    [Senate Hearing 116-157]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-157

       THE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT:
                            PERSPECTIVES FROM STATES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 8, 2020

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    39-944 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                JANUARY 8, 2020
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Zygmunt, Jennifer, Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator, Wyoming
      Department of Environmental Quality............................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Grumbles, Hon. Ben, Secretary of the Environment, Maryland
      Department of the Environment..................................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........    57
        Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders......    61

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statement by the Association of Clean Water Administrators,
      January 9, 2020................................................    80
    Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the Clean Water for
      All Coalition et al., January 22, 2020.........................    84
    Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the Mississippi River
      Collaborative, January 22, 2020................................    87
    Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the American
      Fisheries Society, January 23, 2020............................    98

       THE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT:
                            PERSPECTIVES FROM STATES

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2020

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Braun,
    Rounds, Sullivan, Boozman, Wicker, Ernst, Cardin, Merkley,
    Gillibrand, and Van Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        I would like to wish you all a happy new year. Welcome back
    to everyone on the Committee.
        As Chairman, I look forward to another very productive
    year.
        I will tell you, Senator Carper, I have this incredible
    list of things that we have done for the last year, working
    together in partnership, very successful. The staff has put it
    together, and it shows that we are a Committee that works and
    gets things done.
        Last year, we advanced bipartisan transportation
    infrastructure legislation. This year, the full Senate will
    pass that legislation, so we can build better roads and bridges
    and highways. We will be working on legislation to support
    critical water infrastructure as well, such as dams and locks
    and levees.
        We will also continue to work together to advance
    legislation and protect America's air, our water, our wildlife.
        This Committee has a proven track record of working across
    the aisle to get important legislation done, and I look forward
    to having that continue in 2020 and working in partnership with
    you.
        Today's hearing is a great way to start the year by
    examining a popular program that improves water quality through
    cooperation, not regulation. This program is the Nonpoint
    Source Management Program under the Clean Water Act.
    Established in 1987, the program recognizes that controlling
    water pollution is not a one size fits all issue.
        Nonpoint sources are ones that do not come out of a pipe or
    a confined source. They are everywhere, runoffs from roads in
    urban

    [[Page 2]]

    areas, to water from agricultural operations, to sediment from
    construction sites, and eroding stream banks.
        For this reason, Congress correctly recognized that the
    best way to address these nonpoint source pollutions is to
    empower States. States come up with solutions that work for
    them. Washington provides grant funding for States to implement
    their programs. States must secure our funding to leverage
    those Federal dollars.
        The program is more than 30 years old. It has seen many
    successes, and we want to make sure it is working as
    effectively as possible. That is why we are having this hearing
    today.
        We are honored to welcome two experts from very different
    parts of the country, but both who realize just how very
    important this is.
        We have from Wyoming, Jennifer Zygmunt, who is the Nonpoint
    Source Program Coordinator at the Wyoming Department of
    Environmental Quality. Wyoming has some of the cleanest water
    and air and land in the country. Wyoming is the home of the
    headwaters that supply water throughout the country. The four
    major river basins fed by Wyoming are the Missouri-Mississippi,
    the Green-Colorado, the Snake-Columbia, and the Great Salt
    Lake.
        Wyoming also uses a variety of industries that rely on
    water supply and re-use, including energy production, ranching,
    and farming. Effective conservation and cleanup of water in
    Wyoming requires flexibility plus a deep understanding of our
    water systems. The Nonpoint Source Program was designed to do
    just that, to give States flexibility to manage water and to
    reduce pollution in a way that is best suited to the States'
    needs.
        From 1999 to 2018--about 20 years--Wyoming funded 164
    projects under its Nonpoint Source Management Program. As a
    result of the program, 15 streams and river segments--more than
    187 miles in length--are now clean.
        In 2018, Wyoming completed six projects. Those projects
    reduced sediment, reduced nitrogen, reduced phosphorus and E.
    coli loading in Wyoming's rivers and streams. Sediment loading
    alone fell by more than 40,000 tons per year.
        The USEPA has published a number of Wyoming's nonpoint
    source projects as model success stories. One EPA published
    example occurred near my hometown of Casper, Wyoming, where
    yesterday the wind was blowing 79 miles an hour. And they
    closed down the Federal Government because they thought it
    might snow.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Well, who are these people?
        Parts of Wyoming have naturally high levels of selenium in
    the soil. Several years of cooperative work between the Natrona
    County Conservation District, the State of Wyoming, local
    landowners, and a number of other organizations led to selenium
    levels falling in the North Platte River. Selenium levels in
    the river dramatically decreased due to the education, due to
    outreach, and voluntary implementation of best management
    practices.
        These efforts included converting hundreds of acres from
    flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation and replacing open
    irrigation ditches with underground pipelines. A 36 mile
    segment of the North Platte River now meets water quality
    criteria for selenium.

    [[Page 3]]

    I look forward to hearing more about Wyoming's successes
    through this program during today's testimony.
        I also look forward to hearing from Secretary Ben Grumbles
    from Maryland. We have two Maryland Senators on this Committee.
    This is a very critical Committee, and we are happy to have you
    here to testify.
        I know that both of the Senators from Maryland are here to
    listen very closely to what you have to say, because Maryland,
    as you know and this Committee is constantly reminded, is home
    to the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland has critical challenges. I know
    that, Secretary Grumbles, you will discuss those.
        Now I would like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
    opening remarks.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to say I approve this message with respect to
    your opening statement. I am very proud of what we accomplished
    last year. I want to shout out to our bipartisan staff, and not
    just the majority and minority staff, but the folks who work
    for each of our members on our Committee of handling the
    environmental portfolio.
        We got a lot done. We have a few things still left to do on
    our table and on our list, but we look forward to working on
    all of those.
        I want to welcome our witnesses.
        Jennifer, have you always been a Zygmunt? I would hold onto
    that name. I bet you have some great nicknames.
        Any favorite albums by David Bowie? One comes to mind:
    Ziggy Stardust. There is a lot of good fun to be had with your
    name, but we will play it straight here today.
        And Ben Grumbles, that is a good name to play with as well.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We are not going to go there, because Chris
    Van Hollen told me that you never grumble; you are just a
    delight to be around. You are our neighbor on the Delmarva
    Peninsula, and we love working with you.
        Right behind me is Christophe Tulou, who used to be my
    Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. You may
    recall I was Governor. We greatly value our partnership with
    your State.
        I suspect we all know that our States are beset by
    continuing drinking water challenges: dead zones in the Gulf of
    Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay, hazardous algae blooms off the
    coast of Florida, and in our Great Lakes, continuing non-
    attainment of water quality standards in rivers and lakes and
    estuaries in every State across our Union.
        These events are often devastating, not only to ecosystems
    and to human health, but also to local economies. For example,
    a 2009 study published in the Journal of Environmental Science
    and Technology calculated the combined cost of freshwater
    nutrient overloads in the U.S. at $2.2 billion annually. I will
    say that again: $2.2 billion annually--I had no idea it was
    that large--with losses in

