    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    THE PRESIDENT'S 2016 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR
                    THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

                                    (114-9)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 18, 2015

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    93-776-PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,      ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
      Vice Chair                         Columbia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    JEFF DENHAM, California              JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JANICE HAHN, California
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 JARED HUFFMAN, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York

                                      (ii)

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                           BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman

    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    JEFF DENHAM, California              JARED HUFFMAN, California
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 Columbia
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    CRESENT HARDY, Nevada                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             Officio)
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
    Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   WITNESSES

    Kenneth J. Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Responses to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio...................................    51
            Hon. Duncan Hunter of California.........................    60
    Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
      Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency:

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
        Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Bob Gibbs, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio..........    74

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     THE PRESIDENT'S 2016 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR
                    THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m. in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Gibbs. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Water
    Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure will come to order.
        Unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the
    hearing record be kept open for 30 days after this hearing in
    order to accept other submissions of written testimony for the
    hearing record.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Gibbs. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Today we have the hearing dealing with the President's
    budget for EPA and water. And we have Mr. Ken Kopocis?
        Mr. Kopocis. It is Kopocis.
        Mr. Gibbs. Kopocis. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. He is the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
    of Water. And I think--congratulations. I think you are fairly
    new in the position.
        Mr. Kopocis. In this capacity. Yes, sir. Since last August.
        Mr. Gibbs. Congratulations. And then also, Mr. Mathy
    Stanislaus?
        Mr. Stanislaus. It is Mathy Stanislaus.
        Mr. Gibbs. Stanislaus. You guys have to get easier names
    for me, I will tell you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gibbs. He is the Assistant Administrator, the Office of
    Solid Waste and Emergency Response to the U.S. EPA.
        We will start--my opening statement. This is the hearing
    for ``The President's 2016 Fiscal Year Budget: Administration
    Priorities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.''
    Again, I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today.
        When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act and other Federal
    environmental statutes some 40 years ago, it envisioned the
    Federal Government and the States would be equal partners in
    solving the Nation's environmental problems. For many years the
    Federal-State partnership has worked well. However, in the past
    few years, we have seen a change in the approach taken by the
    Environmental Protection Agency that may undermine the balance
    between the Federal and State partnership that has long
    existed.
        EPA is now taking away the flexibility that States and
    local governments need to address their environmental issues.
    EPA is aggressively moving forward simultaneously on several
    regulatory fronts, with the result that the States and local
    governments, as well as the private regulated community, are
    facing increasing regulatory, enforcement, and financial
    pressures to address a multitude of burdensome regulatory
    requirements that recently have become EPA priorities.
        I am particularly concerned about EPA's proposed waters of
    the United States rule. This proposed rule will substantially
    increase the regulatory burdens for States, local governments,
    and businesses, especially small businesses. This proposed rule
    is on top of the other unfunded mandates advanced by the EPA,
    with the result that many local communities and private
    entities are now increasingly struggling for how to pay for
    complying with these mandates. EPA's aggressive actions have
    created financial pressures and regulatory uncertainty for
    States, local governments, and the regulated community, and
    have had a chilling effect on the Nation's economy and job
    creation.
        The EPA budget put forth from the administration for fiscal
    year 2016 does nothing to alleviate my concerns. While the EPA
    is imposing more unfunded regulatory burdens on communities,
    businesses, and citizens, the administration is calling for a
    reduction in spending for programs that assist communities in
    their efforts to come into compliance with those regulations,
    like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the SRF program.
        Sadly, not only is the EPA adding to the burden of rules
    and regulations and reducing programs to help State and local
    government come into compliance, but the EPA is also putting
    more boots on the ground to track down those who have
    difficulty coming into compliance, with questionable benefits
    to the environment.
        We all want clean water. However, we also need to have a
    strong economy so we can make the investments that new
    regulations require. We need EPA, as the partner agency, to
    work to restoring its trust with State and local governments.
    Today is not the day to impose new burdens on the American
    people. We need to help people come into compliance with the
    multitude of regulations we already have, and make significant
    progress in developing and creating long-term jobs and a
    stronger economy before we can tolerate more expensive
    regulations.
        I now recognize my ranking member, Mrs. Napolitano, for any
    remarks she may have.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
    first hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment for the 114th Congress. And I would welcome--but he
    is not here yet--Congressman Jared Huffman, California's Second
    Congressional District, the newest Democratic member on the
    subcommittee--both have background on the Committee on Natural
    Resources--and is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
    Water, Power and Oceans of the Committee on Natural Resources.
    So we will be working with him on issues that we may overlap.
    And I do look forward to working together on water issues.
        Mr. Chairman, this is my first hearing at the Subcommittee
    on Water Resources and Environment as ranking member. And thank
    you for your efforts in welcoming me to the subcommittee, and
    for your offer to work collaboratively with our side of the
    aisle on some issues, including those related to infrastructure
    investment and implementation of WRRDA. While I do not expect
    that we will always agree--and I say that laughingly--I do look
    forward to building a strong and transparent working
    relationship with you and all of the members of this
    subcommittee. The American people want us to continue the
    bipartisan traditions of this subcommittee to accomplish tasks
    that our constituents have sent us here to do, to address the
    water resources challenges facing our Nation.
        One of the greatest challenges facing us today is crumbling
    infrastructure. Over the years we have spoken to, listened to,
    countless mayors, city and county officials, stakeholders, on
    the issues to discuss water-related challenges in all of our
    communities, and about the lack of attention, or the lack of
    progress, if you will, in addressing these challenges.
    Unfortunately, much of the lack of progress can be traced to
    the slow and steady decline in Federal investment to critical
    water-related infrastructure, which is a good segue to today's
    hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's 2016 budget
    request.
        Very few Federal agencies are as praised or as vilified as
    EPA. It depends on which side of the fence you are on.
    Depending on your point of view, this agency--created by a
    Republican administration, and charged by Congress with
    safeguarding the health of the public and of the environment--
    is often portrayed either as the last safeguard of our natural
    environment, or as an overzealous impediment to unfettered
    industrial growth.
        Well, I tell you, if it is industrial growth versus our
    people and our environment, I will tell you where I come from.
        I suppose the reality is somewhere in the middle, where
    this agency makes a concerted effort in reaching a sustainable
    balance between the health of the public, the health of the
    environment, and the health of the economy, while working with
    Congress to be effective in attaining these mutual goals. We
    must agree on the need to balance healthy, economic growth
    while protecting the health of the public and of the
    environment for generations to come.
        In my own district the health of our communities and our
    economies is integrally tied to the health and availability of
    the natural resources, and specifically, the availability of
    clean, safe drinking water. Unfortunately, ensuring this
    careful balance will all but be impossible if EPA must face
    budgetary cuts called for in the recent House Republican budget
    resolutions.
        Back in 2011, Congress approved the Budget Control Act that
    drastically underfunded the discretionary budget authority of
    the Federal Government, including EPA. I voted against the
    Budget Control Act because of its devastating cuts to both
    mandatory and discretionary programs relied upon by our
    Nation's seniors, our cities, our communities, and by our
    constituency. Yet, last year, the House Republican majority
    voted to approve a budget which calls for even greater cuts to
    these programs, jeopardizing our Nation's economic recovery,
    attacking our Nation's efforts to promote a global economy, and
    undermining efforts to create additional good-paying jobs in
    the U.S.
        According to a summary of the budget from 2016, this House
    majority is urging a drastic reduction in nondefense
    discretionary spending over the next 10 years, cut by $1.3
    trillion, or 24 percent below the amount, just to keep pace
    with the inflation. In fiscal year 2024 alone, the House budget
    would be 30 percent below the amount necessary simply to keep
    pace with the fiscal year 2014 spending budget.
        Let's not forget these cuts come at a time when we should
    increase investment in our crumbling infrastructure. For
    example, according to EPA's most recent assessment, our States
    need approximately $300 billion--with a B--for wastewater and
    stormwater systems over the next 20 years. Without question,
    such a draconian proposal would have a devastating impact on
    our agency's ability to carry out statutory obligations.
        As witnesses later will testify, the agency had to
    prioritize how to spend its declining resources, and has had to
    make tough choices in not funding programs and policies that
    are important to our business, to our industries, to our
    communities, and to our Nation. If cuts called for in the
    Budget Control Act are allowed to continue or, worse, to
    deepen, as proposed in this budget, there will be consequences
    in the ability of EPA to meet statutory obligations, causing
    unintended and possibly intended consequences.
        If the cuts called for in the 2015 Republican budget are
    implemented, it will impair EPA's ability to respond to
    industrial spills and other contamination outbreaks that
    threaten local drinking water, such as recently occurred in
    North Carolina and Indiana and Ohio and Montana and West
    Virginia. It is up to the taxpayer to bear the cost of the
    cleanup.
        In all of these instances, EPA officials will provide
    critical expertise to minimize the extent of the contamination,
    and to restore local drinking water supplies as quickly as
    possible.
        Similarly, this subcommittee has heard testimony of a
    number of businesses and industries that rely on Federal
    regulatory agencies for Clean Water Act permits, and their
    concern with the complexity and delays in obtaining these
    permits. However, under the budget recommended by the House
    majority, both the regulatory office of the Corps and permits
    division of EPA would face potential significant budget cuts.
    Result would be it would take longer, because of the
    underfunded staff.
        Further, if these discretionary spending cuts are
    implemented uniformly, we would expect continued cuts to other
    programs with widespread support for our communities, such as
    the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, the
    Superfund cleanup, the Brownfields remediation, and we can go
    on and on.
        And I would just like to say that I have heard others say
    that cutting the EPA budget will not have an adverse impact on
    the environment because decreases in Federal protection of the
    environment will be more than made up by the States. I got news
    for you. To the best of my knowledge, not the case. States are
    asking for more support because of the serious budget cuts they
    face.
        Last Congress, GAO identified several States where cuts to
    the Federal environmental grant programs will result in
    reductions to State environmental staffing, cutting less
    critical programs and increasing State fees. The list goes on.
        In conclusion, if Members are planning to question this
    administration's commitment to addressing the environmental
    challenges facing our Nation, perhaps we first should look in
    the mirror and ask whether this Congress is meeting our
    commitment to the environmental--to our business, in terms of
    providing critical resources necessary for its protection for
    the sustained health of our populations and of our future
    economies.
        In short, I believe the answer is no. And I fear that we
    will soon see the consequences of a lack of physical foresight
    through continued crumbling water infrastructure, declining
    environmental quality, and, worse still, handing our children,
    our great-grandchild, and their progeny, a world of a less--on
    a less environmental sustainable path than we have inherited.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to this
    hearing.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I also look forward to working with
    you in the full subcommittee on the implementation of WRRDA. We
    are going to have some hearings on that. And it is a very
    strong bipartisan bill. And we need to make sure that works
    forward.
        At this time, Mr. Kopocis, the floor is yours, and we
    welcome you.

           TESTIMONY OF KENNETH J. KOPOCIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
     ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
      AGENCY, AND HON. MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
          OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S.
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you. And good morning, Chairman Gibbs
    and Ranking Member Napolitano, and all the members of the
    subcommittee.
        As the chairman said, my name is Ken Kopocis, and I am
    currently serving as the Deputy Assistant Administrator in
    EPA's Office of Water. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today to discuss the President's 2016 budget request for EPA's
    National Water Program.
        The President's budget request reflects EPA's longstanding
    efforts to protect the Nation's water, both at the tap and in
    the environment, and to identify new approaches and
    partnerships to make and sustain improvements in public health
    and the environment. The requested level of $3.7 billion allows
    the National Water Program to continue to support communities,
    improve infrastructure, drive innovation, spur technology,
    increase sustainability, and strengthen partnerships, in
    particular, with our States, tribes, and local governments. In
    fact, 78 percent of our budget request transfers directly to
    States and tribes.
        A significant way that we do this is through the Clean
    Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These funds
    provide critical support to States to improve their water and
    wastewater drinking--and drinking water infrastructure, and to
    reduce water pollution and public health threats. The fiscal
    year 2016 request is for a total of $2.3 billion for the two
    SRFs, $1.116 billion for clean water, and $1.1186 billion for
    the Drinking Water SRF.
        Additionally, in fiscal year 2016 we have included $50
    million to enhance the capacity of communities and States to
    plan and finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
    improvements. We will work with States and communities to
    promote innovative practices that advance water system and
    community resiliency and sustainability. We want to build
    technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of systems to
    promote a healthy and effective network of infrastructure
    investments.
        The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
    2014, which this committee, of course, gave us in the Water
    Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, authorizes an
    innovative financing mechanism for water-related infrastructure
    of national or regional significance, and authorizes us, for
    the first time, to provide direct Federal credit assistance to
    eligible entities. Our fiscal year 2016 budget includes a
    request of $5 million to lay the groundwork to initiate that
    program, in addition to the existing State Revolving Fund
    programs WIFIA would provide yet another source of capital to
    communities to meet their water infrastructure needs.
        In January of this year the agency announced a key
    component of the administration's Build America initiative: the
    Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Financing Center, which we
    just call the financing center. Build America is a
    governmentwide effort to increase infrastructure investment and
    promote economic growth by creating opportunities for State and
    local governments and the private sector to collaborate on
    infrastructure development.
        The finance center at EPA will help communities across the
    country plan for future investments in infrastructure, assist
    in identifying financing opportunities for resilient drinking
    water, wastewater, and stormwater. The center will enhance our
    partnership and collaboration with the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture on training, technical assistance, and funding,
    particularly in rural areas. And we are also collaborating with
    our colleagues at the Departments of Treasury, Housing and
    Urban Development, and Commerce.
        Protecting the Nation's waters remains a top priority for
    the EPA. We will continue to build upon decades of effort to
    ensure our waterways are clean, and our drinking water is safe.
    Water pollution endangers wildlife, compromises the safety and
    reliability of our drinking water sources and our treatment
    plants, and threatens the waters where we swim and fish.
        Beginning later in this year, and into fiscal year 2016, we
    will begin implementation of the Clean Water Rule, which will
    clarify types of waters covered by the Clean Water Act, and
    will foster more certain and efficient decisions to protect the
    Nation's waters. And I expect that we may have an opportunity
    to discuss that more later today.
        Supporting our State and tribal partners, the primary
    implementers of our environmental programs, remains a priority.
    The overall proposed funding levels for tribes has increased by
    8.8 percent over the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels, and we
    are requesting at least $50 million be made available through
    the SRF to support tribes.
