Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
ESTUARIES AND COASTAL WATER QUALITY LEGISLATION
Tuesday, July 13, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m.,in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The committee will come to order.
The Nation's estuaries are our Nation's nurseries. They provide the habitat and the natural resources to sustain our environment, our economy, and our future. If given the chance, they will continue to teem with life and potential, but they are at risk and, in some areas, under assault.
Population and development pressures can have devastating effects on coastal waters. Nutrient-laden dead zones, toxic algae blooms, fish kills, and illnesses among surfers and other beach-goers are just a few of the many problems.
This committee and the Congress have responded and will continue to respond with bipartisan legislation to enhance the overall effort to save our Nation's estuaries and coast.
For example, on Earth Day, April 27, 1999, the House passed critical legislation to improve water quality monitoring for coastal recreation waters. H.R. 999, the Beaches Environment Awareness, Cleanup, and Help Act of 1999, is currently pending in the Senate and I hope will move swiftly to the President's desk.
Today we focus on five other bills that are designed to restore and protect our Nation's estuaries and coastal waters.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
First, let me commend our colleague, Representative Gilchrist, as well as Senator Chafee, for efforts to develop and move comprehensive legislation on estuaries.
H.R. 1775, which is a companion to Senator Chafee's bill, could provide a substantial boost to national and regional efforts to protect and restore estuary habitat and water quality.
Representative Gilchrist should be commended, in particular, for his unending efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
Next I want to commend my good colleague and friend, Representative Saxton, for his leadership on the Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans Subcommittee and his efforts to re-authorize the Coastal Zone Management Act to control coastal non-point source pollution—that is something we are not paying nearly enough attention to—and improve the effectiveness of the national estuaries program.
I look forward to working with him on several fronts, including H.R. 1237.
I also want to thank Representatives DeLauro and Lowey for their ongoing efforts to protect Long Island Sound and strengthen the Clean Water Act, such as in H.R. 1096, and Representative Lazio for his commitment to Long Island Sound, South Shore Estuary, and the Piconic Bays and New York Harbor.
In addition, I wish to commend Representative Ford for his relentless efforts—and they are relentless—to protect Long Island Sound and Fishers Island and to assure that Federal agencies are not held to a lower environmental standard than others.
Let me stress that. He wants to ensure that Federal agencies are not held to a lower environmental standard than others, a very commendable objective.
H.R. 855 may be controversial, particularly from the perspective of some of our colleagues from Connecticut. Make no mistake, though. It is garnering the attention of the Federal agencies and, I believe, resulting in a heightened awareness of the need for environmentally responsible management of dredged material. We should not have to choose between clear channels and clean fish.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, let me congratulate Representative Deutsch and Representative Shaw for their leadership on H.R. 673. Representative Ros-Lehtinen has also been very active in this regard.
The Florida Keys are a national treasure. Clearly, there is a Federal role in preserving and protecting the area's water quality. There should be a partnership to supplement the ongoing efforts by local governments, Governor Jeb Bush, and citizens to save the Keys and Florida Bay.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, some of whom have traveled many miles to be here today. I should also look forward to hearing from our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski.
Mr. Borksi.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for holding this important hearing.
Coastal environments are precious natural resources that need to be restored and protected. These areas provide an important habitat for numerous fish and wildlife.
In addition, coastal and estuarian waters are valuable for the fisheries they produce, as well as the tourism, real estate, residential, and industrial water supplies and transportation linkage they support.
It has been estimated that coastal and estuarian waters are worth billions of dollars to this country. Yet, despite the inherent value of these areas, for too long we have viewed our Nation's oceans, bays, and rivers as convenient dumping grounds for the waste associated with human life and development.
However, as we have fortunately learned, those earlier practices were a mistake, a mistake which we must continue to correct.
Many of the issues surrounding the water quality of these areas can be traced to the legacy of inadequate pollution controls and improper land management.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Whether it is uncollected runoff from urban and rural areas, collected runoffs through storm sewers, or releases of pollutants from industrial and wastewater treatment facilities, we continue to allow sediments and pollutants to enter our waterways, despite their harmful effects.
In addition, we continue to permit the development of vital wetland areas despite their known benefits to the protection of coastal and estuarian areas.
Yet, while progress has been made in the protection of our natural resources, there is still work to do in improving overall water quality and resource protection, while at the same time ensuring the viability of the American economy.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, although I am pleased that we are restarting these discussions, I am concerned that the subcommittee is taking too narrow of a focus on what I believe is a much broader problem.
While I am not down-playing the importance of the issues we will discuss today, I would suggest that we could address these concerns in a broader context, such as the re-authorization of the Clean Water Act and comprehensively addressing non-point source and other remaining pollution problems.
Only by comprehensively addressing the remaining issues affecting water quality can we expect to carry the successes of the Clean Water Act into the next century.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can agree to work together on these remaining areas of water quality concern, and again, I want to thank you for conducting today's hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony from our colleagues.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The Chair intends now to recognize Representative Gilchrist, and then we'll go to Representative Taylor.
Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. GILCHRIST. I thank the Chairman for the time.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have a statement that I ask unanimous consent to be submitted into the record.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. GILCHRIST. I appreciate the hearing and those testifying here this afternoon from various parts of the country.
I would like to make just a very brief perspective. I would like everyone in the audience, just for a second, to take a look at the earth from the perspective of standing on the moon—it is a finite planet—and then look out into the vast reaches of infinite space.
We have no place else to go. We are marooned on this tiny little planet with life called earth. We in this room are responsible adults. We know that we'll never get anymore land. Our resources are being diminished. Our frontier is gone.
All we have left is our democratic process and the character of the people in that process to make the right decisions.
We know that we've lost millions of acres of wetlands. We know we have degraded estuaries on a vast scale, and now it's time to understand the very mechanics of creation so that we can try our best to piece back the very complex nature of the mechanics of life and its web that protects us from the infinite hostile environment called space and ourselves.
Our next frontier is an intellectual frontier. I would hope that, as we move through this hearing and the process to develop this legislation, that we make the first significant step toward understanding what sustains life, what ensures the commercial and recreational fishery, and what we need to do for future generations, and that is to get this legislation on the floor and passed, and I look forward to the testimony of my colleagues.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my colleague very much.
Mr. Taylor.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on what my friend and colleague from Maryland had to say, I sent you and our ranking member, Mr. Borski, a note last night asking—and I hope the Under Secretary of the Army will follow up on this request.
If you recall, a few years ago, because of all the things that Mr. Gilchrist said and others have said about the importance of coastal wetlands, coastal marshes, Congress changed the law first to allow the beneficial use of dredge spoil to create and recreate those coastal marshes that have been destroyed for whatever reason. A few years later, we changed the law and told the Corps of Engineers they should do it.
Well, for whatever reason, probably just being the human reluctance to change, the Corps of Engineers really has not been doing so.
The letter I sent you last night was to ask that the first available piece of legislation, that we direct the Corps of Engineers on a national basis to start identifying sites up front that would be permitted, sited, selected for the beneficial use where we can create and recreate coastal marshes because of the erosion in the Chesapeake Bay, the erosion in coastal Louisiana, coastal Mississippi, everywhere else.
The Corps has been using the fact that, well, we have to do some emergency dredging, we do not have time to locate a site. Let us tell them, as a Nation, we want you to start doing that now.
For every square inch of the coastal United States, have a place already picked out where you can put your dredge material for beneficial uses and let us quit using the excuse that, well, we just got caught by surprise.
Hopefully, this Nation is going to be around for a long time, and hopefully, even though it is going to take a while to implement this, we can start planning for the future and get the Corps to do the right thing as far as it is concerned.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor, and we will be interested in our second panel, which Mr. Davis will appear on. Those are some questions we can direct toward him.
Is there anyone else that seeks recognition?
Mr. Baird?
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a representative of the great State of Washington, where we have both the Puget Sound and, in my district, the Willapob Bay, where some of the finest oysters in the world come, I just want to emphasize how important this legislation is.
I was contacted last week, during the Fourth of July break. I spent the better part of an afternoon with our oyster growers.
A particular concern to me, in addition to clean water issues, are issues pertaining to invasive species, which I have spoken about briefly before on this committee, and I see this as a great opportunity to address that in part of the overall plans to maintain the environmental habitat in our estuaries, and I am very supportive of this.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
After the eloquence with which my colleague, Mr. Gilchrist, expressed—he is a true poet, and he has certainly been an advocate for many years of doing what we are talking about doing today.
I happen to represent an area in San Pedro Bay that has two of the great harbors of the world, namely Long Beach and Los Angeles.
Into that harbor flows heaven knows what from the Los Angeles River—cars, sofas, other things that get caught in the bridges down there 100 mile or so, sort of navigation of the Los Angeles River and into that harbor, and there is no question in my mind that the Corps of Engineers ought to be assigned the responsibility to deal with estuaries, coastal waters, and some of the harbors of America that have major problems from pollution, not necessarily from the boats and ships in the harbor but for what grows into the harbor from the tributaries of rivers and creeks around the United States.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Horn.
Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As an original cosponsor, I want to thank Mr. Gilchrist and the other members of the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue.
As some of you may know, I represent California's 10th Congressional District, in the east part of the Bay area, and my constituents and our neighbors and friends in the entire San Francisco Bay area desperately need this legislation.
The Bay has lost 92 percent of its original tidal wetlands and roughly the same amount of riparian habitat, and we are desperate not only for the economic security of the Bay area but for, obviously, the quality of life and the recreational opportunities that my constituents and our neighbors care about to make sure that this legislation passes, and I am very impressed by the committee sitting in front of me, the people that will be testifying—they all look vaguely familiar, and I appreciate all of their hard work on behalf of their constituents on a bipartisan effort to make sure that this bill gets out of this committee and on to bigger and better things.
So, thank you for your leadership, Mr. Gilchrist, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and let us get on with our first distinguished panel, and it is a pleasure to welcome six of our very able colleagues who have provided leadership each in their own way on these very important water resources issues.
Now, here is the deal. Here is the way this committee operates. First come, first serve. So, here is the order of the testimony.
First, Congressman Saxton; second, Congresswoman Lehtinen; third, Mr. Lazio; fourth, Mr. Shays; five, Ms. Johnson; and six, Mr. Deutsch.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
How is that? It is democracy in action.
Mr. Saxton, we look forward to your words of wisdom.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY; HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CONNECTICUT; HON. RICK LAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK; HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK ; HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK; HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA; HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA; HON. NANCY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CONNECTICUT; HON. CLAY SHAW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. SAXTON. I like your system.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Borski—first of all, I would like to agree with something that Bob Borski said, and that is that, with the reauthorization, hopefully, of the Clean Water Act, certainly great emphasis should be placed on the issue that we generally refer to around here as non-point source pollution.
This is an exhaustive subject which cries out for understanding among members of Congress as well as members of the American public.
I would like to talk with you this morning about two issues, both of which have been mentioned, both of which deal with non-point source pollution.
The first is the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is hung up on the very subject of non-point source pollution. It would be a simple matter that, within a month or so, we could re-authorize the existing Coastal Zone Management Act.
The fact of the matter is that there are some of us who are stubborn enough to hold the bill up because we need to get non-point source provisions built into that bill.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Today, 35 states participate in the Coastal Zone Management Act, and it has done a tremendous amount of good, particularly with regard to the easy part of the problem—that is, point sources of pollution and their cleanup.
We have done a great job, in conjunction with the Clean Water Act, in conjunction with other planning programs that have taken place on a state level, partially funded by the Coastal Zone Management Act, and as a result of that program, much good in our coastal waters and our estuaries has taken place.
Much has been accomplished, and I hope that we can work together with the Chairman of this full committee, as well as Mr. Young, the Chairman of the Resources Committee, to re-authorize that program with, as I said, strong non-point source pollution provisions in it.
The other issue that I would like to bring to your attention this morning is the reauthorization—which has not taken place, incidentally, since the last reauthorization of the Clean Water Act—the reauthorization of the National Estuary Program.
