[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4963-H4987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLEAN WATER COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 347 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2018.
{time} 1429
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2018) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to
the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Poe of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act of 2011. Almost four decades ago, when it enacted the
Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of cooperative
federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the
EPA, and the States
[[Page H4964]]
partners in regulating the Nation's water quality and allocated the
primary responsibilities for dealing with day-to-day water pollution
control matters to the States.
For most of these almost four decades, this system of cooperative
federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well.
However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics
to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water
quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the
States. EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State
standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to
be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations
that the State standards meet the minimum requirements for the Clean
Water Act. EPA has also inserted itself into the States and the Army
Corps of Engineers' permit issuance decisions and the second-guessing
State and other agencies' permitting decisions.
The EPA's recent actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the
States and are unprecedented. H.R. 2018 was introduced to clarify and
restore the longstanding balance that had existed between the States
and the EPA as coregulators under the Clean Water Act and to preserve
the authority of States to make determinations relating to their water
quality standards and permitting. The bill was carefully and narrowly
crafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about
their own water quality standards and permits without undue
interference on second-guessing from EPA bureaucrats in Washington with
little or no knowledge of local water quality conditions.
The legislation reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or
new water quality standard for a pollutant adopted by a State and EPA
already has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant. H.R.
2018 restricts EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a State
NPDES water quality permitting program or from limiting Federal
financial assistance for a State water quality permitting program on
the basis that EPA disagrees with the State.
Further, the bill restricts EPA from objecting to NPDES permits
issued by a State. Moreover, the bill clarifies that EPA can veto an
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision
when the State concurs with the veto.
These limitations apply only in situations where EPA is attempting to
contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all Federal
policies on a State's water quality program. By limiting such
overreaching by the EPA, H.R. 2018 in no way affects EPA's proper role
in reviewing State permits and standards and coordination pollution
control efforts between the States. EPA just has to get back to the
more collaborative role it has long played as the overseer of the
States' implementation of the Clean Water Act.
Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to
disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean
Water Act and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and
public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States. In
reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal
Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States.
Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in
protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their
citizens.
This bill returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation between the
States and the Federal Government in regards to the environment that
our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging for.
Well over 100 organizations representing a wide variety of public and
private entities support this legislation. Just to name a few, these
organizations include the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining
Association, the National Water Resources Association, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National
Association of Homebuilders, and the Associated General Contractors of
America.
July 12, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Urging Swift Passage of the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
(H.R. 2018)
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
undersigned 121 organizations, representing a broad cross-
section of the American economy, are united in their strong
support for the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R.
2018), a bipartisan bill passed by the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee on June 22.
The bill would reaffirm the decades-old state-federal
relationship set out in the Clean Water Act (CWA) by
addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
ongoing regulatory overreach. We urge all House members to
vote for passage of this important legislation when it is
considered on the House floor later this week.
H.R. 2018 has important job creation, economic security,
and federalism implications. Over the years, EPA has
repeatedly challenged states' authority and expertise under
the CWA and asserted its control as the sole arbiter of
evolving CWA permitting requirements and standards. The
agency's actions jeopardize more than $220 billion of annual
economic activity subject to CWA Sec. 402 and 404 permits.
H.R. 2018 would help put people back to work and create new
jobs in the sectors our members serve by restoring the proper
balance between EPA and the states in regulating the nation's
waters, protecting the CWA's system of cooperative
federalism, and preventing EPA from second-guessing or
delaying a state's CWA permitting and water quality
certification decisions.
We urge swift enactment of H.R. 2018 and look forward to
working with you to accomplish that important objective.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association; Alabama Cattlemen's
Association; American Concrete Pavement Association;
American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; American
Farm Bureau Federation; American Rental Association;
American Road & Transportation Builders Association;
American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Arizona Farm
Bureau Federation; Arizona Rock Products Association;
Associated Equipment Distributors; The Associated
General Contractors of America; Association of
Equipment Manufacturers; Buckeye Valley Chamber of
Commerce; Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley;
Chemical Producers & Distributors Association; Colorado
Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Livestock
Association; CropLife America; Dairy Producers of New
Mexico; Deep South Equipment Dealers Association;
Delaware State Chamber of Commerce; Edison Electric
Institute; Equipment Distributors Association of
Minnesota; Far West Equipment Dealer Association.
Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association; The Fertilizer
Institute; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Florida
Sugar Cane League; Georgia Construction Aggregate
Association; Georgia Mining Association; Greater
Phoenix Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh Chamber
of Commerce; Idaho Cattle Association; Illinois
Association of Aggregate Producers; Illinois Chamber of
Commerce; Illinois Coal Association; Industrial
Minerals Association--North America; Iowa Cattlemen's
Association; Iowa Limestone Producers Association;
Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association; Kansas
Aggregate Producers Association; Kansas Livestock
Association; Kansas Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
Kentucky Association of Manufacturers; Kentucky Chamber
of Commerce; Kentucky Coal Association; Kentucky
Crushed Stone Association, Inc.; Lodi Chamber of
Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Aggregates
Association; Mid-America Equipment Retailers
Association; Midwest Equipment Dealers Association;
Minnesota-South Dakota Equipment Dealers Association;
Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Montana Equipment
Dealers Association; Montana Stockgrowers Association;
National Asphalt Pavement Association; National
Association of Home Builders; National Association of
Manufacturers.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Corn
Growers Association; National Milk Producers
Federation; National Mining Association; National Pork
Producers Council; National Precast Concrete
Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; National
Water Resources Association; Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.;
North American Equipment Dealers Association; North
Dakota Implement Dealers Association; Northeast
Equipment Dealers Association, Inc.; NUCA Representing
Utility and Excavation Contractors.
Ohio Aggregates & Industrial Minerals Association; Ohio
Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Equipment Distributors
Association; Ohio-Michigan Equipment Dealers
Association; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; Pacific
Northwest
[[Page H4965]]
Hardware & Implement Association; Palm Desert Area
Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Aggregates and
Concrete Association; Pennsylvania Cattlemen's
Association; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and
Industry; Portland Cement Association; Public Lands
Council; Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment;
Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce; Simi Valley
Chamber of Commerce; South Dakota Agri-Business
Association; South Dakota Cattlemen's Association;
South East Dairy Farmers Association; SouthEastern
Equipment Dealers Association; South Western
Association; Tennessee Concrete Association; Tennessee
Road Builders Association; Texas and Southwestern
Cattle Raisers Association.
Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Tucson Metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; United Egg Producers; USA Rice
Federation; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Utah Farm
Bureau Federation; The Utah School and Institutional
Trust Lands Administration; Utah Wool Growers
Association; Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia
Grain Producers Association; Virginia Poultry
Federation; Washington Aggregates & Concrete
Association; Washington Cattlemen's Association;
Washington Farm Bureau; West Virginia Chamber of
Commerce; West Virginia Coal Association; West Virginia
Manufacturers Association; Western Business Roundtable;
Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Crop
Improvement Association; Wyoming Stock Growers.
____
American Farm
Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2011.
Hon.___
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. ___ The American Farm Bureau Federation, the
nation's largest general farm organization representing
farmers and ranchers in every state and Puerto Rico, strongly
supports H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism
Act of 2011. This legislation restores the historic Clean
Water Act balance and partnership between the federal
government and states.
H.R. 2018 limits the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) ability to arbitrarily issue revised or new water
quality standards if a state has adopted, and EPA has already
approved, a standard that protects water quality, unless the
state concurs with the new standard. This important
legislation protects states and permit holders and maintains
the successful partnership between states and the federal
government in a way that protects water quality and fosters
an environment for economic growth and job creation.
Farm Bureau believes this legislation significantly
improves the accountability of EPA. Farm Bureau opposes
amendments expected to be offered by Reps. Russ Carnahan (D-
Mo.), Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas),
Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and any
other amendments that would weaken the legislation.
Farm Bureau strongly supports H.R. 2018 and urges you to
vote in favor of its passage.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
Chamber of Commerce of
the United States of America,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2011.
To the Members of the House of Representatives: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing the interests of more than three million
businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and
region, strongly supports H.R. 2018, the ``Clean Water
Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,'' which would restore the
historic balance and partnership between the federal
government and the states in the administration of the
``Clean Water Act (CWA).'' The Chamber strongly opposes
several amendments that would weaken this important
legislation, and supports an amendment that would improve
accountability at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Clean Water Act grants states the primary
responsibility for protecting water quality. However, recent
actions by the EPA upset and supplant this partnership with
arbitrary federal power that is being exercised even over
states with effective delegated regulatory programs.
Individuals and firms that meet the requirements of, and
obtain permits from, state regulators ought not to be left
exposed to the enforcement whim and caprice of the federal
government.
H.R. 2018 would prevent EPA from issuing a revised or new
water quality standard if a state has adopted--and EPA has
already approved--such a standard, unless the state concurs
with the new standard. The bill would also prohibit EPA from
superseding a water quality certification granted by a state
under CWA Sec. 401, limit EPA's ability to withdraw approval
of a state water quality permitting program under CWA
Sec. 402, and limit EPA's ability to object to a state's
issuance of a pollutant discharge permit or to veto dredge
and fill permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
H.R. 2018 would protect states and their permittees from
federal bureaucratic overreach, allow flexibility in the
administration of approved permitting programs, and restore
the successful partnership between states and the federal
government to protect water quality throughout the nation.
The Chamber strongly opposes amendments expected to be
offered by Reps. Carnahan, Connolly, Jackson Lee, Polis and
Markey. Each amendment would significantly weaken, gut, or
impair this important legislation.
In addition, the Chamber supports an amendment expected to
be offered by Rep. Capito that would require EPA to more
fully assess the economic and employment impacts of
regulations it promulgates. This amendment would be an
important step towards improving accountability at EPA.
Moreover, the amendment would complement provisions of
existing law, including Clean Air Act section 321, requiring
an analysis of job losses that EPA has historically ignored.
The Chamber strongly supports H.R. 2018 and urges you to
vote in favor of this legislation. The Chamber will consider
including votes on or in relation to H.R. 2018--including
votes on the Capito amendment and several weakening
amendments--in our annual How They Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
The National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
(NASDA) writes in support of the ``Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act'' (H.R. 2018). This bipartisan legislation,
introduced by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chairman John Mica and Ranking Member Nick Rahall, re-affirms
the decades-old state-federal relationship set out in the
Clean Water Act (CWA) by addressing the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) ongoing regulatory overreach. We
urge all House members to vote for passage of this important
legislation when it is considered on the House floor this
month.
The CWA established an effective framework in which the
states and the federal government work together to ensure the
protection of our nation's waters. However, over a number of
years, EPA has eroded states' authority under the CWA,
questioned the expertise and integrity of state regulatory
officials and attempted to assert control as the sole arbiter
of CWA permitting requirements and standards. As the top
agriculture officials in the states, NASDA members have seen
firsthand the impacts that occur when EPA undermines these
state programs.
H.R. 2018 would help restore the proper balance between EPA
and the states in regulating the nation's waters, protecting
the CWA's system of cooperative federalism, and preventing
EPA from second-guessing or delaying a state's CWA permitting
and water quality certification decisions.
We urge swift enactment of H.R. 2018 and look forward to
working with you to accomplish that important objective.
Sincerely,
Stephen Haterius,
Executive Director.
____
Louisiana Department
of Agriculture & Forestry,
Baton Rouge, LA, July 11, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: Recently,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set strict water
quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus in Florida
waters, leading many agriculture organizations to express
concern over EPA's approach. A study by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the
University of Florida estimates that the requirements being
imposed by EPA in Florida will cost the state's economy in
excess of $1 billion.
Louisiana is currently facing a similar threat. A petition
originally filed July 30, 2008, by the Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy
Center, the Midwest Environmental Advocates and the Gulf
Restoration Network, among others, asked EPA to set
nationwide numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and
phosphorous, as well as a nutrient pollution loading plan or
total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Mississippi River and
the Gulf of Mexico.
[[Page H4966]]
Agriculture is the largest sector of our state's economy.
Agriculture, forestry and aquaculture comprise over 85
percent of the surface area of this state, 9.7 percent of our
work force, and over 243,000 jobs. Valued at more than $30
billion, agriculture and forestry combined make up the most
economically dependent industry in Louisiana. If Louisiana is
forced to comply with these actions, we are certain that
Louisiana agriculture cannot meet the EPA nutrient criteria
requirements without the implementation of costly edge-of-
farm water detention and treatment that would severely impact
our ability to produce safe food and fiber for our citizens.
Louisiana agriculture and forestry is proactive in
addressing water quality concerns. Scientifically based best
management practices (BMPs) have been developed and are being
implemented through the Louisiana Master Farmer Program and
the Louisiana Master Logger Program. These practices are
targeted at reducing the generation and delivery of
pollutants into the air and waters of the state, specifically
those targeted in the state TMDL program. Our Louisiana
Master Farmer Program is firmly rooted in state law, is
backed by sound science, and is a critical component of
Louisiana's overall water resource management program.
The original intent of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was to
establish an effective framework in which the states and the
federal government work together to ensure the protection of
our nation's waters. However, over a number of years, EPA has
eroded the states' authority under the CWA, questioned the
expertise and integrity of state regulatory officials, and
attempted to assert control as the sole arbiter of CWA
permitting requirements and standards.
The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 (H.R.
2018), bipartisan legislation introduced by Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica and Ranking
Member Nick Rahall, re-affirms the decades-old state-federal
relationship set out in the CWA by addressing the EPA's
ongoing regulatory overreach. 1 urge all House members to
vote for passage of this important legislation when it is
considered on the House floor this month.
H.R. 2018 would help restore the proper balance between EPA
and the states in regulating the nation's waters, protecting
the CWA's system of cooperative federalism, and preventing
EPA from second-guessing or delaying a state's CWA permitting
and water quality certification decisions.
We stand ready to assist in water quality efforts in
Louisiana; however, we feel that: 1) Louisiana should be
allowed to exercise the authority envisioned by the CWA to
develop its own water quality standards and implement them
through an EPA approved and predictable process governed by
existing state law; 2) decisions should be based on good
science; 3) efforts must be sensitive to economic costs to
producers; and 4) consideration must be given to the overall
impact to the economic health of farm-based communities where
agriculture is the economic base of these communities.
Along with the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA), I support the ``Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act.'' We urge swift enactment of H.R. 2018, and
look forward to working with you to accomplish this important
objective.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Strain,
Commissioner.
I urge passage of H.R. 2018, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 2018. For far too many years now, my State
and others throughout the Appalachian region that produce coal to power
our Nation have been struggling under the weight of an uncertain
Federal permitting process. That uncertainty has left coal miners and
mining communities living in an untenable limbo. The result has been a
creation of an atmosphere of worry, of distrust, and of bitterness.
I had hoped that under this administration, we would finally find our
way to some clarity and common ground. Unfortunately, that has not been
the case. Rather than bringing sides together and fostering balance,
the EPA's actions in recent months have widened the division. They have
spurred the tension of divided opinion over surface coal mining to
fracture what should be a cooperative relationship among the Federal
and State agencies with permitting responsibility.
Not only is the EPA reaching into the Clean Water Act authorities
under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers; it is also reaching
into the States and attempting to control their water protection
programs. Opponents of this legislation will argue that the EPA does
not have statutory authority to limit or otherwise supersede the
authority of the States to issue water quality permits under the Clean
Water Act, section 401. But that lack of statutory authority has not
prevented them from trying to do so. In its very first official step to
change the rules of surface mine permitting, on June 11, 2009, the EPA
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Interior Department. It states: ``EPA will improve
and strengthen oversight and review of water pollution permits for
discharges from valley fills under CWA section 402, and of State water
quality certifications under CWA section 401, by taking appropriate
steps to assist States to strengthen State regulation, enforcement, and
permitting of surface mining operations under these programs.''
The agency may claim that it is only following the law and
``assisting'' the State, but the reality is that agency is strong-
arming the States, just as it is muscling in on the jurisdiction of
other agencies. By creating wholly new criteria and new timeliness for
Clean Water Act permits and stubbornly insisting, from on high, that
the States adhere to them, the EPA is imposing its own will and its own
interpretations of water quality standards on the States. It has drawn
a line in the sand, and it is daring the States to cross over it.
To my mind, the most logical solution would be for all sides to come
together. The Federal agencies ought to work together in cooperative
partnership with the States. That was the vision of the CWA, and that's
the goal of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of
2011.
Mr. Chairman, I think we would all prefer not to have to craft this
kind of legislation. Certainly it would be preferable that agencies
work with each other, with the States, and within the confines of their
statutory authority. It would be better if they followed the rules and
did not try to change the law through guidance and MOUs. But when they
do so, when they abuse their powers, Congress has the constitutional
responsibility to serve as a check on them. This is clearly such a
time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and
also the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their leadership on this issue. I am pleased
to be a sponsor of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2018. We call this the Clean
Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. It is, indeed, a bipartisan
effort. It has broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. It is
a measure to restore some balance between the EPA, our Federal
regulatory body that oversees the Clean Water Act, and our States,
which are responsible for implementation of some of the important work
that ensures that we have clean water.
