees?
Mr. Abbey. It was based upon a projection that we will have
less numbers of applications being filed in our offices and
therefore we would not be collecting the fees necessary in
order to continue to keep all the individuals that have been
part of the oil and gas program fully funded through that fee.
Mrs. Lummis. And is that because they are moving out of
frustration to drill on private lands because everything gets
appealed? I know, and I think I have told you, in Wyoming in
2009 100 percent of lease applications on public lands were
contested by environmental groups, 100 percent, every single
one. You know, after a while people just throw up their hands
and go to private land.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, I cannot speak for what rationale
the industry may be using to move their resources around. I do
know that there is still a great deal of demand for developing
oil and gas on public lands that are managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. We anticipate upwards of around 5,000-plus
APDs being filed with the BLM offices this fiscal year. Given
the price of oil, we anticipate a slight increase actually
above what we included in our budget request in fiscal year
2012. We have leased 41.2 million acres of public lands for oil
and gas. We have about 12.2 million acres under production
today. Last year we approved almost 5,000 applications for
permits to drill. We had about 1,500 wells actually spudded on
public lands. So the industry, again, it is reflective of the
market. Given today's market, we are starting to see increasing
actions and interest on the part of the industry and we are
trying our best to address that demand.
Mrs. Lummis. Do you know what dollar per barrel oil sparks
that tipping point between when people are less interested and
when they are more interested? Is it 100? Is it 80? Any clue?
Mr. Abbey. I certainly do not know. I do know that when it
gets to be $100 a barrel, it gets people's interest whether it
is the industry or the American public paying high gasoline
prices.
FEE ON NON-PRODUCING LEASES
Mrs. Lummis. That leads into my next question, which is
about the fees that I understand you are going to be charging
or propose to charge for non-active leases as an incentive to
surrender the lease so someone else can pick it up or so it can
just go dormant. Does your proposal exempt producers from
paying those fees on leases they cannot develop because of
either bureaucratic delays or environmental lawsuits?
Mr. Abbey. Congresswoman, it would certainly have to
address that. You know, we cannot hold anyone accountable or
responsible for an action that they have no control over. So we
have not crafted our final rules relative to how that fee would
be applied but no doubt that would have to be taken into
account. If an industry has a lease, and for some reason is not
able to move forward expeditiously and develop that lease for
reasons beyond their control, then that would certainly be
something that we would take into account as part of how we
would assess any new $4-per-acre fee.
Mrs. Lummis. And will that fee apply to renewable projects
as well? I know wind developers tend to aggregate land and sit
on it for a long time too.
Mr. Abbey. We are not proposing any kind of per-acre fee
for diligence but we do have as part of our rights-of-way
stipulations in the records of decisions that we are issuing to
approve solar and wind a diligence factor that within a certain
timeframe they have to make progress in developing their
projects.
Mrs. Lummis. And you chose to make the distinction between
renewables and non-renewables because?
Mr. Abbey. Because of the different authorities that we are
using to authorize those uses. For example, we use our rights-
of-way authority to authorize wind and solar projects on public
lands. Therefore, we incorporate a diligence stipulation or a
diligence factor into those approvals that are issued under
rights-of-ways. For oil and gas, it is a leasing function. We
have not incorporated that language as part of the lease so now
we are proposing to implement a $4-per-acre diligence fee for
any lease that is not being developed.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. That helps. Thank you.
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
Next question is about EAJA, one of my favorite subjects.
Have you begun keeping records on payments distributed under
the Equal Access to Justice Act?
Mr. Abbey. No, ma'am, we have not. We are not tracking the
EAJA payments from the Bureau of Land Management.
Mrs. Lummis. And why is that?
Mr. Abbey. Well, it is difficult first and foremost to
track. Those fees are paid by our local offices, and we have
constantly gone out to other land-management agencies to see
what accounting system they have in place that would account
for such fees. And Karen, correct me if I am wrong, but I am
not sure that we found any of the other land-management
agencies with such a tracking system that we could adopt.
Mrs. Lummis. And are those paid out of your budget?
Mr. Abbey. They are paid out of our budget.
Mrs. Lummis. So it is taxpayer money that is going to pay
these environmental groups that sue you. And is it typically
for something--what is a typical environmental lawsuit against
you? Does it have to do more with grazing or is it more oil and
gas, or is there a pattern?
Mr. Abbey. There is a pattern, and the pattern is that most
of the lawsuits really focus on the NEPA analysis, and the
trend is that a plaintiff will file a lawsuit alleging several
deficiencies as part of that lawsuit, and unfortunately, all
they have to do is find one that a court will sustain in order
to win their case and then seek payments for their attorneys.
Mrs. Lummis. Do you pay on settlement agreements as well as
attorney's fees?
Mr. Abbey. Attorney fees are routinely negotiated as part
of the settlement agreements, and if they are part of the
settlement agreements, they are paid.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. And why would you pay if it was a
settlement agreement?
Mr. Abbey. Again, during settlement agreements we assess
the risk to the American taxpayer of what the cost would be if
that lawsuit continued down the path of going through the
courts and what the likely cost would be should we lose that
lawsuit, and the reason and purposes for settlement agreements
is to right a wrong, if there is a wrong that needs to be
righted. It is also to move forward with the proposed action
that people can agree to in a more timely manner than wait two,
three or four years for a court to make a determination.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. I am going to move to uranium, Mr.
Chairman. Are we okay?
Mr. Simpson. I was just wondering if you would yield for
just a second. I find it incredible that these fees come out of
your budget and that it is too difficult to track them. This
does not seem like rocket science. We can put a man on the moon
but we cannot find out how much we are paying out in these
fees? How can you budget for anything if you have no clue what
you are paying out in these fees? It would seem that we could
write our field offices and say hey, how much are we paying out
in fees? This seems rather simple to me. Whether other agencies
have a tracking program or not, I guarantee I can come down and
put one together for you in short order, and there will be
language within this appropriation bill as there was in last
year's bill that never became law which directed the DOI to
track these EAJA fees so that we would at least have some idea
of what we are paying out in fees.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we did not incorporate into our
budget request litigation costs.
Mr. Simpson. But it is incorporated because it comes out of
your budget.
Mr. Abbey. We pay it.
Mr. Simpson. You pay it.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. But you have no idea how much of it is being
paid in attorney's fees rather than being spent on the ground
in management?
Mr. Abbey. Not right now.
Mr. Simpson. I find that just rather stunning.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
URANIUM PRODUCTION
It used to be prior to 2008 the BLM participated in the
NEPA process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a
routine basis. You signed on as a cooperating agency so you had
that status, and there was one NEPA process. Now I understand
that arrangement has changed so now licensees are going through
two NEPA processes, and of course, the expense is enormous and
it takes a very long time. My question is, why is the BLM
duplicating the EIS process with respect to uranium production?
Mr. Abbey. Congresswoman, I am not sure of the reason. It
does not make sense if that is the case. Let me follow up with
a response back to you and let us look at the current process
to see why we cannot consolidate that analysis and save
everybody some time.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much. A couple things on wild
horses.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT
Mr. Abbey. I am open to all thoughts.
Mrs. Lummis. I was approached by some folks, veterinarians
that had developed fertility control for stallions, and I know
you are concentrating on fertility control for mares.
Are you willing to try perhaps as a pilot project some
fertility control for equine stallions?
Mr. Abbey. The challenge that we have with fertility
control on stallions is that you have to be sure that you
gather every stallion versus mares. You do not necessarily have
to gather all the mares in order to apply fertility control
that would actually make a difference. But with stallions, if
you miss one or you miss half a dozen, they can raise havoc.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, among the culture of wild horses
is the tendency for the alpha stallion to run younger stallions
off and to protect his harem of the mares.
Mr. Abbey. Now, having said that, again, we are open to any
suggestions or ideas or recommendations from any source,
especially the source that you cited, as far as incorporating
such actions into our strategy.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I have one more question on wild horses. Does BLM intend to
honor the consent decree with the State of Wyoming regarding
wild horse AMLs?
Mr. Abbey. To the best of our ability.
Mrs. Lummis. I note that you intend to reduce the amount of
horses gathered and removed from the rangeland from 10,000 to
7,600, and I would alert you that we have a serious overgrazing
problem in certain parts of our state that is directly
attributable to wild horses, and the romance that the American
people have with these magnificent animals is helping to
destroy the range and leaving those animals in some cases
shameful condition because they are starving. They do not have
enough to eat in certain areas. So I know the American people
have this love affair and the romance, and they are beautiful.
I am not denying it. The Pryor Mountain unit is genetically
unique and it is a tremendously regarded prized resource in the
State of Wyoming. They are tremendous animals. But elevating
them above all other species in the way that we regard them is
in fact deleterious to the rangeland resource.
SODA ASH
And now I am switching to soda ash. May I, Mr. Chairman,
just ask a question on soda ash?
Mr. Simpson. Very quickly.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
What is the status of BLM's report to Congress on the
current royalty rate for soda ash?
Mr. Abbey. We have drafted a report that is undergoing
review right now. We fully anticipate to be able to meet that
October deadline that we have to provide that report to Members
of Congress.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously you are a big deal in my state. You are
tremendously important, and I could go on and on but I will
submit some other questions in writing and look forward to
working with you, and thank for you for indulging my questions,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abbey. The agency is a big deal. I am not sure I am a
big deal.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much.
And Director Abbey, thank you very much. Thanks very much
for the complicated job that you have and the way that you are
dealing with it in what seems to be very effective ways. It is
certainly challenging, no question about it. We know that you
have done a couple of--there have been a number of positive
things that have been happening, particularly over the course
of the last couple of years, for example, the Wild Lands policy
which was announced just a few months ago, oil and gas reforms
the department initiated last year. Those two things are very,
very important and a lot of other things that you have been
dealing with, they are also very significant.
OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
The call for drilling on more public lands is also
something that we are deeply interested in and we want to make
sure as much as possible, and I am sure that you do too, that
it takes place when it does in the most effective, safe and
secure way. I understood that oil companies currently held 80
million acres under lease but you said now 40 million.
Mr. Abbey. On public lands that are administered by the
Bureau of Land Management, there are 41.2 million acres that
the BLM has leased. That is not to say that BOEMRE has not
leased other offshore acres.
Mr. Hinchey. Other offshore acres, which is probably up to
double that, maybe in the area of 80 million. That is
interesting. And oil producing on 20 million of those acres,
right?
Mr. Abbey. Well, on public lands managed by BLM it is 12.2
million.
Mr. Hinchey. Twelve point two million? Okay. Good. So the
Bureau of Land Management last year, as we understand it,
issued 4,090 permits to drill but operations began on only
about 1,480 of those permits. Is that accurate?
Mr. Abbey. That is true.
FEE ON NON-PRODUCING LEASES
Mr. Hinchey. Okay. So you have got a deep interest in
drilling on this public land and some of it is beginning to
take place. Your budget proposes a $4-per-acre fee on non-
producing oil and gas leases to incentivize current
leaseholders to utilize existing permits. Is that going to take
legislation here? Is this Congress going to have to do it
before you can actively get engaged in it?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, you would through authorizing legislation.
Mr. Hinchey. So you are currently working on that, and I
think this is something that we should be working on also.
Thank you very much. I think that is a very important thing. I
understand the $4-per-acre fee that you proposed would require
that legislation. This is something that we have to do.
Mr. Abbey. That is true.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Mr. Hinchey. So the hydraulic fracturing situation is also
something that we are deeply concerned about. The topic of
natural gas drilling has gotten an awful lot of attention
recently in a variety of ways. One of the most significant ways
that it has gotten a lot of attention publicly is in the New
York Times. The New York Times ran a series of articles, I
think four articles, which were very interesting and in great
detail on this issue, and it is very appropriate and helpful
that that kind of thing is getting out there so more and more
people can understand this situation. EPA is investigating, as
I understand it, a groundwater contamination incident related
to fracking in Pinedale, Wyoming, and we know that Wyoming is
doing a lot of very positive things on this. So this fracking
in Pinedale, Wyoming, where high levels of benzene, which of
course is a known carcinogen, have been found in 88 separate
samples in areas where natural gas operations are more
concentrated. Federal air quality standards are being violated.
We know that, and that is something that has to be overcome.
A House Energy and Commerce investigation recently revealed
that drilling service companies had been using diesel fuel in
fracking fluid despite the fact that a 2003 pledge not to do so
had been put forward. That was a few years ago. Nevertheless,
it is being done.