Today, there are 28 estuaries, from Puget Sound to San Francisco Bay to areas in the Gulf of Mexico which need attention, to Chesapeake Bay on the east coast, Barneget Bay on the east coast in my district, and Narragansett Bay, of course, in New England. Those are just a few of the 28 estuaries that are included in the National Estuary Program.
I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1237, which would re-authorize this program again with additional non-point source provisions.
I think this is extremely important, and in addition to that, we would re-authorize the bill so that it would include not only Federal monies to be used for planning purposes but also Federal monies to be used for implementation purposes.
Now, these are two programs which I think are of great importance. I know that many members of this committee agree that they are of great importance, and I look forward to working with you and other members of Congress to re-authorize both programs.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to chat with you this morning. I appreciate it very much, and I look forward to hearing the other witnesses
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for the testimony, and thank you for your consistent leadership over the years. It is a pleasure to align myself with you on a number of important issues.
Next, our distinguished colleague from the State of Florida, the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to testify before you today on the importance of protection of the Florida Keys, and I urge your support for H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act of 1999.
The Florida Keys are made up of 100 miles of 30 islands forming a chain. Adjacent to the Keys is the most extensive living coral reef in North America and the third largest in the world. These coral reefs are integrally intertwined to a marine ecosystem that supports one of the most diverse and unique collections of plants and animals in North America.
Six million people have come from all over the United States and the world to visit the Florida Keys. And this is both a blessing and a big part of the problem. The Keys are suffering from a combination of wastewater and stormwater pollution brought about by humans.
The dangers to the Keys have reached epic proportions. Some beaches have been closed because of fecal coliform bacteria contamination. Human feces have also been found in the canals running through the Florida keys.
Additionally, the living coral reef is in danger of dying from pollutants if the water quality is not improved.
The reefs are beautiful and magnificent, and we are in danger, right now, of losing them and killing them forever.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As you know, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has presented to Congress its comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem known as the 'Restudy', but Mr. Chairman and members, the Everglades cannot be successfully protected and saved if the Florida Keys ecosystem is not also protected.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the Everglades and the Keys. They are connected in many ways, and moreover, the problems assaulted the Keys are multi-faceted and complex.
While most municipalities shoulder the responsibility of processing their own waste, the Keys represent a unique dilemma, because the water must meet the highest standards of purity in order to protect the coral reefs. Yet, the per capita income in Monroe County is less than $30,000 per year.
Monroe County is composed of Federal lands equally 93 percent of the county, which dramatically restricts the tax base and leaving it unable, actually, to provide for its own water cleanup. Add to this mixture the fact that the geographical makeup of the Florida Keys is porous limestone.
So, when sewage seeps into the water, it immediately is spread throughout this delicate ecosystem. Mr. Chairman and members, I am thankful for your leadership that you have shown on this critical issue to those of us in south Florida, and I encourage the committee to help rectify the damage already done to this irreplaceable and precious ecosystem by acting on Congressman Deutsch's bill, H.R. 673. I urge this committee to do all that it can to preserve our national treasures, both the Florida Everglades and the Florida Keys.
Thank you so much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Borski and I have observed that we are going to be a sub-unit of the Florida State Government. We were privileged, just two weeks ago, to stand side by side with the Vice President in support of the Everglades restoration program, and I know Governor Bush is providing some real leadership in that area, as is Congressman Deutsch and the entire Florida delegation.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, we are very mindful of the importance of valuable national resources that you have in the great State of Florida, and we will continue to work with you.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The Conch Republic welcomes you anytime you are ready.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I will just check our respective calendars, and we will be down January 4th to the 17th of February.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That is when we look best.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Now it is my pleasure to welcome my distinguished fellow New Yorker and an emerging national leadership, Mr. Lazio.
Mr. LAZIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by applauding you. You are really one of the true champions our Nation has of protecting the environment, not when it is easy but when it is difficult. You take the tough votes and you lead the tough fights, always for the right reasons, and I want to, in particular, congratulate you for your great work on Superfund reauthorization and reform.
Also, Representative Borksi, and I want to compliment the entire committee. It is rare that you see this many members show up. It really reflects a great commitment to this issue and to this committee.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I represent a coastal district on Long Island, one that is distinguished by beautiful ocean beaches at Barrier Island and the great South Bay Estuary.
It is also distinguished by a large population of hard-working Americans.
Now, our state, as you well know, also, Mr. Chairman, is blessed with an abundance of waterways. Most of these waterways are either part of a formally designated coastal zone or within the recognize management areas designed to protect these coastal zones. The state also has four major estuaries, all associated with my native Long Island.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Unfortunately, these areas are in need of help.
In 1996, New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation estimated that about 10 percent of our rivers, over half of our acreage of our lakes and reservoirs, a quarter of our estuaries, and 85 percent of our great lake shoreline were impaired.
The prime contributors to the degradation of our water quality in New York are non-point sources. Ninety-three percent of this degradation is from runoff from roads, parking lots, and other developed land, on-site wastewater disposal systems, pesticides, and fertilizers from agricultural uses and other non-point source land use activities.
Mr. Chairman, about 5 percent of the total population of this country lives around Long Island's coastal waterways, enjoying the benefits but, at the same time, placing significant stress on these fragile ecological systems.
The resulting non-point source pollution is a critical problem in the estuarian and coastal areas of Long Island, as it is throughout New York State.
On the south shore of Long Island, for example, over 80 percent of the bays and the streams which fail to meet their designated uses do so because of stormwater runoff. The result is closed shellfish beds and oxygen depletion, which impairs fish survival and reproduction.
Like Representative Baird, I was one of those who has a deep interest in oysters and clams, having been a clammer in my earlier years, prior to going to college.
By some estimates, the Piconic Bay's non-point source pollution accounts for nearly 90 percent of nitrogen loading.
New York State is trying to address the problems in our estuaries and other coastal waters. The people of New York State approved a clean water/clean air bond act in 1996, with the Chairman's strong support, which I am grateful for.
That bond act provides $790 million for water quality, aquatic habitat restoration, and other watershed improvements.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The State has added to that amount with funding from the $100 million per year New York State Environmental Protection Fund. However, significant water quality, habitat restoration, and other improvements critical to the State's coastal watersheds will not be able to be funded by the State alone.
Mr. Chairman, to address the non-point source pollution and habitat restoration on Long Island's estuaries requires a major undertaking.
The total amount of funding needed for these four estuaries is estimates to be $360 million. Add the cost to the rest of the State's coastal watersheds and the estimate rises to $690 million.
New York can make $270 million available, but we need help if we are to save these important resources. We need help if we are to maintain a healthy environment for the millions of metropolitan New Yorkers and others from across the Nation who come to enjoy our coastal waters.
We need help if we are to maintain a healthy commercial and recreational fishing industry in this country.
Finally, we need help if we are to allow my two small children to grow up enjoying the Long Island coast as I did.
Unfortunately, remediating non-point source pollution and habitat restoration are areas where Federal statutory authority is currently lacking. Today this subcommittee is hearing testimony on two bills which I believe go a long way to addressing my concern.
I want to begin by commending Mr. Gilchrist for his thoughtful approach to encouraging more estuary habitat restoration projects.
That program, as you know, would be particularly appreciated in my district, where over 50 percent of the identified need for the south shore estuary is for habitat restoration projects if the South Shore Estuary could get on the National Estuary Program.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
However, that pursuit has dropped significantly in some of the other estuaries, where a greater need for non-point remediation is driving costs.
I also want to applaud and congratulate Mr. Saxton for his bill authorizing the grants for the development of comprehensive conservation and management plans. This is a critical step in addressing the problems of our coastal waters.
Mr. Saxton's bill, by allowing funding for implementation of these plans, is a welcome start down the path of addressing this issue, but we in New York could use up the entire authorization amount in remediating Long Island's four estuaries alone. That still leaves the rest of the state, not to mention the 30 coastal states and territories.
Mr. Chairman, Congress must act. We must strive to save these critical coastal environments. These waters represent a critically needed habitat for our aquatic life, which has direct implications to our commercial and recreational fishing industry.
I do not enjoy sending letter after letter to the Secretary of Commerce asking for yet more restrictions on fishing due to declining populations. The problem starts here in our estuaries and coastal waters, and that is where we should begin placing our emphasis.
Mr. Chairman, our region's population has continued to grow. As a result, more and more people are relying upon the coastal areas of my district and the rest of Long Island for their much-needed relaxation.
When these hard-working Americans look to inexpensive day trips to our coastal areas, they should not be confronted with brown tides or closed beaches. To paraphrase a popular commercial, they deserve a break today. Let us ensure they get it.
Mr. Chairman, we must fix the non-point source pollution problems with our estuaries and coastal waters. My state has already begun to put its money where its mouth is. We in Congress should be ready, as well.
We need to move forward on a solid Federal program to pay for the remediation projects that we all know are needed.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to commend you, individually and on behalf of the entire committee, for the wonderful work you are doing, for holding this hearing, for your interest, for your drive, and I know for your commitment to make sure that the job is done.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Lazio. It will not surprise you, as a fellow New Yorker, I have come to appreciate the thoughtfulness that you evidence when you present testimony like this, and I respect you for that, and I value your leadership.
As I look across this panel, I could not help but observe that we have, on both sides, some people who are very strong in protecting and enhancing our environment and deal responsibly with these very important issues. In your busy calendar days, it is not easy to get time away from your other responsibilities to come and testify, but you have done so. I want to thank all of you.
The next gentleman is someone with whom we have worked very closely over the years, and once again, you have filled the bill of someone thoughtful and someone who has something of value to say, and we welcome the opportunity to listen.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Borski, and thank all of the committee members for being here.
It is very impressive that you have such an interest in this committee, and you are involved in a very important issue, and that is how do we protect our estuaries, the hundreds of estuaries around the country, the 28 that have been designated estuaries, part of the National Estuary Program.
I am here to quickly say I support the Gilchrist estuary bill and also Mr. Saxon's bill dealing with the National Estuary Program. Both of these bills I support, but I am here particularly to raise concern about H.R. 855, the Long Island Sound Preservation and Protection Act. This is a well-intended bill by supporters who are trying to protect Long Island Sound, but I need to make you aware of a few issues.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
First off, Long Island Sound is the only estuary that comes under the Ocean Dumping Act. It is the only estuary in the entire country that comes under this. It comes under this because it was inserted as an amendment in the early 1980's, and it means that we have to do far more testing than is necessary. It increases the cost significantly.
There is an island off of Connecticut—it has a Connecticut zip code and a New York area code, and Rhode Island says it wants Fishers Island. There are four designated, not permanent, dumping sites for dredged material in Long Island Sound, and residents of Fishers Island do not like the fact that one of these is in its own area.
We have been using this site, along with four other sites, for 25 years and monitoring these sites well.
H.R. 55 would restrict the dredging material exceeding 25 cubic yards from being in interim designated sites, and that is all we have in Long Island Sound, are four interim sites, and say that any that have more than 25 cubic yards, 1,000 cubic yards, would have to be in a permanent site. We do not have any permanent sites. It would basically shut down six activities that are contemplated each year.
Five Mile River, which is in Norwalk, Connecticut—the harbor is a very small harbor, and even there we had 48,000 cubic yards that were disposed of in the four sites that we have in Long Island Sound.
The bottom line is Long Island, the land mass of Long Island, does not have a problem with dredging, because they have no rivers in Long Island that basically flow into Long Island Sound, but in Connecticut, all of our harbors, or most all of them, have silt material that comes—take the Connecticut River from New Hampshire and Vermont. So, we have a tremendous challenge.
We had the Thames River, in order for our submarines to be able to utilize the port in New London, we had to use these sites. These sites are safe. These sites are environmentally sound.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection is in a quandary as to why this bill would be supported, because the system works well, and in three to four years, we will have a permanent site, but in the meantime, if you pass this bill, it would shut down dredging sites in Connecticut, and we have that concern.
I will just say, Mr. Chairman, that I am really speaking on Nancy Johnson as well, and we both are speaking on behalf of the entire Connecticut delegation, and some in New York, as well.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I do appreciate that.
