[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA BUILDS: CLEAN WATER ACT
PERMITTING AND PROJECT DELIVERY
=======================================================================
(119-6)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 11, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Arkansas, Vice Chairman District of Columbia
Daniel Webster, Florida Jerrold Nadler, New York
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania John Garamendi, California
Brian Babin, Texas Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia
David Rouzer, North Carolina Andre Carson, Indiana
Mike Bost, Illinois Dina Titus, Nevada
Doug LaMalfa, California Jared Huffman, California
Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Julia Brownley, California
Brian J. Mast, Florida Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Pete Stauber, Minnesota Mark DeSaulnier, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Salud O. Carbajal, California
Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Greg Stanton, Arizona
Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Sharice Davids, Kansas
Troy E. Nehls, Texas Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois
Tracey Mann, Kansas Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
Burgess Owens, Utah Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri Marilyn Strickland, Washington
Mike Collins, Georgia Patrick Ryan, New York
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Val T. Hoyle, Oregon
Kevin Kiley, California Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,
Vince Fong, California Vice Ranking Member
Tony Wied, Wisconsin Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan
Tom Barrett, Michigan Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina
Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania
Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Robert Garcia, California
Pennsylvania Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Jeff Hurd, Colorado Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
Jefferson Shreve, Indiana Laura Friedman, California
Addison P. McDowell, North Laura Gillen, New York
Carolina Shomari Figures, Alabama
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Vacancy
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, Ranking Member
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, John Garamendi, California
Arkansas Jared Huffman, California
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Patrick Ryan, New York
Brian Babin, Texas Val T. Hoyle, Oregon
Mike Bost, Illinois Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio
Doug LaMalfa, California Laura Friedman, California
Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Shomari Figures, Alabama
Brian J. Mast, Florida Julia Brownley, California
Tracey Mann, Kansas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
Kevin Kiley, California Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan,
Vince Fong, California Vice Ranking Member
Tony Wied, Wisconsin Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Jeff Hurd, Colorado Laura Gillen, New York
David J. Taylor, Ohio Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Brad Knott, North Carolina District of Columbia
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)
Vacancy
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, opening statement............. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
WITNESSES
Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, oral statement.......................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Shawn M. LaTourette, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, oral statement....................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor Corporation, on
behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, oral
statement...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Buddy Hasten, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric
Cooperatives of Arkansas, on behalf of the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, oral statement............... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Vince Fong:
Statement of Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock
Irrigation District........................................ 30
Statement of John Sweigard, General Manager, Merced
Irrigation District........................................ 31
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Brad Knott:
Letter of February 10, 2025, from Paul N. Cicio, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of
America, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica
S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment............................................ 65
Letter of February 10, 2025, from Amy Andryszak, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment............................ 67
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers......... 70
Statement of the Western States Water Council................ 71
Letter of February 11, 2025, from the Waters Advocacy
Coalition, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon.
Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment.................................. 76
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Aurelia S. Giacometto,
Secretary, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental
Quality, to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment............ 77
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice
President, Legislative and Political Affairs, Associated
Builders and Contractors, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman,
and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment......................... 79
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins:
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Amanda E. Eversole,
Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer,
American Petroleum Institute, to Hon. Mike Collins,
Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment............ 80
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Rich Nolan, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Mining Association, to
Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment................................................ 82
Letter of February 20, 2025, from T. Lane Wilson, Sr. Vice
President and General Counsel, The Williams Companies,
Inc., to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S.
Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment................................................ 83
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 7, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: Clean
Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on
Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing
entitled, ``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and
Project Delivery.'' The hearing will examine how Congress can
ensure that the Clean Water Act (CWA) balances the goals of
protecting water quality and ensuring project completion,
reducing supply chain challenges, and promoting commerce. At
the hearing, Members will receive testimony from witnesses
representing the State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
National Association of Manufacturers, and National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association.
II. BACKGROUND: OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress enacted the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water
Act (CWA), with the goal to ``restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters.'' \1\ The CWA provides a major Federal-state program as
the principal law governing the quality of the Nation's surface
waters, including certain wetlands.\2\ The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary Federal agency tasked
with carrying out the CWA, while the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) is also tasked with certain
responsibilities. To achieve the objectives of the law, the CWA
established two goals: (1) eliminate pollutant discharge into
navigable waters by 1985, and (2) where possible, ensure water
quality that is ``fishable'' and ``swimmable'' by 1983.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CWA, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816.
\2\ H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, Jurisdiction and
Activities of the Subcomm. on Water Resources and Environment, 119th
Cong., (2023) (on file with Comm.).
\3\ Laura Gatz, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (RL30030), Clean Water Act: A
Summary of the Law, (Updated Oct. 18, 2016), available at https://
www.crs.gov/Reports/RL30030 [hereinafter CRS Report RL30030].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CWA consists of two major parts: (1) the authorization
of financial assistance for construction of municipal
wastewater treatment plants, and (2) the regulatory
requirements that apply to those who discharge into navigable
waters, including industrial and municipal actors.\4\ Planning,
financial, and technical assistance for various regions and
issues, tribal and state water quality programs, and oil spill
prevention and planning programs are also addressed.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulatory requirements in the CWA are found primarily
in Titles III and IV of the law. Title III establishes the
authority for EPA to develop the technological and water
quality-based effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and
requirements for points source dischargers to adhere to.\6\
Whereas Title III focuses largely on the creation of water
quality guidelines and limitations, Title IV primarily deals
with application of the regulatory program, informed by the
guidelines created pursuant to Title III, through which
dischargers must receive permits or certifications.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CRS Report RL30030, supra note 3; see also CWA, supra note 1 at
Sec. Sec. 301-320.
\7\ CRS Report RL30030, supra note 3; see also CWA, supra note 1 at
Sec. Sec. 401, 402, 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. ``WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES''
The CWA applies to ``navigable waters,'' which is defined
in the CWA as the ``waters of the United States, including the
territorial seas.'' \8\ However, the statute does not further
define the term ``waters of the United States'' (WOTUS). As
such, the EPA and the Corps, which both play roles in clean
water permitting, have attempted to define which waters are
subject to Federal regulation under the CWA, through several
sets of rules interpreting the Agencies' jurisdiction over
WOTUS.\9\ For example, the prior three Administrations each
published regulatory changes to the definition of WOTUS in the
Federal Register.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CWA, supra note 1 at Sec. 502(7).
\9\ See e.g. Clean Water Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the United
States,'' Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015); The
Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the United
States,'' 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020); Revised definition of
``Waters of the United States'' Final Rule, 88 Fed Reg. 3004 (Jan. 18,
2023).
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, since passage of the CWA, there has been a
substantial amount of litigation in the Federal courts on
issues relating to the scope of CWA jurisdiction, including
Supreme Court cases.\11\ In May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled
generally on the scope of WOTUS under the CWA in Sackett v. EPA
(Sackett).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See e.g. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S.
121 (1985); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States,
547 U.S. 715 (2006).
\12\ Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023) [hereinafter Sackett].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court's ruling in Sackett narrows the scope of
jurisdiction under the CWA as compared to both its longstanding
regulatory implementation and the interpretation adopted by
lower courts after the 2006 case of Rapanos v. United
States.\13\ While the extent of the change will depend on how
the Corps and EPA implement various aspects of the decision,
the Sackett majority's exclusion of wetlands that are separated
from covered waters by natural or artificial barriers means
that fewer wetlands will be covered than under any regulatory
framework developed by the Corps or EPA since the 1970s.\14\
The Court's ruling could also affect regulation of waters at
the state level.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Kate R. Bowers, Cong. Rsch. Serv. Legal Sidebar (LSB10981),
Supreme Court Narrows Federal Jurisdiction Under Clean Water Act, at 1
(June 21, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB10981
[hereinafter LSB10981].
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the period from 2001 up to the Sackett decision, all
four Presidential Administrations adopted different approaches
to implementation of CWA jurisdiction, in part, reflecting
competing legal interpretations of prior decisions. The most
recent of these efforts, undertaken by the Biden Administration
and finalized in December of 2022, authorized CWA jurisdiction
under either test established by the Rapanos decision--the
``relatively permanent'' or the ``significant nexus''
tests.\16\ However, the Sackett decision specifically rejected
the significant nexus test as a basis of asserting CWA
jurisdiction, prompting EPA and the Corps to issue a conforming
rule, on August 29, 2023, titled ``Revised Definition of
`Waters of the United States'; Conforming,'' amending the
December 2022 rule post-Sackett.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Press Release, EPA, EPA and Army Finalize Rule Establishing
Definition of WOTUS and Restoring Fundamental Water Protections, (Dec.
30, 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-
finalize-rule-establishing-definition-wotus-and-restoring-fundamental.
\17\ LSB10981, supra note 13; see also, Revised Definition of
``Waters of the United States''; Conforming, 88 Fed. Reg. 61,964 (Sept.
8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Biden Administration's original (2022) and
conforming (2023) rules, as well as other prior regulations
were not litigated in Federal courts, the majority opinion in
Sackett has changed key jurisdictional interpretations
reflected in the Biden Administration's original rule.\18\
Currently, the conforming rule is in effect in 23 states, the
District of Columbia, and United States territories.\19\ In the
other 27 states, EPA and the Corps are regulating WOTUS
consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.; see also EPA, Definition of ``Waters of the United
States'': Rule Status and Litigation Update, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/definition-waters-united-states-rule-status-and-
litigation-update.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some states and stakeholders have raised concerns with the
pace of implementation of the conforming WOTUS rule, and
whether EPA and the Corps are complying with Sackett's
ruling.\21\ Other states and stakeholders have expressed
dissatisfaction with the Sackett ruling and called for states
and the Executive Branch to evaluate other authorities to
address the effects of Sackett.\22\ Additional stakeholders
have recognized that Congress could intervene to further speak
to the scope of waters addressed by the CWA.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Sam Hess, States, Industry Launch Broad Legal Attack on EPA's
Amended WOTUS Rule, InsideEPA, (Feb. 6, 2024), available at https://
insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-launch-broad-legal-attack-epa-
s-amended-wotus-rule.
\22\ Sam Hess, Groups Urge Officials To Expand Wetlands Protections
In Wake of Sackett, InsideEPA, (June 4, 2024), available at https://
insideepa.com/daily-news/groups-urge-officials-expand-wetlands-
protections-wake-sackett.
\23\ See James M. McElfish, Jr., What Comes Next for Clean Water?
Six Consequences of Sackett v. EPA, Environmental Law Institute,
available at https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/what-comes-
next-clean-water-six-consequences-sackett-v-epa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. SECTION 401: WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a
Federal license or permit for any activity that may result in a
discharge covered by the CWA provide the Federal licensing or
permitting agency with a certification.\24\ Such a
certification is issued by the state or tribe (or EPA, in the
case of tribal lands where a tribe has not been granted
treatment as a state, as well as on Federal lands with
exclusive Federal jurisdiction) that would be affected by the
discharge.\25\ Under section 401, the certifying authority may
grant, grant with conditions, deny, or waive certification of
proposed Federal licenses or permits.\26\ Activities that
commonly require a certification under section 401 of the CWA
include hydropower projects that require licenses from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), industrial and
municipal point sources requiring permits under section 402 of
the CWA, and projects requiring dredge and fill permits under
section 404 of the CWA or sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Laura Gatz & Kate R. Bowers, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R46615), Clean
Water Act Section 401: Overview and Recent Developments, (Aug. 24,
2022), available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46615 [hereinafter
R46615].
\25\ Id.; see also CWA, supra note 1 at Sec. 401.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 10, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order
13686, directing the EPA to review its section 401 guidance and
regulations.\28\ Prior to that time, regulations promulgated in
1971 and interim guidance published in 2010 were in effect.\29\
Later in 2019, the Trump Administration issued updated
guidance, primarily concerning statutory and regulatory
timelines for review, appropriate scope for section 401
certification, and information the certifying authority may
consider in its certification review.\30\ In 2020, the Trump
Administration published a final rule, rescinding the 2019
guidance, while addressing many of these concerns.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Exec. Order No. 13686, Fed. Reg. 7619, (Apr. 10, 2019),
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/15/2019-
07656/promoting-energy-infrastructure-and-economic-growth.
\29\ R46615, supra note 26.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 85 Fed. Reg.
42,210 (July 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on January 20, 2021, President Biden signed
Executive Order 13990, directing a review of regulations
promulgated during the first Trump Administration.\32\ In June
2021, EPA issued a notice of intent to amend the 2020 rule.\33\
Finally, in November 2023, the Biden Administration's amended
CWA Section 401 rule went into effect.\34\ In particular, the
rule again concerned timelines for review, appropriate project
scope for section 401 certification, and what information is
necessary for a certifying authority to include in its
certification decision.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Exec. Order 13,990, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037, (Jan. 20, 2021),
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-
01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-
science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis.
\33\ Notice of Intention to Reconsider and Revise the Clean Water
Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 29,541 (June 2, 2021).
\34\ Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Improvement Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 66,558 (Nov. 27, 2023), available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/federal-register-
version-of-2023-clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-
certification-improvement-rule.pdf.
\35\ Id.; see also EPA, Fact Sheet, Overview Fact Sheet on the
Final 2023 Rule, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2023-09/Overview%20Fact%20Sheet%20on%20the
%20Final%202023%20Rule_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. SECTION 402: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES)
Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the NPDES program for
regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources.\36\
Point sources are defined as ``any discernible, confined, and
discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
discrete fissure, or container'' \37\ from which pollutants may
be discharged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ CWA, supra note 1 at Sec. 402; CRS Report RL30030, supra note
3; EPA, NPDES Permit Basics, available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/
npdes-permit-basics [hereinafter NPDES Permit Basics].
\37\ NPDES Permit Basics, supra note 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPDES permits require the point source discharger to attain
technology-based effluent limits, while specifying the
numerical effluent limitations that sources must meet in order
to guarantee water quality, where possible.\38\ If technology-
based limits are not sufficient to meet locally-established
water quality standards, the CWA requires permittees to achieve
more stringent water-quality based effluent limits designed to
meet applicable water quality standards.\39\ EPA is responsible
for defining the level of treatment required for municipalities
and various industries, as well as for developing minimum water
quality criteria specifying the maximum concentrations of
pollutants permitted for different designated uses of
waters.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ CRS Report 30030, supra note 3.
\39\ EPA, Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits, available at https:/
/www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/chapt_06.pdf.
\40\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPDES permits are issued for up to five years and must be
renewed thereafter if discharge is to continue.\41\ Point
sources may in some instances apply for a NPDES general permit
as opposed to a NPDES individual permit. A NPDES individual
permit is written for site-specific discharges that are unique
to a specific location or discharge.\42\ Conversely, NPDES
general permits cover ``multiple dischargers with similar
operations and types of discharges.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ NPDES Permit Basics, supra note 38.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA runs the NPDES permitting program, but the CWA
authorizes EPA to approve individual states and tribes to
manage their own NPDES permitting programs.\44\ Nearly all
states have assumed administration of their own NPDES programs,
with only three exceptions: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
New Mexico.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CRS Report 30030, supra note 3.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. SECTION 404: DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
Section 404 of the CWA authorizes a separate type of
regulatory program for permits required to discharge dredged or
fill materials. EPA and the Corps play complementary roles in
implementing the section 404 program, with the Corps in charge
of issuing permits for discharge of dredged or fill material,
using a set of environmental guidelines promulgated by EPA, in
conjunction with the Corps, to evaluate permit
applications.\46\ The Corps likewise administers the day-to-day
program, including jurisdictional determinations (JDs), which
certify the presence or absence of waters subject to CWA
regulation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id.; see also CWA, supra note 1 at Sec. 404(b).
\47\ EPA, Permit Program under CWA Section 404, available at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to NPDES permits, section 404 permits are typically
issued for a term of five years, and there are both individual
and general permits.\48\ The CWA authorizes the issuance of
general permits for discharges that are ``similar in nature,
will only cause minimal adverse environmental effects when
performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative
adverse effect on the environment'' \49\ and are issued on a
nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories
of activities.\50\ According to the Corps, approximately 94
percent of the 62,000 permits approved in fiscal year 2022 were
authorized by regional and nationwide permits, with the
remainder authorized by individual permits.\51\ Approximately
75 percent of the general permits were issued in 60 days or
less and approximately 59 percent of the individual permits
were issued in 120 days or less.\52\ The most recent reissuance
of nationwide permits (NWPs) went into effect in February
2022.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id.
\50\ Id.; see also CWA, supra note 1, at Sec. 404(e).
\51\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Library, FY2024 Corps
Justification Sheets: Regulatory Program at 12, available at https://
usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll6/id/2350.
\52\ Id.
\53\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit Program,
available at https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/
Permits/Nationwide-Permits-Program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the NPDES permitting process, EPA may also allow
states and tribes to assume authority to grant or deny dredge
and fill permits under section 404, with the condition that
states or tribes develop a wetlands permit program consistent
with the CWA.\54\ Currently, two states are approved to manage
their section 404 program: Michigan and New Jersey.\55\ The
status of the approval of a state-managed program for the State
of Florida is under litigation.\56\ In December 2024, EPA
finalized a rule updating the regulations governing state and
tribal assumption of section 404 permitting for the first time
since 1988.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ EPA, State or Tribal Assumption of the CWA Section 404 Permit
Program, available at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/state-or-tribal-
assumption-cwa-section-404-permit-program.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Id.; see also State of Florida, State 404 Program, available
at https://floridadep.gov/water/submerged-lands-environmental-
resources-coordination/content/state-404-program.
\57\ Clean Water Act Section 404 Tribal and State Assumption
Program, 89 Fed. Reg. 10,345 (Dec. 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. WITNESSES
LMr. Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director,
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
LThe Honorable Shawn M. LaTourette, Commissioner,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
LMr. Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor
Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of
Manufacturers
LMr. Buddy Hasten, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, on behalf
of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
AMERICA BUILDS: CLEAN WATER ACT
PERMITTING AND PROJECT DELIVERY
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that
the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time
during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Collins. For 50 years, the Clean Water Act has
functioned to improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams
throughout the country, including in my home State of Georgia.
Back in 1972, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act, they
recognized the importance of a Federal-State partnership as
crucial to improving water quality and to providing a
regulatory system that communities could realistically follow.
While the Clean Water Act has had many successes in
maintaining and improving water quality for the benefits of
citizens and industries nationwide, it unfortunately has been
used to slow or stop progress on important projects.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has begun
this Congress by focusing on the theme ``America Builds''
because we know how important it is to the well-being of our
country that we remain a world leader in our transportation
networks, infrastructure construction, and economic
development.
The Clean Water Act is one of the most consequential laws
that our country has, and it is important to ensure that it is
being used to balance the goals of water quality with ensuring
project completion, improving supply chain networks, and
delivering economic prosperity.
In short, to let America build, the Clean Water Act needs
to work.
States, manufacturers, energy producers, cities, farmers,
builders, homeowners, utilities, and many others rely on a
Clean Water Act permitting process that is easy to understand,
easy to follow, and easy to implement. Unfortunately, too often
these groups referred to as regulated communities are left in
the dark or actively undermined by increased regulation under
the CWA by trial lawyers looking to make a quick buck,
entrenched bureaucrats who don't have the country's best
interest at heart, and administrations who bend the knee to
radical environmental activists.
Now is the time to revisit the Clean Water Act to ensure
that it puts America first. To do this, we need to hear from
those most affected by the law in order to know how we can
improve our regulatory environment without decreasing
protections for water quality.
President Trump has recognized the importance of unleashing
our Nation's natural resources, ramping up energy production,
and maintaining our physical infrastructure. These priorities
will enhance the Trump administration's ability to pursue an
America-first agenda that lets America build.
As the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, I am looking forward to working with my
colleagues to ensure excellence in the transportation and
infrastructure space and furthering the President's goals.
Today's hearing marks an opportunity to do so by hearing
from our witnesses on how to return the Clean Water Act to its
goal of protecting our water bodies and allowing important
projects to get done.
[Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
For over fifty years, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has functioned to
improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams throughout the
country, including in my home state of Georgia. Back in 1972, when
Congress passed the CWA, it recognized the importance of a federal-
state partnership as crucial to improving water quality, and to
providing a regulatory system that communities could realistically
follow.
While the Clean Water Act has had many successes in maintaining and
improving water quality for the benefits of citizens and industries
nationwide, it unfortunately has also been used to slow or stop
progress on important projects.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has begun this
Congress by focusing on the theme ``America Builds,'' because we know
how important it is to the well-being of our country that we remain a
world leader in our transportation networks, infrastructure
construction, and economic development.
The Clean Water Act is one of the most consequential laws that our
country has, and it is important to ensure that it is being used to
balance the goals of water quality with ensuring project completion,
improving supply chain networks, and delivering economic prosperity. In
short, to let America build, the Clean Water Act needs to work.
States, manufacturers, energy producers, cities, farmers, builders,
homeowners, utilities, and many others rely on a Clean Water Act
permitting process that is easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy
to implement. Unfortunately, too often these groups we refer to as
regulated communities are left in the dark or actively undermined by
increased regulation under the CWA by trial lawyers looking to make a
buck, entrenched bureaucrats who don't have the country's best
interests at heart, and administrations who bend the knee to radical
environmental activists.
Now is the time to revisit the Clean Water Act, to ensure that it
puts America first. To do this, we need to hear from those most
affected by the law in order to know how we can improve our regulatory
environment, without decreasing protections for water quality.
President Trump has recognized the importance of unleashing our
nation's natural resources, ramping up energy production, and
maintaining our physical infrastructure. These priorities will enhance
the Trump administration's ability to pursue an America first agenda
that lets America build.
As the Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to ensure excellence
in the transportation and infrastructure space and furthering the
President's goals.
Today's hearing marks an opportunity to do so by hearing from our
witnesses on how to return the Clean Water Act to its goal of
protecting our waterbodies and allowing important projects to get done.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Scholten for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN OF
MICHIGAN, VICE RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chairman Collins, and
congratulations for your selection to lead the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment. I look forward to working with
you, as the vice ranking member, in meeting the water-related
needs of our Nation, our communities, and the hard-working
families that we represent.
I am privileged to serve Michigan's Third Congressional
District in Congress, representing miles of beautiful Lake
Michigan shoreline. It is a district whose history, lifestyle,
and economic well-being are bound with the health of the Great
Lakes.
The Great Lakes are arguably the largest source of
freshwater on the surface of the earth, containing roughly 20
percent of the world's freshwater supply. For our region, the
protections of the Great Lakes and the health of our
environment is not a partisan issue, it is something that is
ingrained in our culture, as we responsibly teach the next
generation to be good stewards of our environment.
Our quality of life and our very existence depend on clean
water for everyday consumption--for commerce, recreation, and
the overall economic vitality of the region. It supports our
farmers who grow their crops from apples to pears, peach trees,
and soybeans. It supports the foundation of the great craft
beer that forms Beer City, USA, that I am so proud to
represent.
That is why I am so deeply concerned with the harm that
this administration and the allies in Congress are imposing on
our clean water future.
In just 3 weeks, the President has thrown cities and towns
into chaos by shutting down funding allocated by Congress for
water infrastructure projects, including the historic
investments in water infrastructure provided through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This disarray has forced
communities of all sizes to reevaluate how to deliver critical
water infrastructure projects and will result in these projects
taking longer, costing more, and ultimately delaying critical
local economic development, and environmental and public health
benefits.
The administration's efforts will also undermine the
roughly 28,000 jobs that are created for every $1 billion in
water infrastructure investment, putting the jobs of laborers
and manufacturers at risk, in addition to threatening our
supply chains.
Finally, these actions will hit the wallets of hard-working
American families who will see higher water bills because of
this uncertainty, at the same time that inflation is back on
the rise.
The silence of my colleagues across the aisle whose States
and communities are equally impacted by the President's moves
to undermine water infrastructure spending is somewhat
surprising. It is my sincere hope that this silence is not a
green light for further reduction in Federal water
infrastructure spending. We need it more now than ever. Our
communities cannot withstand further setbacks to Federal and
State efforts to protect our water and our environment, and we
cannot allow the President and his allies to burden American
families with increased costs and public health risks.
I welcome my colleagues to join me as I stand firmly in
defense of our Great Lakes and freshwater supplies across the
country to ensure a healthy environment and a strong economy
for future generations.
We can do both, and I look forward to working with anyone
to realize this goal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[Ms. Scholten's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Con-
gress from the State of Michigan, and Vice Ranking Member, Sub-
committee on Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Chairman Collins, and congratulations for your selection
to lead the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. I look
forward to working with you as the Vice Ranking Member in meeting the
water-related needs of our nation, our communities, and the hardworking
families that we represent.
I'm privileged to serve Michigan's 3rd Congressional District in
Congress, representing miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline. It's
a district whose history, lifestyle, and economic well-being are bound
with the health of the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are arguably the largest source of freshwater on
the surface of the Earth, containing roughly 20 percent of the world's
freshwater supply. For our region, the protections of the Great Lakes
and the health of our environment is not a partisan issue, it's
something that is ingrained in our culture, as we responsibly teach the
next generation to be good stewards of our environment.
Our quality of life and our very existence depend on clean water
for everyday consumption--for commerce, recreation, and the overall
economic vitality of the region. It supports our farmers who grow their
crops from apples to pears, peach trees and soybeans. It supports the
foundation of the great craft beer that forms Beer City, USA, that I'm
so proud to represent. That is why I am so deeply concerned with the
harm that this administration and the allies in Congress are imposing
on our clean water future.
In just three weeks, the President has thrown cities and towns into
chaos by shutting down funding allocated by Congress for water
infrastructure projects, including the historic investments in water
infrastructure provided through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This
disarray has forced communities of all sizes to re-evaluate how to
deliver critical water infrastructure projects and will result in these
projects taking longer, costing more, and ultimately delaying critical
local economic development, environmental and public health benefits.
The administration's efforts will also undermine the roughly 28,000
jobs that are created for every billion dollars in water infrastructure
investment, putting the jobs of laborers and manufacturers at risk, in
addition to threatening our supply chains.
Finally, these actions will hit the wallets of hardworking American
families who will see higher water bills because of this uncertainty at
the same time that inflation is back on the rise. The silence of my
colleagues across the aisle whose states and communities are equally
impacted by the President's moves to undermine water infrastructure
spending is somewhat surprising. It is my sincere hope that this
silence is not a green light for further reduction in federal water
infrastructure spending. We need it more now than ever. Our communities
cannot withstand further setbacks to federal and state efforts to
protect our water and our environment, and we cannot allow the
President and his allies to burden American families with increased
costs and public health risks.
I welcome my colleagues to join me as I stand firmly in defense of
our Great Lakes and freshwater supplies across the country to ensure a
healthy environment and a strong economy for future generations. We can
do both, and I look forward to working with anyone to realize this
goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASH-
INGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR-
TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Collins, for
holding this hearing on the ways we can ensure that job-
creating infrastructure keeps America moving and reduces supply
chain challenges.
This hearing is part of a series, ``America Builds,'' and
thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, America is
building again, and we need to keep it going.
Holding up job-creating investments will not help America
build. Slashing the workforce of agencies that play a critical
role in permitting these projects will not keep America
building.
Congress invested $13.8 billion in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law to upgrade wastewater systems, prevent
pollution, and support the quality of life across the country.
These investments are critical, providing a lifeline to
communities struggling to maintain water quality.
These investments equal jobs. For every $1 billion invested
in cleaning up pollution in your water, approximately 28,000
jobs are created, according to the National Utility Contractors
Association.
These investments are helping drive the low 4-percent
unemployment rate while modernizing our infrastructure.
In just the last few years, in my own district, Washington
State's Second District, local workers are upgrading aging
sewer and water equipment and protecting the local groundwater
supply.
From a $1.4 million State Revolving Fund loan in Whatcom
County for replacing antiquated equipment, to a $200,000
engineering review grant to the Lummi Nation for assessing
their wastewater needs, these job-creating investments are
making a difference.
And the work isn't finished. The most recent Environmental
Protection Agency report on wastewater infrastructure needs
estimated we would need $271 billion nationwide over the next
20 years to meet the standards that keep pollution out of your
water.
These challenges are not limited to one region; they affect
communities from coast to coast, from my coast, to the chair's
coast, to the inland lakes and rivers of the vice ranking
member.
Part of keeping America building is improving permitting
for infrastructure projects. Through the BIL, the Inflation
Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act, we are seeing the benefits of
investing in the workforce and the technology necessary to
approve projects.
Through investments in enhancing permitting efficiency
across the Federal Government, the Biden administration reduced
the median time to complete an environmental impact statement
by 8 months--23 percent faster than Trump 1.0. So, let's keep
that going.
We can invest in infrastructure and protect the environment
at the same time, ensuring that America builds while also
making sure America breathes clean air and drinks clean water.
When Congress passed the Clean Water Act over 50 years ago,
Members recognized the effectiveness and importance of the
comprehensive, pollution-prevention measures--stopping
pollution before it happens rather than simply cleaning it up.
The Clean Water Act was enacted with an overwhelming
bipartisan majority. Before this law, rivers and lakes served
as little more than open sewers. Lake Erie was pronounced dead
and Ohio's Cuyahoga River literally caught on fire.
But thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Cascade River in my
district was designated as an Outstanding Resource Water by the
State of Washington, which protects that river from future
activities or development that would degrade water quality.
For decades, Republicans and Democrats shared these
bipartisan principles to defend clean water, maintain a strong
Federal-State partnership to protect our waters, stop pollution
from entering the system in the first place, and support a
robust Federal floor of protections while allowing States to do
more, but not less.
And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law shows what happens
when Congress does the right things and funds infrastructure.