        The President's request also includes increases to key
    categorical grants that are of significant importance to
    States, such as a $5.7 million increase to a total of $165
    million for the section 319 nonpoint source program, and an
    increase of $18.3 million to $249 million for our section 106
    pollution control grants that the States use to operate their
    programs.
        In addition, we are requesting over $370 million to
    continue our important regional programs around the country to
    complement our national programs.
        So, thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano,
    and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here
    today. The President's budget reflects EPA's continuing efforts
    to improve water quality and public health, in partnership with
    the States. And I look forward to continuing our work with the
    subcommittee to ensure clean and safe America for--water for
    all Americans where we live, work, and play. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Mr. Stanislaus, the floor is yours, and welcome.
        Mr. Stanislaus. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs,
    Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee. I
    am Mathy Stanislaus, U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for the
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. And thank you for
    the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2016
    budget for EPA's land cleanup and prevention programs under the
    subcommittee's jurisdiction.
        EPA's land cleanup programs regularly work with communities
    across America, cleaning up Superfund sites, responding to
    emergencies, and assisting tribes, States, and local
    governments in cleaning up and redeveloping Brownfields
    properties in hundreds of thousands of communities across the
    country, covering 541,000 sites, and almost 23 million acres.
        Our program makes a difference by protecting local
    communities through the cleanup of contaminated sites, and by
    responding to hazardous spills and releases; by supporting
    State and local emergency planners and responders to prepare
    for spills, releases, and other hazardous incidents; providing
    grants and tools to local communities to generate economic
    opportunity and job creation; by supporting the development and
    beneficial reuse of formerly contaminated properties,
    particularly in underserved and economically distressed
    communities; and helping to support new job-generating
    manufacturing investments in an environmentally responsible
    way.
        The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposes a nearly
    $36 million increase for Brownfields programs from the fiscal
    year 2015-enacted levels. EPA's Brownfields program will use
    this funding to successfully leverage economic investments. And
    the Brownfields sites are located in downtowns of America,
    often the economic engines for communities. And we believe the
    best place for future economic redevelopment--to take advantage
    of the existing assets, existing infrastructure, and to
    maximize the markets that surround these properties.
        On average, EPA's grant programs leverage $18 of every $1
    that EPA puts into a grant by leveraging private and public
    funding. In addition, more than seven jobs are leveraged for
    every $100,000 in grants. EPA has found that residential
    property values increase 5 to 12 percent, once a nearby
    Brownfields property is assessed and cleaned up.
        In fiscal year 2014, the Brownfields program was only able
    to fund 266 of the 823 grant applications, which represents
    only 30 percent of the grant requests. We believe this
    increment will enable EPA to fund an additional 140
    communities, with each of these dollars leveraging, again, $18
    of additional investment, along with the alignment of other
    Federal and State resources.
        Superfund sites are located in more than 1,000 communities
    across the country. Approximately 49 million people live within
    3 miles of a proposed final listed Superfund site. Residents in
    communities located near Superfund sites are economically
    distressed from the loss of economic activity at the Superfund
    sites, as well as the public health consequence. EPA's budget
    request to the Superfund program represents a $65 million
    increase from the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels.
        Our study shows that early intervention at Superfund sites
    avoids disease, including reduction of child blood lead levels.
    Recent studies show that the incidents of birth defects do, in
    fact, go down by early intervention in the cleanup of Superfund
    sites.
        Superfund sites also create job opportunities. A recent
    study of 450 Superfund sites shows that cleanup and
    redevelopment has resulted in over 3,500 businesses located on
    these sites generating annual sales of about $31 billion, and
    employing more than 89,000 people who are earning a combined
    income of $6 million.
        The $43.7 million in Superfund increase and Superfund
    remedial program will enable us to deal with the backlog of
    Superfund sites, enabling these communities to receive the
    similar kinds of benefits. And we project up to 10 communities,
    additional communities, will be funded by this increase in
    resources.
        Lastly, EPA's oil spill program. We are requesting a $4.1
    million increase for the oil spill program to help EPA work
    with State and local responders to expand its prevention and
    preparedness activities. There are approximately 20,000 oil
    spills reported every year, and EPA evaluates 13,000 spills.
    These spills have a tremendous impact on local economies, on
    local waterways, on drinking water. Every investment in
    prevention is an avoided damage to local communities.
        With that, I will look forward to your questions. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I will start the first round of
    questions.
        Mr. Kopocis, on the proposed rule, I noticed Administrator
    McCarthy was talking to a farm group earlier this week. I think
    she--I will paraphrase--said that maybe they weren't
    acknowledging the issue as well, or a better perception, and
    she doesn't want to call it--I noticed in your testimony you
    call it the Clean Water Rule.
        This is an easy question, it is either yes or no. I know
    with all the 34 States writing comments in opposition to the
    rule, and all kinds of entities, from farm groups to
    contractors to real estate developers all across the board--
    just a simple yes or no--has the EPA recently either hired,
    consulted, or contracted with an outside public relations firm?
        Mr. Kopocis. No. No, we have not.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Also I want to follow on here. When the
    Clean Water Act was passed, my vision of the intent was a
    partnership with the Feds and the States. I want to hear what
    your take would be if this rule is implemented, because we had,
    like I said, 34 States that are in opposition that filed
    comments. What do you see the role of State EPAs when this new
    rule is implemented? I see it as such a power grab from the
    U.S. EPA from the States. But what do you see the
    responsibility and the roles of the State EPAs? And how do you
    think the State EPAs have been functioning since the creation
    of their entities and the Clean Water Act in 1972?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you, Chairman Gibbs. I think there
    is no doubt in anybody's mind that the effectiveness of the
    States in implementing the Clean Water Act----
        Mr. Gibbs. Can you pull your mic just a little closer?
        Mr. Kopocis. I am sorry. I think there has been no doubt in
    anybody's mind that the effectiveness of the States in
    implementing their role under the Federal Clean Water Act has
    been outstanding. The States implement the NPDES permit program
    in 46 of the 50 States. They have taken on that responsibility.
        Plus, the statute itself folds in many responsibilities for
    the States, directly. Water quality standards are set by the
    States to meet the uses that the States themselves set. Plus,
    the States have a vital role under their authority under
    section 401 to do water quality standard certifications that
    apply to all Federal permits that may be granted, whether they
    are EPA or any Federal permit or license that is out there.
        So, States have done a remarkable job of assuming their
    responsibilities. And, in fact, as the--the Environmental
    Council of the States is meeting in Washington this week, and I
    spent part of the last 2 days with them, and acknowledged as
    much, and told them if they chose to give the program back to
    us, we simply couldn't do it. We would be way too short on
    manpower and expertise. And that is one of the reasons that, in
    today's budget request, I describe that we are increasing the
    amount of money for section 106 grants, which the States use to
    implement their programs, and providing more resources for
    their 319 program, which they use to address nonpoint source
    programs.
        Mr. Gibbs. You know, I think you mentioned everything else
    they are doing, but how does it affect what-- rule
    implemented----
        Mr. Kopocis. In terms of the rule, we have had extensive
    discussions with the States. We did hear, when the rule was
    first published in March, that the States wished that we had
    had more conversations. We did consult with them in advance of
    the rule, going out. And their response was, ``We wish you had
    done more.''
        So, in response to that, we set up a special process for
    the States during the public comment period. We engaged with
    ECOS, the group I just mentioned; ACWA, the Association of
    Clean Water Administrators, the people that work the programs
    on the ground; and the Association of State Wetland Managers.
    We asked each of those groups to produce five representative
    States of their choosing to meet with us on a regular basis to
    go over the rule and how it might possibly intersect with the
    State programs. The States agreed among themselves, the three
    groups, five each. They picked 15 different States, so we got a
    really----
        Mr. Gibbs. Were these 15 States part of the 34?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes. There were some.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. And so, we sat down with them. We said we
    would schedule whatever meetings they wanted. We ended up
    scheduling four separate meetings of about 2 hours each. And I
    can say with some sense of satisfaction that the--at the last
    meeting, which was scheduled for 2 hours, it was a little over
    an hour, and that meeting ended because, quite frankly, the
    States have run out of things they wanted to talk with us
    about.
        Since the comment period closed, we have reengaged with
    that same group of States to talk to them about possible
    changes that we would make in the rule. We also committed to
    them--I committed to them as recently as yesterday that, once
    the rule goes final, that we want--or, actually, before the
    rule goes final, we want to work with them, so that we can get
    the rule in the right place, as it goes out to the----
        Mr. Gibbs. Let me----
        Mr. Kopocis [continuing]. Transition period----
        Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Follow up on that part of it,
    because in our joint hearing with the Senate, I asked
    Administrator McCarthy--because there is a lot of things that
    came up in that hearing they said they were going to fix in the
    final rule. And I asked, ``Are you going to put out a
    supplemental or something that Members of Congress and the
    public can see before you issue the final rule?'' and she said
    no, they weren't, it wasn't necessary.
        Are you anticipating a lot of significant changes before
    the final rule comes out, and then you are not going to share
    with us, or the public?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, we are anticipating going final with a
    rule this spring. We are not anticipating another round of
    public comment. We do believe that we can make some changes to
    the rule, based on the many comments that we received, either
    in the 400-plus public meetings that we held, both in DC and
    around the country--most of which were outside of the DC area--
    and the 1 million public comments that we received.
        Mr. Gibbs. I am--my time has expired, but I just want to
    ask one quick question on the--just keep going?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gibbs. I have to be fair to my other Members. On the
    comments, my understanding, 1 million or so that is--that have
    comments, and the EPA is saying there is about 19,000 that are
    substantive. Of the substantive ones, do you know what the
    ratio breakdown is between pro and con?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, actually, sir, I think a better way to
    characterize that subset of comments is we characterize them as
    unique comments, in that they are a comment that is not part of
    a mass-mail campaign, or something like that.
        And, obviously, in the overall number of comments, there
    are a significant number of mass-mailers, both pro and against
    the rule. But we characterize them as unique comments, in that
    they are not part of an organized effort.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes, well, the unique comments----
        Mr. Kopocis. They may or may not----
        Mr. Gibbs. What do you see in the unique comments, pro and
    con, what the ratios are?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, and in those, though, they may or may
    not actually offer substantive comments on the rule. They may
    simply offer views without going into great detail as how they
    want the rule to be changed.
        Mr. Gibbs. Does the EPA also have a contractor working with
    you on this, on deciphering and analyzing the comments?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes, sir. We do have contract----
        Mr. Gibbs. What is the contractor's opinion of what the
    ratios are, pro or against? What is the flavor, what is the
    trend?
        Mr. Kopocis. OK. The contractor works to help process the
    comments, separate those that are mass-mailers from those that
    are characterized as unique, to help us understand what are the
    topics, and which ones--you know, we don't have to read 100,000
    of the identical postcards.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
        Mr. Kopocis. But, in terms of the numbers of how those
    break down, I don't have those. I could get those for you.
        Mr. Gibbs. So you are moving--so the EPA is moving forward
    with the final rule, and you don't know if the comments--are
    you taking the comments serious, if you don't know----
        Mr. Kopocis. We are taking the comments extremely
    seriously, sir. Both agencies, us and the Army Corps of
    Engineers have devoted significant resources. Both agencies
    have brought in personnel from their field offices. We brought
    in people from the regions. The Army Corps brought in people
    form their district offices to process the comments. We're
    taking them extremely seriously.
        Mr. Gibbs. But I think with 34 States, and I know 22 of
    those States, and a comment specifically said ``Stop the
    implementation of this rule; let's start over.'' That would be
    significant comments, and you're moving forward with the rule.
    I don't know--if you are, if your actions here--if you are
    taking them serious. If you have a quarter of the States say
    ``drop this,'' the 24 or whatever it was--well, that's half the
    States, isn't it? So that makes me, you know, if you are really
    paying attention to those comments.
        So I'm going to--we're going to have several rounds of
    questions here today, so I want to turn it over to my ranking
    member for any questions she may have. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. And it would be
    interesting to find out whether those comments came from
    cities, from counties, from States, and whether or not--I'm
    sure that was not part of the mass-mailing, but what were their
    major concerns on those comments on those periods? And that
    would be something I'd like to maybe have reported back to this
    subcommittee, sir.
        Mr. Kopocis. Surely.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Administrator Kopocis, $13 million
    included in the President's budget to assist communities
    develop integrated plans through the direct Technical
    Assistance Competitive Grants, in my area, Lake County, cities
    and agencies have been working extensively to comply with the
    new stormwater permit. If the $13 million request is funded,
    how could the agency--how would the agency utilize this new
    funding to assist them in pursuing an integrated approach to
    permitting, and along with that, you have five communities that
    received similar technical assistance. I'd like to know where
    they were, what type of cities they were: urban, suburban, ag,
    and an update on those efforts as to whether we are able to
    learn from those in our areas
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you very much for that question. Yes
    indeed, as you know, the agency is a very strong supporter of
    our integrated planning framework. We have been devoting
    considerable time and resources to that effort, and we have
    been getting really positive responses from communities across
    the country. The fiscal year 2016 request for $13 million would
    allow us to provide significant resources to work with at least
    13 communities, to help them develop integrated plans, so that
    they can best meet their water--stormwater needs in the best
    way possible.
        We want to help communities understand, ``if I only have
    one dollar to spend, where do I spend it? Where do I spend my
    second dollar, my third dollar?'', and make sure that those
    priorities are being recognized in how they meet the needs of
    complying with both the Clean Water and the Safe Drinking Water
    programs.
        Mrs. Napolitano. My understanding is you do--you are
    working with the Conference of Mayors.
        Mr. Kopocis. We are working extensively with the Conference
    of Mayors. In fact, we recently completed an effort where we
    worked with them over the course of several months to
    specifically address affordability issues, which of course is
    at the very heart of the integrated plan.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And funded mandate, sir.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes sir. Yes, ma'am. So we are working very,
    very hard with them to make sure that we have a system that
    works in the communities, that allows them to meet their
    responsibilities for clean water, to their citizens and to the
    environment, but at the same time does not impose an undue
    strain on either the city's budget, the community's budget, or
    the household budget.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Have there been specific
    problems in the implementation of the pesticide general
    permitting, and has it had any significant adverse impact on
    pest control operators or agricultural operators? Have they
    been reported to you, the number, the severity, is it
    increasing, is it diminishing? Can you report on that?