Mrs. Johnson, my classmate, my friend, you have earned our respect, and so, we are anxious to hear from you.
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.
Well, I also am a cosponsor of Wayne's bill and associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Saxton, on the importance of non-point solution grants, because there is so much that we need to do to prevent the inlands—my district is way up in the northwest corner of Connecticut, but we are a primary focus of the non-point source effort in my region. So, I think those grants are very important.
I just want to add my comments to those of my colleague, Mr. Shays, on H.R. 855.
Mr. Forbes has been very forthcoming in conversing with us and has excluded those sites under 25,000 cubic yards, but first of all, the Senate is still talking about aggregating small dredging operations into larger dredging operations, so I am not sure that that 25,000 exclusion will hold, but there are a number of unique situations about dredging in Connecticut and the material that we dredge, and over and over again, our DEP has done studies, done tests.
They are very rigorous about monitoring the dredged materials and testing them and monitoring the sites at which we dispose of them, and literally, there is no scientific evidence that this material is a problem, and there is no evidence that these sites are causing a problem.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Furthermore, the definition in his bill of interim versus designated would be catastrophic for Connecticut. There is reasons why EPA and DEP and all the involved parties are still calling these interim, even though some of them have been used for many years, but we do not have control over that process and forcing them to either be designated or other sites to be designated.
So, this bill would force an arbitrary halt to what is an absolutely necessary sort of maintenance project and one for which there is no evidence that it is in any way damaging our environment.
So, we are very concerned about this proposal, and we look forward to working with you and the committee staff to see if there is some way that we can address the problems in it.
Connecticut and New York have worked very closely together on Long Island Sound issues. We have just adopted a very extensive management plan that will reduce nitrogen emissions and, frankly, is going to cost Connecticut's small towns literally millions of dollars in upgrading water treatment plants, way above what New York is going to be required to upgrade, because we have these runoffs from other states.
So, frankly, and I do not have the evidence together yet, but I will probably be back next year to ask this committee to look at Long Island Sound in the same way whoever it was looked at the Boston Harbor problem, because Boston got lots of additional money to clean up their harbor, and they cleaned it up.
The problems we are facing in Long Island Sound are really not problems that you can ask all the little towns in Connecticut to ante up for a level of rebuilding water treatment plants, some of which are not even very old, to deal with a problem that is, in a sense, just not entirely ours.
So, we do hope that you will work with us closely on H.R. 855 so that we can make sure that the money that goes into cleaning up the sound really goes into the most important aspects of that project and is not diverted off into those areas in which there is not scientific evidence for change.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. It is a work in progress. The staff, on a bipartisan basis, have had continuing dialogue not only with the principle author, Mr. Forbes, but with the agencies involved.
You know, we are trying to reason together so that we can come up with a responsible public policy that deals with a problem that is real and not just perceived in a responsible way and does not disadvantage your constituents or any other constituents.
So, thank you very much, I do appreciate that.
Incidentally, you do not have to stay. I am taking the liberty as Chair of telling all of you that you have got a busy schedule and we are not going to grill you or anything.
Your statements speak eloquently for your positions, and now, the clean-up batter is Mr. Deutsch, and before he arrives, let me just point out that the appropriators are off appropriating.
So, Mr. Forbes and Ms. DeLauro and Ms. Lowey, all of whom had been scheduled to testify, are not able to be here in person, but they will submit their testimony for the record, and we will extend them the courtesy if they show up at a later point in these deliberations to let them insert themselves into the line-up.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Finally, Mr. Deutsch, and I want you to know that this committee sometimes feels it is working for you and the State of Florida, Everglades one week, Key West the next week. What is next week? Can you give us a preview?
Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the Ranking Member, as well as the members of the committee.
You obviously are an expert in many aspects of south Florida and Florida's environment, and I think there is a reason why you are.
It is a national treasure, it is an international treasure, and I think the reason that we are in front of you—and Congressman Shaw and Congressman Goss are also original prime sponsors of this legislation, along with Representative Ros-Lehtinen, as well as effectively, hopefully, by the time we are done, at the end of the week, all of the members of the Florida delegation.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is a separate issue but tied to the other issues.
As my colleague from south Florida mentioned, Monroe County is a unique area in the entire world but obviously a unique area in the United States for several reasons.
It is the only area where we have a living reef in the lower 48 states.
It is the only location in the lower 48 that has actually people living on coral reef, coral reef that were coral reef 11,000 years ago, but that is basically the islands of Monroe County, are coral reef islands, and a staggering number that my colleague mentioned, 93 percent of Monroe County is owned by the Federal Government.
It is a staggering number. I mean we talk about places in the country where the Federal Government has a significant impact. Ninety-three percent of Monroe County is owned by the Federal Government.
We have two national parks inside of Monroe County. We have several national wildlife refugees. We have the largest national marine sanctuary in the United States of America. So, there is a reason why this committee and the Congress deals with south Florida Everglades issues.
We have a significant problem, we meaning the United States of America. I am glad my colleague from south Florida is also here to testify, as well.
We have a serious problem in that we know that the wastewater treatment and stormwater treatment in Monroe County is inadequate.
The National Marine Sanctuary legislation recognized the water quality problems and specifically directed EPA to develop a comprehensive water quality protection plan.
That has been done, and now, it is our job, really, to implement that plan, and that plan really is the requirement of a sewer system in Monroe County. It is a necessary thing. It will have to happen.
Otherwise, the resources that this country owns, the people of the United States own through the National Marine Sanctuary, the wildlife refuges, the Everglades itself, the Everglades Park, will be destroyed. I mean it is what we know at this point in time. It will happen. There will be incredible irreplaceable damage unless a sewer system is built, and the issue now becomes who should really build it, and that is really why we are here today.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The estimates—and we have done—the Congress has spent money for the planning stage. The estimates are $500 million for wastewater infrastructure.
There are 85,000 residents of Monroe County. As my colleague also pointed out, the average income is under $30,000 per person in Monroe County.
What does that mean? It means that, as a practical matter, if you do the math, it just becomes impossible to say that the burden for this project should be a local burden. Again, I go back to the fact—93 percent of the land area is owned by the Federal Government.
The water standards, the quality standards that we talk about for discharge in Monroe County are higher than any other place in the State of Florida, that basically the quality standards are effectively pretty darn close to drinking water, and again, I show the limestone, because septic tanks do not work.
We have done studies that show that, within four to 12 hours, when you flush, it gets into the water, into the ocean, onto the reef in 12 hours.
The county and the state are willing to pay their share. This committee, I hope, will authorize these funds. It is a necessary condition. It is tied into the project of the entire Everglades restoration to spend a significant amount of money upstream and to spend no money downstream, where the results would be devastating, would just be a policy disaster.
As I close, very quickly, there has been some national attention on this. That is an article from the Christian Science Monitor, as well as a front-page story from the Miami Herald, and I look forward to my colleague from south Florida joining us, as well.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Are you going to leave those for a while, so we can take a look at them? Then you can reclaim them, because we do want to take a look. Mr. Borski and I are interested in that.
Without objection, I am inserting in the record a letter from Governor Jeb Bush in support of H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act of 1999. In this letter, the Governor states—and this is a direct quote—''This legislation is very important to the State of Florida and to our entire nation.'' That is the end of the quote.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows.]
[insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Governor and one of the Governor's leading spokes-persons here in Washington is next on our panel, the distinguished dean of the Florida delegation, Mr. Clay Shaw.
Mr. Shaw, welcome.
Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that my two colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Peter Deutsch, have probably covered the entire subject.
I just want to underscore the uniqueness of the Keys. I heard Peter talk about the tremendous Federal investment of 93 percent of the land area. It does make this extraordinarily expensive for the residents in that area.
Those of you who have been to the Keys at one time or another—and I imagine most of you have traveled down there at one time—know that you have large expanses of land with few residents.
However, anywhere else in the country, you would find that this type of sparse population could certainly go on without sewage protection.
However, because of the environment that we have in the Keys, it is terribly important—and Peter covered this while I was here in the room, and I'm sure Ileana did, too, the importance of the reef off of the Keys and the damage that is being done by the effluent getting out there without a sewage system.
I would hope that this committee would authorize this project. I think it is very important to all of us, and it is important to the Federal Government because of the tremendous investment that we have in the national park that surrounds the Keys area.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. As was observed before you entered the room, this subcommittee sometimes feels it is working for the State of Florida, with the Everglades and the Keys, etcetera, etcetera. So, you are very persuasive, you silver-tongued devil, you.
Mr. SHAW. It is a very unique environment and certainly one of the national treasures that must be preserved.
Mr. BOEHLERT. We appreciate that, and that is why we stood side by side with the Florida delegation and the Vice President two weeks ago, as you know.
Mr. SHAW. I appreciate it, and it did not go unnoticed, Mr. Chairman, that you and the Ranking Member were both present at that time, and we very much appreciate it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Thank you so much.
We do have just one question, Mr. Deutsch, that Ms. Kelly—I think it is a very good question. I was going to say reserve it for a written submission, but I will recognize her at this juncture, because I think it is very pertinent.
Ms. KELLY. I would just like to ask you both this question.
I can understand the coral reef problem with regard to the flushing of toilets and the flow going directly into waters, but it seems to me that there is an additional question that needs to be raised, and that is what efforts the State of Florida would be making to do something to stop boat heads, luxury boat heads, from being flushed directly into the waters, as well, because that will add to the pollution factor.
Mr. SHAW. I can answer that, because I have tried to do something about that in Fort Lauderdale, and the problem is that it is totally within the Federal jurisdiction, it is within the Coast Guard, and that is something that, even when you get into little boats, when you get these vessels that do go within our waterways, Federal waterways, Federal controlled waterways, the effluent or the holding tanks in those boats is totally a Federal responsibility and one that they will not yield on.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DEUTSCH. If I might follow up, I actually had a meeting this morning specifically talking about what can be done, because as Congressman Ros-Lehtinen mentioned, there is actually some effluent that has actually closed some of the beaches, some of the nicest beaches in Monroe County recently, and there is an enforcement issue in terms of the Coast Guard and actually the Florida Marine Patrol in terms of the direct out-flow.
So, obviously, it is a legal and it is an enforcement effort.
This legislation, though, does provide for pumping stations to help, theoretically, they are not pumping into the ocean directly or into the bay, but it would make it easier to actually get to a location to pump out.
So, it is absolutely correct that it is a contributing factor and it is an enforcement issue as well as an issue that we deal with in the legislation.
Ms. KELLY. I really thank both of you for answering, because that is one of the questions that we all have to deal with, any of us who have coastal waters.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I am sure Ms. Kelly is very mindful of the leadership New York State has provided in dealing with this subject matter on Lake Champlagne, but of course, that is not coastal water, but it is a good question, and I appreciate it, and we will follow up with the Coast Guard.
Thank you very much. Thank all of you for your outstanding testimony. It is a pleasure to welcome you.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, because of the jurisdiction that the full committee has over the Coast Guard, it might be well to explore the possibility of allowing the Coast Guard or authorizing the Coast Guard to allow local government, in some instances, to help them with their enforcement, because there's a problem right in there, and there is a disconnect, and it is something that I think would be helpful for all our coastal communities.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I appreciate that suggestion, and the staff has been directed already to keep you posted, as we have discussions with the Coast Guard because of your special interest and what you have been trying to do, and so, we will keep you posted.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thanks once again.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Will the Chairman yield just for a second?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Be glad to yield. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. GILCHRIST. To the folks in Florida, I will call the commandant of the Coast Guard this afternoon so we can move on that issue of giving you more enforcement authority as to what to do with effluence from boats so it does not get into the water.
Mr. SHAW. Thank you, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Moving right along, our second panel consists of Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Policy and Legislation, and from the Environmental Protection Agency, Dana D. Minerva, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere.
Each of you will have your statements included in the record at this juncture in their entirety. We would ask that you be somewhat considerate and give us an opportunity to hear your pearls of wisdom in a summarized statement. We will not be so arbitrary as to give you no longer than five minutes, but we would appreciate it if you would let that guide your testimony.