    [[Page 4]]

    recreational water use and waterfront real estate values and
    drinking water.
        In response to a 2011 toxic algae bloom in Lake Erie--
    Toledo's primary drinking water source--the city issued a 3 day
    drinking water ban that affected over a half-million residents.
    The city has since invested more than $1 billion on water
    treatment upgrades and pollution remediation projects.
        Florida spent $17.3 million in emergency funding in 2018 in
    response to harmful algae blooms; $17.3 million.
        In July 2019, massive harmful algae blooms off the Gulf of
    Mexico coast forced Mississippi to close all of its beaches.
    Can you imagine what that would be like, to close all of our
    beaches in Delmarva?
        We know these challenges well in our home States of
    Delaware and Maryland and our southernmost county in Delaware,
    Sussex County, which is home to more chickens than any other
    county in the Nation, I think. Last time we counted, 400
    chickens for every person in Delaware, and a lot of them are in
    Sussex.
        With the robust production of corn, soybeans, and
    vegetables to feed the chickens, constituents must contend with
    unhealthy levels of nitrate in their well water too often. That
    nitrate is a legacy of decades of intensive agriculture, and
    until the last couple of decades, a lack of understanding and
    appreciation for the adverse effects this nutrient can have on
    the health of our babies and the quality of our invaluable
    coastal waters.
        And along and around our inland bays, too many of those
    same Delawareans are also living with highly polluted
    estuaries. They bloom with algae in warmer months, resulting in
    dead zones, occasional toxic algae blooms, and consequently,
    fish kills and stench.
        Though several Federal programs exist to mitigate these
    sources of nonpoint source pollution, Section 319 of the Clean
    Water Act is our primary defense against this pollution.
        Given the very real ecological, economic, and public health
    impacts associated with nonpoint source pollution, we either
    must do a better job with the tools we have or find more
    effective and expeditious means to reduce the nutrient sediment
    and other pollutants that flow off of our lands and into our
    waters. Maybe we need to do both.
        I am particularly interested to learn how well the Clean
    Water Act Section 319 Program and other provisions of law
    actually arm our States in their efforts to meet their water
    quality goals, especially in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As
    an upstream State in that watershed, Delaware is acutely aware
    of Maryland's and Virginia's expectations that we all do our
    part to reduce pollution in our States, pollution loading, and
    assist with the restoration of the iconic treasure that is the
    Chesapeake Bay.
        At one point, Delaware was not doing enough. We are doing a
    whole lot better now, and can we do more? Yes, probably so, and
    we will.
        But it is time for some other upstream States like the
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to step up and clean up the water
    that they send down the Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake.
    This is essential, as our downstream neighbors have little
    recourse if up

    [[Page 5]]

    stream States fail to act on and meet their good neighbor
    expectations.
        In that regard, Mr. Chairman, our States of Delaware and
    Wyoming share similar a circumstance. We lie at the headwaters
    of rivers and streams that are critical to the health of
    ecosystems and communities downstream. Given that nonpoint
    source pollution is the No. 1 cause of non-attainment across
    our country, I am also very interested to learn whether Section
    319 is keeping our waters clean and serving the needs of
    downstream communities and neighboring States.
        Let me close with this. While the 319 Program has certainly
    resulted in demonstrable successes, we continue to struggle
    with many of the same nonpoint source pollution problems that
    we did decades ago.
        More troubling, our changing climate has made the problems
    even worse. According to a recent CRS report, scientific
    research indicates that in recent years, the frequency and
    geographic distribution of harmful algae blooms have been
    increasing nationally and globally.
        Climate change is exacerbating these problems as heavier
    and more frequent rainfall increases runoff into our rivers.
        Clearly, we have plenty of work ahead of us. We must make
    sure our nonpoint source pollution programs are able to respond
    to our new climate reality, and I hope this hearing will give
    us insights into how to do both.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
        We are now going to hear from our witnesses.
        I am pleased to introduce Jennifer Zygmunt, who is the
    Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator for the Wyoming Department
    of Environmental Quality. A native of Casper, she spent some
    time in New Mexico before heading back to Wyoming, and we are
    very glad that she did.
        She graduated from the University of Wyoming in 2003 with a
    degree in botany and a minor in environment and natural
    resources. After graduation, she joined the department, where
    she wrote permits under the State's Clean Water Act Discharge
    Permit Program, and she did this for 5 years. For the last 11
    years, she has managed the Nonpoint Source Program.
        We thank you for your public service in protecting water
    quality for all the people of Wyoming. We are honored that you
    are here to testify today before the Committee and to share
    your expertise with us. I know you have much to tell us about
    Wyoming's strong record of environmental protection and
    restoration through its nonpoint source program, and we look
    forward in a few moments to hearing your input on how we in
    Congress can make sure Washington works even better with
    Wyoming and other States to protect our Nation's water quality
    in the future.
        Before you start, we are also honored to welcome Mr. Ben
    Grumbles, Maryland's Secretary of the Environment. We have
    strong Maryland representation on this Committee.
        Senator Cardin, as the senior Senator from Maryland, would
    you like to say a few words first? And then I will be happy to
    call on Senator Van Hollen as well.
        Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you
    very much for the courtesy of being able to introduce Ben
    Grumbles, with my colleague, Senator Van Hollen. Particularly,
    thank you for holding this hearing on Section 319. Wyoming and
    Maryland indeed have a common need for clean water, and we are
    proud of the actions of both of our States as leaders on clean
    water.
        I am delighted to welcome Ben Grumbles, Maryland's
    Secretary of Environment. His duties include serving as
    Chairman of the Governor's Chesapeake Bay Cabinet and Chair of
    the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. Ben has served as
    the Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency from 2003 to 2009, and as Director of the
    Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and as
    environmental counsel and a senior staff member of the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Science
    Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
        So he has a great deal of experience at the State level,
    but also understands the Federal level from his experience
    there, and both branches of Government, the executive and
    legislative branches. He also was President of the U.S. Water
    Alliance, an environmental non-profit organization that
    educates the public on the value of water and the need for
    integrative and innovative solutions.
        Section 319, as we will hear today, is a vital source of
    resources for us to deal with nonpoint source management. In
    our State, it is important in regard to how we deal with
    developers, local officials, and farmers to deal with water
    quality. Both the Chairman and Ranking Member have mentioned
    the Chesapeake Bay, and Section 319 provides sources for help
    in dealing with our commitment to the Chesapeake Bay.
        One more word about Ben Grumbles and the Bay program. He is
    our leader in the State on the Bay, and he is following in a
    great tradition of really nonpartisan leadership in our State
    in our commitment to the Chesapeake Bay. He has shown
    incredible innovation and leadership, and we are very proud of
    what he has been able to demonstrate that we can do in
    Maryland, working with our partners in the surrounding States.
        The key to the Chesapeake Bay Program was that it was
    developed by the local governments. It started 40 years ago,
    and it was from the ground up. It was not from the Federal
    Government down. It was the local governments that came up with
    plans based upon best science and the political realities of
    their State as to what they could do to save the Chesapeake
    Bay.
        Then they joined together. The States surrounding the
    Chesapeake Bay said, We have got to do this collectively. It
    was later that we involved the Federal Government. We involved
    the Federal Government for two main reasons, and I think
    Secretary Grumbles is very much aware of that.
        First of all, we need help funding, funding sources. The
    Chesapeake Bay has been the beneficiary of the direct funding
    from the Federal Government as well as programs such as Section
    319. But we also need someone to make sure that all
    stakeholders--and that means the farmers, the developers, the
    local governments, and all regions, all States--were doing
    their fair share, so that we had a committed program that all
    of us were doing our share.

    [[Page 7]]

        That is where the enforcement by EPA has become so
    critically important, including the TMDLs. Secretary Grumbles,
    I think, can speak to how all this has worked well and the
    progress we have made, but we need all of our tools working
    together, and that is why Section 319 is a very important
    program and one that I hope, as we look at reauthorization
    programs, how we can expand and improve Section 319.
        I thank Secretary Grumbles for being here.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
        Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, with respect to the accolades about Secretary
    Grumbles, I am just going to say, amen to that.
        Thank you and our partners around this table on both sides
    of the aisle for working with Senator Cardin and myself,
    Senator Capito, and other members of the Bay States to provide
    the support that we need as a country to this national
    treasure. Secretary Grumbles has been a big part of that.
        We will get into this a little more later, but both Senator
    Cardin and Senator Carper mentioned the Chesapeake Bay
    Agreement and the need to enforce it. We have voluntary tools,
    but we decided in the Bay Agreement that when necessary, we
    ultimately need to have more leverage and more enforcement to
    make sure that all of the members of that multi-State
    jurisdiction take their responsibilities seriously and meet
    their reduction goals.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. This is a
    very important voluntary program, Section 319. We need to use
    all the tools at our disposal when we are addressing these
    issues.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        I want to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be made part of the official hearing record, so
    we ask that you try to keep your statements to 5 minutes, so we
    have time for questions. I look forward to hearing from both of
    you.
        Ms. Zygmunt, please begin.