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you again for that question. I can say
    that we have not been made aware of any issues associated with
    the pesticide general permit. Nobody has brought an instance to
    our attention where somebody was not able to apply a pesticide
    in a timely manner including, because our ruling allows for
    post-application notification, there have been no instances.
    We've been getting very good data, and I can actually proudly
    say that that is one area for EPA where we have no active
    litigation, either for us or against us, on the pesticide
    general permit.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, and--that's interesting.
        On the Superfund and Brownfields backlog, we're happy to
    see the support for the reinstitution of the Superfund taxes in
    the budget. Excise taxes imposed on domestic crude oil and
    petroleum products through January 1996 and then they stopped.
    They're used to treat damages caused by release of hazardous
    substances. Do you have any idea, or can you report to the
    subcommittee the number--the quantity of the backlog of pending
    Superfund projects versus the available funding, and along with
    that, if the tax is not reinstated, do you have adequate
    funding to address that Superfund backlog, and for the
    Brownfields program?
        Mr. Stanislaus. I'll take that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I'm sorry. Mr. Stanislaus?
        Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, so we have a backlog of a little over
    30 sites and communities--30-plus communities across the
    country. While some of the increase would address some of that,
    a handful, up to possibly 10, we project, at least 3, maybe up
    to 10, even with that----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would you identify those for the
    subcommittee, so that we know where they're at?
        Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
        Mrs. Napolitano. At least have an idea if any of them are
    in our areas?
        Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Go ahead, and you can finish.
        Mr. Stanislaus. I thought I answered the question.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Does the number--and the amount in
    dollars?
        Mr. Stanislaus. In terms of the total dollars for the
    sites?
        Mrs. Napolitano. The cleanups, right.
        Mr. Stanislaus. I don't have that available in front of me.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would you mind looking it up, or having
    somebody report to us----
        Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
        Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. Because that goes into the
    ``how do we deal with the budget issues'' as the need.
        Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. The required review of Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund allotments to the States: In section
    505 of WRRDA, you were asked to complete a review of the
    allotment of funds to the States under this revolving fund by
    December. Can you tell us what the update on that is?
        Mr. Kopocis. We are on track to meet that deadline. We have
    been working with the States to see how to best fulfill that
    responsibility that was given to us in the--in the Water
    Resources Reform Development Act, but we are on track. We are
    looking to make sure that we can use the most current data
    available. The 2012 needs survey is currently at OMB for
    review, so it is not yet public, but we of course know what's
    in it, and we're working to make sure that--to see that we can
    incorporate that as well.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would it be possible to identify for us
    the--whether this includes tribal and territories?
        Mr. Stanislaus. I'll----
        Mrs. Napolitano. The State Revolving Fund?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yeah. The needs survey that's in the Clean
    Water Act today, it applies to the States, but it also applies
    to the territories and possessions and the District of
    Columbia. So there is the set-aside in the SRF that is
    implemented now for tribes was something that was put in--
    requested by prior administrations and has been carried forward
    through the appropriations process. So it's not in the
    allotment formula itself. But I will take that back to the team
    and talk to them about how it is that we might incorporate
    tribes, and of course we would want to talk with you all, as
    authors of the provision and the States as well.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Very appreciated, and tell it to the
    subcommittee, please.
        The last question I have, Mr. Kopocis, is the EPA quarters
    in region 9 are jointly developing a National Drought
    Resiliency partnership in southern California--the first time
    I've heard of it. I'd like to--it sounds like a great
    opportunity to improve the work that southern California is
    doing on rain capture, on stormwater regs, and recycling,
    improving water efficiency, and of course conservation. Would
    you provide a very short summary of what the pilot project is
    and how others could benefit from this?
        Mr. Kopocis. I will have to get back to you on that. I can
    say generally that we are trying our best to support the
    efforts in any of the areas that have suffered from drought.
    It's an administrationwide effort, but in particular what EPA
    can do, and that is to encourage water reuse and recycling and
    conservation.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we're looking at a continuing
    drought cycle in the West, and certainly we need to look at
    every single item that we can. And may I hope that you get your
    appointment some day soon as Assistant Administrator, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK, I just want to let Members know, I know the
    chairman and the ranking member went over our time, but we're
    going to try to hold close to the time, because we're going to
    do more than one round, so----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Are they going to----
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, we're going to do more than one round. I
    just wanted to make you aware of, so there's a chance then
    we'll have at least two rounds, or maybe more. We're going to
    be here for awhile.
        I recognize now the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stanislaus.
    Gentlemen, first let me thank you for being here. Mr.
    Stanislaus, as you know, the Water Resources Reform and
    Development Act was signed into law last year, thanks to the
    hard work of many of the members of this subcommittee. It
    didn't require much of the EPA, but section 1049 directed EPA
    to revise the exemption on farmers under the Spill Prevention,
    Control, and Countermeasure regulations. Specifically, it
    exempted farms that have an aggregate aboveground oil storage
    capacity of 6,000 gallons or less. Now, it's been 8 months
    since the legislation was signed into law, and yet there is no
    indication from EPA of their intent to exempt farms below this
    capacity.
        For example, when you look on the EPA Web site, it directs
    compliance for the same exemption level that was required in
    2013. My question is: why hasn't EPA let farmers know about the
    exemption level change?
        Mr. Stanislaus. With respect to WRRDA, EPA has in fact
    moved forward on conducting a study of the risk of oil spills
    and discharges from farms to waters per the direction of
    Congress, and per the direction of Congress, once a study is
    completed, we would move forward on potential adjustments to
    the thresholds. Parallel to that effort, our regional offices--
    we're doing an extensive outreach to the ag community and we're
    open to doing more in terms of the spill prevention
    requirements, and we also----
        Mr. Crawford. So just a sec--the law was--it was signed
    into law 8 months ago.
        Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
        Mr. Crawford. Now I know that there was a--also there was a
    requirement for EPA to conduct a study in consultation with
    USDA regarding the appropriate exemption levels; that allowed
    for 1 year. We're coming up on 1 year. We're actually 8 months
    into that. But that didn't mean--that didn't mean that you
    ignore the fact that the 6,000-gallon threshold was signed into
    law. So my question is, now you're still giving the impression
    to farmers that they have to comply at 1,320 gallons when that
    in fact is not the case. Can you update your Web site to let
    them know that 6,000 gallons is the threshold?
        Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. I mean, we've been doing outreach,
    and I'll have my folks take a look at the Web site.
        Mr. Crawford. OK, that would be much appreciated, because I
    don't think the outreach is working at this point. I think
    they're going to your Web site and seeing that that's somewhat
    of a problem.
        Let me ask you this real quick. Are you familiar with
    Executive Order 13690? Specifically addressing Federal flood
    risk management standard?
        Mr. Stanislaus. I can't say I'm intimately familiar with
    that.
        Mr. Crawford. I'm familiar with it, and what that does
    basically is it has the effect of decertifying every levee in
    the United States. Eight hundred eighty-one counties affected.
    Let me give you some details here. It changes the minimum flood
    elevation to be calculated by ``best available science'' for
    climate change, but no one really knows what that means. It
    enforces flood plain management standards, meaning ``all
    structures must be built above flood elevation, not counting
    the levee protection.'' Can you explain how that is going to--
    how much that is going to cost? And what the effects are going
    to be in those--in those protected areas?
        Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, actually, I'm not sure that's within
    my jurisdiction, I'll turn to Ken----
        Mr. Kopocis. Yeah, I--that's not really within our agency's
    scope of responsibility. As--we are affected by that Executive
    order, but in terms of levee certification, that would be more
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        Mr. Crawford. Right, but in the context of waters of the
    U.S., does this not bring you into that loop?
        Mr. Kopocis. Oh, I'm sorry. In terms of the Clean Water
    Rule? The scope of the Clean Water Rule is not affected by the
    certification of a levee or not. The current rule allows for
    the assertion of jurisdiction over waters under the concept of
    adjacent waters, regardless of whether they're separated by a
    berm, a levee, or some other structure. So they're evaluated as
    if the manmade structure did not exist.
        So that's the current rule, and the proposed rule would
    carry forward with that same concept.
        Mr. Crawford. Well, I think what we're going to see here
    with this Executive order is it's going to have overwhelming
    costs and ultimately the taxpayer is going to pay the burden. I
    hope that you all will familiarize yourself with that Executive
    order, because I'm sure we're going to have the opportunity to
    address that, and I feel confident that the EPA will certainly
    have some oversight in terms of enforcement and authority on
    that, as--as WOTUS sort of unwinds with this rule that we hope
    does not go forward, but with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
    thank our distinguished witnesses for--from the Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        I had the privilege yesterday, in my role as the ranking
    member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to
    discuss the important work that your agency is doing to keep
    our air clean and our water safe, and the health and well-being
    of all Americans at the forefront of the national priorities.
        In my time here in Congress, I've served as both the
    ranking member and chairwoman of this committee's Subcommittee
    on Water Resources and Environment. And during my tenure we
    worked together and enacted into law, alongside President Bush
    at the time, the Brownfields Revitalization Act. At the time
    there were over 500,000 such Brownfields sites nationwide. And
    these are abandoned of course; underused sites that represent a
    blight to neighborhoods, pose health and safety threats to our
    communities and create a drain on economic prosperity.
        The city of Dallas, which I represent, was one of the first
    cities designated as a Brownfields showcase community, and over
    35 sites were selected and subsequently redeveloped within the
    city's jurisdiction. Barely $2 million jumpstarted that
    initiative in Dallas, and over $370 million in private
    investment was leveraged to create nearly 3,000 permanent full-
    time jobs. We built over 1,600 units of housing on these
    sites--I live in one of them--and brought about a wave of
    sustained vitality of the city's core. And Mr. Stanislaus, we
    know that you have just outlined a number of things
    accomplished and also the benefits of what we have to gain by
    it, and I want to thank you.
        It's clear that Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment are
    very important to our community and to our economy, and I hope
    that we can agree to continue to meet the President's budget
    request for this vital program.
        On a separate note, I want to briefly weigh in on the
    comments made regarding the Clean Water Rule proposed by the
    EPA. Early this year, EPA Administrator McCarthy came before a
    joint House and Senate committee on this matter, and I said
    then, and I'll say again that the science behind the rulemaking
    is sound. The EPA Office of Research and Development's report
    on the connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream
    waters clearly states that the scientific literature
    unequivocally demonstrates that streams, regardless of their
    size, or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters
    and strongly influence their functions.
        The science is clear; the evidence is there, and I hope
    that we can lay to bed the question of whether or not the
    science of water connectivity downstream is based on evidence-
    based science. I think it is, and I think it is sound science.
    At the root of this debate is the issue of clean water, and I
    firmly believe that access and preservation to the vital
    resource is of the utmost importance to our community. I've
    never met an American who did not want clean water.
        And so my question to both of you is, how extensive have
    the EPA efforts been to make sure to accommodate the concerns
    of various stakeholders, including our farmers, in the
    formulation of the Clean Water Rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Our outreach to
    stakeholders has been unprecedented for the Office of Water and
    the Clean Water Rule. As I said, this rule was signed on March
    25th. It was posted on our Web site that day. It was posted in
    the Federal Register on April 21, which began the actual period
    for public comment. We extended the public comment period
    twice, for a total of 207 days, to November 14th. We received
    in excess of 1 million comments.
        But perhaps even more importantly, during those 207 days,
    our agency held over 400 meetings, either in person--most were
    in person--or on webinars or teleconferences, where we engaged
    with every stakeholder group that we reached out to, or that
    reached out to us. We do not believe that there is a single
    stakeholder group that was not afforded the opportunity to have
    a dialogue with us, and many of those stakeholder groups had
    multiple dialogues. Both multiple times in Washington, but also
    because we held meetings in all 10 of our EPA regions, there
    were multiple opportunities for stakeholders to participate--to
    participate in the dialogue and bring their own regional
    perspective to the discussion. So that's the amount of
    stakeholder involvement that we've had, and we are continuing
    to have, stakeholder involvement as I said--not only have we
    talked with the States since the rule period closed, I have
    personally talked with Members of Congress, and I've talked to
    several stakeholder groups as well.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, my time has expired.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Webster. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having
    this meeting. My question would be to Mr. Kopocis.
        I'm from Florida; we have a lot of water. I'm from central
    Florida. We've got thousands of lakes. One of the counties I
    represent, or the three counties I represent is called Lake
    County, because it's full of lakes; has a big large chain of
    lakes called the Harris chain, just south--just south of my
    district office in Orange County, there's another large chain
    of lakes called the Butler chain, and then there's thousands of
    other lakes, and they're all connected by channels or canals,
    or rivers, small rivers, so I guess my question is can you
    identify the full range of land and home improvements projects
    that would be subject to the Clean Water Act under the proposed
    definition of U.S. waters?
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you again for the question, and I cannot
    specify in particular circumstances in your county, but I can
    talk about the circumstances that I think you are raising in
    terms of the existing rule and the proposed rule, and that is
    how our water's connected with each other, and what role, in
    particular, do subsurface waters play in connecting waters. And
    today----
        Mr. Webster. By the way, most of our waters are close to--I
    mean, you do not have to dig very deep in Florida. We're
    basically a wetland.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Webster. So we're connected.
        Mr. Kopocis. So, but I think that, I mean, even today,
    under today's rule and guidance documents that exists, the
    agencies do look at whether waters are connected through
    subsurface connections to determine whether there is an effect
    between a water body and a downstream traditional navigable
    water. We think that one of the things that we heard throughout
    this proposal process was are we doing that correctly today;
    how does the science support that; and how should we look at it
    going forward.
        This concept shows up in evaluating which waters are
    considered adjacent for purposes of jurisdiction. And adjacent,
    of course, requires that there be some other traditional
    navigable water, or the territorial seas to be adjacent to. And
    so it's not just a matter of taking a water body and drawing a
    chain from water body to water body to water body to water
    body. So because the farther out that you get, the more the
    connection to the downstream water becomes, in Justice
    Kennedy's word, speculative or insubstantial.
        And so we received a lot of comments on this. This is one
    of the areas where the agency is looking at those comments very
    carefully to try to understand are there ways to be more
    transparent and more open about how waters are connected with
    each other, and what lines do you draw where you say while you
    may be able to draw a connection--because as in your instance
    in Florida where water body to water body to water body--at
    some point it becomes too disconnected and too speculative to
    comply with the tests the court gave us, or to be supported by
    the science that our Office of Research and Development
    developed.
        Mr. Webster. Do you know if you considered the tax basis of
    counties? Let's say this slows growth, it slows construction.