Mr. Davis, you are up first, followed by Ms. Minerva.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS; DANA D. MINERVA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; SALLY J. YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Michael Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
I am pleased to be here today to present the Department of the Army's views on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.
I will also discuss the Corps of Engineers procedures for implementing the Ocean Dumping Act and present the Army's views on H.R. 855, the Long Island Preservation and Protection Act.
For over 200 years, the Nation has called upon the Army Corps of Engineers to solve many of its water resources problems. Historically, the Corps has emphasized its flood damage reduction and navigation missions.
In recent years, however, pursuant to Water Resources Development Acts, we have elevated our environmental restoration and protection mission to a level equal to our more traditional missions.
The Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate, and environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and protection problems throughout the United States.
The Corps has a powerful tool kit of authorities and programs that can be brought to bear to solve environmental problems. Over the last decade alone, the Corps has helped to restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, benefitting hundreds of fish and wildlife species.
Examples include 28,000 acres of restored habitat along the upper Mississippi River, with 100,000 acres projected by the year 2002, 35,000 acres of floodplain and wetlands restoration under construction today along the Kissimmee River in Florida, and hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored by beneficially using dredge material, including an 1,100-acre project in the Chesapeake Bay known as Poplar Island.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On July the 1st, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Army submitted to Congress a comprehensive plan to restore the Everglades.
The world's largest ecosystem restoration project, this plan will help restore over 2.4 million acres of wetlands in the south Florida ecosystem, as well as improve the health of estuaries and Florida bay.
Throughout the world, estuarian and coastal areas serve as focal points for human use and development. The same areas also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective.
Estuaries help protect us from flooding, help maintain water quality, and provide habitat and food for many fish and wildlife species, many of them that are threatened or endangered.
The coastal environments generate billions of dollars annually through such industries as tourism and sport and commercial fisheries.
There is an urgent need to protect and restore these fragile ecosystems, recognizing the economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits they provide.
We applaud the cosponsors of H.R. 1775 for their vision and leadership in this area. If enacted, H.R. 1775 would enhance the Corps' ability to restore and protect estuarian habitat. In this regard, the Army supports H.R. 1775 and looks forward to working with you in enacting such legislation.
The goal of restoring one million acres of estuarian habitat by the year 2010 is consistent with the President's Clean Water Action Plan goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands annually beginning in the year 2005.
The proposed national framework and the national estuarian habitat restoration strategy should help partners identify and integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and identify processes to develop new plans where they are needed.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This framework document could help us maximize incentives for participation, leverage very limited Federal resources, and minimize duplication of effort.
We would recommend that the use of the existing organization and structure of the Coastal America Partnership be considered fully.
Coastal America has national and regional teams already in place, and many of the members of these teams will be the very same experts that we would need to consult under H.R. 1775.
The legislation is also consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation, Protection, and Restoration Act, also known as the Breaux Act. This legislation has created a unique multi-Federal and state agency partnership which is working to restore and protect approximately 73,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana over the next 20 years.
We are pleased to note that important changes that the Army requested in a Senate committee hearing on a companion legislation, S. 1222, last Congress, have been incorporated into H.R. 1775.
These changes limit Federal assistance for each habitat project to 65 percent, strengthen and clarify the role of the Secretary of the Army, and allow the restoration council to consider, where appropriate, non-governmental organizations as sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects.
We do suggest a few additional minor modifications to further improve H.R. 1175.
For example, we urge the committee to revise the bill to make it clear that non-Federal sponsors are responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights of way, dredge material disposal areas, and relocations, as is required for all other Army civil works water resources projects.
We also believe that the Secretary should make determinations regarding the acceptability and valuation of in-kind contributions for local cost-sharing, rather than the council.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition, we believe that you should consider including the Great Lakes region, which is widely recognized as a coastal region of the United States but with very similar problems and opportunities.
I will now focus the last few minutes of my statement, Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 855, the Long Island Sound Restoration and Preservation Act.
First, let me say that we agree with what we think are the objectives of the legislation—that is, that the Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies should be held to the same standards as everyone else. However, we do have some concerns with H.R. 855.
Section 2 would add a new provision to section 106 of the Ocean Dumping Act to address dredge material disposal in Long Island Sound.
We do not believe that this provision is necessary. In fact, the provision could have repercussions for ongoing efforts of the Long Island Sound Citizens Advisory Committee.
We believe that this important public and interagency process should be allowed to continue and come to some conclusion before exploring the possibility of amending section 106(f).
Second, it is unclear to us as to whether the intent of the amendment is to confirm the need for compliance with existing Ocean Dumping Act regulations in Long Island Sound or is it the intent to create a new substantive requirement?
We do not believe there is a need to reaffirm legislatively section 106 of the Ocean Dumping Act.
If the intent is to create a new substantive requirement, we are concerned that the current language is sufficiently vague and that there may be problems in determining how to implement the provision.
Finally, we are concerned that the change will unnecessarily add costs and potential delays to projects. We believe that the Corps and EPA have developed appropriate testing and management approaches that allow critically important navigation dredging to proceed while protecting the Nation's aquatic resources.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In conclusion, the Corps has been increasingly involved in recent years with efforts to protect and restore our estuaries. My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff on H.R. 1775 and other legislation before your committee.
We look forward to continuing in this relationship as we work on H.R. 1775.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I'll be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
Ms. Minerva.
Ms. MINERVA. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about some of EPA's programs and activities to protect coastal waters and to comment on pending legislation to protect and restore these important natural resources, and I will abbreviate my remarks. Additional information about the bills is included in my longer remarks.
We all recognize that the Nation's ocean and coastal waters are extremely important environmentally and economically. Unfortunately, they suffer from serious environmental problems.
Recent monitoring reports by state agencies under the Clean Water Act indicate that, of the almost 30,000 square miles of estuaries assessed, 38 percent are impaired.
A national assessment of the conditions of the 28 estuaries in the NEP program concluded that the most serious problems are nutrient over-enrichment, pathogen contamination, toxic chemicals, alteration of freshwater flow, loss of habitat, declines in fish and wildlife, and introduction of invasive species, and that latter was an issue that EPA was not really expecting when the NEP program came to light.
These problems are likely to persist in coastal waters, which are especially vulnerable to degradation as a result of high population density, intense land uses, and rapid population growth.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is essential that we have strong programs to protect our nation's coastal waters, and I would like to highlight a few programs which EPA is using to protect them.
First, let me mention the Clean Water Action Plan announced by Vice President Gore in February of last year. It provides an overall framework for expanded efforts by Federal and state agencies to work with local governments and organizations for cleaner and safer water on a watershed basis.
The action plan specifically addresses how diverse coastal programs, including the work of EPA, NOAA, and the Army Corps of Engineers, fit into a larger strategy.
For its part, EPA is implementing a range of programs and activities to protect coastal waters, including coastal research and monitoring, control of harmful algal blooms, the National Estuary Program, with 28 National Estuary Program sites, the Coastal Non-Point Source Program with NOAA, beach water quality improvement and information programs. We were also pleased to provide some assistance with the work on Congressman Bilbray's beach bill.
I would like to now respond to the request that we address the bills that are the subject of the hearing. Let me make a general comment on funding first.
Several of these bills propose to increase authorizations for Federal spending for projects that would benefit coastal waters. Generally, EPA recognizes that additional resources are needed over time to respond to pollution problems in coastal waters.
At the same time, EPA and many state water programs face serious budget constraints. Under the Congressional budget allocations, EPA may be forced to implement significant reductions in Fiscal Year 2000.
If appropriations were provided at the level these bills authorize, the agency might have to reduce current programs by an amount equal to the increased funding for coastal projects, in addition to the significant reductions likely to be required by the allocation.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I hope that this committee will consider the best overall approach to meeting coastal project funding needs in the context of the serious budget constraints the agency is facing.
Relating to the estuary bills, I also want to bring to your attention the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget proposal for a new authority for governors to have the option of allocating up to 20 percent of Federal capitalization grants for the Clean Water SRF to make grants to implement NEP plans, as well as measures to reduce polluted runoff, including runoff to coastal waters.
Enactment of this new discretionary authority for governors to direct resources to areas of critical need would be a major step toward our efforts to protect and restore coastal waters.
All of the bills contain elements—and we appreciate the intent, to protect coastal waters and estuaries—that would benefit our efforts, and we would like the opportunity to work with your staffs on those parts with which we have concerns.
I have several specific comments on the proposed bills.
H.R. 1775 is consistent with the Clean Water Action Plan in that it encourages coordinated approaches to protecting and restoring water quality on a watershed basis. We did suggest a small technical change, which indicated that the term ''Federal Estuary Management Plan'' be clarified to specifically include NEP plans.
Regarding, H.R. 1096, although we support the general intent, we do have some concerns with the bill and would like to work with the staff on those.
The bill contains some very detailed provisions relating to the NEP management conference responsibilities and mandatory duties for EPA to implement actions and memberships which may be perceived as being in conflict with the collaborative, locally-based program that we view the NEP program as being.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
H.R. 1237 would amend the NEP program to increase the authorization from 12 million to 15 million per year and provide authority to the Administrator to issue grants not only for developing but for implementing CCMPs, and we're generally supportive of that effort. I would like to clarify it a little bit.
Regarding H.R. 673, we support improving sewage treatment in the Keys, and it is a key goal of the water quality protection program that EPA has developed. We also support expanded efforts to finance this work and look forward to working with you on this effort.
Regarding H.R. 855, EPA has played an active role in protecting Long Island Sound through the Long Island Sound NEP. Thousands of hours have gone into program activities which have resulted in significant environmental improvements in areas of hypoxia, habitat restoration, and living marine resources.
We have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that disposal of dredge material in the sound is done in an environmentally sensitive manner and in full compliance with the applicable Clean Water Act and Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Davis regarding some of the technical problems in the bill. We would like to work with the staff on that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Ms. Yozell.
Ms. YOZELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Sally Yozell, and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere for NOAA.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and insert my full testimony into the record.
Estuaries are an important part of the Nation's economic and environmental well-being. They provide habitat for many important species, act as nature's water treatment system, provide flood control and protection against storm damage, and are wonderful recreational areas, as well.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Despite their importance, estuaries are in trouble. We must restore them in order to ensure habitat for our fish, our marine mammals, and our endangered species.
Before I focus on the specific legislation, let me highlight for you some of NOAA's existing programs.
In 1972, Congress established the National Estuarian Research Reserve System, known as NERRS, which was designed to improve the health of our estuaries and coastal habitats, and I notice that most of the members here at the moment represent areas that have NERRS sites.
There are currently 24 NERRS sites, with a 25th to be designated later this year in Florida and two more to be added in 2000, one in California and the other in upstate New York.
Through this program, NOAA has developed an innovative partnership with the coastal states and is currently managing about one million acres of estuary waters and lands.
Earlier this year, the President announced his $1 billion Lands Legacy Initiative to expand the Federal efforts to save America's national treasures.
This Initiative includes a $14.7 million increase for the reserve system. If approved by Congress, the funding will enable states and communities to acquire lands in and around the existing NERRS sites, as well as improve management capabilities and upgrade facilities at these sites.
Although the reserves represent some of the Nation's most valuable and least disturbed estuaries, restoration is still essential for effective management of these resources.
Many of the reserves have undertaken innovative restoration projects already. For example, at the Chesapeake Bay reserve in Maryland, we are working to address salt marsh grass loss, and in the South reserve in Coos Bay, Oregon, they have conducted restoration activities that are helping address subsidence and erosion and are bringing back some of the salmon runs and other fish populations in that area.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The President's Lands Legacy Initiative also includes 22.7 million in new funding for fish habitat restoration, which includes estuaries restoration. NOAA has experience in small-scale restoration through our community-based restoration program, as well as large-scale efforts at the regional level.
Legislation must recognize that benefits of both large- and small-scale restoration projects and recognize the need for full partnerships with local communities, states, and Federal Government and other stakeholders.
Another program which Mr. Davis referred to earlier is the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, known as the Breaux bill. It serves as a model for Congressman Gilchrist's legislation, and it provides critical funding and support for restoration of wetlands in Louisiana.