{time} 1440
Now, I know there is no one that wants to in any way degrade the
quality of clean water, that wants to lower standards for emissions,
you know, that is not a good steward of our environment. But there is
no question that the action that we've seen from EPA has unleashed an
unprecedented backlash. Everyone has called this a huge power grab by
EPA. And EPA has indeed created a regulatory nightmare that affects
almost every State in the Union.
Our goal here is to assure that the Federal Government sets standards
and that we do have a proper role for implementing the Clean Water Act.
And once States have taken action, have their plans approved, that
there can be some sense of reliability and stability in the decision
that EPA has concurred with. What we've seen now is EPA changing the
rules after States have had a commitment and outline of the protocols
that they must follow, raising complete havoc. In fact, the agency's
actions could jeopardize more than $220 billion worth of annual
economic activity which is subject to the Clean Water Act section 402
and 404 permits.
So again, this is almost an unprecedented regulatory grab, creating a
potential nightmare, leaving projects on hold. And these projects have
not only an environmental impact, but they also have a job and
employment and economic impact in the United States at a very difficult
time for our economy.
[[Page H4967]]
This bill has been very narrowly drafted to preserve the authority of
States to make decisions about protecting water quality in their
States, and to again impose some restrictions on EPA in this overreach
and to try to prohibit some of the second-guessing or delays of
actually implementing a State's water quality permitting process and
the standards and decisions that they have made under the Clean Water
Act. This is also all done after, again, EPA has already approved a
State's program. So we have great concerns about what's taking place.
The impact isn't just Florida. I have a couple of articles here I
will refer to. The reaction in the Sunshine News, which is published
throughout Florida, our former U.S. Representative who served in this
House, who is now the agriculture commissioner in Florida, he released
a statement saying that EPA essentially ignores concerns about the
effect implementation would have on Florida's economy. He supports a
bipartisan effort to again back up the new rules with sound science.
So whether it's Florida, or--here's a Fox News report relating to
Appalachia that says, ``Appalachian Coal Miners Say EPA Rules Are
Killing Their Jobs.'' Another article in The Florida Times-Union,
``Scientists: EPA `Race' to Protect Florida Rivers Could Leave Science
Behind.''
So we join a chorus of numerous organizations. Mr. Gibbs talked about
them. We have, again, a huge number of organizations, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, American Farm Bureau, the National Mining Association,
Associated Equipment Distributors, the Associated General Contractors
of America, National Association of Manufacturers, groups from labor
and others who also believe that this is an EPA overreach and will have
a negative effect, both--and what we are hoping to achieve, again with
having the States properly implement clean water regulations--but also
a very negative impact on employment at a very precarious time in the
economy of this Nation.
So I urge support of our bipartisan effort, and I ask my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Member from New York (Mr. Bishop), the ranking subcommittee member on
our Water Resources Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the Clean
Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Despite some of the arguments
I have heard in favor of this legislation, H.R. 2018 has not been
narrowly crafted to address issues related to nutrient criteria and
surface coal mining. I echo the administration's opposition to this
bill when I say that H.R. 2018 would significantly undermine the Clean
Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and
the environment.
While proponents of this legislation argue that the changes to the
clean water permitting structure are targeted to address the
development of nutrient criteria, such as in the State of Florida, the
fact that this legislation is drafted to include any pollutant means
that its reach extends to any discharge from any point source in any
water body in the United States.
Under this legislation, EPA would also be prohibited from
recommending stricter discharge standards for toxic pollutants such as
lead or mercury, even if the protection of human health is at stake,
unless the State consents to such changes. In my view, this policy does
not move our Nation forward, but rather reverses our direction and
moves our Nation back 40 years to before the enactment of the Clean
Water Act.
Some of my friends would like to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach
to regulating clean water. I would too. Luckily for us, the basic
structure of the Clean Water Act already provides States enormous
flexibility in setting water quality standards. Current law allows
States to assume authority over day to day implementation of State
permitting programs, and allows States to implement more stringent
controls on pollution within their borders. The Clean Water Act merely
sets the baseline minimum standard for water quality.
Prior to the Clean Water Act establishing a baseline, 70 percent of
the Nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking. We
are now at 30 percent of our waters in such a condition. And I very
much doubt that any reasonable person would want to return to the days
of 70 percent.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have argued that
this legislation is necessary because State authority to implement
clean water programs is much improved since 1972, and States will do
the right thing in protecting water quality. I agree that individual
States have increased their capacity to protect the water quality
within their States. However, I think it is also fair to suggest that
the Clean Water Act has been essential to this Nation's efforts to
double the number of waters meeting the fishable and swimmable standard
since enactment of this statute in 1972.
In my view, elimination of the EPA's oversight and authority for
minimum standards would allow a potential race to the bottom for the
establishment of pollution discharge limits within a State border. We
have seen disputes between States such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, or
North Carolina and Tennessee. Among States like Alabama, Georgia, and
Florida, the potential opportunities for one State to send its
pollution downstream to another State are real and needs to be
prevented.
Mr. Chairman, the role that Congress established for the EPA in the
Clean Water Act has served our Nation well for almost 40 years. It has
protected public health, and it has been an effective mechanism to
protect the many businesses and industries that rely on clean water.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2011.
Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2018--Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act (Rep. Mica, R-FL, and 39 Cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2018 because it
would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the
environment.
Under the CWA, one of the Nation's most successful and
effective environmental laws, the Federal Government acts to
ensure safe levels of water quality across the country
through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since the
enactment of the CWA in 1972, the Federal Government has
protected the waterways our citizens depend on by using its
checks and balances authority to review and adjust key State
water pollution control decisions, where necessary, to assure
that they reflect up to date science, comply with the law,
and protect downstream water users in other States. H.R. 2018
would roll back the key provisions of the CWA that have been
the underpinning of 40 years of progress in making the
Nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.
H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by
removing the Federal Government's authority to take action
when State water quality standards are not protective of
public health. In addition, it would restrict EPA's authority
to take action when it finds that a State's CWA permit or
permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA's review
and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits
for dredged or fill material. All of these changes could
result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy, and
the environment through increased pollution and degradation
of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and
tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat
for fish and wildlife.
H.R. 2018 would disrupt the carefully constructed
complementary CWA roles for EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers,
and States in protecting water quality. It also could
eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public
health in downstream States from actions in upstream States,
and could increase the number of lawsuits challenging State
permits. In sum, H.R. 2018 would upset the CWA's balanced
approach to improve water quality across the Nation, risking
the public health and economic benefits of cleaner waters.
If the President is presented with this legislation, his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
____
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2011.
Hon. Tim Bishop,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bishop: Thank you for the letter dated
June 17th regarding H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act. Attached, please find EPA's legal analysis of
this legislation.
[[Page H4968]]
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact me at (202) 564-4741.
Sincerely,
Arvin Ganesan,
Deputy Associate Administrator
for Congressional Affairs.
____
Technical Assessment of H.R. 2018
The bill would overturn almost 40 years of Federal
legislation by preventing EPA from protecting public
health and water quality.
This bill would significantly undermine EPA's longstanding
role under the CWA to assure that state water quality
standards protect clean water and public health and comply
with the law. It would fundamentally disrupt the Federal-
State relationship outlined in the 1972 CWA and would hinder
the federal government's ability to ensure that states
protect interstate waters at a common level. This could lead
to upstream states implementing standards that degrade waters
in downstream states.
This bill would prevent EPA from taking action without
state concurrence even in the face of significant scientific
information demonstrating threats to human health or aquatic
life.
This bill would unnecessarily delay EPA approval of new or
revised State water quality standards, even where there are
no concerns, and could lead to a higher rate of EPA
disapprovals.
The bill would prevent EPA from providing its views on
whether a proposed project that pollutes or even destroys
lakes, streams, or wetlands would violate CWA standards.
This bill would limit EPA from meeting its current CWA
responsibility to facilitate disputes between States as to
whether permit conditions protect water quality in all
affected States.
This bill would restrict EPA from providing its views on
proposed permits or taking necessary action under existing
law to protect public health and water quality.
The bill would remove EPA's existing state coordination role
and eliminate the careful Federal/State balance
established in the current CWA.
Removing EPA's program oversight role is likely to reduce
the quality of state-issued permits and may likely increase
the number of lawsuits by citizens and environmental groups.
This would shift the dispute resolution process from a
productive state-EPA dialogue toward adversarial litigation.
Restricting EPA's authority to ensure that states implement
their programs as approved may lead states to reduce the
protection they provide to their waters, thereby leading to a
``race to the bottom'' that jeopardizes water quality and
human health.
The bill would prevent EPA from protecting communities from
unacceptable adverse impacts to their water supplies and
the environment caused by Federal permits.
This legislation would remove EPA's ability to take action
to protect communities from projects approved by the Corps of
Engineers that would have unacceptable adverse effects to our
nation's waters and public health. This would fundamentally
disrupt the balance established by the original CWA in 1972--
a law that carefully constructed complementary roles for EPA,
the Corps, and states.
EPA has only used its CWA Section 404(c) authority 13 times
in the nearly 40-year history of the CWA.
This bill would substantively eliminate the opportunity for
EPA, the federal government's expert on water quality, to
comment on Federal permits impacting water quality and
public health.
This bill would greatly limit EPA's ability to provide
constructive and expert comments to the Corps on Section 404
permit applications. The bill would reduce the quality of
information available to EPA and the time available to review
it, resulting in more frequent EPA objections based on lack
of information and unnecessary delays in the permitting
process.
This provision would require the Corps to adopt, through
regulation, a more complex permitting process, which would
add work for the Corps and uncertainty for applicants.
``. . . the Administrator may not promulgate a revised or new
standard for a pollutant in any case in which the State
has submitted to the Administrator and the Administrator
has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant,
unless the State concurs with the Administrator's
determination that the revised or new standard is
necessary to meet the requirements of this Act.''
This provision would significantly undermine EPA's ability
to ensure that state water quality standards are adequately
protective and meet Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements. It
would fundamentally change the Federal-State relationship
outlined in the 1972 CWA and would hinder the federal
government's ability to ensure there is an equitable level of
protection provided to our nation's waters.
The bill would generally prevent EPA, without State
concurrence, from taking action to revise outdated State
water quality standards. It also would prevent EPA from
replacing difficult-to-implement narrative water quality
criteria with more protective and easier to implement numeric
water quality criteria. EPA would not be able to take action
to promulgate new or revised WQS without State concurrence
even in the face of significant scientific information
demonstrating threats to human health or aquatic life.
This bill would slow the process by which EPA approves new
or revised State water quality standards. If EPA were
prevented from taking action to replace outdated standards,
EPA Regions would need additional time in their review of new
or revised state water quality standards. EPA would also be
more likely to disapprove state standards if it was precluded
from taking action to ensure their protectiveness in the
future.
``With respect to any discharge, if a State or interstate
agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at
the point where the discharge originates or will
originate determines under paragraph (1) that the
discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of
sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, the Administrator
may not take any action to supersede the determination.''
This subsection would prevent EPA from ``superseding'' a
State certification under Section 401 of the CWA, which
applies to Federal licenses or permits. The meaning, context,
and application of the word ``supersede'' is ambiguous.
Because of the provision's uncertain scope, it has the
potential to prevent EPA from fulfilling its CWA
responsibility to facilitate disputes between States as to
the effectiveness of permit conditions in protecting all
affected States' water quality.
This provision may reflect a misunderstanding of EPA's
recent actions with respect to CWA Sections 401 and 404. EPA
formally deviates from a State-issued 401 certification very
sparingly. With respect to Section 404 permitting for
Appalachian surface coal mining operations, EPA has provided
comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with respect to
EPA's water quality concerns. However, EPA has not taken
formal action to ``supersede'' the State certification, so
the practical effect of this provision is unclear.
``The Administrator may not withdraw approval of a State
program under paragraph (3) or (4), or limit Federal
financial assistance for the State program, on the basis
that the Administrator disagrees with the State
regarding--
``(A) the implementation of any water quality standard that
has been adopted by the State and approved by the
Administrator under section 303(c); or
``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs
the interpretation of the State's water quality
standards.''
This provision takes a significant step toward eliminating
the requirement that states implement water quality standards
in their NPDES permits, which is a critical tool in ensuring
that our nation's waters remain fishable and swimmable.
The process of approving state NPDES programs is intended
to ensure that they implement the minimum requirements
specified in the CWA, thereby ensuring a more-or-less level
playing field. Restricting EPA's authority to ensure that
states implement their programs as approved could lead to a
race to the bottom as each state seeks to ensure that their
program is no more stringent than the least stringent state
program.
The term ``implementation of any water quality standard''
is significantly ambiguous and would likely lead to
litigation. This term could include a variety of functions,
such as implementing state water quality standards in NPDES
permits, implementing applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs), ensuring that states meaningfully implement their
narrative water quality standards, or taking enforcement
action.
States rely to varying degrees on narrative water quality
standards, which are a practical solution to the
infeasibility of developing a numeric standard for every
pollutant of concern. EPA approval of narrative standards
would be hampered if EPA could not then ensure their
effective and meaningful incorporating into permits.
EPA is unclear about the practical effect of this
provision. EPA has not withdrawn approval of a state program
for the reasons outlined above for a significant period of
time.
``The Administrator may not object under paragraph (2) to the
issuance of a permit by a State on the basis of--
``(A) the Administrator's interpretation of a water quality
standard that has been adopted by the State and approved
by the Administrator under section 303(c); or
``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs
the interpretation of the State's water quality
standards.''
This provision would prevent EPA from objecting to permits
that fail to implement significant provisions of the CWA.
EPA's role in overseeing State CWA programs--a role dating
back to 1972--serves a critical purpose by promoting national
consistency and encouraging productive dialogue between EPA
and states before permits are issued.
Removing EPA's oversight role is likely to reduce the
quality of state-issued permits and would likely increase the
number of lawsuits by citizens and environmental groups to
remedy these inadequate permits. This would shift dispute
resolution from a generally productive state-EPA working
relationship to an adversarial litigation-driven process.
This provision appears to be motivated by a fundamental
misunderstanding of EPA's recent actions with respect to
Appalachian surface coal mining. EPA has not formally
interpreted state narrative water quality standards or
directed a specific interpretation of those state standards.
Therefore, the
[[Page H4969]]
practical impact of this provision is questionable.
Section 404(c): ``Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any permit
if the State In which the discharge originates or will
originate does not concur with the Administrator's
determination that the discharge will result in an
unacceptable adverse effect as described in paragraph
(1).''
This legislation would prevent EPA from taking action to
protect the nation's aquatic resources from unacceptable
adverse effects on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds
and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas without
concurrence from the state. This would fundamentally disrupt
the structure established by the original CWA in 1972--a law
that carefully constructed complementary roles for EPA, the
Corps, and the states.
EPA uses Section 404(c) as the action of last resort when
no other approach works to prevent unacceptable impacts. EPA
must follow a highly deliberative process (including an
opportunity for significant public comment) in exercising its
ultimate environmental review authority over CWA Section 404
permitting--and this authority only applies in cases where an
activity will result in specific and severe adverse
environmental effects.
EPA has only used its CWA Section 404(c) authority 13 times
in the nearly 40-year history of the CWA, and EPA reserves
use of this authority for only the most unacceptable cases.
EPA's use of Section 404(c) has protected more than 73,000
acres of wetlands and more than 30 miles of streams from
unacceptable adverse impacts.
In 2008, the Bush Administration used Section 404(c) to
protect over 67,000 acres of wetlands in Mississippi--some of
the richest wetland and aquatic resources in the Nation. This
area includes a highly productive floodplain fishery, highly
productive bottomland hardwood forests, and important
migratory bird foraging grounds.
Similarly in 1990, the first Bush Administration used
Section 404(c) to protect a portion of the South Platte River
in Colorado which has extraordinary aquatic resource values
and supports an outstanding recreational fishery which the
State of Colorado designated a ``gold medal'' trout stream.
Many projects result in effects that cross state lines. In
these cases, this bill would contribute to confusion as to
which state must ``concur'' and could result in a situation
where another State would unfairly bear the environmental
costs associated with an activity.
States already have a powerful tool under Section 401 of
the CWA to prevent projects from violating state water
quality standards, and they are already provided an important
role in EPA's Section 404(c) process.
``The Administrator and the head of a department or agency
referred to in paragraph (1) shall each submit any
comments with respect to an application for a permit
under subsection (a) or (e) not later than the 30th day
(or the 60th day if additional time is requested) after
the date of receipt of an application for a permit under
that subsection.''
This subsection would significantly reduce the opportunity
for public and interagency participation in the Corps'
Section 404 permitting process, especially by EPA.
For EPA, the agency entrusted with primary authority to
implement the CWA, this bill would severely limit EPA's
ability to provide constructive, informed comments to the
Corps. Without access to complete information and adequate
time to review and comment, EPA would be severely restricted
in carrying out its CWA responsibilities.