        STATEMENT OF JENNIFER ZYGMUNT, NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
        COORDINATOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        Ms. Zygmunt. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
    Member Carper, and honorable members of the Committee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the Wyoming
    Department of Environmental Quality Nonpoint Source Program,
    which I have had the privilege of managing for the past 11
    years.
        You will find detailed background information on our
    program in my written testimony. For more information on recent
    program accomplishments, I encourage you to review our 2018
    annual report, which is available online in an RJAS story map
    format.
        Overall, the Wyoming DEQ believes that the Section 319
    program is functioning effectively. We would like to highlight
    several aspects of the program that we feel are important to
    its success.
        First, national program guidance has provided sufficient
    flexibility to allow Wyoming to manage its nonpoint source
    program according to the needs of our State.

    [[Page 8]]

        We appreciate areas of flexibility that were incorporated
    into the guidance during its 2013 revision. As one example, the
    increased ability to protect healthy waters in addition to
    restoring impaired waters has helped support important river
    restoration projects in Wyoming, expanding partnerships with
    Wyoming Game and Fish Department, conservation districts, and
    Trout Unlimited. We continue to advocate for revisions to
    program guidance that support flexibility so that States can
    best address their priority water quality issues.
        Second, the DEQ believes that a voluntary approach to
    nonpoint source pollution management is the most effective
    approach. While often challenging, bringing stakeholders
    together in a spirit of collaboration promotes partnerships,
    information sharing, and innovation. Projects with multiple
    benefits are the most likely to succeed in the long term, and
    the voluntary approach helps identify such win-win situations.
        As one example, over 36 miles of the North Platte River
    were recently restored to meeting water quality standards.
    Converting flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation in the
    watershed not only improved water quality, but it increased
    agricultural production, and it saved farmers money by reducing
    water usage and labor costs.
        The importance of partnerships and local leadership and the
    successful voluntary approach cannot be overstated. Finding
    common goals with other agencies, organizations, and
    individuals is key to success.
        Some of DEQ's most important partnerships are those with
    the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, our 34
    individual conservation districts, and local members of those
    districts. As local government entities with the authority to
    lead watershed planning and restoration efforts, conservation
    districts sponsor the majority of our 319 projects, and they
    provide an important link between the DEQ and our local
    stakeholders.
        Finally, though a challenging part of the program, the
    collection of data to evaluate the program's effectiveness is
    important. The program's primary measure of success--the number
    of water bodies restored to meeting standards--emphasizes
    accountability and provides a meaningful communication tool
    with the public.
        While the DEQ believes the program is operating
    effectively, we respectfully offer the following
    recommendations for further program improvement. Of highest
    priority, we recommend that EPA evaluates ways to streamline
    the 319 grant application and award process to avoid delays in
    awarding grants to States. Having a definitive timeframe for
    when grants will be awarded will improve our ability to notify
    sponsors of anticipated project start dates, allowing sponsors
    to better plan projects and coordinate their non-Federal
    sources of match.
        We appreciate that EPA Region 8 has heard our concerns on
    this subject and is taking steps to determine if improvements
    can be made. We encourage that this conversation happens at the
    national level as well.
        Our second recommendation is that if the 319 allocation
    formula is reevaluated, it needs to be done with careful
    consideration and input from all States. While changes to the
    formula would benefit some States, they could be detrimental to
    others. The DEQ has in

    [[Page 9]]

    cluded in its written testimony some suggested factors for
    consideration if the formula is reevaluated.
        Finally, the DEQ recommends that nationally, EPA and NRCS
    continue to gather and evaluate State feedback to determine how
    the Federal National Water Quality Initiative can be improved.
    The DEQ's partnership with our Wyoming NRCS is a critical
    partnership for us. With the common goal of water quality
    improvement, both agencies are committed to working together to
    improve delivery of conservation programs, including the
    National Water Quality Initiative.
        While the initiative has resulted in positive outcomes in
    Wyoming, new requirements under the initiative have put
    additional burden on limited DEQ staff, and it has been
    challenging to meet those requirements. Further national
    initiatives with NRCS should stem from significant outreach to
    States and should allow flexibility in how States best pursue
    partnerships with their NRCS counterparts.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Zygmunt follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so very much for your
    thoughtful testimony.
        We will have questions in a moment, but first I would like
    to turn to Mr. Grumbles.
        Please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BEN GRUMBLES, SECRETARY OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
                 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Ranking Member Carper. What an honor it is to appear before you
    today.
        Our Nation is stronger when the Senate Environment and
    Public Works Committee is working together in a bipartisan
    manner for environmental progress. The 319 Program is an
    outstanding example of a critical effort that involves
    partnerships, nationally, State based, regionally, and locally.
        It really is an honor to appear before you. I am Governor
    Hogan's Environment Secretary for Maryland, and as very kindly
    mentioned by Senators Cardin and Van Hollen, I also get to
    serve as the head of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership's
    Principal Staff Committee of Environment and Agriculture and
    Natural Resources Secretaries.
        This hearing is important because it gives us an
    opportunity to tout what is working very well and also explore
    tweaks and possible revisions to make this program even
    stronger. Because the Nonpoint Source Program is only going to
    grow in importance and need in meeting our clean water
    fishable, swimmable goals.
        I also want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, how proud it is for
    me to appear before a committee where Senator Capito, Senator
    Boozman, everyone works together to put funding in the right
    place. We are so appreciative of the recent efforts to boost
    the funding of programs, including for the Chesapeake Bay.
        Senator, I work well with Austin Caperton, and Senator
    Carper, you know that Shawn Garvin is a real leader, and we all
    work together to make progress for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
        But Mr. Chairman, the 319 Program is an integral component
    to local, State, and regional progress. So it is an honor to
    appear before you on that.
        Governor Hogan, as the Chairman of the National Governors
    Association, puts a real emphasis on infrastructure, a
    foundation for success, advancing repair, enhancement, and
    modernization of our Nation's infrastructure, including aging
    water systems, through innovative public-private partnerships,
    smarter technologies, and a strong focus on resilience. A key
    to successful infrastructure programs is a holistic, integrated
    approach that also includes increased focus and attention on
    runoff and nonpoint source pollution.
        One of the things I really want to emphasize here is that
    in Maryland, we see the value of local progress for clean water
    and coordinating on a regional basis. The Governor and the
    State of Maryland together in a totally bipartisan manner have
    made strong commitments. We are seeing real progress for the
    Chesapeake Bay, not only in reducing the point sources that are
    regu

    [[Page 44]]