Step 1 to keep the progress going is to ensure that States
and local governments can continue to depend on this Federal
investment. Freezing funds from the State Revolving Fund, from
the Superfund, or other EPA programs is a step backwards.
Predictable, reliable funding helps State and local
government leaders make their decisions on allocating dollars
to ensure the biggest bang for the buck.
Sowing chaos and uncertainty on Federal and State efforts
to protect our water and environment will not continue to help
the American people.
Working in a bipartisan fashion, Congress passed
comprehensive environmental protection laws like the Clean
Water Act and historic investments in infrastructure like the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I look forward to finding ways
to build on these bipartisan accomplishments this Congress.
I want to thank our witnesses, all of them, for being here
today. I look forward to your testimony, and with that, I yield
back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Collins, for holding this hearing on ways we
can ensure job-creating infrastructure keeps America moving and reduces
supply chain challenges.
This hearing is part of a series, ``America Builds.'' Thanks to the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, America is building again, and we need
to keep it going.
Holding up job-creating investments will not help America build.
Slashing the workforce of agencies that play a critical role in
permitting these projects will not keep America building.
Congress invested $13.8 billion in the BIL to upgrade wastewater
systems, prevent pollution and support quality of life across the
country.
These investments are critical, providing a lifeline to communities
struggling to maintain water quality.
These investments equal jobs.
For every $1 billion invested in cleaning up pollution in your
water, approximately 28,000 jobs are created, according to the National
Utility Contractors Association.
These investments are helping drive the low, 4 percent unemployment
rate while modernizing our infrastructure.
In just the last few years, in my own district, Washington State's
Second District, local workers are upgrading aging sewer and water
equipment and protecting local groundwater supply.
From a $1.4 million State Revolving Fund (SFR) loan in Whatcom
County for replacing antiquated equipment to a $200,000 engineering
review grant to Lummi Nation for assessing their wastewater needs,
these job-creating investments are making a difference.
And the work isn't finished. The most recent Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) report on wastewater infrastructure needs
estimated we would need $271 billion nationwide over the next twenty
years to meet standards that keep pollution out of your water.
These challenges are not limited to one region; they affect
communities from coast to coast, from my coast, to the Chair's coast,
to the inland lakes and rivers of the Vice Ranking Member.
Part of keeping America building is improving permitting for
infrastructure projects. Through the BIL, the Inflation Reduction Act
and the CHIPS Act, we are seeing the benefits of investing in the
workforce and technology necessary to approve projects.
Through investments in enhancing permitting efficiency across the
federal government, the Biden administration reduced the median time to
complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by eight months--23
percent faster than Trump 1.0.
So let's keep that going.
We can invest in infrastructure and protect the environment at the
same time, ensuring that America builds while also making sure that
America breathes clean air and drinks clean water.
When Congress passed the Clean Water Act over 50 years ago, Members
recognized the effectiveness and importance of comprehensive pollution
prevention measures--stopping pollution before it happens rather than
simply cleaning it up.
The Clean Water Act was enacted with an overwhelming bipartisan
majority. Before this law, rivers and lakes served as little more than
open sewers--Lake Erie was pronounced ``dead,'' and Ohio's Cuyahoga
River literally caught on fire.
Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Cascade River in my district was
designated as an Outstanding Resource Water by the State of Washington,
which protects that river from future activities or development that
would degrade water quality.
For decades, Republicans and Democrats shared these bipartisan
principles to defend clean water: maintain a strong federal-state
partnership to protect our waters; stop pollution from entering the
system in the first place; and support a robust federal floor of
protections while allowing states to do more, but not less.
The BIL shows what happens when Congress does the right thing and
funds infrastructure.
Step one to keep the progress going is ensuring that states and
local government leaders can continue to depend on federal investment.
Freezing funds from the State Revolving Fund, Superfund or other
EPA programs is a step backwards.
Predictable, reliable funding helps states and local government
leaders make decisions on allocating their taxpayer dollars to ensure
the biggest bang for the buck.
Sowing chaos and uncertainty on federal and state efforts to
protect our water and environment will not continue to help the
American people.
Working in a bipartisan fashion, Congress passed comprehensive
environmental protection laws like the Clean Water Act and historic
investments in infrastructure like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
I look forward to finding ways to build on these bipartisan
accomplishments this Congress.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. I want to welcome our
witnesses. Thank you for your time and for being here today.
We have with us today Mr. Robert Singletary, executive
director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality;
the Honorable Shawn LaTourette, commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection; Mr. Noah Hanners,
executive vice president of the Nucor Corporation, on behalf of
the National Association of Manufacturers; and Mr. Buddy
Hasten, president and CEO of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative
Corporation, on behalf of the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association.
I want to briefly go over the lighting system for you there
in case you don't know. There are three lights. The green means
you have plenty of time, the yellow means you need to start
finishing up, and of course, the red means to go ahead and
conclude with your remarks.
I am going to also ask for unanimous consent that the
witnesses' full statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
And with that, Mr. Singletary, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. SINGLETARY, EXECUTIVE DIREC-
TOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL-
ITY; HON. SHAWN M. LaTOURETTE, COMMISSIONER, NEW
JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;
NOAH HANNERS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NUCOR COR-
PORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MANUFACTURERS; AND BUDDY HASTEN, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES OF
ARKANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RURAL ELEC-
TRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. SINGLETARY, EXECUTIVE DIREC-
TOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL-
ITY
Mr. Singletary. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Vice
Ranking Member Scholten, members of the committee. My name is
Rob Singletary, and I have the privilege to serve as the
executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning and to share Oklahoma's views on the implementation of
various portions of the Federal Clean Water Act.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is the
primary agency responsible for protecting public health and the
environment in the State of Oklahoma, and our responsibilities
include the implementation of the Clean Water Act within our
State.
This morning, my comments are focused primarily on section
401 of the Clean Water Act with just a few minor comments
related to section 402 and ``waters of the U.S.''
To begin, Oklahoma is a fierce proponent of the proper
implementation of cooperative federalism as well as the right
of States to set their own water quality standards and to
protect water quality within their borders.
Section 401 of the act provides a powerful and very
important tool that allows States to ensure that water quality
within their borders is properly protected.
However, the 401 certification process has been used in the
past as an opportunity to address general or nonwater quality-
related concerns. We feel strongly that this powerful tool
should be reserved for efforts specifically related to water-
resource protection.
We believe that allowing the scope of this review under
this provision to be broadened beyond the protection of water
resources would undermine the legitimacy of the 401
certification process and misalign it from the overall purpose
of the Clean Water Act.
In addition, even if a particular State was not interested
in expanding the process beyond the protection of water
resources, third parties could potentially seek to force a
State to address broader concerns through this process if a
broader scope of review was adopted.
Even the scope of the current version of the rule, which
purports to limit the 401 certification review to water-related
impacts, is still ambiguous and potentially subject to
misapplication.
This ambiguity expands the workloads of State agencies,
complicates and lengthens the review process, and makes
certification determinations more vulnerable to legal
challenges, potentially forcing State agencies to defend in
court why they did or did not consider every potential water
quality-related impact, no matter how distant or how unlikely.
This, of course, would be a very difficult legal standard
to meet.
If statutory changes are ever considered, we advocate for
clarifying language that would ensure that future EPA
administrations are unable to expand the use of this process
beyond the protection of water resources or beyond those water-
quality impacts clearly attributable to the project at issue.
In regard to section 402, currently the States are only
allowed to issue NPDES permits for periods of 5 years or less.
We strongly support providing States with the flexibility, at
their discretion, to issue NPDES permits for longer periods, up
to 10 years.
Providing a longer period would provide more certainty for
applicants, and it would effectively cut the permitting process
in half over that 10-year period.
In regard to ``waters of the U.S.,'' Oklahoma has not
sought assumption of the section 404 permitting program. So,
our permitting programs are focused solely on stormwater and
direct discharge permits.
Since our agency has delegation under section 402 to issue
NPDES permits into ``waters of the U.S.,'' and since we have
authority to issue discharge permits into all other waters of
the State, our permitting programs are not significantly
impacted by the welcome changes to the definition of ``waters
of the U.S.,'' under the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett.
However, we have heard from applicants within the State
that they do continue to experience delays in receiving
applicability determinations from our Federal counterparts.
We believe it would be useful if there was a joint Federal-
State effort, employing the best available data and tools to
map jurisdictional waters.
Of course, this type of initiative would require ongoing
effort and some expense, but it would likely decrease
permitting timelines and provide more clarity or certainty to
applicants.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
important discussion. As always, we look forward to working
with you, with our Federal co-regulators, and other
stakeholders as we pursue our mission to protect and improve
public health and the environment in a manner that supports and
advances prosperity for current and future generations.
Thank you.
[Mr. Singletary's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director, Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
Testimony
Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Rob Singletary and I have the privilege
to serve as the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you this morning and to share Oklahoma's views on the implementation of
various portions of the Federal Clean Water Act.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is the primary
agency responsible for protecting human health and the environment in
the State of Oklahoma, and our responsibilities include the
implementation of the Clean Water Act within the State.
Clean Water Act Section 401
To begin, Oklahoma is a fierce proponent of the proper
implementation of cooperative federalism, as well as the right of
States to set water quality standards and to protect water quality (in
general) within their boundaries. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
provides a powerful tool that allows States to ensure that water
quality within their boundaries is properly protected. However, the
Sec. 401 certification process has been used (in the past) as an
opportunity to address general or non-water quality related concerns.
We feel strongly that this powerful tool should be reserved for efforts
specifically related to the protection of water resources.
Although not directly an issue with the current rule, we believe
that allowing the scope of review under this Clean Water Act provision
to be broadened beyond the protection of water resources (as has been
done in the past) would undermine the legitimacy of the Sec. 401
certification process and misalign it from the overall purpose of the
Clean Water Act. In addition, even if a particular State was not
interested in expanding the process beyond the protection of water
resources, third parties could potentially seek to force a State to
address broader concerns through this process--if the broader scope of
review was allowed.
Even the scope of the current version of EPA's implementing rule,
which purports to limit the Sec. 401 certification review to water
related impacts, is still ambiguous and potentially subject to
misapplication. For example, where a US Army Corps of Engineers permit
would authorize discharges associated with building a pipeline, the
current rule would require the certifying State to evaluate not only
the effects of the discharges the Corps permit would authorize, but
also any effects of operating the pipeline even though the operation
may be subject to a different Federal license or permit. Effectively,
this would result in the certifying authority addressing the adverse
impacts contributed to by a federally licensed permitted activity, not
just the adverse water quality impacts caused exclusively by the
activity.
This ambiguity expands the workload of State agencies, complicates
and lengthens the review process, and makes certification
determinations more vulnerable to legal challenge--potentially forcing
State agencies to defend in court why they did or did not consider
every potential ``water-quality related'' impact of a project, a
difficult legal standard to meet.
We don't anticipate that the current EPA administration will seek
to broaden such review; however, if statutory changes are ever
considered, we would advocate for clarifying language that would ensure
that future EPA administrations would not seek to promulgate
regulations expanding the use of this process beyond the protection of
water resources or beyond those water quality impacts clearly
attributable to the project at issue. It's important to mention that
even in the event that unforeseen impacts to water quality were to
occur, we (in Oklahoma at least) still have the authority to address
any such pollution through our State program and State authority.
Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
In regard to WOTUS, Oklahoma has not sought authority under Sec.
404 of the CWA, so our implementation (except for the 401 certification
process) is focused solely on stormwater and discharge permits. Since
our agency has delegation to issue NPDES permits into WOTUS under Sec.
402 of the Act and since we have State authority to issue discharge
permits in all other waters of the State, our programs (except, of
course, for our Sec. 401 certification program) are not directly
impacted by the welcomed changes to the definition of WOTUS under the
Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. However, we have anecdotally heard
from applicants within the State that they continue to experience some
delays in receiving Applicability Determinations from our Federal
counterparts. We believe it would be useful if there was a joint
Federal/State effort (employing the best available data and tools, of
course) to map jurisdictional waters. This type of initiative would
require ongoing effort, but it would likely decrease permitting
timelines and provide more clarity or certainty to applicants.
Conclusion
Again, thank you for the opportunity to come before you and to
participate in this important discussion. As always, we look forward to
working with you, our federal co-regulators, and other stakeholders, as
we pursue our mission to protect and improve human health and the
environment in a manner that supports and advances prosperity for
current and future generations. Thank you!
Mr. Collins. All right. The Chair will now recognize
Representative Pou to introduce our next witness, Commissioner
LaTourette.
Ms. Pou. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Scholten. Thank you for holding this hearing on one of the most
vital and limited resources in our Nation: clean water.
I am privileged to represent the Ninth Congressional
District of New Jersey, and today, I am truly honored to be
able to introduce one of our witnesses today, an expert in
environmental issues, a leader in the great State of New
Jersey, and a friend, Commissioner Shawn LaTourette.
Commissioner LaTourette has over 25 years of experience in
environmental quality assurance, natural resource management,
and infrastructure development.
When I was in the New Jersey State Senate, I was proud to
vote to confirm him 4 years ago as our commissioner of
environmental protection.
Commissioner, thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Next, Commissioner LaTourette, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SHAWN M. LaTOURETTE, COMMIS-
SIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Mr. LaTourette. Well, good morning to this entire
committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing on this
topic. Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking Member Scholten, our own
Congresswoman Pou, thank you very much, honored to join you.
I have the privilege of serving the 9.3 million residents
that call New Jersey home as their commissioner of
environmental protection.
I also serve as a part-time adjunct professor of
environmental law at the Rutgers Law School, and prior to my
public service career, I was an attorney adviser that
specialized in transportation and infrastructure projects,
giving counsel to regulated entities on permitting issues
including under the Clean Water Act.
Today, I hope to offer this committee a perspective from
New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the Nation, and
the perspective of a State regulator, because, as you know,
State entities, like the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, implement the Clean Water Act.
Much like this subcommittee's work to evaluate regulatory
processes and look for opportunities to improve them, so too do
my NJDEP colleagues, working to consistently improve our
programs and services, and in doing so, we ask ourselves hard
questions about how we can best achieve the delicate balance of
promoting economic growth and protecting the public health and
the environment.
In answering those questions, we ground ourselves in the
fact that natural capital is always performing valuable
services for the public.
Our air, our land, our fish, our wildlife, they are all
doing important work that our fellow residents would have to
pay for if we don't act thoughtfully to conserve our resources
and invest in improvements.
For example, degrade the marshes and wetlands that filter
our water for free, or permit the discharge of too many
pollutants into our waterways, and our residents and taxpayers
pay more to build and operate drinking water treatment plants.
There is a poignant example of this balance within one of
New Jersey's most notable industries: tourism. Our small but
densely populated State has one of the Nation's largest
coastlines, breathtaking bays, tidal rivers, and the famed
Jersey Shore that is home to millions and that millions more
visit each year as their getaway.
As this subcommittee knows, the Clean Water Act is a
program of cooperative federalism that relies upon partnership
between the States and the Federal Government to effectuate the
national goal of ridding ourselves of pollutants in waterways
and achieving fishable and swimmable waters.
The beauty of cooperative federalism lies in how the law
empowers and supports States in taking local considerations
into account, while meeting minimum Federal standards, and you
see that cooperative federalism at play in section 401.
Additionally, as one of only two States that have
successfully assumed responsibility for implementing section
404, our wetland program provides another example of
cooperative federalism under the Clean Water Act.
We initially sought assumption for two primary reasons: the
first, to provide protective measures to minimize or avoid
wetland disturbance, but importantly, to promote a streamlined,
consistent, and more accessible permitting process, because in
the absence of assumption, project applicants were often
challenged to adhere to two different schemes under Federal and
under State law.
In New Jersey, we have seen the stability of the wetlands
program under 404 firsthand in that while under Federal law,
404 has been subject of perennial change, New Jersey's assumed
program has remained stable for decades, unaffected by changes
at the Federal level. And that is a level of continuity that
our regulating community expects and demands.
And as this committee also knows, our Nation's water
infrastructure is critically important and underfunded. Even
with the infusion of a mass of resources from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, we still have a $1.2 trillion national need
for water infrastructure investment over the next 20 years.
We in New Jersey have used our Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Program to invest in our communities, the health of our
waterways, and the businesses that need clean water to thrive.
What I hope this committee learns today from our discussion
is that we always have to be careful not to overburden business
with regulation and processes that may not be as valuable to
the public. But we also have to recognize the inextricable link
between economic development and environmental protection.
But let us not make false choices between a healthy
environment and a healthy economy. Thank you.
[Mr. LaTourette's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shawn M. LaTourette, Commissioner, New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Good morning, Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking Member Scholten, and
esteemed members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment. I am honored by your invitation to join this morning's
Subcommittee hearing on ``Clean Water Act Permitting and Project
Delivery.'' For those members I have yet to meet, my name is Shawn
LaTourette, and I have the privilege of serving the 9.3 million
residents of the State of New Jersey as their Commissioner of
Environmental Protection. I also serve as the chairperson of the
Infrastructure Working Group of the Environmental Council of the
States, the nonpartisan organization of state environmental leaders,
and as an adjunct professor of environmental law at Rutgers Law School.
Prior to my public service career, I was an attorney-advisor that
specialized in transportation and infrastructure projects and provided
counsel to private industry and public entities on permitting,
including under the Clean Water Act.
Today, I hope to offer this Subcommittee a perspective from New
Jersey--the most densely populated state in the nation--and the
perspective of a state regulator, because, as you know, the Clean Water
Act is largely implemented on the state level by agencies like the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
The moniker ``environmental protection'' actually fails to capture
the full scope of services that agencies like NJDEP provide for the
public we serve--because our work sits squarely at the intersection of
environmental, health, and economic improvement. We do not protect our
environment simply because natural beauty should be recognized and
preserved, but because the economic growth and long-term success of our
communities demands that the government maintain the free public
services that clean, healthy, and accessible natural capital provides
for the people we all serve.
Much like this Subcommittee's work to evaluate regulatory processes
and identify opportunities to expedite infrastructure development
without sacrificing environmental quality, my NJDEP colleagues and I
have committed ourselves to a practice of continual process
improvement. As we work to consistently improve our programs and
services, we ask ourselves hard questions about how best we can achieve
the delicate balance of promoting economic growth while improving and
protecting public health and the environment we all share.
In answering those questions, we ground ourselves in the fact that
natural capital is always performing valuable but largely invisible
services for the public. Our air, land, water, fish, wildlife and their
habitats are all doing important work that our fellow residents and
taxpayers would otherwise have to pay for if we do not act thoughtfully
to conserve natural resources and invest in environmental improvements.
Degrade the wetlands and marshes, which filter our water for free, or
permit the discharge of too many pollutants into our waterways, and our
residents will pay more to build and operate drinking water treatment
plants. Remove too much riparian vegetation (i.e., the trees whose
roots literally hold together our riverbanks and help control flooding)
and our residents pay to build a flood wall where that forest once was
that protected their community from riverine flooding.
In New Jersey, we see clearly our residents' expectation that their
government will work to facilitate economic growth and opportunity
while also improving and protecting water quality and, by extension,
public health. There is a poignant example within one of New Jersey's
most notable industries: tourism. Our small densely populated state has
one of the nation's largest coastlines. Breathtaking bays, tidal
rivers, and the famed Jersey Shore are home to millions, a cherished
getaway for millions more, and an economic engine that helps powers our
state and region. Our pristine beaches and quaint shore towns drive $50
billion in annual travel and tourism spending. And all of that depends
on one thing: the quality of our waters.
The Value of Cooperative Federalism
As this Subcommittee knows, the Clean Water Act is a program of
cooperative federalism that relies upon a partnership between the
states and the federal government to effectuate our shared national
goal of improving and maintaining the quality of our waterways. The
beauty of cooperative federalism as seen through the Clean Water Act
lies in how the law empowers and supports state regulatory programs in
taking local conditions into account while meeting minimum federal
standards. This enables states to integrate their more discrete natural
resource and economic considerations when determining how best to
improve water quality.
This cooperative federalism is at play in Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, which enables states to review federal actions or federally
regulated activities that may result in discharges to waters within a
state's jurisdiction to ensure that federal action does not conflict
with state water quality requirements, standards, or criteria. As just
one New Jersey example of Section 401 in practice, note that NJDEP
routinely denies a Water Quality Certification for all nationwide
permits (NWPs) adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This denial
is grounded in the fact that New Jersey administers its own water
quality and related programs that have historically exceeded minimal
federal standards. In short, NJDEP offers statewide general permits for
the same activities governed by the NWPs, but with different and more
stringent criteria. Thus, we routinely find that the NWPs do not
adequately protect the health and safety of our jurisdictional waters.
The practical application is that permit applicants must obtain a state
permit for activities that would otherwise be subject to the NWPs.
As one of only two states that have successfully assumed
responsibility for implementing Section 404, New Jersey's wetland
program provides another important reflection on cooperative federalism
under the Clean Water Act. New Jersey sought assumption to achieve two
primary goals: (1) ensure protective measures that avoid or minimize
wetland disturbance and (2) provide a streamlined, consistent, and more
accessible permitting process. In the absence of assumption, project
applicants were often challenged to adhere to two different but
overlapping permitting processes at both the state and federal levels.
With assumption, receipt of a state-issued permit obviated the
requirement for a federal permit for the same regulated activity,
especially since New Jersey's wetland program exceeds federal minimum
standards.
Very importantly, assumption has provided a measure of consistency
and reliability for New Jersey's regulated community. As federal
implementation of Section 404 has been the subject of perennial change,
New Jersey's assumed program has remained stable for several decades
because state wetlands law remains unaffected by changes at the federal
level. New Jersey's regulated community has appreciated this stability
and has advocated for the State assumption. Additionally, assumption
has enabled New Jersey to integrate its wetland program with other
water-resource and watershed-management functions to implement one
comprehensive program. As a result, NJDEP staff consider potential
impacts more completely and seek to avoid or minimize potential
conflicts resulting from isolated programs doing isolated reviews. This
is both efficient and more protective of human health and the
environment.
The Criticality of Water Infrastructure Investment
As this Subcommittee knows all too well, our nation's
infrastructure is the backbone of our economy. We rely on water system
assets to ensure that our people, communities, and businesses can
thrive. As the most densely populated state in the nation, and with a
thriving commercial and industrial sector, the stakes are particularly
high for New Jersey when it comes to water infrastructure. The most
recent Clean Water and Drinking Water needs surveys estimate twenty-
year nationwide needs of over $1.2 trillion, which includes $31.6
billion in needs in New Jersey. Clean Water needs alone are estimated
at $630 billion nationally over the next twenty years, which includes
$19.4 billion in needs in New Jersey.
Over the last several years, New Jersey has put its base Clean
Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and the added funds
made available under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to work for the
people, communities, and business of our state. The continuity of these
federal funding sources is critical to our Water Infrastructure
Investment Plan, which brings state, federal, and private market funds
together to extend the reach and impact of our investments. With
crucial federal support, our New Jersey Water Bank facilitated more
than $1 billion of water infrastructure investments in the prior state
fiscal year--the most project value facilitated in a single year.
All told, over the life of our water infrastructure program, the
New Jersey Water Bank has issued $9 billion in low-interest long-term
loans and has an additional $2 billion in short-term construction loans
outstanding. Importantly, through reduced interest costs and principal
forgiveness, these funding programs have saved New Jersey taxpayers
$3.2 billion. The positive impact of these programs on our State's
economy cannot be understated. Beyond the fact water infrastructure
investments enable our communities and businesses to grow and thrive,
our funding program itself has generated nearly 170,000 direct, one-
year construction jobs throughout New Jersey.
The uncertainty created by intended or suspected disturbance to
longstanding and reliable federal funding sources too cannot be
understated. As an example, our water infrastructure funding program
runs concurrent to our state fiscal year, which begins July 1. This
means that right now, we are in the process of formulating our Clean
Water SRF Intended Use Plan, which provides water utilities,
contractors, and others in the regulated community with guidance about
how best to sequence years-long infrastructure projects to maximize
savings. A disruption in federal funding for Clean Water programs, even
a temporary freeze, has cascading effects across the water sector and
other industries, and can lead to the delay or abandonment of projects
that are critical to economic development and to the protection of
public health and the environment.
Conclusion
In administering Clean Water Act permitting and funding programs,
my NJDEP colleagues and I are ever mindful of the balance we must
strike. We must always be careful not to overburden business with
regulation and process that may not be as valuable to the public. We
must also be attentive to the reality that the environmental
externalities we fail to avoid or correct in one sector often become a
cost dislocated to another sector, and that taxpayers are too often the
ones left holding the bag. For example, the externalities wrought by a
lack of adequate pollution control on wastewater discharges must
inevitably be addressed and can fall unfairly upon the shoulders of
other users of a waterway--be it the taxpayer-funded drinking water
system that must now remove those pollutants, the commercial or
recreational fisherman foreclosed from waters that are not fishable, or
the disruption of tourist-serving businesses that line beaches forced
closed due to poor water quality.
New Jersey has a long, proud, and bipartisan history of exceeding
minimum federal standards for water quality, knowing that the quality
of our waters bears directly upon our economic vitality. We view the
protection and improvement of public health, safety, and the
environment as a sound investment--because that is what our residents
and economy demand. This Subcommittee may find that New Jersey provides
an important case study for achieving balance among environmental
quality and economic goals. We have assumed responsibility for critical
sections of the Clean Water Act, enacted additional state-based water
quality laws, and continued to grow our economy as we improve and
protect public health and the environment. New Jersey is proof that a
dynamic balance is possible without upending the Clean Water Act, which
has not yet achieved its national goal of eliminating pollutant
discharge into navigable waters and ensuring water quality that is
fishable and swimmable. Let us not make false choices between a healthy
environment and a healthy economy. Let us work instead to unite the
forces of economic development and environmental improvement to promote
the public good.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hanners for 5 minutes to give
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF NOAH HANNERS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI-
DENT, NUCOR CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Hanners. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Larsen, Vice Ranking Member Scholten, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Noah Hanners, and I am proud to serve
as executive vice president at Nucor Corporation, where I
oversee our sheet products group.
Nucor is the largest and most diversified steel producer in
the United States and the largest recycler of any type of
material anywhere in North America, and we are the only
American steel producer that makes 100 percent of its steel
here in America.
Specifically, our method has a fraction of the carbon
footprint and roughly 10 percent of the particulate emissions
compared to an average integrated steel mill.
We use 95 percent less water than an average steel mill,
and we capture and reprocess 86 percent of the process water we
reuse before discharging.
Several of our 26, and soon to be 28, steel mill facilities
also have strategically constructed stormwater retention ponds
to capture stormwater runoff.
Manufacturers like Nucor create good jobs, drive
innovation, and build our modern digital economy, all while
making our environment cleaner.
But right now, cumbersome and overreaching permitting
regulations are holding back progress and hurting our Nation's
competitiveness. And we are not alone in this view.
In a recent survey of manufacturers, 72 percent said that
the length and complexity of the permitting process affects
their investment decisions.
If we want to grow America's economy, we need to fix this
broken system.
Nucor can speak firsthand to the difficulties of navigating
the Federal permitting process. In 2022, we announced the
selection of Apple Grove, West Virginia, as the location for a
new state-of-the-art sheet mill. At $3.5 billion, it is the
largest manufacturing investment in the State's history.
Nucor sheet mills create an average of 800 full-time, high-
paying manufacturing jobs, and we are proud to have already
hired 300 West Virginia teammates. In addition, we anticipate
approximately 2,000 contracting teammates at peak construction.
The strategic location of the mill on the Ohio River
required us to seek Federal authorization under section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
As a responsible industry partner, we worked diligently
with State and Federal agencies to gain the necessary approvals
and begin turning dirt.
The permitting process was onerous. It required us to work
with multiple Federal agencies with little direction and
unclear timelines. This led to moving targets for our planning
and execution, delaying the project and increasing costs.
America can do better to help manufacturers create good
jobs in our communities while continuing to protect our
environment.
Manufacturers have long advocated for commonsense
permitting reforms. The National Association of Manufacturers
supported bipartisan efforts, during the previous Congress, to
update the NEPA process and speed up construction of energy
projects.
Working together, policymakers can continue progress to
achieve lasting, comprehensive permitting reform and make
positive changes to our Nation's environmental laws.
This is critical as manufacturers contend with standards
that are unreasonable and unworkable, such as those for PFAS
and particulate matter.
Serious reforms should include manufacturers' priorities to
provide certainty, streamline the permitting process, and give
the regulated community a seat at the table.
This may be accomplished through changes to environmental
laws, like the Clean Water Act, that expedite judicial review,
create enforceable deadlines, and increase the use of
categorical exclusions.
Last Congress, this committee took important steps toward
reforming the Clean Water Act by advancing the Creating
Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.
As you continue this work in the current Congress, we ask
you to consider several areas for Clean Water Act reform:
clarifying timelines for agency action and decisions during the
permitting process; establishing clear, commonsense definitions
regarding the scope of project areas subject to permitting and
consultation requirements; provide certainty that permitting
decisions are determinative and help prevent never-ending
litigation; promote the use of general permits and speed up
projects with limited impact on the environment; ensure the use
of best available science when setting guidelines and rules;
encourage State assumption of permitting responsibilities; and
focus State authority under the Clean Water Act on water
quality.
Nucor and America's manufacturers are the most advanced and
sustainable in the world. Comprehensive permitting reform that
increases certainty and removes unnecessary bureaucratic
hurdles will enhance American economic competitiveness and
protect our environment.
I encourage you to seize this opportunity, because when
manufacturing wins, America wins. Thank you, and I look forward
to your questions.