So I know that you are aware, and I saw the nod
particularly. I know that you are aware of all the difficult
situations that you have to contend with. I was wondering if in
the context of this information and given this information
basically, do you recognize that there are legitimate concerns
about the risks that accessing this resource, specifically
hydraulic fracturing, poses to public health and the
environment?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Congressman, again, I appreciate your
leadership on this particular issue because it is a concern to
this Nation as we look to natural gas more and more as part of
a major component of our Nation's energy portfolio. As I
mentioned earlier this week to another committee, you know,
hydraulic fracturing is a technology that has been used for a
number of years. Most of the wells that are being drilled on
public lands today use a component of hydraulic fracturing
technology as part of their development. That does not mean
that we should not be cautious about that use. In fact, we need
to again continue to be vigilant in all the approvals that we
grant to the companies for drilling on public lands to make
sure that the public health and safety is being protected. And
in our efforts to date we have not seen evidence from any
operations on public lands that have led us to believe that
there is a human health issue at this point. Our efforts also
have been targeted to ensure the integrity of the well casings
to make sure that there is little chance of any leakage from
any of the fluids that are being used as part of that hydraulic
fracturing technology of leaking into the water table.
As we look across the Nation, though, with some of the new
formations that are being drilled, we have to be very, very
cautious because in many of these formations, they are right
next to community water sources, and as part of that we need to
ensure that every stipulation that is attached is a meaningful
stipulation, there is appropriate monitoring and that we
continue to work across all administrative boundaries, for
example, with the studies that are being performed by the
Environmental Protection Agency. If their studies indicate to
us that there is something that we need to be doing differently
or taking into account as part of our permitting authorization
process, then we would welcome that information.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thanks very much. I deeply appreciate
that, and I know that this is a very challenging situation and
something that has to be dealt with. We need more energy. The
energy situation in this country, basically on this planet, is
getting more complicated and deeply more expensive, so a lot of
these things have to be done in the best possible way. I mean,
the problem that you have now overseeing this is something that
did not exist. There was good legislation passed in 1974 but
that was repealed in 2005. That complicated the whole set of
circumstances that you have to engage in. So we appreciate the
way in which you are doing that.
Mr. Abbey. Well, Congressman, if I could, the finding that
companies are using diesel is certainly problematic to us.
Mr. Hinchey. Absolutely. That is absolutely a problem, and
that is something that has to be examined and made sure that it
does not happen.
Earlier this year, Secretary Salazar stated that fracturing
was--and this is a quote of his--``the Achilles heel that could
essentially kill natural gas.'' That was his quote. He was
referring to the public's concern about this process,
especially the fact that many companies do not disclose what
chemicals they are using and what we are just talking about.
The Secretary indicated that the department was working on
regulations that would require disclosure and we should see
something with regard to this sometime in the next few months.
I know as you work on this, I would recommend that we all look
at what Wyoming's new disclosure requirements are as a model.
In that state, they require pre-drilling and post-drilling
disclosure along with specifics about the chemicals and their
volumes. So our member here, I want to express my appreciation
to your state for what they are doing in a leadership way on
this particular important issue.
So let me ask you this. Will BLM look at Wyoming as a model
for the rules your agency develops on disclosure of hydraulic
fracturing fluid chemicals?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman, we have looked very closely at the
Wyoming system for possibly adopting it on public lands. We
have also looked at other processes that other states have
adopted, Arkansas being another example of recently passed
legislation, and then there are other states too that have
either passed legislation or entertaining legislation on this
particular subject matter.
We are also scheduled to go out and host several public
forums over the course of the next month or two to get input
from the public relative to what concerns they may have, some
ideas and recommendations that they would pass along to us
relative to if we adopt new regulations requiring disclosure of
fracking chemicals that we take all that into account so that
we can have the best regulations as possible. In the meantime,
the Secretary certainly has been very open and public in his
encouragement to the industry to voluntarily disclose the
chemicals that are used as part of their fracturing.
Mr. Hinchey. I thank you very much. Thank you very much for
everything you are doing and for everything that you have said
here today.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Will the gentleman yield? May I add something?
Mr. Hinchey. Please.
Mrs. Lummis. I do not know if you have in your permits to
drill or leases a provision that would require the companies to
do baseline tests on the water before they drill but I think
that is also advisable, because if they drill, test the water
and require that that data be submitted to you, you have got
that in the record, and then if there is subsequent question,
you have already got the baseline.
Mr. Abbey. That is a great idea. Thank you for sharing.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
WILD LANDS POLICY
Mr. Simpson. Well, let me ask about another subject that I
am sure you have attended several hearings on, Secretarial
Order 3310, Wild Lands.
Mr. Abbey. I was hoping to get through one without having
to address that.
Mr. Simpson. As you know, there was language in H.R. 1
which would have prevented use of funding to institute the Wild
Lands policy. And you are talking to one of the Republicans who
is probably most friendly to preserving wildlands and
wilderness and other things. As you know, I have worked on
several pieces of wilderness legislation over the years that I
have been here. I actually think those lands are going to
become more valuable as time goes on and the population grows
and people are going to seek solitude in places that we have
preserved for future generations that they can decide what they
want to do with it.
Let me tell you the concern I have with the Wild Lands
policy and where I think you should have gone. The reason we
did this is because the authority expired for the BLM to do
wilderness study areas in their management plans, right?
Mr. Abbey. Under 603 of FLPMA.
Mr. Simpson. And it expired, and an agreement between
Secretary Norton and the State of Utah said you would not do
any wilderness study areas on BLM land. Why did you just not go
for reauthorization of that section of FLPMA?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act is a very complex and
complicated piece of legislation, and I think it is one of the
most fantastic pieces of legislation that was passed by
Congress, but it also provides us a great deal of flexibility
and I think we need that as far as managing 245 million acres
of land for multiple uses. Under 603 of FLPMA, it provided a
certain deadline for the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a
national inventory of public lands to identify those lands with
wilderness characteristics and to designate those lands as part
of that inventory as wilderness study areas, and then within a
certain time frame make recommendations to Congress on which of
those wilderness study areas we believe as the managing agency
are deserving of wilderness designation and which of those
wilderness study areas should be released for other uses.
The reason why we did not pursue reauthorization is because
there are other authorities within the Federal Land Policy
Management Act including section 201, which directs the Bureau
of Land Management to conduct routine inventories of all public
lands including for purposes of identifying lands with
wilderness characteristics. Section 202 and also sections 102,
103 and 302--I am getting to be an expert on this now--of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act also directs the Bureau
of Land Management as part of our land-use planning process to
use that inventory information that we routinely conduct as
part of our land-use planning. So we did not see a need to have
to go back and ask for reauthorization. We felt like we already
had all the authorities necessary as part of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act to move forward and using a very
public process if through an inventory effort, because it is a
two-phase approach under the Secretarial Order, we would
conduct inventories of public lands to determine which of those
public lands we have found to possess mandatory wilderness
characteristics, and that includes size, naturalness and
outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive
recreation. Those are the three characteristics in the
Wilderness Act of 1964. So when we find lands with wilderness
characteristics, then the Secretarial Order directs the Bureau
of Land Management to take that information and through a land-
use planning process, which is a very public process, as many
of you know, to make a determination on whether or not the
decision that is reached in that land-use planning process
would be to protect those wilderness characteristics but
limiting certain uses or make a determination to allow uses
that could impact those wilderness characteristics. But if we
decide through that land-use planning process to protect those
wilderness characteristics that we would do so through a Wild
Land designation. So that is a long way to address your
question but we just felt like we had sufficient flexibility
and authorities under FLPMA to go forward with the approach
that we are taking.
Mr. Simpson. And that I think points out one of the
problems. I think you have just infinitely increased the number
of lawsuits that you are going to have because once you go
through and you decide that something has wilderness
characteristics and you decide that we are going to allow for,
even though it has wilderness characteristics, outdoor
recreation, we are going to allow for oil and gas leasing or we
are going to allow for wind turbines or whatever on that land,
I will guarantee you there is a lawsuit. And once you have
allowed that, you have taken away the wilderness
characteristics so why have a Wild Land once you have allowed
oil and gas leasing on there?
The other thing you have done, and this is what concerns me
more than anything, is that you have made it infinitely more
difficult to resolve wilderness debates that currently exist,
and I will use a case I have been working on. Most wilderness
debates come down to a compromise. You decide what area is
going to be wilderness, what area you are going to release for
multiple use, what you are going to release for wilderness
study area. Once that compromise is made, you know, people come
to the table for different reasons. Some of them because of the
area you have released. Some of them come because of the area
you have designated as wilderness. Some of them come because of
the other things you have done in the area as you try to reach
this compromise, bringing groups with different visions
together, and that is very, very difficult to do, as you well
know. All of a sudden you pass a law or you pass a wilderness
bill that releases 130,000 acres of wilderness study area for
multiple use and now the BLM can go in and say well, that
obviously has wilderness characteristics because it was a
wilderness study area and we will designate it as a Wild Land.
Guess what? I have just lost that group of people that came to
the table because of the release of the 130,000 acres.
So I think you are going to make it more and more difficult
to actually resolve some of the things I think Congress should
be doing, and that is deciding what areas should be wilderness,
what areas should be released. And those are some of the
concerns I have that I do not think they have fully understood
when they--I take the Secretary at his word. They were doing
this with I think the best of intentions. But I think the
outcome is going to be far different than what they intend, and
consequently I think Congress is going to be very concerned
about it as you well know they are because we have already held
hearings in the Resources Committee and other committees and we
have heard from many Westerners about the concerns on this,
because, frankly, I do not see many Wild Lands being designated
by the BLM east of the Mississippi. Most of them are going to
be west.
Mr. Abbey. That is true. And I was just teasing about not
wanting to address this issue because I appreciate the
opportunity to address it, because you have valid concerns as
do others that have raised similar concerns. Let me do my best
to address some of those concerns.
First and foremost, litigation was already being filed
against the Bureau of Land Management prior to the Secretarial
Order based upon us not fulfilling the obligations and
responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
In fact, we have several court rulings that have directed the
Bureau of Land Management to go back to do inventories and then
to take that information into account in making those
decisions.
Mr. Simpson. How many agencies or how many of your bureaus
out there have completed their land management plans or nearing
completion and now have to go back and do them again?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we are not asking anyone to go back and do
them again because what we are asking them to do is go back to
their land-use plans that are in place today and to determine
whether or not they are in full compliance with the Secretarial
Order. That work is going on right now----
Mr. Simpson. But none of them will be, will they?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I think we will see several of----
Mr. Simpson. Because they did not look at Wild Land
characteristics when they did it originally. How could they be
in compliance with the new Secretarial Order?
Mr. Abbey. In many of the new resource management plans
that have been done, especially in the 9th Circuit because of
previous court rulings that directed us to do the inventories,
some of those inventories have been completed and that
information was used in developing their land-use plans. So I
think, Mr. Chairman, that you will see most of our more recent
land-use plans being consistent with the Secretarial Order.
That is not to say that all will be consistent, and based upon
the review that is being conducted now by the field offices,
they will report back to us by June or July or shortly
thereafter what their findings are relative to if there are any
inconsistencies within their land-use plans and the Secretarial
Order.
Let me also say something about your concerns about the
Congressional process and the authority. Only Congress can
designate an area as wilderness. We respect that. We understand
that and that is the way it ought to be and that is the way it
will continue to be. We also respect that as you go through a
very, very difficult time of collaborating with many, many
different stakeholders and coming up with proposed legislation
and ultimately debate that legislation through the
Congressional process and make a determination of which lands
should be designated and which lands that were considered and
discussed through the collaborative process should not be
designated and released for other purposes, the Bureau of Land
Management will defer to the language in that legislation on
how to treat those lands in the future.
I met with a group of stakeholders from Washington County
in Utah just earlier this week, and they had similar concerns.
They had passed the Washington County lands bill just two years
ago, a very complicated process. Everybody came to the table.
They reached a compromise. They designated certain areas as
wilderness. They released the others. The concern is, will the
Bureau of Land Management then go back and say these areas,
just as you have, possess wilderness characteristics and
therefore they are going to be designated as Wild Lands. The
truth of the matter is, likely not because as we go forward, we
will defer----
Mr. Simpson. Likely not?
Mr. Abbey. Likely not, we will defer back to the
Congressional actions that have taken place, recent
Congressional actions.