    lated under the Clean Water Act, but also the nonpoint source
    pollution.
        While we have made significant progress in our Bay
    restoration efforts, we will not be able to fully restore the
    health of the Bay, a national and ecological treasure with
    economic value exceeding $1 trillion, unless all of our State
    partners and the District of Columbia also meet their
    commitments. We must ensure that we all factor in the impacts
    of climate change into our efforts to reduce nonpoint source
    pollution, as changes in rainfall patterns that increase runoff
    into the Bay threaten to undermine progress.
        The other point I want to make is that 319 is something to
    be proud of. My hat is off to EPA and USDA and other Federal
    agencies who make it work well. It is a holistic approach to
    tackle water pollution problems on a watershed basis.
        We value partnerships. It is not just with Federal
    agencies. It is with nonprofit organizations, like the
    Chesapeake Conservancy, with their Precision Conservation
    Initiative, and the Nature Conservancy, and other organizations
    that team up with States, and Trout Unlimited, as Jennifer
    mentioned.
        But for us in the Chesapeake Bay, the key is to ensure that
    we focus on what is really needed. For us, the nonpoint source
    and stormwater challenges are among the greatest, and that is
    why we need all of the States and the EPA to step up and play
    their appropriate roles.
        I want to emphasize the role of the EPA. Maryland considers
    EPA to be the key to our partnerships for the Chesapeake Bay
    and the TMDL.
        Pennsylvania in particular has fallen short--woefully
    fallen short--and so we would strongly encourage additional
    funding for nonpoint source pollution for all of the States,
    streamlining in the process, but also for the interstate
    umpire, the EPA, to have the courage to step up and use the
    regulatory backstops that are available. It is not an
    aspirational role; it is an enforceable TMDL. We think that
    with a stronger 319 Program, and with EPA stepping up, that
    would be very important.
        I would just like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that Maryland
    is fully prepared and will push the EPA to use its appropriate
    authority so that we can all make progress. We look forward to
    the discussions about how to continue to improve the 319
    Program.
        Thank you for your leadership on this matter.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you for your testimony.
        Thank you both for your testimony.
        We will start with some questions.
        If I could start with you, Ms. Zygmunt, EPA regularly
    publishes success stories of particularly effective nonpoint
    source projects, nationally recognized Wyoming's 14 projects,
    including the one you mentioned with the North Platte River
    restoration project. In your experience, and you have done this
    for a while, what are the key factors in designing a project
    and implementing a project that make a project really
    overwhelmingly successful?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question.
    That is a very good question, and one that we ask ourselves
    often, and it is a question that needs to be asked often. Why
    do we see success? How can we build that success?
        In terms of the ingredients that make a successful project,
    in my experience in Wyoming, first, you need that local
    champion, whether it is an individual, an organization, an
    agency that sees the need for some solutions to a problem and
    takes the initiative to make it happen.
        Part of my job is building that local capacity so that we
    have these champions on the ground. Often in Wyoming, that is a
    conservation district, but it may also be a nonprofit
    organization, or other folks as well.
        Those champions, water quality might be their focus, it
    might not, but they need to look beyond water quality. What are
    the other benefits that bring in partners into the watershed to
    make improvements, these win-win situations? Perhaps it is
    helping out the agricultural producers, perhaps it is helping
    hunting groups, recreation groups, fishing groups.
        There are many reasons why people will come to the table.
    Water quality is just one of the reasons, and I think you need
    to find those projects where we are benefiting water quality,
    but we are finding solutions to other problems at the same
    time.
        When you can bring everybody to the table, you build those
    partnerships which are critical for coordination. You need that
    coordination to make the dollars on the ground go further, make
    sure you are not duplicating efforts, and then you just need
    commitment over time.
        This is a point that again, in my experience, it often
    takes decades to start seeing improvements from our projects.
    It is not always an immediate response. Sometimes you have to
    try many different practices before you find the right
    combination that results in water quality improvement.
        Some of the nonpoint source pollution problems that we deal
    with in Wyoming are legacy impacts going back hundreds of
    years, and they are not going to be fixed overnight. It takes
    time to mobilize the resources, it takes time to implement the
    projects, and it just takes time to work with nature and let
    those projects become effective and get the data to show
    effectiveness.
        And that being the last component of a successful project
    is that you have to monitor, you have to go out and look for
    data. I think we have to get beyond the point of just hoping
    that what we are doing is working. It is an important part of
    the program that we

    [[Page 64]]

    evaluate it whether it is water quality data, range data, many
    ways that you can look for issues.
        Senator Barrasso. There is a funding issue as well because,
    and we heard this from Senator Cardin as well, in order to
    have--these things have started as a ground up. But in order to
    receive Federal funding, you have to seek out other funds. How
    does Wyoming secure resources to leverage the dollars that it
    receives from the EPA?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes. Thank you for the question. We do require
    non-Federal match for all of our Wyoming projects. We require a
    40 percent minimum match. As an easy example, if your total
    project costs just $100,000, $60,000 could be 319 funds. The
    sponsor would need to show that 40 percent, $40,000 is coming
    from a non-Federal source.
        Really, one of the most important sources of match in
    Wyoming are from our landowners, either cash contributions to a
    project or in kind services, meaning they volunteer their time
    or they volunteer their equipment toward a project.
        We don't advocate for 100 percent cost share. It is our
    philosophy for the conservation districts working with these
    producers that when we are working with agricultural producers,
    that they have skin in the game, so to speak, that they are
    contributing to the project as well. I think that is a very
    important point to make is that they are contributing their own
    resources and their own time to these projects.
        We have local sources of funding, again the conservation
    districts, their time, if they have a local mill levy that
    provides them support, is a common source of match as well as
    city and county funds. Other State agencies that are critical
    for us showing non-Federal match would be Wyoming Game and Fish
    Department and several other agencies.
        Senator Barrasso. One last question as we talk about the
    319 funds. According to the Government Accountability Office,
    the formula is weighed heavily toward State population, as well
    as the number of acres and agriculture crop production. If we
    were to update the formula, what suggestions would you make to
    ensure that each State receives a fair share of the funding?
        Ms. Zygmunt. If the formula is updated, I think for
    Wyoming, some other factors that we would suggest be considered
    is that in addition to population size, we account for the
    number of tourists that come to Wyoming. We have under 600,000
    in terms of our State's population. In 2018 we had over 4
    million visitations to State parks, over 8 million to our
    national parks, monuments, and historic sites. That is not
    something that is considered, but obviously that level of
    tourism has the potential to impact our water quality.
        I would also recommend that we consider increased weight
    for ranch land and grazing activities in addition to cropland
    acreage. I think as a headwater State, we would advocate for
    consideration of the benefits of protecting water quality at
    the source.
        Finally, the emphasis on population size makes it hard for
    some of our smaller communities. All but two of our cities are
    under 50,000 people. It can be hard for them to find the local
    resources

    [[Page 65]]

    to address some of these problems, so I think a factor to help
    some of our smaller communities would be good.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks. Very, very helpful.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. I love it when the witnesses
    say, ``thank you for that question.'' We have some people over
    here that may have three or four rounds of questions. Every
    question, they will say ``thank you for that question.'' Even
    the lousy questions, they will still say ``thank you'' for
    that, so thank you for thanking us.
        I want to look for some consensus here, a little bit of
    agreement. I want each of you to give me maybe at least one,
    maybe two areas of agreement, most important areas of
    agreement, that we could use to improve the 319 Program to
    better address the NPS pollution, problems that our States
    face. Just two areas where you think you agree that are really
    important. Go ahead.
        Do you want to go first, Jennifer?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes. So in terms of improved areas of
    agreement, I would have to say our first would be our
    partnership with Wyoming NRCS. That is an evolving partnership,
    but we have common goals. We have had improved dialogue in
    recent years about how to prioritize.
        Obviously, they have many resource concerns beyond just
    water quality. We have had much better conversations with them
    in recent years about how to prioritize water quality or to
    coordinate that with some of their other conservation programs.
        As important in Wyoming, our evolving partnership with the
    Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, because of our
    reliance on the districts to help connect us to the local
    level, implement these projects. Our partnership with the
    conservation districts is one that we routinely coordinate
    with, maintain, and try to improve over time.
        Senator Carper. All right. Stick to your guns.
        Secretary Grumbles, do you agree with that?
        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you for the questions.
        Senator Carper. Oh, you are welcome, you are welcome.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Grumbles. And I really mean it.
        I do agree. I agree with just about everything that Wyoming
    DEQ is saying, although when it come to an allotment formula,
    we may have some disagreements. On the tourism component,
    though, that sounds very exciting as a criterion.
        We certainly--I think there is common agreement that the
    319 Program is a tremendously impactful and wise investment,
    and so that program from a Federal funding perspective should
    grow.
        I also think there is agreement that flexibility is
    absolutely needed with any partnership program that doesn't
    rely on heavy regulatory controls. Partnerships are key, so you
    need to continue to boost innovation.
        I think there is also agreement that for 319, the key is to
    tap into this exciting new world of smarter information
    technology, affordable sensing programs, remote sensing, really
    being be able to target where those dollars are best spent and
    working with agriculture and other sectors where it is really
    needed.