The beauty of this act is its coordination process. In it, the Army Corps established a task force composed of Federal resource agencies and the State of Louisiana. The task force annually prepares and submits to Congress a priority list of wetland restoration projects.
The task force is also responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive coastal restoration plan which provides much of the basis for selection future restoration projects, and many of those pieces are part of the Gilchrist bill, and we commend that.
What has been proven to be the case in wetland restoration is also true in estuary restoration. It it not the number of acres of habitat restored that indicate success, necessarily.
Rather, the true goal of any project should focus on the long-term biological integrity and productivity of the resource. NOAA's expert science and monitoring play a vital role in determining which projects will benefit the ecosystem into the future.
NOAA and its state and local partners possess an incredible amount of expertise and experience in habitat science, management, protection, and restoration. This experience, coupled with that of our partner Federal agencies like the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, will provide capabilities necessary for the long-term success of any habitat restoration in our estuaries.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me focus on some of the bills pending before the committee, if I may.
H.R. 1775 will further the progress that NOAA and the other Federal agencies have made in promoting estuary habitat restoration. In particular, NOAA can assist a Federal program in the areas of research and monitoring, and I commend Congressman Gilchrist for recognizing this in his legislation.
NOAA supports a number of provisions found in the bill.
For example, we support the priority given to restoration in areas that have area-wide restoration plans currently in place.
We also support the priority given to estuary areas and watersheds that already have strong and effective programs to manage activities such as polluted runoff that can have such a negative impact.
Every member who sat here earlier brought up the issue of polluted runoff, and it is certainly one that we need to address.
I am also pleased to see the inclusion of an estuary habitat restoration council and believe, like in the Breaux act, it will improve cooperation among Federal agencies.
We support the funding proposed in H.R. 1775, as it will ensure an appropriate blend of restoration projects. I would suggest, however, that the island territories and commonwealths, as well as the Great Lakes, also be eligible for grants, and I am also pleased by the bill's strong commitment to monitoring the success of restoration projects.
While NOAA is supportive of H.R. 1775 overall, I would like to recommend a few areas where the bill could be improved and strengthened.
First, there is a need to fund innovative projects that combine restoration with research and development. Such projects promote the development of new state-of-the-art restoration techniques and technologies.
Second, I recommend that consultation with state coastal zone management programs be mandatory, and finally, I am a bit concerned that the bill assigns various responsibilities to the various Federal agencies without providing additional resources to carry them out.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that H.R. 1775 provides a strong basis for estuary habitat restoration, and I look forward to working with the committee on this bill.
Let me now, if I could, before I close, turn my attention to H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act.
When Congress created the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 1990, it directed EPA and the State of Florida and NOAA to develop a water quality protection program for the marine sanctuary.
The purpose of the program is to recommend priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the water quality of our sanctuary. Water quality is the number one issue affecting the health of our precious coral reefs and fish habitat in the sanctuary.
H.R. 673 recognizes the national significance of the Florida Keys and the responsibility the U.S. citizens have in addressing the wastewater infrastructure improvement.
This legislation is designed to enhance the state and local initiatives. NOAA supports the concept and looks forward to continuing to work with the committee and EPA to ensure that we achieve this goal.
H.R. 1096 also addresses the important issue of water quality. Although the bill predominantly focuses on programs under EPA's jurisdiction, I would like to make a couple of comments.
NOAA particularly supports language in the bill which coordinates the National Estuary Program goals with enforceable policies of state coastal zone management programs.
I believe, however, that this additional activity warrants additional funding and should not come at the expense of the state grant programs nor the NOAA staff resources.
NOAA also believes that the issues of water and sediment quality in the estuaries are broader than just the National Marine Fisheries Service and the management plan should be focused on by the Administrator of NOAA.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, I would like to discuss, at your request, the importance of water quality in the context of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Congressman Saxton mentioned earlier his bill, which we strongly support, and it focuses on addressing polluted runoff, and as everyone, again, mentioned, polluted runoff is probably the number one issue that is affecting our estuaries, our near-shore, and our coastal zone areas.
Coastal management is the only Federal partnership statute of its kind designed to manage landwater uses in the coastal zone. States have focused their efforts in developing non-point programs, but states now need to implement them, and they also need the funding in order to do so.
Third, most polluted runoff ends up in the coastal zone, and coastal zone agencies must be part of this complex solution.
I would like to submit, if I could, a copy for the record, of the Administration's Coastal Zone Management Act proposal.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for addressing these many issues focusing on water quality, and I look forward to working with you on the various bills.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
We are going to deviate somewhat from the script, because we've been joined by Mr. Forbes, who was in the midst of appropriates markups, and we are very mindful of the demands on your schedule.
So, before we ask the panel questions, we will go to Mr. Forbes and any questions colleagues might have of him, so you can return from whence you came with a list of requests from each of us up here to take care of certain items in the appropriation.
Mr. Forbes, the distinguished colleague from the great State of New York.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FORBES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will tell the members of the committee I will do my utmost to try to accommodate the distinguished members of this panel.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first of all, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member and, of course, the staffs on both sides of the aisle that have worked diligently with us to try to find an accommodation in which we can really change what has gone on, unfortunately, for the last 18 years, that the agencies of the Federal Government, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, which one would think their main mission should be to protect our estuaries, have been, frankly, in violation of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended by my good friend, the late congressman from Long Island, Jerry Ambro, and have ignored a 1988 court decision requiring that they follow the tenants of that act, as well.
I am troubled having to be here today, because the major polluter we have is the Federal Government, and it is ironic that the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has made the Long Island Sound one of the Nation's 28 cherished estuaries, designated so that we can do everything in our power as a Nation to protect this very, very crucial habitat and important waterway.
I am troubled because it is our own Federal Government that has really ignored the tenants of the law, in some cases both the Clean Water Act but more importantly the strict intent of Congress and certainly considerations outlined in the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, and notwithstanding the comments of some of my worthy colleagues—and I revere them, and I thank them for being here today to testify before this committee, but I respectfully disagree with their characterization.
My legislation, the Long Island Sound Protection Act, would clearly make sure that the Federal Government does not have to ignore the basic requirements to protect Long Island Sound from contaminants that we have already outlined in the private sector.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We do not let private entities pollute Long Island Sound with dioxins. They are required, under the strict guidelines of the Clean Water Act and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, to make sure that they comply with the standards outlined to protect this valuable estuary.
Yet, it is ironic that the Federal Government has basically picked and chose what they will adhere to. They have skirted, in a lot of ways, the true intention of this law, and I lament that, because in the case, for example, that necessitated my legislation, we see that, in dredging the Thames River for the Seawolf project, a worthy undertaking, that, again, the Army Corps of Engineers, along with, frankly, the Environmental Protection Agency, proceeded to approve dredging and yet did not file—did not follow the strictures of the MPRSA, which basically required them, 18 years ago, to designate sites in the Long Island Sound and to do the appropriate management plans to protect the sound from contaminants like dioxin.
So, here we have an agency charged with protecting our air and our water, the EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers kind of doing one of these, where the Army Corps says, well, the EPA has not designated appropriate disposal sites and, therefore, there are no management plans, so they will take it on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of the Thames River dredging, whereover a million cubic yards of contaminated sludge was dumped into Long Island Sound in one of our most tenuous areas, called the Race, off of Fishers Island, we saw dioxins, frankly, dumped into the sound and dispersed, and ignoring their own permit, which required them to dump when conditions were calm, so that there would be the least amount of disposal throughout the sound of this contaminated sludge, they, in fact, dumped a large part of this during storms on Long Island Sound, and we have lost well over 40 percent of that sludge, having had it disseminated throughout the sound.
It is endangering the habitat there. It is causing additional pollution, which is in direct violation of the two acts I mention, as well as, if you will, the intent of the designation, making the Long Island Sound part of the National Estuary Program.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am joined by my good friend, Gary Ackerman, congressman from Long Island, who has been a leader in making sure that we protect Long Island Sound. He has helped get well over a billion dollars over the last decade to make sure we clean up Long Island Sound, that we reverse the effects that, frankly, the largest polluter, the Federal Government, has imposed on the sound.
So, I would say in closing, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate you making the full extent of my statement a part of the record, but I would also mention to the committee that this legislation is really necessary, because we want to end the practice of the Federal Government ignoring the will of Congress, which was to protect Long Island Sound.
This legislation in no way prevents dumping. It just says that you have to meet the requirements that you have laid out for the private sector, that you do not dump serious contaminants like dioxin into the sound, and yes, it may mean that we have to go to a little more trouble to protect Long Island Sound, but that is what we need to do, because Congress and the President, by his approval, have designed Long Island Sound as part of the estuary program, the Clean Water Act, and of course, the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, were both designated for the exclusive right to protect this valuable waterway and the habitat of Long Island Sound.
I thank again the committee for its willingness to work with me and I with them. As you know, I have tried to accommodate the various considerations of not only my colleagues from Connecticut but certainly the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA, and I would hope that this committee would see that the cooperation that we have tried to get here will move us closer to passage by the subcommittee and the full committee and, hopefully, by the full House this important legislation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Forbes, and you have observed, we have worked on a bipartisan basis, the professional staff, with the agencies involved, and with you, to try to reach some sort of understanding that would best serve the interest of Long Island Sound, which is a precious part of the world, from my point of view, and also not violate existing Federal law.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, we are going to continue that dialogue, it is open, and I appreciate your active participation, as I appreciate our next panelist, Mr. Ackerman.
It is my understanding that you have a brief statement?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, the Chair is pleased to recognize a distinguished, Mr. Gary Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I am very pleased to be here with you today, in the spirit that this committee has always functioned, in a non-partisan fashion, and in support of the legislation proposed by my good friend and our colleague from Long Island, Mike Forbes.
The Long Island Sound Preservation and Protection Act is critical to our continuing to fight to save our Nation's natural heritage for our future generations to enjoy.
I am someone, also, who has grown up enjoying the unique beauty of the Long Island Sound, although I have lived in the City of New York all of my life. It should be pointed out that the majority of the City of New York, the Burroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, are on Long Island, as well as being part of the city.
It has always been one of my priorities in private life and as a member of Congress to fight to protect the sound from needless industries encroachment of those who would pay for today's prosperity with our children's future.
We have worked together on other legislation that I have introduced over the past five years, at least, the Long Island Sound Restoration Act, and we have been working in that vein, together with this committee, to restore the sound to its once very pristine beauty.
For many, the sound is the very reason that people make their home on Long Island and around the sound. It provides not only natural beauty and recreational facilities but also commercial resources that make the sound a priceless commodity in the lives of every person who lives and works in the counties of Suffolk and Nassau, in Queens and Brooklyn, in Westchester County, and places in Connecticut, as well.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It should be noted for the record that the Long Island Sound and the businesses that come along with it generate $10 billion for the American economy.
The legislation by our friend, Mike Forbes, would amend the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and would do something that is very, very simple and basic.
It would hold the Federal Government to the same standards and regulations that it imposes upon everybody else. I mean what could be more sane and logical than that?
If I cannot do it, says the Federal Government, and you cannot do it, says the Federal Government, and the states cannot do it, says the Federal Government, and the counties cannot do it and private companies cannot do it, says the Federal Government, then why should the Federal Government be able to do it?
The Federal Government has ignored the guidelines for dumping dredge materials into the sound and has caused very significant and possibly irreversible harm to the waterway and to the marine life that inhabits it.
If we ignore the Federal Government's role in the pollution of the sound, we would be continuing along the dangerous path of environmental desecration that will lead to depleted fish harbors, reduced recreational facilities, and a sound which will be far different from the one that I and many of us remember in our childhoods.
I applaud this effort and others like it which seek to affirm our commitment to a quality of life in and around the region, which sets a healthy balance between progress and those things that have made us move and live around the Long Island Sound in the first place, and I just want to thank the committee for their consideration of this legislation and for allowing me to testify here with you today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Ackerman, and Mr. Forbes, also.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Do any of my colleagues seem recognition for the purpose of—Ms. Kelly.