Mr. Simpson. So would you support language in the
wilderness bill that we are working on that said the land, the
132,000 acres released for multiple use, can never be
considered for wilderness designation or Wild Lands
designation?
Mr. Abbey. I am not sure we would go that far, and I say
that because----
Mr. Simpson. Hence the problem.
Mr. Abbey. And I say that because circumstances can change
over time, and an example of that is that we had wilderness
legislation passed in Arizona back in 1986 or so. Well, that is
30 years ago. Over time some of those areas that were dropped
from wilderness consideration are still in a natural state.
There is public support for protecting those wilderness
characteristics and therefore if we go back and through a land-
use planning process and determine that those lands that have
been previously considered by Congress 30 years ago and not
designated as wilderness are deserving of Wild Land protection,
then we would consider making a decision to protect those
wilderness characteristics through a Wild Land designation. But
that is legislation that took place 30 years ago.
Mr. Simpson. But the problem is, I am talking about getting
people to collaborate and come together.
Mr. Abbey. I know.
Mr. Simpson. And you know that there is a mistrust of the
Federal government and that while the BLM today says well, we
would not go back and essentially override Congress or consider
those for Wild Lands if Congress had released them, we do not
trust the next BLM director or the next Administration four
years from now because we do not know who is going to get
elected, and that changes dramatically over time, and what they
want is some certainty, and when these people come to the
table, what they want is some finality. That is why we are
trying to decide what is wilderness and what is going to be
released, to create some finality, and all we have done is
created more uncertainty in that well, okay, we have released
it for now, and that is----
Mr. Abbey. No, I understand the difficult situation we all
face, but getting back to your other question, we would be
happy to sit down with you and your staff on any wilderness
legislation that you are entertaining and try to resolve your
concerns through release language.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate it. Any other questions?
Mr. Hinchey. Well, we have the next hearing at 11:00.
Mr. Simpson. Let's take a five-minute break.
Mr. Abbey, thank you. I know that you have a difficult job
because, as I said in my opening statement, no matter what
decision you make, you are going to get sued. That is just the
reality. We would like to find a way that we could reduce
lawsuits by both sides--I do not want to just blame
environmental groups by both sides--and actually put that money
into managing the public lands, and I know you, as I said, have
a difficult job and do your best and we appreciate what you do
and I appreciate what you do in Idaho and the other states that
are public lands states and I look forward to working with you
on this.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Abbey, I was going to say this privately,
but I should say it publicly. You do an excellent job on behalf
of not only BLM but the Department of Interior. Thank you.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. And we will come back in five minutes.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 10, 2011.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT 2012 BUDGET
REQUEST
WITNESSES
JOSEPH PIZARCHIK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING
GLENDA H. OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING
RUTH E. STOKES, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING
Opening Statement Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. Good morning, and welcome, Director
Pizarchik--say it for me.
Mr. Pizarchik. Pizarchik.
Mr. Simpson. See I could--that just does not flow.
Mr. Pizarchik. Just say Joe P.
Mr. Simpson. Joe P, okay. Thank you for being here today to
discuss the 2012 Budget Request for the Office of Surface
Mining. In conjunction with the states, the Office of Surface
Mining oversees and regulates existing coal mining practices
and seeks to reclaim abandoned mine lands which are the legacy
of 150 years of coal mining. These are two different but
complementary roles for the OSM and the states.
For the fiscal year of 2012, the Office of Surface Mining
is proposing a tighter discretionary budget of $145.9 million,
a $17 million reduction below the 2010 enacted level. It was
one year ago to the day that we were discussing your 2011
request. I see that a few 2011 proposals have carried forward
into 2012, such as the reductions to state regulatory grants
while encouraging state fee increases. And I see that you have
offered some new proposals including increased federal
oversight inspections and reductions to the abandoned mine
reclamation program.
The budget also proposes new approaches to the mandatory
spending that compromises the bulk of your budget. While those
proposals may not fall into the jurisdiction of this committee
and rather to the authorizers, we are certainly interested in
the impacts as they would have substantive changes on how
programs are managed.
We will explore many of these areas further during our
questions. I would like to yield now to our ranking member from
Virginia, Mr. Moran.
Opening Statement Congressman Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Pizarchik, thank you very much for your leadership. You have
tremendous experience in coal mining, and I know that Ms. Owens
and Ms. Stokes are also very well qualified. So we have good
leadership at the top of the Office of Surface Mining. We
appreciate that.
The hearing today gives us a chance to look at a particular
couple of very important policy issues. The stream buffer rule
and the proposal to enhance the abandoned mine land program by
focusing on the areas that have the greatest need.
Some of our colleagues keep speaking of overage, and I do
think it is an appropriate term to use when explaining how
members of Congress have found it necessary to stop
environmental regulations even before they are issued. A year
ago, OSM published in the Federal Register a notice of intent
to conduct an EIS for the stream protection rule, which will
replace the 2008 stream buffer zone rule that was done in the
waning hours of the Bush administration.
Even though there is still no final rule, that, of course,
has not stopped members from blocking OSM from completing its
environmental review. This past month, during the floor debate
on H.R. 1, the House unfortunately voted to block OSM from
developing, carrying out, implementing, or otherwise enforcing
proposed regulations by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that some of the rhetoric from the
coal industry has been deliberately misleading. So I am looking
forward to the expert testimony of the Director of the OSM
because he has such solid experience in surface coal mining.
I am also anxious to hear about the Administration's future
proposal to alter the way that the abandoned mine land fund is
used. I do think that AML needs to focus their substantial fee
revenue on the places that have the greatest health and safety
needs. There are thousands of sites, especially in Kentucky,
West Virginia, and Pennsylvania and in Virginia, which show the
scars of historic coal mining. They are substantial. They need
to be addressed. Seems to me we should fix these areas rather
than returning coal mining fees to states that no longer have
abandoned mines.
The purpose of the fee was to clean up abandoned coal
mines, but instead, and I am sorry that Mrs. Lummis is not here
because I wanted to address this comment to her directly. But a
state like Wyoming is getting over $1 billion a year from the
Interior Department for royalties and not using the coal fees
portion of the revenues that they get for the purpose for which
those coal fees were intended.
Now, finally I do look forward to hearing about how OSM
thinks the states will be able to take up more of the cost of
running the coal mine regulatory programs. The states may have
a different opinion about that funding issue, of course. But
these are important issues. I am glad we have an opportunity to
discuss them, and we appreciate the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Testimony of Director Pizarchik
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Joe P., it is you.
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and members of
the subcommittee. I appreciate you inviting me here today to
testify on behalf of the fiscal year 2012 Budget Request for
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
In 1977, Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act and also created the Office of Surface Mining
for two basic purposes. First, was to assure that the Nation's
coal mines were operated in a manner that protected the
citizens and the environment during mining and that the land
was restored to a productive use after mining. And second, to
implement an abandoned mine lands program to address the
hazards of environmental degradation that remain from the pre-
Surface Mining Act days.
Then, as today, coal remains a large source and important
fuel for our country and provides today about half of our
Nation's electricity. When Congress enacted the Surface Mining
Act, it recognized the need to strike a balance between the
protection of the society, and protection of the environment,
while also helping to ensure we had enough coal to meet
America's energy needs. OSM was charged with striking that
balance.
The 2012 budget is a focused budget. It is a budget that
reflects some tough choices that we have had to make in these
difficult economic times. The 2012 budget request for OSM
totals $145.9 million in discretionary funding, which is a
decrease of $16.9 million from the 2010 enacted and so far the
2011 continuing resolution level funding. For OSM, it supports
the equivalent of 528 full-time employees nationwide.
Some of the discretionary budget highlights include the
increased funding and staffing of about $3.9 million for 25
FTEs to continue to fulfill this Administration's emphasis and
commitment to significantly reduce the adverse impacts of coal
mining in Appalachia and across the country. But those are not
25 new employees. 18 of those are employees, or positions, that
we will transfer from our AML emergency program, and the
federal emergency program.
The budget proposal also provides for, as I mentioned, the
elimination of funding to state and federal emergency projects.
That is a reduction of $3.5 million, of which $2.3 million is
associated with the related federal reclamation staff of about
18 FTEs transferring from the emergency program into the Title
V Program. So there would be a net increase of actually seven
people in the oversight portion under the Title V Program.
The reason for reduction and the elimination of the federal
emergency program is due to the significant increases in the
mandatory funding provided to the states over the recent years.
In 2011, there was $395.6 million made available to the states
for dealing with abandoned mine issues.
The Administration's proposal for OSM also provides for a
reduction in the regulatory grants of $11 million to the
states, and we have been encouraging the states to recover
those costs from the regulated community.
The proposal also provides for elimination of funding of
federal high priority projects. It is about $1 million, and it
proposes to cover future funding under the mandatory funding
provisions. There is also a proposal for eliminating funding of
technical studies and funds that we have been using to preserve
maps for old, abandoned underground mines. Again, these are
part of our tough decisions looking to where we could make some
cuts to maintain our core principles but still help address the
deficit issue that this country is facing.
Also, there is a reduction of outcrop fire projects of
$160,000, and we are not just proposing cuts to the states and
others. We are also proposing cuts to OSM. We are proposing to
reduce our budget and our expenditures for administrative costs
by $573,000, and that would come through reductions in travel,
information technology and strategic sourcing, that is
acquisition of goods and services nationwide.
We are also proposing to eliminate a half million dollars
that has been provided in the past for auditing resources
associated with the coal export litigation. We no longer need
it. Our fixed costs are fully funded as well.
Regarding the reference you made, Mr. Chairman, to some of
the legislative changes, the budget proposal of the
Administration is to overhaul the abandoned mine land program
to reduce some of the unnecessary spending and to ensure that
the most dangerous abandoned mine land issues are addressed.
Revisions fall into a number of major categories. The
first, which is a repeat from previous proposals, is to
eliminate funding to the certified states and tribes--those are
the states and tribes that have certified that they have
completed all the reclamation of their abandoned coal mines.
And that would be a reduction of about $184.2 million for
fiscal year 2012. The four states involved are Wyoming,
Louisiana, Montana, and Texas. The three Tribes are the Navajo
Nation, Hopi, and Crow. That substantive change in the statute
was projected to save the treasury $1.2 billion over 10 years.
One of the other changes proposed is the allocation of the
grants for AML reclamation. The existing process, where it is
distributed based on a production formula, will change to a
competitive process with an advisory council. And, in addition
to those changes, there would be funds made available to
address emergency projects in all states, to administer the
state AML programs in all states and tribes, and to support the
advisory council.
As a final change, the administration is proposing the
creation of a similar program for abandoned hard rock mines. It
would involve a new reclamation fee on the current hard rock
production. That fee would be developed and established by the
Bureau of Land Management, I believe, who testified earlier
today. And BLM would be the agency with an advisory council to
distribute those funds on a competitive basis to address the
most dangerous sites first, the most dangerous environmental
and safety hazards on abandoned hard rock sites.
Because of our experience over the past decades in
collecting the AML reclamation fee for coal mining, OSM would
provide that service to the BLM for the hard rock mining. This
would avoid any duplication of efforts and achieve efficiencies
using OSM's expertise to collect those funds from the hard rock
mining companies.
The budget also proposes to continue with the payments to
the United Mine Workers of America health benefit funds,
estimated to be about $225.3 million in fiscal year 2012.
Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today to
testify, and I do want to remind everybody that due to my past
employment in Pennsylvania, there are some matters which I had
participated in from which I have recused myself to avoid any
appearance of impropriety or any conflict of interest. If any
question of that nature comes up today, my deputy, Glenda
Owens, will handle those questions. Thank you, and I am
available for questions.
[The statement of Joseph Pizarchik follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COAL MINING PERMIT PROCESS
Mr. Simpson. So you are just going to shovel all the tough
questions off to her? Is that right? I am just kidding. First,
many of my colleagues from coal-producing states including the
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee believe that the
coal industry is paying a heavy price because of the demanding
and often drawn-out permitting reviews now imposed by the EPA,
the Corp of Engineers, and the Office of Surface Mining.
The enhanced coordination procedures agreed to in a 2009
memorandum of understanding were supposed to expedite the
review of 79 mining permits that had been stuck in the queue.
With only six permits granted since the 2009 MOU and 39 permits
withdrawn, withdrawn likely because the companies did not want
or could not afford to jump through the additional EPA
requirements for a permit, we see that the enhanced
coordination procedures have only been a front really to delay
or discourage additional mining in Appalachia.