[Mr. Hanners' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor
Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Noah Hanners, and I am proud to serve as
Executive Vice President at Nucor Corporation where I oversee our sheet
products group, which is comprised of six steel mills that make flat-
rolled steel products for automotive, appliance, construction, pipe and
tube and many other industrial and consumer applications.
Nucor is the largest and most diversified steel producer in the
United States and the largest recycler of any type of material anywhere
in North America. And, among America's three largest steel producers,
we are the only one that still makes 100 percent of its steel here in
America. Each year, our company recycles more than 20 million tons of
ferrous scrap to produce more than a quarter of all the raw steel made
in the U.S. This steelmaking method makes us one of the cleanest and
most sustainable producers in the world. Specifically, our method has a
fraction of the carbon footprint and roughly 10 percent of the
particulate emissions compared to an average integrated steel mill. In
addition, we use 95 percent less water than an average steel mill, and
we capture and reprocess 86 percent of our process water for reuse
before discharging. Several of our 26--soon to be 28--steel mill
facilities also have strategically constructed stormwater retention
ponds to capture stormwater runoff. Nucor is not only one of the
cleanest and most efficient steelmakers in the world, but we are also
one of the safest, with a steelmaking injury and illness rate that has
consistently been at least 30 percent below the industry average year
after year.
Manufacturers like Nucor create well-paying jobs, drive innovation
and build our modern digital economy--all while developing and
deploying technologies that make our environment cleaner. When
manufacturing wins, America wins. But right now, cumbersome and
overreaching permitting laws and regulations are holding back progress,
delaying investments and making it harder to compete globally.
Permitting delays, red tape and complicated bureaucracy make it
difficult to complete projects that benefit communities across the
country, especially for capital intensive industrial manufacturers like
ours. It is no surprise that in a 2024 survey of manufacturers, 72
percent of respondents said that the length and complexity of the
permitting process affected their investment decisions.\1\ That's the
real problem. If we want to grow America's economy, we need to fix this
broken system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Association of Manufacturers, NAM Manufacturers'
Outlook Survey, First Quarter 2024 (March 5, 2024), available at
https://nam.org/2024-first-quarter-manufacturers-outlook-survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor can attest first-hand to the difficulties of navigating
federal permit processes. In 2022--we announced the selection of Apple
Grove--West Virginia--as the location for a new state-of-the-art sheet
steel mill. At $3.5 billion--it is the largest manufacturing investment
in the state's history. Nucor's sheet mills create an average of 800
full-time, high-paying manufacturing jobs, and we are proud to have
already hired 300 West Virginia teammates. In addition, we anticipate
approximately 2,000 contracting teammates at peak construction.
Our new steel mill is strategically situated on the Ohio River,
which will provide logistical and transportation advantages and will
better enable us to supply automotive, construction and industrial
customers in the Midwest and Northeast regions, areas which consume
half of the sheet steel in the U.S. Locating along a major navigable
water of the U.S. precipitated the need for federal authorization under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. While we worked diligently with our
state and federal partners to secure the necessary permits to construct
the facility's barge loading and unloading dock, the process became
hindered by numerous requests from multiple parties for more
information, additional studies or investigations and reformatting of
previously submitted documents. These frustrating delays stemmed
largely from consultation requirements under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, which are characterized by overly vague and
subjective timelines and lack of agency coordination and guidance.
Based on Nucor's nearly six decades of experience building industrial
facilities across the country, these tasks were far beyond the original
scope of work and unnecessarily delayed the final permit decision--and
thus the project--by several months. And delays in today's economic
environment cost money. What was first announced as a $2.7 billion
project is now a $3.5 billion project. We are excited for our future
and to bring this transformative project to the state of West Virginia,
but without the hard work and persistence from our federal, state and
local representatives, this project may have never broken ground.
Manufacturers have been building a case for commonsense reforms to
our nation's permitting laws for years. I'll say it again: we need
commonsense permitting reforms. The National Association of
Manufacturers supported bipartisan efforts during the previous Congress
to update processes under the National Environmental Policy Act and
speed up construction of critical energy projects. For example,
manufacturers supported the permitting reforms made in the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023. The correct implementation of this statute
is both important to the industry as well as germane to any
conversation about CWA reforms, particularly regarding agencies
evaluating ``reasonably foreseeable'' impacts and alternatives in the
permitting process.
And while today's focus is on CWA reform, this is only the
beginning. Working together, policymakers have a real opportunity to
achieve lasting, comprehensive permitting reform and effect positive
changes to our nation's environmental standards that support economic
growth while protecting our communities. For example, while
manufacturers support efforts to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) and other potentially harmful chemicals from our
water systems, overly-severe standards proposed by the Environmental
Protection Agency make compliance impossible and directly threaten our
ability to invest, innovate and create jobs in America. And while our
air quality standards for particulate matter (PM2.5) are necessary for
public health, the unreasonably tightened limits for emissions of fine
particles or soot which took effect last year are placing an
unnecessary regulatory burden on our manufacturers and making
permitting harder--hindering onshoring and raising global emissions.
Our U.S. manufacturing sector is cleaner than at any other time in
history and cleaner than foreign competitors. That is why we strongly
believe that comprehensive permitting reform is critical, and such
reform must include American manufacturers' priorities that provide
regulatory certainty, streamline the permitting process and give the
regulated community opportunity for input when establishing the rules
under which they will operate. Policymakers may accomplish these goals
through changes to underlying statutes that expedite judicial review,
create enforceable deadlines for agencies and increase the use of
categorical exclusions.
Clean Water Act Reform Recommendations
As Nucor's experience with our West Virginia site illustrates, the
CWA is a statute wherein thoughtful changes would benefit and advance
economic development projects across the nation. Last Congress, this
committee took steps toward reforming the CWA by reporting out and
securing passage by the House of Representatives of the Creating
Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act. Among other changes, the
legislation would have instituted reforms to permitting programs under
Section 402 and Section 404 of the CWA to support the use of general
permits under the programs, as well as to set guidelines on judicial
review and enhance the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(Section 402) permit shield.
Manufacturers commend the committee for its attention to CWA reform
and the advancement of critical infrastructure and economic development
projects. As the committee pursues this important work in the 119th
Congress, we respectfully request that members consider several areas
for improvement.
I. Timelines
Clarified timelines for agency action and decisions for a Section
404 permit will assist applicants with project planning and execution.
Currently, those seeking an individual permit are often caught in a
winding process with multiple decision-makers and nebulous timelines.
For example, the Army Corps of Engineers district office will delay
action for the entire permit area while awaiting approval from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for a specific portion of the project.
II. Scope
Similar to establishing timelines for agency decisions, clear and
understood definitions as to the scope of project areas subject to
Section 404 permitting requirements will help applicants with planning
and execution. Over the past decade and more, manufacturers and others
in the regulated community have been caught in a regulatory morass
because of a prolonged disagreement over the definition of waters of
the U.S. This has resulted in delays and confusion in the
jurisdictional determination process by USACE. Furthermore, USACE
recently proposed to update its regulations for implementing Section
106 of the NHPA, potentially expanding the scope of areas of a project
where agencies will need to consult on effects on historic properties,
elongating delays.
III. Permit certainty
Once a permit is granted or a particular activity is verified as
authorized under a general permit, the permittee should have a high
degree of certainty that the agency's action is determinative. Limiting
the timeline for judicial review and supporting the permit as shield
will cut down on unnecessary litigation that delays projects and adds
costs. Reasonable restrictions to the EPA's authority under Section
404(c) of the CWA to prohibit areas as disposal sites--limiting
retroactive vetoes of permits--will likewise increase confidence in the
permitting process.
IV. General permits
The use of general permits should be promoted to the maximum extent
practicable for those projects with limited impact on the environment.
This may be accomplished through several means, such as extending the
time between reissuance and limiting politically-charged reviews, as
well as defining the scope of environmental effects during issuance or
reissuance.
V. State assumption
State assumption of Section 404 permitting responsibilities should
likewise be encouraged. States know best about their water resources
and are better able to be responsive to applicants throughout the
permitting process. Unfortunately, progress in this area has been
hampered by subsequent litigation following approval of state
assumption, with the State of Florida as a recent example.
VI. Water quality certification
Promoting federalism in the administration of the CWA should not be
permission for states to go outside the bounds of statutory authority,
however. It is important to focus state responsibility pursuant to
Section 401 of the CWA on project impacts to water quality
specifically. Unfortunately, some states have recently used this
authority to block important interstate projects critical for
dependable energy use.
* * *
Nucor and America's manufacturing sector are the most advanced and
sustainable manufacturers in the world. We are proof that we can both
protect the environment, while also creating well-paying jobs and
strengthening our local communities. Comprehensive permitting reform
that increases certainty for the regulated community while removing
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles will both enhance America's economic
competitiveness and protect our environment. When manufacturing wins,
America wins.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today and share our story. I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Next, Mr. Hasten, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF BUDDY HASTEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EX-
ECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES OF ARKAN-
SAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOP-
ERATIVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hasten. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking
Member Scholten, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Buddy Hasten, and I serve as president and CEO
of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, AECC, and
Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Incorporated, AECI.
It is an honor to be before you today to talk about how we
can better serve our members and your constituents.
AECC is a generation and transmission cooperative based in
Little Rock, Arkansas, that proudly provides power for
approximately 1.2 million members of Arkansas' 17 electric
distribution co-ops.
AECI is the Arkansas statewide trade association which
provides education, public relations, Government relations, and
other support to the electric distribution co-ops in Arkansas.
Reliable and affordable electricity is essential to
America's economic growth, and as our Nation increasingly
relies on electricity to power our economy, keeping the lights
on has never been more important or more challenging.
For example, Arkansas is losing 3,800 megawatts of baseload
power in the near future, while simultaneously facing a
tremendous increase in electricity demand from data centers and
manufacturing facilities.
Reasonable and efficient environmental regulations,
including permitting programs under the Clean Water Act, are
often the critical link in being able to successfully complete
a project on time to meet the growing generation demands of an
electric co-op.
It takes several years to plan a transmission route or pick
a viable property site to build a new powerplant. It is
essential that Federal permitting programs, including those
under the Clean Water Act, are implemented as intended by
Congress and do not unnecessarily delay or hinder critical
infrastructure projects that deliver electricity to homes,
businesses, and farms across the country.
Because electric co-ops are owned and governed by the
consumer members that we serve, we are committed to protecting
and maintaining clean water within our communities.
However, having clean water is not, and should not be,
mutually exclusive with having permitting programs that are
reasonable, efficient, and meet the needs of our growing and
ever-changing economy. We can and we should do both.
Electric co-ops rely on clean water permits to build new
generation facilities, build transmission and distribution
lines in a timely manner, perform routine maintenance and
repair work, restore service after hurricanes or other natural
disasters, and to undergo vegetation management practices along
electric utility rights-of-way to prevent damage and wildfires.
All of these actions are a huge part of our work in
providing reliable and affordable electricity to our consumer
members.
To provide just one example, a few years ago, my co-op
applied for an approved jurisdictional determination within the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether a Clean Water
Act permit was needed for a new electrical transmission-
switching station--a very important new piece of infrastructure
for us.
In the meantime, just to be safe and to try to expedite the
process, we went ahead and applied for a Clean Water Act
permit. We did not receive a permit decision within the 9-month
timeframe initially predicted by the Corps, resulting in a
delayed start for our project.
Then over a year after our original Clean Water Act permit
application, the Corps informed us that a Clean Water Act
permit would not be needed for the project.
Ultimately, AECC was subjected to the Corps' application
requirements, construction delays and increased costs, and the
associated risks of a Clean Water Act permit denial, for the
Corps to determine that no Clean Water Act permit would be
needed for the project--a decision that could have easily been
determined as early as AECC's first meeting with the Corps 1
year earlier.
This is a pivotal time for my co-op. As we plan to meet the
quickly growing demands of our members, a more predictable and
efficient process for securing those permits for our electric
infrastructure would help us better meet those challenges.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this
important issue. I look forward to responding to any questions.
Thank you.
[Mr. Hasten's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Buddy Hasten, President and Chief Executive Offi-
cer, Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas, on behalf of the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association
Introduction
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you today. My name is Buddy Hasten, and I serve as
President and CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC)
and Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (AECI), which along with
Arkansas' 17 electric cooperatives are collectively known as the
Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas. I am testifying today to provide my
own insights as a co-op leader but also representing the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the nearly 900 electric
cooperatives across the country it represents.
AECC is a generation and transmission (G&T) cooperative based in
Little Rock, Arkansas that was established in 1949. AECC proudly
provides power for approximately 1.2 million members of Arkansas' 17
electric distribution cooperatives. Specifically, AECC generates,
sells, and delivers reliable and affordable wholesale electric energy,
along with related services to Arkansas' electric distribution co-ops.
AECI, formed in 1942, is the Arkansas statewide trade association,
which provides education, public relations, government relations, and
other support to the electric distribution co-ops in Arkansas. AECI
also sells electric utility materials and equipment and provides
related services to and for electric utilities across the United
States.
NRECA is the national trade association representing nearly 900
rural electric cooperatives across the country including 64 G&T
cooperatives and 832 distribution cooperatives. America's electric co-
ops comprise a unique sector of the electric industry. These not-for-
profit entities are independently owned and governed by the people they
serve. From growing exurban regions to remote farming communities,
electric co-ops provide power to 42 million Americans across 48 states.
They keep the lights on across 56% of the American landscape--areas
that are primarily residential and sparsely populated. Those
characteristics make it comparatively more expensive for electric co-
ops to operate than the rest of the electric sector, which tends to
serve more compact, industrialized, and densely populated areas. This
means that co-ops are constantly asked to do more with less, and they
deliver.
Reliable and affordable electricity is essential to America's
economic growth. And as our nation increasingly relies on electricity
to power our economy, keeping the lights on has never been more
important--or more challenging. For example, Arkansas is losing
approximately 3,800 megawatts of baseload power in the near future
while simultaneously facing a tremendous increase in electricity demand
from data centers and manufacturing facilities.
Reasonable and efficient environmental regulations, including
permitting programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA), are often the
critical link in being able to successfully complete a project on time
in order to meet the growing generation demands on AECC. It takes
several years to plan a transmission route or pick a viable property
site to build a new power plant. It is essential that federal
permitting programs--including those under the CWA--are implemented as
intended by Congress and do not unnecessarily delay or hinder critical
infrastructure projects essential to delivering electricity to homes,
businesses, and farms across the country.
Because electric co-ops are owned and governed by the consumer-
members that we serve, we are committed to protecting and maintaining
clean water within our communities. However, having clean water is not
and should not be mutually exclusive with having CWA permitting
programs that are reasonable, efficient, and meet the needs of our
growing and ever-changing economy. Congress can and should address the
difficulties that the regulated community is facing with permitting
under the CWA.
Section 404 Permits
Nationwide Permits
While providing electricity over long distances, power lines must
occasionally cross wetlands and other ``waters of the U.S.'' (WOTUS),
requiring authorization under CWA Section 404. Nationwide Permits
(NWPs) are developed and issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and authorize activities that have minimal individual and
cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Electric co-ops
depend on CWA Section 404 permits, and on NWPs in particular, to build
transmission and distribution lines in a timely manner; perform routine
maintenance or repair work on those lines; restore service after
hurricanes or other natural disasters; and to undergo certain
vegetation management practices along electric utility rights of way to
prevent damage and wildfires.
The availability of NWPs is critically important to electric co-ops
as an environmentally protective means to streamline work on critical
infrastructure while controlling unnecessary costs. Without NWPs,
electric co-ops would be required to coordinate every planned utility
line project with the Corps to find alternative CWA authorizations such
as individual Section 404 permits. This could result in years of
additional delays and substantial additional costs. For example, the
Corps reported that in fiscal year 2018, the average time to process a
standard individual permit application under Section 404 was 264 days,
while the average time to process a NWP authorization was 45 days.
Increased costs that result from delays are passed directly on to co-op
consumer-members.
Because NWPs are issued by the Corps for a period of no more than
five years, fifty-seven NWPs are set to expire in March of 2026. It is
essential that the Corps prioritizes reauthorizing the expiring NWPs.
This requires time-consuming steps like complying with CWA section 401
requirements and working with Corps districts to add regional
conditions which are critical for complying with statutes like the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We look forward to working with the
Committee and the new administration to ensure that such permits are
reauthorized expeditiously so that electric co-ops can continue to
provide reliable and affordable electricity to our consumer-members
without undue costs and delays.
Electric co-ops also support needed efforts to streamline the NWP
program. For example, in 2023, AECC was required to perform repairs on
one of its hydropower plants, which had been previously permitted under
a Section 404 permit when the plant was built. Due to the nature of
hydropower plants, repairs must be performed quickly when low river
water levels in the Arkansas River allow. AECC met with the Little Rock
District of the Corps and determined that a NWP 3 was needed. NWP 3s
are for ``maintenance'' repairs and are designed to speed up the CWA
permitting process for projects with minimal environmental impacts.
Nevertheless, the permitting and review process to receive temporary
construction authorization under NWP 3 took nine months. During that
time, the river water levels rose to historically high levels, causing
the repair window to close and exposing AECC's hydropower plant to
increased risks of damage. Furthermore, because the temporary
construction authorization that AECC received in compliance with the
CWA is valid for only five years, AECC has no guarantee that it will be
able to utilize the approval, should river conditions not be
satisfactory for repair work within the remaining short timeframe.
Additionally, many electric co-ops apply for Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) loans under the U.S. Department of Agriculture to support
critical generation and transmission projects. Electric co-ops are
required to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
reviews when RUS funded projects require wetland delineations,
endangered species reviews, and other possible project surveys. If a
RUS-funded project requires a Section 404 permit, the Corps will
require the submission and processing of much of the same information
required by and submitted to RUS. This process creates additional
barriers without assurance that the federal agencies will align.
Improvements to communication and collaboration between federal
agencies would better streamline this process.
NRECA supports provisions in last Congress's House-passed H.R.
7023, Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, that would
provide additional certainty regarding required ESA and NEPA reviews
for Section 404 permits, prevent the EPA from vetoing a Section 404
permit before a permit application has been filed or after a permit has
already been issued by the Corps, set reasonable judicial review
timelines for Section 404 permits, and other provisions that would
ensure the continued use of NWPs for linear projects like transmission
lines. We look forward to working with the Committee to advance similar
and additional policies to streamline the NWP permitting process.
Approved Jurisdictional Determinations
Obtaining Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (AJDs) is an
essential step in the CWA 404 permitting process. The AJD process is
used by the Corps to determine whether aquatic resources in a given
area are jurisdictional under the CWA and therefore must require CWA
permits. NRECA is aware of some instances in which AJD applicants have
had to wait over 18 months just for a decision from the Corps, which
only then determines whether the waterbody in question is
jurisdictional and whether the applicant must undergo the CWA 404
permitting process which can take another couple years. Such delays
impede the ability of electric co-ops to begin critical infrastructure
projects and make investment decisions needed to meet rising
electricity demands.
For example, AECC met with the Little Rock District of the Corps to
discuss whether a CWA permit would be needed for a new electrical
transmission switching station AECC planned to build. Based on the
initial meeting, AECC was not told one way or another whether we should
submit a formal permit application but gathered that a CWA permit would
be needed. To be good actors and act in good faith, AECC submitted a
formal AJD request. Based on information provided by the Corps, AECC
expected that the Corps would issue a permit decision in approximately
nine months from the application date. AECC did not end up receiving a
permit decision within the nine-month timeframe initially predicted by
the Corps, resulting in a delayed start date for AECC's project. Then,
over one year after AECC's original CWA permit application, the Corps
informed AECC that a CWA permit was not needed for the project.
Ultimately, AECC was subjected to Corp's application requirements,
construction delays and increased costs, and the associated risks of a
CWA permit denial, for the Corps to determine that no CWA permit would
be needed for the project--a decision that could have easily been
determined as early as AECC's first meeting with the Corps over one
year earlier. To be clear, AECC had to wait for over a year just to be
told that we could have proceeded with the project from the beginning
without any CWA permit.
To prevent similar delays in the CWA permitting process, electric
co-ops are eager to work with this Committee and the new administration
to ensure that the Corps immediately prioritizes responding to AJD
requests.
Section 402 Permits
Electric co-ops build and maintain power plants, substations, and
other infrastructure to meet increasing electricity demands and provide
reliable and affordable electricity to their consumer-members. These
facilities usually need to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit under section 402 of the CWA. NPDES
permits regulate discharges of pollutants through a point source into
WOTUS and reflect both technology-based controls--known as Effluent
Limitation Guidelines--and Water Quality Standards determined by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through notice-and-comment
rulemakings. However, EPA also issues guidance documents--known as
water quality criteria--that do not always solicit or receive public
input that can have a significant influence on the requirements
incorporated into NPDES permits.
Except in a small number of instances, NPDES permits are issued by
states which have delegated authority from EPA to perform relevant
administrative, permitting, and enforcement aspects of the program.
State governments must meet rigorous requirements to be authorized to
run permitting programs and must follow EPA regulations when issuing
individual permits. The Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas are fortunate
to have a positive relationship with the State of Arkansas when it
comes to state-administered CWA permits.
Last Congress' H.R. 7023 would improve the NPDES permitting
process. Specifically, the bill would require EPA to seek public
comment on new or revised water quality criteria. This policy would
increase stakeholder engagement and overall transparency in the CWA
permitting process. It would also help ensure EPA policy can be
informed by actual on-the-ground experiences and help ensure that
unnecessarily burdensome water quality criteria do not impact a co-op's
ability to comply with NPDES permits. Furthermore, H.R. 7023 would
provide additional regulatory certainty by clarifying that holders of
NPDES permits are only responsible under their permits for discharges
of pollutants that are specifically identified by the federal or state
agency during the permitting process.
Waters of the United States
Under the CWA, the EPA and the Corps have jurisdiction to regulate
``navigable'' waters, which are defined in the law as ``the waters of
the United States,'' or WOTUS. The statute does not specifically define
WOTUS but instead grants EPA and the Corps the responsibility to
develop a definition through rulemaking. The definition of WOTUS under
the CWA is significant because it determines which bodies of water are
protected under the CWA, and therefore, whether certain activities that
co-ops engage in that impact waterways will require a CWA permit.
Broader CWA jurisdiction would increase costs associated with co-op
activities in marginal areas, including construction and maintenance of
transmission and distribution corridors, stormwater control, and plant
construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning.
In Sackett v. EPA, decided in May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court
provided regulated entities much needed clarity by narrowing the EPA
and Corp's overly broad interpretation of WOTUS under the CWA.
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration EPA and Corps did not
faithfully comply with or implement the Sackett decision in issuing a
revised WOTUS regulation or determining which waterbodies require a CWA
permit. For example, they have issued ``Field Memos''--essentially,
guidance documents to Corps staff in the field on how to interpret the
WOTUS regulation--with overly broad interpretations of key terms which
do not accurately reflect Sackett. This refusal to comply with the
Supreme Court's decision has created uncertainty, litigation, and
delays which are directly hurting co-ops and other businesses.
Now is the time to correct the failure of the previous
Administration and provide the regulatory clarity that electric co-ops
and other businesses need.
Conclusion
As the electricity demands of our nation continue to grow, electric
co-ops are committed to meeting increasing demand while continuing to
provide reliable and affordable electricity to their consumer-members
and promoting clean water within the communities they serve.
Permitting programs under the CWA directly impact electric co-op's
ability to invest in and build critical infrastructure needed to meet
growing demand. Electric co-ops support efforts to streamline CWA
permitting programs and look forward to working with members of the
Committee to advance policies that will result in a more reasonable and
efficient CWA permitting process.
I thank the Subcommittee for its important work on this issue and
look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Collins. We are going to move on to Member questions
now, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
Mr. Hasten, wonderful to see you, a fellow Arkansan here
today. I appreciate you being here.
The Arkansas Electric Cooperative powers a huge part of my
district, as you know. Of the 17 co-ops in Arkansas, I think
that 10 of them are responsible in some capacity throughout my
district for delivering power to constituents that I represent.
So, it is incredibly important for my constituents to know
that their Federal Government is working with their member-
owned electricity provider.
In your testimony, you mentioned that projects funded
through USDA's Rural Utilities Service loan program, to go
through the NEPA process. Should the project also require a
Corps of Engineers' section 404 permit as well, the Corps
requires duplicative paperwork and studies to be done. A NEPA
and a 404 environmental review for the same project seems to me
the height of bureaucratic waste.
In your experience in Arkansas, can you estimate how much
time, money, staff hours, et cetera, lost productivity, could
have been avoided, or saved, had the Corps and USDA worked
together on this instead of working separately?
Mr. Hasten. Well, Congressman Crawford, welcome from
Arkansas. Yes, what we see is different agencies interpret NEPA
differently. So I think that, to us, is a challenge.
When you have got RUS on one side, Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Energy, Fish and Wildlife, each have the purview
to interpret NEPA how they want, and then so that gives us
uncertainty as to what exactly we are going to be exposed to.
When you get down into section 404--and maybe an example
would be, we know a project is going to need a section 404
Clean Water Act permit. We are going to intend to fund it with
RUS, and so we work a lot with RUS so we know those
requirements.
And those may trigger the right reviews with their
interpretation of NEPA, and so we would go do a cultural survey
or endangered species review or a wetlands review. And we
complete all those, and they go through a process.
For instance, with a cultural survey review, we would turn
that in to the State Historical Preservation Office, the SHPO.
That goes through a process, let's say, 60 days.
They would then share that with the Tribes, and so they--I
think they have got maybe 60 days to respond. As you can see,
you have got months that build up. You are going through a
proper process.
Well, once we then get where we need to and we turn that in
to the Corps, they will turn right around and take that same
exact application and run it through the exact same process. So
we got to go back to the SHPO, got to go back to the Tribes,
and so you can just see it is a redundancy that is built in.
Mr. Crawford. Right.
Mr. Hasten. So right there you can say, well, that added 2
to 4 months----
Mr. Crawford [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. Just right there.
Mr. Crawford. So, we have addressed this to some extent. We
codified some aspects through the One Federal Decision, fees in
the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but was it enough? Do we need to
do more?
Mr. Hasten. I think the more that can be done, in any
business, to streamline and make processes efficient so there
is not wasted time, I would say yes.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hanners, I am going to shift gears real quick. I am
glad to see that you are here today. Nucor is a big presence in
my district. Arkansans know firsthand your company's commitment
to environmental responsibility and how you can co-exist with
economic productivity.
In fact, your entire business model is based on
sustainability. I want you to talk about that a little bit,
some of the ways American steel manufacturing can be advanced
through commonsense environmental reforms and what effects that
would have on economic developments in communities like mine?
Mr. Hanners. Thank you for the question, Mr. Crawford, and
your support, and, yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to talk about sustainability in Nucor.
So if you look at our process, we are the cleanest
steelmakers in the world, and we are continually striving to
innovate while benefiting society both economically but then
also achieving higher and higher levels of sustainability
performance.
So I come here with a lot of pride in the way our team
thinks about caring for the environment. At the same time,
building a project like our West Virginia mill that will employ
hundreds of Americans, but also thousands of contractors who
come on site and then untold numbers of people who are impacted
by that project in the region.
So if you think about our West Virginia mill, we are
building a mill that will be the cleanest steel production in
the United States, and it will employ hundreds, and by second
and third order, impact thousands of Americans in that West
Virginia region.
So we are very proud of that legacy.
Mr. Crawford. I appreciate you. Thanks for being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Scholten for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of our incredible witnesses for taking your time to be here
today.
As I stated in my opening remarks, water issues are not,
and should not be, a partisan issue. I hope I am not alone in
saying that I am deeply concerned with the President's efforts
to freeze critical Federal funds, including dollars necessary
to support our Federal water infrastructure.
We all can agree that regulatory reform is needed, clarity
is needed, but what has happened in the last 10, 20 days has
been the opposite of clarity. It has increased chaos and
confusion.
This uncertainty could stifle all of the progress that this
committee, and Congress as a whole, has made through historic
legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Stoking this kind of chaos will result in very tangible
threats to every single community that is represented here at
the dais.
Commissioner LaTourette, can you speak a little bit to how
some of the directly blocked funds, as well as the uncertainty
in Federal funding, is not only going to harm water
infrastructure projects, but also prevent local and State
governments from looking ahead to fulfill their communities'
water needs?
Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate this question. My pause is
because I am thinking. I am thinking hard about it. I mentioned
in my testimony that we have a $1.2 trillion need nationally
over the next 20 years for drinking water infrastructure; $31.6
billion of that is in New Jersey alone.
And we rely, the States, which are the ones that implement
the investments in our infrastructure. State governments do
that, not the Federal Government.
And what we see in New Jersey is an opportunity, using
those Federal funds, we couple them with State funds, and then
we use the governmental funds together to then leverage private
market funds, so that we are able to create a capital stack for
investment in water infrastructure that needs to be planned out
over the course of many years.
And so we have projects that are in the queue right now
that are phased, meaning that one fiscal year, you might do a
pump station, and the next year, a main, right? And so when
there is a disruption in Federal funding, or even just the
uncertainty that is created by a suspected disruption, and even
a temporary one, it reverberates throughout the system.
What I mean by that is right now, our State is in the
process of formulating our clean water intended use plan for
the next fiscal year, which for us starts July 1, and that
provides water utilities, contractors, and others with guidance
about how they should be sequencing their projects, such that a
disruption in the Federal funding source, upon which all of
that investment is built, has a cascading effect that can lead
to the delay certainly, but potentially even the abandonment of
a project, right?
And here we are talking about water that every business,
every person needs.
Ms. Scholten. Certainly critical in Michigan's Third
Congressional District. I firmly believe that the U.S. can have
both a healthy economy and a healthy environment.