    [[Page 66]]

        I would agree that this is a good program. The less
    paperwork, the more streamlining in the application process, I
    think, would also be something that States would uniformly
    agree is a good way to go with this critically important
    Program 319.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Ellicott City is a town that my wife and some of her
    friends visited a year or so ago. They went shortly after--I
    don't know if they are 1,000 year floods or 500 year floods,
    that occurred within like, months of each other.
        Mr. Grumbles. More than 500 year floods.
        Senator Carper. Yes, there you go. The folks in Ellicott
    City think that climate change is real, and that it had
    something to do with the flooding that is going on.
        I have been intrigued. Delaware punches above its weight in
    farming. We do a lot of farming in Sussex County, and frankly,
    in Kent County and some in New Castle County.
        I am always looking for ways, as my colleagues know, to
    find ways to do good things for our planet, including
    addressing climate change and create economic value. I am
    intrigued by the ideas of encouraging farmers to use carbon
    capture in the soils that they grow crops in, in order to take
    the carbon out of the air and provide economic opportunity,
    better soils, to grow crops, of all kinds.
        Would you all just comment on that? Is that something that
    you are mindful of, thinking at all about?
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes. First of all, I was caught in that
    Ellicott City flood and had to be rescued, eventually. It is a
    powerful reminder in an urban environment that flood control,
    flood prevention, and increasingly wild weather in this area
    needs to be taken seriously. That is why we are proud that we
    are supporting climate resiliency efforts to help engage not
    only in urban retrofits, but also in smarter planning upstream
    and throughout the watershed.
        Carbon capture sequestration is critically important,
    whether you are wearing the water pollution control hat or the
    climate change hat. Because it is all about healthy soils and
    finding ways to make agriculture more productive and also
    mitigate the risks of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide
    that is in the air through the healthy soil.
        We are putting a real emphasis--Governor Hogan is--on
    healthy soils initiatives, and working with agriculture, not
    against, to be real leaders in reducing carbon pollution and
    increasing the health of our soils.
        Senator Carper. My time is expired, Ms. Zygmunt. Anything
    quickly you could add to this, just briefly?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes. I agree, the soil health initiative is
    fascinating. We are seeing farmers in Wyoming that are starting
    to learn more about it, starting to implement techniques. That,
    and other practices I think are a great part of the 319 Program
    in that we are building resiliency from many angles.
        A lot of the projects that we do are going to stabilize
    riparian areas, helping with flood control, off channel water
    that we do with ranchers helps during droughts.
        Climate variability is not new in Wyoming. It is something
    that we deal with regularly; droughts, floods, wildfires.
    Regardless of

    [[Page 67]]

    the reason, the increased resiliency from our projects, I
    think, benefits for many reasons.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I think I keep coming back to
    something that we talked about just a little bit in other
    hearings. There is something good here for farmers, and I would
    like to say it is possible to do good things for our planet and
    add economic value, and this is one way to do that.
        I know farmers can--there are always good stories like
    that, I think our first was. But they can be better stories,
    and we can figure how to help facilitate that in the end.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank both of you for being here today. The 319 Program is
    critical, we talked about, to the water quality of my State of
    West Virginia; under its non-regulatory framework, Federal,
    State, and local governments partner with private groups and
    individuals to implement these programs. We do have a great DEP
    administrator in Austin Caperton, I am glad to know you are
    working with him.
        Senator Carper. Sorry to interrupt. Is he related to Gaston
    Caperton?
        Senator Capito. He is cousins, yes. It is West Virginia, we
    are all cousins.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. In any event, the two prevalent major
    nonpoint sources in our State are bacteria and then acid mine
    drainage, which we have dealt with, and done very well
    actually. Down the way from where I live, the Coal River Group
    has utilized the 319 grant funding to help homeowners repair
    their septic systems. This is something we have worked on in
    this Committee, with getting people to get their septic systems
    up to quality, so that they don't become a bigger problem or
    age or leak or other things.
        So now, the Coal River, they have a great kayaking
    business; they have great water festivals on the Coal River,
    and it is been a direct, I think, result from the 319 Program.
        In terms of the Chesapeake Bay, West Virginia is one of the
    headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay, and we have worked well, I
    think, to get our total maximum daily load down, thanks to the
    319 Program. It is been very helpful with that.
        On that issue, I would like to ask you, Secretary Grumbles,
    you mentioned working with other States. I have a two-part
    question.
        No. 1, I don't know the answer to this question. Does the
    319 Program allow you to do a regional approach where you could
    apply for funding as a region of States? Or is it mostly State
    to State, and then how do you coordinate that when you are on
    the border? You want to do a project near Hagerstown,
    Martinsburg, Shepherdstown, that type of thing.
        That is my first question. Go ahead.
        Mr. Grumbles. My answer to that is yes. We use the 319
    Program to partner with other States in the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed. So 319 funds for Maryland can be used in a
    partnership program with West Virginia or with other States
    that are above us or beside us.

    [[Page 68]]

        Senator Capito. So, does the funding come, like the West
    Virginia 319 Program uses their funding to partner with the
    funding from Maryland, so to speak?
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes.
        Senator Capito. Right. So one of the issues, I think,
    particularly in that region, and particularly with the
    Chesapeake Bay, is there is not a lot of population in the West
    Virginia part. I realize when you get into Maryland, you have
    got more population driven into that area when you start
    getting into the more populated parts of the Bay.
        I think this has been an issue, not an issue, but something
    to look at in terms of funding, because of the heavy impacts
    that a less inhabited part, a more rural part of West Virginia
    is going to have on a more inhabited place, places in and
    around the Chesapeake Bay.
        Would you consider, would you see, is there enough
    flexibility built into the program to be able to help that
    rural community? I think this is what you were talking about in
    Wyoming. I don't know how you see that issue.
        Mr. Grumbles. I think it is important to look at that and
    work with the Committee on trying to build as much flexibility
    into that in the spirit of source water protection and working
    upstream where you get the most bang for your buck and
    leveraging those dollars.
        I just want to make sure the Committee understand that the
    319 Program, when you use the allotment for it--Maryland only
    gets $2 million, but we have put up over $75 million of our
    money into that program, and it just leverages tremendous
    broader partnerships. I think that the key of having
    flexibility, working with local or smaller populated
    communities upstream is where we see some real value
    downstream.
        Senator Capito. In Wyoming, I think you mentioned that you
    have a headwater, you are a headwater State as well. The
    discussion we are having in terms of being able to fund those
    projects in terms of impacts further downstream, do you have an
    opinion on that?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes. I would agree with Secretary Grumbles. I
    do think we have the flexibility to address both those issues,
    working with rural communities and having interstate
    coordination as needed.
        In Wyoming, interstate coordination is very important. We
    haven't had as much formal coordination in the 319 Program. I
    routinely talk with my other State counterparts when we have
    got projects on the border with other States, we were letting
    them know what we are doing, seeing if we can encourage
    projects downstream as well. They are obviously very interested
    when we are doing projects upstream.
        I absolutely feel that we have the flexibility that we need
    to work with our other States and to bring resources to our
    smaller communities.
        Senator Capito. I don't have another question, but if I
    did, I would have asked about the capacity building. I think
    this is an issue in all types of water treatment, no matter
    whether you are looking at a nonsource point, or whether you
    are looking at a rural

    [[Page 69]]

    water system, the technical expertise, I think, is something we
    really need to work on here to spur that on.
        Mr. Grumbles. Can I just simply say, thank you for
    mentioning acid mine drainage. In Western Maryland, we are very
    proud as well, just like West Virginia, of using different
    technologies to reduce acid mine drainage and using 319 dollars
    for that. It is one of our true success stories, and we might
    have learned it from West Virginia, but it is certainly another
    reason to support the flexibility and continued flow of Federal
    support for 319 Programs like acid mine drainage mitigation.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank both of you, as witnesses.
        I think this hearing highlights the importance of the
    Section 319 Program to address nonpoint source pollution.
        Another important program in that regard is the Rural
    Conservation Partnership Program, and I want to thank Senator
    Boozman for working with Senator Capito, Senator Cardin,
    myself, and others to increase the mandatory funding on the
    Farm Bill for that, because that is also vitally important to
    protect watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay.
        I would like to zero in on something Secretary Grumbles
    commented on in his statement, and that is the current state of
    the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which essentially puts different
    States on what we call a pollution diet, right? The TMDL is the
    total maximum daily load. As part of the Chesapeake Bay
    Agreement, some of the key States agreed that they would hit
    certain pollution reduction targets.
        We just saw from EPA's analysis in December that the State
    of Pennsylvania is falling very far short on some of those key
    pollution reduction targets. There were some alarming
    statements made recently by the head of the EPA's Chesapeake
    Bay Program suggesting that those pollution targets that States
    are supposed to achieve by 2025 are purely ``aspirational,''
    and that they are not enforceable, which, I think is dead wrong
    when you look at the agreement.
        Secretary Grumbles, my first question is, have you gotten
    any clarification from EPA since that comment was made, as to
    whether they believe that the agreement is enforceable?
        Mr. Grumbles. EPA issued a statement that backed away from
    using that word, aspirational, and underscored that they are
    committed to working with each of the States to meet their
    goals by 2025. We are still very concerned about that. We
    absolutely believe that it is not just aspirational, it is
    enforceable, and it is not just informational, it is integral
    to our success for 2025.
        We understand full well that nonpoint source pollution is
    not regulated directly under the Clean Water Act. But when you
    have a TMDL and the uniqueness of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL,
    which is like no other in the country with these watershed
    implementation plans that are then integrated into the 303(E),
    the continuing planning process, there are some real
    commitments and respon