How would you characterize the permitting process that now
governs coal mining in our country and more specifically in
Appalachia?
Mr. Pizarchik. Generally speaking, the permitting process
in this country as a whole is handled mostly by the state
regulatory authorities in states that have primary
responsibility for the regulation of coal mining, and OSM is
not involved and does not make those permitting decisions. We
do provide technical assistance to the states on a requested
basis. On federal lands, typically permitting decisions are
handled, again, by the state where the federal land is
associated. On tribal lands, we do handle the permitting for
the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation and Crow Tribe as appropriate.
Over the years, we have been working with the Indian Tribes, in
order to develop regulatory programs to achieve primacy. We are
very supportive of that.
PERMIT COORDINATION IN TENNESSEE
In Appalachia, we recognize that there have been some
issues, and OSM has been working with the Environmental
Protection Agency and with the Army Corps of Engineers in
Tennessee, where OSM is the primary regulatory authority. And
in December, those efforts that we spent the last year working
on culminated in the signing of a memorandum of understanding
with those three agencies as well as with the Tennessee
Department of Environment Compliance, TDEC, who handles the
water aspects of permitting in Tennessee. OSM handles the coal
mining permit.
That process was developed to improve how we do permit
coordination within the federal family and with the state
regulatory authorities. We also have identified a number of
standard operating procedures. We recognized that there were
opportunities to improve the timeliness and the efficiency of
the permitting. If you need to do water monitoring for your
surface coal mining permit, water monitoring for your 404
permit that you get from the Corps, or water monitoring for the
NPDES permit that you would get from the state water authority,
then it made a lot of sense for agencies to get together to
agree on where those monitoring points were located. This
provides for a unified system of review that everyone could
agree on, which would reduce the costs for the applicant as
well as provide for more consistency and more timeliness.
Under those operating procedures, we made efforts to get
everybody educated on what is required under the different
statutory and regulatory permitting requirements for the
various regulatory authorities, for them to cooperate.
We have not stopped there. We are exploring the use of the
Tennessee model with some of the other states in Appalachia.
OSM is not a permitting authority in those states but is
working with the state regulatory authorities who do the
permitting and also with the Corps and EPA to try to get
similar improvements made to the process.
This is something that is not necessarily just a problem in
Appalachia. There have been some experiences where the multi-
permitting of the mine site does not run as smoothly as we
think it could, so we are continuing to work to try to make
some improvements on those areas.
We wanted to do it first where we are the permitting
authority so that we could set the example of what could be
accomplished. We are not telling the states that this is the
way they have to do it. We are just laying it out as an example
of what worked in Tennessee. We recognize that the state laws,
and some of the processes, vary across the country. We are
trying to facilitate with state regulatory authorities, the EPA
and the Corps, a process where they can look at what we
accomplished in Tennessee and maybe use that as a template, or
a model, to make improvements to their permitting process and
coordination.
We have some more work to do. There is progress being made.
We know there is interest, I believe, in West Virginia,
Alabama, Kentucky.
2010 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Mr. Simpson. When was this MOU signed?
Mr. Pizarchik. December of 2010.
Mr. Simpson. Of 2010?
Mr. Pizarchik. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. So this is a different MOU than the one signed
between the Army Corps and Office of Surface Mining and the EPA
in 2009?
Mr. Pizarchik. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. It was meant to coordinate things?
Mr. Pizarchik. The 2009 MOU was a much broader overview.
The 2010 MOU is much different. It is actually on the ground.
The one that was signed in 2009 was signed by the leadership of
the various agencies. The one that we executed in 2010, in
December, is actually implemented at the field level, where the
staff are making the permitting decisions, and doing the
reviews; those are the people who are involved and committed to
this new process.
In order to be effective on implementing improvements and
permit coordination, it is our view that you cannot mandate it
from on high. You have to have the buy-in of the people who are
actually making the permitting decision in the field. That
includes the state, and the field folks for the Army Corps, and
EPA, et cetera. And that is how we approached it in Tennessee.
Mr. Simpson. It seems to make sense, and I hope it is
successful. We will be watching it closely. The more we can
coordinate the requirements of all of the different agencies,
state and federal, so that companies know what they have to do,
it seems to make a lot of sense in streamlining, I guess, is
the best word, the permitting process.
But we will be watching that to make sure because the 2009
agreement, when you look at, was kind of the general intent,
but when you have--what was it--what did I say--six permits
granted out of the 79 permits that were originally meant to--
this was meant to address, that did not seem to do the trick
very well. But I understand what you are doing.
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mr. Pizarchik. If I may, there is one other aspect on which
the Federal agencies are still working. Under the Surface
Mining Act, before a permit is issued, the statute requires the
regulatory authority to make a determination of the cumulative,
hydrologic impact assessment of the proposed mining, and any
likely future mining, on the streams in the particular area.
There is a similar type of cumulative impact assessment
that is required by the Clean Water Act to be performed by the
Army Corps of Engineers when they issue fill permits. The
agencies are working together to see if we can develop some
processes to improve how the assessment is completed because
the Surface Mining Act looks at a different area than does the
Clean Water Act. There is some overlap, but there are some
distinct differences between the two. And so the agencies are
working to see if we can develop some tools that will help
streamline that process and provide more clarity, more
consistency, and more predictability for all the parties
involved because it is something that has not been done in the
past.
MATERIAL DAMAGE OUTSIDE PERMIT AREA
And related to the cumulative hydrologic impact assessment
that is required under the Surface Mining Act, the law
specifically provides for the coal mines to be designed in a
manner that they do not cause material damage outside of the
permit area. That term has never been defined in the 33 years
of this agency. That is one of the things that we intend to fix
to provide some clarity and understanding and consistency to
the regulated community, to the regulators, and to the
environmentalists and citizens. So everybody knows what the
standard is to judge a surface coal mining operation.
2008 STREAM BUFFER RULE
Mr. Simpson. Under the 2009 memorandum, OSM committed to
take another look at the 2008 Stream Buffer Rule. That rule
required that fill be placed at least 100 feet from streams if
the disposal of such fill would negatively impact water quality
or quantity. This was finalized. It took five years to complete
and promulgated after considering 400,000 comments. What
concerns did OSM and not the courts have with the rule it had
just published leading to an administrative stay and
reconsideration of the rule?
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. There are a
number of reasons why we are looking at making improvements to
our regulations. One, there was an error that was made in the
2008 process, and the courts advised the Department of the
Interior and OSM that instead of vacating it, that we would
need to go through a new rule-making process. So that is what
we are doing.
Plus, the existing 2008 rule focused mainly on the valley
fills and mountaintop mining in the area, and there are a lot
of other things that it did not address in the effort to do a
better job of minimizing the adverse impacts on streams and
protecting streams.
So we sought public input, and received over 32,000
comments and suggestions on how we could do a better job of
protecting streams and improving our regulations. We took that
information and we are looking at it. One of the things we
realized is that we know a lot more scientifically about the
adverse effects of mining today than we knew 30 years ago. A
lot of that new information was not utilized in preparing the
2008 rule.
We also know that there are new technologies available that
can help the operators, the state regulators, and OSM all do a
better job. So we believe that it is appropriate to also update
our rules to provide more clarity, more specificity to
everybody involved, and to take advantage of all the things
that we have learned over these past 30 years, or so, to do a
better job of protecting streams.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
Mr. Simpson. In Tuesday's hearing with Secretary Salazar,
we had many questions about the genesis for the revisions to
the stream buffer rule and the associated environmental impact
statement. Last July, OSM requested and received the authority
to reprogram $7 million from state regulatory grants in order
to fund the EIS. What is the estimated cost of the EIS, and how
much has OSM spent or paid to the contractor for work on the
EIS, and how much remains?
Mr. Pizarchik. Well, first off, out of the $7 million, that
was not all from the Title V or regulatory grants. Some of it
came out of OSM's other funds that we had available. On the
contract amount, we used a competitive process, and we awarded
a contract that was a little bit under $5 million to the
contractor. $3.5 million of that has been spent as of March 7,
2011. That goes up through the January 2011 billing, and that
leaves about $2 million remaining for additional work, staff
travel, and contract work.
EIS CONTRACT
Mr. Simpson. At Tuesday's hearing, Deputy Secretary David
Hayes indicated that the OSM was unhappy with the work the
contractor had conducted to date on the EIS and found the
contractor's work to be inadequate. He also indicated that the
department was looking at completely revamping that work. If
OSM is unhappy with the work, does OSM anticipate the need to
request additional funds to complete the EIS? And will this
push back the anticipated delivery scheduled for the EIS?
Mr. Pizarchik. It was correct that we were unhappy with the
quality of the work. We had hired the contractor to prepare an
environmental impact statement as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the regulations
implementing that Act. It was not just OSM that had concerns
with the quality of the work. We had been sharing drafts of the
work product with cooperating agencies. Many of the states have
been involved in this effort. They too shared concerns with the
quality of work as to whether it met the legal requirements of
NEPA.
We issued a correction letter to the contractor in advance
of the work product that was due on February 23, 2011. That
work product has been received. We are taking our time to very
thoroughly, closely and thoughtfully review those documents to
make a determination as to whether they satisfy the contract
requirements. Once we have that review completed, we will use
that information to determine how we are going to proceed from
that particular point.
If the product is contract compliant, we will be able to
proceed. If it is not contract compliant, then we will have to
evaluate and determine how we proceed. That would add some
additional time to the timeframe necessary to complete the rule
making.
Mr. Simpson. After Tuesday's hearing with the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary Hayes, it was--I do not want to say said, but
implied and then an article came out in the paper that they may
be looking at cancelling the contract with this company that
was doing the EIS. Are you currently considering cancelling the
contract with that company?
Mr. Pizarchik. We had some very strong concerns about the
quality of the work. We have very high expectations that the
work would meet the quality required by the contract and the
National Environmental Policy Act. We are assessing the work
product that we received after we notified the contractor of
all of our concerns, and all options are definitely on the
table. If we have a quality product, or if we do not have a
quality product, we will consider what is the best way to
proceed forward for the government and the public.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE SCHEDULE
Mr. Simpson. Since the EIS will inform the stream buffer
rule, the OSM needs the EIS before promulgating a rule. What is
OSM's timeline for promulgating the final rule? And will this
happen in 2012? And will the potential firing of this
contractor and having to rehire another one, if that were to
happen, would that delay this rule?
Mr. Pizarchik. Where we are right now is that we still have
to complete our assessment of the preliminary EIS and make a
determination. And if we are unable to proceed with the current
contractor due to contract compliance issues, that could extend
the time period on the rule. We do need the information in the
EIS--you are correct--in order to be able to continue with the
development and complete the preparation of our proposed rule.
We cannot proceed with the proposed rule or draft the EIS
without having a quality preliminary draft EIS.
Mr. Simpson. Will you need additional resources to do that?
Mr. Pizarchik. At this point in time, it is too early to
make a determination on additional resources.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Moran.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE: NEED
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As you are so well aware,
one of the blessings of our natural world is the way that we
get fresh, clean water. The skies open up. The water comes
down, flows down mountains into mountain valleys, and the
mountain streams flow into the river and so on, and thus we
continue to provide adequate, fresh, healthy water and the
process continues to regenerate itself.
The problem is when mining firms come in and top off
mountains and level the land by filling the stream valleys, it
not only reduces the quantity of water that is available for
individuals and industry, but perhaps even more importantly, it
adversely affects the quality of that water largely because of
the toxins that are often occluded in these mountains where
coal is ultimately contained. And that is the reason for the
stream buffer rule because the mountain top mining became so
pervasive, particularly in the Appalachia, that we were seeing
a very substantial threat to the public health as well as a
reduction of the water supply that was available.
But I wanted to clarify some things. This rule, this stream
buffer rule that was negated during the debate on H.R. 1. I
think there were four different amendments on mountaintop
mining. They were all successful, and so basically you cannot
even go forward with the introductory process of putting
together this rule. But this initial rule did not come out
during the Reagan administration and it is basically product of
the Bush administration, 2008, is it not?
Mr. Pizarchik. The existing rule, the 2008 rule that came
out under the previous administration, replaced a rule that had
been enacted or adopted by the Reagan administration. That is
correct. That was back in 1983.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE: IMPACT OF H.R. 1
Mr. Moran. Yeah, so neither administration had at least the
reputation for being environmental extremists. That would be a
fair statement. Tell us how you are going to deal with what
H.R. 1 does if it were to be passed.