Ms. KELLY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I have spent a good many hours on and in the sound. Being as intimately familiar with it, I want to say I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I believe very strongly in it, and I am glad you both are here to plead the case as strongly as you have. Thank you very much for appearing.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Can I just address a question to my colleagues from New York?
You say the Federal Government was dumping in Long Island Sound. Who in the Federal Government was doing the dumping?
Mr. FORBES. Well, the Army Corps of Engineers was doing the dumping of a million cubic yards of contaminated sludge into Long Island Sound.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Where did it come from?
Mr. FORBES. Came from the Thames River when it was dredged, the Thames River being in Connecticut, dredged to accommodate the Seawolf submarine.
Mr. GILCHRIST. How long ago was that?
Mr. FORBES. Well, now it is almost three years ago that they went ahead and did that.
Mr. GILCHRIST. There were no studies done prior to the dumping? It was overboard dumping in Long Island Sound?
Mr. FORBES. There was a study done, I believe, in '91, and there was a permit issued, obviously, prior to this dumping, but the full spirit and the requirements of the Marine Protection Resources Act were not followed, and there was not full testing of this sludge, and in fact, they were in violation of their own permit.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHRIST. Was there a public comment period? Did other Federal agencies comment on that permit to dump overboard?
Mr. FORBES. There was a public comment period, and I believe there were some comments. I can get that for you, Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. GILCHRIST. I would just like to know what EPA's comments were, what Fish and Wildlife's comments were, what NMFS' comments were.
Mr. FORBES. To tell you honestly, besides the Navy, I am not sure if there was comments by Fish and Wildlife in this case.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I guess that is it for Mr. Forbes and Mr. Ackerman. You two may return to your very active schedules, and we will keep the other panelists now for some questions, but you might want to listen to the first question I ask. I will ask it both of the Corps of Engineers and EPA.
How has the April 1998 letter of agreement between the EPA and the Corps improved disposal of dredged material in the Long Island Sound, and what is the status of implementing actions delineated in the letter of agreement?
I will go to Mr. Davis first and then Mrs. Minerva.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that that letter has substantially improved our process for approving disposal in Long Island Sound.
What it does, it ensures that we apply all of the ocean-dumping criteria to our disposal activities. Before that, while we had no legal obligation to do it, because it was a Clean Water Act action, we have chosen, administratively, with EPA, to take steps, through this memorandum, to apply the ocean dumping criteria. So, everything from that point forward does apply to the same standard.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, the playing field is, in fact, level now.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So, Mr. Forbes, then it has served some valuable purpose, then, in getting your attention and having your address the issue.
What is the status of the implementation? Mrs. Minerva, I will go to you next.
Mr. DAVIS. I believe it is being implemented. Two interim sites have now been designated under section 103(a), I believe. So, two of the sites have been designated, and yes, sir, Congressman Forbes did get our attention.
Mr. BOEHLERT. OK. That is fine.
Ms. MINERVA. I would just agree with Mr. Davis. I would add that we do believe that sediments disposed of in the sound have been tested properly and do comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act.
We do think that this agrees with the Corps and that it will assist in the process further. It does call for EPA to undertake a dredged material designation process for disposal sites, and it involves EPA heavily in disposal issues and also does something which is quite good, which is clarify the funding of testing and disposal site test issues.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So, I think it is fair to say that Mr. Forbes got your attention, and I think it is also fair to say that, while there has been disagreement, people have not been disagreeable. We have all tried to reason this together and come up with a responsible way of dealing with this issue.
So, I will be monitoring very carefully, this subcommittee will, further action on the implementation of this letter of agreement.
Who seeks recognition now?
Mr. Taylor, do you have any questions?
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Davis, while I have you here, how is the Corps progressing on some conversations we have had earlier—contrary to what is happening in Long Island, I do think that 99 percent of the dredged material that is recovered is of good value, has not been put to good use, and I was just curious if, sometime during your watch, which expires at the end of this presidency, we could implement a policy that would do the Nation some good as far as the beneficial use of dredge spoil.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DAVIS. Congressman, I know you have a real interest in this, and I think we have made some progress. As you noted, only about 1 to 3 percent of the material we dredge every year, the 300 million cubic yards, is contaminated, so a relatively small portion of it is contaminated to the point where it requires some kind of special handling. So, that leaves a lot of material that we can do things with.
Currently, we are using about 30 percent of that 300 million cubic yards for beneficial uses. Right now, in construction underway as part of the Houston ship channel dredging, we are restoring about 4,000 acres of wetlands. We have done 1,100 acres of wetlands at Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay. We are proposing another 900 acres as part of an Oakland dredging process associated with the Hamilton Army Air Field.
So, about a third of that 300 million cubic yards is being used beneficially right now. I would agree with you that we could perhaps do more and perhaps should do more, and one of the programs that we are looking at trying to grow is the beneficial use program.
One of the problems we have had is finding sponsors who can help pay the incremental cost of disposal activities for beneficial purposes.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Davis, why doesn't the Corps just go ahead and do it? Why don't they go ahead and come up with a national blueprint designating those sites up front, not worry about the local sponsors, serve the local government?
They are fairly flush right now, but that is an economic roller-coaster. Ten years from now, they could all be broke again, and I would rather see the Nation take the lead in making the right thing happen.
Quite frankly, most of the local communities in south Mississippi would still be discharging their wastewater straight overboard if it was not for the Federal mandate.
All these guys who bad-mouth mandates do not realize, if it would not have been for that, it never would have happened.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Why don't we just go ahead, as a Nation, while we have a Democratic Administration that has an environmental activist approach and set some good policies that hopefully will not be reversed in the future?
Mr. DAVIS. I think we have set some good policies, and we have tried to follow many of the environmental programs within the Corps of Engineers, and we are pretty successful, but I do not disagree with you.
I think that perhaps some more strategic vision for beneficial uses is important, and I am thinking about H.R. 1175 maybe as a really good opportunity to do that, with these regional councils, and one of the things that they are going to be tasked with doing will be coming up with a regional strategy for estuarian restoration. I think a part of that strategy could be a beneficial use of dredge material strategy.
So, I think that perhaps gives us the right vehicle to come up with this framework that you are talking about.
Mr. TAYLOR. If I might take it a step further, if you were able to designate sites that could take dredge material—I cannot speak for any other district but my own, but I would say that at least one-third of all the dredging projects are non-Federal, things that are non-commercial but recreational and therefore have to be paid for either by the state or the local government.
What if you had sites where they could take their dredge material, an approved site, and then, once again, do something good with it?
I have got to believe, if it was a waterfront site and they could transport that material by barge or, even better, by suction dredge, you would save them an enormous amount of money over disposing of it inland or way the heck out in the ocean.
So, not only would you save them money, but you would actually be doing something good with it, but again, none of these things happen until the Corps steps forward with a plan and works with EPA and Fish and Wildlife to have these sites designated up front.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Davis, you know, none of us are here forever. Let us try to do some good while we are here.
Mr. DAVIS. We hear you, and again, I think that H.R. 1775 gives us a good opportunity to create that framework and to have a lore national strategy.
Within the Army, I can assure you that we are advocates of beneficially using dredge material, and we are trying to continue to grow that program.
Mr. TAYLOR. Would you be kind enough to send a letter to that extent to the Mobile Corps of Engineers?
Mr. DAVIS. I will remind the Mobile Corps of Engineers.
Mr. TAYLOR. Maybe follow it up with a phone call?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Minerva, Mr. Bateman, who has been faithful in his attendance at these hearings, and he was here until just a few moments ago, when he was called to another committee where they are engaged in a markup, so I have some very pointed questions that I will submit to you with a request that you respond directly to Mr. Bateman, with a copy to the committee, in a timely manner, and I say that because if we want to go through the exercise of me reading specifically the questions and then eliciting the answers, that is taking up everybody's time right now on some specific issues of importance to Mr. Bateman, but I do not want to run the risk of having this sort of sloughed off.
These are very serious questions, and he demands answers, and he has every right to expect them. So, I would ask, in a timely manner—two weeks would be reasonable—to get back to him with these.
So, the Chair, without objection, will submit now formal questions from Mr. Bateman directed to Ms. Minerva of the Environmental Protection Agency, with the assurance and the pledge that she will respond for the agency in a timely manner.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that, I will now turn the chair over briefly to Mr. Gilchrist, who will assume the chair for a few minutes, and I will return shortly.
Mr. Gilchrist, while you are coming up to the chair, I will ask Dr. Horn if he has any questions.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a few here.
One of them is the obvious. A goal of H.R. 1775, which you all seem to be supportive, was to restore a million acres of estuary habitat. Would this fully restore all the compromised estuary habitat? What is your estimate on that?
Ms. YOZELL. I do not think it would restore all of the compromised estuary habitat in the country. I will look to my colleagues to further ellaborate on that. It is certainly a great step forward, and there are so many other issues, and again, as everyone noted earlier, until we address things like polluted runoff, we are going to continue to damage our estuaries, and so, it is a good step forward, but there are other issues that need to be addressed.
Mr. HORN. Do we have, at this point, any charts or descriptions of particular areas that are compromised, and is there any relative grading of what that compromise is?
Ms. MINERVA. There is not a relative grading of the compromise, but in each of the 28 National Estuary Program sites and in other sites, they have prepared fairly detailed descriptions of the habitat degradation and the projects that they foresee would be helpful in addressing this habitat degradation, and so, I think that the national estuary plans would be a source.
In addition, EPA has prepared what is known as an Index of Watershed Indicators, which gives data--water quality data, wetlands loss data, and other kinds of data--for every watershed in the country. It is available on the web to anyone in the United States who wishes to use it. I do not know that we can say exactly how much habitat would be addressed by this bill. We do have fairly specific ideas of where habitat is degraded and what can be done about it.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. The goal of one million acres, what I am trying to get out of you, is there any other estimate at this point in time, without the law, that we are near that? Is it two million, is it three million, is it 500,000? Do we keep an analysis that says, hey, this is the Nation's problem, and so, what is happening on it, and what is EPA doing to really get it in a situation of practicality, so people can deal with it?
Obviously, if there is to be appropriations, one has to get an estimate somewhere of what is the worst-off, the least worst-off, so forth. There needs to be some relative grading or ranking or priority-setting.
Ms. MINERVA. I would just answer that by saying we have, among other areas that we are interested in restoring, such as Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the 28 National Estuary Programs, we have fairly specific plans and ideas for how to do that work.
We have not taken a look nor have we done analysis of that. We have not said, well, one National Estuary Program is more important, a higher priority than the other one, no, we have not done that.
Mr. HORN. Well, do you think that is a good idea for the agency, or are you going to say we are going to do everything, like we have with the Superfund, and we do very little?
Ms. MINERVA. I think the bill is very positive in that it forms a council which would get various Federal agencies together to decide on the projects to be addressed, and also it has regional councils, as well, to review these projects, composed of state officials and other, I think that the good thing about the bill is that it allows the various agencies to address this in a communicative and cooperative fashion with each other, so that one agency's sense of the priorities is complemented by another.
Mr. HORN. Do you use a factor of the population level of interest in this or congressional level of interest, because it seems to me we could have estuaries out there that might have one congressman 200 miles away, but it is in that district and it is a very bad situation.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MINERVA. You know, one factor that we typically use when we look at estuary—proposed National Estuary Programs is the level of community interest, and I find that that is a really good indicator.
How many people in the community are interested in working on that estuary is a really good indicator of whether projects are going to be successful, and so, that is one of the factors I think is really key.
Mr. HORN. Well, if you have a rural town on an estuary that has 10,000 people versus Los Angeles County that has 10 million people and New York probably six or seven million, what would you choose, the 10,000 or the 10 million, and you have got—everybody of the 10,000 takes your criteria, says we have got to clean up this thing and we are being overwhelmed by things upstream or ships or whatever.
Ms. MINERVA. Sir, I think population has an effect on environmental assessments. Certainly, population growth of the coastal area is a key factor in degrading water quality in the coastal area.