In fact, through the Great Lakes region, I would argue that
these two outcomes are wholly interconnected, as I discussed in
my opening remarks.
Commissioner LaTourette, again, I know New Jersey is a
little different from west Michigan's shoreline, but can you
speak to how water pollution can negatively impact communities'
economies with potential harm to the tourism industry, property
values, and commercial operations?
Mr. LaTourette. Appreciate that question as well,
Congresswoman.
So, tourism in particular is a huge driver of New Jersey's
economy, right? Our pristine beaches, our quaint shore towns
bring in $50 billion a year in tourism spending.
And all of that spending, all of that tourism, is dependent
upon one thing: clean waterways.
I grew up in the 1980s at a time when our parents didn't
let us go to the beach in New Jersey because of high levels of
pollution. And today the Jersey Shore has the best water
quality that we have ever seen, and that is a function of
implementation of the Clean Water Act as a matter of permitting
enforcement, but also because of that investment paradigm,
which, since the beginning of our clean water investment
strategy, has created 170,000 one-year direct construction
jobs, right?
And so, not only is the Clean Water Act a necessity in
terms of the health of our waterways, the health of our people,
but it promotes the very businesses that dot our shoreline.
So, imagine those businesses that dot the shoreline, that
rely on the influx of tourism dollars, imagine their struggles
when they have to close a beach because of bad water quality,
and nobody visits, and nobody spends.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fong for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing, and thank you for the witnesses for their input.
Mr. Singletary, I wanted to ask you a few questions. I am
glad that you highlighted the need to clarify the section 401
certification process. I wanted to get your input in regards to
this specific area.
In California, it feels like we are constantly having to
fight against our State Water Resources Control Board, which
has used its authority provided under the Clean Water Act,
along with other State and Federal environmental laws, to delay
efforts to develop new water projects and actually undermine
our ability to utilize the infrastructure we have.
The result is less water delivered to our farms and
communities in my district, less clean and renewable hydropower
generated for our grid, and less water security for everyone
who lives in our State.
There are numerous examples of less water security, and
there are examples of the State Water Board issuing draft Clean
Water Act 401 certifications aimed at implementing a plan that
calls for the flushing of billions of gallons of water out into
the Pacific, rather than storing it to mitigate drought impacts
during dry years.
Much of the time, the requirements and these regulations
have nothing to do with water quality or even the operation of
the projects they are regulating.
And I have statements from the Modesto, Turlock, and Merced
irrigation districts which neighbor my district, that provide
two very recent examples that paint the picture of what is
happening all over California, and I ask those to be included
in the record.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Vince Fong
We appreciate the Subcommittee holding a hearing to discuss how the
Clean Water Act (CWA) impacts the development and continued operation
of our critical infrastructure. As you examine this important issue, we
urge you to consider and address how the CWA, and section 401 in
particular, is slowing down other vital national infrastructure, such
as the ability to license and relicense hydropower facilities through
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Modesto Irrigation
District and Turlock Irrigation District (collectively ``the
Districts'') own and operate the FERC licensed Don Pedro Project and
the as-yet unlicensed La Grange Project ( the Projects), which together
generate over 200 MW of hydroelectric energy, and appreciate your
consideration of our experience with Section 401 implementation in our
14-year effort to relicense the Projects. Ultimately, the CWA is a
significant driver of the cost, uncertainty, and long duration of the
FERC relicensing process, and if it is not addressed, it has the
potential to disrupt, restrict, or even prevent the generation of
affordable, reliable, and emission free electricity that is critical to
the grid.
The Don Pedro Project is a federally licensed hydroelectric
generating facility located on the Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada
foothills approximately 130 miles east of San Francisco. As a multi-
purpose project, the Project provides over 2 million acre-feet of water
storage for irrigation and domestic use, critical flood control, and
renewable energy. Don Pedro Project operations also benefit fish,
wildlife, and recreation resources. The Districts also applied to FERC
for a license for the La Grange Project, which generates about 5 MW of
hydroelectric energy, and serves as a diversion dam to provide
irrigation and municipal water supplies to the Districts' customers.
FERC issued the original 50-year license for the Don Pedro Project
in 1966. Consistent with FERC regulations, the Districts began the
relicensing process in 2011. Since then, at the cost of over $30
million dollars, the Districts have conducted over 30 scientific
studies of everything from aesthetics to fishery resources, held dozens
of public meetings and workshops, and developed state of the art flow,
temperature, reservoir operation and fish models that work together to
evaluate the efficacy and impacts of various license conditions. In
2021, based on that huge body of Tuolumne-specific scientific studies,
FERC issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act and a suite of proposed
conditions for the new Project license. At this point, FERC was ready
to issue the new license but could not until the Districts obtained a
CWA section 401 certification from the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWB).
Although the SWB is required to issue a CWA 401 certification
within one year of receiving an application, the Districts filed three
applications, none of which resulted in a CWA section 401
certification. Despite informing the Districts that the applications
were complete, the SWB denied the first two (filed in 2018 and 2019,
respectively) without prejudice to give themselves more time, forcing
the Districts to refile the identical application. Then, in 2021, the
SWB purported to issue a CWA section 401 certification even though the
Districts had not applied for one. This certification, which was
unilaterally withdrawn by the SWB in 2024, included 45 conditions, many
of which were individually onerous, expensive and unduly restrictive,
and collectively would have placed the daily operations of the Project
subject to the control and oversight of the SWB. These conditions
required the release of large volumes of water for downstream
environmental purposes which were magnitudes greater than recommended
by FERC in its FEIS. These conditions would also prevent the diversion
of water when a federal facility located in a completely separate
watershed was making releases required by its water right permits,
reduce the releases of water from the Project for irrigation, domestic,
and hydroelectric generation in order to maintain storage levels for
later environmental use, dictate the process, methods and means for
nearby road construction, and guarantee compliance at locations that
are dozens of miles from the Projects' point-source discharges--beyond
FERC's regulatory jurisdiction and so far downstream that the Districts
are incapable of meaningfully controlling flows to meet the conditions.
Section 401 of the CWA provides the States with the vital
opportunity to make sure that any federally licensed discharge complies
with its applicable water quality requirements, which in California are
rarely reviewed and approved in their entirety by the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as required by law. California
has abused and expanded this opportunity, using it not as the
opportunity to ensure that any federally authorized discharge complies
with applicable water quality, but rather as an opportunity to seize
control and oversight of the Project as a whole to achieve policy goals
that are often only tangentially related to water quality and which
have nothing to do with the licensed activity itself--the generation of
hydroelectric power. Further, States have regularly failed to issue the
required certification within the statutorily mandated 1-year
timeframe, unilaterally requiring the licensees to refile the
applications and delaying the issuance of a final license from FERC,
all at an immense cost to local rate payers.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to this issue and are
happy to answer any questions or provide any additional information.
Statement of John Sweigard, General Manager, Merced Irrigation District,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Vince Fong
Dear Chairman Collins and members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony. The issue of
Clean Water Act permitting could not be more dire for Merced Irrigation
District (MID) and the community we serve in rural Merced, California
at this moment.
Without federal intervention related to a Clean Water Act 401 Water
Quality Control Certification issue MID is now facing, all signs point
to the California State Water Resources Control Board subverting our
current federal hydropower relicensing effort with FERC, resulting in a
complete takeover of water operations of our locally owned and operated
reservoir, resulting in dire consequences for our community.
Background
The Merced Irrigation District is a California Public Agency under
the California Irrigation District Law. MID was established in 1919. It
owns, operates and maintains the New Exchequer Dam and Reservoir (Lake
McClure) and McSwain Dam and Reservoir (Lake McSwain) on the Merced
River. They are located in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range, approximately 23 miles northeast of the City of Merced.
Lake McClure has a storage capacity of 1,024,600 acre-feet, while
Lake McSwain has a storage capacity of 9,730 acre-feet and is operated
principally as a regulating reservoir for MID's hydroelectric
generation facilities at New Exchequer Dam (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Project No. 2179).
The water managed by MID flows west from Lakes McClure and McSwain
through the New Exchequer Dam hydroelectric plant creating more than
100 megawatts of clean, renewable energy. The water then continues down
the Merced River through more than 700 miles of canals for irrigation
use by more than 2,200 Merced County growers.
The water supplied by New Exchequer Dam and Lake McClure supports
thousands of jobs and is associated with $1.5 billion in economic
output in an otherwise economically disadvantaged community. The
majority of those served by MID's water are small generational family
farmers, with the average farm size being fewer than 50 acres.
Additionally, MID's operations provide:
140,000 acre feet of local groundwater recharge,
sustaining local drinking water quality for roughly 150,000 people
Flood protection for 15 different communities,
representing 169,000 people, for 130 miles
Flows down the Merced River during droughts
Cold-water releases down the Merced River during critical
time periods
On-demand voltage regulation for the statewide electric
grid
At Stake: Local Control of Our Reservoir
In 2005, MID began preliminary work on a new license through the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2008, MID issued its
Notice of Intent to Relicense and Preliminary Application Document.
This began numerous costly studies analyzing the impacts of the
project. Based on these studies and multiple years of collaboration
with federal and state agencies, in 2012 a final application was filed
with FERC. In 2015, FERC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).
The FEIS dictated several conditions and studies to be conducted
under the new license for New Exchequer Dam, including new increased
flow releases downstream of the reservoir. The federal relicensing
process represents a $36 million investment paid completely by the
local community that depends on Lake McClure for its water supply,
economy, and way of life.
As part of the FERC relicensing process, MID is required to obtain
a Clean Water Act (CWA) 401 Water Quality Control Certificate from the
Environmental Protection Agency. Implementation of the CWA varies from
state to state; in California, that authority has been delegated to the
State Water Resources Control Board.
At the same time MID has been pursuing a new FERC license,
California's State Water Resources Control Board has sought to update
its Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta which the Merced River ultimately flows into.
In summary, the Bay Delta plan calls for an unimpaired--and
adaptable--flow regime from Lake McClure and other local reservoirs.
The resulting new flows would be sent downstream nearly 200 miles for
the purported benefit of water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Bay Delta.
The effects of the Bay Delta Plan flow diversions would have a
devastating impact on our agricultural water supply, domestic food
production, local employment and economic activity as well as local
drinking water quality.
Further compounding these negative impacts would be reduced
hydroelectric production that is crucial for our regional and national
electric grid support and reliability. The issue of the Bay Delta Plan
has been contentious and the subject of multiple past and present
lawsuits by MID and many other local irrigation districts.
More than a decade ago, the State Water Resources Control Board had
stated on its website that it intended to use its CWA 401 certification
authorities to implement the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. When
asked about this during a public meeting in Merced, California, at the
time the chair of the Board said that would not be the case. Yet here
we are and that's exactly what has happened.
Which brings us to today.
In January of 2025, the State Water Resources Control Board issued
its draft CWA 401 certification for the federal hydropower relicensing
process. It spans more than 100 pages and in no uncertain terms,
directly implements its Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
In addition to attempting to implement its plan through the CWA 401
certification process, the State Water Resources Control Board included
many other onerous requirements that result in effectively removing
authority from FERC and operational management of the reservoir from
MID.
Among the most problematic conditions placed on the operations of
the Merced River Hydroelectric Project by the State Water Resources
Control Board through the CWA 401 certificate:
Decisions about water management and releases from Lake
McClure would, in part, be recommended by three separate committees,
rather than MID's knowledgeable engineers and managers who have safely
and efficiently managed the reservoir for decades. The ultimate
decision about management of the water supply would rest solely and
exclusively with the Executive Director of the State Water Resources
Control Board, an unelected career bureaucrat.
MID would be responsible for maintaining flows all the
way to the confluence of the San Joaquin River, nearly 30 miles
downstream of MID's last point of control on the river. That stretch of
river has dozens of water users which are not part of MID and exist
outside its jurisdiction.
The minimum year-end carryover storage in our reservoir
proposed by FERC in its FEIS is rendered meaningless. As proposed in
the CWA 401 certificate, the Deputy Director of the State Water
Resources Control Board, another unelected career bureaucrat, would
annually make that carryover determination regardless of consequences
to MID.
Perhaps most egregious, at any time, these two career
bureaucrats can modify the flow schedule--and carryover storage--
anytime they want with no accountability to anyone, creating total
uncertainty about water supply for MID's agricultural water users and
hydroelectric operations.
Without immediate federal intervention, the State Water Resources
Control Board will steal a local water project and leave the local
community holding the empty reservoir.
MID will find itself burdened with:
All the on-going operations costs of maintaining the lake
and dam facilities for flood control and dam safety
Inadequate water supplies for critical domestic food
production
Severely reduced hydroelectric production to fund these
operations
The loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in economic
activity and thousands of jobs in one of the most economically
disadvantaged communities in the state.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to
working with you and the Subcommittee to resolve this urgent matter
immediately.
Mr. Fong. If I could ask you, what advice do you have for
making sure that States are accountable to the spirit of the
Clean Water Act when implementing these delegated authorities?
Mr. Singletary. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
think that--I mean, it has kind of been a back-and-forth over
the years. Different States have utilized that 401
certification in different ways.
Sometimes it is used or weaponized against a specific
project, and how we use it in Oklahoma, we use it specifically,
again, to protect water quality resources within the State, and
we don't expand it beyond that.
I think if there was some language in the Clean Water Act
that specified that it was to be focused solely on water
quality projects, discharges, water quality standards, those
type of things, list out specifically what those 401
certifications can be used for, that would probably limit some
of the ability to take it beyond those water quality impacts
that we feel that it is intended to cover.
Mr. Fong. Do you have, like, specific recommendations that
maybe delve a little deeper in terms of, I mean, how does it
work in Oklahoma? And then when you talk to other States, what
guardrails would you want to put in?
Mr. Singletary. You are talking about specific language?
Mr. Fong. Yes.
Mr. Singletary. I don't have any specific language, but I
can propose some for you and get it to you.
Mr. Fong. I mean, do you believe that the Biden
administration's 2023 rule regarding 401 certifications, do you
believe that it expanded the extent of 401 review beyond
congressional intent?
Mr. Singletary. We do. We believe that there is the
potential for that to be misapplied and go beyond impacts that
are clearly associated with a proposed project and taken to
other downstream activities that may occur as a result of a
project but maybe aren't specifically related to that project.
We think that potential is definitely there.
Mr. Fong. And in your testimony, you mentioned concerns
about third parties, potentially seeking to force States to
address broader concerns outside the scope of the Clean Water
Act if the current section 401 rule is left intact. Can you
expound upon that, like, give some specific examples?
Mr. Singletary. Sure. I mean, there is the potential, if
that broader application is allowed, or broader scope of review
is permitted--that even though in Oklahoma we want to tie those
reviews, our 401 certification review, to specific water
quality impacts coming from a proposed project--some third
party who may have an interest in stopping that project could
try and utilize our 401 review. Any decisions we make, that is
going to be subject to an appeal. So they could take us to
court and try and force us to take that review further than how
we believe it is intended.
Mr. Fong. Well, I certainly appreciate your testimony. I
think the section 401 certification has been weaponized and to
prevent needed water storage projects and energy projects. We
need to find that balance.
I look forward to working with you and the members of the
committee to clarify the 401 projects and streamline it as much
as we can. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member,
Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hanners, I have a bit of a curveball for you because--
sorry about this--we have a Nucor facility in Seattle as well.
I don't know if that fits under sheet products or not, but I
did note yesterday Nucor said effective new orders received
after close of business on February 10th, the Nucor Bar Group
will increase prices by $40 per ton on all rebar products.
It may not impact sheet products, but it seems unusual--or
no--coincidental that the day the President announced 25
percent tariffs on aluminum steel products coming to the United
States that Nucor is announcing an increase on rebar products,
and I am wondering if you know, in fact, if there is a
relationship between the call for a 25-percent tariff on
aluminum and steel imports in the United States and this price
increase?
Mr. Hanners. So to answer the first part of your question,
Congressman Larsen, rebar products does not fall under my group
sheet products.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Mr. Spicer has rebar products?
Mr. Hanners. That is right--Mr. Spicer. So you know Randy.
It is a better question for him, but I will answer it at a high
level in that we are very supportive of the actions taken by
the President to impose tariffs on all steel products. And we
believe that there is a strong tie to national security----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Okay. I am sorry.
It sounds like you memorized something or are reading it. I am
just wondering, is there a relationship between these price
increases and the tariffs?
Mr. Hanners. I can't comment on that in rebar.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Okay.
Mr. Hanners. I can't.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right.
Mr. Hanners. There are a lot of unfairly dumped and traded
imports that come into the country that are rebar----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Hanners [continuing]. But I can't comment on the direct
relationship----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Great. Thanks a
lot.
Is there a similar price increase coming for sheet
products?
Mr. Hanners. Can't comment on that either. I mean, pricing
has been increasing already. If you look at trends, sheet
pricing has been at a low point for the last quarter before any
tariff action. So I think that there are other demand drivers
that may contribute to prices moving up.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Fair enough. Thank you. I
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Singletary, in Oklahoma, as in my State, certainly in
New Jersey, I am sure, we have local governments, water
districts, using the State Revolving Fund money for
infrastructure improvements. I alluded to this in my opening
statement.
Are you right now aware of any pause on that money? Are you
seeing impacts or hearing from your local water districts or
even sewer districts or other municipalities on whether or not
that money is available or they are having to wait at all?
Mr. Singletary. No. In fact, I have confirmed that it is,
the money is flowing currently.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Okay. As recently as when?
Mr. Singletary. I am sorry?
Mr. Larsen of Washington. As recently as when?
Mr. Singletary. As recently as last week, beginning of the
last week.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. That is good. A lot of
other money has been paused, and so we are--we approved this
money--Congress did--approve this money. There was a pause,
there was a startup for some, not for others.
Mr. Singletary. Yes.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And we are not getting really
clear messages at all from the current administration on what
is moving forward and what isn't. So I do appreciate that.
Do you want more of it?
Mr. Singletary. Of course.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Probably the most
important question and answer we can get from anybody. I
appreciate that very much.
And then Mr. LaTourette, I want to ask you about forever
chemicals, and what's been your experience in controlling the
discharge of PFAS and PFOA in New Jersey?
Mr. LaTourette. So, New Jersey has been at the tip of the
spear on PFAS issues dating back to 2006. We did some of the
first occurrence studies. And we have a prolific PFAS
contamination problem in the State of New Jersey, in part
because of the manufacturing centers, particularly in the
southern part of the State.
But we first set standards to control for PFAS
contamination in drinking water back in 2020, and we put those
standards in place before the Federal Government had acted.
Those standards are now applied to drinking water systems.
There are over 100 drinking water systems in the State of New
Jersey that have impacts from PFAS chemicals, meaning, to the
point I had made earlier of, if we are not careful about our
discharges into waterways and if we are not regulating them and
enforcing that regulation, inevitably, that enters into the
water cycle.
That which enters into the water cycle ends up coming into
our drinking water systems, and we must put treatment on it to
remove it.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right.
Mr. LaTourette. Huge cost.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And, quickly, are you hearing
from any New Jersey water systems or sewer systems about State
Revolving Fund money being paused at all? What is your
experience?
Mr. LaTourette. The way that our intended-use plans and
our----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. All right.
Mr. LaTourette [continuing]. Our--function----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Can you give me a
yes or a no? Or get back to me.
Mr. LaTourette. Not at this very moment, no.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Got it. I will get back--okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hurd for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to our witnesses.
Mr. Hasten--am I pronouncing that right?
Mr. Hasten. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. I want to get that right.
I represent Colorado's Third Congressional District, which
covers about half of the landmass of the State, and rural
electric cooperatives are vital to my district, just as they
are to much of rural America.
When it comes to the distribution cooperatives that
actually deliver power to rural America, whether in Arkansas,
your home State, or in Colorado, my home State, who owns those
distribution cooperatives?
Mr. Hasten. The cooperative business model, the members--we
call them member consumers--they are ultimately the owners of
the cooperative.
All the--as a CEO, I am charged with running the company; I
report to a board. The board of directors comes from these
local communities that serve these co-ops. And so the board of
directors comes from the community. I report to that board.
And, through that, we run the cooperative.
But, ultimately, we look at the business model as: All of
this exists to serve our members in a cooperative fashion.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Just to be specific, so the members
at the distribution cooperative, those are families? Those are
small businesses? Those are ranchers? Is that correct? They are
the owners of those distribution cooperatives?
Mr. Hasten. Yes. Yes. All of the members of that community
that we serve, yes.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Your testimony mentions the cost of
complying with Federal permitting programs, like section 404
permits, Endangered Species Act, particularly the costs of
delay.
When it comes to those costs of delay, who pays for that?
Mr. Hasten. In a co-op?
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasten. Every cost I get ultimately gets passed
directly on to those members, the members of the community that
we serve. So it is a passthrough. So any cost that comes to us,
we are going to pass it right back on to the community that we
serve.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. So those get paid--those additional
costs get paid by the farmers, the small-business owners, the
families that are served by that cooperative?
Mr. Hasten. Yes, in the form of, we will set electric rates
to cover the cost of service, so any costs that we incur go
into how much we have to charge for rates. So, yes, indirectly,
through their electric rates, they will pay for any costs that
are incurred in making the power and getting it to them.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Mr. Hasten, would it be fair to say
that these permitting delays effectively act as a hidden tax on
rural America?
Mr. Hasten. Yes.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be with you in your first hearing. And, my, you have certainly
stepped into the big issue right at the outset. Thank you for
doing so.
I think I will go to a piece of legislation that is
bipartisan in this House, that we have been working on for
several years, and it is NPDES.
And, specifically, Mr. Singletary, you raised this issue
early on, that the permit is presently a 5-year permit for
municipal districts, sanitation districts. That gives them just
about enough time to figure out what they are going to do, and
then they have to go get a new permit, which means they go back
through the whole cycle again.
The legislation we have been talking about is a 10-year
permit period. Please comment on this. You raised the issue
early on.
Mr. Singletary. Certainly.
Just recognize all the effort it takes to submit an
application, go through that permitting process, allowing the
State to expand the terms of those permits--you would still
have the same environmental protection. States have the
authority to address any issues, unforeseen issues, that come
up. But it would provide some certainty for the regulated
entities. They would have it for that longer period.
And it would, like I said, essentially cut that whole
permitting process in half. Over that 10-year period, you are
only having to do it once instead of every 5 years. Because,
like you said, by the time you get a permit issued, we are very
close to--it is not very much longer that you have to start
that process all over again and start planning for the next
one.
Mr. Garamendi. You did raise a piece of the concern, and
that is, in that intervening 10-year period, there could very
well be some extraordinary event, unknown, unforeseen, that
might cause--or, should cause new review.
I think you talked about that briefly or skipped right over
it. Could you get to that in a little more detail?
Mr. Singletary. Certainly, Congressman.
If there was an issue that is discovered, we still have the
ability to address that through our implementation and
enforcement process, but we can also trigger additional review.
And we can--actually, there are provisions that allow us to
require that permit to be amended to address those concerns if
something is discovered.
Mr. Garamendi. I raise this--we are going to reintroduce
this bipartisan bill in the next few weeks, and I draw the
attention of the committee and the new chair to it. I think it
would be one of the ways in which we can expedite the
permitting--or, reduce the amount of permitting that is
required.
So I will let it go at that.
There are other issues. I suppose I ought to pound away on
the impoundment issues that are out there.
Do any of you have specific examples of the way in which
the current Trump impoundment of funds is affecting your
district?
Mr. Singletary? I will go on down. Maybe Mr. Hanners, I
don't know. Mr. Hasten surely.
Mr. Singletary. I am sorry. Impoundment?
Mr. Garamendi. This is the current impoundment of the
Federal funding.
Mr. Singletary. Oh, the funding.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Singletary. I think we in Oklahoma recognize the
current administration's--that they see a benefit in reviewing
these funds. We hope that review goes quickly.
We do think that the projects that come through us, they
are so critically important, whether it is wastewater or public
water supply projects, that they are going to survive any
review that occurs. We think they are that essential to
Oklahoma and, obviously, the country.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, we have heard from Mr. Hanners that
delays cost money. So you are seeing delays in Oklahoma on
projects?
Mr. Singletary. We are not seeing any delays at this point.
Mr. Garamendi. Could there be delays if this impoundment
continues?
Mr. Singletary. Well, right now, the funding--the money is
continuing to be released. We have reached out to EPA, who kind
of controls the purse strings for us, and they let us know that
all the funding sources that we are involved in, that that
money is still flowing to those projects.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. LaTourette, examples in New Jersey?
Mr. LaTourette. So we saw some immediate implications from
the funding freeze a couple weeks ago, so much so that New
Jersey took legal action in a court case with other States. And
that judge returned a decision that the funds could not be
frozen.
They continued to be frozen, and the court had to issue
another order just yesterday reminding the President of
complying with the law.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Hasten, examples from your State?
Mr. Hasten. I don't have any examples where it has cost us
any delay.
Mr. Garamendi. So we have a red State and a blue State
different. Interesting. Maybe there is targeted impoundment.
I am going to let it go. I am going to yield back my 2
seconds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to
see you up there. Congratulations.
Mr. Hanners, the Clean Water Act was enacted to restore the
integrity of our Nation's waters. However, in recent years, it
has been weaponized, mostly by environmental zealots with a
political agenda that goes far beyond the primary purpose of
protecting water.
Do you agree that the Clean Water Act has strayed from its
original intent?
Mr. Hanners. I can speak to what we have gone through at
our West Virginia mill project. I appreciate the question,
Congressman.
We started off with an understanding of the Corps of
Engineers that we needed--a certain scope was going to be
included in the permitting for this project. So, what happened
in this situation--and we have encountered in other projects of
this size and scope as we navigate the 404 process--is the
scope that was initially explained to us and that we entered
into changed dramatically as we got further into the project.
So, very frequently throughout the process, we have other
entities that are involved in doing a study, whether that is on
artifacts we may come across, whether that is on wetlands. And
each of those different interfaces with the permit causes
examples of--I can give you examples of very long delays
related to each of those different directions of the permit.
So, for our West Virginia project, for example, we incurred
hundreds of millions of dollars in additional loss attributed
to the extenuation of this permitting process.
So it is an example of us--we need certainty, stability,
and consistency in the process. We know what to expect when we
enter the process, and we understand that the process is going
to be timely, and we understand how to navigate the process.
We are fully on board with navigating a process that both
provides us the opportunity to get a project of that scope
permitted and also protects the environment.
Mr. Burlison. How would you like to see that? Would you
prefer to have it streamlined so that all of those entities
that might be affected are asking for that research to be done
concurrently? Or what ideas are there to streamline that
process?
Mr. Hanners. The States know best about their water
resources. And our interactions at the State level have been
very good. They are responsive; they are knowledgeable. If
there is a question about how to navigate something, we get a
quick resolution on what steps we should take.
So we believe that we should get that process to the State
level and also keep the States focused on their statutory duty
to prioritize water quality as they navigate the process.
Mr. Burlison. I know in my own State of Missouri, I would
agree with you; our State, the Department of Natural Resources
does a better job than the EPA.
However, our State and probably many States have an
arrangement in place where they are required to enforce
whatever the EPA has issued. So we had a lot of issues, for
example, when it came to trichloroethylene being in our water
supplies. There was a dispute as to what was acceptable levels
of this product, which I guess is diesel cleaning fluid, is
basically what it is, or it is a byproduct of that.
So, what we determined was, when we tracked it down, there
wasn't a law that was put into place, there was no one on the
Federal level that changed anything, but an unelected official
had issued a guidance document, and that subsequently caused
the State of Missouri and, I am assuming, many other States to
change regulations radically.
Do you see that happening in other States?
Mr. Hanners. We do. We have experienced that with our West
Virginia project, another one we executed recently in
Brandenburg.
And listening to Mr. Hasten describe his project early on,
we experienced a very similar challenge to what you just laid
out as well and the process that he nailed down during his
project description.
Mr. Burlison. It would seem that we need to do something
just universally up here to make a statement or put into the
law that the Federal Government, unless it is an act of
Congress or somebody who is elected making this decision--the
force of an unelected official shouldn't carry the same weight.
So I think that is something we ought to look into.
Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Sykes for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you to the chair and ranking member for
holding this hearing today and kicking us off for the 119th
Congress for the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
I appreciate your leadership on this subcommittee and look
forward to working with you both as we work to improve our
Nation's water infrastructure and ensuring access to clean
water for the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District,
where I have the honor of representing, and all across the
United States of America.
The Clean Water Act exists for a reason.
On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire due to
extreme pollution for the 13th time. This poster next to me
shows, although in black and white, what it looked like in
Cleveland as a river caught on fire. Imagine a body of water
catching on fire.
And this image, which was taken of the fire in 1952, was
published in a Time magazine article covering the 1969 fire
that helped catalyze a movement to protect our waters and our
planet, ultimately leading to the creation of Earth Day, which
is on April 22nd, and in a movement around protecting water in
a much more substantial and meaningful way.
You all know in this committee how much I love to brag on
my district and particularly my home State of Ohio, and this is
not something that we could brag about, but, thankfully, the
bad news was not the last news for Ohio or for this country,
because this movement also led to the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency and, after much bipartisan
collaboration, the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
I take some exception to some of the testimony I heard
today about the Clean Water Act and enforcing it, because it
has been very hard for Cleveland--I don't represent Cleveland--
to shake off the misnomer ``the mistake on the lake,'' and it
has reverberated for generations to come. So it is important
that we protect water not just for this century, this
generation, but futures to come so we don't see other mistakes
on the lake or whatever you want to call it.
And so, now, the Cuyahoga River, which runs through my
district, through the Cuyahoga Valley National Park--and it is
one of the most visited national parks in the United States. It
took 20 years and $3.5 billion in infrastructure investments to
clean up the Cuyahoga River and to allow nature to return to
its shores, something that we are still working on every single
day.