Mr. Pizarchik. If H.R. 1 were to be enacted and passed, we
obviously would have to comply with the law. We would follow
the law and we would not be able, as I understand it, to expend
any funds on the development or implementation of the stream
protection rule making. So at that point, all efforts would
stop. All the efforts to eliminate the pollution problems that
you mentioned, as far as polluting the streams and causing
pollution, would still continue. Those efforts would be
impeded. There would not be opportunities to take advantage of
the modern technologies that we know to do a better job of
making sure the amount of excess spoil is minimized and the
spoil is put back where it should have been.
The extra efforts and refinements that we have in the
process of developing and trying to do more source management
to prevent the pollutants from being released from mining and
going into the streams would still continue. That raises the
specter that the companies who are generating those discharges
and those contaminants, whether they are going to at some point
in the future, have to begin treating those discharges. One
recently occurred in a court case in West Virginia where
selenium levels were being discharged and the court ordered the
mining company to build a selenium treatment plant, a very,
very expensive process.
We will, in essence, be limited from taking proactive
measures and refinements under our regulations to prevent
discharges from happening. In some instances, for those
operators who do not take proactive steps on their own and
generate polluting discharges, those operators could be held
liable. This could jeopardize their economic future as well, if
discharges happen and they are not able to mine enough coal, to
provide funds to pay for all those treatment costs in
perpetuity.
We could experience what happened in the context of acid
mine drainage a decade or so ago. A lot of these companies went
out of business and the cost of treating those perpetual
discharges fell to the public and the government. So we would
have to look at what we have in existing rules and see what
tools are available. But I think our ability to do an effective
job of striking a balance between protecting the public and
society from the adverse effects of mining, while also making
sure we have a viable coal industry to meet our country's
energy needs, would be hindered.
Mr. Moran. Well, I want to fully understand this. The law
remains in place, the Clean Water Act, and so on. You want to
issue a regulation that would govern where the mountaintops can
be placed and how to keep the water clean. This is kind of
preemptive, I guess, of what otherwise would be policy that
would be determined in the judicial system, that people
ultimately would sue and the courts would make these decisions,
some of them nationally oriented, but many of them ad hoc.
And the companies would pay to correct the problems if they
that could. Many of them would find ways to go out of business,
and then the public pays for the cleanup after the fact. So we
are talking about an effort that was successful this month to
take this proactive initiative out of the process and leave it
to the courts to determine how to restore the quality of our
water, drinking water. It is interesting, I think a bit ironic.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE: IMPACT ON JOBS AND PRODUCTION
Now, one of the arguments that was made, I recall, as we
were in this debate, was that there were about 7,000 jobs that
were going to be lost as a result of the stream buffer rule.
But in looking at the ledger, even though that is what the coal
mining companies say, it seems as though the production is not
necessarily going down, and that it is possible that production
can go up while jobs go down because of improved technology and
so on, the mechanization of some of the processes.
Is it possible that the coal companies are using the loss
of jobs to achieve their efforts to eliminate regulation, to
deregulate the process, but much of the loss of jobs is really
due to the more modern processes of extraction?
Mr. Pizarchik. Your question really touches on the point of
advances in production. If you look at the trends in the number
of jobs in the coal mining industry over the last decade or two
decades, the number of people employed in mining coal has
significantly dropped. It has been, in large part, due to
mechanization, and improved efficiencies. There have been some
other factors involved.
For instance, out West in Wyoming, in the Powder River
Basin the coal is much, much thicker. They do not have some of
the hydrologic issues that we face in the eastern part of the
country. And so it is a combination of improved mechanization
and geologic advantages.
And the numbers that you referenced on job loss, those
numbers cannot be relied on. Some of the concerns that we had
with the quality of the work product had to do with a wide
variety of issues and the quality of the work produced by the
contractor. Those numbers are not the Department of the
Interior's numbers. Those numbers are not the Office of Surface
Mining's numbers. In fact, we know now that those numbers were
derived using some placeholders. So they have no value. And we
have been working with the contractor, expressing our concerns
to them, in order to get a quality product across the board
that meets all of the requirements of NEPA and the regulations,
and complies with the contract.
Mr. Moran. Even though the numbers have been used in debate
as though they had been verifiable and they are not. You
mentioned Wyoming for example, and that is--I will use that as
a segue because I understand that North Dakota, Wyoming,
Montana, at least those three states' production is going to
climb by as much as 15 percent because of what you are talking
about, the type of coal and where it is gathered.
Mr. Pizarchik. Actually I would not rely on those numbers
either.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Mr. Pizarchik. That was the first working draft from the
contractor. You know, there was a lot of work that needed to be
done at those times. As part of our effort to be more open and
transparent, we were sharing those working drafts with
cooperating agencies, many states, to get the benefit of their
expertise and insight. And it was very unfortunate that those
drafts, first draft documents, were weak and leaked. I do not
believe that you can rely on any of those numbers.
ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
Mr. Moran. This is very helpful. Now, but I mentioned in
the testimony that--and what I want to go back to is the
difference is where coal mining is taking place and
particularly in regard to the fee that is now collected to
reclaim abandoned mines. The whole purpose of the fee was to
restore these abandoned mines. It was unsafe. It was unhealthy.
It left real scars on our environment, and much of that is
along Appalachia. It is Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, et
cetera.
That is where the money was supposed to be spent, but since
much of the fee is now being collected gathered in states that
do not have or have very few abandoned mines, the money is now
going to western states such as those I just mentioned. And
they just dump it into their general fund basically because
they do not have the need for it. But the need for it is in
these areas where we have conducted mining operations for over
100 years, and we have a situation that needs to be addressed.
So you have a proposal within this budget to redirect those
funds to achieve the intent of the abandoned mine land program,
I gather. Could you elaborate a bit on that, Mr. Pizarchik?
Mr. Pizarchik. Yes, Congressman Moran. You touched on a
very important point. When the Surface Mining Act was
originally put together, the formula on how the abandoned mine
land fees that were collected on coal production were going to
be distributed was based, in part, on where the production was
occurring. And at that particular time, most of the production
was occurring in the East, in a number of the states that you
mentioned.
Over the decades, as the easier-to-get coal was exhausted
and no longer available, production started to drop somewhat in
some of those eastern areas, not in all the states. But in
addition to that, the resources that were available out in the
Powder River Basin and places in the West became available. And
to give an example, you have coal seams in the West that are 60
or 70 feet thick. Nothing of that magnitude here in the East,
and so the production shifted out West, which led to an
increase in fee collection and distribution. The unintended
consequence, I think, is a lot of money going to the areas
which had certified they completed the reclamation of all their
abandoned coal mine lands.
And so the Administration's proposal is to refocus the
funds to the abandoned coal problems and the original purpose
of reclaiming them to deal with the highest priority, the most
dangerous sites in the East and the West, wherever they are. It
is just based on the history of the country and the history of
mining. Most of those sites remain in a number of the eastern
states that you had identified.
AML EMERGENCY FUNDING
Mr. Moran. Thank you. You did cut that program by $8
million though for emergency grants and projects. I just wanted
to--and then I will conclude my question, but I did want to
wrap up this aspect of it. Why do you think you justified in
reducing the money for emergency grants?
Mr. Pizarchik. Two aspects on that. First, we are proposing
to reduce it as far as the discretionary appropriations. But
the reason for that is due to the increase in a mandatory
dispersements to the states.
For example, as recently as 2007, the states received
$145.3 million of abandoned mine land fees. In 2011, there has
been $395.6 million available for distribution. So the view is
that the increase, in mandatory distributions is more than
enough to cover the AML emergencies in the particular states.
And so some of the states we have been working with over the
years have taken on that responsibility. In 2010, the states
with AML programs, where OSM had been conducting the emergency
program, were notified that they needed to take on the
responsibility for addressing emergency projects themselves
with their AML mandatory funds.
That process, that transition process, has been pretty much
completed. OSM provides technical assistance to the states as
it always has. And under the Administration's proposal, out of
the mandatory distributions that would be available in 2012,
$313.8 million, some of those funds would be available to use
for the emergencies wherever they occur. And whether it is in a
certified state, an uncertified state, a state that does not
have an AML program, the money would be available to take care
of these projects. And the belief is that there are sufficient
funds to take care of those emergencies out of the mandatory
appropriation from the AML fund without having to use general
treasury funds.
Mr. Moran. Good answer. I just wanted to get that on the
record. Thank you. And the policy certainly makes sense. You
would think you would be able to save money in that area. Thank
you.
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENT OF OVERSIGHT IN APPALACHIA
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you very much for the work that you are doing. We know how
important it is, and thank you for what you are talking about
here today. I just wanted to ask you a simple question and
follow up with what was just said by Mr. Moran.
I understand that there is a budget request which contains
an increase of $3.9 million for expansion and enhancement of
federal oversight stream protections, and mostly in this
particular case, it is going to be focused on the Appalachian
system. So I wonder if you can--first of all, I think that that
may be not nearly what is needed. But nevertheless, I
appreciate that you are trying to get some additional funding
to focus attention on this particular issue, but probably there
is a lot more that could be done and a lot more money could be
used for that operation.
I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about what
the situation is in Appalachia, what are the kind of things
that are you going to have to deal with there in overseeing
this. We know how serious it is to some extent at least, and to
whatever extent you are going to be focused on other areas
outside of Appalachia that deal with this issue as well.
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Congressman Hinchey. When I took
this job and started in November of 2009, we were in the
process in the Office of Surface Mining of launching
improvements to our oversight and conducting additional
oversight in Appalachia to address, and try to prevent and
minimize, the adverse impacts of coal mining. But we were
looking at oversight nationwide. One of the underlying
principles that Congress put in the Surface Mining Act is that
we were to develop a nationwide program. So we have been trying
to do oversight nationwide and maintain that as far as to make
sure we have the appropriate amount of oversight inspections
across the country.
We recently developed and published final internal
guidelines that sets forth the criteria to decide where we
would do our oversight inspections and the percentages of
oversight inspections, et cetera. And we had also increased our
inspections by about 40 percent in that first year. In order to
be able to increase since, we did not have any additional staff
or resources, we refocused some of our efforts where we
provided technical support and training to the states.
Many of the states, like OSM, have a workforce that is
reaching retirement age, and they are going to need to have new
people come on board. The newer staff obviously need to have
some type of training, and OSM provides the programmatic
training to states, staff in cooperation with the states. So we
need additional staff to continue to provide the necessary
training and technical support to the states. Without it we
would have a problem where we can end up with maybe more
violations, more complaints, and more environmental problems
without properly trained staff.
The process of refocusing staff was not sustainable, so we
are looking to increase our oversight folks so we can maintain
the level of oversight that we conducted last year, as well as
continue to provide the technical support and training to the
states.
Some of the things that we found during oversight is that
there was an increase in the number of 10-day notices. Now, a
10-day notice does not necessarily mean that there is a
violation. It means that we have--if it came through a citizen
complaint--that it appears to be the potential for a violation.
Under the law, we provide a 10-day notice to the state
regulatory authority, and they have 10 days to investigate and
respond back to us--to give us all the facts, to let us know,
since they have the primary responsibility, is there merit to
the potential violation or not. And if there is a problem out
there, then they have to address it.
Some of the other things, areas where we know of an issue,
is in one of the states in Appalachia. As part of our oversight
improvements, we looked at the adequacy of the bonds. We found
that about 80 percent of the bonds and mine sites that were
forfeited did not have enough money to complete the reclamation
as was contained in the operator's reclamation plan.
So we are working with that state and developing a plan in
order to make the improvements to the bonding program to meet
the statutory requirements. Therefore, if there is a bond
forfeiture, that the state has enough money to reclaim the land
and put it back the way it was prior to mining.
OSM OVERSIGHT OF STATE PROGRAMS
Mr. Hinchey. Well, the situation there in Appalachia is
something that really has to be dealt with effectively, right?
There are a lot of problems there.
Mr. Pizarchik. Well, yes, there are problems. There are
places for improvement. Most operators want to do the right
thing and do a good job. Same way with most state regulatory
authorities. Having formerly worked for a state regulatory
authority, I know sometimes there are circumstances and
environments that may not enable the regulatory authority to be
able to do as effective a job as they want to do. And that is
part of where OSM is responsible. We are required to do the
oversight to make sure that the states who voluntarily took on
the obligation to implement the law, that they do so and do so
effectively. And sometimes there are parts where they will be
doing an excellent job. Maybe economic circumstances change or
there are other factors, and maybe there is a little slippage.