So, I think that population enters into the whole environmental equation that way, but I really do not think we would say, well, the population of Tampa Bay is greater than the population of Indian River and, therefore, that estuary is more important. I do not think you can really look at something that way. We might say that Indian River was more important because it has more endangered and threatened species.
I do know that we need to really engage in this work to protect estuaries, and having a collaborative effort such as Congressman Gilchrist apparently envisions, I think, would help us, as collective agencies, with the states, I might work on this together.
Mr. HORN. My time is up, but let me ask this last half-question, Mr. Chairman.
Do you have a unit within EPA that is handling the data and analysis on these?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MINERVA. Yes, we do. We have a monitoring unit which collects a lot of water quality data from all kinds of sources and makes this available to the public, not only so that EPA can analyze it but so that the public can look at it, too.
Mr. HORN. Well, obviously, I am interested, then, does the Army contribute to that what its findings are in the Corps of Engineers and the same with the Weather Service.
Mr. DAVIS. I think we have a small piece of that now, but I think the beauty of Congressman Gilchrist's vision here is it is very much a bottom-up—you mentioned how it all fits together, do we have any kind of strategy.
One of the first things that this council has to do within a year is to come up with the national strategy for how we go about doing these restoration projects, and these are based on the six regional strategies that are developed essentially by the governors of the states that are affected, and I believe the legislation requires that these projects have to come from a non-Federal entity, they cannot be something that the Corps would advocate, or another Federal agency. They have to come from a local community.
So, they come up through the regional strategy to a national strategy, and hopefully, that would make it all fit together and work well.
The Corps does have a very important role to play, overall, in part of this because of our restoration efforts around the country.
Mr. HORN. Well, I agree with you, the Corps has a major role in this. They have done a splendid job in everything we have assigned them, and we should assign them this, as well.
Thank you all for coming. We have a vote on the floor now, and we will have to go.
Mr. GILCHRIST [PRESIDING]. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Kelly.
Ms. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions, but inasmuch as we do have a vote, I would like to be able to submit them in writing, with unanimous consent.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Without objection.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHRIST. I just have a couple of quick questions and comments, then we will recess and go vote, and we will hear the next panel, probably in about 15, 20 minutes, depending on how it works over there. So, you all can take a break.
Mike, you sort of captured the essence of what we are trying to do. This collaborative effort to restore wetlands, I think, to a large extent, has been somewhat fragmented.
EPA looks at water quality, NMFS looks at fish habitat, Corps has the role with non-title wetlands and wetlands, and I just wondered in the past how often various Federal agencies sat down and saw the big picture.
I know it would happen sometimes, but I think, to a large extent, that was somewhat fragmented, and with 28 or so different estuary programs out there, we hope that this is going to bring people together in an alignment so that they can discuss all these issues.
What goes on in the land has that negative impact on the water, and not only the Federal agencies and not only the state agencies, state department of natural resources or whoever the governor assigns to this, but land use is a local issue.
So, we hope that this brings information and then, through the planning process, actually implements a restoration program that is going to have some effect on the county commissioners, the local mayors, planning and zoning, the zoning appeals board, and that whole process to get people involved.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Chesapeake Bay Program has been in effect for an awful long time. Yet, we still see mountains of shopping plazas, housing developments, roads, impervious surfaces, air deposition, dredging that is controversial.
This past weekend I was canoeing on the Sassafras River, Thursday and Friday. I should have been out working, I guess, but I was canoeing on the Sassafras River, and I have never seen it so clean.
I mean you could see eight feet down to the bottom of the water, and it was miraculous. A lot of sea grass, seaweed coming back.
I went canoeing on Sunday. I could not see anything. I could not see a foot down.
Now, the reason for that is, God bless all the boaters, but all those motor boats out there just stir up that sediment and do a problem again.
So, there is a whole range of problems, whether it is sewage treatment plants, whether it is impervious surfaces, whether it is dredging, whether it is boats. It is a whole lot of things that we need to come together and be a little more collaborative on.
Mike, just a quick question—if anybody on the committee wants to run up to vote—I am just going to get a couple more of these out.
In your testimony, Mike, you said the Secretary should make the determination as to the acceptability and valuation of an in-kind contribution for local cost-sharing rather than the proposed council. Could you give us your reasoning behind that?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. We think that the Army is in the best position to determine the value of technical services that would be provided. We are not opposed to it. In fact, we are advocates.
We know that many state agencies, for example, have expert biologists and scientists and can do everything that the Corps of Engineers could do, and we should take advantage of those, but in terms of putting a value on that and deciding how much credit they get towards the total cost of the project, we think that the Army is in the best position to make that determination.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHRIST. All right. Well, that is a good point. We will take that into consideration.
Another thing you said, Mike, and also Ms. Yozell—Ms. Yozell, you made a comment about being innovative in the things that we do. Mike, you made a comment in your testimony about a demonstration component added to the bill.
Now, I would assume that a demonstration component could be innovative.
So, if we could ask Ms. Yozell to comment first on an innovative project, if you had something in mind.
Ms. YOZELL. I would be happy to.
Again, let me commend you for the bill, because I think it is really great.
Mr. GILCHRIST. My staff worked on hard on that bill.
Ms. YOZELL. With regard to innovative technologies, I mean the technology of restoring habitat is really a very new science, and every time we restore a resource or an estuary, we learn something new about it, and in order to continue to stay on the cutting edge, we need to give emphasis to innovative practices, because they afford us the ability to become more efficient.
We just recently created a new program in New Hampshire that focuses on innovative technologies for restoration and monitoring, and it is working with all of our estuarian reserves throughout the country, and I know the other agencies here, as well, are focusing on those kind of technologies.
So, it is really important that we try to give communities, projects, programs, whatever, the Federal Government, sort of a leg up to get them to stay on the cutting edge by having a high priority placed on new innovative, cutting edge technologies.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mike, I have got about 15 seconds.
Mr. DAVIS. I will be quick.
I think what we were trying to say, as much as anything, is that we should send very strong signals to the regional folks and the local communities that we want them to apply the concepts of adaptive assessments. Take some risk.
We are not worried taking some chances. We do not have all the answers, but if we become paralyzed by a desire to have all the answers, then we will not do anything. So, let us have some flexibility so people can take some chances, monitor it, and adjust as we go.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you very much.
Ms. Minerva, your idea about also near-shore marine habitats and associated ecosystems, not just estuarian water areas, I think was another positive comment.
We are going to recess now for about 15, 20 minutes.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. BOEHLERT [PRESIDING]. The third and final panel today consists of Mr. William C. Baker, President of the Restore America's Estuaries/ Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Ms. JoAnne Thomas from the Nature Conservancy; Ms. Jacqueline Savitz from the Coast Alliance; and Mr. Anthony B. MacDonald from the Coastal States Organization.
We will go in the order introduced. I would advise all of the panelists that, one, we appreciate your being resources for the subcommittee; two, I apologize for not having more of my colleagues here.
You are all familiar with this process and how it works. They are off scattered in different directions. We have some appropriations matters we are trying to resolve before the August recess.
Three, I can assure you that your testimony will be very carefully examined, certainly by the professional staff, who guide us every step of the way, but more importantly, I would think, by members individually, and your statements will appear in the record at this juncture in their entirety.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would ask that you try to summarize, in the interest of your time and ours.
We will start first with Mr. Baker.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION; JOANN THOMAS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FLORIDA KEYS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY; JACQUELINE SAVITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COAST ALLIANCE; ANTHONY B. MACDONALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION
Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Will Baker. I am President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, where I have worked for over 22 years. So, I am a pretty boring fellow, I guess, but I am focusing on the bay.
I am also Chairman of Restore America's Estuaries, which is an alliance of 11 organizations from around the country, each of which are working on estuaries in their respective regions.
The importance of estuaries has been well-documented so far today, so I will not elaborate on that. One statistic, though, I think does bear repeating, and that is that 75 percent of all the commercial fisheries harvested in this country are dependent on estuaries.
How is the Chesapeake Bay doing, and other estuaries? While it may be a gross generalization, I think it is fair to say that the precipitous declines of the '60's, '70's, and even '80's have been largely arrested. We can congratulate ourselves as a society and especially thank Congress.
It is a huge accomplishment when you think of the increase in population, human population, that has occurred at the same time that we have changed the direction from decline to at least stabilization.
To rest on our laurels would be a fundamental mistake, for two reasons. One, population will continue to increase and will overwhelm our gains, and two, the stabilized patient, if you will, is in very poor shape.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To illustrate, we rank the state of the Chesapeake Bay at about 25 percent of its historic possibilities, potential.
If this great Nation, with all of its wealth and political support for coastal areas, cannot achieve a sustainable balance of ecological vitality and economic prosperity in estuaries like the Chesapeake, something is very wrong.
Restoration of habitat must be at the core of our strategy to achieve this balance. Habitat plays a critical role in the natural systems of estuaries. Treed buffers, wetlands, grasses, underwater grasses all mitigate the impact of natural disasters and natural impacts, and all at no cost to the taxpayer.
H.R. 1775 zeros in on a solution. It is not the final word, of course, but it provides an excellent beginning, with benchmarks to allow Congress to evaluate progress and decide what else may or may not be needed in the future.
H.R. 1775 builds on a history of achievement, and while I am mindful of being expansive, it may just herald in a new era of environmental policy, a transition, if you will, from a thou shalt not type of approach to a more positive, even optimistic approach, partnerships building on individuals' and groups' interest in helping to restore estuarian habitat.
Let me conclude.
I know Congressman Gilchrist is out of the room, but I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue, and all of the cosponsors, and second, let me just briefly paraphrase Mark Twain, who said, whenever you are testifying before Congress, give the three F's, a little fun, a little fact, and a little philosophy. I think we have had some facts. I have some fun being here today. Let me philosophize for a second.
Senator Mathias once quoted a passage to me that went as follows. He said our land, compared with the way it once was, is like the skeleton of a body wasted by disease. The soft plump parts have vanished, and all that remains is the bare carcass.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
He was quoting Plato in the fifth century B.C., and I would submit that history has a lot to teach us, if only we will listen.
Restoring our estuarian and coastal areas is all about restoring natural resources on the land, what we call habitat.
Finally, we must succeed, because the alternative of failure is simply unacceptable.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be delighted to answer any questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, that is a super note on which to conclude your testimony. Thanks for reminding us of some of the words of wisdom we had from and came to expect from Senator Mathias, and thanks also for recognizing the leadership—the national leadership of our colleague, Mr. Gilchrist.
Ms. Thomas?
Ms. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the demonstration to my right is associated with my testimony. We wanted to have a little fun, as well, and give you a visual demonstration of our problem.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I guess Ms. Savitz gets the philosophy, right?
Ms. THOMAS. That is right. I will leave that to her.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today in behalf of H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act of 1999.
I am from the Nature Conservancy in the Florida Keys. We are an international non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. We do that by protecting the land and the water that rare and threatened plants and animals need to survive.
We have worked in the Florida Keys since 1989 on both the terrestrial and marine systems. By anyone's standards, the Florida Keys are a very, very special place. The Federal interest in the Florida Keys, in conserving the Florida Keys, began in 1908, when Teddy Roosevelt designated the Florida Keys—or the Key West National Wildlife Refuge. Since then, three additional wildlife refuges have been established there.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition, as you heard earlier, there are national parks triangulating the Keys, actually, the Dry Tortugas, the Everglades, and Biscayne Bay, all on the outside edges of this very special place.
One of the reasons the Florida Keys are so important biologically is of our location on the globe. We are at the intersection of the tropical and temperate zones, and so, it has created a very interesting and diverse mix of plants and animals.
We have a Caribbean flora almost entirely. Our terrestrial fauna is a mix of Caribbean and temperate species. So, it is very diverse, and of course, three miles off our shores lies the continental U.S.'s only—this is important—living barrier coral reef. There are some other coral reefs off the other 48, but this is the only barrier coral reef.
Paradise, as you have heard earlier, does attract people, and people create problems there. Our 85,000 year-round residents are joined by 4 million visitors annually. It works out on an average daily basis to a population of about 139,000 people.