Reducing the quality of information available to EPA and
the time available to review it , would result in more
frequent EPA objections based on lack of information, and
unnecessary delays to the applications as the Corps works
with the applicant to address EPA and others' less-informed
comments.
This legislation would disrupt the current mechanism by
which the Corps receives comments from federal agencies and
the public. Implementing this legislation would require
agencies to submit comments after the Corps receives an
application, regardless of whether the application is
complete. This would require the Corps to make changes to its
regulations that would create a more complex permitting
process, thereby adding work for the Corps and adding
uncertainty for applicants as they navigate a less
straightforward permitting process.
{time} 1450
Mr. GIBBS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act of 2011.
As a member of the Water Subcommittee and cosponsor of this bill, I
applaud Chairman Mica, Chairman Gibbs, and Ranking Member Rahall for
bringing forward this important bipartisan legislation.
H.R. 2018 seeks to reverse the erosion of the States' authority and
partnership with the Federal Government under the Clean Water Act. This
well-established and effective partnership has come under increasing
attack by the EPA under the Obama administration, and the EPA has
progressively undermined the States' shared regulatory authority.
Our bill preserves the system of cooperative federalism established
under the Clean Water Act, and in which the primary responsibilities
for water pollution control are allocated to the States.
The bill restrict's EPA's ability to second-guess or delay a State's
permitting in water quality certification decisions under the CWA once
the EPA has already approved a State's program. We must put an end to
the EPA's one-size-fits-all, and the economy stifling agenda.
This bill ensures a commonsense regulatory regime that protects our
environment while at the same time protecting our Nation's farmers,
miners, and other businesses critical to our economy.
This bill addresses one of the many areas in which the EPA has
overstepped its authority and taken actions that are deeply hurtful to
our economy.
In my State of Pennsylvania, the EPA has increased its interference
with the Commonwealth to unprecedented levels, creating numerous delays
and problems for the Commonwealth and our Department of Environmental
Protection, with no scientific basis or environmental payoff.
I received copies of numerous letters from the Pennsylvania DEP
Secretary Krancer to the EPA citing EPA's interference and
unwillingness to collaborate with the State on the issues that they
have led on for three decades.
The first example is regarding the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, or the NPDES, permits, which has been a problem
with several States in addition to Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania DEP has
had the primary authority over the NPDES permitting program since 1984,
and the EPA has just recently started to interfere in the Pennsylvania
program, specifically in mining-related permits.
The EPA has specifically increased their permit review of mining-
related permits under a new guidance, which relies on unsettled
science. This is causing long delays in the permitting process with no
environmental benefit and is costing Pennsylvania jobs and economic
benefits.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives recently passed a
resolution stating the EPA is overstepping DEP without any Federal
legislative or regulatory changes to support this increased oversight.
This resolution reasserts Pennsylvania's primary role over the NPDES
permitting in the State.
The EPA has refused to work with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection on Chesapeake Bay issues to address several
problems with the EPA's model that do not accurately reflect
Pennsylvania's unique issues. A letter from Secretary Krancer to Lisa
Jackson states, ``PA DEP and our municipality stakeholders have been
frustrated with EPA's continued failure to acknowledge the challenge of
Pennsylvania's unique municipal structure. Pennsylvania does not agree
the TMDL development effort has been collaborative.''
Again, there was an EPA letter to the DEP citing DEP's concerns with
the State's handling of wastewater for the Marcellus drilling,
excessively overstepping the DEP, criticizing their approach, and
demanding to direct Pennsylvania's sampling and monitoring programs. It
seems the EPA is listening more to The New York Times than the State
regulatory agencies that are actually regulating and monitoring the
issues on the ground.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SHUSTER. The EPA, along with other Federal agencies, continues to
grab for more authority, overriding long-standing State policies and
roles in regulating oil and gas exploration and environmental
protection, in particular States such as Pennsylvania, with long-
standing and respected programs.
The EPA needs to back off. Pennsylvania issues are completely
different than Texas issues, and no one knows Pennsylvania or wants to
protect Pennsylvania better than the State agencies working to protect
it.
[[Page H4970]]
I strongly support H.R. 2018 and, again, congratulate Mr. Gibbs on a
job well done on this legislation.
The General Assembly of Pennsylvania--House Resolution No. 87
a resolution
Urging the Environmental Protection Agency to stop its
unlawful application of the Guidance Memo relating to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is a substantive
change to the permitting procedure conferred on the states,
and restore the regulatory environment that existed prior to
the release of the Guidance Memo.
Whereas, Under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (62 Stat. 1155, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342), National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are
typically issued by states for discharge of nondredged and
nonfill material; and
Whereas, Once the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approves a state permitting program, the state has exclusive
authority to issue NPDES permits; and
Whereas, Through a 1991 Memorandum of Agreement executed
between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the EPA, the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was identified
as the lead agency with exclusive authority for administering
and granting NPDES permits for mining-related activities in
this Commonwealth; and
Whereas, In September 2010, the EPA informed the DEP that
it was altering the Commonwealth's administration of its
permitting program and would conduct its own additional
review of NPDES permits; and
Whereas, This abrupt change in the Commonwealth's
permitting process was not the result of any accompanying
Federal statutory or regulatory changes; and
Whereas, As a result of this change, the DEP is required to
provide the EPA's Region 3 field office with all pending
mining-related NPDES permit applications, whose activity will
either discharge into the Monongahela River or into any
designated total maximum daily load impaired stream for its
independent review; and
Whereas, The EPA's Region 3 field office is not
sufficiently staffed to perform these types of reviews in a
timely manner, causing indefinite delays in the permitting
process; and
Whereas, The EPA's objections to the issuance of these
permit applications vary, but generally are based on what the
Federal agency perceives are inconsistencies between the
applications and an interim final Guidance Memo that the EPA
released in April 2010, designed to provide a framework for
regional reviews of surface mining projects in Appalachia
based on conductivity levels it associated with adverse
impacts to streams; and
Whereas, Although the stated intent of the Guidance Memo is
to limit its applicability to surface mining projects only, a
number of the permits being delayed in this Commonwealth are
for activities other than this type of mining; and
Whereas, The Guidance Memo is based on flawed studies
with limited application and unconfirmed conclusions that
cannot be used to develop a predictive cause and effect
relationship between the EPA's established benchmark
threshold for conductivity levels and healthy streams in
this Commonwealth; and
Whereas, Despite the representation that the Guidance Memo
is an interim document, it nevertheless is applied by the EPA
in a binding manner in its current version, even though the
EPA continues to receive comments on it; and
Whereas, The EPA's application of the Guidance Memo
constitutes a substantive change in the basic application of
the permitting process; and
Whereas, By substituting the issuance of agency guidance
for formal rulemaking, the EPA circumvents the clear
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat.
237, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) for public notice and comments;
and
Whereas, This unnecessary extended review of NPDES permit
applications by the EPA has led to a significant backlog of
permits that could result in coal contracts being lost,
mining jobs being destroyed and this Commonwealth losing its
major source of affordable and reliable electric generation;
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania urge the Environmental
Protection Agency to stop its unlawful application of the
Guidance Memo relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, which is a substantive change to the permitting
procedure conferred on the states, and restore the regulatory
environment that existed prior to the release of the Guidance
Memo; be it further
Resolved, That the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reassert
its rightful role as the sole agency with permitting
authority of mining-related National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of
Representatives transmit a copy of this resolution to the
Governor of Pennsylvania, the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator and all members of the Pennsylvania
Congressional Delegation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
Mr. HOLDEN. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018. The Clean Water
Act created a partnership between the States and the Federal Government
to keep our waterways healthy. However, the EPA has repeatedly tried to
impose Federal standards on individual States.
In Pennsylvania, the EPA imposed an unachievable one-size-fits-all
standard for water quality that ignores the economic concerns of our
farmers, energy producers, small businesses, and local governments.
This could cost Pennsylvania thousands of jobs and threaten our energy
production.
This bill restores the balance between the States and the EPA as
coregulators under the Clean Water Act. States and local governments
are dependent upon Congress to remove regulatory roadblocks to economic
growth and job creation in local communities while protecting our vast
natural resources. This legislation is essential to providing much-
needed certainty to support investment that will create jobs in
American mining, manufacturing, agriculture, and related industries
that have borne the brunt of EPA's regulatory overreach and
interference with State Clean Water Act permits.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Guinta).
Mr. GUINTA. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs for yielding
me time to speak on this bill. I would also like to thank both Chairman
Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for working in a bipartisan way to
address this very important issue.
Mr. Chairman, the first bill that I authored when I came to Congress
was the Great Bay Community Protection Act, just a smaller and more
focused version of a bill in the House that this bill is addressing
today, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2018. I think this bill amends
the CWA to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations
relating to the State's water quality standards and to restrict EPA's
ability to second-guess or delay a State's permitting and water quality
certification decisions under the CWA in several important respects.
This legislation will help seven communities in my State of New
Hampshire save $250 million in ensuring that we focus on clean water
standards, but allowing the State to do so in a timely manner.
I strongly urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. I am honored to yield 1 minute to another distinguished
member of our T&I Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill,
which was crafted and introduced with job protection and regulatory
clarity as its top priorities.
The Clean Water Act originally created a working relationship between
the Federal Government and the States. But recently that relationship
has been undermined by unnecessary intervention by the EPA.
When the government imposes impossible standards on job creators, the
entire economy suffers. Businesses go through rigorous processes to
receive permits from State governments to proceed with work that
creates jobs and provides revenue to local governments, only to be
undercut at the last minute by EPA regulations that do not take into
account local context or economic impact.
My colleagues should vote ``yes'' on this bill to prevent this
further EPA overreach.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to express strong support for
H.R. 2018. I commend Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for their
hard work in crafting a bill that brings back a sane balance between
the States and Federal regulators.
By the EPA's own admission, Mr. Chairman, current regulations will
cost the United States $109 billion by the end of year 2020. In areas
of the Sixth District of North Carolina, EPA currently has the ability
to second-
[[Page H4971]]
guess or delay the State's Clean Water Act permits, even though it has
already approved the State's program.
It is furthermore important to note that the American Farm Bureau
Federation, as the gentleman from Ohio previously mentioned, strongly
supports this legislation that I believe we need to keep the EPA off
the family farm.
{time} 1500
Current EPA regs will have a disastrous effect on farmers and quarry
owners and will add tremendous costs and delays to commercial,
residential, and infrastructure projects.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 2018.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to a former
member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, now a member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Still a member in my heart, of the Transportation
Committee, Mr. Rahall. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to
speak on this.
I've been listening to debate on the floor, and I really could not
disagree more with the proponents of this legislation. They would seek
to overturn a 40-year record of trying to get people to follow the law.
Look at the record of what States have done over the course of the last
100 years dealing with water quality. And it isn't that the Federal
Government overreached and the States had done too much. We have the
Clean Water Act because the States consistently failed to meet their
obligations.
Today, there are wide variations around America in terms of how
zealously individual States take their responsibility and how they
balance. There's tremendous pressure for short-term economic gain at
the expense of the environment. And in some parts of the country, it
doesn't bother them to bulldoze mountaintops into streams. And, in
fact, EPA has not been vigilant in dealing with that. It's only been
recently that we are starting to have people come to grips with this
issue.
It is important that EPA has the opportunity to withhold--to have
some sanction--when States don't follow through on their plans. This
bill would take away the ability of EPA to have sanctions. It's
important that we have a third party to be able to do some mediation
when there are differences between States. This is not something that
is confined to Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Oregon, because our
waterways are interconnected. They transcend boundaries. We need to
have the Federal Government making sure that, at a minimum, there are
reasonable standards that are enforced and that the plans that one
administration on a State level commits to are actually followed
through.
You don't have to spend very much time on Google to find out that
there are places around the country right now where local authorities
and where State authorities are not meeting the highest standards of
water quality.
I strongly suggest that this is a step backward. Luckily, it's not
going to be enacted into law. The administration would veto it. I can't
imagine it gets very far in the other body.
Frankly, looking at the list of the organizations, the list that was
cited of the people who support this, they are not the people who have
championed clean water. They're the people that want looser
restrictions, that want to be able to pollute more, and that want to be
able to make their own decisions. But the people who care about fish
and wildlife, the people who care about environmental protection, and
the people who care first about the health and welfare of the American
public, they are uniformly opposed to this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this is important business. There are economics
involved with protecting the environment. In State after State, there's
a lot of money to be made by having healthy hunting and fishing. There
is money to be saved by having healthy waterways and healthy
communities. And if we don't stop the pollution in the first place,
then that puts the burden on local communities to spend more on water
quality and water treatment.
I strongly suggest my colleagues take a hard look at the history of
the last 40 years. Look at the uneven application of the Clean Water
Act at the State level. Look at how a judicious approach on the part of
the Federal Government has helped promote compliance. Even the so-
called veto power of EPA has been invoked only 13 times in 38 years.
This is a bad bill. It should be rejected.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close. As we have no further
requests on my side under general debate, I will give my closing
comments now.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. This is about the process, as I described in my opening
comments, not the policy. This bill is not about whether the Members of
this body support clean, safe water. We all support clean, safe water.
I do not know a single Member in this House that wants to turn back the
clock on the gains that this Nation has made in the last 40 years to
clean up our rivers and streams. This bill is about process and
precedent. It is about whether we should be allowing one Federal agency
to run roughshod over the law, over the States, and over other Federal
agencies to set policy according to political ideology. Now, I do not
think we should be allowing any agency of our Federal Government to be
run in that manner.
If this Congress allows the EPA to push the envelope in circumventing
the law, in circumventing public comment and public participation, it
lays the legal groundwork for the next administration to do the exact
same thing--maybe under the guise of cleaner air and cleaner water,
maybe under the guise of lowering those standards. But the precedent
that would be set could be devastating. By not taking action, the
Congress is tacitly giving the EPA the authority to do what it deems
politically necessary, and that is something that this and every
Congress has the responsibility to resist.
So this bill, Mr. Chairman, is not about whether any Member in this
institution supports the ends that the EPA is trying to reach. It is
about whether or not we believe that we should be allowed to use any--
any--means to reach those ends. And I do not believe they should.
There are plenty of Members on this floor today who believe that the
intentions of the EPA with respect to its mission to ensure clean water
are noble. I put myself in that category. But we all have to worry when
an agency goes to such lengths to circumvent the Congress and the
rulemaking process so as to impose its own agenda, because after the
next election or the election after that or the election after that,
some future EPA may not have such noble intentions. And if we fail to
stand up today, we will suffer the consequences of our inaction later.
This bill is about transparency. It does not tell the EPA they cannot
effect improvements in water quality. It says that they cannot do it
without letting the people--the people--have a voice in the process.
That's the way the rulemaking process is intended to work. But this EPA
has effectively thwarted that process and thumbed its nose at the
people by issuing guidance and treating it like regulation.
As I said in my opening comments, I wish we were not here on this
bill today. I wish it would not be necessary. I would much rather see a
cooperative Federal relationship among the agencies and the Federal
agencies with the States and with the industries involved, but that has
not occurred. And, therefore, it has created an era of mistrust,
distrust, and bitterness, an outright scared attitude among our coal
miners whether or not they will have a job next year or even tomorrow
and for how long their current job will last.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I do conclude by speaking in support of this
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1510
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I think what this bill is addressing, we
have 21st century problems and challenges, and we are looking for 21st
century solutions. I want to lay out the facts to have a little more
clarity, and I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia's support of
the bill.
[[Page H4972]]
We have to realize that the State EPAs have to have an approved plan
by the Federal EPA. That is the framework that they are working under,
and you just can't have the Federal EPA come in during the ball game
and try to change the rules and undermine the efforts of the State
EPAs.
I want to comment regarding the gentleman from Oregon's comments that
we are going to go backwards and we have made progress in the last 40
years, and the States didn't do anything in the last 40 years or
before. Let's remember what happened prior to 1972.
I grew up 12 miles from the city of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga River.
I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. I remember as a
child when I couldn't go down and swim in Lake Erie any more because
raw sewage was going into Lake Erie. Those events caused this Congress
to pass the Clean Water Act and establish the U.S. EPA and also give
authority for the States to set up their programs. Prior to that,
nobody was concerned about the environment and we didn't have the so-
called environmental movement where we are all concerned about having
clean water.
Since then, we have made tremendous progress. On point-source
pollution, we have made tremendous progress. On discharges, we don't
have the discharges going into our lakes and rivers and streams like we
did 40 years ago. We have made significant progress addressing
nonsource-point pollution. Now, that is not to say that we don't have
more challenges.
I want to talk about one size fits all, and the U.S. EPA has an
agenda right now that is overreaching. They want to set policies and
parameters that fit for everybody to work under. I will give you an
example. The numerical nutrient standard, and let's take phosphorus and
nitrogen. You hear a lot about phosphorus sediment pollution in our
lakes and rivers. To go in there and set a number, a numerical number
that they can't exceed that, discharge at that level, causes some
problems.