This underscores what it costs when we don't protect our
waters and the billions of dollars we can save by investing in
clean water and water infrastructure before disasters strike.
And so that is why I am such a proud supporter of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which has authorized over $17
billion for communities nationwide to improve America's water
infrastructure.
Now, one of the largest investments that we have received
was in the city to Canton to modernize some of its water
systems. But I do want to talk about the impact on the Federal
freeze and this pause-and-review strategy, because this is
significant. And I know we don't always like to talk about our
history, but history will repeat itself if we continue to make
the same mistakes.
And so, Mr. LaTourette, as a State leader who is tasked
with protecting your waterways and the infrastructure, can you
talk about what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has done for
communities, mid- and small-size communities like Akron and
Canton, where I represent, and how this freeze or the pause-
and-review strategy is impacting the ability to keep our
waterways clean?
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, in the water space,
brought about $1 billion over 5 years to the State of New
Jersey. And I mentioned before that we have a need for water
infrastructure investment that is nearly $32 billion over 20
years. And I make that comparison because, while the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law was historic in the size and scope of its
investment in our infrastructure, it is nowhere near enough,
and we have to continue making the investments.
We should fully federally fund the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund to its maximum amount. Because what we are able
to do in New Jersey when we have a greater amount of Federal
funding and there is not the specter of risk that it will not
be there for us when the next cycle of intended-use planning is
right around the corner, what we are able to do with it is turn
that $1 billion into $4 billion with the way that we leverage
our State funds and the private funds we bring in. And that----
Mrs. Sykes [interrupting]. Mr. LaTourette, I am so sorry to
cut you off, because I could sit and listen to you talk about
the State Revolving Fund for hours, but I only have 2 seconds
left and I want to make sure I make a point, that this poster
is, again, indicative of what happens if we don't act.
I believe in permitting reform. We should and we can do
better. But their next frontier is PFAS. And I have seen a lot
of the testimony hitting against it and trying to keep us from
ensuring that we are keeping our water safe. Let's not let this
happen again. And let's commit to working with one another to
find appropriate permitting reform and ways to keep our
waterways safe.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you giving me a couple
extra moments, and I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Onder for 5
minutes.
Dr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hasten, in your testimony, you underscore the
importance of rural electric co-ops in providing power,
especially to rural areas, in your home State. And in Missouri,
co-ops play a very vital role in our infrastructure and
supplying power to those communities.
Can you describe how inefficient clean-water permitting
adds to costs, which are already higher for rural electric
consumers, than if the permitting process were more efficient
and sensible?
Mr. Hasten. Congressman, thank you for the question. And
for 8 years, I made power in Missouri for their electric co-
ops, so I am very familiar----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. With the co-ops in your State.
Delays--if you have an expected sort of timeline, right--so
the projects that we do, if I wanted to build a new powerplant
today, even the simplest powerplant, a simple natural gas
powerplant, it is a 5-year process.
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Hasten. And so, we layer in all of the planning and all
of the--when we need to put in for permits and when we need to
invest in infrastructure.
Well, if you buy things, let's say very expensive capital
infrastructure, and you have this expected timeline of when it
goes into service----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. But then it doesn't--so imagine a
$500 million powerplant that doesn't go online. Everything is
sitting there, and you are gaining interest during
construction, right?
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Hasten. All of that is just adding to the cost. That
thing is not creating any benefit. You are not putting power
out to members or to supply load, generate revenue to make it a
useful asset.
So it is on that scale----
Dr. Onder [interrupting]. And that is a cost.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. That these delays just add cost.
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Hasten. Not to mention staff hours, consultants,
lawyers. Those are just administrative fees that add up.
And as the Congressman from Colorado had mentioned, every
one of those, as a co-op, I am passing that right on to the
people that I serve in my communities. They are paying for it.
I am just the conduit.
Dr. Onder. So, in your experience, dealing with the State
of Arkansas on permitting, how does that compare with your
experience dealing with the Federal Government: the EPA and the
Army Corps of Engineers?
Mr. Hasten. I would say that, for section 401 and section
402 permits, we are lucky in the State of Arkansas that the
ADEQ, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, is able to
control those. They have been delegated that authority to do
that.
Dr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Hasten. My experience with them is outstanding.
Dr. Onder. Good.
Mr. Hasten. Yes, they are my regulator; yes, they tell me I
have to do things that are like, ``Oh, that's hard to do''----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. But there is a partnership.
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Hasten. So I am trying to serve the community, I am
trying to serve economic development, I am trying to do that.
They have their job to do, and--but you feel that sense of
partnership. So, if they tell me it is going to be 60 days, I
get it in 60 days. If they do it--sometimes they get it to me
faster. So, a real partnership, good communication.
When we go to section 404 and we are working with Federal
agencies, it is, I would say, generally poor communication or
ignored communication or continual emails and calls from us to
get anyone to answer the phone type of communication. And to
say that it is a bit of the runaround, instead of partnering
together to say, ``Look, this is important. Clean water is
important. We have these rules. How do we comply?''
Working with our Arkansas department--I would also say, I
have worked with Oklahoma. Great. Worked with Missouri DNR; I
have worked with Iowa DNR. I have had great experiences with
all those State agencies.
Dr. Onder. Good.
Mr. Hasten. What you get at the Federal level, there is a
certain sense of, ``We are the law. We are the top. And what we
say goes, no questions asked. And I don't really feel compelled
to--I don't have to do this under a timeline other than what I
want. And your project isn't really a timeline that means
anything to me.''
Dr. Onder. Yes, you must at times wonder whether this is
really the law that you are hearing about or the opinion of
some unelected bureaucrat.
From your perspective, what would be the impact on electric
co-ops if nationwide permitting were not reauthorized?
Mr. Hasten. If it was not reauthorized?
Dr. Onder. Not reauthorized.
Mr. Hasten. It would be detrimental. Very detrimental.
I mean, there are a lot of things we do under nationwide
permits, right? Transmission line maintenance, right-of-way
clearing, recovering from storms.
Dr. Onder. Sure.
Mr. Hasten. So, if every single thing we did that needs to
be in some way sort of time-sensitive, if it had to go through
the full review--and some things need to go through that full
review----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. But a lot of things do not. And if
you got rid of those, it would be really damaging.
Dr. Onder. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Friedman for 5
minutes.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Collins and Vice Ranking
Member Scholten.
I am very honored to be a member of this subcommittee.
Water is hugely important in my area, in California and Los
Angeles. I served on the Metropolitan Water District board of
directors for 8 years and sat on the water committee in the
California legislature. And I am really looking forward to
working with all of you on water issues.
The health of our families and our economy and local water
bodies and wetlands depends on robust investment in water
infrastructure and strong water standards. And I have been very
interested to hear today about the, sometimes, tension between
environmental protections and economic development and moving
projects forward.
And, certainly, everybody wants to make sure that any
regulation that we have moves quickly, that entities that are
looking for permitting in the regulated community have a
process that is fair, that moves rapidly, and that makes sense.
But, at the same time, I do want to push back a little bit
about some of the terms that I have heard, like ``radical
environmental activist.'' I don't think that it is radical for
families to want to make sure that their children are not
drinking PFAS, chromium-6, lead, and other harmful materials.
It is certainly not radical for the people of Los Angeles to be
very frustrated that when we have our droughts like we have
every year, that we can't drink from the giant aquifer that is
under Los Angeles because of historic pollution.
And I think that, also, those of us who want Government to
be efficient really bristle at wasting billions of dollars
every year cleaning up pollution--air pollution, water
pollution, pollution of the ground--from industries that could
have been prevented from causing this pollution in the first
place through strong environmental protections and
environmental regulations.
So it is not at all at odds for those of us who want
efficiency and economic development to also demand strong
regulation to prevent that kind of waste, to prevent the human
cost and human health impacts from not regulating, which we
have seen happen so far over the years.
Now, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA to
exclude certain wetlands from the definition of ``waters of the
United States'' pushes back decades-old regulation and makes
fewer wetlands to be covered under the Clean Water Act since
the 1970s. The ruling excluded ephemeral waters and
intermittent waters, both of which are incredibly important to
California because of the way our hydrology works. In fact, 90
percent of California's original wetlands have already been
destroyed.
And the Trump administration stripped away environmental
protections in their last administration, and there is every
indication that they want to do so again. That would be harmful
to our pocketbooks and certainly harmful to public health.
I was proud in the California legislature to have passed AB
2875, which codified the Executive order from Governor Pete
Wilson to establish a State policy of no net loss of wetlands
and only long-term gain. And I am proud to say that that bill
was bipartisan, that it was supported by Republicans and
Democrats alike who recognized the importance of these
resources.
Commissioner LaTourette, I want to thank you for being with
us today. Can you just maybe briefly speak to the importance of
the Clean Water Act and robust environmental protections to the
State of New Jersey?
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you for the question.
I think we have to recognize that every single thing we do
across our landscape, every single thing we build, how we
operate our businesses, how we run the Government, always has
an environmental externality. Everything has an environmental
externality.
The question that I think we should be asking ourselves is,
how do we reduce those externalities such that it is not a
great cost to business? Because when those externalities are
not addressed at the beginning, they become a cost,
necessarily, to someone else: harming someone's health,
diminishing our recreational and commercial fisheries, right?
Because the externality that is wrought by a lack of
adequate pollution control on wastewater discharge has to be
addressed somewhere else, because there is only one water, and
it is all connected. And so, if we are not reducing our
pollutant loadings to waterways, the public, the taxpayer, is
going to be left holding the bag, such that that pollution is
then remedied by a drinking water system, right, for example.
So we, I believe, have to look at this more holistically
and not only as a cost center to any one particular regulated
actor.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Westerman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Collins.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
And I am just going to keep rehashing something that has
been talked about a lot. It is something I have--I am going to
start with a story that I have talked about a lot that doesn't
really deal with clean water, but it deals with a broken
process.
I think, if my staff wants me to wake up in the morning,
they give me a lot of coffee and they schedule meetings with
people who are frustrated with our permitting process.
And, this morning, I had a--first meeting was with a county
executive from back home in Arkansas, who was telling me about
how long it took him to get a permit from the Corps of
Engineers to build a bike trail, a little section of bike
trail, and ended up having to go to Vicksburg from Little Rock
even though there is a Little Rock District right there close
by.
And then I had the pleasure of meeting with FHWA on a road
project that--I am going to keep talking about this, if I live
long enough and keep getting reelected, until they get the
project finished. But we had a road washout--Forest Service
road washout in 2020 and then another landslide on the road in
2022. And they have $6 million to study and fix the project.
And the best date they could give me this morning was 2027.
So we are looking at 6 or 7 years to fix a 1-acre landslide
on a gravel road in the national forest that is causing people
to have to go 30 and 40 minutes out of the way to get to
school, to get to the hospital. There is a concessionaire on
the Forest Service land that--his business has been hurt by
this. And it is all because we have a broken permitting
process.
So FHWA, they are doing what the Forest Service wants to
do, because they are dealing with emergency funding and it
doesn't come out of the Forest Service budget. So, instead of
building a road around the slide, they are having to repair the
slide, so we are talking about $6 million to fix a gravel road.
And if you stand back and look at it, you think, this has no
environmental benefit. It is just the bureaucracy that is
dealing with an antiquated system.
So I asked, why does the Forest Service not want you to
build a road around it? Well, we have to go through at least an
EA and maybe an environmental impact statement through the NEPA
process, but if we go where the road already is, we can just do
a CE. Well, my question is, why do you have to do a CE to fix a
road that has been there for a long time? I mean, there is no
common sense in these laws.
And I don't totally fault the bureaucrats; I fault Congress
for not fixing the system. And Mr. Collins and I serve on
another committee that has jurisdiction over NEPA, and I think
there is going to be a good bipartisan effort this Congress to
fix the myriad problems with NEPA.
And in talking to FHWA, they said the worst group to deal
with is Corps of Engineers. You have to do a permit with Corps
of Engineers.
So we need broad permitting reform. And we will just start
at the end, and if you have one suggestion on permitting
reform--we want to protect the environment, but we want a
streamlined process where we can actually build stuff in
America again.
Mr. Singletary. If I had one suggestion, I would give
States more authority to implement the programs and, kind of,
make changes to the programs as necessary within their States.
A lot of times, they are much closer to the projects. We
have a lot more at stake for some of them, because they are
happening in our State. We can be a lot more responsive.
Sometimes when we are working with our counterparts, our
Federal counterparts, they may not be located--in fact, almost
none of ours are actually located within the State, so we are
dealing with folks at distance, and sometimes that can slow
down the process.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. I agree with my colleague here from
Oklahoma that State environmental agencies are more present and
in the work with the regulated actor than Federal agencies are,
unquestionably.
New Jersey has maximum assumption under almost every one of
the Federal environmental laws, and then we add additional
protections, because that is what our public demands. And we
are able to trim permitting timelines down as a function of
everything living under one roof.
We have an office called the Office of Permitting and
Project Navigation, for example. They exist to steward projects
through the regulatory process so as to not land in one of the
gaps that folks have identified here today.
And so I believe maximum State assumption--but that needs
to be funded by Congress, right? Categorical grants to State
environmental agencies need to go up.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chair, if it is okay if the other
witnesses would submit a written answer to that, I would
appreciate it.
I am obviously out of time, and I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Yes, I will probably finish with that question
myself.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all the witnesses that are here today.
We have heard and much has been said that, over the 50
years, the Clean Water Act has served to reduce pollution in
waterways across this Nation.
With the passage of time, it is easy to forget why the law
was enacted in the first place. Lakes were filled with
chemicals. Streams were clogged with sewage. And we heard
earlier testimony, or comments, about how rivers were literally
on fire.
Our environment and public health has changed for the
better thanks to the bipartisan Clean Water Act.
I would like to mention and to ask Commissioner LaTourette:
New Jersey is an excellent example of how States can improve
efficiency in the permitting process. Could you please share
with us what are some of the best practices from New Jersey
that you would recommend to other States?
Mr. LaTourette. So the first thing that I would recommend
is that we support, federally, the assumption of the programs
we have talked about here today by States, that the Federal
Government increase its funding to States for implementation.
Our State employees are cheaper than your Federal
employees, and I think that that is an important point. And
they are closer to the work on the ground, and what we have
seen in the State of New Jersey is a greater degree of
efficiency and speed because of that integration of permitting
processes.
Now, I know we have heard a lot today about delays costing
time, costing money, and then that can be a problem. I
recognize that that can be a problem. But permitting reform
isn't just one thing. When we say that ``it has taken 7 years
to get this project permitted,'' there are local, State, and
Federal considerations.
The most important thing that any regulated actor can do--
and I know this because I counseled them as a lawyer in the
private sector before--is to run all of their processes
concurrently. There are so many issues that you can identify
upfront and then talk to your State regulated agency
beforehand, well before you ever make a permit application.
Because we are there to work with you and identify any of the
flags way upfront. And when you do that upfront, your
permitting process is far more expedient.
Ms. Pou. Thank you for that.
Can you also share with us how ensuring clean water for our
communities pays dividends in terms of savings in other areas
like public health and contributing to the economy?
Mr. LaTourette. So, aside from creating the 170,000
construction jobs that I mentioned, our water bank investments
help to make our waterways more swimmable and more fishable,
directly bearing on our tourism and recreational economy.
But there are really important public health issues at work
here. Take, for example, in the northeastern section of New
Jersey, where there are communities built out 100 and 150 years
ago with really dated, old infrastructure--combined sewers that
bring together the stormwater and the sanitary water, all going
through pipes that are not big enough. And then what happens?
Backups of that sewage into our streets that our children have
to walk through on their way to school. That is not okay,
right?
And by making more investment, we can both increase
permitting timelines but get more projects in the ground.
Ms. Pou. Thank you.
First of all, thank you very much for responding to that
question, because my very own city of Paterson knows all too
well what that impact is like, particularly when we are talking
about combined sewer systems and how antiquated they are and
how costly they can be. Having this in place is certainly going
to be very helpful.
Thank you very much for your remarks.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hanners, Nucor, it says you are the largest, most
diversified steel producer in the United States. Carbon
footprint roughly 10 percent of the particulate emissions of
the average steel mill out there; 95 percent less water than
the average steel mill. Eighty-six percent of your process
water is reprocessed before it is discharged.
I think it is safe to say that Nucor wants to be the best
in the industry, hire the best people, take care of the
environment, and, overall, be the best steward that you can be.
So I want to kind of delve into something real quick. I
read through a lot of your testimony here, and I want to get
into your West Virginia project, because I want--I live by
example. I am just a commonsense-type person. You give me an
example of what is going on, I can better understand it.
I want to kind of look at the loading dock and the barge
problem that you had there. And I don't know how much you can
speak on it, but I do know that, in reading here, it caused
your project to go from $2.7 billion to $3.5 billion.
And then, if you could, I don't know if you can intertwine
some NWP, the nationwide permitting, in that. Would that have
helped? Not helped? Since this is obviously not the first
loading dock and barge dock that you have ventured on.
Mr. Hanners. Certainly. I appreciate the question.
You are right; we are as passionate about the environment
and continuing to innovate to find cleaner ways to make steel.
You would be astounded at our team and any of our sites you
visited. It is part of our culture to find new ways to better
serve the environment.
To your questions about West Virginia, the port facility is
one example--there are others--of us finding a specific
instance--in this case, it is mussels in the water, in the Ohio
River, West Virginia--and then really struggling to find a
solution to partner with the entity--in this case, the Corps of
Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife department--to create a
solution.
And it wasn't that we weren't ready to make the investment
to create the solution; it is that we couldn't get clarity on
what the solution needed to be. And that is where the
boundaries and where we think reform could come in and really
help us be much more efficient and on time and on budget with a
project like this, is, we are willing to make the investments
necessary to meet our responsibilities to the environment, but
we need to know what they are. We need clarity, and we need the
ability to take action in the way that is expected of us.
As long as the permitting process is consistent and it is
clear to us what we need to do, and we can get the answers and
responses we need in a timely manner, we are fully on board
with making those investments and making those changes.
Mr. Collins. Well----
Mr. Hanners [interrupting]. So your point about the $2.7
billion to $3.5 billion, over $3.5 billion now, that was one
instance, but I could list off five or six others that were
very similar to that.
Mr. Collins. Well, let me ask kind of what Chairman
Westerman was asking when he said the one big change, if you
could make one change.
And I know the two gentlemen to your right suggested more
State rights. And believe me, I am big on State rights. I mean,
it is a whole lot better than having this place up here make
decisions for you.
But would you say clarifying regulations or States' rights
would be--or something else?
Mr. Hanners. So States' rights, yes. The State entities we
work with are responsive, they are thorough. We partner with
them; it feels like a partnership.
But I would also add judicial review, limiting judicial
review. We are fully on board with complying, but we need
resolution. And sometimes we will get, midnight, last day of
the permitting process, we will get somebody who will drop in a
challenge, and then we will need to extenuate the permit in
order to----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. I know----
Mr. Hanners [continuing]. Go after that challenge.
Mr. Collins. I don't mean to break in. I know, in highways
and transit, a lot of your road-builders just factor in an
extra 30 percent of the cost to build roads and bridges just
because of the environmentalists' frivolous lawsuits.
Mr. Hanners. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Is there a number you all add into the
equation?
Mr. Hanners. No, we don't account for that upfront. But
I'll tell you, what happens is, when we have bad experiences, a
challenging experience, like West Virginia, it makes us more
conservative with our next iteration of how we think about the
returns we are going to generate on a process, which makes us
less likely to make an investment in the future.
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Hanners. We are a successful company. We plan to
continue to grow. But it does take a little bit of our
willingness to make that next investment. It makes us ask more
questions, to be more conservative.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Hasten, I want to give you 30 seconds to
answer Chairman Westerman's question. What out there would you
like to change first if you had the option?
Mr. Hasten. I agree with everyone else that said, push as
much down to the States as you can. They are in the local
community, they know the situation, and there is more of a
partnership.
And then I would think, at the Federal level, just some
consolidation. You got all these individual fiefdoms all trying
to determine things in an individual way, with no real
accountability. Like----
Mr. Collins [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. In my company, if I tell you, ``I
want this in 30 days,'' in 30 days, I am going to send you an
email and say, ``Where is it at?'' and you will be held
accountable. There is no accountability anywhere.
Just some accountability. Set some clear deadlines. We are
not asking for anybody to lower the hurdles. Keep the hurdles
high. Keep the standards high. Keep the water clean. But let's
run the race, and let's hold people accountable to timelines.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. Thank you.
And I yield back.
The Chair now gives 5 minutes to Ms. Gillen for questions.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses for coming and testifying
today.
Mr. LaTourette, in your testimony, you highlighted how,
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project applicants
were often challenged to adhere to two different but
overlapping permitting processes at both the State and Federal
level.
Can you talk about some of the ways that we can streamline
the permitting process to get rid of duplicative and redundant
requirements, but yet keep strong environmental protections in
place?
Mr. LaTourette. Yes. I think one of the biggest things that
we can do is to provide States with the incentive to adopt the
Federal programs and implement them on behalf of the Federal
Government.
Now, that doesn't give States a free pass, let's be clear.
The States are still overseen--and should be--by the U.S. EPA
and, in some instances, the Army Corps to ensure that we are
compliant with the minimum Federal standard. But bringing it
down to the State level would necessarily have a beneficial
impact, as folks up here have recognized.
But that does not mean compromising environmental quality.
And I am glad to hear everybody up here speak to that point.
Because we have to acknowledge that the pollution controls that
EPA sets are minimums--truly minimums. They are not acceptable
in the State of New Jersey, and they don't allow us to be
proactive about new pollutants that are emerging in the
marketplace and in our water supplies.
Ms. Gillen. Yes. Just following up on that, I want to get
rid of redundancies in our permitting processes. I was a local
government official before I got here, and I know that
sometimes we could get caught up, as you say, Mr. Hanners, in
litigation forever just trying to get a project across the
finish line. But we do have States with varying standards. So
that is why, when I hear ``States' rights'' and things like
that--some States don't have the same standards that others do.
Mr. Hanners, in your written testimony--I was not here for
your verbal testimony--you talked about emerging contaminants
and that some of the standards may be too high. Well, we know
that these are carcinogens. And I certainly don't want my
family drinking carcinogens; I don't want other people's
families drinking carcinogens. And I do know the real costs of
filtering these emerging contaminants out of our system, but I
think that we need to agree that we have to have a very high
standard when we are talking about water containing these
emerging contaminants.
So what do you think is the best way forward to get some
uniform agreement so we can streamline the permitting process,
Mr. Hanners?
Mr. Hanners. Well, I will say that manufacturing processes
like ours, Nucor--but I can speak more broadly--are cleaner
than ever. And we strive to find new technology to make it even
cleaner. And I can give you examples like a carbon
sequestration project we are navigating in Louisiana where it
will make a material impact to the cleanliness of our steel. We
are making those investments. We are working on those things
all the time.
The challenge with the new regulation you mentioned,
PM2.5, is, we need a seat at the table. Because some
of those standards are either unclear or we are not sure how to
manage that problem. And if we have a seat at the table during
the implementation or the build of that policy, then we can
help, one, equip us with a better understanding of how to
navigate that, but, two, potentially push back or help shape
something that achieves an outcome of making the environment
cleaner but also is feasible and implementable by companies
like ours and manufacturers like ourselves.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you.
Mr. Singletary, I believe in your written testimony you
spoke a bit about how the permitting process is also
complicated by multiple different agencies weighing in.
And I think that is also the litigation that you spoke
about in your testimony, Mr. Hanners.
What is a way that you think that we could streamline the
permitting process with giving a seat at the table to all the
different various agencies that might be involved in a big
project or might have some impact on a big project?
Mr. Singletary. Your question--I am sorry, Congresswoman--
was regarding multiple agencies----
Ms. Gillen [interrupting]. Correct.
Mr. Singletary [continuing]. In the same process?
I think making sure that the role of each of the agencies
is well-defined and coordinated is probably the biggest issue.
I can tell you, when we look at our permitting program at
the agency, I mean, we are looking beyond just what
coordination with other agencies is like. We are looking--we
have an Office of Continuous Improvement that has gone through
every step that we take internally to help determine what are
the slowdowns in our process that are caused by us, how can we
improve those.
We are putting big investments into different platforms
that we need for the permitting process, bidding a rulemaking,
and potentially some legislation to help streamline our
process. I think something like that at the Federal level would
really help coordinate all those efforts.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Knott [presiding]. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chair recognizes Representative LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, panelists, for being here with us today as we
talk about the Clean Water Act and its well intention back in
the 1970s when passed and its weaponization these days to stop
so many projects and other things beyond the scope of what I
think was ever intended and been reinterpreted according to
Army Corps and others.
So, when you talk about the different permits, the 402
permit under NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, all pollutant discharges into a ``water of the U.S.''
are prohibited unless that 402 is granted. So this is for
private sector as well as Federal.
I know we talk about a 404 permit for dredge/fill on
something called the ``waters of the U.S.,'' which--the
definition of ``water of the U.S.'' has been abused greatly in
the last 20 years or so.
And when we are talking about dredge permits, for example,
I can think of a really absurd example where there was a new
bridge being constructed, where some of the pilings had to be
within a lake. And so they had to move some of the soil to
build the new uprights. And so that soil, being moved, it was
now considered a pollutant, even though it is the same soil
that started out under the water and could have just been moved
to the side and remained under the water. Instead, it had to be
hauled away, at who knows what expense and delay.
So the 402, again, is being abused. And the concern I want
to bring up here is how it applies to firefighting and what the
Forest Service has been looking at with requiring a permit to
use a material for fighting fires--the fire retardant that is
so extremely important--to be more effective in fighting and
preventing the spread of fire.
I mean, again, we have seen it time and again with the
fires in the West, in my home State of California. In my own
district, the community of Paradise destroyed, community of
Greenville destroyed, town of Happy Camp partly destroyed,
others. And then what has really gotten a lot of people's
attention, obviously, is what happened in Los Angeles here so
far, even though it can be known that each year you are going
to have the Santa Ana winds, you have the brushy hillsides,
they suspend removal of brush, and that is partly why we are
where we are in SoCal.
So, when we talk about the use of fire retardant--that is
the pink stuff that gets dropped out of the aircraft, the DC-
10s, the helicopters, and all that, when it isn't just straight
water--we have to work to hang on to that.
So there was a lawsuit, incredibly. An environmental group
sued the Forest Service a couple years ago to stop the use of
that. And then, 2023, the court ruled the Forest Service
violated the Clean Water Act by failing to get an NPDES permit
to use it. So the court declined to use an injunction to
completely stop the use of retardant, but at any moment, it
could be taken away.
So for Mr. Hanners: We have never seen this before, where
the Forest Service had to get this NPDES permit for applying
the retardant. My understanding is that they make both aerial
fire retardant and airplanes use it to put out fires.
Firefighters somehow have to battle through this lawsuit
process.
So would you talk to us about this a little bit, Mr.
Hanners? It would have to come from either EPA or jump through
the hoops of California, and it can take a very long time. We
could lose this product if they get their way. Would you please
comment on that a little bit?
Mr. Hanners. Certainly. I can't comment on the specifics of
fire retardants and that policy, the decision you are
referencing. But I can say, for manufacturers like Nucor across
America, it is important we have a robust supply chain of fire
retardants and, I think more importantly, a little bit more
broadly, we understand the rules of usage of not just fire
retardants but navigating a permit process or using a new type
of--or even a well-used type of consumable we may use in our
process.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, if we had to go to straight water, if
you didn't have this material, which has a sticky factor to it
and it lasts longer--water just coming out of an aircraft,
especially in hot weather, once it hits that fire, completely
dissipates.
If we don't have this material, how effective are we going
to be at suppressing or controlling the spread of fire?
Mr. Hanners. I can't comment on that.
Mr. LaMalfa. You can't comment on it. All right.
Should Congress look at clarifying the Clean Water Act to
ensure these activities continue to be done?
Mr. Hanners.
Mr. Hanners. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. LaMalfa. Should Congress look at clarifying the Clean
Water Act to ensure these activities, such as aerial
application, can continue without this onerous permit?
Mr. Hanners. I can't comment on that.
Mr. Knott. The Chair recognizes Representative Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a question for Mr. LaTourette.
The District of Columbia, the Nation's capital, which I
represent, has greatly benefited from Federal investments in
our water infrastructure over the last decade. The DC Water and
Sewer Authority's multibillion-dollar Clean Rivers Project is
expected to reduce combined sewer overflows in the District's
waterways by 96 percent by 2030.
Mr. LaTourette, how do investments in clean water
infrastructure improve public health and grow the economy?
Mr. LaTourette. I believe the question is, how do clean
water investments improve the environment and the economy?
Ms. Norton. And grow the economy, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. So the first thing that I will say is, the
clean water investments first and foremost protect public
health and the environment. Our first job is always protecting
the health of our residents. And when we have discharge into
waterways that is above any of our State or Federal standards,
there is a risk of public health exposure. That is what this is
all based upon.
So, first and foremost, the investments in clean water are
helping to protect people's health and their lives.
And, then, in addition to that value--we have a growing
economy in the State of New Jersey. We are continuing to build
out our State with new businesses that rely on sewer service
expansions. No sewer service, no new multifamily residential
projects, no new business expansions into AI or other sectors
that we are focused on. And so those investments are critical,
right? It is the bones upon which our entire economy is based.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
This is another question for you, Mr. LaTourette.
The Potomac River provides over 75 percent of the national
capital region's drinking water and is the only drinking water
source for DC and parts of northern Virginia, which have just 1
day of backup water supply, which poses a risk to residents of
the national capital region, the region's economy, and the
national security.