    One of the three legs of our economic stool is construction--
    the other is agriculture and the other is tourism--and if
    there's not a specific list of things that you can or cannot do
    in certain areas--and I hope that's forthcoming, if it is, I'd
    like to have it--then even the ad valorem taxes are going to--
    and we do not have an income tax in Florida, we're a great
    State to live in, but we do depend on ad valorem taxes for our
    schools and our county governments, and city governments. And
    do you know if any of that was considered when you did, like,
    the economic impact of what might be done by this rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, that aspect is not part of our economic
    analysis, I can tell you that. But I do want to make sure that
    there's a mutual understanding that, of course the Clean Water
    Act does not apply to an activity unless that activity involves
    the pollution of water or the filling of a water.
        So if you are in an area and you're looking to develop, and
    there is no intent to either pollute or discharge and fill a
    water body, then the Clean Water Act simply does not apply. And
    even where those activities occur, there are ways to get
    permits. The Corps issues tens of thousands of permits to fill
    waters of the U.S. today, and we do not anticipate that that
    will change under the proposed Clean Water Rule, and also there
    are tens of thousands of permits that are issued every day--I
    should not say every day--tens of thousands of permits that
    exist that allow for discharges of pollutants through the 402
    NPDES program, which Florida administers.
        So I think that--I want to make sure that people understand
    what the Clean Water Act is about is controlling pollution or
    deposition of fill material into waters, but it is not operated
    as an absolute prohibition because we have thousands of permits
    in existence to do those very activities today.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Norton, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. The water system in the
    United States is inevitably going to be, no matter what you do,
    is going to be a source of controversy given the multiple
    waters that are involved. Before I go further, though, I'd like
    to say that I was pleased to see the President's slight
    increase $3 million for the Chesapeake Bay. If ever there was
    an indication that this--one of the great wonders, it touches
    seven or eight States--needs our Federal support, it's the
    presence of intersex fish in the Chesapeake Bay.
        I also want to indicate my strong support for your work on
    Brownfields, that's really going to aid parts of our
    communities where expansion and redevelopment is absolutely
    dependent upon doing something about what can often be prime
    land. And we had such prime land here in the District of
    Columbia. At the southeast waterfront, the navy yard had
    contaminated that land; it was cleaned up and it's going to be
    a revenue-producing site here, and that is exactly what's going
    to happen as you continue your Brownfields work.
        Let me ask because this question about the waters of the
    U.S. keeps coming up and, I assure you, will keep up no matter
    what you do. Mr. Kopocis, the opponents have, of course,
    proposed yet a new proposal. In essence it would be another
    round of public comment and rulemaking. It would in essence
    start all over again, so I'm trying to see how we can get to
    the bottom of this, reach some conclusion.
        If you were to start all over again, actually it would not
    be the second time, it would be the third time because the
    agency has also looked at clarifying the Clean Water Act. The
    draft Clean Water Act of 2011, as I understand it, was never
    finalized so if we look at the number of years you've been at
    work, it's close to 4 years, and I must say a very impressive
    number of comments, 1 million comments, not to mention all
    the--the public comments, not to mention all of the
    stakeholders that you have had contact with.
        So I'm trying to see whether what we're looking at is
    another bite of the same apple, or just throwing the apple out
    if the opponents really just do not want the apple to be part
    of what you do because if it was not there, I'm not sure what
    you would do.
        So I have to ask you: what has been your consultation with
    the States and, for that matter, with the Congress, and what
    specifically would be gained by stopping you, blocking you as
    it were, from finalizing the current proposed rule and, in
    essence, saying, ``Start all over again''?
        How would you then proceed? What would be gained by that?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you, Ms. Norton, for that
    question. I think in summary what would be gained is there
    would be a delay in clarifying the jurisdiction of the Clean
    Water Act. A subject which people have been asking our agency
    to do is to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act
    going as far back as when the Supreme Court case came out, the
    SWANCC case, in 2001, and then the more complicated case that
    came out in 2006, the Rapanos case.
        The agencies responded. As you correctly said, we responded
    with guidance in 2003 to respond to SWANCC. We responded with
    guidance in 2008. Those were both part of a public process, and
    then we proposed guidance again in 2011 which was never
    finalized, but was again part of a public process.
        And throughout this process what we have heard from all
    interested parties, regardless of whether they support the
    Clean Water Act or do not support the Clean Water Act, is that
    the agency should do a rulemaking, and we believe that it is
    our obligation to fulfill those requests and do this
    rulemaking.
        Further, issuing another rule for proposal would simply
    delay the ultimate resolution of the----
        Ms. Norton. Would it be redundant to what you have done?
        Mr. Kopocis. I cannot say that it would be. Well, what I
    would say is that I do not know what value would be added other
    than the addition of time. We have, as I said, done extensive
    conversations in person with over 400 meetings with the public,
    received their comments.
        Ms. Norton. Would that include the States and State
    representatives of States themselves who would be affected?
        Mr. Kopocis. We met with the States extensively. As I said,
    our last meeting with the States to discuss issues ended early
    because there was nothing left for us to discuss.
        We also engaged our Local Government Advisory Committee and
    held meetings around the country bringing in local government
    officials from cities and counties. We held meetings in St.
    Paul, Minnesota; Atlanta, Georgia; Takoma, Washington; and
    Worcester, Massachusetts. There we had representatives from
    Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, Wisconsin, Montana,
    Michigan, Texas, Utah, Idaho, New York, Arizona, and
    Washington.
        And so we worked with our communities. That is our Local
    Government Advisory Committee. They went out to these other
    cities. They brought in local officials from those regions to
    further discuss this rule, and we believe that we have received
    the input.
        Quite candidly, I will tell you there is not a lot of new
    in the way of issues that are being raised. Many of the issues
    that are being raised are the same ones that have been raised
    for several years.
        Ms. Norton. I just want to clarify and get your view on one
    question, lest people think that once your final rule comes
    out, they have lost all hope particularly here in the Congress
    of doing anything about it.
        Does Congress not have the authority under the
    Congressional Review Act and the appropriations process to
    continue to express its dissatisfaction any way it sees fit
    with whatever final rule you come forward with?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes, clearly Congress has that authority.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First off, if you would relay a message to Administrator
    McCarthy, telling her thank you for addressing an issue that I
    brought up during our joint hearing a few weeks ago regarding
    the Mahomet aquifer in central Illinois. I appreciate the
    prompt decision on the sole source designation. So thank you
    for your efforts there.
        I do have a question Mr. Kopocis. It is in regards to
    WOTUS. Will the proposed rule or has there been any discussion
    regarding the proposed rule for exemptions for water utilities?
        I am concerned that when water utilities are going to go
    fix a water main, you know, just to give an example, fix a main
    break, are they going to need to get a Federal permit or work
    through the State IEPA to do so?
        Mr. Kopocis. I am struggling to come up with a set of
    circumstances where they would. So I would say the answer is
    no, but, sir, I cannot think of an instance where they would
    need a permit under the Clean Water Act to repair that kind of
    a break.
        Mr. Davis. OK. Well, obviously this issue brings up many
    concerns to us, which is why you are here, why we have had so
    many different hearings on this issue.
        One other question to you, Mr. Kopocis. Can you explain why
    the EPA did not convene the Small Business Advocacy Review
    Panel in accordance with the requirements of the Small Business
    Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act when developing this rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you for that question. We did as
    we do with all of our rules do an analysis of our
    responsibilities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and we
    made a determination that there would be no significant impact
    on a substantial number of small entities. That is the test
    that we are held to.
        We made that determination jointly with our coregulators at
    the Army Corps of Engineers, but we did not just take our word
    for it. We also consulted within the executive branch to
    determine whether our certification was correct. We reached out
    to the Office of Management and Budget, and we reached out to
    the Department of Justice to see if they agreed with our
    conclusion, and they did.
        I do understand that the Small Business Advocate has
    disagreed with that, but we have made our certification, and it
    is supported by others in the administration.
        Mr. Davis. I think you can understand there is a lot of
    concern from the stakeholders. As a matter of fact, a perfect
    example of what I think may not be effective outreach is when
    Administrator McCarthy apologized to farm groups for not
    consulting them on the interpretive rule that has now since
    been rescinded.
        I think this would have been a perfect opportunity to use
    the Science Advisory Board with the new agriculture member to
    have an agriculture focus, too.
        Lastly, I have had Deputy Administrator Perciasepe sit in
    that same chair not too long ago, asked him a question about
    whether or not this proposed rule would exempt individual
    septic systems that discharge aboveground because there is
    language in the proposed rule that says sewage treatment
    facilities are exempt from this rule. He said at that time that
    the EPA did not require permits for aboveground septic system
    discharge units, and frankly, I was surprised by that answer
    because I had the frequently asked questions from region 5 on
    how to get a permit in Illinois for these units.
        I asked the exact same question of Administrator McCarthy,
    and I did not get an answer then either. She actually said that
    was a trick question after Mr. Perciasepe said he was at a
    loss.
        Now, I still have yet to get a response from the EPA to
    that question. This is the third time I have asked this
    question about whether or not these units are going to be
    required to get a permit under the Clean Water Act, and this is
    the concern that we have, that people will come into rooms like
    this, they will answer questions and then walk away, wipe their
    hands off, and check the box that they came here and they took
    the questions.
        I am getting no followup from your agency on this issue. To
    me it is a simple question.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, I will answer it in two ways. First,
    generally, if there is not a discharge from a pipe or some
    other discrete conveyance, there is no Clean Water Act permit
    required.
        I do not know the particular circumstances that form your
    question, but what I will tell you is that the second part of
    my answer is that you will get followup. I will make sure that
    my people in the Office of Water or myself personally will
    contact you or your staff. We will find out the circumstances
    that give cause to your question, and we will give you an
    answer.
        Mr. Davis. Well, I appreciate that. Again, this is the
    third time, and it was Administrator McCarthy the last time on
    this issue.
        So I am very concerned. I want to know if my constituents
    in rural areas are going to have to continue to get a permit
    under the Clean Water Act because the frequently asked
    questions specifically say they may be subject to a Clean Water
    Act citation if they don't do this.
        And you cannot say in the proposed rule that sewage systems
    are exempt without including them. I want to know the answer,
    and I appreciate your time. My time has expired, but thank you.
        Mr. Kopocis. I will absolutely do that, Mr. Davis. We will
    get back with you.
        Mr. Davis. One quick thing. If we do not get a response the
    next time, I am going to have the staff behind you stand up
    when I ask that question, and I am going to say they should be
    fired.
        Mr. Kopocis. I have some of my colleagues here. I may even
    have a couple of them watching this if it is being broadcast
    online. I can assure you you will get an answer.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Esty, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank both of you for joining us here today.
        Mr. Stanislaus, in particular I would like to explore with
    you more about the Brownfields programs. I represent a part of
    Connecticut where these issues are very important. Currently we
    have all too many properties that are not productively engaged
    in the tax rules and contributing to local communities. So it
    is of great interest to us to understand how we can better get
    more properties being treated and back into productive play,
    hiring people, contributing towards economic growth.
        You noted in your testimony that since its creation, the
    Brownfields program has leveraged more than 104,000 jobs and
    $22.1 billion in cleanup and redevelopment. Can you, again,
    sort of digest down from an investment perspective what is our
    return on investment on the taxpayer's dollar when it comes to
    your program's impact on local communities?
        Mr. Stanislaus. In terms of the direct return on
    investment, I am going to have to get back to you. So there are
    various other indications of that. So I noted the land use
    value increases in my testimony. I noted the one for $18
    leveraging.
        So we have various kinds of indications. We are actually in
    the middle of a study of the tax revenue increase based on the
    land use value increase. So I will get back to you when that
    study will be finished.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you.
        I noticed in your written testimony you cite an example
    from our district. In 2009, the EPA awarded a job training
    grant to the Northwest Regional Workforce Investment board in
    Waterbury, Connecticut, and I want to let you know that that
    grant made it possible to develop and implement a job training
    program for unemployed and underemployed individuals in my
    district, in partnership with Naugatuck Valley Community
    College.
        And the graduates of that program had a very high job
    placement rate in the environmental field. How do you measure
    success of the Environmental Workforce Development and Job
    Training Program?
        And, more generally, what are the goals of that program and
    its impact on jobs in the local community?
        And what more can we do in Congress to partner on these
    initiatives?
        Mr. Stanislaus. So I think you have cited one of the
    measures, that is, all people being hired at a fair wage, and I
    think both of these indications have been met at a very high
    level.
        Now, what we have done in the Job Training Program is we
    have really expanded the certification, expanded the skill set
    of the program. Now, the program is really focused on
    individuals that have a barrier to employment, you know,
    veterans, formerly homeless individuals, building that skill
    set to be employed.
        One of the real important aspects of this multiskilled,
    multicertification is that every grantee tailors their program
    around the local market. What we request upfront is partnership
    with local businesses and the kind of skill sets that the local
    businesses need. That's one of the reasons I think it's a
    successful program. A 70-percent hiring rate is a very
    successful program.
        So, I think continued support of that would be great.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, and I can tell you that those
    initiatives are very meaningful because, again, they are
    addressing local workforce needs and getting back into the
    employment rolls folks like veterans and those who are
    underemployed in our economy.
        I wanted one more quick question for you. I noticed looking
    at last year's budget that only 32 percent of the Brownfields
    applications were able to be funded. With the President's
    request for an additional $30 million, what would that do in
    terms of the agency's ability to fund the strongest
    applications?
        Mr. Stanislaus. We project about 140 additional communities
    will be funded.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you. Again, I can tell you having one of
    those communities, it would make a meaningful difference, help
    bring down our unemployment rate and expand job opportunities.
        Mr. Kopocis, just briefly I wanted you to expand a little
    bit on the resiliency initiatives. This is something having
    survived Super Storm Sandy in the Northeast, having increased
    frequency of severe weather; can you talk to us a little bit
    about what the agency is looking to do in this regard?
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you very much for that.
        Yes, we are looking to work with communities and with the
    utilities to make sure that we can help them meet their needs
    as they see them. Our program for climate ready utilities is a
    tool that is available online that people can use to assess
    their risk associated with climate change or the droughts, sea
    level rise or anything else that may be facing them that would
    threaten their resiliency and sustainability, and then they can
    put in whatever inputs they want to put in, and then it will
    help guide them to what are the kinds of actions that you might
    want to consider.