For the last 40 years, we have been operating under something called
the narrative standard. States can go in there and look at what is
going on in that watershed or that stream or that river. I can tell
you, in every river and stream in this country, there are different
things happening. The biology is different. The pH is different. The
water temperature, water flow is different. The sunlight. A whole host
of things. They can incorporate that and come up with a plan on how to
address that in their local locale.
When you set a number at such a high level, it creates a situation
where the States can't attain it; it's not possible. We have seen that
happen in Florida, and that is why Florida has litigation pending
because they set one size fits all. Whereas Florida, ironically, was
moving to a point to set a numerical standard, but they wanted to
address and incorporate what I call the narrative standard so they
could address what is happening in each locale and not a huge region to
address those differences that are happening in that stream or that
river. So one size fits all doesn't work. It causes problems, and it
will make us to go back, impacting the progress we've made in the last
40 years.
Now, in this bill we also talk about the permitting issue. One of the
most egregious things that I have seen since I have been in Congress
since January was a revocation of a permit. Yes, it was in West
Virginia. It was a coal mine operation that went through 10 years of an
environmental impact study, got their permit in 2007, and then 3 years
later the permit was revoked, not because they were in permit
violation. The Army Corps of Engineers testified in my committee that
there were no problems. The State, West Virginia EPA didn't support
revoking that permit. I really don't know why they revoked that permit
other than it was maybe on an agenda of somebody. But they were not in
violation of the permit.
It is one thing to revoke a permit when you are in violation of a
permit, but when you are not in violation of the permit, to take that
permit away, it sets a very dangerous precedent; because the dangerous
precedent it sets across our entire economy, if you're an entity or an
enterprise and you have to have a permit from the Federal Government to
be in business, and if that Federal Government at the whim of some
bureaucrat or the administration comes and pulls that permit any time
they want to, who is going to risk capital and make that investment,
create jobs, knowing that they could be shut down tomorrow because the
permit is not there to stay in business?
That is what this bill addresses. They have to get concurrence. The
U.S. EPA would have to get concurrence from the State EPA to support
that revocation to shut that business down.
So this is really a jobs bill. We are trying to relieve uncertainty
so people know what the playing field is. I can tell you, I think the
State EPAs can do a better job in their locales, because they know what
is going on there, than to have a one-size-fits-all policy by the
Federal Government and an overreaching and burdensome regulatory
climate that kills jobs, kills economic investment, and, like I said,
kills jobs.
So that is why I think it is important to move this bill forward.
This is a jobs bill.
We have sent several bills over to the Senate that are jobs bills. I
urge the Senate to take them up because we have unemployment at 9.2
percent and rising.
I think it is important for people to have an opportunity to have a
job and economic opportunities. We need the Federal Government to
create the environment for what I call the job creators to have that
confidence, to make those investments and start hiring people back and
growing their businesses.
This bill is really important to encourage cooperative arrangements
working among the Federal EPA and the State EPAs.
I was really floored in the committee hearings we had where we had
State EPAs come in--and some of them were from the other side of the
aisle from me--and testify against the Federal EPA on their actions and
their overreach.
You know, a strong economy--some people don't understand this,
although I say this a lot. A strong and growing economy will provide
the resources to invest and protect and enhance the environment. An
economy that is struggling right now, it makes it tougher to have those
resources. As an example, you look at some Third World countries where
their biggest challenge is feeding their people, they don't have the
resources to build sewage treatment plants and water filtration systems
and do other things to protect the environment. We have the resources,
and we have a strong, growing economy, and we should be working with
those businesses because most businesses and most people want to do the
right thing. Everybody wants clean water and clean air.
So I take exception to the comments of my colleague from Oregon who
said that we are not protecting the environment. I think a strong,
growing economy does protect the environment, and I think the
regulatory policies are in place at the State levels because the States
are set up to do it now, different than 40 years ago, to regulate and
also enforce environmental protection laws, whether it is mountaintop
mining or whatever it is. We have the rules in place.
In Ohio, when I was in the State Senate 2 years ago, we passed
comprehensive legislation to add additional regulation on the oil and
gas industry to protect our groundwater, our water aquifers, and our
surface water. And we did.
I am really encouraged now, the potential we have with the Utica
shale and the Marcellus shale to make us closer to being energy
independent and not dependent and shipping almost a trillion dollars a
year away to other countries, some of which don't really like us very
much. We have an opportunity to have a strong, growing economy and
provide the energy, but also protect the environment at the same time.
We just have the regulatory process in place, and I think this enables
a stronger regulatory process because it emboldens the State EPAs to do
their job and work cooperatively with their partners in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, today, the House is
considering H.R. 2018, the so-called Clean Water Cooperative Federalism
Act. This bill, which represents the latest attempt by the House to
weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, could just as easily be
called the ``Dirty Water Act.''
[[Page H4973]]
Since 1972, the Clean Water Act, which is one of the nation's most
successful and effective environmental laws, has protected the
waterways Americans depend on for fishing, swimming, and clean drinking
water. H.R. 2018 would overturn almost 40 years of federal protection
by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from safeguarding
public health and protecting water quality. It also would undermine the
agency's authority to ensure that state water quality standards comply
with the law. What's at stake here is not federal oversight versus
state's rights, but rather clean water versus dirty water.
In case anyone is wondering why the Congress might consider such a
bill, consider this example: coal companies want to conduct mountaintop
removal mining in Appalachia and dump the waste they generate into
Appalachia's streams and waterways. The EPA has rightly declined to
classify this waste as fill material. Should the financial interests of
a few coal companies outweigh the environmental and public health
interests of the people of the entire region?
Rather than weakening our federal clean water protection laws, we
should be strengthening these laws to protect our oceans, rivers, lakes
and streams. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2018.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to today's
legislation, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,''
which represents another effort on the part of this Republican Majority
to systematically dismantle environmental protections by eroding EPA
authority under the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act is a partnership between federal and state
authorities to maintain water quality standards across the nation. But
it also provides a federal backstop if states cannot or will not
effectively enforce those standards.
As we all know, water does not stop at the state line. Policies in
one state upstream will affect water quality in another downstream.
This is a serious issue in my state of Maryland, where the Chesapeake
Bay feeds from a watershed that includes six states and the District of
Columbia. Inadequate environmental protection in any of those states
can have grave consequences for the health of the nation's largest
estuary.
It is not difficult to imagine the costs of dismantling Clean Water
Act authority. Prior to its enactment in 1972, our nation's waters were
in crisis. Lake Erie could not support aquatic life. A floating oil
slick on the Cuyahoga River caught fire. Industrial polluters used
lakes and streams as dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals and two-
thirds of our nation's lakes, rivers, and coastal waters were unsafe
for fishing or swimming.
The Clean Water Act was a simple and powerful solution--a baseline
for water quality with a federal safety net in the event of state
inaction. For nearly 40 years, this approach has helped preserve access
to safe water to all Americans. There is no reason or justification to
roll back those protections today. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this bill.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018,
which would be more appropriately titled the ``Giveaway to Developer
and Coal Company CEOs Act.''
This bill removes protections for our nation's waters that were
absolutely essential to the progress we have shown so far in cleaning
up Lake Erie and the rest of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes comprise
21 percent of the world's fresh water supply. Lake Erie is the
shallowest and smallest, and therefore the most vulnerable of the Great
Lakes and it is our primary water source in Northeast Ohio. 'We cannot
afford to go back to days when the Cuyahoga River caught fire because
it was so polluted. Already, 77 percent of all stream-miles in the Lake
Erie basin are unprotected.
Lake Erie is not only crucial to our health, but to our economy. It
generates 10 billion dollars per year in revenue through travel,
tourism, wildlife watching, boating, sport and commercial fishing and
other activities. One out of every ten jobs in the state is connected
to Lake Erie. This economic activity generates 676 million dollars in
federal tax revenue, 410 million dollars in state tax revenue and 347
million dollars in local tax revenue annually. Lake Erie is our Golden
Goose. We must protect it at all costs.
This bill also removes the EPA's ability to clamp down on the worst
mountaintop removal polluters. These coal mines, which remove entire
mountains to get at the coal, are on their way out. There is no room in
this country's energy portfolio for coal. Coal is a major contributor
to the environmental, national security, and economic problem that is
global warming. It would be difficult to underestimate the urgency of
shutting down coal power plants immediately for that reason alone. But
coal also devastates communities with open toxic waste holding ponds
and with air emissions that create or exacerbate asthma and respiratory
disorders. Coal mines kill its miners and leave them with Black Lung.
Mountaintop removal fills streams and destroys entire ecosystems,
contaminating drinking water supplies with carcinogens and other toxic
chemicals in the process. Coal is the single biggest reason that so
many of the fish species that were an important part of the diet for
billions of people are contaminated with mercury levels that are so
high, they can cause IQ loss and birth defects. This bill will take the
woefully inadequate environmental protections in place and weaken them.
Coal is not even defensible from an economic standpoint. More jobs
are created by renewable energy creation, which is being explored in
many mountaintop mining communities, than by coal-based energy.
If communities, workers, the health of families, the ecosystems on
which we rely, drinking water and atmospheric stability do not benefit
from this bill, who does?
Developers will be able to build in more areas that are critical for
drinking water protection and protection from floods, even though we
are now saddled with a surplus of housing and commercial unit
availability because of the bursting of the housing bubble. And
mountaintop removal mining companies will be able to spend even less on
protecting the communities from which they siphon money, livelihoods,
and health. Profits and shareholder returns, undoubtedly, will benefit
handsomely.
Bills like these take the wealth of this country and funnel it
upward. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the
Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. The Clean Water Act was
designed to be a partnership between the federal government and
individual states to keep our nation's waterways healthy and safe. For
too long, however, the Environmental Protection Agency has imposed
burdensome regulations that harm job creation and are not realistic in
implementation.
Recently, Florida has been at the center of a fight over water
quality standards with the EPA, a federal regulatory agency that has
attempted to impose impractical federal water quality standards over
the State's objections. Rather than adhering to the state-federal
partnership originally established under the Clean Water Act, the EPA
has repeatedly undermined that partnership to the detriment of states
like Florida. Should their regulatory overreach be allowed to continue,
tens of thousands of jobs throughout Florida would be affected, hurting
both Central Florida families and small businesses.
H.R. 2018 preserves the authority granted to each state by the Clean
Water Act and halts the EPA's proposed ``numeric nutrient''
regulations. Congress has a responsibility to the states to ensure that
regulations which hamper job growth and stifle our economy are removed.
For these reasons, I am proud to support this much needed legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before
the House today. The authors of this bill call it ``The Clean Water
Cooperative Federalism Act,'' but this legislation has nothing
whatsoever to do with clean water. A better name for this bill is ``The
Dirty Water Act.''
In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio--one of the tributaries of the
Great Lakes--caught fire, and became a symbol of everything that was
wrong with the patchwork system of state water laws that existed at the
time. Water pollution does not respect state boundaries and that
patchwork of poorly enforced state laws nearly killed the Great Lakes
and resulted in rivers and streams that were unfit to swim and fish in.
In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and replaced the state
patchwork approach with a national system of water quality standards.
The Clean Water Act has worked. Over the last four decades, we've made
real progress in reducing water pollution and are well on the way to
meeting the Act's goals of making our nation's waters fishable,
swimmable, and drinkable.
In my own District in Southeast Michigan, we've seen extraordinary
progress in reducing water pollution. As just one example, in the 1970s
and 1980s, the Clinton River was extraordinarily polluted. The River
was dying and the beaches downstream on Lake St. Clair were unsafe for
swimming. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and the work of many people at
the local level, the Clinton River is making a comeback. Pollution is
being steadily reduced. Fish are returning, and the river is once again
becoming a recreational asset to the communities along its banks. There
is more work to do, but the progress is there for all to see.
The bill before the House goes in exactly the wrong direction.
Instead of building on the Clean Water Act, this legislation takes us
backwards to the bad old days when there was a patchwork of state water
laws and little enforcement when state standards fell short. In
particular, the bill would make it harder to take action against
emerging threats to waterways. For example, for a number of years now,
a large dead zone has formed each
[[Page H4974]]
summer in Lake Erie. The problem appears to be getting worse and it is
not yet clear what steps will be necessary to combat it. Even now it is
evident that we will need a coordinated plan of action involving many
states, but this legislation will make taking concerted action that
much more difficult.
I urge defeat of this bad bill.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, for the last seven months this
nation's economy has stagnated while the Republican majority has passed
a litany of bills repealing environmental standards on behalf of oil
and coal companies. Today we have another anti-environment bill before
the House, predictably mis-named, in the finest Orwellian tradition,
the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is a case
study in irony: After seven months of blaming economic malaise on
regulatory ``uncertainty,'' this bill would eliminate predictable and
consistent national clean water standards in favor of an uncertain
state-based patchwork of regulations. This bill would be more
appropriately titled the ``Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Small Minds
Act,'' because its elimination of any regulatory certainty flies in the
face of seven months of Republican rhetoric. On the other hand, as an
assault on the environment which benefits Republican campaign donors,
it is utterly consistent with the majority's modus operandi.
The majority claims to support an ``all of the above'' energy
strategy, and that is accurate if we accept the Republican premise that
coal and oil constitute the totality of America's energy portfolio.
After passing countless bills to repeal clean air and water regulations
for oil companies, this bill is focused on repealing clean water
standards for the coal and mining industry. My colleagues who are not
from Virginia, West Virginia, or Kentucky may not be familiar with the
ravages of mountaintop removal, and if they aren't I would encourage
them to look at a satellite photo of our region before they vote for
this bill. Following Bush Administration abrogation of its
responsibility to administer the Clean Water Act, destruction of the
Southern Appalachian mountains has accelerated. For example, Wise
County, Virginia has had 25 percent of its land area obliterated by
mountaintop removal: According to the Nature Conservancy, Southwest
Virginia is one of the two most biodiverse regions in America, along
with Hawaii. Mountaintop removal is eliminating that region's
biodiversity very efficiently. What used to be extraordinarily
productive mountains in my state now resemble a moonscape of man-made
plateaus and valleys filled in with rubble.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent Clean Water Act regulation of
those ``valley fills'' which mining companies use to dispose of former
mountains. Valley fills should be a clear violation of the Clean Water
Act, and under the Obama Administration the EPA and Army Corps have
finally begun to comply with the law and regulate them. This
legislation would block that federal regulation which is necessary to
protect life and property in Southwest Virginia and other parts of
Appalachia.
This legislation would have other negative consequences beyond
destroying one of America's greatest and most threatened regions. It is
written in such a broad manner that it could allow unregulated
destruction of intermittent and ephemeral streams, lakes and prairie
potholes, and subterranean waters such as those that are common in
places like Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. I strongly encourage my
colleagues to reject this legislation.
Mr. WEST. Mr. Chair, I rise to commend my colleague from Florida on
his decision to withdraw his amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act.
Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. However, the EPA's
new Numeric Nutrient Criteria regulations are not over whether we want
clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what
cost.
For several years now, Florida has been working to improve its water
quality. Until 2009, Florida was working cooperatively with EPA to
improve our water quality standards.
However in 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by
environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that cooperative approach,
federally preempt our state water quality standards, and impose new
criteria on the state.
Many are concerned that these new Numeric Nutrient Criteria are not
based on sound science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board,
which has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA to
support the regulation.
The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review of the
science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed to complete
an economic analysis.
This EPA mandate will drive up the cost of doing business, double
water bills for all Floridian families, and destroy jobs. By some
estimates, this will cost Florida taxpayers an estimated $21 billion
and impact over 14,000 jobs in the state.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that
this federal mandate may force municipal wastewater and storm water
utilities--many in my Congressional District--to spend as much as $26
billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. These
costs will be passed down to the citizens of South Florida.
Given the reality of Florida's economic situation, this is completely
unacceptable.
This morning I placed a call to Ron Bergeron, the Commissioner for
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and renowned
expert on the Everglades, to discuss this amendment and the underlying
EPA Numeric Nutrient Regulations.
Commissioner Bergeron told me in no uncertain terms, I quote, ``The
EPA is setting standards that can hardly be achieved. Water standards
of 10 parts/billion required by the Numeric Nutrient Criteria is more
stringent than rainwater, which is 15 parts/billion, and is a quality
of water that is humanly impossible to achieve. EPA is doing things
that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''
Let me repeat what Commissioner Bergeron stated--``EPA is doing
things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''
Like all Floridians, I cherish the Everglades--a unique wetland
ecosystem--and want to protect and preserve it for future generations
of Floridians.
I applaud my colleague from Florida for recognizing that his
amendment would have been an attempt to use the Everglades as a
political pawn to give the EPA the authority to have carte blanche on
setting state-wide water regulations--regulations that Commissioner
Bergeron said are humanly impossible to achieve, and thus withdrawing
his amendment.
EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that the state
government can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality
that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on sound science.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to H.R. 2018, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.''
This bill is neither cooperative nor does it promote clean water.
The American people expect and deserve protection from dirty air,
tainted food, and polluted water. The problem with relinquishing
federal authority over environmental regulations is that these threats
don't stop at state borders. The EPA recently concluded an air
pollution analysis demonstrating the upwind-downwind linkages between
states. That study demonstrated that my home state of Illinois receives
air pollution from more than 10 states as a result of wind patterns.