And you have to make some improvements in specific areas.
And so that is the role that OSM has had to play, and it
varies a little bit depending on the circumstances. There has
been a lot of improvement that has been made in Appalachia and
a number of states. With the technology we have today and the
science that we have today, we know there is still room for
improvement and more things that we can do a better job at.
YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AT OSM
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thanks very much. One of the interesting
things that you are doing, a number of interesting things, is
youth engagement and the enhancement of youth in the operation
that you are engaged in. Could you just tell us a little bit
about that, what you are doing, what the objectives are there,
and what are you expecting to see happening in this context?
Mr. Pizarchik. Sure, that is a very good point. A number of
years ago, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement
engaged in a partnership agreement with the Americorps and
Volunteers in Service to America. We partnered with those folks
to get youth involved who would make commitments and go into
the communities that have been adversely affected by historic
coal mining and work with citizens to help them understand the
law, and some of the opportunities available for cleaning up
their areas. This helps them deal with the abandoned mine
issues or abandoned mine drainage and other things that have
adverse social and economic impacts that the historic coal
mining has left on their communities.
Under that program, we provide part of the money. Our
partners provide the other part of the money, and we had a
couple hundred young adults working. They typically do about a
year's internship. What we hope to accomplish in that
particular area is getting more of the youth in America
involved in dealing with some of the problems we have, both
environmental and social problems, with the historic coal
mining that has occurred. And with the expectation of helping
to improve the environmental and the social conditions in those
areas, as well as hopefully getting those people to consider a
career in either government service or other environmental
areas.
In this past year, we had a former VISTA student that
applied for and was hired as a Federal government employee. We
also have added internships where we bring college students in
during the summer to help in some areas where we do not have
enough work to hire a full-time employee permanently. We also
have students help with some of the mine mapping, and some of
the IT work. Some of the youth are terrifically skilled in the
information technology, the high tech area, and that has been
very helpful.
And part of what we were trying to do again is to bring
more young people into the government. We are also coordinating
these resources with the states who were having some fiscal
difficulties, and where we could provide some services for the
work that they needed to have completed.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
MINING WITHIN 100 YARDS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had more of a
comment than I have a question. I was curious, having served on
both an agriculture and a DNR committee that dealt with
setbacks and everything, and we have mining and we have big ag
and everything else, kind of like what--I did not want to just
go from own memory, and looked at the guides that we have for
shore mine management standards, and basically what I am
seeing, whether it is the EPA or ag or whether it is the DNR
on--whether it is mining, recreational, or development, it is
about 100-yard setback minimum wherever I look through statute.
And I know at one point in our state's history, there was none,
and then it was 25, and then it was 100. And 100 is the
minimum. In some areas where it is more fragile, it is higher.
And that is about the length of this hall right here. That is
all we are talking about, about the length of this hall out
here for not piling things any closer to that where there is
possible flood, water runoff, anything that is going to get
into the water.
So I wish you luck. I think it is common sense. I wanted to
make sure that the federal government was not out there doing
something really radical, really extreme, but it appears, and I
did a quick look at some other states while I was sitting here,
and it seems like any time that there is kind of water
involved, it is going to be common sense, kind of prudent, that
you create at least a hallway length of buffer between where
you are piling things up, where you are digging, where you are
building, and the water.
So you are just kind of--are you looking at--is the
contractor kind of looking at what is best practices, or
supposed to be looking at was best practices?
Mr. Pizarchik. There are a lot of things that the
contractor was hired to look at--what the potential
environmental impact would have been, and the overall
environmental impact assessment. In November of 2009, we laid
out some potential concepts in areas of how we thought maybe
the regs should be improved and sought public input on that. As
well, we asked the public for other suggestions.
We took that information, and we prepared a number of
alternatives. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, we
have to look at what is our preferred alternative and some
other reasonable alternatives and to have the contractor
analyze those. Part of that is looking at other data and
resources, information, and to figure out what else is
available, what works, what does the science say, what does not
work, et cetera. That information will be used to put together
the environmental impact assessment to help me have the
information to decide what OSM needs to put in the proposed
rule that is being developed.
Some of the things that we have that are a bit different
that what you cited is that under the Surface Mining Act, it
does not prohibit mining on streams. It anticipates that there
will be some adverse impact on streams in the permit area. The
practice for the past decades has been, in most states, to
allow streams to be mined through, and then for reclamation to
occur. The Surface Mining Act provides for mines to be designed
to prevent material damage outside of the permit. When it comes
to excess spoil in various steep slopes, what happens if you
are in a very steep area, a mountainous area, when you break up
all that rock, you cannot compact it and put it back as tightly
as Mother Nature did. So you have more volume to deal with.
So the law specifically allows for placement of excess
spoil in certain areas. What we are trying to do with this rule
that we are developing is to do a better job in striking the
balance in protecting the environment, to minimize the adverse
impacts on the streams, as well as to make sure we have enough
coal to meet our country's energy needs.
And one of the concepts we have that we are looking at
leaves it up to the mine operator, let the company decide
whether it wants to mine through that stream. But if it does
so, the company would restore the stream's form and function.
So that if you had a perennial stream with fish there before
mining, complete the mining, then put a perennial stream with
fish there after mining. That is something to look at, and it
is a business decision. And if they think that they cannot do
that and they choose to stay out of the stream, that is their
prerogative.
Some of the other ideas we are looking at developing is
that if you are going to stay away from the stream, stay at
least 100 feet away, that is what was in the '83 rule. Keep the
buffer forest. We know that the forest does a better job of
controlling the storm water runoff and pollution. If you are
going to mine through a stream and restore it, then put a
larger buffer in place because it is going to take a little
while for those trees to get mature.
So we are looking to try to craft an enhancement to provide
more clarity, more certainty to the industry so it can do a
better job of protecting streams. The approach is to let mining
companies make a conscious business decision. Is it really
worth risking this kind of environmental degradation or this
kind of risk to my company for creating pollution?
We are looking at trying to do a better job of handling the
toxic materials so that you can keep the pollutants from
leaving the site. We do not have the luxury of just drawing a
line and saying you have to stay X feet away from every stream.
The statute does not give us the authority to do that. We are
working within the constraints. We have to do a better job to
try to provide for that protection of the streams in what means
we have available.
EIS CONTRACT
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I have a question on the
contractor. We have somebody who sounds like they did not do
the job that they were asked to do. So are we paying this
person? Are we having to pay this person to redo the work? I
was--Mr. Chair, I was on ledge branch when I found out we were
paying for change orders for stuff that people should not have
done in the first place because they were missing a piece, and
they went ahead and knew that they had to redo the sprinklers,
put the ceiling in, and then took the ceiling out to put the
piece that they knew was missing in the sprinkler. So I mean
and we paid for the change orders in most cases.
What is going on with this person that could be a woman too
so I will not say gentleman in billable hours and everything
for us?
Mr. Pizarchik. The contract that we have through the
competitive selection process is a small business under the SBA
guidelines. They have a number of subcontractors that work for
them, and they have been producing a work product. We have a
timeframe. As I indicated earlier, we had some concerns, as
others did, with the quality of the work. So we provided them
comments back and an opportunity to correct the problems.
With the cure letter that we had sent out and with the work
product that was coming in on the 23rd, there were some other
things that were scheduled to occur after that time period. For
instance, under the National Environmental Policy Act, when you
have the draft Environmental Impact Statement, that needs to be
published for public comment. And you need to have hearings. We
have asked the contractor to do no further work on scheduling
those hearings because we wanted to make sure we actually had a
draft document available that we could publish.
Ms. McCollum. Well, I understand that, but the contractor
is going to have to go back and redo the work. Is that--and
causing great inconvenience and, you know, a PR problem for
you. Is this individual having--is this individual, you know,
reclaiming, you know, hours or asking for more money, or is
this person expected to do the job right the second time with
the amount of money they were given the first time?
Mr. Pizarchik. When we provided the cure letter to them
that outlined our concerns in the areas where we thought that
the quality of the work did not meet the contract requirements,
we did that with the expectation that they would provide us a
contract compliant work product with the same funds that they
had already received without additional funds.
Right now, we are still in the process of reviewing that
work product, and I do not know what the future holds yet
because we have not completed that review. When that review is
completed, I will be sitting down with my staff to hear what
they have found. And based on that information, we will decide
what makes the most sense and the best way to proceed.
Ms. McCollum. So if you suspend a contract, let us say--I
am not saying you are going to, but if you were to suspend the
contract, does the contractor get paid in full because you have
to go back, you have to reissue? This has been a PR disaster
for you with everything that I am hearing floating around in
Congress. I mean is this individual held responsible in any
way, shape, or form?
Mr. Pizarchik. The contract we have is for a lump sum for
the total product, and there was a time period for it to go on
through, and I believe we were scheduled to, under the plan,
have the final environmental impact statement in December 2011.
I cannot remember the exact date on that, but we have a
progress schedule where, as they were progressing, we were
making scheduled payments.
And as I understand it from talking to our contract
lawyers, if the situation leads to where there is a termination
of the relationship, that the additional payments would not be
due to the contractor. It can get pretty complicated. You can
get into litigation. From our view, we hired a contractor to
provide us with an environmental impact statement that complied
with the contract, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
regulations. And that is what we expect to get for the money
that we paid.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Pizarchik. You are welcome.
Mr. Simpson. It has been my experience that we have a
tendency to agree with that science that supports our
preconceived ideas and disagree as bad science as science which
conflicts with our preexisting beliefs. The same is true of
studies. There have been a number of people who have said that
the reason this contractor is not complying or is said is not
complying or has produced a bad work product is because you did
not like the results of what they were doing. Not saying that
is true or not, but there is that argument out there also.
I would be interested at some point in time in a probably
more private setting to sit down and talk about what exactly it
was in the work compliance that OSM and DOI disagreed with in
what they were doing because there is that argument out there
that it is just, you know, you did not like the results, so it
was a bad work product. Not saying that is true at all. Not
even suggesting it, but a couple of questions I need to ask.
STATE REGULATORY GRANTS
In 2010, the budget fully reflected the 50 percent federal
match for the state regulatory programs for the first time. The
administration is again proposing to fall short of the 50
percent commitment in 2012 and shift a greater share of the
cost of the regulation onto industry via the state fees. The
administration indicates that OSM would work with the states to
raise their permitting fees to cover a greater share of their
costs.
We noted at last year's hearing that additional fee
increases was not likely to be a politically viable option for
some states. How many states have enacted fee increases since
the proposal was announced last year? And have you conducted a
full analysis of the administrative rulemaking complexities
inherent in such an undertaking?
And along those same lines, to what degree would states
need to increase their fees in order to recoup the loss of the
$11 million in grants that the 2012 budget proposes to cut from
the 2010 level? And could you provide for the record a table of
existing fees, fee levels by states, and the percentage of
increase that each state would need to enact in order to recoup
the loss of the federal grants to the states?
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. There are a lot
of questions in there. I may have to circle back to you on some
of those that I do not answer. It is my recollection that there
was one or two states that have enacted some type of a fee
increase that we processed since last year on this. Most of
them have not, and as far as getting together with the states,
we have been working with the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission to gather data to get a better idea of what is the
status, what type of fees are being charged or collected in
each state.
It is my understanding that there is a great deal of
variety out there and variation. And we do not have a handle on
that yet. We did receive some input from the states on the
development of the questionnaire, and we have the hopes that we
will be able to get that out to the states and that they will
respond to that to help provide the information that we would
need in that particular area.
In regards to how much money the states get and the fees
and how much they are collecting, our understanding, based on
some prior information that we had gathered, that of the 24
states that receive grants, 20 states collect some type of
permit fees. The percentage of the fee that they recover varies
widely. Some of them as much as 50 percent of the cost of the
program. Some of them as low as around 1 percent, and we also
know that in some states, the regulatory authority cannot
adjust a fee, that it must go through the state legislature.
And we know that those things can take time, and there can
be a lot of other factors involved, particularly in these
difficult budget times. In working with the states after our
hearing last year on this, we sat down with the states and
talked to them. And a lot of them expressed concerns about
whether they would be able to get those type of fee increases
and asked OSM to do it. And so we--part of our charge at OSM is
to provide assistance to the states--are willing to explore and
work with the States and if necessary, to promulgate a
regulation or request legislation to collect the fee on their
behalf.