        So it is not a, ``OK, if you are threatened, you should do
    X.'' It is what works for you, and we have been getting very
    positive responses from communities. We are continuing to
    expand that.
        We are including a stormwater calculator, for example, for
    communities so that they can take advantage of it as well.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you.
        I will follow up with you off-line because we are looking
    to do some of this for, you know, greater drainage, different
    kinds of paving, et cetera, and it sounds like that would be
    right in your line.
        Mr. Kopocis. Would love to do it. Thank you.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Massie.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kopocis--sorry about that.
        Mr. Kopocis. That is all right. I have had it mispronounced
    before, sir.
        Mr. Massie. More than 700 communities have combined sewer
    systems that have periodically experienced combined sewer
    overflows, and many of these communities, a few dozen of which
    are in my district, are dealing with consent decrees from the
    EPA and enforcement actions.
        What are the EPA's plans and schedule for dealing with and
    resolving many of these enforcement actions?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you, sir, for that question. We
    are working very hard with communities to make sure that we can
    come up with realistic timetables to address combined sewer
    overflows. As you know, the combined sewer overflow policy
    dates back to the mid-1990s where the agency decided how it was
    going to work best with communities, and Congress enacted it
    into the Clean Water Act.
        Our integrated planning framework is designed in
    significant part to help communities with combined sewer
    overflow needs, and one of the things that we have heard is
    concerns of communities that we have not as an agency been
    flexible enough with communities and that the integrated
    planning framework is too often implemented solely through an
    enforcement action, and are there ways for us to work with
    communities to do it in a permitting context.
        So we are taking a good look at that. Part of the
    investment that we are requesting for fiscal year 2016 would go
    toward that, but we are also looking to invest fiscal year 2015
    funds to look at are there ways to incorporate the concepts of
    integrated planning into the permitting process as well so that
    communities are not forced to go through an enforcement action
    to get the flexibility they are looking for, but we can do it
    in a more collaborative way.
        Mr. Massie. Will the cities that are already locked into
    consent decrees be able to have their situations reexamined and
    reopen those discussions to modify the consent decree?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, reopening a consent decree is not the
    easiest thing to do and that is not EPA's sole decision by any
    means once we are in a consent decree context, and then it
    also, of course, involved equities of the U.S. Department of
    Justice as well. So we have to work with them.
        But I think that what it does reflect is our willingness to
    be flexible. To reopen a consent decree, of course, there needs
    to be some changed circumstances that would cause us to support
    doing that.
        I think that our experience has been while many communities
    want to avoid being in a consent decree and we understand that,
    we have been getting very good results from our existing
    consent decrees, and we have talked with some communities who
    have come back to us and said they would like to revisit
    certain elements, particularly those that are putting in place
    green infrastructure and are getting different results and
    would like to expand perhaps the use of green infrastructure.
        Mr. Massie. Well, you know, in our communities that are
    under the consent decree, they are really struggling to put in
    that new infrastructure, and what it has done is to throttle
    growth in certain areas where the consumers and the residents
    of the area have seen, you know, 20 percent annual rate
    increases to the point where some people have seen their sewer
    rates double.
        And so the sanitation districts do not have the resources
    to put in new infrastructure for the additional homes that
    would be built there, and that is sort of holding back growth
    in these areas.
        So they would really like to see more flexibility in
    dealing with this consent decree and to see the EPA more as a
    partner than a prosecutor, which is, I think, how some of these
    sewer districts see it, and this in my district has been sort
    of the mother of all unfunded mandates.
        Do you have an idea of what the national cost of complying
    with these consent decrees has been in combined sewer systems?
        Mr. Kopocis. I do not have that estimate. I can check and
    see if we have it, and if we do, we will provide it to you.
        Mr. Massie. My indication is it can be--I mean, these sound
    like large numbers--in the billions instead of the millions.
    Some cities are looking at spending more than $1 billion to
    comply with this in communities.
        You know, everybody wants clean water, but there is a
    balance to be struck here, and I hope that the EPA will provide
    more flexibility, and when they do, what can EPA headquarters
    do?
        You know, you have expressed a willingness to have some
    flexibility with these communities, but we want to make sure
    regionally that message gets passed down. Are you doing
    anything to make sure that regionally they get the message
    across the country that flexibility should be looked into?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes. Thank you.
        First, I understand the concern that you are expressing,
    and secondly, we are taking steps to address that, whether it
    is through our integrated planning framework, making sure that
    message gets out.
        We have been working with our regional offices, but we also
    meet regularly with our regional administrators and our
    regional water staff to talk to them about what it is that we
    are looking for in the way of flexibility. We at headquarters
    are emphasizing more flexibility and more creativity in how we
    meet, as you say, our mutual Clean Water Act goals in a way
    that works for communities.
        But we do understand that part of our task at headquarters
    is to make sure that that word gets out of the DC area and
    actually gets out into our regional offices.
        Mr. Massie. Well, hopefully they are watching this hearing
    today in the regional offices.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, I could try sending them a copy.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
        Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Edwards.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the
    ranking member as well and to our witnesses today.
        I really do want to give a special shout-out to the Federal
    workers at the EPA because I just think they do a tremendous
    job protecting our air and our water, and I just want you to
    know how much we value that and appreciate their hard work.
        Under this administration, the agency has actually
    instituted greenhouse gas reporting programs, issued guidelines
    essential to stopping and dumping of waste from mountaintop
    removal and valleys and streams and set stricter standards for
    vehicle fuel efficiency. It has been an amazingly productive
    EPA.
        And in the current budget request, the Chesapeake Bay is
    actually seeing a substantial increase in funding from $70
    million to an additional $3 million over the fiscal year 2015
    request, and I just want you to know how much we welcome that
    as Marylanders because I think this fragile ecosystem that is
    so important to the vitality of the States and the region is on
    the road to recovery, and that is in large part because of the
    partnership, true partnership, that we have had with the
    Federal Government.
        One of my concerns today though has to do with the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund because I think they are also key to
    maintaining our Nation's wastewater needs, and so it was kind
    of disappointing to see that there has been a 23-percent
    reduction from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, and let me
    tell you how those funds work.
        So for the States that receive those funds, they actually
    go into the structures and landscapes and everything else that
    actually contribute to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, and
    so, on the one hand, we are increasing the funding for the bay
    and its restoration but, on the other, we are taking away from
    the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
        So I would really urge the administration to do some
    reconsideration here, and I think that we certainly should do
    that here in the Congress.
        I also want to point to another area that has been really
    important to me as a Member of Congress, and that is green
    infrastructure. We have heard some discussion about that today.
    I think it is cost effective. It is efficient, and the demand
    for green infrastructure grants we heard coming out of the
    Recovery Act and beyond has been over the top, and so
    jurisdictions recognize that, too.
        So thanks for the 10-percent increase in funding levels
    there.
        I want to get to, if we could, there has been a lot of
    discussion about the EPA rulemaking and a lot of misconception
    about that. So in the time remaining, I want to give you
    through our Deputy Administrator the opportunity to describe
    the rulemaking process, the numbers of comments that have been
    received, the changes that have actually been made from the
    beginning to now the proposed rule based on those comments, and
    then you know, I think that we have been going through about
    200 days of comments, which is sort of unheard of in a
    rulemaking process, and yet those are the kind of
    accommodations that the EPA has made because of the concern
    with this rulemaking.
        So I thank you for that, but I want you to take some time
    and explain to us what the process is, where you are going to
    go, and the level of attention that you have paid to make sure
    that this rulemaking finally clears up a decade long process
    that multiple administrations have been engaged in.
        And I will leave you the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you, Ms. Edwards, and in
    particular thank you for the kind words of EPA.
        As many of you know, most of my working career has been at
    this building or in the Dirksen Building, and when I went to
    EPA I also never found a more dedicated set of professionals,
    and they work very hard to serve all of us and keep our waters
    clean and safe.
        The process for doing the Clean Water Rule really has been
    one of the most extensive both in terms of time and resources
    for outreach that this agency has ever contemplated. I went
    through earlier the fact that the agency has been involved
    through a series of guidance documents in trying to address the
    Supreme Court cases, and on those received hundreds of
    thousands of comments through the public comment period.
        We also engaged the public through a series of outreach
    meetings before this current rule went out, including States
    and local governments, and also I should have mentioned to Mr.
    Davis the small business community as well. While we did not
    think that the Regulatory Flexibility Act applied, we reached
    out to the small business community regardless.
        This rule, as I said, was put out on our public Web site
    the day it was signed on March 25th. It was out there for
    review until April 21st when it hit the Federal Register, and
    that started the clock for the comment period, which we
    extended twice.
        We extended it the first time because there were a lot of
    appeals. We put it out for 90 days. We extended it for 90 days,
    and then we wanted people to be able to have an opportunity
    before the comment period closed to actually look at the
    recommendations of the Science Advisory Board that were
    reviewing both our rule and the science that supported our
    rule.
        So we then extended the comment period again so that people
    would have a full 4 weeks to review the Science Advisory Board
    before their comments were due on the proposed rule.
        During that period of comment, we held over 400 meetings,
    the majority of which were around the country. We also, as we
    said, received in excess of 1 million comments. We held
    specific meetings with stakeholder groups targeting in
    particular State and local governments because of the unique
    role that they play, the States as coregulators and the
    municipalities as partners as well because the bulk of our
    water quality improvements come from municipalities.
        So we reached out to them. Since that time we have
    continued to reach out to people. We will be reaching out again
    before the rule goes final so that people can anticipate it. We
    will also be addressing issues, such as the transition period,
    grandfathering of existing determinations, how it is that you
    deal with this transition, what is the opportunity for somebody
    who seeks a permit to say, ``Well, I may have a jurisdictional
    determination, but I would like to have it reconsidered under
    the new rule.''
        So those will be transition questions as well that we plan
    to undertake.
        Ms. Edwards. Thanks, and I have greatly overextended my
    time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Stanislaus, I hope you are not
    feeling neglected today; I bet Ken is a great guy to testify
    with.
        Mr. Kopocis, appreciate you being here today.
        Louisiana is a somewhat unique State for a number of
    reasons, and one of which is the extraordinary watershed that,
    as you know, goes from Montana to the Canadian provinces, to
    New York, the largest watershed in this Nation, one of the
    largest in the world.
        I really struggle with waters of the U.S. definition or
    rule when you attempt to apply a national standard, in effect.
    In reading through the rule, and I have read through the entire
    thing, and in a previous life having served in the executive
    branch at the State level, I could interpret that rule to
    basically apply to virtually any lands in south Louisiana.
        And I had strong concerns about attempting to apply a
    national standard, and I wonder if you could briefly comment on
    that.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you, Mr. Graves.
        And I do not know if it is a breach of protocol, but I have
    known you for so long I will say congratulations. This is the
    first time I have seen you in person since your successful
    election, but congratulations.
        I think that you would find that for a State like
    Louisiana, and as you know, I am very familiar with the State,
    I think you will see very little change in terms of Clean Water
    Act jurisdiction. Today in Louisiana, as you know, the Clean
    Water Act applies obviously to the traditionally navigable
    waters and also the adjacent wetlands.
        I think that the tributary system, our definition is not
    really different except for the first time we are providing in
    the rule what is a tributary. We are putting more bounds about
    what can be considered a tributary and providing less
    discretion to the regulator as to what would constitute a
    tributary.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Just very quickly I am going to
    interrupt. I know you would hate to miss my second, third and
    fourth questions.
        I just want to highlight very quickly though that the
    hydrology in the State is very different. Again, as I say, I
    have read the rule, and I feel very strongly that it could be
    applied to virtually all the lands in south Louisiana.
        The Administrator came before the committee and indicated
    that it would provide more certainty and insinuated, in my
    opinion, that cost of compliance would be lower. As you know,
    the cost of compliance even in your own assessment is higher,
    and the Small Business Administration raised serious concerns
    with the cost of compliance that the Corps and EPA have put
    forth.
        I will tell you right now I would be willing to place a bet
    with you. I would bet you right now. Perhaps I would donate to
    Sierra Club if you agree to donate to Koch Industries that this
    rule is going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court. I think
    that it goes well beyond the bounds of the law, and I will
    acknowledge to you that I think there probably are some
    challenges in the law and perhaps Congress has some
    responsibility to look at that, but can you tell me briefly,
    because I have other questions that I know you would love to
    hear, can you tell me briefly where you believe that the EPA's
    discretion in this case ends?
        Where are the sideboards here?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you.
        And I would take you up on your bet, Mr. Graves, but I
    think it would be unfair. I think Sierra Club needs the money
    more than the Koch Industries does.
        But I think that there are sideboards. In fact, that is
    what this whole rule is about, is providing that greater
    predictability and consistency. One of the things that we know
    is in a post-Rapanos world there have been so many instances
    where there are case-specific analyses that have to be done.
    They are done in 38 different Corps districts without any kind
    of real instruction as to how it is that these determinations
    should be made.
        And so this rule for the first time as opposed to what we
    have today, as I mentioned earlier, it is more specific as to
    what constitutes a tributary for purposes of jurisdiction. It
    is more specific as to what waters would be considered adjacent
    for purposes of jurisdiction.
        We are proposing to put in place a more transparent system
    for people, both the regulators and the regulated community, to
    understand what constitutes a significant nexus to comply with
    the instructions that the Supreme Court gave us.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
        Two quick things. Number one, we met as a result of the
    NACo Conference with numerous parishes that were in town in the
    recent weeks. Every single one of the parishes had on their
    list this--and it wasn't the certainty--it was the lack of
    certainty that they were concerned about.
        And so I want to ask you: will you please work with local
    governments and work with State governments before you finalize
    this rule to attempt to provide them more certainty?
        Last question very briefly, Mr. Kopocis, I think you are
    aware that coastal Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles,
    including the majority of which would be jurisdictional
    wetlands. The majority of that is caused by the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers.
        Can you explain to me how you are going to hold them
    accountable under this new rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, I do not know that there will be a
    direct applicability for the Corps' responsibility in relation
    to the lack of sediment deposition that is causing the problems
    in south Louisiana. I do want to though say that----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So the private property owners
    will be treated differently than the Federal Government will
    under this rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. No. The Clean Water Act will apply to private
    property owners or public property owners the same.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The 1,900 square miles of land
    lost in south Louisiana is a direct result, a direct result of
    Federal actions in south Louisiana, historic, ongoing, and will
    happen in the future, and I just want to ask you, Mr. Kopocis:
    is the Federal Government going to be treated in the same way
    in regard to enforcement as private property owners will?