What are the immediate and long-term implications of
pausing and cutting Federal funding for critical Clean Water
Act investments?
Mr. LaTourette. I think that the impact of pausing Federal
funding, scrutinizing it--whatever the words that are being
used to describe what is happening--the implications are
exactly what we are hearing folks talk about from the
perspective of business and industry about permits holding up
projects and delaying economic growth. The same is true for
either an intended, accidental, temporary--whatever we call
it--pause on Federal funding to the States that are funding
these water infrastructure projects.
And we need them now more than ever. I am glad you point
out the issue of water supply, Congresswoman, because in New
Jersey we lack, in many places, the continuity that is
necessary to make sure we have several days of water
availability were there to be an issue with a major water
source like you are explaining. And that investment is critical
to solving that allocation need.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette.
And I yield back.
Mr. Knott. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing today.
And thank you to our witnesses for their testimony and
insight.
With the Ohio River running through my district, I want to
ensure the Federal Government implements policies that utilize
the river's resources to support businesses and people while
creating jobs and economic opportunities which we desperately
need. I am excited to work with members of this committee to
pass meaningful legislation and a strong WRDA bill that allows
the United States to prosper.
Previous administrations have implemented several
regulations related to the ``waters of the United States,'' or
WOTUS. Through redtape and litigation, these WOTUS regulations
have hindered States, businesses, and energy producers from
carrying out simple projects.
Mr. Hasten, in your testimony, you highlighted how the
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation received a
streamlined Nationwide Permit 3, which took 9 months to get,
causing damage to your hydropower plant.
I am confident that a streamlined permit should not have
taken 9 months to complete. Based on your expertise, what would
a normal timeframe have been?
Mr. Hasten. Thank you, Congressman. I think it depends on
the work. So, there are different permits. I think in our
estimation, given that it is an existing structure, everything
we were asking for was to return it to the design condition.
The fact that the Arkansas River is an extreme water
resource, that adds a level of additional scrutiny. So, that
scrutiny takes some time. But I think in our estimation and
planning, we would have thought for a nationwide permit to do a
repair on a weir, which is there to prevent cavitation of--
well, accidental cavitation of the turbines, which if you don't
take care of that, can affect reliability--we would have
thought 60 to 90 days, 30 days. It is in that timeframe,
definitely not 9 months.
And then the challenge is, when you finally get it--it is
valid for 5 years, so that is a good thing--but these
conditions in the river that allow this maintenance, you are
sort of at the whim of God and nature as to when that will
occur.
And if it doesn't happen in the next 5 years, we have to go
through the same process. You see how we could keep missing the
boat.
Mr. Taylor. Got you. With a 9-month approval process for
maintenance repairs on existing energy projects, what does this
administration and Congress need to do to eliminate some of
these burdensome requirements?
Mr. Hasten. I think definitely continuation of these
nationwide programs, which the intent of those is streamlined
reviews. Maybe set some clearly defined timelines on what those
are, and maybe push us to say, hey, let's do the right thing,
but let's do it in a more efficient fashion, increase
coordination between the different agencies, right?
Instead of it just being a scattergram of confusing
requirements, as Mr. Hanners said, not sure what you have to
comply with, something that requires a singular source, a
singular--somebody's the lead agency, but there is an answer,
here is the answer, we know what it is, and we know what to do.
I think also--from Arkansas, so your razorbacks--I
shouldn't want to put up a transmission line and find a hog
wallow out there where the wild hogs have been digging around,
and there is some mud and some water, and then have to wonder
if that is a ``water of the U.S.''
But I do have to wonder, and I have to hire consultants to
come tell me if a pig wallow in the middle of a field is
``waters of the U.S.''
And so the Sackett decision, I think, tried to eliminate
some of that lack of common sense and good environmental
science, but I think we still have very broad determinations of
what are ``waters of the U.S.''
And so in my opinion, adhering to what the Supreme Court
said and requiring Federal agencies to comply with that, and
let's get clear definitions: ``waters of the U.S.,'' waterways,
as I have heard other testimony.
We want to protect the water, but a mud wallow in the
middle of a field that stops a transmission line, when I have
got a huge lithium deposit in Arkansas that I think our Nation
also wants to get lithium out of the ground, rare earth metals,
that kind of thing, if it delays those types of projects, you
are just delaying those types of national priorities.
And I would say also just better communication and
transparency so that everybody can see a request is in, here is
your due date, here is the status, something that is more
transparent than you just send it and then hope for the best
and wait for months.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir.
The Chair recognizes the Representative from Alabama.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
committee leadership for hosting this--or holding this hearing
rather, and thank you to all of you guys for being here for
your time. I know it is not easy to sit here and take all of
these questions.
Listen, as I have sat through this hearing, I think
something is becoming abundantly clear, and that is that there
is a balance that is needed.
I have not heard anyone on this panel say that there should
be no Federal role for permitting.
I have certainly heard several pieces of testimony that
indicate that the State needs a more dynamic role and a more--I
guess, more of a leadership role in the permitting processes.
So if we can go down the line, about 45 seconds each or so,
can you talk to me about what you think that appropriate
balance is between State and Federal involvement starting with
you, Mr. Singletary?
Mr. Singletary. Thank you. Like I already said, I think the
States, I mean, we, this is our homes, right? I mean, we are
permitting activities, regulating activities that affect us
directly, affect our citizens directly.
I think having more control at that State level. Obviously
there is a role for EPA and for the Federal Government to play
in environmental protection, but nobody has as much of an
interest as the States do in protecting their environment, but
also ensuring that we have prosperity, economic prosperity in a
State.
To us, economic prosperity and environmental protection, it
is all about the well-being of Oklahomans. So I think that is
where our real interests come.
So I think that kind of highlighting the State's role in
implementing these programs, and in some ways, even helping
design the programs, would be very beneficial.
Mr. Figures. Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. I would say with respect to the Clean Water
Act permitting programs we have been discussing here today,
consider the State of New Jersey a case study, if you will.
We have grown our economy at the same time that we have
consistently, over years, on a bipartisan basis, exceeded
minimum Federal standards, at the same time, having 90-day,
120-day clocks on permitting decisions.
We can do both. The balance exists. It is a bit of a
fallacy to suggest that it doesn't.
Mr. Figures. Mr. Hanners. And I will note that Nucor has a
facility in Eufaula, Alabama, which is in my district.
Mr. Hanners. We do, and thanks for your support,
Congressman. We have hit on a number of these items, but I will
just summarize. Nationwide permits are very important to us. We
do a lot of projects that have very minimal impact on the
environment, and we need that expedited process of being able
to get that permit nailed down in an efficient manner that is
understandable and a little bit more responsive, as you have
heard from the others providing testimony.
The second thing is pushing more decisionmaking to the
State side. I hit it again, but I think it is so important. We
have partners with State authorities, and it works very well
when we can go to a State, whether it be Alabama, we can talk
about the project we are trying to accomplish, and we can get
quick answers, and we can get solutions on how we navigate
together the permitting process.
And every time for us, in the States we work in, it has a
good outcome.
The last thing I would say is just further limiting
judicial review. With each of our projects--I shouldn't say
``each,'' but many--we will gets to the finish line of what we
expect to be the end of a permit, and we will often have
midnight entries of a challenge to the permitting process, and
that dramatically can extend the permitting process.
And we are not against--we want those challenges to be
heard, but we do need some better limits on how long those
challenges can persist without a solution.
Mr. Figures. Thank you.
Mr. Hasten.
Mr. Hasten. Yes, I think clean water and good efficient
permitting for infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. So if
you look at--and I heard the questions, the balance, sort of
like where the Federal role and the State's role in this
process.
I see the Federal Government as sort of that higher,
overarching looking at how the States impact each other and
so--I grew up in Iowa. So if a polluter in Iowa did something--
now I live in Arkansas--it is going to make its way down the
Mississippi River to Arkansas.
So, therefore, I think the Federal Government has a role in
that because each State would individually--could act in their
own interest or have different rules.
So, when it comes to setting the standards, when it comes
to those types of waterways, when it comes to overarching rules
that protect those types of bodies of water and ensures good
compliance among the States, I think the Federal Government has
the role there.
I think to the maximum extent that they could then say,
well, these are the rules, this is what it is, push some of the
enforcement of those rules and the permitting down to the
States where they are in those local communities with those
companies, I think, to the most extent that you could do that,
I think the process would be more efficient.
Mr. Figures. Thank you. And one thing I will note about
you, Mr. Hasten, one decision that cannot be balanced is your
decision to attend Auburn University instead of the University
of Alabama. Roll tide.
Mr. Hasten. War eagle.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Knott. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hanners, I want to talk to you, going back to this
topic of the West Virginia plant project, that the price
overrun almost eclipsed $1 billion. And for the average person,
I think that is a very sort of esoteric subject.
Can you walk me through what led to that, who was the
source that challenged the permitting process, and how did that
cost breakdown unfold once it was in motion?
Mr. Hanners. Certainly. I appreciate the question, Mr.
Congressman.
Mr. Knott. I mean, the average person has no idea. You get
a permit----
Mr. Hanners [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Knott [continuing]. And you start to build a project--
--
Mr. Hanners [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Knott [continuing]. How in the world could it be
delayed and then $1 billion added to the cost?
Mr. Hanners. Right. And when we make a decision to make an
investment like that, the many millions of dollars, the biggest
in our company's history, the biggest in West Virginia's
history, and we are looking forward to the period of--it is
going to take us 4 years, potentially longer, to build that
project.
So once that decision is made to make that investment, we
started the permitting process immediately.
And if you are asking for how did that go wrong, or where
did we run into challenges there, it was really with the Corps
of Engineers as it relates to the scope of what needed to be
permitted for that project.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Mr. Hanners. It started off with a smaller area. It was
then broadened months after we got into the project, and that
required us to include many other studies on a bigger piece
of----
Mr. Knott [interrupting]. So you received an initial
permit, and then the goalposts were moved?
Mr. Hanners. No. We were in the permitting process when the
goalpost was brought.
Mr. Knott. Okay.
Mr. Hanners. And then that led to your other point about
the costs you incur because of that. You are executing a
project like this, and you have to buy equipment that is
shipping from many locations. And this is massive equipment.
So now this equipment has to sit in storage, and you are
paying for storage, you are paying for additional
transportation.
You made decisions to employ a team, because you have to
make those employment decisions very early on in a project to
start to build out the capabilities you need from a people
standpoint. So now you have extra people that you are paying
early, right?
You have contractors on site that you need, but they are
not doing productive work yet.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Mr. Hanners. So all that cost stacks up to a very big
impact.
Mr. Knott. And do you have any type of relief once the Army
Corps of Engineers starts to move those goalposts, do you have
any way to challenge it, appeal it, question the reasonableness
of it?
Mr. Hanners. No. Very minimal. And the responsiveness is
frustrating at times. It is very hard to get an answer at
times. You don't know exactly who to go to or who is the
authority making what decision within that Corps of Engineers
specific challenge you are trying to navigate.
So from a company like ours standpoint, from a
manufacturer's standpoint, it is very frustrating to navigate
what the actual challenge is you are trying to tackle.
Mr. Knott. Right. And in terms of the problem, would you
say it is the implementor or the actual language within code
itself that is the problem, or is it----
Mr. Hanners [interrupting]. Oh, that is a tough question.
Mr. Knott. Is it the regulator or is it the regulation?
Mr. Hanners. I think it is a combination of both, but I
will tell you that we have very different interactions with the
Corps of Engineers in different areas on the Ohio River even.
So there is an implementor factor certainly, just an
understanding of the policy that is applied differently from
this area to this area.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Mr. Hanners. But that can also be, I think there is a need
to tighten up some of that language so that we understand the
rules, the implementor has a very clear understanding of the
boundaries, and I think that best is answered by pushing more
authority to the State in those instances.
Mr. Knott. Sure. What deference or what consideration does
the Army Corps in this West Virginia project, what did they
give to the billion-dollar increase in cost?
Mr. Hanners. I don't know that they--any. I----
Mr. Knott [interrupting]. No consideration?
Mr. Hanners. Very little recognition.
Mr. Knott. No consideration. So is it also improper for me
to conclude or to assume that this project would have led to a
more efficient, cleaner operation, more modernized technology,
et cetera? Is that correct?
Mr. Hanners. Absolutely.
Mr. Knott. And so with all of these delays and increased
costs, they are preventing a more modern operation from coming
online?
Mr. Hanners. Absolutely.
Mr. Knott. So there is a perverse incentive here.
Mr. Hanners. Absolutely.
Mr. Knott. They are using ``waters of the United States''
to slow the bringing of a new project online?
Mr. Hanners. I would absolutely agree with that.
Mr. Knott. And that is not just unique to West Virginia and
your one project, correct?
Mr. Hanners. That is correct.
Mr. Knott. Okay.
Sir, Mr. Hasten, in terms of one of the answers you gave
earlier, you said that it takes 5 years, and what stuck out to
me is, to build a simple, natural gas powerplant.
If there was more regulatory certainty, less judicial
review vagueness, and the ability just to construct it with a
front-end permit, and that gave you a smooth sail, how long
should the construction, start to finish, take?
Mr. Hasten. If you streamlined the permitting process, you
just look at what is the time right now until you get your
permit--and each project is different, so it is hard to give
you an exact number of months.
Mr. Knott. Yes.
Mr. Hasten. But it would translate directly into,
reductions in that timeline are going to reduce the overall
time, right?
The delays that are most costly are when you think you have
got it all laid out, and then as Mr. Hanners said, you have
purchased very expensive equipment, and then when the permit
doesn't come through or those delays come in, then there are
huge carrying costs on these projects.
So any efficiency we can do there, and if we can tighten
timelines and not lower the standard, but, like, why look at
the same thing three times, let's do it one time----
Mr. Knott [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Hasten [continuing]. That type of thing, that will
translate into savings in projects, and we will be able to get
infrastructure in service, online faster.
Mr. Knott. Great. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Representative DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the witnesses as well.
I represent a district in northern California that
represents most of the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, the
largest estuary west of the Mississippi. It provides over half
of the river flow in the State of California.
Our current President is becoming familiar with these
dynamics. I have represented it for most of the last 35 years
at the local, State, and Federal level.
Mr. LaMalfa is not here, but we negotiated a partnership
when we were in the legislature that would help change the
dynamic. So the first time in the history of the State, we
would require permitting by our ag industry because their
aquifers were collapsing.
The San Joaquin Valley creates one-third of the vegetables
and fruit in the United States. It is an enormous agricultural
and economic benefit. So getting this balance, from that
perspective, has always been interesting.
In 1972, if my memory serves me, when the Clean Water Act
was passed, one of the premier, in my view, pieces of
legislation environmentally--and it should be businesswise as
well--Richard Nixon was President. It passed out of the Senate
with no ``no'' votes. It passed out of the House with, I think
11 ``no'' votes.
And then President Nixon vetoed it, and they overrode the
veto with huge bipartisan support.
In that context, it seems as if, and for all of you, but I
am going to start with Mr. LaTourette and his experience
specifically about the delta smelt and how all of that is
intertwined in our instance, but in other instances in
environmental protection.
But it does seem as if we could have improved our
efficiency to the point of--and to the chair's point--of doing
more of this upfront.
Litigation is not an effective way, I don't think, as a
progressive Member of Congress, to provide oversight. So to the
degree we can do it, it is more efficient.
And I am somewhat frustrated sometimes that we haven't made
it more efficient for everyone. Although I think we have made
great strides, in particular in California.
The California Water Project, one of the great engineering
feats in American history, started by Governor Pat Brown,
allowed for all of this.
So in that context, the recent news, having dealt with, the
Endangered Species Act and the delta smelt specifically, it is
the canary in the coal mine as a lot of these circumstances
are.
And still having the balance of when to hold water, when to
release water, in an environment that is changing every year
because of climate change and the relationship to the Sierra
snowpack in our case.
So could you speak, Mr. LaTourette, in your experience,
that dynamic where it is not just about, in our instance, the
delta smelt. It is the canary in the coal mine that they
represent, about the health of the largest estuary west of the
Mississippi, which obviously has context of clean drinking
water and the supply of clean drinking water for the country.
So how do we meet that balance but also in the context of,
it is, in this case, it is not just about that particular
species--although it is important in and of itself--but it is
more the impact that it represents to the health of the delta
in this case?
Mr. LaTourette. Can you just say that last part one more
time, maybe a little closer to the mic? I want to make sure I
am getting it. I think it is an Endangered Species Act
question.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, no, more generally, the health--the
environmental health of someplace like the San Joaquin Delta is
important to clean water, that if you are not balancing all of
this, you are going to have to spend more money on clean water
rather than less.
Mr. LaTourette. So----
Mr. DeSaulnier [interrupting]. So, the environmental
balance that benefits everybody.
Mr. LaTourette. So, I think it is important, as I said to
the Congresswoman before, that we look at this issue a bit more
holistically, right, because any one project that is getting
built, and we are concerned about a permit from under the NWP
or a permit under the Clean Air Act for particulate matter,
there are multiple things going on in the development of any
one site, that all bear on the greater environmental impact in
that region.
And so I think we have to look at the permitting matters
across the board, and the way that we do that, to promote
coordinated environmental governance that is conscious of the
air issue, the land issue, the water issue, across the board,
is that we have a mechanism inside our State environment agency
that brings every internal State agency and the Federal
agencies that touch that, to one table.
It is a service that we provide to the regulated community,
because any one regulated actor may not see the greater context
of environmental health. If we bring everyone around the table,
we can help share that information so that we are doing the
best to protect the environmental health across all media.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Always willing to work with you
and others to try to make the system work more efficiently.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. I thank the chair and thank the witnesses. This
to me falls into the category of ``No good deed goes
unpunished.''
To me, the radical left has been so hell-bent at stopping
traditional energy power and projects, the things that provide
us with nearly every modern, imaginable good that we have, and
the abuse of the system that we have, to do their bidding.
That is what I have seen over the course of my time here.
The radical left's weaponization, particularly of section 401
of the Clean Water Act, is a perfect example of the anti-energy
mindset.
It is actually kind of like an anti-civilization mindset
taking hold and being used to attack projects for which they
disagree. And as many have stated here along the line, you get
a permit, you think you are going to work, and then it is
actually a strategy to let you build out as much of the project
as possible and stop it at the end to chill investment for
future projects, which is just mind-numbing.
I will give you a couple examples. The State of Washington
used section 401 to kill the Millennium Bulk Terminal Project
due to nonlisted adverse impacts.
Now, they might have all been valid adverse impacts.
Unfortunately, none of them related to water quality. And,
again, I will remind everybody, this is section 401.
The State of New York used section 401 to deny a pipeline
project in Raritan Bay due to the potential greenhouse gas
emissions from the project.
Well, greenhouse gas emissions are unrelated to water
quality, right? This is 401. And, oh, by the way, like, I get
that they don't love a pipeline. I am not sure I want a
pipeline in my backyard, either.
But so now we are going to put the fuel on a train, and
they are not going to like that, either. So then we are going
to buy the fuel from Russia or some other country that hates
us. This is a brilliant plan.
The State of Oregon killed an LNG export terminal using
section 401 process.
The State of New Jersey denied a water quality permit for a
proposed pipeline project, and they actually cited water
quality issues. However, the environmental groups that pushed
the State into action made it very clear they were just simply
in opposition to traditional energy projects.
Fortunately, during the first term of the Trump
administration, it was identified, this weaponization, for what
it is, and took action to limit the scope of the 401 to actual
water quality issues.
And I would cite the gentlelady from Ohio, Representative
Sykes. I was alive when the Cuyahoga River was on fire.
None of us on this committee, probably none of you in the
audience, agree with a pipe coming out of a factory dumping
into a river and filling it with a bunch of stuff that is
flammable and killing--like, none of us agree with that, but
that was 50 years ago. We don't do that anymore. And to use 401
to stop legitimate projects for everything other than what 401
is used for, like, has to be recognized, acknowledged, and
something has to be done about it.
It is vital that Congress acts to make the change
permanent. Last Congress, we took action to do so by passing
the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement
Act through this committee and included it in H.R. 1.
And it has got to be brought back up and taken across the
finish line. It is an important step to stop the radical
assault on traditional energy projects.
Mr. LaTourette, your Governor Murphy is appointed alternate
commissioner to the Delaware River Basin Commission. God bless
him.
The DRBC, as we know it, is under immense pressure from
environmental groups that receive significant Federal funding.
It is not just paid for by people out in the community that
say, well, we want it to--it is paid for by tax dollars, to
move forward with a ban on hydraulic fracturing. And
Pennsylvania has got a lot of resources, so does New York.
But in doing so, the commission denied Pennsylvanians in
the river basin the ability to access the mineral rights that
they themselves own, the underpinning of the United States of
America and free society itself. They can't extract it but for
the commission's actions.
It has also denied the Nation and the world a critical
source of natural gas at a time of high price and significant
volatility in the market, and, again, we turn to Russia,
because of things like the Jones Act and these type of things,
to buy gas for New England.
And I don't want to be paying those rates, but I don't
think those people do either, but we can't get--Pennsylvania
can't get its product to market because of this kind of stuff.
The DRBC is an unelected group of bureaucrats. Legislation
that I have offered, the DRILL Now Act, will be reintroduced
this week, and addresses the misguided power grab by the DRBC.
This river basin commission--and there are three of them in
Pennsylvania that cover the State--impose more stringent
regulations than the duly elected representatives of the
Commonwealth.
That kind of stuff has got to end, somebody has to be
accountable, and it can't be people at these commissions that
aren't elected and impose these kind of--these regulatory
prohibitions on the citizenry and our country.
I yield the balance.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Representative Perry. The gentleman
yields back.
Are there any further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not yet been recognized?
Seeing none, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following letters related to the Clean Water Act
permitting: From the Industrial Energy Consumers of America,
dated February 10th, 2025; the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America, dated February 10th, 2025; American
Society of Civil Engineers, dated February 11th, 2025; the
Western States Water Council, dated February 11th, 2025; the
Waters Advocacy Coalition, dated February 11th, 2025; the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, dated February
11th, 2025; and lastly, the Associated Builders and
Contractors, dated February 11th, 2025.
Without objection, so ordered.
[Mr. Knott's submissions for the record are on pages 65-
79.]
Mr. Knott. This concludes our hearing for today. I would
like to thank each one of the witnesses for your time and your
testimony. The subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of February 10, 2025, from Paul N. Cicio, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, to Hon.
Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Brad Knott
February 10, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC
20515.
Re: Comments for the Record on Hearing ``America Builds: Clean Water
Act Permitting and Project Delivery''--44 Natural Gas Pipelines Issue
Orders to Manufacturers to Reduce/Curtail Use of Natural Gas Due to
Inadequate Pipeline Capacity
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
The manufacturing sector's economic growth has never before faced
such a growing crisis as we are faced with today, due to inadequate
natural gas pipeline capacity. The recent protracted cold weather has
once again shown the fragility of our nation's natural gas system as 44
pipelines (see Figure 1) across the country have issued either
operational flow orders (OFOs) or curtailment notices to manufacturing
companies to reduce demand in order to service the needs of homeowners,
power companies, and LNG exports. When there is inadequate pipeline
capacity, manufacturing companies are always the first to be curtailed.
Curtailment can cost millions of dollars per day, disrupt operations,
damage equipment, impact supply chains for consumer, industrial, and
national defense products.
Some manufacturers saw their natural gas prices increase
twentyfold. If we do not reduce our natural gas consumption after
notice has been given to do so from the pipeline, the pipeline can
penalize the manufacturer by charging higher prices ranging from $40
per MMBtu to $120 per MMBtu.
One hundred percent of IECA member companies are from the
manufacturing sector and their competitiveness is dependent upon the
affordability of natural gas and electricity. Natural gas is used as a
fuel and feedstock. The U.S. manufacturing sector consumes 26 percent
of the U.S. natural gas and 25 percent of U.S. electricity.
Manufacturing is the only sector that operates 24/7, which requires
reliability of natural gas and electricity.
Weather in December and January challenged the pipeline supply
chain of interstate, intrastate, and Local Distribution Systems (LDCs).
Pipeline warnings/notices to reduce or curtail supply are now in both
winter and summer, more frequent and severe due to higher demand for
electricity generation and LNG exports. Increasing electrical demand by
data centers, crypto currency, and the electrification of the economy
are all intensifying the problem. Despite increased demand, the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that the U.S. added
record low interstate natural gas pipeline capacity in 2022 and 2023.
The manufacturing sector is especially vulnerable along the entire
East Coast from Georgia to New York, which is supplied by the Transco
Pipeline. There is zero availability of firm natural gas pipeline
transportation that is needed to expand existing facilities or invest
in new ones. Until there is an increase in pipeline capacity, we urge
electric utilities to not prematurely shut down coal-fired electric
generating units. IECA sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) on February 4 urging them to address this issue by
holding a Technical Conference.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IECA Requests FERC Hold Technical Conference--No Firm Pipeline
Capacity Available on East Coast for Manufacturing, https://www.ieca-
us.org/wp-content/uploads/02.04.25_Request-for-FERC-Technical-
Conference.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ask Congress to take swift, decisive action to address this
urgent problem. First, we urge Congress to quickly advance energy
permitting legislation, which would expedite the expansion of our
nation's natural gas pipeline network to serve our nation's growing
demand.\2\ Second, we urge this Subcommittee to hold a hearing to allow
manufacturing companies to explain the gravity of the impacts of
inadequate natural gas pipeline supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 Consumer Organizations Support Permitting Reform to Build
More Natural Gas Pipelines, https://www.ieca-us.org/wp-content/uploads/
07.29.24_Senate_House-NG-Pipeline-Coalition-Letter_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Paul N. Cicio,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers
of America.
cc: House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
__________
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is a nonpartisan association
of leading manufacturing companies with $1.3 trillion in annual sales,
over 12,000 facilities nationwide, and with more than 1.9 million
employees. One hundred percent of IECA members are manufacturing
companies whose competitiveness is largely determined by the cost and
reliability of natural gas and electricity. IECA's sole mission is to
reduce and avoid energy costs and increase energy reliability through
advocacy in Congress and regulatory agencies, such as the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. IECA membership represents a diverse set
of industries including chemicals, plastics, steel, iron ore, aluminum,
paper, food processing, fertilizer, insulation, glass, industrial
gases, pharmaceutical, consumer goods, building products, automotive,
independent oil refining, and cement.
Figure 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... Atlanta Gas Light
2......................................... Acadian: LA
3......................................... Alabama Tennessee Gas
Pipeline
4......................................... ANR Pipeline Company
5......................................... Atmos Energy: VA
6......................................... Blackhills Pipeline
7......................................... Columbia Gas Transmission
Company: MD, VA, PA, WV
8......................................... Danville Utilities
9......................................... Dominion Energy: SC
10........................................ Duke Energy: OH, KY, SC, NC
11........................................ East Tennessee Natural Gas
12........................................ Eastern Gas Pipeline
13........................................ Enable Gas Transmission, LLC
14........................................ Enterprise Acadian
15........................................ Enterprise Intrastate
16........................................ Enterprise Texas Pipeline
17........................................ Houston Pipeline
18........................................ Kinder Morgan Texas
19........................................ Liberty Utilities
20........................................ Louisville Gas and Electric
21........................................ Michigan Gas Utilities
22........................................ MoGas Pipeline
23........................................ National Grid
24........................................ Natural Gas Pipeline (NGPL)
25........................................ NIPSCO
26........................................ Northern Border Ventura
27........................................ Northern Natural Gas: SD
28........................................ Northwest Pipeline
29........................................ North Shore Gas
30........................................ Ozark Gas Transmission
31........................................ Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company
32........................................ PECO, An Excelon Company
33........................................ Peoples Gas
34........................................ Piedmont Natural Gas: TN,
NC, SC
35........................................ Public Service Company of
Colorado
36........................................ Southern Natural Gas Company
37........................................ Spire MoGas Pipeline
38........................................ Summit Natural Gas
39........................................ Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company
40........................................ Texas Eastern Transmission
Pipeline: TX, TN
41........................................ Texas Gas Service
42........................................ Transco: VA, NC, VA, SC, GA
43........................................ UGI Pipeline
44........................................ Until, Maine Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of February 10, 2025, from Amy Andryszak, President and Chief Ex-
ecutive Officer, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, to Hon.
Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Brad Knott
February 10, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, United States House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, United States House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson,
I am writing to offer the views of the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA) for the Subcommittee's America Builds:
Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery hearing.
INGAA is a trade association representing the interstate natural
gas pipeline and storage industry. Our members transport most of the
natural gas consumed in the United States through a network of
approximately 200,000 miles of interstate transmission pipelines. These
large capacity, critical infrastructure systems are analogous to the
interstate highway system and span multiple states or regions. Our
industry delivers natural gas to end users such as local distribution
companies, electricity generators, industrial manufacturers, and LNG
export facilities.
For more than a decade, the shale revolution has gifted our country
with abundant natural gas supplies, which has elevated the need for
additional infrastructure to move gas around the country. Pipelines
make it possible to deliver North America's abundant natural gas
reserves to fuel our homes, businesses, and the American economy.
Natural gas infrastructure is inherently reliable, built in
compliance with exact safety regulations and engineering standards.
According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration
(PHMSA), these linear infrastructure networks are not only the most
efficient but also the safest way to transport large energy quantities
like natural gas and petroleum products with over 99.999% of all
pipeline deliveries being made safely each year. The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation indicated in its recent summer
assessment that ``natural gas supply and infrastructure is vitally
important to electric grid reliability, particularly as variable energy
resources satisfy more of our energy needs . . . '' Moreover, the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated that natural gas was
the primary source--roughly 43 percent--of U.S. utility-scale
electricity generation in 2023 and projected last month in its short-
term energy outlook that domestic natural gas demand will outpace
supply over the next two years.