We cannot do the job without them, and we need to work
together. And if they have some type of impediment, maybe we
can work together to address that. So we are exploring those
possibilities as to how to get there.
Regarding how much money will be needed, whether that $11
million needs to be entirely made up. Some of that will depend
on the states themselves, what type of income they have. If
they do not need the amount of money that they have indicated
in their preliminary grant requests, the $11 million may not
actually be $11 million that they need. It might be something
less than that. If we have carryover funds--we do not know that
until we get to the end of the year--we have the two-year
appropriation for those. And we will use the carryover funds
from the previous Title V year grant to make it available to
the states to help address those issues as well.
So we have some tools available to us. We do not know
exactly how that will all end. Another aspect of it is under
our existing regulations, it provides that should we not have
enough money to give every state 50 percent of their cost of
their program, that the amount of money that we do have would
be prorated among the states. So that each of them would
equally share a corresponding reduction and not any one state
would suffer the burden of carrying a larger reduction in fees
than the other ones.
Did I miss any?
Mr. Simpson. No, that pretty much covers it. There was one
other question that I wanted to ask, and I am fairly certain I
know where it is but maybe not. Mrs. Lummis, did you have some?
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stall for a
minute while you look.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, thank you.
AML FUNDS
Mrs. Lummis. Actually I do not have a question. I do have
an observation. It is about AML. I understand that subject has
come up in my absence while I was at other hearings. Under
SMCRA, the state of Wyoming and any other state that has coal
production, is entitled to its share under the law of that
money. And that money belongs to my state. It does not belong
to the federal government, and so that is--it is just clear. It
is in the law.
Now there are some laws that people do not like. Apparently
the president does not like the Defense of Marriage Act law,
and he is not going to enforce it. But that does not mean it is
not the law. That is that way with AML, you know. So now I
would strongly encourage you to also visit with Congressman
Rahall of West Virginia because my predecessors, between
Wyoming and West Virginia delegations, negotiated an
arrangement which allowed the interest income off those monies
to be used to resolve the problem of the United Mine Workers
Combined Benefits Fund and to ensure that those orphaned miners
whose mines went out of business and could no longer pay, to
make sure they had benefits to which they were entitled. It
provided that source of funds.
And as a successor to that agreement that was made by my
successor with Congressman Rahall and others from West
Virginia, I am going to honor that agreement, and to his great
credit, so is Congressman Rahall. So I encourage you to look at
the history here and as discussions about AML occur, I think
there is a history that is worth revisiting. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Pizarchik. If I may. Thank you, Congresswoman Lummis.
As far as the president and this office following the law, we
have done that. We will continue to do so. We made a proposal
last year, as I am sure you are aware, to reduce or eliminate
funding to your state or any other state who certified they
completed reclamation. That was not enacted by Congress, and
earlier this year, for the 2011 budget, the mandatory
distribution funds were made available. We are implementing the
law.
I understand there is a history there. There is also
history that we discussed earlier when you were not here that
the original purpose was to try to get the worst of the
abandoned mine lands cleaned up, and the original formula was
based upon where coal production was occurring at that time.
Things have changed which lead to some of the statutory
changes. The most recent were the 2006 amendments. I appreciate
your view that it was your money. Just like you, I was not here
for those discussions. And for whatever reason, all that money
was not appropriated at that time, and that led to the 2006
amendments and the compromises that were struck at that point
in time.
We are in some very difficult budget times right now, and,
you know, the money that would be going to Wyoming is coming
out of the general treasury fund. And, you know, that is one of
the reasons why we are looking at proposing it is to reduce the
amount of the deficit we have, recognizing that there was a lot
of history behind the issue.
But again, we are trying to deal with the situation that we
have today, and we do know that it requires statutory changes.
We are working on putting that information together for
consideration later this year.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that
discussion, and did I stall long enough?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, I found it.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
FEDERAL PERMIT FEES
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Last question. The budget proposes
to permanently allow OSM to retain and use up to $40,000 in
coal mine permit applications and renewal fees which are
currently collected and deposited in the general fund. These
offsetting collections would reduce the appropriated amount by
the amounts collected as collections roll in. How much was
collected in 2009 and 2010?
Mr. Pizarchik. I do not have those numbers at my fingertip.
My budget officer tells me that they have been averaging about
$40,000 a year.
Mr. Simpson. Total?
Mr. Pizarchik. Yes, and to give you an idea of cost
recovery, it is about a couple of percent of our actual cost,
and earlier we had mentioned that we were encouraging the
states to recover more of the costs. We are looking at the same
for ourselves. We started this past year by putting the
infrastructure together, the coding together, information to be
able to track our actual costs. Our intention is to do the same
thing for the Federal programs that we are asking the states to
do, to recover more of those costs for the services that are
provided to the industry.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today and
participating in this hearing. We look forward to working with
you as we put together your 2012 budget.
Mr. Pizarchik. You are welcome, and you had mentioned about
wanting to get together. I am available to get together to meet
individually with any member who would like more information. I
would be happy to do so.
Mr. Simpson. We will do that.
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Abbey, Robert.................................................... 763
Bennett, Barbara................................................. 247
Elkins, A. A., Jr................................................ 149
Hayes, David..................................................... 547
Haze, Pamela..................................................... 547
Jackson, L. P.................................................... 247
Jarvis, Jonathan................................................. 707
Kendall, Mary.................................................... 1
Mittal, Anu...................................................... 1
Mouritsen, Karen................................................. 763
Najjum, Wade..................................................... 149
O'Dell, Margaret ``Peggy''....................................... 707
Owens, G. H...................................................... 855
Pizarchik, Joseph................................................ 855
Rusco, Frank..................................................... 1
Salazar, Hon. Ken................................................ 547
Sheaffer, Bruce.................................................. 707
Stokes, R. E..................................................... 855
Trimble, David................................................... 149
I N D E X
---------- --
--------
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
2012 Volume 6--Hearing Indices
Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior
March 1, 9:30 AM
Page
Acquisition Management........................................... 46
BIA Alaska Reservation Roads Program............................. 119
BIA Detention Facilities......................................... 118
Biography: Anu K. Mittal......................................... 44
Biography: Frank Rusco........................................... 44
Biography: Mary Kendall.......................................... 54
Communications Coordination...................................... 61
Cross-Department Coordination.................................... 62
Environmental Stewardship vs. Oil and Gas Development............ 94
Financial Assistance.............................................46, 70
Financial Management............................................. 45
Fort Peck Tribal Credit Program.................................. 119
Grants, Cooperative Agreements................................... 70
Health, Safety, and Maintenance.................................. 45
Human Capital Deficiencies in Oil and Gas Management............90, 128
Indian Funds: Mismanagement...................................... 72
Indian Lands: Fractionation...................................... 73
Indian Trust Responsibilities.................................... 74
Indians and Insular Areas........................................ 46
Information Sharing.............................................. 60
Information Technology...........................................45, 60
Interior's Oil and Gas Management on the Feb. 2011 Government
Wide High Risk List...........................................87, 125
Lease Price Thresholds........................................... 67
Non-Responsiveness............................................... 120
Oil and Gas Revenues.............................................56, 63
Onshore Revenue Collection: Challenges........................... 75
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 1
Opening Remarks: Ms. McCollum.................................... 2
Outer Continental Shelf Oversight................................ 45
Past GAO Recommendations......................................... 55
Questions for DOI IG from Chairman Simpson....................... 114
Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Cole............................... 142
Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Flake.............................. 143
Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Moran.............................. 125
Questions for GAO from Chairman Simpson.......................... 81
Questions for GAO from Mr. Cole.................................. 106
Questions for GAO from Mr. Flake................................. 110
Questions for GAO from Mr. Moran................................. 87
Questions for the Record: DOI IG................................. 114
Questions for the Record: GAO.................................... 81
Recruitment and Retention........................................ 60
Reducing Interior's Deferred Maintenance Backlog................99, 133
Reorganization of Former MMS and Similar Needs at BLM...........92, 130
Resource Protection.........................................46, 99, 134
Revenue Collections..........................................45, 75, 95
Revenue Sources: Additional...................................... 65
Seldovia Ferry................................................... 120
Strengthening Accountability of Indian and Insular Area Program103, 135
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Fisheries (SLPT)........................ 120
Testimony of Acting DOI Inspector General Mary Kendall........... 45
Testimony of GAO Directors Anu K. Mittal & Frank Rusco........... 3
Togiak Roads, LLC................................................ 119
Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection Agency
March 2, 9:30 AM
Biography: Arthur Elkins, Jr..................................... 201
Biography: David Trimble......................................... 189
Chesapeake Bay................................................... 203
Cyber Security.................................................211, 242
Data: Collection and Reporting.................................204, 236
Delegations to States............................................ 206
Endocrine Disruptors............................................. 213
Inspector General Act............................................ 209
Nanotechnology................................................... 213
National Environmental Policy.................................... 234
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 149
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 149
Questions for DOI IG from Chairman Simpson....................... 234
Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Moran.............................. 245
Questions for GAO from Chairman Simpson.......................... 216
Questions for GAO from Mr. Moran................................. 227
Questions for the Record: DOI IG................................. 234
Questions for the Record: GAO.................................... 216
Superfund........................................................ 238
Superfund: Special Accounts...................................... 240
Testimony of EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr............. 190
Testimony of GAO Acting Director David Trimble................... 151
Toxic Substances Control Act...................................202, 241
Water Infrastructure............................................. 235
Water Infrastructure: Clean Water and Drinking Water............. 245
Water Infrastructure: Green...................................... 209
Water Nutrients.................................................. 203
Environmental Protection Agency FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 3, 9:30 AM
Air Permits in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf.................. 454
Air Quality.....................................273, 275, 289, 295, 436
Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Permits.......................... 269
Arsenic/Phosphorus............................................... 326
Assistance to States and Locals.................................. 429
Assisting Small Water Systems.................................... 284
Bed Bugs......................................................... 416
Biography: Barbara Bennett....................................... 263
Biography: Lisa Jackson.......................................... 262
BioMass.......................................................... 428
Boiler MACT Rule................................................. 458
Carbon Capture and Storage....................................... 358
Chemical Safety................................................260, 282
Chesapeake Bay............................................268, 338, 422
Clean up of DOD Superfund Sites.................................. 424
Clean Water Act...........................................300, 271, 435
Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure.................... 425
Coal Combustion Ash.............................................. 349
Coal-Fired Power Plant........................................... 283
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)................................................... 459
Construction Effluent Limitation................................. 536
Criteria for Regulatory Changes.................................. 293
Delay of Mandatory Reporting to the Greenhouse Gas Registry...... 324
Desert Rock Energy Facility...................................... 450
Diesel Emissions Reduction Program........................280, 325, 438
Draft Pesticide Registration Notice 2010-X....................... 442
Economic Impact of Regulations................................... 426
E-Manifest User Fees............................................. 364
Endocrine Disruptor.............................................. 283
Energy Star: Verifications and User Fees......................... 365
Enforcement: Common Sense......................................330, 433
Environmental Permitting......................................... 440
EPA and States Roles............................................. 294
EPA Budget.....................................................282, 295
EPA IRIS Assessment of Halogenated Platinum Compounds............ 367
EPA IRIS Assessment of Inorganic Arsenic......................... 374
EPA Personnel and FTE............................................ 409
EPA Priorities................................................... 294
EPA Research..................................................... 294
EPA Rural Water Systems Budget................................... 304
EPA Workforce.................................................... 265
Ethanol/E15...................................................... 528
Ethanol/Renewable Fuels Standard................................. 353
Fill Rule........................................................ 348
Fly Ash or Coal Ash Regulation................................... 297
FSMP............................................................. 415
Funding Restrictions............................................. 301
General Budget: Operating Plan................................... 415
Great Lakes...............................................336, 338, 538
Green Infrastructure............................................. 394
Greenhouse Gases..........................................299, 309, 422
H.R. 1 Amendments................................................ 264
High Unobligated Balances........................................ 311
High Unspent Balances: Recovery Act.............................. 312
Homeland Security................................................ 406
Hydraulic Fracturing.............276, 277, 293, 355, 430, 452, 461, 469
Information Technology........................................... 390
Lead Paint in Commercial Buildings............................... 530
Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................ 300
Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation.......................... 261
Maximum Achievable Control Technology............................ 304
Milk Regulation.................................................. 335
Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names......................... 296
Mississippi River Basin........................................350, 431
Mobile Source Fees Program....................................... 363
Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Grants Complement Gap Grants... 430
National Environmental Policy Act................................ 280
Natural Gas...................................................... 468
Navigable Waters...............................................265, 314
New York Times Article........................................... 302
NSR Rule for Indian Country...................................... 449
Oil Spill........................................................ 333
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 247
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 249
Opening Remarks: Mr. Rogers...................................... 250
Ozone Standard................................................... 379
Permitting Guidance.............................................. 270