Illinois shares water sources, including Lake Michigan and the
Mississippi River, with 11 states. Much like with air, a patchwork of
regulations will do nothing to ensure my constituents have access to
clean water.
H.R. 2018 removes any federal baseline for what constitutes a clean
water program and leaves the process entirely under state control. It
is a de facto repeal of the Clean Water Act.
We know what will happen without reasonable oversight of our nation's
water sources because we have seen it before. Prior to the 1972 Clean
Water Act, American rivers and streams were treated like sewers and
chemical pollution was so rampant that rivers caught fire. This bill
would hand our waterways and drinking water sources back to corporate
polluters.
Promoters of corporate pollution regularly suggest that turning a
blind eye to the destruction of our waterways, air supply, and food
sources is in the economic best-interest of the country. Even if this
were true, it would ignore the health and welfare of the American
people. But it is not true. The Office of Management and Budget has
demonstrated that the cost of implementing EPA rules over the last
decade have cost as much as $29 billion, but the economic benefits of
those regulations have reaped between $82 billion and $552 billion. The
facts don't lie: EPA regulations save lives and stimulate economic
growth.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 2018, a bill
that offers no tangible benefits and a litany of irreversible costs.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2018
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act of 2011''.
[[Page H4975]]
SEC. 2. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
(a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c)(4) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1313(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)'';
(3) by striking ``The Administrator shall promulgate'' and
inserting the following:
``(B) The Administrator shall promulgate''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(ii), the
Administrator may not promulgate a revised or new standard
for a pollutant in any case in which the State has submitted
to the Administrator and the Administrator has approved a
water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the State
concurs with the Administrator's determination that the
revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements
of this Act.''.
(b) Federal Licenses and Permits.--Section 401(a) of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) With respect to any discharge, if a State or
interstate agency having jurisdiction over the navigable
waters at the point where the discharge originates or will
originate determines under paragraph (1) that the discharge
will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301,
302, 303, 306, and 307, the Administrator may not take any
action to supersede the determination.''.
(c) State NPDES Permit Programs.--Section 402(c) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Limitation on authority of administrator to withdraw
approval of state programs.--The Administrator may not
withdraw approval of a State program under paragraph (3) or
(4), or limit Federal financial assistance for the State
program, on the basis that the Administrator disagrees with
the State regarding--
``(A) the implementation of any water quality standard that
has been adopted by the State and approved by the
Administrator under section 303(c); or
``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that
directs the interpretation of the State's water quality
standards.''.
(d) Limitation on Authority of Administrator To Object to
Individual Permits.--Section 402(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) The Administrator may not object under paragraph (2)
to the issuance of a permit by a State on the basis of--
``(A) the Administrator's interpretation of a water quality
standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by
the Administrator under section 303(c); or
``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that
directs the interpretation of the State's water quality
standards.''.
SEC. 3. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.
(a) Authority of EPA Administrator.--Section 404(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any permit if the
State in which the discharge originates or will originate
does not concur with the Administrator's determination that
the discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect
as described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) State Permit Programs.--The first sentence of section
404(g)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended by
striking ``The Governor of any State desiring to administer
its own individual and general permit program for the
discharge'' and inserting ``The Governor of any State
desiring to administer its own individual and general permit
program for some or all of the discharges''.
SEC. 4. DEADLINES FOR AGENCY COMMENTS.
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) in subsection (m) by striking ``ninetieth day'' and
inserting ``30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is
requested)''; and
(2) in subsection (q)--
(A) by striking ``(q)'' and inserting ``(q)(1)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Administrator and the head of a department or
agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall each submit any
comments with respect to an application for a permit under
subsection (a) or (e) not later than the 30th day (or the
60th day if additional time is requested) after the date of
receipt of an application for a permit under that
subsection.''.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENTS.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions
taken on or after the date of enactment of this Act,
including actions taken with respect to permit applications
that are pending or revised or new standards that are being
promulgated as of such date of enactment.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
144. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
{time} 1520
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 112-144.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 8
on page 7.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the chairman very much.
I definitely support cooperation between the Federal Government and
the State government. That is absolutely the best partnership and one
that I encourage.
Having been a member of the local city council of my own city of
Houston, I also know that unfunded mandates are very much difficult to
overcome. But I argue vigorously against the underlying legislation
because it does equate to undermining the health of Americans. We need
clean water, not dirty water.
So this amendment strikes the entire legislation that causes us to
ignore a partnership that has been established between the EPA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, which is a State system. And to my count, some 47
States have initially gotten into the system and have worked to ensure
that they have clean water.
Why do I suggest that this is a very challenging approach to take
that the underlying legislation has? Because it prevents the EPA from
taking actions to revise outdated State water quality standards. It
makes a State the final arbiter of whether an NPDES permit, a license
for better water quality, is in fact to be implemented so that one
State may do something that impacts negatively on another State.
These are the people we're concerned about: a working nurse and a
healthy baby, or we are concerned about a gentleman by the name of Mr.
Caldario, who is a resident of Crestwood, who indicated some years ago
that he was worried about the water he drank for years without knowing
what it was contaminated with--``Cancer Study Triggers Fears in
Crestwood,'' which I will submit for the Record. His final sentence
states, ``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had something
to do with the water.''
My amendment is straightforward. It strikes the language of this
bill. It says let's go back to the drawing table. I want to be able to
help Members, but if you have 47 States that have been engaged in this
process, let's find a way that we can come together and have clean
water and not dirty water.
This is a straightforward amendment that says that this is
overreaching. The EPA would be prohibited from resolving conflicting
State decisions on protecting water quality. Join me in supporting the
Jackson Lee amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The intent of H.R. 2018 is to restore the balance between the States
and the Federal Government in carrying out the Clean Water Act.
This amendment simply strikes the entire bill, as she stated, and
ensures that the EPA can continue to unilaterally force its own one-
size-fits-all Federal policies onto the States' water quality programs,
which, by the way, they previously already approved.
Under this amendment EPA will continue to pass unfunded mandates on
to the States. It ensures that EPA issues interim guidance that
frustrates States and permit applicants, and ensures that the EPA will
continue their legally dubious activities of revoking already legally
issued permits, as I stated earlier.
I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the good intentions of the
gentleman,
[[Page H4976]]
but I am concerned by the interpretation.
Let me just share with you very briefly my own State. In my own
State, I'm aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they
flow into. Currently there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where
marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone,
estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi
River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from
regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.
We are the protectors of America's assets, its waterways, its
drinking water, the ability to have the opportunity for clean water for
our fish and fishing. I ask you, let's go back to the drawing board. If
we have States that are already participating, let's demand, in an
administrative process, for EPA to restrain itself, but let's not take
away the underlying power that is going to allow us to have clean
drinking water and for someone who lives in Crestwood to be able to be
possibly cancer free.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 ``The
Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.'' My amendment restores
the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with
state governments to establish standards ensuring all Americans have
access to clean and safe water.
My amendment strikes the entire bill. The Clean Water Act (CWA) was
designed to encourage collaboration between state agencies and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to develop acceptable
standards for maintaining the safety of our nation's bodies of water.
The EPA was created in 1970 to ensure that our air, land, and water
receive adequate protection from pollution and we must allow them to do
so for the benefit of all Americans.
The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is absolutely not the way
to protect our nation's water bodies. The EPA has the expertise and
resources for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement
with regard to five environmental hazards: air and water pollution,
solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. EPA represents a
coordinated approach to each of these problems.
Seeking to limit the extent to which the EPA can oversee the safety
of our water supply threatens the health of American citizens across
the country. The EPA has not only the right, but the responsibility to
update state water pollution regulations and permit procedures if they
discover new threats to health or the environment.
The EPA must remain involved in regulating water pollution to ensure
a cohesive policy that protects all states from pollution. Should the
authority to regulate water pollution levels be given solely to the
states, there would be no way to regulate waterways that pass through
multiple states.
As a Representative from Texas, a Gulf Coast state, I am aware of how
tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently,
there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot
survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach
9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and
other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating
criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.
My Republican colleagues feel we must pass this bill urgently. They
will tell their constituents, and all of the American people that the
Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is necessary to issue permits
and avoid backlog in mining facilities, factories, agriculture, and
other businesses. What my friends on the other side of the aisle will
not tell you is that this legislation is helping business at the risk
of our nation's health.
Those who support this bill will not mention that EPA regulation
prevents toxic chemicals and biological agents from entering our
surface water bodies and groundwater. Apparently, those championing
this legislation do not feel the American people deserve to know the
serious health risks that can result from drinking or bathing in
polluted water. Breathing the vapors of a polluted water source,
consuming meat or vegetables affected by polluted water, and consuming
fish that have been exposed to polluted water are all potentially
harmful.
Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to strike the entire Clean Water
Cooperative Federalism Act to protect not only my constituents in the
18th district of Texas, but Americans across the nation from the
diseases that result from water pollution. Diseases such as typhoid,
hepatitis, encephalitis, and others caused by pathogens in water.
Surely the EPA, the states, and the industries involved can work
together to prevent pollution levels in surface and groundwater from
causing cancer, or serious damage to the liver, kidneys, nervous
system, reproductive system, or endocrine system. Surely, we are not
willing to sacrifice the health of this nation to pass a bill to
benefit industry.
A study conducted by Cornell University concluded that water
pollution accounts for 80% of infectious diseases, and 5 million deaths
per year. I urge my colleagues on either side of the aisle to consider
the enormous gamble this Congress is taking by reducing regulations to
keep our water safe.
Supporting my amendment will strike the dangerous Clean Water
Cooperative Federalism Act, and provide an opportunity for new
legislation that fosters compromise between the EPA, the states, and
stakeholders, without compromising water quality and endangering the
health of American citizens.
[From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
SPECIFIC STATE PROGRAM STATUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved Approved to Approved Approved
State NPDES Regulate Approved State General Biosolids
State Permit Federal Pretreatment Permits (Sludge)
Program Facilities Program Program Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... 10/19/79 10/19/79 10/19/79 06/26/91
Alaska*.......................... 10/31/08 10/31/08 10/31/08 10/31/08
American Samoa...................
Arizona.......................... 12/05/02 12/05/02 12/05/02 12/05/02 04/01/04
Arkansas......................... 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86
California....................... 05/14/73 05/05/78 09/22/89 09/22/89
Colorado......................... 03/27/75 ............... ................ 03/04/82
Connecticut...................... 09/26/73 01/09/89 06/03/81 03/10/92
Delaware......................... 04/01/74 ............... ................ 10/23/92
District of Columbia.............
Florida.......................... 05/01/95 05/01/00 05/01/95 05/01/95
Georgia.......................... 06/28/74 12/08/80 03/12/81 01/28/91
Guam.............................
Hawaii........................... 11/28/74 06/01/79 08/12/83 09/30/91
Idaho............................
Illinois......................... 10/23/77 09/20/79 ................ 01/04/84
Indiana.......................... 01/01/75 12/09/78 ................ 04/02/91
Iowa............................. 08/10/78 08/10/78 06/03/81 08/12/92
Johnston Atoll...................
Kansas........................... 06/28/74 08/28/85 ................ 11/24/93
Kentucky......................... 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83
Louisiana........................ 08/27/96 08/27/96 08/27/96 08/27/96
Maine............................ 01/12/01 01/12/01 01/12/01 01/12/01
Maryland......................... 09/05/74 11/10/87 09/30/85 09/30/91
Massachusetts....................
Michigan......................... 10/17/73 12/09/78 06/07/83 11/29/93 09/28/06
Midway Island....................
Minnesota........................ 06/30/74 12/09/78 07/16/79 12/15/87
Mississippi...................... 05/01/74 01/28/83 05/13/82 09/27/91
Missouri......................... 10/30/74 06/26/79 06/03/81 12/12/85
Montana.......................... 06/10/74 06/23/81 ................ 04/29/83
Nebraska......................... 06/12/74 11/02/79 09/07/84 07/20/89
Nevada........................... 09/19/75 08/31/78 ................ 07/27/92
New Hampshire....................
New Jersey....................... 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82
New Mexico.......................
New York......................... 10/28/75 06/13/80 ................ 10/15/92
North Carolina................... 10/19/75 09/28/84 06/14/82 09/06/91
North Dakota..................... 06/13/75 01/22/90 09/16/05 01/22/90
Northern Mariana Islands.........
Ohio............................. 03/11/74 01/28/83 07/27/83 08/17/92 03/16/05
Oklahoma**....................... 11/19/96 11/19/96 11/19/96 09/11/97 11/19/96
Oregon........................... 09/26/73 03/02/79 03/12/81 02/23/82
Pennsylvania..................... 06/30/78 06/30/78 ................ 08/02/91
Puerto Rico......................
Rhode Island..................... 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84
South Carolina................... 06/10/75 09/26/80 04/09/82 09/03/92
South Dakota..................... 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93 10/22/01
Tennessee........................ 12/28/77 09/30/86 08/10/83 04/18/91
Utah............................. 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 06/14/96
Vermont.......................... 03/11/74 ............... 03/16/82 08/26/93
Virgin Islands................... 06/30/76 12/26/07 ................ 12/26/07
Virginia......................... 03/31/75 02/09/82 04/14/89 04/20/91
Wake Island......................
Washington....................... 11/14/73 ............... 09/30/86 09/26/89
West Virginia.................... 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82
Wisconsin........................ 02/04/74 11/26/79 12/24/80 12/19/86 07/28/00
Wyoming.......................... 01/30/75 05/18/81 ................ 09/24/91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE SPECIFIC COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska*................................ Phased program over three (3)
years. At time of program
approval, Alaska will
administer the NPDES program
for domestic discharges
(individual and general
permits), log storage and
transfer facilities, seafood
processing facilities
(individual and general
permits), and hatcheries.
Alaska will assume authority
for federal facilities,
pretreatment, and stormwater
on 10/31/09.
Oklahoma**............................. Partial Program. It has not
been authorized to issue
permits for activities
associated with oil and gas
exploration, drilling,
operations, and pipelines, and
for CAFOs and certain other
discharges from agriculture.
EPA is the permitting
authority for those facilities
since it is not in Oklahoma
DEQ's jurisdiction. All parts
of the program within
jurisdiction of Oklahoma DEQ
are authorized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 5, 2010]
Cancer Study Triggers Fears in Crestwood
(By Jared S. Hopkins)
Like many residents of Crestwood, Frank Caldario has been
worried about the water he drank for years without knowing it
was contaminated.
Caldario's concerns, however, were heightened when he was
diagnosed with kidney cancer last year. The 30-year-old
office worker said surgeons removed a gumball-size tumor and
about 40 percent of his right kidney.
``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had
something to do with the water,'' said Caldario, who doesn't
smoke and has lived in Crestwood since 1993.
``It's just unreal for someone my age to get that,'' he
said.
[[Page H4977]]
After the state released a report Friday that found toxic
chemicals in Crestwood's drinking water could have
contributed to elevated cancer rates in the village,
residents said they were worried about their families'
health, the impact on their property values and footing the
bill to defend public officials who may be responsible.
The Illinois Department of Public Health studied cancer
cases in the small community of about 11,000 between 1994 and
2006 and found higher-than-expected cases of kidney cancer in
men, lung cancer in men and women, and gastrointestinal
cancer in men. The state's investigation was prompted by a
Tribune report last year that revealed the village's secret
use of a tainted well.
``Of course there's a concern. If I said it wasn't in the
back of my head, I'd be lying,'' said Dominic Covone, 37, a
resident of about six years.''You don't want to think
something bad could happen from just drinking water.''
In the report, researchers determined it was possible that
chemicals in the drinking water might have contributed to the
extra cancer cases but couldn't make a definite link.
For years, the tainted water went undetected as village
officials told residents and regulators they used only
treated Lake Michigan water. But they continued pumping from
a polluted well for up to 20 percent of the water some
months, records show.
Bill Shaughnessy, 60, a resident since 1987, said he hears
concerns about a falloff in property values and the
``unknown,'' including what may be undiscovered in water
lines.
Some residents said they were annoyed about the village's
use of taxpayer funds--more than $1 million last year--to
defend Crestwood officials in lawsuits. The tainted well was
used under the purview of Chester Stranczek, mayor from 1969
to 2007.
``I feel deceived,'' said resident Tom Parhis.
Some longtime residents, however, said they still believe
the water did not pose a health risk.
``That's all hogwash,'' said Shirley Beaver, a 44-year
resident of Crestwood.
Others described the federal government's current
investigation as ``Gestapo tactics'' against Stranczek and
praised the property tax rebates he created. Village
officials scrapped the rebates last year to help pay rising
legal bills.
``You think he'd poison his own kids?'' said Jim Leonard,
73, who has lived in the village for 47 years with his wife,
Millie.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 112-144.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 2 of the bill (and redesignate subsequent
sections accordingly).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman, and
again I thank my friends on the floor of the House, and I did not
acknowledge my friend the ranking member.
I offer myself as a person who seeks to collaborate and fix problems.