        They are causing jurisdictional wetlands lost today.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, the Clean Water Act applies to the
    discharge of pollutants or dredge material. In terms of the
    actions of the Corps that may be contributing to the erosion
    that is occurring if it does not involve either of those two
    actions, the Clean Water Act does not apply to it.
        But if I could, Mr. Gibbs, just one thing I wanted to say
    is that in terms of local governments, we met extensively with
    local government interests. A lot of them were individual
    communities, but we also met with NACo, the National League of
    Cities, and the Conference of Mayors, in particular. We
    convened them to represent their constituencies, and
    specifically discussed issues of importance to local
    governments.
        And I can say that what you can anticipate, what they can
    anticipate seeing in the final rule is that we listened very
    carefully and particularly to two areas that were common to all
    of their concerns, and that was how municipal separate storm
    sewer systems were treated under the Clean Water Act and would
    this proposed rule affect them, and then the other issue was
    the construction and maintenance of roadside ditches.
        Those were very important issues to them, and we have
    listened very carefully.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Kopocis.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the
    witnesses for their good work and their testimony.
        As you know, California is heading into likely a fourth
    year of critical drought, and I know you are very familiar with
    the impacts and the concerns surrounding that. That is why,
    although I am pleased and supportive with respect to a lot of
    what is in the budget request, the one thing that stands out is
    the significant reduction in funding for the SRF Clean Water
    Program.
        It is very critical because West-wide there may be as much
    as 1 million acre-feet of water that could be brought on line
    through water recycling, advanced water treatment projects in
    the near term, in just the next few years. Many of these
    projects already have authorizations under title 16, a
    different program with a different agency.
        We are having a heck of a hard time supporting them through
    title 16 because that program has been politicized and
    essentially ground to a halt by our colleagues across the
    aisle.
        So one of the only ways that they can get Federal support
    and move forward with critical water recycling solutions to the
    arid West is through that SRF Clean Water Revolving Fund.
        So in a year like this of all times, I have to ask you: is
    a significant reduction in funding for that program
    appropriate, and does it leave you enough resources to support
    the critical need?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you for that question, and we are
    very sensitive to the serious issues being presented by drought
    out West and in some other areas of the country as well, but
    most severely and most notably in California.
        We had to make some tough choices in putting together the
    budget. We did hear Congress' request that the budget of the
    President stop having significant reductions in the requests
    for SRFs. So in both of the SRFs we requested more than the
    previous budget.
        We made the choice that we would make a greater investment
    in the Drinking Water SRF than in the Clean Water SRF to
    reflect the public health needs, to reflect what our larger
    documented needs are, and also to help work more importantly
    with small communities who have special needs that cannot be
    met the same as some of the larger communities.
        But we very much take to heart that, and we will continue
    to support the program, and we are continuing to look for ways
    to bring additional resources to the table.
        I mentioned earlier our Water Resiliency Financing Center.
    We are looking for ways to be more creative in financing, bring
    more money, some private sector money to the table. We also
    want to serve as a resource for communities to figure out are
    there more creative ways to meet needs.
        For example, sometimes a community will say that they have
    an issue that they need more drinking water capacity, but what
    we find is that--I will make up numbers--they are treating 40
    million gallons of water a day in their drinking water plant,
    but they are only treating 20 million gallons a day in their
    wastewater plant. Well, they do not have a drinking water
    capacity problem. What they have is a leaking pipe problem
    because there should be not a one-for-one, but there should be
    a figured ratio.
        So we are very much looking at that.
        Mr. Huffman. That is critical work, and I encourage you to
    continue that, and I am looking forward to working with EPA on
    all of these things.
        There is one other area though where I think your agency
    could make a tremendous difference relative to the SRF and the
    vital role that it can play during this drought, and that is a
    policy guidance that you have had for some time that restricts
    use of SRF funds for investments actually at houses and
    businesses that are actually customers of water districts.
        So my understanding is that EPA will not allow, for
    example, the State of California to use these funds to support
    water districts creating property assessed projects to retrofit
    water appliances or even to fix leaky sewer laterals, which
    can, as you know, make a big difference in the operation of
    wastewater facilities.
        There is a very proven track record on the repayment of
    these things through on-bill financing or property assessed
    agreements with homeowners and businesses, and in any event
    these districts would be on the hook for repayment of the loan
    anyway. It is purely a function of a policy guidance, a rather
    arbitrary view, in my opinion, view that EPA has had
    restricting these funds. Now of all times we should be looking
    at ways to leverage and maximize the value of these funds in
    the arid West, and I just hope that that is something you might
    be willing to take a look at.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you for that, and of course, in
    the amendments to the Clean Water SRF that were made in June of
    2014 as part of the water resources bill, the eligible uses of
    the SRF were expanded, and we will be in contact with you to
    see how we can best incorporate some of the concepts that are
    included in that, such as conservation, et cetera, and see how
    those could be worked in a way that addressed the needs that
    you are raising.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Babin.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a question for Mr. Kopocis. I am the congressional
    representative of District 36 in southeast Texas, and I served
    for 15 years on the Lower Neches Valley Authority, several of
    those years as the president of that river authority, and also
    I am a dentist by profession, but have been involved in the
    cattle business. We had a small operation.
        And when these proposals came to light initially, I think
    the greatest concern that we heard of farmers; ranchers;
    landowners; developers; State, local, municipal governments;
    officials was that the proposed waters of the U.S. rule--the
    fear they had was it was going to be an enormous power grab by
    the Federal Government.
        And we feel that the agencies involved here, including
    yours, failed to conduct outreach to State and local
    government. The lack of appropriate consultation was pointed
    out in comments filed by many State and local officials, plus
    organizations like mine representing the State and local
    governments.
        If the EPA and the Corps worked with States to develop the
    proposed rule as you claim, why did the majority, the vast
    majority of States, write comments in opposition to the rule as
    proposed and are asking the agencies to withdraw or at least to
    substantially revise the rule?
        Can you explain that please?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, thank you for that question. I do not
    know that I can explain why a particular State or group of
    States took an action, but what I can say is that we did reach
    out to State and local governments in advance of the rule. We
    have had an ongoing dialogue. We did hear very loud and clearly
    the point that you just made, that the States felt that we did
    not do enough to reach out and engage with them before the rule
    went out.
        And that was why after the rule went out we set up a series
    of meetings that addressed not only State but also local
    governments so that they could participate with us, so that we
    could hear all of their concerns. We could engage in a dialogue
    with them as to what kinds of things they were interested in,
    what areas they thought we should change, and quite candidly,
    some areas that they thought that they very much appreciated
    what we were doing.
        There has been a longstanding request from State and local
    entities that the agencies engage in a rulemaking, which we are
    doing. I think many of the criticisms that we have heard are
    not so much that we are doing a rulemaking as there are
    elements of the rule that they want to disagree with, but that
    is the very purpose of the notice and comment period that we
    engaged in.
        We put a proposal out as a moment in time, and we seek
    people's comments on it. We welcome those comments. That is how
    we get a better product, and we think at the end of the day we
    will have a better product.
        Dr. Babin. Well, listening to someone's comment and then
    using the term ``consultation,'' which I believe was used, I
    think that means that folks thought in consultation that what
    their concerns were were going to be taken into consideration
    before the rule was finalized. And I am not sure that they feel
    that way, that they were done that way.
        Mr. Kopocis. And we understand that and we heard that. We
    did consult with the States. What we have heard in the meetings
    when the States have come in and talked with us are two things.
    One is a general statement of we wish you had done more, and
    the second one is we wish you had done it perhaps closer to the
    time that the rule went out.
        Because as you may well know, the agencies were working on
    a guidance document. The agencies then decided that the
    guidance document was not going to be well received and that,
    in fact, it really was not going to meet the needs of the
    American people because we cannot be as effective in changing
    how the Clean Water Act is implemented through guidance as we
    can through the rule.
        And, in fact, in the Rapanos case, Chief Justice Roberts
    specifically suggested very strongly that the agencies could
    really address a lot of these issues if they would do a
    rulemaking, and so we thought that it was time for us to go
    ahead and move forward on the rule.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Napolitano.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Do you not have any?
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, I am going next, but I am giving you an
    opportunity.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I sure am. I will go for it. Thank
    you, sir.
        There are a couple of things that have come up, and you
    were talking about the ability for conservation and being able
    to help communities be able to capture as much water runoff,
    but also rainwater or anything else.
        And I know there was a program, and one of these days I
    will identify it, that helped some of the communities' berm,
    concave the medians and put in well plants, and that is a
    method of conservation, especially in years where you have
    very, very little rain.
        I would love to be able to get some report on where that
    would be because as we know, this is another method of being
    able to convince the cities that it is up to everybody to start
    capturing any water.
        The other area would be the USGS. Although it does not come
    under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, the recharge for
    where you have runoff, dry storm runoff they call it, to be
    able to capture anything that is industrial, commercial,
    residential, and clean it and then put it back into either the
    aquifer if we know that the aquifers are capable of receiving.
        Somehow we need to have the agencies be able to talk to
    each other and cooperate in being able to identify additional
    ways that we can conserve, utilize recharge, utilize recycling,
    conservation, all of the above.
        So I would ask that maybe in the future you might suggest
    how you are working with other agencies or can work with other
    agencies to maximize the use of our precious water because
    there will be no more water, and the cycle of drought will
    continue according to everybody that we know.
        The other question that I have is 4 years back my
    colleagues unveiled the Budget Control Act and the arbitrary
    spending cuts in 2013, and even though as we have heard the
    economy is rebounding, but we have not been able to take off
    those handcuffs. We are still operating under those illogical
    spending caps.
        What impact has this had on your agency's ability to carry
    out its mission, one?
        And, two, in your opinion, what are some of those programs
    that have been hardest hit in your agencies?
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you very much for that question.
        I am going to run through the several items that you raised
    in there, and I will hopefully get through all of them and
    answer your question, but I think, first of all, in terms of
    controlling stormwater and the effect on groundwater and
    recharge, there are a couple of different things. Obviously our
    green infrastructure emphasis is about when rainwater falls
    capturing it instead of rushing it off to someplace else and
    allowing it to percolate and operate more naturally as nature
    intended it to. And that addresses not only a water quantity
    problem, but it also addresses a water quality problem and has
    other multiple benefits.
        I think also in terms of how we look at recharge issues, we
    are members of the National Drought Resilience Partnership, and
    as is the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Geological
    Survey, but I will make sure that your point gets taken back to
    them, and we will get back to you in terms of what may be
    ongoing or what suggestions you may have.
        I also would want to make the point that water reuse and
    recycling activities, we know that they have been long ongoing
    in the West. We know that there is even a greater interest in
    that now. As part of our development of the Clean Water Rule,
    we heard from a lot of western interests who wanted to know
    ``if I have constructed recharge facilities or transportation
    facilities associated with reuse and recycling and how might
    those be affected by the Clean Water Rule.''
        And we want to make sure that we get an answer to that
    question in a way that allows communities to engage in the kind
    of recycling and reuse of water which we all know they need to
    engage in and they want to engage in.
        Then in terms of some of the limitations, our agency has
    been cut back. There is no doubt about it. We are now looking
    at an agency that is substantially below its funding levels
    both in terms of the money that we have available to us to
    share with States, tribes, and localities, but also to do our
    basic work.
        And there are shortcomings in our ability to develop ways
    to protect human health and the environment, and yet what we
    find is people continue to ask us for help in protecting health
    and the environment. I mean good examples that we are all
    familiar with, a little over a year ago when Charleston, West
    Virginia, had the spill of MCHM, and I do not know what that
    stands for, but when the MCHM spilled in their drinking water,
    they came to EPA and said, ``We need to know what are the
    health standards. Is our water safe to drink?''
        We actually did not have a health standard for that
    particular chemical, but we worked with the State and we worked
    with the city of Charleston to make sure that the water was
    safe for the people in Charleston.
        Last August when the city of Toledo had harmful algal
    blooms that resulted in outbreaks of microcystin and
    cylindrospermopsin, and I had to learn to say that one. It is
    cylindrospermopsin. The city of Toledo and the State of Ohio
    said, ``EPA, we need your help.''
        And so we are often the people that everybody comes to, but
    it is getting harder and harder for us to maintain those kinds
    of capabilities. We are in the process, for example, on harmful
    algal blooms of developing health advisories because that was
    one of the shortcomings. They said, ``Do you have an
    advisory?'' And we said no.
        There is a World Health Organization advisory, but EPA had
    not developed one. So we committed resources to developing
    those advisories in time for this summer's algal bloom season,
    and we know algal blooms will exist. They existed the year
    before in 28 States.
        And so those are the kinds of things that continuing
    pressure on our budget causes us to not be able to do in a
    timely way.
        Mrs. Napolitano. That just brings to mind that there are
    agency issues that can be cooperated that work across because
    of the fact that, as you have said, you did not have any
    protocols for that kind of an assist. Well, we need to be able
    to work across the agencies to make sure that our cities do not
    have to do multiple permitting or being able to have delays or
    trying to figure out what is the best way to do things.
        So with that, thank you, Mr. Chair, for being so indulgent.
        Mr. Gibbs. I will start with Mr. Stanislaus.
        Concerning the Brownfields Executive order on the new
    regulation on flood and raising it 2 to 3 feet, my question is:
    is that going to eliminate any Federal dollars going to a lot
    of Brownfields? Because I am thinking a lot of Brownfields are
    in low lying areas close to rivers.
        Have you thought about that or do you have something? Is
    this Executive order going to eliminate a lot of Brownfields
    redevelopment?
        Mr. Stanislaus. I am not sure that I can answer that
    question at this moment. I can get back to you.
        Generally, the eligibility for Brownfields grants are going
    to be preserved, and if a community can demonstrate that they,
    in fact, have a perceived contaminated property with some
    opportunity for redevelopment, they are eligible.
        Mr. Gibbs. My question is if you cannot get the Brownfields
    up 2 or 3 feet from the Executive order and there are no
    Federal dollars that can even go in there to clean up, that is
    what I am wondering, to redevelop that.
        I think that is a concern I wanted to raise because that is
    a possibility. That might be an issue because I am thinking
    there are a lot of Brownfields that would be in that category
    that could be an issue.
        Mr. Kopocis, to start off, we talked about in the final
    rule there is going to be a lot of clarification. I know
    Administrator McCarthy said that in the joint bicameral hearing
    we had. My question is: some of these clarifications, are they
    going to be in the actual rule or are they going to be in the
    preamble to the rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. We are anticipating changes to the rule
    language itself.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Because you know if you put it in the
    preamble, it does not really have any standing.