    [[Page 70]]

    sibilities and obligations that EPA has to implement the EPA
    Chesapeake Bay TMDL beyond aspirational.
        Senator Van Hollen. I want to make it clear that I think
    all of the members of the Chesapeake Bay States would like to
    work with the State of Pennsylvania to help it achieve its
    targets. We would like to see additional Federal resources,
    whether it is from the Rural Conservation Program or other
    programs go to Pennsylvania to address these issues.
        But ultimately, as of today, Pennsylvania is not on course
    to meet its targets, and we need assurances from EPA that it
    will play its role to ultimately enforce those targets. I am
    drafting a letter with Senator Cardin and others to make it
    clear to EPA that that is our understanding of what it means,
    and that understanding is actually affirmed by the Third U.S.
    District Court of Appeals decision. This has been litigated
    before, has it not?
        Mr. Grumbles. It has. It is over a 5-year period from the
    2013 decision to a 2016 Supreme Court letting it stand. The
    Chesapeake Bay TMDL is lawful; EPA has an important role.
        We are not trying to make the Nonpoint Source Program
    regulatory. It is through the context of the TMDL there is a
    clear and distinct responsibility of the interstate umpire to
    step in and take actions when a State like Pennsylvania is not
    even meeting 75 percent of its commitment. When it is going to
    be hundreds of millions of dollars, and they don't have the
    plan, we need intervention on that front and still work
    together as partners, but we need intervention and leadership.
        Senator Van Hollen. Right. No, I don't think anyone is
    suggesting, just to be clear, making the Section 319 Program a
    mandatory program. This is a distinct agreement under the TMDL
    among the States, and a Third U.S. District Court of Appeals
    judge has already said that this creates enforceable rights and
    obligations.
        I just want to say to you, Mr. Secretary, and to the
    Governor, that if we don't get assurances from the EPA in short
    order, that they are going to enforce these targets and come up
    with a realistic plan for hitting those targets, then we are
    going to have to sue EPA to do its job and enforce the
    agreement. I believe you agree, do you not?
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes. And the Governor agrees. The Governor
    feels very strongly about this.
        Senator Van Hollen. I just think this has come to a boil
    now with the statements that were made recently by the head of
    the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, and so this is a moment we
    need absolute clarity and an enforceable program to hit the
    targets in 2025.
        Thank you.
        Senator Rounds [presiding]. Thank you.
        I think now what you will see is part of the
    dysfunctionality within the Senate as we now move in and out to
    try to get down and vote, so we will be passing the
    Chairmanship back and forth and around. Those individuals who
    are leaving are not doing it out of disrespect, but simply
    because they have to go and vote and try to get back in an
    orderly fashion.
        Ms. Zygmunt, like Wyoming, South Dakota is a farming and
    ranching State with a relatively small population, but a fairly
    good

    [[Page 71]]

    size. Looking at Section 319--and we utilize 319 in South
    Dakota just like you do in Wyoming--I think there has been a
    question as to whether or not there is an appropriateness or
    whether or not there should be modifications to the existing
    formula with regard to two particular items. That is, the
    amount of ag land; that is, within the formula itself, versus
    the weighted credibility given to the population of the
    particular State.
        In many cases, where you find, since this is a nonpoint
    source pollution program, the question is, should this be based
    or should we reconsider the formula funding to perhaps provide
    some additional credibility or weighting to the ag acres that
    are under production? I would like your thoughts.
        If you could re-do the formula; you have been doing this
    for more than 11 years now, in Wyoming. What would you see with
    regard to not so much, would you consider a fairer formula? It
    hasn't been changed since the beginning. What would you see
    with regard to other areas that might be considered as we
    consider a fair distribution formula?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        I think I have trouble answering that question nationally,
    in terms of what is fair. I can definitely speak for Wyoming,
    in that yes, agricultural land use is one of our key land uses
    that we need to address nonpoint source from. Most of our
    success stories have involved an agricultural component.
        If I am just looking at Wyoming, and if I had a pot of
    money, and I had to come up with the formula to distribute the
    money in Wyoming, agricultural land use would be one of the top
    factors that I would consider in terms of what needs are where.
    But it is not the only factor, and whether or not it should be
    weighted more or less, I have trouble speaking to that beyond
    Wyoming.
        One of the good aspects of the 319 Program is that we are
    able to address nonpoint sources of pollution from other
    sources. The urban related sources in Wyoming, sometimes there
    is not funding to help communities out with those sources.
    Septic systems are another issue in Wyoming that we can help
    with.
        So agriculture is important in Wyoming. I see that being
    one of our top priorities, but there are other sources in parts
    of the State that 319 has the flexibility to address. Within
    the State, that flexibility is very important.
        Ag as a factor, as I mentioned in my statement previously,
    I would recommend if the formula were reevaluated to add more
    weight to the rangeland, grazing aspect of it, not just
    irrigated cropland.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. I am also curious. In your
    testimony, you state that partnerships with the agricultural
    community are important for successful nonpoint source
    pollution mitigation. In your testimony, you have also included
    supporting documents highlighting your success in reducing
    levels of selenium in local waters flowing through the North
    Platte River.
        Can you talk a little bit about the success of this
    voluntary program, and nobody is talking about making it a
    mandatory program, but can you talk about how the ag community
    and the rural communities feel about this being a voluntary
    program?

    [[Page 72]]

        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes, in Wyoming, absolutely, there is support
    for our program being voluntary. Again, that is what we have
    found to be most effective. It builds the most trust with our
    agricultural community, and again, our conservation districts
    are key in building that link between the 319 Program and the
    local producers. The conservation districts are the folks out
    there talking with producers, talking about the program,
    explaining what 319 is. It is my job to help build that trust
    with the conservation district to facilitate that discussion,
    provide the district with the resources that they need so that
    they can take the next step working with the producers.
        Yes, absolutely, support for the voluntary approach in the
    conservation districts are key to building that trust with the
    ag community. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Coordinator Zygmunt, do you
    have much challenge with phosphorus in Wyoming as a runoff that
    affects waterway quality?
        Ms. Zygmunt. It is a newer issue for us. Nutrients,
    including phosphorus, is an issue. It is not one that we have
    done a lot of monitoring for to date. We are in the process of
    developing numeric nutrient criteria, but we are seeing harmful
    algal blooms within the State and are working on a response
    plan for those. We are in the process of developing a bigger
    nutrient program right now. Our focus has been on sediment and
    bacteria, but we are heading that way.
        Senator Merkley. Secretary Grumbles, is that an issue for
    you in Maryland?
        Mr. Grumbles. It is. It is also an opportunity. It is a
    very important issue, as Senator Carper knows, in the Delmarva
    Peninsula, phosphorus management. Governor Hogan is very proud
    of the fact that we updated the science and put in place strong
    regulations to reduce potential phosphorus.
        Senator Merkley. The reason I ask both of you is because
    algal blooms across the country are affecting almost every
    State, most certainly the warmer water. The nutrient runoff is
    causing lots of troubles in our lakes and waterways in Oregon.
        There is some very complex chemistry that is occurring. For
    example, Diamond Lake has a significant phosphorus that was
    driving an algal bloom, but when the invasive tui chub fish was
    removed from the lake, then the zooplankton ate the algae, and
    the water clarity increased to a depth of over 20 feet from
    about 2 or 3 feet. It just cleared up the algae because of
    changing the chemistry, even with the same phosphorus load.
        We have another lake, Klamath Lake, where we have
    endangered suckers. We are having a really complex challenge
    with it, where you have one algae bloom that fixes nitrogen,
    and then a second algae bloom that uses that nitrogen, and it
    produces a range of toxins. It is not really just two algaes;
    there is a whole suite of different algaes, but I am crudely
    describing it. We have a species there, the fathead minnow,
    that has become 80 percent of the mass in the lake.