Pesticide NPDES Permits.......................................... 318
Pesticide Registration and Reregistration........................ 391
PM Research Centers.............................................. 385
Polychlorinated Biphenyls........................................ 286
Portland Cement and Boiler MACT Regulations...................... 328
President Obama's January 18, 2011, Executive Order.............. 293
Puget Sound...................................................... 272
Questions for the Record......................................... 309
Questions from Chairman Simpson.................................. 309
Questions from Mr. Calvert....................................... 436
Questions from Mr. Cole.......................................... 447
Questions from Mr. Hinchey....................................... 461
Questions from Mr. LaTourette.................................... 442
Questions from Mr. Moran......................................... 422
Questions from Mr. Rogers........................................ 435
Questions from Mr. Flake......................................... 528
Questions from Ms. Kaptur........................................ 538
Questions from Ms. Lummis........................................ 454
Regulation.................................284, 292, 306, 367, 447, 454
Reports to Congress on Lead and Stormwater....................... 532
Rescission.....................................................406, 431
Rule: Cost Benefit Analysis...................................... 267
Science Advisory Council......................................... 290
Spill--Seneca Nation of Indians.................................. 453
Spill Prevention and Counter Measure Program..................... 288
Spray Drift...................................................... 321
Spruce Mine Permit............................................... 348
STAR Grants...................................................... 387
State Air Grants................................................. 399
State Revolving Funds (SRFs)..............................313, 316, 266
Stormwater.....................................................319, 529
Superfund............................................359, 361, 392, 430
Supporting Healthy Communities................................... 260
Testimony of Administrator Jackson............................... 253
Tightening Air Quality Standards for Ozone....................... 534
Title 42......................................................... 382
Toxic Substances Control Act..................................... 432
Tribal Grants.................................................... 402
Unobligated Funds................................................ 266
Urban Rivers Initiative.......................................... 351
US-Mexico Border Grants.......................................... 405
Wastewater Discharge Permit PA--0026825.......................... 461
Wastewater Utilities............................................. 443
Water Infrastructure............................................. 322
Waters Pollution................................................. 423
Wetlands......................................................... 534
Department of the Interior FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 8, 1:00 PM
2012 Budget...................................................... 552
2012 Funding..................................................... 600
Alaska Oil Drilling.............................................. 617
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).................... 670
America's Great Outdoors.......................................580, 650
Biography of Deputy Secretary David Hayes........................ 574
Biography of Pamela K. Haze...................................... 575
Biography of Secretary Ken Salazar............................... 572
BLM Draft Solar PEIS............................................. 681
BOEMRE Reorganization............................................ 576
Budget Cuts...................................................... 552
Bureau of Indian Education Schools............................... 590
California Water Issues.......................................... 688
Climate Change................................................... 652
Climate Change Coordination...................................... 618
Cobell........................................................... 584
Conservation...................................................554, 629
Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties............... 642
Costs of Endangered Species Act Implementation................... 604
Delisting of the Northern Rockies Wolves......................... 585
EAJA............................................................. 621
Employee Retention............................................... 578
Energy........................................................... 553
Energy Management On-Shore....................................... 647
Everglades Restoration........................................... 627
FCC Towers & Potential GPS Interference.......................... 693
Gas Prices....................................................... 592
Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial
Assurances and Bonds........................................... 664
Goals for Domestic Energy Production............................. 613
Grazing Permits.................................................. 622
House Resolution 1.............................................578, 640
Hydraulic Fracturing...........................................595, 598
Idaho Bull Trout Decision........................................ 623
Indian Country, Cobell and Needs at BIA.......................... 655
In-Holdings...................................................... 580
Land Acquisition/PILT............................................ 630
Land and Water Conservation Fund................................. 611
Land Into Trust.................................................. 599
Legislative Proposals on Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation,
Hardrock
Mining, and Non-Producing Oil and Gas Leases................... 662
Litigation Costs................................................. 609
LWCF--California Desert.......................................... 678
LWCF/Federal Land Acquisition.................................... 619
Mitigation Costs................................................. 703
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans.......................594, 690
National Mall Needs and Options.................................. 659
Non-Producing Fee Proposal....................................... 616
Ocean Energy and BP Spill and Future Funding Needs............... 643
Oil and Gas Development.......................................... 607
Oil and Gas Royalties............................................ 597
Oil and Gas Royalty Collection................................... 614
Oil Spills....................................................... 576
Opening Comments by Congressman Lewis............................ 587
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson.............................. 547
Opening Remarks of Congressman Dicks............................. 550
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran............................. 548
Opening Remarks of Secretary Salazar............................. 551
Permitting....................................................... 578
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 613
Questions for the Record from Congressman Calvert................ 683
Questions for the Record from Congressman Cole................... 698
Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake.................. 703
Questions for the Record from Congressman LaTourette............. 697
Questions for the Record from Congressman Lewis.................. 676
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 640
Raising Fees on Onshore and Offshore Oil and Gas Producers....... 615
Reducing Interior's Deferred Maintenance Backlog................. 669
Renewable Energy and Strengthening Resource Protection........... 666
Renewable Energy Projects........................................ 680
Reprogramming from State Regulatory Grants....................... 583
Riverside County Habitat Conservation............................ 696
Rocky Mountain Wolves..........................................605, 609
Royalties......................................................577, 592
Santa Ana Sucker................................................. 588
Southwest Border................................................. 601
Southwest Border Mitigation...................................... 603
Stove Piping..................................................... 587
Stream Protection Zone Rule...................................... 581
Strengthening Accountability of Insular Area Programs............ 660
Uranium........................................................608, 704
Water.................................................... 554, 588, 593
Water Rights..................................................... 600
Wild Horse and Burros............................................ 624
Wild Horses...................................................... 654
Wild Lands...........................................579, 596, 606, 617
Wildfire and Cohesive Strategy................................... 669
Wildland Fire Center............................................. 639
Wildland Fire Cohesive Strategy.................................. 626
National Park Service FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 9, 9:30 AM
Administrative Cost Savings and Management Savings............... 759
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 749
America's Great Outdoors.......................................742, 744
Biography of C. Bruce Sheaffer................................... 721
Biography of Jonathan B. Jarvis.................................. 719
Biography of Margaret O'Dell..................................... 720
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Stewardship............................. 749
Civil War 150th Anniversary...................................... 754
Climate Change................................................... 751
Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties............... 741
Cultural Resources............................................... 756
Deferred Maintenance............................................. 723
Deferred Maintenance Backlog..................................... 722
Energy Efficiency................................................ 736
Everglades Restoration........................................... 737
Ford's Theatre-Peterson House.................................... 734
Government Shutdown.............................................. 732
Grand Teton National Park Concessioners.......................... 761
Gulf of Mexico and BP Transocean Deepwater Horizon Disaster...... 758
House Resolution 1............................................... 740
Land Acquisition................................................. 728
Land Acquisition and State Assistance..........................722, 724
Management Efficiencies.......................................... 724
National Mall..................................................725, 731
National Mall Needs and Options.................................. 746
National Parks in New York City Area............................. 732
NPS Centennial................................................... 737
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson.............................. 707
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran............................. 707
Opening Remarks of Director Jarvis............................... 708
Park Operations................................................733, 745
Park Police and Security......................................... 757
Partnerships..................................................... 734
Program Elimination.............................................. 723
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 737
Questions for the Record from Congressman Calvert................ 760
Questions for the Record from Congresswoman Lummis............... 761
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 740
Reducing Deferred Maintenance Backlog............................ 750
Save America's Treasures Grants...........................728, 731, 747
St. Croix National Scenic River.................................. 729
Territories....................................................731, 733
Tropical Forests................................................. 733
Yosemite Staffing................................................ 760
Youth in the Great Outdoors Initiative........................... 755
Bureau of Land Management FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 10, 9:30 AM
America's Great Outdoors......................................... 849
Applications for Permits to Drill................................ 788
Biography of Director Robert Abbey............................... 777
Biography of Karen Mouritsen..................................... 778
BLM Staffing..................................................... 808
Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties............... 822
Equal Access to Justice Act...................................... 790
Fee on Non-Producing Leases....................................789, 793
Grazing--Jarbridge Permits....................................... 783
Grazing--Permit Backlog.......................................... 784
Grazing Permits.................................................. 801
Hardrock Mining Administrative Notices Under NEPA................ 819
House Resolution 1............................................... 821
Hydraulic Fracturing............................................. 793
Impact of H.R. 1................................................. 780
Land Acquisition...............................................809, 852
Merging Forestry and Range Programs.............................. 809
National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS)..................814, 844
National Landscape Conservation System Spending.................. 852
New BLM Wild Lands Policy (Secretarial Order #3310).............. 846
Northwest Forest Plan--Survey and Manage......................... 811
Office of Wildland Fire.......................................... 804
Off-Road Racing.................................................. 785
Oil & Gas........................................................ 816
Oil and Gas Development.......................................... 793
Oil and Gas Inspection Fees and Legislative Proposals............ 842
Oil and Gas Royalty Rate Reform and Disclosure of Fracking
Chemicals...................................................... 782
Oil, Gas and Coal Management..................................... 825
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson.............................. 763
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran............................. 764
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 801
Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake.................. 852
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 821
Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REA).............................. 811
Renewable Energy...............................................779, 847
Renewable Energy Development on Public Lands..................... 815
Shifting Inspection Costs........................................ 779
Soda Ash......................................................... 792
Testimony of Mr. Abbey........................................... 765
Timber Sales..................................................... 810
Travel Management Plans.......................................... 810
Uranium Production............................................... 791
Wild Horse and Burro Management...........................780, 782, 791
Wild Horse and Burro Program..................................... 805
Wild Horses, Changing Management Emphasis........................ 823
Wild Lands Policy..............................................796, 808
Office of Surface Mining FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 10, 11:00 AM
2008 Stream Buffer Rule.......................................... 871
2010 Memorandum of Understanding................................. 870
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund............................. 903
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation: Legislative Proposal............ 876
AML Emergency Funding............................................ 877
AML Emergency Program..........................................891, 911
AML Funds........................................................ 886
Authority to Retain and Use Permit Fee Collections............... 891
Biography of Glenda H. Owens..................................... 867
Biography of Joseph Pizarchik.................................... 866
Biography of Ruth E. Stokes...................................... 868
Coal Mining Permit Process....................................... 869
Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment.......................... 871
EIS Contract...................................................872, 882
Expansion and Enhancement of Oversight in Appalachia............. 878
Federal Permit Fees.............................................. 887
Future Legislative Proposal to Focus Reclamation................. 898
House Resolution 1............................................... 895
Legislative Proposal--Competitive Grant Approach................. 913
Legislative Proposal: Competitive Selection Process for Abandoned
Mine Land Reclamation Funds.................................... 893
Legislative Proposal: Elimination of Payments to Certified States 892
Material Damage Outside Permit Area.............................. 871
Mining Within 100 Yards.......................................... 881
Opening Statement of Chairman Simpson............................ 855
Opening Statement of Congressman Moran........................... 855
OSM Oversight of State Programs.................................. 879
Permit Coordination in Tennessee................................. 869
Permit Fee....................................................... 904
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 888
Questions for the Record from Committee Chairman Rogers.......... 911
Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake.................. 913
Questions for the Record from Congressman Moran.................. 895
Regulation and Technology Program Increase for Environmental
Improvements................................................... 903
Regulatory Grants................................................ 888
SMCRA............................................................ 906
State Regulatory Grants.......................................... 884
State Regulatory Program Reduction............................... 900
Stream Protection Rule Schedule.................................. 873
Stream Protection Rule: Environmental Impact Statement........... 872
Stream Protection Rule: Impact of H.R. 1......................... 874
Stream Protection Rule: Impact on Jobs and Production............ 875
Stream Protection Rule: Need..................................... 874
Ten Day Notice of SMCRA Permits.................................. 912
Testimony of Director Pizarchik.................................. 856
Youth Engagement at OSM.......................................... 880