        Mr. Kopocis. We understand the significance of that, sir.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. We had some discussion and questions from
    other Members, and you mentioned it in your testimony about the
    need to clarify types of waters covered under the act and under
    this rule. Can you be more specific?
        We are hearing that it is really questionable, and I am
    going to give you an opportunity to define water or potential
    water in detail and what is not water. That kind of seems a
    little ridiculous, but under the context of this rule.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, the proposal does not include any
    language to define what is water. We believe that that is
    fairly well understood as to what constitutes water.
        It does come up in----
        Mr. Gibbs. What is ``a water''?
        Mr. Kopocis. ``A water''?
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
        Mr. Kopocis. We are defining different types of waters that
    we consider to be jurisdictional. The list is the current rule
    and the proposed rule. A lot of that is the same. It is the
    traditionally navigable waters, the territorial seas,
    tributaries, which for the first time we are offering a
    definition in the regulation itself of what constitutes a
    tributary, to provide less discretion to the regulator as to
    what they consider to be a tributary.
        Because an important part of that is the distinction
    between what is a tributary and what is an erosional feature. I
    have spent a lot of time and the agency has heard a lot from
    representatives, particularly of the agricultural community,
    who are very concerned that erosional features in farm fields
    would suddenly be found to be tributaries and, therefore,
    jurisdiction----
        Mr. Gibbs. Or as ephemerals.
        Mr. Kopocis. Or as ephemeral streams, although the agencies
    today do exert jurisdiction over ephemeral streams, but I think
    that the key piece there is to make sure that we can specify in
    the rule what constitutes a tributary and what constitutes an
    erosional feature, recognizing that we do not consider
    erosional features to be jurisdictional today, and we did not
    propose that they would be jurisdictional in the proposal
    either.
        We are also looking to add language that better specifies
    what constitutes an adjacent wetland or water. We think that
    today the term exists in terms of adjacency, but it does not
    have as much definition around it.
        We proposed to look at concepts such as the flood plain and
    riparian area. We received a lot of comment that the use of the
    term ``flood plain'' was not specifically well defined because
    in our proposal we suggested that we would look at various
    sizes of flood plains depending on regional variations.
        And the comment that we received is that the commenters
    would prefer to see us be more definitive. Yes?
        Mr. Gibbs. I will stop you there. In our previous bicameral
    hearing, Administrator McCarthy said a lot of these we will
    have to look at on a case-by-case basis, and I think that opens
    up a lot of subjective determinations by your people out there
    or the Corps people.
        I will get a little specific. Grass waterways on farms that
    only have water in them when it's raining, and obviously the
    water flows down through the grass waterways into the ditch.
        I will use an example on my farm. I have highly arable
    land. It comes out of the field, goes to the grass waterway,
    goes down the ravine, gets into the grow ditch and flows into
    the creek, Lake Fork Creek, and then flows into the Mohican,
    Muskingum, Ohio and you know the rule.
        Obviously, water flows downhill. I'm a little bit concerned
    the EPA could hide behind the Science Advisory Report. We
    talked about the significant nexus and all that. If we all know
    that water flows downhill, and I think there's a lot of ability
    in discretion for the regulators to come out. Can you
    categorically say that grass waterways are not waters of the
    United States? Township road ditches, county road ditches, are
    not waters of the United States?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, I--I can't say definitely across the
    board. What I can say, because some of the questions that
    you're asking would involve a possible change in what's in the
    proposal, and what we might do in a final rule, but what I can
    say is that you're describing a grass waterway, for example,
    that you put in to conserve soils, slow down water, reduce the
    pollutant impacts downstream, that occurred through no
    particular fault. I mean, that's just what happened.
        Mr. Gibbs. It's mother nature.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yeah. It--yeah, it's mother nature. It rains,
    and dirt moves. So that was the very situation that Mr. Graves
    was talking about, that created southeast Louisiana.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
        Mr. Kopocis. So the--what we are looking at is trying to
    create a balance so that we can know, is there a need for us to
    say that a grass waterway is something where there needs to be
    Clean Water Act jurisdiction, when in fact what it's doing is
    it's offering, as a conservation measure, the very water
    quality benefits that we want to encourage. And so putting more
    regulation on that to discourage that kind of activity, we
    think would be counterproductive to what our ultimate goals are
    on water quality.
        Your question in terms of ditches along a particular road.
    I think that we--there was no single topic that I heard more
    about than ditches. I did not realize that America was fixated
    on ditches, but I now know that it is. And, but we know----
        Mr. Gibbs. Especially out in western Ohio, in Paulding
    County for example, where I know there's farms out there you
    can go a mile, and there's less than an inch drop. So ditches
    are really important for drainage. In my area, the ditches are
    naturally occurring, because we're in hill country.
        Mr. Kopocis. Right.
        Mr. Gibbs. Appalachia foothills. So ditches are very
    important. Let's talk about Paulding County, where it's flat.
    The water runs off the field, into the ditch. It could take
    nutrients.
        Mr. Kopocis. Right.
        Mr. Gibbs. We have that issue, especially in northwestern
    Ohio. And of course the State EPA's heavily involved in
    regulating that water. And, and my concern is we open that up
    to waters of the United States, and then it opens up the
    ability for the bureaucrats to come out and say that Farmer A,
    Farmer B, you have to go out and get permits. So you have to
    get 404s. And it doesn't help us improve that. My overwhelming
    concern is when you put so much redtape bureaucracy and make
    this more difficult, at some point people are just going to
    throw their hands up. And we can actually go backwards.
        Mr. Kopocis. Right.
        Mr. Gibbs. And I think that's a point we need to remember.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes. Thank you again. And I think that we
    heard that very, very clearly. And we heard that what we were
    proposing to do in relation to ditches did not meet the needs
    of what we were trying to accomplish or what, what made sense
    from a water quality standpoint. So what we're, what we're
    looking at is to see how we could make changes to the rule to
    emphasize the ditches that we assert jurisdiction over today.
    And those are basically two categories of ditches. Those are
    the ones that are effectively channelized streams. There used
    to be a stream there, but somebody came in and modified it,
    straightened it, and you know, and channelized it. And I think
    people have a really good sense of where those are.
        I spent a lot of time, even out on farmers' fields working
    with them and talking with them, since the rule came out,
    meeting with them and talking about this. And my sense is that
    people understand what those are. They know where their
    channelized streams are. The other ones are ditches that
    effectively operate as tributaries, that have the
    characteristics of tributaries. And again, I think people have
    a pretty good understanding.
        What the Clean Water Act does not apply to today, and we're
    not proposing to have it apply to, are the thousands and
    thousands of miles of the ditches that you're describing in
    Ohio. These are ditches that are constructed along roadways.
    They provide exactly the function that they were designed to
    do. They take water off of the highway, so that the highway is
    safe to drive on. But they also maintain the structural
    integrity of that highway, by keeping that water away from the
    base and not allowing it to be harmed. The Clean Water Act does
    not apply to those ditches as jurisdictional waters. We do not
    look to expand the extent of the Clean Water Act, or apply the
    Clean Water Act to those waters.
        Mr. Gibbs. Is the rule going to really specifically say
    that? Or is it going to be open-ended enough for discretion or
    subjective determinations?
        Mr. Kopocis. We are--it--we are looking at, what are the
    opportunities for us to change the language in the rule itself
    to accommodate the kinds of principles that I'm articulating.
    I'm--I wish I--I realize I'm being a little obtuse.
        Mr. Gibbs. Why is the EPA being unwilling to make these
    revisions and come back to this committee and Members of
    Congress and the public and the States, and discuss that before
    they implement the final rule? Why don't they lay their cards
    out and say, ``Here's the revisions we made,'' and let's have a
    discussion, and make sure that's happening? Why is there an
    unwillingness? Your boss, Ms. McCarthy, said, ``We're moving
    ahead.'' It's not necessary to do that. Why? I don't understand
    the reason for that.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, we--we believe that these issues have
    been thoroughly vetted. We believe that we, we do----
        Mr. Gibbs. Why are you afraid to, before you actually
    implement it and you think they're vetted, put it out for 60 to
    90 days? And let us see it and let us have that input.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, we believe that it's time for us to go
    final with the rule, get it out there, and get it into the
    public domain, so that we can provide the greater clarity and
    consistency that we think a final rule can provide.
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think that's rushing it. There's been so
    many comments. I think you're also leaving the door wide open
    for litigation. I think that will be coming--unless you are
    actually able to make these fixes. Which I don't have a lot of
    confidence that that will happen.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, we're--sir, we're pretty sure that there
    will be litigation over the rule. We at EPA are, as I said, we
    took special pride that the pesticide general permit is not
    subject to litigation. But the--we anticipate there will. But
    we think that we'll have a very strong rule that will be highly
    supported by the law. Both the Clean Water Act itself----
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. The Supreme Court and----
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. I want to ask, during our bicameral hearing
    in February this year, Ms. McCarthy discussed how the EPA was
    still seeking, speaking to outside groups, including
    municipalities, on how to improve the rule. I want to know what
    is the process the EPA is following in carrying out this
    activity? Who exactly is the EPA talking to during this extra-
    regulatory, post-comment period?
        Mr. Kopocis. Sir, it's not unusual for the agency to have
    conversations with interested parties. We do not solicit
    additional comment during that period. Any conversations that
    we have with outside parties are docketed so that the public is
    aware that we had those conversations. But if----
        Mr. Gibbs. Can you identify those parties?
        Mr. Kopocis. Can we identify them?
        Mr. Gibbs. Who have you been speaking to?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes. We can produce that.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yeah.
        Mr. Gibbs. We've heard from numerous stakeholders that the
    EPA is essentially road-testing this proposed rule and
    informally implementing the new rule out in the field. Can you
    describe if, you know, if the EPA has actually begun
    implementing the rule, to test it? Has that been occurring or
    not?
        Mr. Kopocis. I am unaware that that has been occurring. As
    you know, overwhelmingly, the jurisdictional determinations
    under the Clean Water Act are made by the Army Corps of
    Engineers. As far as EPA's action, I am unaware that we are
    road-testing this rule in any fashion.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. I do have a request, and you have staff back
    there, so they're ready to take notes on this request. As you
    said, the EPA has done extensive outreach to the stakeholders
    regarding this proposed rule. And you said you've had some 400
    stakeholder meetings around the country. And I've got some
    specific requests on--obviously you'll have to get back with
    me--your staff can--with a written response.
        But please identify each of the stakeholder meetings that
    was held, including the date and location at which they were
    held. Provide a complete list of the Federal agencies, being
    the EPA, the Corps, and any other agencies and Federal
    contractor participants at each stakeholder meeting. Identify
    all the stakeholders who participated in each stakeholder
    meeting. Provide all handouts and other presentation materials
    from each stakeholder meeting. And provide all transcripts,
    official notes, assessments, reports, papers, and other records
    of each stakeholder meeting, for the proceedings and outcomes.
    And finally, identify the amount of staff time, travel costs
    and other expenses incurred by the agencies for each of the
    stakeholder meetings. I'm trying to get a depth.
        You're saying that there's been an extensive outreach. And
    we hear otherwise. We want to see some documentation on that.
    Earlier in our discussion we talked about the comment period.
    And the substantive, or you say, unique comments. And I'd like
    to have documentation of the 19,000 that you think are unique,
    how many are for or against. And so we'd like to see a
    breakdown of that. And so we'll know our specificity on the
    comments.
        The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy,
    SBA, recently concluded that the EPA and the Corps have
    improperly certified the proposed waters of the U.S. rule,
    under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because it would have
    direct significant effects on small entities, and recommended
    that the agencies withdraw the rule. And that the EPA conduct a
    Small Business Advocacy review panel before proceeding any
    further with this rulemaking. Furthermore, the Small Business
    Administration, along with many governmental and private
    stakeholders concluded that EPA and the Corps conducted a
    flawed economic analysis of the proposed rule. The analysis has
    ignored the impact of the rule. The Clean Water Act's
    regulatory programs do not adequately evaluate impacts of the
    proposed rule. What is the EPA's response to the SBA's Office
    of Advocacy's comments on the proposed rule?
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, in terms of our, our comments, of course
    we did discuss the compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility
    Act, with the Small Business Administration's Office of
    Advocacy. And this was, we talked about earlier, we did not
    agree as to whether we needed to convene a panel under SBREFA
    to review it. We did, however, reach out to the small business
    community, with the assistance of the Small Business
    Administration's Office of Advocacy, to put together a panel,
    before the rule went out. Which it--they were very careful.
    They said that they did not consider that compliance from their
    perspective with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, but they did
    assist us in putting together a panel.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. And where----
        Mr. Kopocis. Which we----
        Mr. Gibbs. Where is the documentation on the responses back
    and forth from them?
        Mr. Kopocis. On?
        Mr. Gibbs. With the Small Business Advocacy review, do you
    have documentation of the responses that----
        Mr. Kopocis. I'll have to check if there was something
    specifically responding to them.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. There is an analysis of our certification
    under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It's included in the
    preamble to the proposal. And then, and then we also, after the
    rule went out, during the period of comment----
        Mr. Gibbs. I guess the documentation would be the meetings
    that were held and discussions.
        Mr. Kopocis. We'd be able to get you the dates and that.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. Then what, during the public comment period,
    we then reached out to the Small Business Administration's
    Office of Advocacy again, and asked them if they would convene
    another meeting, which they did, under the same circumstances.
    They made clear that they did not consider that in compliance
    of their position related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
    but they convened another small business--another meeting of
    small business interest, which I personally participated in. I
    don't remember--that's--I'm thinking it was like June or July,
    but we'll get you the exact date of that meeting. And to the
    extent we have a list of participants, we will get you that.
    We'll get you everything we have on that.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. So we had done that. And then in a lot of the
    meetings that the 400-plus meetings that you asked about
    earlier, a significant number of the participants were of
    course representatives of small businesses as well.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Kind of changing the subject matter. Can you
    give me an update on the implementation of the WIFIA program?
        Mr. Kopocis. Thank you. In the WIFIA program, we began last
    summer, shortly after Congress enacted the program, a series of
    stakeholder meetings across the country to hear from people
    what their thoughts were. In fact, I should say, even before
    that, when the staff came in and we chatted about it, my
    reaction was, ``We don't have any money to do this, but I can
    assure you that Congress isn't going to want us to sit around
    and wait until there's a special appropriation to fund us.'' So
    we reached out to stakeholders. We also reached out to the
    Federal Highway Administration.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
        Mr. Kopocis. Because of course it's modeled after----
        Mr. Gibbs. After TIFIA, right?