So my second amendment says let's work together, but there are times
when the heart of the matter has to be addressed.
My amendment strikes the language that really is the heart of the
matter. It strikes the language in the bill, ensuring that the vital
role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants
enter our waterways can still exist. Providing States with nearly
unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our
waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States
disagree.
My amendment strikes the language that allows States, 50 States, to
conflict against each other and one-upmanship--I'm going to do this;
no, you're going to do this. This standardizes the issue of clean
water. This stands up for people like those in Crestwood, Illinois,
that wonder whether the water caused cancer, kidney cancer, in a 30-
year-old.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. I wish to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By striking section 2 of the bill, this amendment would effectively
gut much of the bill.
Section 2 of the bill would limit EPA from unilaterally changing
approved State water quality standards and permitting decisions, or
from withdrawing approval of a State water quality permitting program
or limiting Federal financial assistance for the State water quality
permitting program on the basis that the EPA disagrees with the State
regarding a State water quality standard that EPA has approved.
By striking section 2 of the bill, this amendment would continue to
allow this administration's EPA to impose one-size-fits-all Federal
policies on the States' water quality programs.
We are not in favor of the EPA continuing their regulatory onslaught
on the States. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for
yielding, and I also thank her for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The amendment would strike the provisions of the underlying bill that
threaten existing Clean Water Act authority related to the discharge of
pollutants under the act.
I oppose these provisions in the underlying bill, and I view this
amendment as an effort to improve an otherwise very bad bill. On that
basis I support the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Is it my right to close, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has the right to close.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me refer my colleagues again to basic facts.
Forty-seven States have entered into agreements with the EPA because
they have decided, in spite of the challenges that we all have on
making sure that we do the right thing, that it is the right thing to
do, that clean water is our priority. And I would offer as a viable
picture a recollection of Americans who had to live through histories
when water was not clean. We did have that era in our lifetime, or at
least in the lifetimes of many. I would argue that that is not the life
we would like to go back to.
This particular section is protecting us against pollutants that
degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing,
swimming, and other activities coming from a vast variety of chemicals,
industry, and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense
these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States
have access to safe drinking water.
{time} 1530
Do you want a jobs bill? Then you create the companies that are going
to help us keep our waterways clean. Put people to work cleaning water.
Put people to work complying with the right thing to do to ensure that
we have clean drinking water, to ensure that babies and working moms
and families can turn on that faucet, and to ensure that they can drink
that clean water.
We want to work with industry. We want to be able to come halfway,
but we don't want to return America to a time when you would dip down.
You find in developing nations the enormous number of diseases that
children have because they do not have clean water. Go to some of our
developing nations. See what they're washing themselves in. See what
they're drinking.
That's not America.
We have the opportunity to be the kind of nation that works with our
businesses but also the kind that fights for our children and provides
the opportunity for clean water. I ask my
[[Page H4978]]
colleagues to stand with us and to strike section 2 to allow us, one,
to go for a compromise if we can, but also to stand for those who would
welcome clean water. Let's end diseases that can be caused in this
reckless manner.
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to support
clean water in America.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 the
``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,'' which ensures the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to have authority
to oversee issues related to the standards for and issuance of National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
My amendment will strike section 2 of the bill, ensuring the vital
role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants
enter our waterways. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority
to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take
into account issues that arise when States disagree.
The EPA is a unifying body, issuing regulations that ensure all
States have standards that they must follow. Bodies of water cross
State lines, and the water quality standards of one State are very
likely to impact neighboring States.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that all wastewater discharges to
surface water receive a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. 47 States, including Texas, where I represent the 18th
Congressional District, are currently authorized to issue NPDES
permits. Texas has been authorized to issue these permits since
September 14, 1998.
The pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for
drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities, come from a vast
variety of chemicals, industry and other sources. By regulating the
sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to
ensure that all States have access to safe water bodies.
It is important that the EPA be able to set a universal standard that
all States follow. States may lack the resources and funding to
adequately implement the NPDES program and properly regulate sources of
water contaminants. Additionally, States may not have the resources or
expertise needed to continually evaluate regulations in order to ensure
that water remains safe.
Preventing the EPA from regulating the levels of pollutants in bodies
of water may give jurisdiction over the issuance of permits to the
States, but it certainly will not allow States to set their own
standards for water quality. If the EPA is not able to set universal
standards, downstream States will be subject to the water quality of
upstream States. Contaminated groundwater will spread beyond State
borders, impacting the lakes, reservoirs, and agriculture of nearby
States, putting the people and the economy of its neighbors at risk.
In 1906, Missouri sued Illinois for discharging sewage into a
tributary of the Mississippi River that ultimately rendered drinking
water unsafe in Missouri. Restricting the EPA from holding all States
to the same standards will inevitably lead to many suits of this
nature.
I believe this bill sends us in the wrong direction when it comes to
protecting our nation's bodies of water. This bill leaves a false
impression that the EPA is an organization that arbitrarily picks and
chooses what chemicals States can and cannot permit to enter our
precious waters. Rather, the EPA has a broad responsibility for
research, standard-setting, monitoring, and enforcement with regard to
five environmental hazards: air pollution, water pollution, solid waste
disposal, radiation, and pesticides. The EPA represents a coordinated
approach to each of these problems, including an important standard for
clean water.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge opposition to this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize and restate that
the States are operating under an already approved plan from the U.S.
EPA which addresses these concerns, so I don't see how we go backwards,
because they're operating within the framework that was set up. By the
way, under the Clean Water Act, that plan is reviewed every 3 years.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Capito
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 112-144.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. IMPACTS OF EPA REGULATORY ACTIVITY ON EMPLOYMENT AND
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
(a) Analysis of Impacts of Actions on Employment and
Economic Activity.--
(1) Analysis.--Before taking a covered action, the
Administrator shall analyze the impact, disaggregated by
State, of the covered action on employment levels and
economic activity, including estimated job losses and
decreased economic activity.
(2) Economic models.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall utilize the best available economic
models.
(B) Annual gao report.--Not later than December 31st of
each year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report on the economic models used by
the Administrator to carry out this subsection.
(3) Availability of information.--With respect to any
covered action, the Administrator shall--
(A) post the analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the
main page of the public Internet Web site of the
Environmental Protection Agency; and
(B) request that the Governor of any State experiencing
more than a de minimis negative impact post such analysis in
the Capitol of such State.
(b) Public Hearings.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator concludes under
subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a
de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic
activity in a State, the Administrator shall hold a public
hearing in each such State at least 30 days prior to the
effective date of the covered action.
(2) Time, location, and selection.--A public hearing
required under paragraph (1) shall be held at a convenient
time and location for impacted residents. In selecting a
location for such a public hearing, the Administrator shall
give priority to locations in the State that will experience
the greatest number of job losses.
(c) Notification.--If the Administrator concludes under
subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a
de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic
activity in any State, the Administrator shall give notice of
such impact to the State's Congressional delegation,
Governor, and Legislature at least 45 days before the
effective date of the covered action.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Covered action.--The term ``covered action'' means any
of the following actions taken by the Administrator under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.):
(A) Issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance,
response to a petition, or other requirement.
(B) Implementing a new or substantially altered program.
(3) More than a de minimis negative impact.--The term
``more than a de minimis negative impact'' means the
following:
(A) With respect to employment levels, a loss of more than
100 jobs. Any offsetting job gains that result from the
hypothetical creation of new jobs through new technologies or
government employment may not be used in the job loss
calculation.
(B) With respect to economic activity, a decrease in
economic activity of more than $1,000,000 over any calendar
year. Any offsetting economic activity that results from the
hypothetical creation of new economic activity through new
technologies or government employment may not be used in the
economic activity calculation.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the chairman of my subcommittee,
the gentleman from Ohio, for his leadership on this issue.
My amendment is a simple reaction to conversations that I've had with
the administrator and others at the EPA and also with the President of
the United States.
In questioning the President, I asked:
Mr. President, when you're going forth on your rules and regulations
at the EPA, do you consider jobs and economic impact?
He said we should and I say we should, and that is the purpose of my
amendment. This requires the EPA to analyze the impact on jobs and
economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement,
guidance, or
[[Page H4979]]
prior to implementing any new or substantially altered program under
the Clean Water Act.
Earlier this year, the EPA retroactively vetoed a previously approved
Clean Water Act permit in West Virginia at the Spruce Mine. This came
as quite a surprise, and it was very unprecedented because I don't
believe the EPA--if it has, it has been maybe once or twice in its
history--has ever retroactively vetoed a permit. It had a very chilling
effect not only on jobs but on the economic activity in our State. This
action has caused a slow bleed of jobs throughout Appalachia. Reaching
back to revoke a permit is particularly concerning because it causes
great uncertainty for job creators in our State. This is at a time when
we have as a Nation 9.2 percent unemployment.
We need to get people to work.
Why would a company invest in a new project that has been permitted
when it would think that there would be a reach-back by the EPA under
the Clean Water Act which could revoke this permit? To me, this just
chills job creation in our State.
The EPA's ideological war on our energy producers is manifesting
itself in other ways in my district and across the country. In the
eastern part of West Virginia, the EPA--listen to this--is using aerial
surveillance of family farms with the goal of ensuring compliance with
the Clean Water Act. According to an article in a local newspaper, the
EPA is going so far as to regulate the types of sheds that family
farmers can have for their cattle operations. Yet, when asked about the
economic impact of this kind of regulatory overreach, the EPA's
representative made it clear that jobs are irrelevant.
As the Nation faces 9.2 percent unemployment and as hundreds of
thousands of jobs hang in limbo, the administration has refused to
reconsider this agenda. The negative impact of the regulatory actions
upon jobs is obvious. However, the EPA has been unable to give me a
straight answer on whether it does or does not consider the negative
impact on jobs or economic impact.
So let's put it clearly in the law:
You must consider this to strike that balance between environment and
economy.
All this amendment is asking for, quite simply, is transparency. It
doesn't mandate what decision has to be made when considering what jobs
or economic impact is discovered. It does say that, when jobs and
economic impact are negative, the EPA has to go to the local governance
authority, whether it's the Governor or the smaller community, and
explain this action. So it's transparency. I think it will help further
clarify decisions, but it will also help our energy producers figure
out how to weave the balance between the economy and the environment.
In closing, I've heard a lot of talk about our collective goal of
clean air and clean water. We all share that--and no one more than
everyone on the floor who is sitting here today and those of us across
the country--but we cannot afford this continued unaccountable,
nontransparent assault on our American jobs, so I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. We have heard a great deal of how reversals
on the part of the EPA have caused uncertainty in the business
community--uncertainty that leads to job loss, uncertainty that leads
to a lack of interest in investing. Here are the numbers:
In 40 years, the EPA has reversed 13 permits--13--out of over 2
million issued. That is a veto rate of .00065 percent.
I fail to see how a reversal rate of significantly less than 1
percent can create the kind of uncertainty that we hear about from our
colleagues. In fact, that kind of reversal rate encourages a reliance
on the legitimacy and the validity of a permit granted, not the
questioning of it.
I would also point out that, of these 13 reversals, seven took place
under the administration of President Reagan; four took place under the
Presidency of the first George Bush; one under George W. Bush; and one
under President Obama. I think we are hard-pressed to develop a fact-
based argument that there is an assault or that there is an overreach
on the part of the EPA.
Now, with respect to the subject of the amendment, itself, the EPA
has testified before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
that it already considers the implications of its actions on jobs and
on the economy. In fact, many of the requirements that bring the EPA to
do that were enacted by the Republican majority when they last
controlled the House. I would suggest that the enactment of this
amendment will only duplicate the analysis that the EPA is already
undertaking.
As a result, I fear that this amendment will only increase the
opportunity for litigation relating to actions on the part of the EPA,
causing a new cause of action in the Clean Water Act for third-party
lawsuits. If anything, I fear that the effect of this amendment will be
to tie up efforts by the EPA to protect public health and the
environment in a bureaucratic morass.
On that basis, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to quickly respond in terms of the
revocation of the one permit. Let's talk about the hundreds of permits
that are sitting at the EPA, and try to figure out how to meet the
balance here.
{time} 1540
Let's look at the total picture--that's all I'm saying--of jobs and
the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. I urge Members to support Mrs. Capito's amendment. Her
amendment would bring transparency to the development of regulations
and require the EPA to provide a more robust analysis of the economic
impacts of its regulatory actions.
This will not halt the issuance of regulations, only provide better
information to those who are responsible for writing the regulations,
in this case the EPA. I think we can all agree the EPA could have
better information to utilize to make better regulatory decisions.
I am concerned, as I believe the Administrator of the U.S. EPA has
testified, that their main concern, when they look at a regulatory
issue, is public health and safety of the environment, and they don't
do any cost-benefit analysis and diminishing returns and all that.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much
time I have remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
I rise in support of the gentlelady from West Virginia's amendment;
let me state that at the very beginning. My only concerns here were
attaching an economic analysis amendment to the pending legislation
which is directed at the Clean Water Act interpretations.
The pending amendment by the gentlelady from West Virginia--which as
I say, I support--would appear to me to more broaden the direction in
which this bill goes, which I think detracts from the original intent
of the legislation to zero in on clean water issues.
The gentlelady's amendment should be properly--I believe it is--the
subject of another stand-alone bill that's been introduced in this body
to judge the economic analysis. That legislation I support as well. I
might add, in addition, that I brought this issue up with Cass
Sunstein, who is the head of the White House Office of Regulatory
Review, whose job it is to determine and to examine the economic
analysis of regulations that come out of the Federal agencies. That is
the White House Office of Regulatory Review's jurisdiction, not EPA's
jurisdiction, as the gentlelady has paraphrased the EPA administrator;
and as we've all heard her say, job repercussions is not necessarily
part of her job description.
The unfortunate fact is that the Office of Regulatory Review under
the White House jurisdiction has very limited staff and does not have
the staff availability to examine the economic analysis of every
regulation that comes out of every agency of our Federal Government,
which they are tasked to do,
[[Page H4980]]
but certainly don't have the resources to fully do their job.
So the bottom line, I do support the gentlelady's amendment. I do
worry that it overly broadens this particular piece of legislation and
should be properly, as it is, the subject of a separate stand-alone
legislation on its own.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for his
support because he and I are seeing firsthand--we want to see
transparency; we want to see the information move forward on the
economic impact. We are at a place where we need jobs, we want jobs, we
just want to see the facts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge support
of my amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have cited, I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 112-144.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. REPORTING ON HARMFUL POLLUTANTS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a
report on any increase in waterborne pathogenic
microorganisms (including protozoa, viruses, bacteria, and
parasites), toxic chemicals, or toxic metals (such as lead
and mercury) in waters regulated by a State under the
provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this
Act.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply seeks from the
Administrator of the EPA to submit to Congress within 1 year, and then
annually thereafter, a report on any increase in waterborne pathogenic
microorganisms, which include protozoa, viruses, bacteria and
parasites, toxic chemicals or toxic metals, such as lead and mercury,
in waters regulated by the State under the provisions of H.R. 2018,
including any further amendments to this bill.
Mr. Chair, there is nothing as important to all of us, especially for
those of us in Hawaii, as water quality. We are the only island State,
and of course our pristine waters are very critical to us for our major
economic engine, which is tourism. And I don't believe it's any
different for any other State, especially those of us who have
bordering oceans, and even those who may have navigable streams within
our borders. Water is critical.
What H.R. 2018 does is it simply states that the States now have the
right to regulate water quality. By doing that, however, we need to
know what they're doing and to ensure for all of us and our
constituents that the States are doing a good job. All this amendment
is seeking from the States is for the EPA to report to us so we can
know if in fact they're doing what this bill gives them the authority
to do, which is to make the decisions regarding water quality.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I ask for the support of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. The Hanabusa amendment authorizes the EPA to study the
effectiveness of cooperative federalism once H.R. 2018 is enacted.
While the amendment seems to carry a bias in that the EPA can only
report an increase of pathogens or toxins, and not reductions, after
enactment of H.R. 2018, the EPA will have very little to report upon.
H.R. 2018 will lead to better water quality decisions made at the
local level, and this will benefit the environment for all of us. If
H.R. 2018 would lead to water quality degradation, none of us in this
Chamber would support it if that were the case.
Noting the bias in the amendment, if the sponsor would like to ask
for a unanimous consent request to modify her amendment to modify line
5 after ``increase'' by adding the phrase ``or reductions,'' we then
would be able to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I would accept the modification. However, I
would also like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
thank her for offering this amendment.
I just want to simply say, as I've made clear, I do not support the
underlying legislation, but this is a very prudent amendment that
allows us to assess as we go forward whether or not this proposed law
is in the best interests of our Nation's clean water and in the
interests of our Nation's health. So I commend the gentlelady for
offering the amendment, and I am very happy to hear that this may be
accepted.
Mr. GIBBS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I understand with our agreement to their
modification, that they will accept the amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. With the modification, I think this is a good amendment. I
want to commend my colleague for offering it because I think we will
get an accurate report from the EPA when they do their study on whether
we're making progress because of H.R. 2018 or if we're going backwards.