The United States needs a modernized network of natural gas
infrastructure to meet its energy, economic and security goals.
Although enactment of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) contained
incremental permitting improvements, broad reforms to the Clean Water
Act (CWA) and other statutes are needed to address the fact that
current permitting processes to site and approve new and expanded
natural gas and liquid energy infrastructure remain slow, inefficient
and overly litigated. These ongoing challenges hamper access to
domestic natural gas resources and other fuel sources, raise energy
costs in certain regions, and in the worst cases, limit access to
energy and create reliability issues during periods of extreme weather.
INGAA applauds the Subcommittee's interest in potentially advancing
legislative measures that would expedite energy infrastructure
permitting and asks that you consider the following CWA recommendations
of importance to the natural gas transmission pipeline industry.
CWA Section 401 energy infrastructure permitting reforms.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) adopts a ``cooperative
federalism'' approach to regulation by giving each State or Tribe a
significant, carefully defined role in regulating discharges into
waters of the United States (WOTUS). If an activity authorized by a
federal agency would result in a discharge into WOTUS, the State or
Tribe where the discharge occurs must certify that the discharge
complies with CWA Sections 301, 302, 303, and 307. The federal agency
may not authorize the activity unless the State or Tribe certifies the
discharge's compliance, certifies compliance subject to specific
conditions, or waives its right to certify. Section 401 requires the
State or Tribe to determine compliance within a ``reasonable period of
time,'' not to exceed one year.
Interstate natural gas pipeline projects frequently cross WOTUS, so
INGAA members' projects often require a Section 401 certification,
which has broad applicability to a variety of infrastructure projects,
including interstate natural gas pipelines, roads, electric
transmission, hydroelectric transmission and flood control. Based on
our experience, Section 401 works well in most States. Certain States
have misused Section 401, however, to burden, delay, or outright veto
critical energy infrastructure projects, namely natural gas pipelines.
In so doing, those States disrupt the role of federal and state
authorities, undermine the actions of other States and damage
cooperative federalism.
Misuse of Section 401 has taken many forms. For example, States
have denied certification for policy reasons other than protection of
water quality. In addition, States have disregarded or circumvented the
one-year time limit on review. Although pipelines can seek judicial
review of a State's certification decision, projects cannot move
forward while the pipeline appeals a denial, and the delay and
uncertainty associated with litigation make it costly and time
consuming. Indeed, judicial review of Section 401 certifications
presents an additional obstacle to infrastructure development and in
some instances, led to cancellation of projects even when the project
developer was successful in the courts.
Actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the
prior Administration compounded the uncertainty and risk created by
States' misuse of Section 401. In 2023, the EPA rescinded a rule
promulgated by the agency in 2020 \1\ to address misuse of Section 401
and replaced the rule with one that significantly expands the scope of
Section 401 review to the activity as a whole rather than discharges
from the point of discharge. This authorizes the certifying authority
to potentially take an overly expansive analysis of the water quality
impacts caused by other aspects of the project potentially unrelated to
the discharge that triggered the certification requirement. INGAA
maintains that the 2023 rule \2\ exceeds EPA's authority under the CWA
and affords States and Tribes significantly greater latitude to
potentially deny Section 401 certifications to block essential
infrastructure development on policy grounds unrelated to water
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/13/2020-
12081/clean-water-act-section-401-certification-rule
\2\ https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401/final-2023-cwa-section-401-water-
quality-certification-improvement-rule
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGAA members need regulatory certainty--consistent, legally sound
``rules of the road''--to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in
critical infrastructure projects. Persistent misuse of Section 401 and
regulations that change wildly every few years undermine this
certainty. We urge Congress to act to ensure that States adhere to
their carefully defined role in the CWA's cooperative federalism
framework and that a reasonable regulatory framework can survive longer
than four years. Actions to clarify the scope of Section 401 review are
of paramount importance. Specifically, we ask Congress to restore
cooperative federalism by clarifying that:
Section 401 authorizes States to review discharges into
WOTUS, not the entire activity subject to federal authorization
(including activities which occur in other states). This clarification
would help ensure that states act within appropriate limits of their
Section 401 authority and confirm compliance with federally approved
water quality criteria as intended by the underlying statute.
States must base their certification decisions on whether
the discharge complies with the enumerated sections of the CWA, not
compliance with other state laws or policies.
INGAA also urges Congress to address judicial review of Section 401
certification decisions so that there is an effective, efficient, and
predictable process for appealing State determinations.
CWA Section 404 energy infrastructure permitting reforms.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands, without authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Corps of Engineers. There are two types of authorization
under Section 404.
First, Section 404 requires an individual permit for discharges
with potentially significant impacts. The agency or a State or Tribe
acting through a Corps-approved program--evaluates applications for an
individual permit using a ``public interest'' standard and
environmental criteria published by the EPA.
Second, Section 404 allows the Corps to establish a general permit
that authorizes discharges that have minimal adverse environmental
effects. The general permit reduces the length of review for discharges
that have minimal effects and meet the strict set of conditions
established in the permit. The CWA provides an additional limit on the
use of a general permit: a district or division commander can revoke
the nationwide permit in a state or other geographic region.
The Corps' most recent set of general permits \3\ (Nationwide
Permits (NWPs))--became effective on February 25, 2022, and will expire
on March 14, 2026. The NWPs authorize discharges associated with a
variety of industrial projects so long as those discharges meet each
NWP's stringent criteria. For example, developers must notify the Corps
of certain planned projects prior to construction, which provides the
Corps an opportunity to determine the project's eligibility for the NWP
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/27/2021-
27441/reissuance-and-modification-of-nationwide-permits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps must maintain its NWP program to meet the United States'
energy needs. To complete work on the pipeline network to deliver
natural gas securely, reliably, and affordably, operators specifically
rely on NWP 12, which authorizes discharges from utility lines crossing
waters of the United States, including natural gas pipelines. Without
NWP 12, it would be extremely difficult to complete myriad maintenance,
repair, and modernization projects that must be done quickly to
preserve the integrity and safety of our systems, including projects
required by the Pipeline Safety Act and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
Despite the agency's well-established, effective oversight process,
the NWP program has been targeted in recent years with various
stakeholders filing legal challenges and urging the prior
Administration to revoke NWPs to hinder essential linear infrastructure
projects. In 2022, the Administration launched an inquiry into whether
``modifications or other future actions'' with respect to NWP 12 were
appropriate, creating significant uncertainty as to whether the Corps
would maintain an effective NWP program moving forward.
Like planning under Section 401 under the Clean Water Act,
pipelines need to know the ``rules of the road'' when investing
substantial time and capital into the planning and completion of
critical work their networks. We cannot afford regulatory actions that
cast doubt on the availability of the NWP program, which burdens the
agency by increasing the need for individual permits for activities
that have only minimal impact, and delays service to the public.
INGAA urges the Corps to reissue all NWPs prior to their scheduled
expiration in March 2026. We also support additional action by Congress
to protect the NWP program and promote regulatory certainty. Introduced
in the 118th Congress, H.R. 7073, Creating Confidence in Clean Water
Permitting Act, would extend the length of the Corps' general permits
from five years to ten years. Additionally, H.R. 7023 would clearly
define discharge activities within the Corps' CWA Section 404
authority. These commonsense changes would provide additional certainty
for developers of all types of linear infrastructure, not just natural
gas pipelines.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters. INGAA
stands ready to work in a bipartisan manner to enact these CWA reforms
and other durable permitting process improvements that enable
development of the energy infrastructure to continue delivering the
benefits of natural gas to the American people.
Sincerely,
Amy Andryszak,
President & CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Brad Knott
Introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
opportunity to submit a statement to the House Committee on
Transportation & Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment for its hearing on permitting regulations under the Clean
Water Act. We are grateful to Subcommittee Chairman Mike Collins and
Ranking Member Frederica Wilson for holding this hearing on this
important subject.
Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation's oldest civil engineering
society. ASCE represents more than 160,000 members of the civil
engineering profession in 177 countries. As the professionals who
design, construct, and maintain critical aspects of the United States'
water resources, ASCE welcomes the opportunity to offer perspective on
the important subject of Clean Water Act permitting and project
delivery.
ASCE's 2021 Infrastructure Report Card
Our nation's infrastructure is the foundation that connects our
businesses, communities, and people. It serves as the backbone of the
U.S. economy, and is critical to the nation's public health, safety,
and welfare. Every four years, ASCE publishes the Report Card for
America's Infrastructure, which grades 17 major infrastructure
categories using a simple A to F school report card format. In 2021,
the nation's clean water infrastructure, comprised of stormwater and
wastewater infrastructure, received grades of D and D+ respectively. On
March 25, 2025, ASCE will release the 2025 Report Card for America's
Infrastructure. The 2025 Report Card will provide an updated snapshot
of the nation's stormwater and wastewater infrastructure and note areas
of progress and ongoing challenges that have been observed over the
past four years.
Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
For more than 50 years, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has provided a
foundation for ensuring that the nation's waterways are fishable and
swimmable. Since this landmark law was passed in 1972, the CWA has
prevented 700 billion pounds of pollutants from contaminating the
nation's waterways annually, significantly slowed the loss of America's
wetlands, and has helped generate billions of dollars in economic
activity through industries such as fishing and recreation.\1\ Under
the CWA, critical tools like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) program were created and have provided billions of dollars to
states and communities to support low interest loans for upgrades to
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Continued support for the CWA
is critical to ensuring that America's waterways are free of pollution
and do not pose health and safety risks to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2022/
Five-Decades-of-Clean-Water1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASCE recognizes the critical importance of providing proper balance
between timely permitting for infrastructure projects and mitigating
and preventing harmful effects to the environment. ASCE strongly
believes that reforms to permitting processes should focus on using the
best available science to make objective determinations on
environmental impacts while streamlining permitting and approval
decisions to reduce delays to critical infrastructure projects.
To better protect the health and beneficial use of the nation's
waters, ASCE supports and encourages the reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act.\2\ Amended several times since becoming law in 1972, the CWA
has not received Congressional reauthorization since the Water Quality
Act of 1987, which included, among other provisions, the creation of
the CWSRF to support low interest financing for stormwater and
wastewater infrastructure capitalization projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps420---clean-
water-act-reauthorization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reauthorization would provide more consistent access to federal
appropriations, creating greater certainty and planning ability for
infrastructure development. It should also take a stronger approach to
non-point source pollution, a leading cause of water quality
challenges, and incorporate a watershed approach which recognizes the
connectivity of water systems across geographical and political
boundaries and brings a wide range of voices and perspectives to the
table.
ASCE also encourages any CWA reauthorization be accompanied by the
development of nationwide best practices supporting sustainable and
consistent approaches to protection of waters which are also mindful of
the need to minimize timing of regulatory processing and associated
costs.
Addressing Non-Point Source Pollution
One of the most important functions of the Clean Water Act is the
prevention and mitigation of point-source pollution in the nation's
waters. Point-source pollution is pollution originating from a distinct
and identifiable source, such as a pipe leak, runoff from sewage
treatment plants, and discharge from factories and other industrial
facilities. However, ASCE supports the development of more aggressive
efforts under the CWA to address non-point source pollution, which is
pollution originating from more discrete sources such as urban and road
runoff, agricultural activity, and mine runoff. Non-point source
pollution has been identified as the leading remaining contributor to
water quality issues, creating harmful effects for drinking water
supplies, fisheries, and recreation.\3\ ASCE supports efforts to
prevent and mitigate non-point source pollution through a variety of
methods. These include the development of regulations and mechanisms
requiring mitigation of the impacts of non-point source pollution,
increased funding for research into the impact of non-point source
pollution on surface water and groundwater, and improving sustainable
best management practices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/nps/basic-information-about-nonpoint-
source-nps-pollution
\4\ https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps461---non-
point-source-pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Approach
ASCE strongly believes that the most effective way to protect the
nation's waters, including the mitigation of non-point source
pollution, is through a watershed approach. This approach focuses on
water quality and quantity and considers the connectivity of all
systems. It acknowledges the overlapping nature of systems which cross
political and geographical lines and brings all stakeholders from the
public and private sectors to the table. This also allows for the
incorporation of local and regional viewpoints into planning and
decision-making processes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps422---
watershed-management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
ASCE greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee with comments on this critical
issue. One of ASCE's primary policy goals is supporting proper balance
between timely and efficient infrastructure development as well as
reducing and mitigating harmful effects to the environment. We look
forward to working with the committee on how best to address these
issues throughout the 119th Congress.
Statement of the Western States Water Council, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Brad Knott
On behalf of the Western States Water Council (WSWC), we wish to
express our appreciation for the opportunity to provide written
testimony on Clean Water Act (CWA) Permitting and Project Delivery. The
WSWC is a bi-partisan government entity created by Western Governors in
1965, representing eighteen states. Our members are appointed by and
serve at the pleasure of their respective Governors, advising them on
water policy issues. Our mission is to ensure that the West has an
adequate, secure, and sustainable supply of water of suitable quality
to meet its diverse economic and environmental needs now and in the
future. The WSWC has long supported legislation that addresses needs
related to the challenges of aging and inadequate infrastructure, while
ensuring a reliable and secure water supply. The WSWC also has a long
history of involvement in discussions between states and the federal
government related to CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404, including state
permitting authorities and jurisdiction over waters of the States and
waters of the United States (WOTUS).
Water in the West is a limited resource. Water must be recognized
as a critical public policy priority given the importance of the
resource to our public health, economy, food security, environment, and
the western way of life. We must cultivate a western water conservation
ethic through a greater understanding of and appreciation for water's
value. A secure and sustainable water future will be determined by our
ability to maintain, replace, expand, and make the most efficient use
of critical water infrastructure. Sustainable water resource management
should enhance the protection and restoration of significant aquatic
ecosystems and improve economic and environmental security.
The West and the Nation depend on an intricate and aging system of
weirs, diversions, dams, reservoirs, pipelines, aqueducts, pumps,
canals, laterals, drains, levees, wells, stormwater channels, and water
and wastewater treatment and hydroelectric power plants. Substantial
and sustained investments in water project construction, maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement are necessary and pay long-term
dividends to the economy, public health and safety, and the
environment. The federal government has a significant role in financing
and cost-sharing for water-related infrastructure, given federal
economic and environmental objectives, federal tribal trust and treaty
obligations, past commitments, and federal regulatory mandates. See
WSWC positions #481, #486, #519, and #521--Resolutions Summary, Western
States Water Council.
The CWA Section 101(b) expressly recognizes, preserves, and
protects ``the primary responsibilities and rights of States to
prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and
use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and
water resources. . . . '' and Section 101(b)(7) commits resources ``to
support and aid research relating to the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution and to provide Federal technical services and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in
connection with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of
pollution.''
CWA Section 101(g) further provides that the primary and exclusive
authority of each state to ``allocate quantities of water within its
jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired
by this Act.''
State Certifications (CWA 401)
The Western States strongly support the planning and development of
critical infrastructure and streamlined permitting processes, but such
efforts should not come at the expense of States' authority to
allocate, manage, and protect their water resources. The Council
supports a balanced and integrated approach to achieve water and energy
policy goals that plans for the future in sustainable ways, and
recognizes legitimate state water resource and water quality
management, protection, and planning authorities to balance competing
water uses. The development of hydropower and other federally permitted
and licensed projects involving activities that may impact states'
water quality standards should be appropriately undertaken in
compliance with substantive and procedural state water law and
delegated authority under CWA Section 401.
States have responsibly exercised their delegated authority under
the CWA Section 401 and under state water quality statutes to protect
water quality, and they must consider proposed activities and
discharges in light of the States' designated water uses and related
water quality standards. An overly narrow reading of Section 401 would
deprive the States of the ability to maintain the very beneficial uses
that the CWA was designed to protect, and would threaten the existing
partnership between state and federal agencies based on cooperative
federalism.
CWA Section 401 certification denials by states are rare and
carefully considered, and are not examples of the failure of the
system, as the process has been historically well-understood, reliable
and supported by case law that provides certainty for both state and
federal agencies, and the regulated community. The vast majority of
Section 401 certification requests are processed by States within 90
days, well within the one year allowed by current law, with relatively
little if any backlog of certification actions. Most delays are
typically due to submission of an incomplete application, applicants'
non-responsiveness to requests for additional information, the
completion of necessary study requirements, the size and complexity of
some projects (and related impacts), substantive changes to the
proposed project requiring further review, or constraints on state
resources.
Substantial and recurring changes to regulatory definitions,
policies, and programs between federal Administrations create
uncertainty for co-regulators and the regulated community, often
leading to unreliable results, indecision, inconsistency, and lawsuits.
Actions taken by the federal government under the 2020 CWA Section
401 Certification Rule (85 FR 42210) caused some Western States to
issue an increased number of denials, due to inflexible deadlines that
did not accommodate state public engagement laws or allow sufficient
time to gather adequate information on project impacts. The 2020 rule
revision led to federal agencies waiving reopener conditions in
nationwide permits imposed on federal projects by States under CWA
Section 401, inconsistent with CWA Sections 101(b) and 101(g), Section
27 of the Federal Power Act, and the Supreme Court ruling under P.U.D.
No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology.
The 2023 CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement
Rule (88 FR 66558) identified 16 national parks that EPA declared to be
``lands of exclusive federal jurisdiction'' and asserted that EPA is
the Section 401 certifying authority in those parks, although States
have been the certifying authority in some of those parks for decades.
The WSWC strongly supports early state engagement in federal
permitting and licensing actions and the coordination of state and
federal environmental requirements and review processes for critical
infrastructure without diminishing state authority. WSWC encourages EPA
to consult with affected states regarding certifying authority in
national parks designated as ``lands of exclusive federal
jurisdiction'' in order to resolve any jurisdictional disputes in a
manner that upholds the CWA's direct grant of Section 401 certifying
authority to States and its intent to empower States to protect water
quality within their boundaries.
The WSWC supports any changes that strengthen the deference to
state water laws and do not diminish the primary state authority and
responsibility for the appropriation, allocation, development,
conservation, and protection of their water resources, including
minimum streamflows, and the protection of water quality and designated
uses.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision declaring
that minimum streamflow requirements are a permissible condition of CWA
Section 401 certifications. A Washington city and local utility
district sought a license to build a hydroelectric project on the
Dosewallips River. The proposed project would reduce the water flow
below the state's minimum stream flow requirement to protect fish
habitat, a state designated use of the water under Section 303 of the
CWA. The Washington Department of Ecology issued a Section 401
certification imposing a minimum stream flow requirement as a condition
of the hydropower license, and the applicants objected to the state's
authority to impose water flow requirements.
In P.U.D. No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of
Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the Court upheld a state's authority to
impose conditions under the Section 401 certification process where
necessary to protect a designated use for fish habitat. The Court
rejected the argument that water quality requirements were limited to
discharges under the CWA, noting that Washington's instream flow
requirement was necessary to enforce the designated use of the river.
The Court said that the CWA preserves each state's authority to
allocate water quantity between users and does not limit Section 401 to
water quality concerns when protecting designated uses. Importantly,
the Court also rejected an effort to read ``implied limitations'' into
Section 401 based on a perceived conflict between Section 401 state
certifications and FERC authority under the Federal Power Act and the
interpretation in First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328
U.S. 152 (1946).
Again in 2006, the Supreme Court recognized that State 401
certification authority is `` . . . essential in the scheme to preserve
state authority to address the broad range of pollution.'' S.D. Warren
Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006),
citing 116 Cong. Rec. 8984 (1970).
NPDES Permits and Water Transfers
The CWA prohibits discharging ``pollutants'' through a ``point
source'' into a ``water of the United States'' without first obtaining
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The
permit includes limits on what can be discharged, monitoring and
reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the
discharge does not violate state water quality standards.
EPA in 40 CFR Part 122.3(i) expressly excluded water transfers from
regulation under the NPDES permitting program, and defined a water
transfer as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United
States to another water of the United States without subjecting the
water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. The rule
relies on EPA's CWA interpretation and does not limit any ability of a
State to use any available authority, including authority regarding
nonpoint sources of pollution, to protect the water quality of the
receiving water body in a water transfer.
Water transfers and water quality are essential to the social,
economic and environmental well-being of the Western States. The United
States Court of Appeals, in the cases of Friends of the Everglades v.
South Florida Water Management Dist., 570 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009),
and New York State et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 846 F.3d
492 (2nd Cir. 2017), upheld EPA's Water Transfer Rule, holding it to be
a reasonable construction of the CWA and therefore entitled to
deference by the Federal Courts and on which decisions the United
States Supreme Court subsequently denied Petitions for Writ of
Certiorari.
The WSWC supports EPA's amendment to its CWA regulations in 40 CFR
122.3(i) and supports the codification of 40 CFR 122.3(i) into statute
by Congress. The WSWC has long declared its position that the transport
of water through constructed conveyances to supply water for various
uses without the ``addition'' of a pollutant should not trigger federal
NPDES permitting requirements, simply because the transported water
contains different chemical concentrations and physical constituents.
The WSWC supports the ability of each Western State to use available
authorities to place appropriate conditions on water transfers to
protect water quality. With few exceptions, States have been delegated
full or partial federal authority to administer the NPDES program and
issue permits. Moreover, regardless of the extent of federal
jurisdiction over waters of the United States, States have authority to
protect their waters of the State, including any waters that may not
fall under CWA delegated NPDES permitting authority.
Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
The CWA is built upon the principle of cooperative federalism in
which Congress intended the States, the EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) implement the CWA as partners, delegating co-
regulator authority to the States. This cooperative federalism
framework has resulted in significant water quality improvements since
the law's enactment in 1972, and Western States have made great strides
in protecting water quality and coordinating water quality and water
quantity decisions. It is imperative that EPA and USACE actively seek
meaningful state consultation, engagement, and participation in the
review and development of any new proposed or final rule to define
WOTUS. States are best positioned to manage the water within their
borders because of their on-the-ground knowledge of the unique aspects
of their hydrology, geology, and legal frameworks.
States have both state statutory and constitutional authority
pursuant to their ``waters of the state'' jurisdiction to protect the
quality of waters within their borders, and such jurisdiction generally
extends beyond the limits of federal jurisdiction under the CWA. Again,
CWA Section 101(b) supports the States' critical role in protecting
water quality as Congress explicitly declared that it did ``recognize,
preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States
to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.'' The Supreme Court has
limited the jurisdictional scope of the CWA in U.S. v. Riverside
Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985); Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Corps, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v.
United States, 547 U.S. 715, 723 (2006); and Sackett v. EPA (#21-424).
Perennial streams with a relatively permanent surface water
connection to navigable waters are presumptively considered to be under
federal CWA jurisdiction consistent with Rapanos and Justice Scalia's
plurality opinion. In Sackett, the Court affirmed the phrase ``waters
of the United States'' includes only relatively permanent, standing, or
continuously flowing bodies of water.
A one-size-fits-all national approach to federal regulations,
guidance, and programs pertaining to the CWA does not recognize
specific conditions and needs in the West, where water and
precipitation can be scarce and a variety of unique waterbodies exist,
including small ephemeral washes and arroyos, snow dependent
intermittent streams, effluent dependent and dominated streams, prairie
potholes, playa lakes, and terminal lakes, as well as numerous man-made
reservoirs, impoundments, and water and stormwater conveyance
structures. Further, there are physical, biological, and chemical
differences between waters, and hydrologic differences, both spatially
and temporally, as well as considerable differences in legal doctrines
that govern water in Western States, which mean that federal effort to
clarify CWA jurisdiction will inevitably impact each State differently,
thus underscoring the need to thoroughly involve States in developing
and implementing any rule so as to clearly respect and avoid conflict
with state authority over the regulation of water quality and the
allocation of waters and water rights within their respective borders
Any efforts to redefine or clarify CWA jurisdiction have, on their
face, numerous federalism implications that have the potential to
significantly impact States and alter the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the States and the federal government. As co-
regulators, States are separate and apart from the general public, and
have a unique role with the federal government in the development and
implementation of any rule to clarify or redefine CWA jurisdiction.
Information-sharing does not equate to meaningful consultation, and the
uncertainty and differences of opinion that exist regarding CWA
jurisdiction requires EPA and the USACE to develop and implement
federal CWA jurisdiction efforts in authentic partnership with the
States. Uncertainty and differences of opinion have and continue to
exist regarding CWA jurisdiction among States, and challenge EPA and
the Corps to develop and implement any new rule in cooperation with the
States, based on principles of cooperative federalism, and together to
provide greater certainty and a clearer definition of the limits of
federal jurisdiction.
As noted above, substantial and recurring changes to regulatory
definitions, policies, and programs between federal Administrations
create uncertainty for co-regulators and the regulated community, often
leading to unreliable results, indecision, inconsistency, and lawsuits.
Congress and this Administration should ensure that any federal effort
to clarify or define CWA jurisdiction and define Waters of the United
States:
1. Creates an enduring and broadly supported definition.
2. Acknowledges and addresses the needs, priorities, and concerns
of states as co-regulators.
3. Includes robust, meaningful, and representative state
participation and consultation in the development and implementation of
any rule, acknowledging the inherent federalism implications.
4. Gives full force and effect to Congress' intent to maintain a
reasonable balance of state and federal authority and the purposes of
CWA Sections 101(b) and 101(g).
5. Complies with the limits set by Congress as interpreted by the
Supreme Court, and appropriately incorporates those limits.
6. Specifically identifies waters and features outside the scope
of the CWA jurisdiction including but not limited to groundwater and
historically recognized agricultural exemptions.
7. Acknowledges that States have authority to protect all ``waters
of the state,'' and that excluding waters from federal jurisdiction
does not always mean that they will be exempt from state regulation and
protection.
8. Continues to provide access to appropriate technical and
financial assistance to the states to protect and improve water quality
under existing EPA programs without regard to jurisdictional
determinations.
9. Provides a clearly delineated process for resolving differences
of opinion over federal and non-federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction
between different States and Tribes (treated as states).
10. Provides for mapping of jurisdictional waters as a joint
federal/state/tribal effort employing the best available data and
tools, with appropriate provisions and processes for map maintenance.
11. Includes an appropriate delay in the effective date of any new
rule or otherwise allows for a transition enabling states to take such
actions as may be necessary to address any gaps in state law,
regulation and protection, and to ensure sufficient time for tools to
be developed by federal agencies, in collaboration with states, that
facilitate implementation of the new rule.
12. Recognizes the need to balance definitional clarity with
flexibility in implementation to address the unique landscapes, flow
regimes, and legal frameworks in various regions of the Nation and
appropriately weighs all factors of science, law, and effective policy
to draw jurisdictional conclusions that are appropriate, and that do
not impinge on the rights of States.
13. Considers a regional approach to the definitions of terms for
foundational and any categorical waters in the rule and defines regions
building upon existing classification systems based on hydrology,
geology, and climate.
14. Provides, in the rule development process, a representative
number of states, as co-regulators, with diverse perspectives and
regions to engage actively in an integrated way with the EPA and Corps
staff to provide direct and effective feedback on the implementability
of a proposed rule which requires ample time for development of new
regulatory language.
EPA Veto Authority (CWA 404(c))
EPA's actions in the Section 404 permitting process have not always
been consistent with established protocols, creating challenges for
States' engagement and public and private investment in projects
requiring Section 404 permits.
CWA Section 404(c) grants the EPA Administrator the power ``to
prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal of specification)
of any defined area as a disposal site, and . . . deny or restrict the
use of any defined area . . . as a disposal site, whenever he
determines . . . that the discharge of such materials into such area
will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding
areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.''
In 1992, as directed by CWA Section 404(q), EPA and USACE executed
a Memorandum of Agreement (``1992 MOA'') that bound the two agencies to
specific procedures for resolving potential disagreements, including
``elevation of specific individual permit cases . . . that involve
aquatic resources of national importance.''
WSWC supports the promulgation of regulations and guidance: (1)
improving predictability in Section 404 permitting, specifically the
404(c) and 404(q) processes; (2) improving communication between
federal agencies and States, particularly providing States with a
meaningful opportunity to address EPA concerns prior to the exercise of
its veto power; and (3) requiring EPA to adhere to established Section
404 permitting processes and protocols, and to update those protocols
as appropriate to reflect current procedures.
WSWC also supports documentation of the rationale for any Section
404(c) veto, including: (1) verification that impacted waters are
Waters of the United States; (2) findings from any Final Environmental
Impact Statement pertaining to the proposed project; (3) impacts to
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, and
recreational areas; and (4) resolved issues emanating from discussions
between the USACE and EPA.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our written testimony.
Letter of February 11, 2025, from the Waters Advocacy Coalition, to Hon.
Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Brad Knott
February 11, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
The Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) applauds your leadership in
holding today's hearing on ``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting
and Project Delivery.'' WAC represents a large and diverse cross-
section of the nation's broad business community, including the
construction, transportation, real estate, mining, manufacturing,
forestry, agriculture, energy, wildlife conservation, and public health
and safety sectors. Our members are vital to building a thriving
national economy and are essential to achieving the nation's critical
infrastructure, manufacturing, supply chain, transportation, and energy
goals.
Our members operate their businesses in compliance with a
comprehensive framework of federal and state laws, regulations, and
policies. They regularly obtain federal Clean Water Act (CWA) permits,
including dredge and fill permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under CWA section 404 and discharge permits from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and state permitting authorities under CWA section
402. Many of our members also conduct activities under the Corps'
Nationwide Permit program, which provides an important option to
expedite projects that have lower environmental impact. We therefore
have a significant interest in the Committee's work to address CWA
permitting and project delivery challenges and opportunities.