        Mr. Kopocis. Right. So not, you know, not trying to start
    with a blank sheet of paper. That was my first reaction, based
    on having been around for TIFIA. I said, ``Talk to the Federal
    Highway Administration. How did they do it? How did they set it
    up?'' So we--we had extensive conversations with them, which
    were very useful, in how to set that up. We then had available
    to us, Congress provided us with up to $2.2 million during this
    fiscal year, to look at standing up that program, and getting
    it ready. And the--and the budget requests for 2016 asked for
    another $5 million dollars, so that if it is funded, we will be
    ready to go.
        Mr. Gibbs. Because I really pushed hard for that. When
    you're talking about drinking water, infrastructure, and
    wastewater, and complying sewer overflows issues. And we know
    that there's well over a trillion-dollar cap on costs out
    there. And you can't charge the ratepayers enough to get there.
    And I think this is a--if there's an opportunity for public-
    private partnerships, this area has to be the most optimum
    place. Because they have a revenue stream coming in from the
    ratepayers. I think there's a lot of private capital out there
    that's looking for a relatively safe investment and a decent
    return. And I think it's safe, because if you look at this SRF
    default rate, it's, it's you know, almost nonexistent.
        Mr. Kopocis. Zero.
        Mr. Gibbs. I think that's a good program. They can get some
    private capital in there. It's a win-win for both sides. And
    the villages and municipalities. And of course the WIFIA
    program has an aggregation factor. So smaller entities can
    participate when you aggregate. I think it was $20 million, if
    I remember.
        Mr. Kopocis. Projects over is it $20 million or $25
    million?
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
        Mr. Kopocis. $20 million?
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. Twenty million dollars, I think, yeah.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yeah.
        Mr. Gibbs. I'll just encourage you. I think that's a great
    program. That can really address these issues of where
    villages, municipalities are struggling to get up there to
    where they need to be because of growth. And a lot of times
    it's growth.
        Mr. Kopocis. And sir, we are working on it, very, very much
    so, with the resources that Congress gave us and the resources
    that we've requested. TIFIA program was enacted I think in
    June. It took them about a year to get regulations out. And
    they were making their first loan about a year after that. We--
    we would be hopeful. I can't make a promise. But we can be
    hopeful, since we're not starting with ``How do you do this?''
    We have a model.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
        Mr. Kopocis. That we can be ready.
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think that's a good, good approach. I
    know it's a little different from TIFIA but, I think, at least
    it's another integrated planning and permitting initiative,
    which your predecessor, Ms. Stoner, supported. I think the EPA
    does support it. I think it's supported out in the country,
    because they're tied in, I believe, to the 5-year permit cycle,
    correct?
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbs. And some of this, they can't get there, because
    they don't have the resources, but they have some flexibility.
    And I just question the EPA says they support it. But in
    practice, are they really working? And that's--we're hearing
    some things, you know.
        So I guess my comment is, I think there's an opportunity
    there to give local governments some flexibility and get to the
    goal everybody wants to get to. But it might take 7 or 8 years,
    or 10 years. They might want to address an issue that is
    different than another municipality's. So one-size-fits-all
    policy coming out of DC. That's constraints and it isn't
    really--when flexibility's the key word on that. If you just
    want to comment on the integrated permitting, where we're
    headed, and where we are making that work.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, we are devoting time and resources to
    integrated planning. We consider it to be something that is a--
    is going to be a key way for communities to come into
    compliance with what they all want. And that is to make sure
    that their drinking water is safe and that the water that, the
    waters that they fish in, swim in and play in are safe as well.
    I think that you know, we've--we've devoted resources in our
    current fiscal year. We've asked for $13 million in fiscal year
    2016 to really ramp up our efforts. We particularly want to
    explore what are the opportunities for us to do this outside of
    the enforcement context.
        We have regular conversations with the--with individual
    communities, but also with the representative communities.
    Because I mentioned, like, the Conference of Mayors, for
    example, who really want to work with us on this. And--and to
    the extent we have a framework, I'd--I'd like to think that it
    is really designed--it's a singular framework which has an
    unlimited number of possibilities for how it is that you
    develop a framework for meeting those water quality goals. This
    is something that our Office of Water works very closely with
    our compliance people in the Office of Enforcement and
    Compliance Assurance, making sure that we can do this in a way,
    again, that works for communities. We also work closely with
    the Department of Justice on this quite--if you were not aware
    of that. Because of course ultimately if there is an
    enforcement action, it--while our offices are deeply involved,
    it's the Department of Justice which is the face of the United
    States. And so we are also working with them.
        Mr. Gibbs. That's true. Let me stop you right there. That's
    good. Because I remember when I was on the State legislature,
    we had some issues with the State EPA, and sometimes they'd be
    turned over to the Attorney General's Office, and they said
    they couldn't discuss it anymore. And it frustrated me, because
    we could simply work it out. And of course what happened to the
    State EPA, in this case, this was years ago, they filed in my
    rural counties, and the county lease judge threw it out. It
    gets to how EPA, at the time--so it didn't do them any good,
    but we can work these things out without going to litigation.
    And so I think it's good if you can have the Justice Department
    working in concert. And make them recognize that we're getting
    there, but we got to be reasonable and pragmatic in how we get
    there.
        Mr. Kopocis. Correct. And that's been a key component for
    us as well, is making sure that all the parties that need to be
    at the table can be at the table. Make it available for them to
    bring in what it is that works. And we think one of the
    hallmarks of the integrated planning framework is, this isn't
    us telling a community, ``This is what we think you ought to
    do.'' The starting point for the integrated planning framework
    is for the community to say, ``This is what we think we can
    accomplish.''
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
        Mr. Kopocis. Knowing what their responsibilities are. But
    then them coming back and saying, ``This is what we think we
    can accomplish in this timeframe.''
        Mr. Gibbs. So do we have any of that going on, examples
    that there's been some----
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, one good example recently is Lima, Ohio.
    The mayor of Lima, Ohio, who is one of our agency's biggest
    critics, related to meeting their water quality goals and
    responsibilities, is now one of our--sings praises, because of
    the integrated planning framework that we were able to reach
    with Lima, Ohio.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Mr. Kopocis. I met with him as part of a Conference of
    Mayors group, 3 or 4 months ago. And he was extremely positive
    about the work of our agency. And this was after many years of
    him being, shall we say, much less than positive about our
    agency and working with our agency.
        Mr. Gibbs. I think he might have actually testified for
    this committee.
        Mr. Kopocis. I believe he has.
        Mr. Gibbs. Twice.
        Mr. Kopocis. I think he may have done it before he was
    happy with us.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah, I think so. Another question. Regulatory
    consistency between EPA regents--and I know there was, in 2013
    there was Iowa League of Cities received in the Eighth Circuit
    Court. And this was in regard to the practice of what they call
    blending. It's partially and fully treated wastewater, inside
    the treatment plant, to discharge to nearby waters. And then
    take that further. So there's been other court cases. It might
    not always be with water. It might be with air. My overall
    question is, when, I guess in these cases, the EPA lost the
    case.
        Mr. Kopocis. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Are they applying the court decision only in
    that Federal District Circuit Court region, or are they
    applying nationwide?
        Mr. Kopocis. Right. The Iowa League of Cities case we are
    applying the Eighth Circuit. Outside of the Eighth Circuit, we
    had made a decision that we would look at the Iowa League of
    Cities case, and on a case-specific basis, as it applies to a
    particular community.
        Mr. Gibbs. And what kind of criteria do you use to make
    that determination?
        Mr. Kopocis. We look at--we will look at each of the
    factual circumstances as they are presented to us. We continue
    to apply our rules and regulations as they are written. If a
    community comes to us with a set of facts or circumstances,
    where the Iowa League of Cities case could conceivably be
    applicable, at least the terms of that case, then we do sit
    with the community and we evaluate it on that case-specific
    basis.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Well, I want to thank you both for coming.
    You did not get as many questions so I'm sure you're not
    offended by that. Go ahead.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Since my Chair has been very nice in
    allowing me some time, I just want to thank you. There have
    been many complaints sometimes in California over EPA, and EPA
    has been more than generous with their time. Jared up in San
    Francisco, I've had him before the Councils of Government.
    They've asked direct questions. And as I was commenting to my
    colleague that one-on-one works a lot because you're able to
    express the actual issues that affect our communities, and I
    know you do not have the staff to do it, but it's very helpful
    to be able to have the understanding, and as you have gone
    through your rulemaking is being able to apply some of that
    minuteness, if you will, to being able to address that not only
    one area may be affected, but many others may have the same
    question and are unable to pose it for whatever reason.
        So we thank you. You've done a great job in many of the
    California areas, and we still have some issues, but I really
    appreciate the job that your staff has done, and EPA continues
    to be responsive, and we trust that we will continue to
    safeguard our waters and our air.
        Thank you so much to both of you.
        Mr. Gibbs. I just want to say in closing, you know we all
    want to protect the environment and clean water and do what we
    can, and I think as we had so much discussion on the Clean
    Water Act, we've come a long ways in four decades, I guess
    since it was passed or however long it's been now, and we still
    have challenges out there, and I did have one followup question
    I just thought.
        We were talking about the Toledo drinking water issue. I
    want to just mention to you, and maybe you want to comment, the
    Cleveland dredging issue in the port of Cleveland. I do not
    know if you're aware or not, I've been working very hard to
    make sure that dredging happens every year because it's a huge
    economic impact if it doesn't happen. Thousands of jobs are at
    risk, and through the Army Corps and how the EPA's had a
    disagreement on that dredge material in Cleveland has been
    PCB'ed contaminated, and all the years they've been putting it
    in a CDF-contained landfill and the Corps has determined that
    they think 80 percent of it is clean enough to open lake
    disposal. The Ohio EPA says no; they won't give them the 401
    water quality to do that.
        So we're working through that and we're going to get the
    dredging done, but it's probably not going to go out in the
    lake, but the Corps did acknowledge that they would take it 9
    miles out to get away from the Cleveland intake. So that
    acknowledgment alone tells me that there's a problem, OK?
        And the fish advisories, they have fish advisories for the
    PCBs, and the Ohio EPA is concerned that if they put the dredge
    material out there, there is a good possibility it could raise
    the advisory from being once a month or once a week consumption
    to more restrictions.
        And I think this is kind of unique, the situation where we
    have the Ohio EPA, a Republican administration, adamantly
    opposed to open-lake disposal--and that's what they call it;
    the Corps calls it open-lake placement--and then we have
    disagreeing on this issue, and I think it's noticeable to me
    that the U.S. EPA has not commented on this debate between the
    two agencies and I do not know if you want to comment, or if
    you're aware of what's going on in Cleveland.
        Mr. Kopocis. Well, I am not familiar with the particular
    circumstances you're describing. I am particularly with the
    long history and the Great Lakes of the need for CDFs as
    opposed to open-lake disposal--and that's what I grew up in
    this committee calling it, it was open-lake disposal--so I am
    familiar with the serious issues that can be----
        Mr. Gibbs. Especially Lake Erie because it's so shallow and
    so sensitive.
        Mr. Kopocis. The shallowest lake with so many people that
    rely on it directly for their drinking water. So I can work
    with our folks in region 5 with Susan Hedman, our regional
    administrator, to help get us informed. I do not know the
    status of it.
        Mr. Gibbs. I just want you to know I think we've been
    working really hard on this. I think we're getting it worked
    out, but I just thought it was kind of interesting that the
    U.S. EPA was involved because you made a comment that during
    the clean water drinking crisis last August that the U.S. EPA
    got involved. I do not know the extent. I know the State EPA
    was actually involved a lot, and one thing the State
    legislature in Ohio just passed, a bill, that dredge material,
    especially targeted for Toledo because there's 800,000 cubic
    yards I think and it's quite a lot--it's nutrient-rich,
    phosphorus especially that can cause algae--by 2022 will not be
    allowed. Right now they have no place to do it.
        So the challenge for the State of Ohio, the Army Corps, and
    the EPA for that matter, State for sure and hopefully Federal,
    is to think outside the box because I think the dredge material
    can be an asset instead of a liability, but we have to think
    outside the box.
        And now in Cleveland, what's interesting about that, we
    only have about 10 percent as much as Toledo as PCB, but there
    is--one of the proposals for working on the plan to solve the
    problem because they've run out of CDF space, is to take a
    dryer material and rotate it out and we have a land-issue in
    Cleveland, they're tearing down all the houses and they got
    basements to fill, which is in close proximity to the lake
    there, so that's a possibility that the port of Cleveland's
    pursuing, and also ODOT has some need for it.
        And another thing the port of Cleveland is doing, I have to
    give them kudos, too, it's called a bed-load interceptor, they
    put it up far up the Cuyahoga River past the dredge area and
    try to collect the sediment that comes in. It's kind of one of
    the new technologies that's going in, and everybody's
    supportive of it, but we do not know how sure it's going to
    work. Hopefully it would take 40 percent or more of the
    dredge--the sediment that's coming in.
        I want you to be aware of that because I think we have to
    sometimes think outside the box and that's why I get frustrated
    with the EPA. They have a tendency to be more come out with the
    hammer and not work to solve some problems. And I know in the
    President's budget he increased the funding for the regulatory
    side, but for compliance to help solve problems the President's
    budget decreased that part. So I'm a big soil and water guy and
    NRCS so I think there's some things we can do.
        But I just want to close here, back on the WOTUS, I think
    it's loud and clear that there's a lot of problems out there
    maybe you can fix in the final rule. I don't know. I don't
    know. I don't have a lot of confidence, no disrespect. That
    happened in the final rule. I think we need to take a pause and
    go back and look at this with the States in the public forum as
    I think Congress should really be doing that, and there will be
    some bills offered here in the near future, both in the Senate
    and in the House, I'm pretty confident of that. And we want to
    make sure it's done right and not add a lot of cost to States
    and local governments.
        And we had, in that bicameral hearing in the second panel,
    representatives from States and local governments, and there's
    a concern, I'm sure you're hearing that, and we need to, as our
    elected representatives and as a servant of the public that we
    need to make sure that we're serving the public in the best way
    we can, and we can still protect the environment and grow the
    economy.
        So thank you for coming and the meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]