So I think it's important to have this amendment modified to provide
those words ``or reductions.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1550
Modification to Amendment No. 4
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
On line 5, insert ``or reduction'' after ``increase''.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 112-144.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. PERMIT HOLDERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE.
None of the provisions of this Act, including the
amendments made by this Act, shall apply to any permit holder
that is listed by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency as being in significant noncompliance with
any requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, our country's worst polluters don't deserve a
get out of jail free card. I think that's an unintended consequence of
the current language of the bill, absent this amendment. And I
encourage my colleagues
[[Page H4981]]
on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment.
Regardless of one's position on the underlying bill, one thing I hope
we can all agree on is that the most egregious polluters--these are
polluters that Republican and Democratic State administrations,
Republican and Democratic experts agree are the most egregious
polluters, those who simply disregard the law knowingly, those who
repeatedly ignore State regulation, are bad actors and they should not
be among those who benefit from this bill. The States deserve to have
the EPA back them up and help them keep tabs on these polluters who
continually violate State rules.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of these polluters have escaped not
only punishment but simply increased scrutiny. Polluters that
continually violate the law are classified as ``significant
noncompliance.'' That's the term that's used. This classification
simply puts these polluters under a greater microscope by the EPA. It
doesn't change authorities. It doesn't engender some new regulatory
scheme. It simply ensures that the EPA is keeping a close eye on them
and ensuring that State programs are being followed.
Again, I believe it's a piece of this that's outside of this larger
State versus Federal debate. It's one that is consistent with
supporting States' regulation of the most egregious infractors.
States simply don't have the resources to keep our waters safe on
their own. According to a 2009 New York Times investigation, State
officials attribute rising pollution rates to increased workloads and
dwindling resources. In 46 States, local regulators already have
primary responsibility for crucial aspects of the Clean Water Act. The
job needed to protect our health is simply too big for State regulators
alone.
One notable example of significant noncompliance is from the Bush
administration between 2001 and 2006. The Bush administration found
that Massey Energy, the same company responsible for the Big Branch
Mine Disaster, had accrued over 2,000 significant violations, and the
State did not have the resources to hold them accountable. Under
significant noncompliance, the Bush administration was able to more
closely watch Massey and ensure they followed State rules.
Again, in its current form, this bill offers these most extreme
polluters a get out of jail free card, unraveling the EPA's long
history of backing up State authority and successfully and reasonably
keeping these major polluters in check. My amendment very simply states
that the EPA can keep a closer eye--that's all, a closer eye--on the
most extreme violators of the law, polluters who are habitually out of
compliance or significant noncompliance.
Without my amendment, this bill would mean that our Nation's worst
offenders would be free from EPA scrutiny, with sole authority being
new, less organized, and naive State programs ripe for loopholes and
some of which simply don't have the scale to adequately regulate what's
at stake.
Mr. Chair, if a student is disruptive in class, it's only common
sense they go to the principal's office. That doesn't mean the teacher
doesn't have autonomy in the class or the troubled student doesn't
respect the teacher. They need to know there are greater consequences
for bad behavior.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. The gentleman from Colorado seems to suggest that States
would continue to allow polluters to pollute waters of their States
under H.R. 2018 unless this amendment is adopted. Nothing could be
further from the truth. If H.R. 2018 degraded water quality, none of us
would support this legislation.
I also question the implementation of the amendment. If you had a
permit holder who is in significant noncompliance, does that negate
water quality provisions for the water body the permit holder may be
polluting? Of course not. Nothing in H.R. 2018 allows a permit holder
to violate the terms of a permit.
I urge all Members to oppose the Polis amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this, I think, very
well thought-out and well-conceived amendment.
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman because it suggests
that the most appropriate place for retaining Federal oversight is
against polluters who have a track record on the most serious
violations of the Clean Water Act, those found to be in significant
noncompliance; and, thus, the retention of a Federal oversight role I
think is very wise.
And let me just amplify that. In September of 2009, The New York
Times ran a front-page story highlighting that, from 2004 to 2008,
506,000 violations of the Clean Water Act were reported for both major
and minor facilities; and during that time, the States only took 11,000
enforcement actions, or what is basically a 2 percent enforcement rate.
We need to have the Federal Government retain its oversight role. This
amendment would do that.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GIBBS. I just want to reemphasize that if there is a permit
holder in violation, the States have an obligation and a responsibility
to step in and take action and enforcement. If they probably didn't,
I'm sure that there's some organization that would file a lawsuit
against that EPA.
So I don't think this amendment does anything to help the bill. I
think the bill takes care of it, and the people who would be in
violation would be prosecuted under the law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I don't agree with what the gentleman from Ohio
said. I don't believe that this should be yet another unfunded mandate
on the States.
While the number of unregulated facilities has more than doubled in
the last decade, many State enforcement budgets have been flat when
adjusted for inflation. In New York, for example, the number of
regulated polluters has almost doubled in the last decade, but the
number of inspections have remained the same.
Again, my amendment gives the State the ability to send habitual bad
actors to the EPA, not for the worst punishment, not for some change in
authority, not for some overreach, but simply for closer scrutiny. My
amendment does not affect punishment. It simply allows the EPA to keep
a close eye on the frequent violator in support of the State, as is the
practice with significant noncompliance.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment to ensure that the worst violators are properly inspected in
support of State regulation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 112-144.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF WATERS RECEIVING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
None of the provisions of this Act, including the
amendments made by this Act, shall apply to waters for which
Federal funding is provided for restoration projects,
studies, pilot projects, or development of total maximum
daily loads, as determined by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed
[[Page H4982]]
to note the irony of the legislation before us today. After 7 months of
ranting and raving about the lack of regulatory certainty which causes
economic stagnation, the Republican majority is now attempting to pass
a bill which would replace a clear, predictable, national clean water
standard with an utterly unpredictable patchwork of State standards.
Chaos does not federalism make, nor is one State's ability to sully a
downstream State's waters consistent with the commerce clause of the
United States Constitution.
{time} 1600
This legislation, with the Orwellian title the Clean Water
Cooperative Federalism Act, would endanger watersheds all across
America, including the precious Chesapeake Bay in our region here in
the National Capital Region. As my colleagues are aware, the bay
watershed encompasses six States and the District of Columbia.
Logically, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Agriculture, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies work in tandem with
States throughout the watershed to reduce pollution entering the bay.
Since watersheds do not correspond easily to State lines, this kind of
interagency cooperation is essential and efficient to restore America's
largest estuary.
H.R. 2018 would unravel that partnership, balkanizing water policy
and undermining bay restoration. I have drafted a simple amendment, Mr.
Chairman, to exempt watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay from this bill
by limiting the bill's jurisdiction to watersheds which do not receive
Federal aid for watershed restoration and related activities. This
amendment would allow critical efforts, such as the restoration of the
bay, Long Island Sound, the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Gulf of Mexico,
San Francisco Bay, and other great waters to continue. It would
acknowledge the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it
reaches the State line.
This amendment is important because these great waters are an
integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake Bay was where
John Smith arrived and founded Jamestown. The first colonial
exploration of Virginia, also by John Smith, used the bay to explore
the rivers of Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the
French blockade of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington to
have victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the
Revolutionary War.
For 200 years the Chesapeake Bay was one of America's most productive
fisheries, fueling the growth of coastal communities such as
Alexandria, Norfolk, and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of
boats such as the skipjacks, deadrises, and bugeyes.
Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many of the
fisheries that were once so productive. When John Smith arrived in the
bay, his crew had neglected to bring fishing line, but they were able
to pull fish out of the bay by scooping them out of the water. Smith
wrote that the oysters on the bay floor lay thick as stones and were so
prolific that these filter feeders cleaned the entire volume of the bay
daily. The shad runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers
were so immense that colonial observers noted it would have been
possible to walk all the way from the James from Richmond to Manchester
on the backs of fish without ever touching water.
These fish were so large and powerful that, when caught, they
actually shook the first Manchester Bridge on its piers. Of course, the
bay is part of a much larger watershed now that is as historic
ecologically as the bay is itself.
To restore this great water body, many Federal agencies have been
working in partnership with States, localities, and landowners. As
written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership, effectively giving
any one State veto authority over the region's restoration efforts. My
simple amendment would protect our ability to keep working together as
a region to restore the bay.
This regional effort was first started at the Federal level by a
Republican, my old friend, Republican U.S. Senator Charles ``Mac''
Mathias of Maryland. To the extent we are making progress today, it's a
result of the partnership between Virginia, whose general assembly is
investing over $100 million annually in private land conservation, a
Republican-led initiative that was expanded under a Democratic
Governor. Let us not turn our backs on this 30-year partnership.
I ask for your support for this commonsense amendment to continue the
improvements to America's largest and most historic estuary, as well as
our Nation's other great waters.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. The Connolly amendment says that the underlying bill will
not apply to any waters for which Federal funding is provided. This
would have an effect of realigning Federal funding for projects and
subject States with waters for which Federal funding is provided to
greater EPA imposition of Federal one-size-fits-all policies.
As drafted, the scope of the Federal funding intended to be covered
under this amendment is unclear, but could be interpreted to be almost
limitless in coverage. As a result, this amendment would allow EPA to
determine that the amendment applies to virtually all waters, with the
consequent effect of nullifying the underlying bill.
Rather than nullifying this legislation, I would rather the gentleman
from Virginia join those of us who think it would be more productive to
ease the burden of unnecessary regulations and provide the States more
authority in carrying out the Clean Water Act. I urge all Members to
oppose the Connolly amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Let me say to my friend who is managing on
the majority side, I spent 14 years in local government. We don't
consider the Federal involvement in cleaning up the bay an undue
burden. We actually consider it a partnership that has paid off big
time, and we need more of it.
Support the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018
Protect these Great Waters: Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay,
Long Island Sound, South Florida/Everglades, Mississippi
River Basin, San Francisco Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake
Champlain, Puget Sound, Casco Bay (ME), New Hampshire
Estuaries, Massachusetts Bays, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett
Bay, Peconic Estuary, New York/NJ Harbor, Bernegat Bay,
Delaware Inland Bays, Maryland Coastal Bays, Southeast Coast,
Albermarle-Pamlico Sound, Indian River Lagoon, Gulf Coast,
Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Mobile Bay,
Bataraia-Terrebonne Estuary, Galveston Bay, Coastal Bend Bay,
West Coast, Lower Columbia River, Tillamook Bay, Morro Bay
Dear Colleague, many of us have worked in collaboration
with partners at the state and local level to protect great
waters like the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Everglades, Lake
Champlain, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound,
Mississippi Basin, and the Gulf of Mexico.
I have drafted a simple amendment to exempt these
watersheds and others that receive federal restoration
funding from H.R. 2018. This amendment would allow critical
efforts such as restoration to continue in acknowledgement of
the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches
a state line. A more complete list of watersheds that would
be protected by this amendment can be found at the end of
this letter.
This amendment is important because these great waters are
an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake
Bay, for example, was where John Smith arrived and founded
Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also
by John Smith, used the Bay to explore the rivers of Virginia
and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade
of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington's
victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the
Revolutionary War. For two hundred years the Chesapeake was
one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the
growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk,
and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such
as the Skipjacks, Deadrises, and Bugeyes.
Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many
of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John
Smith arrived in the Bay, his crew had neglected to bring
fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the Bay
by scooping them out of the water with frying pans. Smith
wrote that the oysters on the Bay floor ``lay thick as
stones'' and were so prolific that these filter
[[Page H4983]]
feeders cleaned the whole volume of the Bay daily. The shad
runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac were so immense
that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to
walk across the James from Richmond to Manchester on the
backs of fish without ever touching water. These fish were so
large and powerful that, when caught, they shook the first
Manchester Bridge on its moorings. Of course, the Bay is part
of a much larger watershed that is as historic and
ecologically valuable as the Bay itself.
To restore this great water body many federal agencies have
been working in partnership with states, localities, and land
owners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership,
effectively giving any one state veto authority over the
region's Bay restoration efforts. This important amendment
would protect our ability to keep working together as a
region to restore the Bay and other great waters across
America.
Please support this amendment and contact
[email protected] (3-3122) with any questions.
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Connolly,
11th District, Virginia.
Watersheds and States that would be protected from H.R.
2018:
Great Lakes--NY, PA, OH, IL, IN, MN, WI, MI
Chesapeake Bay--NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV
Long Island Sound--CT, NY, RI
South Florida/Everglades--FL
Mississippi River Basin--MN, ND, SD, WY, CO, NM, TX, OK,
KS, NE, AR, LA, MS, TN, AL, GA, KS, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, OH,
PA, NY, NC
San Francisco Bay--CA, OR, NV
Gulf of Mexico--TX, LA, FL, AL, MS
Lake Champlain--NY, VT
Puget Sound--WA
National Estuary Programs:
Casco Bay--ME
New Hampshire Estuaries--NH
Massachusetts Bays--MA
Buzzards Bay--MA, RI
Naragansett Bay--MA, RI
Peconic Estuary--NY
New York/NJ Harbor--NY, NJ
Bernegat Bay--NJ
Delaware Inland Bays--NJ, DE, PA, MD
Inland Bays--DE
Maryland Coastal Bays--MD
Albermarle-Pamlico Sound--NC, VA
Indian River Lagoon--FL
Charlotte Harbor--FL
Sarasota Bay--FL
Tampa Bay--FL
Mobile Bay--AL
Bataraia-Terrebonne Estuary--LA
Galveston Bay--TX
Coastal Bend Bay--TX
Lower Columbia River--WA, OR
Tillamook Bay--OR
Morro Bay--CA
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the
Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
and stand in strong opposition to the underlying bill. H.R. 2018 is yet
another attempt to dismantle our nation's environmental protections and
further jeopardize the public health and safety of our citizens.
Simply put, H.R. 2018 would return the U.S. to a structure of Clean
Water laws that existed before enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1972
by undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to assure
state water quality standards. Before the Clean Water Act of 1972, 70
percent of our nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or
drinking.
This amendment, offered by my colleague from Virginia, would exempt
states that receive federal restoration funding from H.R. 2018. It
understands that ongoing cooperation among federal, state and local
governments is necessary to ensure that basic water quality standards
are upheld across the United States, regardless of which state you
reside in.
This amendment also recognizes that our Federal Government has spent
billions of dollars on regional collaborative efforts among states to
repair and restore our nation's valuable waterways, and that this bill,
H.R. 2018, threatens to nullify these efforts and write off valuable
investment already undertaken by effectively giving any one state veto
authority over a region's restoration efforts.
As a co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, a bipartisan
working group of members from eight states surrounding the Great Lakes,
I understand how critical it is for our states to work together to save
our nation's valuable waterways and that this cooperation must be
guided by the underlying premise that water does not stop when it
reaches the state line. The Great Lakes have received over $800 million
in federal funding over the last two years alone to undertake such
restoration efforts. We must not let these efforts and our valuable
nation resources go to waste.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose
H.R. 2018.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by my
colleague from Virginia and against this bad bill.
I am troubled that the bill we are considering today seems to move us
backwards to a time when some advocated states should reign supreme and
could opt out of federal laws.
We tried that system of government, it was called the Articles of
Confederation, and it failed miserably.
Each state did its own thing, and there was no mechanism by which
disagreements among the states could be resolved.
The issue today is whether states can opt out or even veto tougher,
more stringent water quality standards to protect the public's health.
This bill returns us to a time when we had no uniform national
minimum clean water standard and states had conflicting policies or no
policies to protect the public.
That was a time when rivers were so polluted they caught fire.
The problem with this reasoning and with this bill is that
responsible downstream states suffered the consequences of lax or weak
upstream states' policies.
I am sure my colleagues, who seem so enamored with this proposition
and this legislation, would raise objections if we were to apply a
similar proposal to our immigration policy.
Employing this same logic, states would be granted full rights to
disregard federal immigration policies and opt-out or set a different
policy on which immigrants to accept or reject.
Water, like immigrants, crosses state lines; and immigrants like
water should be governed by a single national standard.
The landmark Clean Water Act provides states full flexibility for
meeting the federal standards, and it also allows states flexibility to
set higher standards.
The amendment my colleague from Virginia is offering would at least
allow Virginia and the other states that are part of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed and some of this nation's other great bodies of water--waters
that are the primary source of millions of Americans' economic
livelihood and drinking water--to proceed with their plans to reduce
harmful pollutants that threaten to degrade these great waters and
allow current restoration measures to proceed.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House
Report 112-144.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112-144.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. PIPELINES CROSSING STREAMBEDS.
None of the provisions of this Act, including the
amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act, to regulate a pipeline that crosses a
streambed.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, while on this 4th of July most Americans
were partaking in American pastimes like barbecuing and watching ball
games, Montanans were immersed in a new American tradition,
unfortunately, cleaning up an oil spill. In this case, Montanans were
working, and are still working, feverishly to clean up a 40,000 gallon
leak from ExxonMobil's Silvertip pipeline, a spill that's having a
devastating impact on the residents, economy, and environment in the
State of Montana.