    [[Page 73]]

        As I see these issues, they are so complex. Shouldn't we
    have kind of a national algae team that understands and is
    learning from each and everybody's experience and challenges in
    Wyoming and Maryland and Oregon to kind of help everyone else,
    including ourselves understand these issues better and how to
    address them?
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. We don't really have that, at least I
    haven't seen that, like experts at the national level on algae
    that can come to Oregon and help us understand, because we have
    very different challenges in lakes that are not that far apart.
        I think this is the main thing I wanted to address because
    in terms of our nonpoint, we have sediment issues and so on and
    so forth as well, but this is one that is really changing the
    chemistry of the lake. The algae near the surface is creating
    warmer temperatures in the lake. It is also decreasing the
    sunlight going deeper into the lake. Not only does it produce
    toxins, but when it dies, it strips oxygen from the lake.
        We have multitudinous sources of phosphorus, including
    natural background phosphorus, tail water from irrigation
    operations, former wetlands that are drying out and release a
    lot of phosphorus when it rains.
        I am just thinking, in addition to these moneys, it would
    be great to have a real team of experts on the biochemistry of
    lakes and the interaction with aquatic zooplankton, algae,
    invasive species, and so forth to help us address these
    challenges.
        Ms. Zygmunt. Senator, I think that is a very good point.
    Like I said, we are in the initial stages of building an
    improved harmful algal bloom response strategy in Wyoming. We
    have prioritized one of our reservoirs for proactive nutrient
    reduction efforts. It is a very high rec use reservoir, so it
    is very important for us to address the recurring algal blooms
    that are occurring there.
        As one example, the University of Wyoming has put together
    a team that hopefully will get some funding to do a detailed
    study on that reservoir to understand that complexity and help
    answer some of the questions particularly that we are getting
    from stakeholders about with the blooms are occurring and the
    best way to address them.
        It is a complex issue, and I think there is definitely a
    need to have support for technical assistance to understand it
    so that we can mitigate it most effectively. We are seeing some
    assistance through the University of Wyoming, and we are also
    attending regional conferences when they become available. I
    know upcoming in February, there is a Midwest conference on
    harmful algal blooms where we will be participating to learn
    from other State resources.
        Mr. Grumbles. Senator, I would just simply add, I know
    there has been a national effort on harmful algal bloom
    research and control. Perhaps what you are suggesting is there
    needs to be more at the national, Federal level of the many
    excellent research scientific agencies that are there.
        I can tell you that from a regional and State perspective,
    we absolutely agree that nutrients, particularly phosphorus,
    need good strong science and integrated partnerships and find
    ways to reduce unacceptable or excess levels of phosphorus and
    repurpose that

    [[Page 74]]

    phosphorus and use voluntary as well as regulatory tools, not
    just in agriculture, but in the wastewater community through
    enhanced wastewater treatment technologies, but not lose sight
    of the importance of the phosphorus loading, which is a big
    part of our Chesapeake Bay challenge.
        Senator Merkley. We are looking at how can you cost
    effectively strip algae, harvest algae from the lake, removing
    that algae and the phosphorus. We are looking at how much can
    the wetlands reduce it. We are looking at the whole range of
    things.
        What has really struck me is, for example, in aquarium
    studies of how toxins affect the fish, we only have limited
    toxins that are relevant to the range of toxins produced by the
    algae to even be able to test, so there is a big scientific gap
    here that we need to focus more on.
        I will just close by noting that the amount of funding for
    this program has gone down significantly over time, and it
    seems to be that the challenges are getting greater. Maybe we
    should be increasing funding for it.
        Thanks.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate
    you all being here very, very much.
        Ms. Zygmunt, the State of New Hampshire in comments
    collected by the Association of Clean Water Administrators
    suggested that an audit should be performed on reporting
    requirements to detect any redundant reporting done by the
    States to EPA. Do you believe that there are areas of the 319
    process that can be streamlined, and can you give some examples
    of that, perhaps?
        Ms. Zygmunt. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Overall, I feel like
    we have worked in recent years to evaluate reporting
    requirements. Right now, I don't feel like the reporting
    requirements that we have as a program are onerous.
        Senator Boozman. Good.
        Ms. Zygmunt. I have worked at the next step to help my
    project sponsors with that reporting step. If I make their job
    easier, it makes my job easier, it makes the EPA's job easier.
    It is definitely a team effort.
        Right now, I don't have any immediate suggestions for
    streamlining reporting. I think it is an ongoing process.
        EPA is coming up with some very good tools, such as ``How's
    My Waterway,'' which will be an excellent tool to get more
    information to the public about water quality. It will pull
    information from the main data base that we use to track our
    319 projects, which is good, but it will require us to go and
    make sure that we are keeping our data entry up to date, making
    sure that it is thorough and sound and it is what we would want
    to present to the public.
        I think there are some upcoming requirements that we just
    need to have conversation with EPA about in terms of how to
    make that most effective.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. That is good to hear.
        Secretary Grumbles, it is good to see you. The Secretary
    was one of my former predecessors, is that right? Former
    predecessor?
        [Laughter.]

    [[Page 75]]

        Senator Boozman. Anyway, a Congressman that he served under
    and worked for, and I just want to compliment you. It is so
    good to hear the two Senators from Maryland be here and
    compliment you on your hard work. The fact that you are so well
    respected on both sides of the aisle, that is a great example
    for all of us.
        We do appreciate all you do. I know that you work very,
    very hard. Nobody understands the issues better than you, and
    the fact that you make it, especially with these water issues
    that are so, so very important. These are areas that we can
    find common ground on. We all want to get it done in a logical
    way, and you have really set the pace in that regard, so give
    yourself a pat on the back.
        I have got a quick question for you because I have got to
    run and vote. Aside from providing additional money to the 319
    Program, how can we leverage more funding for nonpoint source
    pollution projects?
        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Senator. The key to innovation is
    being willing to find ways to bring in additional partnerships
    and market based solutions, one of the best ways to leverage
    additional funding through the 319 Program.
        We should get a boost in funding, but the best way to
    leverage is by using market based strategies, creating
    incentives, such as water quality trading or pay for
    performance contracting, where with the knowledge that is
    gained through the 319 Program and the science of the
    technologies of being able to see, wow, we will get some really
    good progress in water quality, that can then help create
    incentives for unregulated players to come to the table and
    come up with ways to reduce the pollution, whether it is acid
    runoff from mining or excess phosphorus or nitrogen or algae or
    green infrastructure.
        The best way to leverage is to invite more partners to the
    table and reward them through market based strategies like
    water quality trading or pay for performance contracting.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you, and we do appreciate
    both of you very, very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
    this hearing today.
        Clean water is a basic human right, and assuring that all
    Americans have access to it for their families must be a top
    priority for all of us. New York State has a strong record when
    it comes to protecting our water. New York City has a water
    supply providing unfiltered, clean drinking water for 9 million
    New Yorkers.
        However, our State continues to face the challenge of
    ensuring that our water stays safe and clean. Harmful algal
    blooms and other water quality problems associated with
    nutrient runoff and fertilizer use threatens our lakes.
        We are spending record amounts of money to clean up the
    Long Island Sound and reduce its nitrogen load. New York State
    is also committed to partner to doing our part to clean up the
    Chesapeake Bay, and we will meet the 2025 targets in New York's
    watershed implementation plan.