For many of our members, CWA permitting can be a major hurdle in
moving essential projects forward efficiently. We appreciate the
Committee's work to address these challenges and ensure that essential
projects are not hindered by bureaucratic delays or uncertainties,
while supporting the CWA's cooperative federalism framework,
environmental protection, and the need for a more streamlined,
predictable regulatory framework.
We look forward to working with you to identify opportunities for
targeted reforms that will help achieve our nation's ambitious national
priorities and support the communities that depend on these projects.
Sincerely,
American Exploration & Mining National Association of Home
Association. Builders.
American Farm Bureau Federation. National Association of Realtors.
American Road and Transportation National Mining Association.
Builders Association. National Asphalt Pavement
Associated Builders and Association.
Contractors. National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Associated General Contractors of Association.
America. The Fertilizer Institute.
Leading Builders of America. RISE (Responsible Industry for a .
Liquid Energy Pipeline Association. Sound Environment)
National Club Association. Southeastern Lumber
Manufacturers Association.
cc: Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Aurelia S. Giacometto, Secretary, State of
Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality, to Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brad Knott
State of Louisiana,
Department of Environmental Quality,
Office of the Secretary,
February 11, 2025.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
U.S. House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: America Builds
Dear Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, and ranking members:
I understand that the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment is
interested in confronting challenges with Clean Water Act (CWA)
permitting and encouraging federalism in environmental protection. I am
pleased to provide Louisiana's experience and perspective as it relates
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers implementation of CWA Section 404. Louisiana is committed to
protecting the quality of our waters. At the same time, we are
committed to fairness in permitting, economic progress, and natural
resource development. I believe Congress intended that the States would
play a critical role in implementing the CWA within their states. I
look forward to working with the Committee to improve the federal-state
partnership established under the CWA cooperative federalism framework.
CWA Section 404 Permits:
As a primacy state, Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality
authorizes over 30,000 environmental permits per year. Currently, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implements the CWA Section 404 program in
the state. Unfortunately, federal agency overreach through the Section
404 program interferes with the ability of states to determine economic
activity within our borders. Two recent examples illustrate my
concerns.
1. Corps use of National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review
to delay permits.
In the context of reviewing a CWA Section 404 permit application
for development of a large-scale grain elevator and associated
infrastructure, on June 10, 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
requested a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the
National Register of Historic Places under the 36 C.F.R. Part 800
regulations. At the urging of environmental advocates, the Corps
request included a huge swath of land within the State, over 22,000
acres, far beyond the area of permitted effects identified by the Corps
during review of the permit. After prolonged delay, the applicant
withdrew the permit and requested that the Keeper suspend review of the
Corps request due to the absence of any proposed federal action and no
potential effect to historic resources.
Without any jurisdiction or authority, on Oct 16, 2024, the Keeper
issued a determination finding the entire area eligible for listing.
The Keeper noted that ``the Section 106 consultation has since been
terminated because the applicant has withdrawn its permit request, but
the Army Corps has stated . . . that it is still requesting this
determination on eligibility.'' Going forward, any development within
the 22,000 acre boundary must fully comply with the NHPA Section 106.
The Corps illegal and overreaching actions were intended to stop all
project development within a substantial area of Louisiana, amounting
to federal zoning within our State.
2. EPA's weaponization of regulations implementing Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act.
Under the Biden administration, EPA has taken unprecedented steps
to use EPA's Title VI regulations to leverage states to include
conditions on or preclude permitting altogether under the guise of
preventing ``disparate impacts.'' EPA's regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 7,
prohibit actions that ``have or may have the effect of subjecting a
person to discrimination.'' However, the Supreme Court clarified that
Title VI only prohibits intentional discrimination. Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-81 (2001). The Court expressed skepticism
on the validity of EPA's regulations. Id. at 282. Last year, a federal
court in Louisiana enjoined EPA from enforcing its regulations against
the State of Louisiana, finding Title VI has no disparate impact
language, only intentional discrimination is prohibited. Louisiana v.
EPA, No. 2:23-cv-692, 2024 WL 250798 (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 2024). The
Court found that EPA has weaponized Title VI as a blanket grant of
authority to veto permitting decisions and that the regulations require
decision-makers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies and
to make decisions on those racial outcomes. While limiting the decision
to Louisiana, Judge Cain cast doubt on the legality of EPA's
regulations in any state. Twenty-three states, Louisiana included,
requested the EPA amend its regulations to bring them in line with the
text of the statute and with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Congress should ensure EPA complies with the States'
request.
CWA Section 404 Program Assumption
The CWA Section 404 program remains one of the widely misused
federal environmental permitting programs. It is for this reason that
Louisiana, among several other states, has expressed interest and even
taken steps toward assuming permitting responsibility. On December 18,
2024, EPA published a final rule revising the regulations governing
State and Tribal assumption of the CWA section 404 permitting program.
Unfortunately, that rule raises several concerns, particularly with
EPA's oversight of compliance with CWA 404(b)(1) and determining the
list of waters that would be retained as federally regulated waters. As
written, the final rule will do little to motivate states to seek
assumption. Congress should require EPA to withdraw that rule and
publish a new rule that reflects state input.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department's view on
these important permitting issues.
Sincerely yours,
Aurelia S. Giacometto,
Secretary, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality.
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice President, Leg-
islative and Political Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors, to
Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Brad Knott
February 11, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson and Members of House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment:
On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national
construction industry trade association with 67 chapters representing
more than 23,000 members, thank you for holding the hearing, ``America
Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery.'' ABC members
play a significant role in building America's infrastructure and seek
to inform the committee of legislative opportunities to responsibly
streamline CWA Section 404 permitting by eliminating persistent
statutory barriers to state assumption.
Section 404 prohibits the deposition of dredge or fill material
into the waters of the United States without a permit. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers exclusively administers Section 404 in every state
except Michigan and New Jersey. Completion of the USACE Section 404
permitting process averages nearly 800 days and nearly $300,000 in
applicant administrative costs per permit, frustrating action on
America's critical housing and infrastructure priorities.
The recent divestiture in federal court of Florida's Section 404
authority exemplifies persistent statutory barriers to state
implementation, contrary to the CWA's explicit preservation of states'
``primary responsibilities and rights'' to ensure the integrity of
water resources. Improving the statutory framework would eliminate
duplicative permitting, achieve decisional consistency, and promote
transparency by reducing points of contact for permittees. For example,
at the time of Florida's Section 404 assumption, Florida's state-
administered wetland program covered 86% of waters subject to
concurrent USACE permitting, and permitted in 17 days the same activity
in the same waterway that USACE permitted in 300 days.
Congress should enact amendments consistent with the following
recommendations to simplify Section 404 assumption and vest states with
the authority to exert the superior efficiency, consistency, and
transparency achievable via localized administration of wetland
permitting.
Authorize Endangered Species Act Section 7 liability
protection to flow through state or tribal Section 404 enforcement
agencies: Congress should allow states to secure Endangered Species Act
Section 7 incidental take permits covering all state-administered
Section 404 program permittees, subject to adequate state regulatory
provision for subsequent species- and site-specific U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service determinations.
Authorize states and tribes that assume Section 404
authority to issue permits of equivalent duration to USACE Section 404
permits: Congress should ensure parity in the duration of permits
issuable by USACE and state authorities by substituting the present
five-year lifetime of state-issued permits under Section 404 with
provision that state permits may not exceed statutory or regulatory
limitations governing the duration of permits issued by USACE.
Clarify that states and tribes may assume authority to
issue Section 404 permits for discharges into a portion of assumable
waters: Congress should eliminate the current ``all or nothing''
assumption framework and afford states latitude to administer
permitting for those activities and assumable waters they are best
equipped to manage.
Authorize expenditure of EPA Wetland Development Grant
Program funding to offset continuing state Section 404 implementation
costs by supplementing state fee-for-service revenues: In view of the
potential for wider Section 404 assumption to relax demands on federal
personnel and resources, Congress should at minimum eliminate present
obstacles to expenditure of existing federal funding for state water
quality programming on continuing administration of assumed programs.
ABC appreciates the opportunity to comment on today's hearing and
looks forward to working with the committee during the 119th Congress.
Sincerely,
Kristen Swearingen,
Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs,
Associated Builders and Contractors.
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Amanda E. Eversole, Executive Vice
President and Chief Advocacy Officer, American Petroleum Institute, to
Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins
February 11, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 2165 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 2165 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
The American Petroleum Institute (API) writes regarding the
upcoming Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Hearing:
``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery'' on
Tuesday, February 11, 2025.
API is committed to meeting the challenge of providing affordable
and reliable energy while continuing to reduce emissions. As the
leading trade association representing the entire value chain of the
U.S. oil and natural gas industry, API supports policies that
strengthen our nation's energy security and economy and protect our
environment. Permitting reform, including changes to the Clean Water
Act, is essential to unlocking investments in the infrastructure we
need to build to unleash American energy.
Investments to modernize infrastructure, including expanding
current pipeline capacity and building new capacity, can help ensure
that energy remains affordable for American consumers, create good-
paying jobs, give U.S. manufacturers a competitive advantage through
lower energy and raw material costs, and provide revenue to local,
state and federal governments. Yet, decades-long challenges with the
existing permitting process have hampered the development of critical
infrastructure projects and jeopardized American energy security.
Many of those permits are issued at the state or federal level
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) when a project may impact navigable
waters. The permitting process can take years, and those delays can
lead to skyrocketing project costs or even cancellation. Last Congress,
this committee passed two bills--H.R. 1152 and H.R. 7023--that would
have made meaningful reforms to the CWA to create a more conducive
environment for moving critical projects forward.
H.R. 1152 would have helped ensure that water quality
certifications reviewed and issued by states, tribes or EPA under
Section 401 are limited to direct water quality impacts from point
source discharges to navigable waters and are not be used by certifying
agencies as a de facto veto of critical energy projects. H.R. 7023
would have codified the Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program under Section
404 to ensure the ongoing viability of the program for linear
infrastructure projects and extended the reissuance period to provide
greater regulatory certainty. We are pleased to see the committee
revisit this important topic this Congress and hope to see legislation
reintroduced that aligns with the following recommendations for CWA
permitting reform:
Section 401:
Clarify that it applies only to federal activity--Need
for certification arises only when a federally licensed or permitted
activity has the potential to result in a discharge from a point source
into a ``water of the United States.''
Scope of reviews--Certification review is limited to
assuring that a discharge from a Federally licensed or permitted
activity will comply with water quality requirements. Certification
review shall not include review of other sources, indirect impacts,
and/or the ``activity as a whole.''
Start of the clock--Certification review period commences
upon the date of the certifying authority's receipt of a request for
certification, and this review period cannot exceed one year, as
specified in the statute.
Prohibit withdrawal / resubmit--Certifying authorities
should not be allowed to restart the one-year time review requirement
solely by recommending withdrawal and/or resubmission of applications.
Clear application requirements--Require states to publish
requirements for certification requests and require states to notify
applicants within 30 days of receipt of application whether the states
have all the materials needed to process a certification request.
Determinations--Final decisions on whether to grant,
grant with conditions or deny a request for certification must be in
writing and based only on local water quality reasons, and certifying
authorities must provide rationale for decision.
Conditions--Each certification condition should be
supported by an explanation for why the condition is necessary to
certify compliance with water quality requirements and supported with a
citation to applicable legal requirements that protect water quality.
Section 404:
NWP renewals--Extend the reissuance cycle for NWPs from
five to ten years, which would help provide increased regulatory
certainty for project developers and avoid potential disruption to
critical infrastructure projects.
Confined EPA Authority--Ensure that EPA does not pre-
emptively bar potential activities requiring a CWA Section 404 permit
before there is an applicant or a project; for EPA to make a veto
determination under 404(c), an entity must apply for an actual Section
404 permit with the Corps.
One NWP--To help ensure predictability for project
developers, clarify that one linear project can be authorized under one
NWP, even if there are multiple owners or developers and even if there
are multiple crossings of the same water body in different places or
multiple water bodies in the same location.
Consultation--Because the Corps' issuance and reissuance
of NWP 12 is limited to only those activities that have ``no effect''
on listed species or designated critical habitat, clarify that
consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not required.
Use for oil / pipelines--Ensure that the Administration
maintains NWP 12 for activities associated with oil and natural gas
pipelines that do not result in the loss of greater than \1/2\ acre of
Waters of the United States for each single and complete project.
Judicial review--Include a provision to ensure that an
action seeking judicial review of an individual or general permit under
section 404 must be filed no later than 60 days from the date the
permit is issued. In addition, ensure that if a federal court remands
or vacates a permit under section 404, the issuer of the permit must
act on the remand or vacatur no later than 180 days from the date the
permit is remanded or vacated. In addition, ensure that those permits
already approved as of the date of enactment are not subject to
challenge.
Applying these reforms to Section 401 and 404 of the CWA would help
create a more conducive environment for moving critical projects
forward by providing a more transparent, timely and consistent process.
API looks forward to working with Congress to advance meaningful
bipartisan permitting reform this year.
Sincerely,
Amanda E. Eversole,
Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer,
American Petroleum Institute.
CC: The Honorable Sam Graves, Chair, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Letter of February 11, 2025, from Rich Nolan, President and Chief Execu-
tive Officer, National Mining Association, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chair-
man, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Mike Collins
February 11, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
On behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA) and our nearly
280 member companies and organizations, I applaud your leadership in
holding today's hearing on ``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting
and Project Delivery.''
The NMA is the only national trade organization that serves as the
voice of the U.S. mining industry and the hundreds of thousands of
American workers it employs before Congress, the federal agencies, the
judiciary, and the media, advocating for public policies that will help
America fully and responsibly utilize its vast natural resources. We
work to ensure America has secure and reliable supply chains, abundant
and affordable energy, and the American-sourced materials necessary for
U.S. manufacturing, national security, and economic security, all
delivered under world-leading environmental, safety, and labor
standards. The NMA has a membership of more than 280 companies and
organizations involved in every aspect of mining, from producers and
equipment manufacturers to service providers.
The NMA and our members support regulations that both foster
environmental protection and promote responsible development. Our
members operate under a comprehensive framework of federal and state
laws, regulations, and policies that govern nearly every inch of a mine
site. Our members regularly obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404
dredge and fill permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
and CWA section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
state permitting authorities. We therefore have a significant interest
in the Committee's work to identify challenges and opportunities in the
CWA permitting process.
Mining companies rely on fair, consistent, and predictable
permitting processes to support our national priorities and remain
competitive in the global economy. But for too long, regulatory
uncertainty in the permitting process has delayed projects, chilled
investment in U.S. mining operations, and inhibited the ability to mine
the raw materials on which our nation's energy, infrastructure,
manufacturing, and mining supply chains depend. The U.S. already has
one of the longest mine permitting processes in the world. A recent
report by S&P Global found that it takes an average of 29 years to
bring a mine online in the U.S.--longer than any other country except
Zambia, which takes 34 years.\1\ These delays have real world
consequences. Unexpected delays alone can reduce a typical mining
project's value by more than one-third, and the higher costs and
increased risk that can arise from a prolonged permitting process can
cut the expected value of a mine in half before production even
begins.\2\ Permitting uncertainty can also cause project proponents and
investors alike to look outside the U.S. when determining where to
invest and develop projects. This puts our nation's supply chain
independence at risk and creates a dangerous situation where we become
increasingly import-dependent on necessary materials from adversarial
countries.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S&P Global, Mine Development Times: The U.S. in Perspective
(June 2024), available at https://cdn.ihsmarkit.com/www/pdf/0724/
SPGlobal_NMA_DevelopmentTimesUSinPerspective_
June_2024.pdf.
\2\ SNL Metals & Mining, ``Permitting, Economic Value, and Mining
in the United States,'' at 9 (June 15, 2015), available at https://
nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SNL_Permitting_Delay_Report-
Online.pdf (last visited Feb. 11, 2025).
\3\ SNL Metals & Mining, ``Permitting, Economic Value, and Mining
in the United States,'' at 9 (June 15, 2015), available at https://
nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SNL_Permitting_Delay_Report-
Online.pdf (last visited Feb. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our members, CWA permitting is often a significant hurdle to
executing critical projects efficiently and effectively. The NMA
appreciates the Committee's work on addressing CWA permitting
challenges and strongly supported key provisions of the 118th Congress'
H.R. 7023, Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.\4\ \5\
Specifically, we\\ supported Sections 2, 5, and 6. Those provisions
would promote transparency in EPA's water quality criteria development
process; provide regulatory certainty in shoring up the existing CWA
section 402(k) permit shield provision; and clarify timing of the CWA
section 404(c) veto process to support fairness and predictability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Mining Association, ``Transportation and
Infrastructure Clean Water Act Letter of Support,'' (January 2024),
available at https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/TI-CWA-Letter-
of-Support-1-30-23-Final.pdf
\5\ Waters Advocacy Coalition, `` `Waters of the United States'
Implementation,'' (March 2024), available at https://nma.org/wp-
content/uploads/2024/06/FINAL-WAC-Letter-on-WOTUS-Implementation-
Questions.docx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these provisions in H.R. 7023, the NMA also
encourages the Committee to explore statutory revisions to the CWA
Section 401 state certification process to clarify the factors states
and authorized Tribes can consider in their review; support the
reauthorization of the Corps' current suite of Nationwide Permits;
promote flexibility in the compensatory mitigation process; and find
ways to help states and the federal government work together to support
the CWA's cooperative federalism framework.
The NMA stands ready to assist the Committee on identifying
opportunities to improve the CWA permitting process to support domestic
mining. We look forward to working with your teams on next steps.
Sincerely,
Rich Nolan,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Mining Association.
Letter of February 20, 2025, from T. Lane Wilson, Sr. Vice President and
General Counsel, The Williams Companies, Inc., to Hon. Mike Collins,
Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Mike Collins
February 20, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, United States House of
Representatives, 2251 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica S, Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, United States House of
Representatives, 2251 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
Thank you for holding this important Hearing in the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment about the need for
commonsense Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting reforms.
Williams is a trusted energy industry leader committed to safely,
reliably, and responsibly meeting growing energy demand. We use our
33,000-mile pipeline infrastructure to serve 12 key supply areas and
handle about one-third of the nation's natural gas. We operate Transco,
the country's largest interstate natural gas network, with more than 40
percent more volume than the next largest natural gas pipeline.
Pipelines are Essential, Pipelines Power America
Pipelines are the safest, cleanest, and most cost-efficient means
of transporting energy. The U.S. Department of Transportation
recognizes that pipelines are essential infrastructure capable of
moving greater volumes of energy resources than any other mode of
transportation.
Oil and natural gas account for 74 percent of our nation's energy
mix--nearly all of that product is transported via pipeline.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regions of the country where pipelines are more abundant see lower
energy costs, and it is no coincidence that regions with higher energy
costs are known for overly aggressive permitting regimes or abuses of
the permitting process to block or cancel interstate natural gas
pipeline projects.
During peak demand, New England experiences extremely high price
spikes compared to other areas of the country. For example, gas prices
have spiked numerous times during winter months in New England (as high
as $75 per MMBtu) in the past decade, while prices have remained
moderate and more stable in Southwest Pennsylvania (consistently under
$5 per MMBtu), where abundant supplies have adequate pipeline outlets
to serve peak demand.
Growth in U.S. natural gas is driven by LNG exports, data center
growth, electrification, and a general increase in energy consumption.
Lower-48 gas demand growth driven by LNG exports is expected to more
than double by 2030, with an additional 13.2 Bcf/d of growth expected
from 2024-2030.\ii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Source: Wood Mackenzie North America Gas, Investment Horizon
Outlook, November 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity demand is also experiencing 10 times faster growth per
year this decade than what was seen in previous decades, driven by the
energy needs of artificial intelligence and the emergence of new,
large-load data centers. U.S. data center power demand is expected to
more than double from about 22 GW in 2023 to 45 GW in 2030 per S&P base
case, requiring as much as 4 Bcf/d of incremental gas demand. It is
notable, however, that this new technology's demand needs could be
underestimated. If combined-cycle gas-fired generation provided 100
percent of the electricity for the range of forecasts already
presented, it could translate into incremental U.S. demand for power as
high as 12 Bcf/day.
This growing demand cannot be met by intermittent resources such as
wind and solar. In fact, excluding this forecasted growth, to replace
the energy supplied by natural gas to New York's homes and businesses
in February 2023 alone, New York would need 285 times more utility
scale solar installations than the state had in 2022 and enough solar
panels to cover 549,000 football fields. And it would require $1
trillion in solar construction costs.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ Williams' analysis utilizing data from S&P Global Platts, US
Energy Information Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. To replace the natural gas Btus
that NY state's residential/commercial customers used on 02/3/2023, it
would take 285x more utility scale solar installations than the state
had in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Americans cannot rely on intermittent wind and solar
to meet demand during peak hours or extended weather events. The U.S.
saw record high power demand in 2023, averaging 35.2 Bcf/d (2.1 Bcf/d
higher than in 2022), even as wind and solar grew. And peak day demand
for natural gas hit a record high of 54.8 Bcf/d in August of 2024,
highlighting the continued need for reliable natural gas to meet peak
day needs and back up intermittent resources.
Peak day gas demand for power generation is expected to increase
across all major Independent System Operators (ISO), due to the growth
in electrification, artificial intelligence (AI), and data center
growth.
America Needs More Pipelines to Meet Growing Demands and Ensure
National Security
Data centers driving advancements in artificial intelligence will
be built overseas if we do not build the critical energy infrastructure
required to support their operations here. The U.S. has the abundant
energy resources to meet this need, but a byzantine permitting system
coupled with fervent opposition to human advancement from activist
groups makes building infrastructure unnecessarily challenging. To
ensure America's long-term competitiveness, Congress must prioritize
permitting reform.
Demand for natural gas has increased 43 percent since 2013, while
the capacity of infrastructure to support the demand has only grown 25
percent. Without action, the gap between demand and physical
infrastructure will grow as AI tools become more critical to the U.S.
in a competitive world marketplace. This gap will continue to impact
reliability and affordability and harm American consumers.
It generally takes our industry about nine months to build a large
natural gas pipeline safely and in a way that has little environmental
footprint, but it can take years to get a project approved by
government agencies. America's permitting system is labyrinthian by any
reasonable measure, requiring projects to receive duplicative approvals
from dozens of federal and state agencies.
Beyond the permitting process, there are also significant
litigation risks from groups weaponizing regulatory loopholes and
misusing environmental statutes to delay and cancel projects. Virtually
every pipeline project encounters these costly and time-consuming
delays. It has become a feature of the system.
There are three key steps to streamlining the regulatory process
that Congress can take to help ensure that we have the infrastructure
needed to meet growing energy demands:
1. Policymakers need to empower the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Currently, a single activist state can block a
proposed interstate natural gas project, regardless of the benefits it
would bring, through an abuse of the Clean Water Act's section 401
review process. FERC already considers water quality issues as a part
of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, so bringing
the section 401 review process under FERC would create efficiencies and
prevent any one state from obstructing interstate commerce.
2. Congress needs to reform judicial review, providing for the
courts to fairly review the actions and decisions of govemment
agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FERC, to cut back on lawfare
that leaves good projects languishing for months, if not years. The
best way to accomplish this reform is to alter the evidentiary standard
to provide greater durability for federal authorizations and principled
guard rails to ensure challenges of the authorization are based on
evidence, not harmless gaps in the administrative process. A challenge
should only be successful if its proponent is able to present evidence
that establishes clearly and convincingly that a permit authorization
was improper. Otherwise, the authorization should stand.
3. Lastly, but equally as important, is fixing the remedy allowed
under the NEPA, the procedural statute that is wrongly being used to
delay, deny, and cancel energy infrastructure. NEPA litigation should
be limited to the purpose of the statute--to inform the public, Defects
in a NEPA analysis should only result in further disclosures, not in
unduly delaying or cancelling a project.
These reforms would allow interstate natural gas pipelines, as well
as other energy infrastructure, to be built to meet demand. We must
come together to ensure the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and judicial review
of agency decisions are working for the American people--not preventing
progress and competitiveness in the name of politics.
Weaponization of Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act applies to all energy and
infrastructure projects that require a federal permit and which may
cause a discharge to a water of the United States. Pursuant to section
401, states and tribes are required to either certify that a project is
protective of water quality or waive the certification requirement.
Section 401 allows state and tribal participation in federal permitting
procedures that may otherwise exclude or preempt such input. The
certification process must be completed before a federal permit may be
issued.
Each year, thousands of federal permit applications are submitted
for projects that will require section 401 certifications, including
traditional energy projects and new critical infrastructure that will
drive the deployment of lower carbon emission energy sources. For
example, an energy infrastructure project that impacts a federal
wetland or water requires authorization from the Army Corps of
Engineers under CWA section 404 or the Rivers and Harbors Act section 9
or 10. Annually, the Army Corps issues nearly 3,500 individual permits
and authorizes more than 50,000 projects under general permits. Every
single Army Corps individual permit, and many general permits, require
a section 401 certification. Army Corps-permitted projects include
large wind and solar generation, new transmission lines to bring remote
renewable generation to load centers, and critical minerals exploration
and mining that is essential to support the burgeoning battery storage
and electric vehicle economies.
Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues 44
federal licenses, and EPA issues 125 federal discharge permits
annually. Most, if not all, of these permits also require a section 401
certification.
Ambiguous language in the statute, along with a lack of federal
oversight, has led to confusion over the scope, timing, and procedures
that are applicable to section 401 certifications. These circumstances
have also led some states to interpret the section 401 authority very
broadly and to delay certification decisions for years or even decades.
While most states focus their section 401 review on potential water
quality impacts, as the Clean Water Act requires, some states have used
the section 401 program to veto projects that do not align with, for
example, state energy policy. Similarly, while most states act on a
certification request within the statutory one-year period, some states
have adopted practices, like withdraw-and-resubmit procedures, and
denials without prejudice, that result in a years-long or decades-long
certification process. These ambiguities create opportunities for bad
faith project delay and veto of interstate projects.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, ``pipeline projects have been
blocked that would deliver gas from prolific shale-gas fields in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.'' Williams has some specific
examples of how CWA section 401 has been weaponized against pipeline
projects.
Constitution and NESE Pipeline Delays Resulted in Higher Costs, Lost
Economic Output in the Northeast
The Cuomo administration's denial of the water quality permits
needed for the Constitution pipeline project blocked jobs, decreased
tax revenue, and increased emissions in economically challenged areas.
In addition, this denial has placed the region's grid reliability at
risk.
The $683 million Constitution project was to bring natural gas from
the Marcellus Shale in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, to Schoharie
County, New York, where it would have connected to two existing
interstate natural gas pipelines (Iroquois Gas Transmission and
Tennessee Gas Pipeline) that directly serve New York and New England.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the delay of the Constitution
Pipeline had resulted in $3.9 billion in loss economic output and over
23,000 job-years of work for the region.
Water quality permits are to be granted or denied within one year,
but the Constitution Pipeline endured New York's repeated delays of its
Clean Water Act Section 401 certificate application based on meritless
claims related to the ``completeness of the application.'' These delays
were compounded by New York's efforts to restart the one-year shot
clock every time a new submission was made.
Specifically, in 2014, New York requested that Constitution
rescind, update, and resubmit its application. In 2015, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) requested the
company do so again. In 2016, two years after its initial receipt, New
York denied the application claiming it lacked ``sufficient information
to enable the Department to determine if the Application demonstrates
compliance'' with New York water quality standards. In the wake of
Hoopa Valley and associated precedents around Millennium Pipeline, on
August 28, 2019 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
confirmed that New York had waived its CWA section 401 authorities
through its dilatory requests for more information. Unfortunately,
eight years of arbitrary regulatory and litigation delays, along with
changing market conditions, prompted the project sponsors to pull the
plug on the project on February 21, 2020.
Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE), another project killed by New
York based on meritless water quality grounds, serves as another
example. New York first denied NESE's water quality permit on May 15,
2019, and then did so again on May 16, 2020, after a resubmittal. New
Jersey followed suit. Though the Cuomo Administration previously
expressed concerns over climate impacts, Governor Andrew Cuomo sent a
letter to National Grid saying that it should pursue more emissions-
intensive and less safe means of delivering natural gas like trucks,
barges, and ships, rather than pipelines. Despite his administration
blocking a pipeline meant to expand service to New York customers and
reduce reliance on higher emitting energy sources, he demanded that
National Grid find alternatives or lose its franchise in the New York
City metropolitan area. Without pipelines, New York state and local
officials need to ``grapple with the potential need for new trucked gas
supplies and associated infrastructure, as well as the risk for supply
disruptions and moratoriums in coming years.''--Politico, 2020xiii
Without changes to section 401 that provide greater clarity and
regulatory certainty, the literally thousands of energy infrastructure
projects subject to section 401 each year could also be subject to the
weaponization of section 401.
Conclusion: Congress can Provide Much-Needed Certainty for Permitting
Projects
Congress can instill certainty and spur increased investment of
capital in American energy infrastructure, unleashing a renaissance in
American manufacturing and an advancement of national security, all
with American energy resources.
Pipelines power America, and our country and its citizens have
received the benefits of this large-scale infrastructure for years. We
should not take this historical benefit for granted and let competing
countries rapidly build out their own infrastructure, while our
permitting system continues to stifle ours. The timing is perfect for
meaningful permitting reform that includes pipelines.
Real permitting reform will put the U.S. on a path to meet the
ever-growing need for energy and a path to achieve human flourishing.
The changes will cost taxpayers nothing while paying a world of
dividends.
Sincerely,
T. Lane Wilson,
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel, The Williams Companies,
Inc.
[all]