As written, this legislation opens the door for more destructive
events like the Yellowstone spill. This is why I proposed a simple,
zero-cost amendment that will resolve this issue and continue
protecting the American people, its environment, our economy, our water
system from the harmful effects of pipeline spills.
The investigation into the Yellowstone spill has made it clear that
the
[[Page H4984]]
spill occurred because the pipeline was not buried deep enough below
the streambed. Having only been buried 5 feet below the river, years of
the Yellowstone River's powerful flow removed much of the sediment
covering the pipeline to the point where the pipeline was directly
exposed. Once exposed, the pipeline was weakened by the elements
rapidly moving down the Yellowstone River.
In order to bury a pipeline beneath a streambed, the company building
the pipeline often has to rely upon and apply to the Corps of Engineers
for a permit to dredge and fill. While the Corps has the authority to
issue the permit, EPA has the ability to exercise oversight and ensure
that the pipeline is sited safely and buried appropriately. This
oversight authority is an effective, nonburdensome safety feature of
the permitting process that serves as a backstop to Federal and State
regulators and protects the health and safety of the American people.
All this amendment does is ensure that this bill does not prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency from exercising this authority. It does
not create a new permitting requirement or process. Historically, the
siting of pipelines has not been an issue where the Federal Government
has exercised much oversight. And this amendment does not call for
enhanced oversight, create a new process, or require anything more from
pipeline owners or builders. Rather, it simply preserves the existing
right of the Environmental Protection Agency to exercise oversight in
egregious cases.
Every piece of oil infrastructure, whether it's a pipeline or a drill
rig, has backup safety features that are critical to ensure the safe
operation of the infrastructure. Those safety backups, like the dead
man switch on a drill rig, only function when the first set of safety
features fail. The EPA's oversight of the Corps' dredge and fill
permits for pipelines is just like the dead man's switch on an oil rig.
It is only there as a backup protection in case the Corps might fail.
And if the oil industry uses layer upon layer of backup safety
systems, why should the Federal Government not do the same? We are the
ultimate protector of the water of our people. With the demand for oil
in the United States increasing, more and more pipelines are being
proposed. Many of these pipelines will cross economically critical,
environmentally sensitive bodies of water like the Yellowstone River.
Significant pipeline spills like the million gallon Enbridge pipeline
spill last year in Michigan are serious events that have real
implications for real people. Just ask the citizens of Kalamazoo,
Michigan, who almost a year later are recovering from that spill.
{time} 1610
In order to avoid similar tragedies in the future, the Federal
Government needs to retain the existing protections built into the
permitting process. This amendment does that by just maintaining EPA's
existing authority to protect the American people and ensure their
waters are not contaminated.
I urge passage of this important safety amendment, which will ensure
that our Nation's pipelines are as consistent and as safe and reliable
as Old Faithful, which resides in Yellowstone Park and whose river is
being threatened, and I ask for support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition, although
I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBS. EPA's role in regulating pipelines is minimal as compared
to the role of other agencies. This bill would have little effect on
regulating pipelines. Therefore, we can accept this amendment.
Mr. COHEN. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for
accepting the amendment.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 112-144.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF WATERS PROVIDING CERTAIN BENEFITS.
None of the provisions of this Act, including the
amendments made by this Act, shall apply to waters that, as
determined by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency--
(1) provide flood protection for communities;
(2) are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat that provides
benefits to the economy; or
(3) are coastal recreational waters.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 3 minutes.
This amendment ensures protection for waters and wetlands that
provide flood protection or economically valuable habitats for our
coastal recreation waters.
Healthy streams and wetlands provide vital public benefits for flood
protection, commerce and public health. As there is an effort on the
part of my friends on the other side of the aisle to eliminate these
critical protections, it's important to keep that in mind.
Pollution destroys habitat and cripples local fishing and tourism.
There has been talk about economic development.
Well, it costs money to deal with treating polluted waters. There are
40 million recreational anglers in America that generate $125 billion
in economic output, including $45 billion in retail sales and pay $16.4
billion in State and Federal taxes.
The sport supports over 1 million American jobs right here in the
United States. And when a wetland is filled with sediment or drained,
it can no longer protect towns from devastating floods.
We have had witness over the last couple of years of this devastating
impact. An acre of wetland provides more than $10,000 per person in
public benefits. If you lose 1 percent of a watershed's wetland, it can
increase flood volume by almost 7 percent. These are nature's sponges
that we need to protect.
It's also important to point out that not all States protect the
quality of their water. Some States just simply don't care as much as
other States; some States are not as capable of protecting it.
In those States where protection is lax, the EPA must have the
authority to step in to protect the economy, the environment, and human
welfare for residents in that State as well as the States that are
downstream that would also be affected. We shouldn't have Americans
held hostage to the lowest common denominator of people who are simply
not going to maintain the standards.
This amendment preserves that authority for the EPA to protect
communities who rely on water for fishing and other economic benefits,
along with wetlands that create vital flood protection.
Mr. Chairman, the American public strongly supports clean water. This
has been one of the most popular pieces of legislation since it was
enacted in the Nixon administration. It, until now, has had pretty
broad bipartisan support.
The legislation here represents the most aggressive attack on it, in
my memory, in 15 years in Congress. My amendment, at least, would
clarify this particular item.
I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. I wish to claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose this amendment
because it basically aims to gut the underlying bill.
This amendment is designed to ensure that the EPA can continue to
unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all
[[Page H4985]]
Federal policies onto the States' water quality programs.
The underlying bill, H.R. 2018, reestablishes the States' balanced
role in carrying out the provisions of the Clean Water Act; but this
amendment, in effect, says that the underlying bill will not apply
virtually anywhere the Clean Water Act applies.
Implicitly, this amendment also says that the States cannot be
trusted in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of
their citizens, and the Federal Government knows best.
Once States have approved clean water programs, they are capable of
administering their programs and caring for the welfare of their
citizens. EPA needs to be more respectful of the decisions made by the
States in those circumstances.
H.R. 2018 is a good bill that restores balance to an out-of-control
U.S. EPA. The intent of this amendment is to make the bill completely
unworkable. I would also add that I think that the Clean Water Act has
worked until now when the States have been usurped of their authority
and ability to enforce the State and Federal EPA environmental laws.
I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a gentleman who deeply understands
the importance of this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the gentleman that just preceded me said this
would gut this bill. He is right, it would gut this bill which deserves
to be gutted.
This bill would take us back to pre-Clean Water Act standards. He
says, oh, the States, if they have standards, shouldn't be bothered by
the EPA. Well, this bill says if a State has adopted standards on
paper, but they choose not to enforce them and they are out of
compliance, the EPA can take no action.
It further says that if we discover a new harmful pollutant, as we
did recently when we upgraded the standards for arsenic, most of us
don't want our kids drinking arsenic in the water. The EPA cannot
enforce new national standards if we discover a new dangerous pollutant
unless the State agrees. It's optional; it's up to the State.
And then, of course, if you happen to be a State downstream from a
State that is choosing to kind of stick it to its own people by not
adopting the highest standards, or not even enforcing their existing
standards, you are downstream, you don't have any choice. You have no
recourse.
This bill is absurd in terms of the fact that it is just designed to
totally gut the Clean Water Act and turn back the clock to the good old
days when we had rivers that burned.
Mr. GIBBS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Bishop), who has some
experience with problems of water pollution and erosion.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, along with Mr. Markey
and Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. Chairman, if H.R. 2018 were enacted as drafted, it would restrict
the EPA's ability to protect the Nation's waters from pollution. As we
know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the dueling interests
of States, many sources of clean drinking water would be imperiled,
valuable fish and wildlife habitat would be endangered and coastal
recreational waters, like the shores of my Long Island, would be at
risk, along with all the economic benefits these resources provide.
The Markey-DeFazio-Blumenauer amendment simply restricts the
provisions of this bill from endangering waters that provide flood
protection for communities, our valuable fish and wildlife habitat or
our coastal recreational waters that are the backbone of my district's
economy. In fact, my district will face real economic danger if this
bill is not amended, not to mention the environmental danger that my
district and districts all over this country will face.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
{time} 1620
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the comments
from my colleague from Oregon talking about a new pollutant. Well,
under H.R. 2018, if there's a new pollutant out there and it comes in
and it is not in an already State-approved plan, the State has to take
action, and the EPA and the State have to work cooperatively to develop
a new plan to address that issue. So I think if the issue of arsenic
came up, they would have to work that out cooperatively.
And the comment about States won't take action, I can't believe that
a State EPA is not going to take action. Oregon--maybe they're not
going to take action in Oregon. It's hard for me to believe that. But I
don't think this amendment is necessary, and I oppose the amendment.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by Mr. Markey, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
Many of us have seen iconic images of the Cuyahoga River burning in
the 1950s. Sadly, this was not an isolated event--the Cuyahoga caught
fire numerous times. The reason for these fires was that the river was
heavily, heavily contaminated with flammable industrial waste.
This water was dangerous to drink and to swim in. Fish and wildlife
could not survive. Flooding in this river would have spread pollution
onto shore and into neighborhoods and homes. In short, this pollution
was dangerous for the health of the people and communities that
depended on the river.
It was incidents like these that helped raised public awareness of
the dangers of water pollution.
Ultimately, that awareness became government action--including the
creation of the EPA in 1970, and passage of the Clean Water Act in
1972.
The EPA's purpose is simple: to protect human health and the
environment. It does this by acting as a referee between the states--
working to ensure minimum standards for water quality nationwide. These
standards help to ensure an even playing field for states and
businesses, while preserving safe, adequate water supplies for our
children and communities.
The underlying bill we are considering, the so-called ``Clean Water
Cooperative Federalism Act'' is deeply flawed, primarily because it
seems to forget a critical point--watersheds, coastlines, and waterways
don't always end at state boundaries.
Our amendment is also simple. It preserves the EPA's current role in
protecting certain bodies of water. Specifically, water bodies that
provide flood protection for communities, valuable fish and wildlife
habitats, and coastal recreation.
Our rivers, coastlines, and wetlands are the places that we take our
children to experience the wonder of our country. This is where their
interests in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. And
this is where we should expect them to be safe from chemicals,
industrial waste, and other pollutants.
Our amendment will help to preserve the natural resources that
transcend state boundaries--and benefit the health and vitality of
communities across the nation.
I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to protect the Clean Water Act
and in support of the amendment offered by Representatives Markey (MA),
DeFazio (OR), Capps (CA), Blumenauer (OR), Capuano (MA), Napolitano
(CA) and Hirono (HI). Since the passage of the Clean Water Act our
waterways have gotten cleaner and our public health has improved.
Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the United States has achieved
significant gains in public health, a cleaner environment, and a
stronger more sustainable economy.
The Clean Water Act, CWA, is one of our nation's greatest
environmental laws, safeguarding our rivers, lakes, and streams and
protecting the health and safety of our drinking water. The CWA was
enacted as a bipartisan effort almost a half century ago, coming on the
heels of several rivers catching on fire, including the Cuayahoga River
in 1969, and the decimation of Lake Erie's fisheries due to pollution.
Under the current Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, has taken significant actions to improve the safety of our
drinking water, and continues to protect of our nation's waterways.
There is no right more basic than the right to safe drinking water,
and that right depends on unpolluted source waters. The Clean Water Act
protects our water from heavy metals such as arsenic and lead,
dangerous pathogens like
[[Page H4986]]
E. coli, and other toxins. Clean drinking water is basic to our very
survival.
The amendment before us would ensure that if this bill, H.R. 2018,
ever made it into law, it would not endanger the safety protections
provided under the Clean Water Act for waters that provide flood
protection for communities, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat
that provide benefits to the economy, or are coastal recreational
waters. We cannot sacrifice our waterways for the interests of big
polluters.
The nation's fish and wildlife habitats and recreational waters are
fruitful economic drivers for local communities, especially in the area
I proudly represent on Lake Ontario. According to a recent study,
900,000 recreational boaters using Great Lakes harbors spend
approximately $2.35 billion annually on boating trips and another $1.4
billion to purchase and maintain their watercraft. This supports 60,000
jobs in the region and generates $1.7 billion in annual personal
income. The CWA has served an integral part in cleaning up and
maintaining the health of our waters, and therefore boosting the health
of our local economies.
A strong Clean Water Act has moved us beyond the days of rivers on
fire. However, there is still more to be done. State and EPA data
reveal that 44 percent of assessed river and stream miles and 64
percent of assessed lake acres do not meet relevant water quality
standards. Now is the time to support the efforts of the EPA as the
agency works to ensure we all have access to clean water.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment so that our
environment and local economies remain protected under the Clean Water
Act. We must reject any effort to repeal our valuable protections, and
recommit our pledge to the American people to work toward a cleaner,
healthier, more prosperous future.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment 9 to H.R. 2018,
the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 and to oppose the
underlying bill, which would overturn almost forty years of Federal
legislation by preventing EPA from protecting public health and water
quality. H.R. 2018 will turn the Clean Water Act into the Dirty Water
Act.
Let me paint a picture of what my hometown rivers, the Malden, the
Mystic and the Charles, looked like forty years ago. Raw sewage flowed
into the river from outmoded wastewater treatment plants. Toxic
discharges from industrial facilities colored the river pink and
orange. Fish kills, submerged cars and appliances, leaching riverbank
landfills, and noxious odors were common occurrences.
Because of the Clean Water Act, polluted rivers are being relegated
to the history books like the water-powered textile mills on these
rivers that started the Industrial Revolution in the United States.
Using sound science, cutting-edge technologies and by making polluters
pay, EPA and its partners have made remarkable progress in restoring
these rivers. The award-winning River's Edge Park on the shores of the
Malden River is a testament to the economic development that follows
the implementation of environmental laws.
My amendment to H.R. 2018 would ensure that any waters that EPA
determines provides flood protection for communities, or are valuable
fish and wildlife habitat that provide benefits to the economy, or are
coastal recreational waters would continue to be protected. Our clean
rivers must not return to their polluted past.
My amendment would also protect the progress made to restore fishing
and swimming on sections of the Connecticut River, New England's
longest river, by ensuring federal protection for rivers that run
through more than one state.
The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that protecting wetlands along
the Charles River in Boston saves as much as $17 million annually in
averted flood damage, and economists estimate that each acre of wetland
provides more than $10,000 per person in public benefits each year.
The song ``Dirty Water'' is played after every Red Sox home win. The
song memorializes the polluted Charles and Boston Harbor. And while
those of us in Boston love the song, we like our new, clean, healthy
Charles River more. Support my amendment and keep this song as an
oldie, instead of turning it into a modern hit on the demise of the
Clean Water Act.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Carnahan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 112-144.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF WATERS AFFECTED BY FLOODING DISASTERS.
None of the provisions of this Act, including the
amendments made by this Act, shall apply to--
(1) waters that are located in an area for which the
President has declared, at any time during the preceding 5-
year period, a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.) due to flooding; or
(2) other waters that contributed to such a declaration.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chair, 2011 is already the costliest year for
natural disasters in history. Over $250 billion in economic damages
have already been incurred around the world. In the U.S. alone, storms,
flooding, wildfires, and earthquakes have already done roughly $27
billion in damage, more than double the annual average over the last
decade.
Living near the confluence of our country's two greatest rivers, the
Mississippi and the Missouri, my constituents in the St. Louis region
have rebuilt from floods many times, and we understand the challenges
facing communities across the Nation during this unprecedented season
of floods.
Even after the cleanup has begun, flood-affected communities face the
prospect of public health epidemics spread by dirty water, in effect,
creating a double crisis for communities already struggling to pick up
the pieces. We have all seen the shocking images from cities large and
small along the Mississippi this spring, and the last thing these
communities need are weakened clean water standards that would put them
at risk of water-borne diseases or even toxic chemicals.
My amendment to H.R. 2018 would ensure that communities recovering
from devastating floods would not be burdened by the public health
threats posed by dirty water. It simply states that none of the
provisions of H.R. 2018 would apply where the President has declared a
disaster due to flooding within the past 5 years or to waters that have
contributed to such a flood.
This is a commonsense amendment. It will help reassure flood-affected
communities that their water is safe and healthy. I urge my colleagues
to stand up for flood-affected communities across the country by voting
in favor of the Carnahan amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Under the gentleman from Missouri's amendment, if a State
has made a disaster declaration any time in the last 5 years, H.R. 2018
would not be applicable to waters in the area. This amendment would
continue to allow the EPA to overturn State-established and U.S. EPA-
approved water quality standards and unilaterally impose federally
dictated permitting and other regulatory requirements on States and
other disaster responders. This, in turn, would impact on the ability
of States and other disaster responders to respond to and conduct
cleanups after major flood disasters and would discourage States from
seeking disaster assistance.
I urge all Members to oppose the Carnahan amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by
[[Page H4987]]
the gentleman from Missouri will be postponed.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gibbs) having assumed the chair, Mr. McClintock, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2018) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority
of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water
quality standards, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________