    [[Page 76]]

        One of the biggest water quality challenges we face has to
    do with the growing problem of PFAS contamination. That is an
    issue that is affecting New York, the whole country, and it is
    creating great concern.
        I am very concerned about the prospect of PFAS chemicals
    entering our water bodies through nonpoint source pollution due
    to the use of sludge from water treatment facilities as a
    fertilizer on agricultural croplands. We are essentially taking
    PFAS pollution from point sources and turning it into nonpoint
    source pollution through agricultural runoff and groundwater
    contamination. This hurts our farmers, who now must deal with
    PFAS contamination on their land. It potentially harms the
    public by contaminating food and water.
        This is happening in States from Maine to Michigan to New
    Mexico.
        Secretary Grumbles and Ms. Zygmunt, are your States taking
    any action to detect and address nonpoint source pollution from
    PFAS?
        Mr. Grumbles. Well, Senator, I know that for us in Maryland
    and the Maryland Department of the Environment, we are looking
    very carefully at potential biosolids land application of
    sewage sludge as a potential source. Our Water Office and our
    Land and Management Office are looking at this.
        The first step is to see, are there indications of a
    problem. Because we are, in working with other States like New
    York, or States around the country, know that there is growing
    evidence of real concern about PFAS, and not just from a point
    source, but from nonpoint sources.
        So it is on our radar screen, and we are committed to
    learning more and partnering for pollution prevention.
        Ms. Zygmunt. Thank you, Senator. My short answer is that
    no, PFAS has not made its way to our nonpoint source program at
    this time. We have other staff in our water quality division
    that are working on PFAS issues. It is beyond my area of
    expertise at the moment, but I would be happy to get more
    information for you from the staff in terms of what efforts
    they have made and where they are at.
        Senator Gillibrand. Great. And what can be done on a
    Federal level to support more awareness and action at the State
    and local levels to address the issue?
        Mr. Grumbles. I certainly can say as a member of the
    Environmental Council of the States, ECOS, which is all the
    State directors and commissioners on environment, that every
    single meeting our group has from the director of Wyoming DEQ,
    to our State, to New York, Basil Seggos, the commissioner, we
    talk about and develop strategies and compare notes on
    regulatory tools and science based tools.
        The answer is a continued, strong commitment on Federal
    agencies like EPA to keep moving forward on the science and the
    communication and the necessary regulatory tools to reduce the
    threat from PFAS chemicals.
        Senator Gillibrand. What impacts do you anticipate that
    increased precipitation will have on the amount of pollution
    entering

    [[Page 77]]

    our water bodies and our ability to implement measures to
    address pollution?
        Mr. Grumbles. This is a question separate from PFAS,
    although, everything can be connected.
        Senator Gillibrand. Correct.
        Mr. Grumbles. Well, as Jennifer mentioned, and as I
    certainly mentioned in our testimony, a key component of a
    successful water program is resilience and taking into account
    weather and precipitation.
        New York participates in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, and I am
    proud to say that we all have agreed to factor in climate
    resiliency, specifically because it becomes--it is a multiple--
    the increased precipitation in some regions, like here in the
    Mid-Atlantic, including snowmelt. Basically precipitation
    becomes a threat multiplier in terms of pollutants that are on
    the land, urban, suburban, rural.
        We are factoring in a narrative and numeric criteria to the
    Chesapeake Bay pollution budget specifically dealing with the
    anticipated increase in precipitation in our region.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, witnesses.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Braun.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have been a lifelong conservationist. I have been worried
    about the state of the air quality and water quality since I
    have been a kid. I was able to move back to my hometown and
    actually practice what I preach.
        When it comes to nonpoint sources, we employ riparian
    buffers, cover crops, no-till farming, a lot of different
    methods, and I think somebody earlier mentioned that farmers
    are the true stewards of the land.
        I also look at air quality and water quality to where air
    quality, we make great strides, but we are largely at the mercy
    of what the rest of the world does. When it comes to water
    quality, we can really have impact within our own country.
        When it comes to, I have heard, first of all, Section 319,
    I think it is worked very well. The skin in the game that you
    mentioned is important.
        What is the current state of the health of waterways? And I
    would like you to also talk about point source and nonpoint
    source, and tell me what your opinion is from where it is now
    versus what it was 10 to 15 years ago. I would like to hear
    from both of you on that.
        Mr. Grumbles. What an awesome question. Thank you. EPA
    definitely and other Federal agencies need to follow up on that
    question about national standards and trends. I can say without
    hesitation that our Nation has made tremendous progress on
    water quality over the last several decades, unbelievable
    progress, in terms of reducing toxic pollutions and
    conventional pollutants. So we are on the right track.
        But I can also say without hesitation that in some areas,
    it can be increasing, localized increasing urbanization, or
    some pollution source that isn't adequately controlled or
    managed, or with emerging evidence of contaminants that hadn't
    previously been focused

    [[Page 78]]

    on that are problems. There is a mission not yet accomplished,
    for sure.
        We often say, and the point source, the regulated,
    particularly industrial and municipal, that we have made
    tremendous strides. Maryland has absolutely been a leader in
    reducing pollution from industrial and wastewater treatment
    plants with very costly technologies to reduce the nutrients
    and the pollutants.
        But we also know that there are some increasing trends with
    new contaminants or chemicals, as the Senator from New York
    mentioned, that are new challenges for us because our science
    is getting better, our ability to detect challenges.
        On the nonpoint source front, the story is still true, that
    because of the diverse and diffuse nature of the pollution,
    that is going to continue to be a challenge, and we just need,
    more than ever, new tools, not just regulatory tools, but
    partnership tools that are better local and place based. It is
    really important to not declare victory on the water quality
    front, and with climate change, the more extreme weather
    conditions, that brings a whole lot of additional challenges
    that weren't as big in the past.
        I would just conclude with, we are making real progress,
    but we absolutely need to focus more and more on nonpoint
    source runoff and smart, market based strategies and ways and
    also emerging contaminants of concern.
        Senator Braun. Jennifer, briefly comment, because I want to
    come back to you with a question before my time expires. Go
    ahead.
        Ms. Zygmunt. Thank you, Senator. Yes, speaking for Wyoming,
    overall, we are blessed with great water quality. We have our
    challenges. I think we are seeing improvement, as shown by our
    success stories.
        As Secretary Grumble said, we have those emerging
    contaminants coming up that cause us to adapt and learn new
    techniques and new methods to deal with them.
        We also see changing land use, and that is something that,
    in Wyoming, causes us to adapt as well. In some parts of the
    State, we are seeing a lot of rural subdivisions, so whereas
    previously, maybe you worked with one or two large ranchers,
    now we are working with maybe 50 small acreage landowners.
        It is changes like that that continually keep you
    challenged, keep you on your toes, and another reason why we
    need flexibility in the program to adapt to those over time. I
    think we are seeing improvement. One of the indicators that I
    have seen over my 11 years in this program is that I see an
    accelerated buy in into new ways of doing things. People are
    open to new ideas. Ranchers and farmers are more willing to do
    something different than they have done in the past, to see if
    it will improve resources and improve the agricultural
    production.
        Senator Braun. Very quickly, and this is a particular
    question. Riparian buffers are, to me, a poor replacement for
    forestation that would go deeper into the watersheds. Can we
    ever have meaningful impact on water quality, especially in
    agricultural States, if we are just looking at riparian buffers
    versus what has caused it over time to where we have deforested
    across main watersheds?
        You start, and then give me a quick follow up.

    [[Page 79]]

        Ms. Zygmunt. Sure. I believe riparian buffers are a
    critical management practice. They are a very small part of
    Wyoming, but they are critical for water quality and for
    wildlife habitat. We see a lot of benefits when we improve our
    riparian areas to water quality, providing a filter for runoff
    before it reaches a stream, providing shade to reduce
    temperature within the stream.
        Riparian buffers are a critical practice of what we do in
    Wyoming. So yes, I do think they are a great practice.
        Mr. Grumbles. I think your question, obviously, prompts the
    response of, we have got to have a broader, more holistic
    approach to forest conservation, looking up into river basins
    for green infrastructure conservation and protection and source
    water protection. We get into trouble when we rely solely on
    end of pipe or edge of field solutions. But riparian buffers
    are very important, a critically important tool; they just
    can't be the only tool.
        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Braun.
        This was very interesting and informative.
        Fourteen Senators showed up. We are in the middle of a
    vote, so people have been coming and going, but that is quite a
    successful attendance, which shows the importance of what you
    are doing.
        No one else is here to ask questions, but they may submit
    written questions, so you can expect those.
        The hearing record is going to be open for the next 2
    weeks.
        We are very grateful for your time and your testimony.
    Very, very helpful on this very important issue.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]