So our wastewater planning, which has always been, in the past, at least, inadequate, was even more so because it was not based on the real number of people we have every day in the Florida Keys flushing toilets.
This problem is compounded because we have 6,000 cess-pits in the Florida Keys, and you probably know that cess-pits are holes in the ground into which toilets are flushed.
We have about 24,000 septic tanks. Septic tanks do not strip nutrients, which is a very important part of the Florida Keys biological equation.
Our sewage treatment consists of a plant in Key West and then two additional plants in very, very tiny resort areas of the Florida Keys, and so, for this 100-mile stretch of islands, we have three sewage facilities that are capable, even, of dealing with nutrients.
What you may not realize is that this already inadequate infrastructure is located in the coral rock that Congressman Deutsch showed you.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is highly porous, it is permeable, and so, it is no wonder that the effluent gets very quickly into the ocean.
Another fact that makes that limestone really a problem is that the tidal influence in the Keys causes seawater to go back and forth underneath the islands, actually, through the Keys, through all these substandard systems.
All of us working in the Florida Keys have known that water quality is at the core of the problems there, and that is why, when the sanctuary act was created, the Environmental Protection Agency was given the responsibility to create a water quality protection plan. They have done a very good job, but they have given us some very, very bad news lately.
For these on-site disposal systems that most residential households outside of Key West rely on, we have found out now that wastewater effluent reaches near-shore waters of the Florida Keys within four hours, being flushed down a toilet, and it is at this point that I would like Anna to give you a demonstration of actually what occurs.
These two pieces of stone there are actual pieces of Key Largo limestone that have been quarried, and this actually was prepared by Dr. Shin of the USGS, and he uses it.
We have a pump to circulate some water through it, and if you will watch after Anna pulls the lever here, you will see some dripping and see just how permeable this rock is.
Go for it.
You can see the water wiggling on the bottom. You see it beginning to drip down, and you will see it coming over the front a little bit, but you can see how quickly the waters in the Keys can get this effluent.
We also know from the great work of the EPA that disease-causing viral pathogens have been found in the canals behind Keys homes.
We know from the Nature Conservancy's own Florida Baywatch water-sampling program that there are increased nutrients all the way up and down the Keys, especially in developed shoreline areas.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As you heard from the Congresswoman, almost all of the beaches in the Key West area are now under orders because of high levels of coliform, fecal coliform.
We are trying to move forward and do something about this as best we can. Monroe County and the State of Florida have set aside funds to help low-income residents replace those cess-pits. We have to do them all by the year 2009.
We have set aside some funds, Monroe County has, for low-income residents to be able to afford it. Individual systems in the Keys can cost up to $20,000 per household.
The county has applied for a revolving loan for the Marathon facility.
EPA has provided us with a demonstration problem to look at neighborhood-based treatment options.
The wastewater master plan will be done by the end of this year; the storm-water plan by the end of next.
The county has authorized its agencies to purchase the land necessary for some of these facilities.
The Key West system is now currently being upgraded to a WT standards.
We are beginning to do all of that, but we cannot do it all. We need your help, and that is why we are here today.
The costs in the Keys are very high for three reasons—a geological reason, a geographical reason, a biological reason.
Geologically speaking, you see the porosity problem.
Also what you should notice about this Key Largo limestone is, when we create a sewage treatment facility, a big one or a little one, in the Florida Keys, it is not easy to dig down and lay the pipe. It is a lot more expensive, because this lies a couple of inches under the ground.
The geographical problem is illustrated by a long series of islands stretched 100 miles, with 42 bridges connecting them. It is not a simple matter to develop sewage systems for varying levels of population density along that distance.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, biologically, coral reef ecosystems and tropical marine systems, as you are probably aware, require very, very, very low nutrient levels, and so, we have to treat to higher standards than other places might have to.
As a matter of fact, Monroe County has standards that no other county in Florida must meet. They are specific to our county alone.
The county has estimated the sewage treatment for residents of the Florida Keys will be three to four times the national average. Even with Federal assistance, it is going to be a very big burden on the citizens of the Florida Keys. We just cannot do it.
The cost of moving forward is really immense, but the risk of doing nothing cannot be underestimated.
In addition to supporting bio-diversity rivaling the rain forests, the Florida Keys, the marine ecosystem, is the basis for a vibrant economy of significant scope. We have the most productive fisheries in the state and the third most productive on the eastern seaboard, a $1.2 billion tourism industry based mostly on our water.
We are the number one dive destination in the world, and that may be because we have a road going towards our reef, but we are, and so, we have a very strong economy based on this resource.
H.R. 673 will help us and is very well-designed for our needs. It collaborates with the current water quality program of the Environmental Protection Agency. It references very strict growth requirements that we have in place in Monroe County. We are very aware of that. It provides a 75/25 match so that we have the capacity to do this, and because of the requirements to work with the water quality protection program, access by the public to this process is assured.
It is a good bill. It will help us be able to move forward. We appreciate Congressman Deutsch and Shaw bringing this measure forward and appreciate your invitation to appear to discuss it.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Ms. Savitz?
Ms. SAVITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Jackie Savitz, and I am the Executive Director of the Coast Alliance. We lead a network of over 500 organizations on all four U.S. coasts.
The alliance welcomes the opportunity and thanks you for the invitation to submit testimony today on the Long Island Sound Preservation and Protection Act. This testimony is endorsed by 11 organizations, most of them in New York and all of them work on Long Island Sound issues.
Contaminated sediments are of paramount importance on every coast. For two decades, the Coast Alliance and its partners have consistently advocated for sound management of contaminated sediments.
In a 1998 inventory, EPA found that contaminated sediments line nearly every major watershed in the country. Disposal activities conducted by the Corps and the ports disperse these sediments, further exposing fish, shellfish, wildlife, and our families to harmful chemicals, and as Mr. Gilchrist pointed out, every time a boat goes by, a storm comes through, tides come through, these sediments are re-suspended and live to contaminate again.
These are chemicals such a dioxin, PCBs, and mercury that can cause cancer and reproductive problems in animals and humans.
In a 1996 study, NOAA, near a New Jersey ocean dump site, found high levels of dioxin in lobsters, a national delicacy and an important commercial fishery.
In spite of claims that there is no impact, if dumping sediments in the ocean can contaminate seafood, certainly dumping them in Long Island Sound can contaminate seafood, as well.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
These findings should have led to a change in the way that the EPA and the Corps manage sediments.
However, in spite of this smoking gun, the agencies have continued to disregard the MPRSA and, in so doing, they continue to trade away clean, safe seafood to save money on disposal, and I think, Mr. Chairman, you brought in that philosophy when you said we should not trade clear channels for clean fish. You put it better than I did.
Citizens in the Long Island Sound vicinity are legitimately concerned that not only have the EPA and the Corps not heeded our calls, they also have not heeded Congress' words.
We are concerned about the environmental impacts and the precedent being set by Federal agencies ignoring Congress' hard work in crafting Federal legislation.
The MPRSA, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, was amended to extend its coverage to Long Island Sound, as you heard.
The current language of this amendment reads, in part, ''The dumping of dredge material in Long Island Sound shall comply with the requirements of this title.'' This mandate was confirmed in 1998 by the U.S. Second Court of Appeals, which said that the EPA and the Corps were to comply with the MPRSA in Long Island Sound.
In spite of the clear statutory language, EPA and the Corps have acted as though the sound were not covered by the act.
Since the law was extended to the sound, dumping has continued even though the agency has not officially designated a single site and such designation is a prerequisite for disposal.
The result is the repeated release of chemicals like dioxin without regard for the act.
The most recent projects were the Navy's Thames River project and the Mamaroneck Harbor project. In both cases, contaminated sediments were dumped in the sound without the benefit of bioassay testing and procedural protections of the MPRSA.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Adequate testing as called for in the act but not conducted prior to disposal would have found that the Thames River sediment contained dangerous amounts of dioxin, the most toxic chemical known to science.
In Mamaroneck, besides concerns about the toxicity of the sediments, permits were granted during the spawning season of the winter flounder, a bottom-dwelling species whose populations are in decline.
Normally, a dredging prohibition exists during the spawning window of this critically important and valuable fishery.
Citizens are concerned that materials from planned projects in other rivers may be dumped in the sound with similar disregard for the MPRSA. I would point out that, with the ocean dumping provisions being more stringent, the sound would becomes the path of least resistance if it were not granted the Acts protection.
Former Congressman Ambro amended the law to afford the sound equal or greater protection from dredge spoils as that afforded to open ocean waters.
H.R. 855 should make it absolutely clear that Long Island Sound is to be granted at least the same protection as the open ocean with regard to the disposal of dredge waste.
This bill should also ensure that the EPA and the Corps may no longer grant waivers or use other end run regulatory maneuvers to excuse dangerous disposal in the sound and to avoid going through the required designation process.
In the meantime, more toxic chemicals are dumped in the sound, with potential public health and environmental effects.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Coast Alliance and the organizations that endorse this testimony agree strongly with former Congressman Ambro and Congressman Forbes that Long Island Sound deserves at least the same amount of protection as the ocean, and we urge Congress to uphold the protection for the sound that Mr. Ambro intended.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to testify today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. MacDonald.
Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. My name is Tony MacDonald, and I am the Executive Director of the Coastal States Organization.
Since 1970, CSO has represented the interests of the governors of the coastal states, including the Great Lakes and island territories, in supporting the protection and balanced use of coastal resources.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Gilchrist, for your leadership on coastal issues and for—particularly at this point, for your endurance in sticking with us through these hearings.
I will focus my comments today primarily on Representative Gilchrist's Estuarian Habitat Restoration Partnership Act and a few comments on Representative Saxton's bill authorizing funds to implement the NEP as well as the DeLauro bill on estuaries.
As previous witnesses have observed, coastal habitats and resources have sustained devastating historical losses and faced significant new challenges as a result of projected growth and development pressures.
These bills would be a significant contribution to not merely stopping but reversing this trend, but as Mr. Borski, Saxton, and others have observed, these bills are just two pieces of a complex coastal puzzle which include reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as other initiatives.
The task of restoring habitat is not as simple as just putting things back the way they were before.
If you remember the movie ''Field of Dreams'' and the voice that spoke to Kevin Costner saying ''If you build it, they will come,'' just reconstructing a landscape will not ensure that fish and wildlife and ecosystem functions will return.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Despite our best intentions, we are not going to achieve our restoration and protection objectives without a concerted and strategic effort by states, communities, Federal agencies, and private citizens. We think these bills here begin that process of coordination and concerted action.
Before commenting specifically on the bills, let me emphasize that state coastal zone management, water quality, fish and wildlife programs, along with national estuary programs, partners, local governments, and non-government organizations are, in many cases, taking the lead in reversing coastal degradation.
For example, in San Francisco Bay, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission has aligned state and Federal agencies with private sector partners to restore shallow water habitat.
In New York, local communities are matching state funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis to implement a variety of habitat restoration plans for coastal habitat in Long Island Sound.
While Maryland recently submitted a comprehensive conservation management plan for the coastal bay's National Estuary Program that identifies 390 actions, 225 which have funding already identified, but as Representative Lazio observed, these state efforts require substantially more resources than those currently available, and as the bills before you today recognize, there is a need to coordinate actions so that restoration objectives are met in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
The bills under consideration get beyond project-by-project planning, recognizing that strategic choices in habitat restoration, estuarian protections cannot happen in a vacuum.
They can only be successful within the larger goal of restoring ecosystem health and recognizing that these habitats must co-exist with communities and support compatible economic uses.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We commend Congressman Gilchrist for his bill and particularly for working with the states in developing the bill. We support the objectives of that bill to restore one million acres of estuarian habitat by 2010.
An important feature of this bill, in our view, is that it is designed to build on ambitious plans already underway at the state and local level.
For example, the State of Maryland has established an objective of restoring 57,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation by the year 2005, 60,000 acres of wetlands, and 600 miles of stream buffers by the year 2010.
While many NEPs and state and local coastal management plans and non-governmental organizations have set other goals and identified restoration needs and projects deserving of funding.
We suggest, as other witnesses have, that the eligibility under H.R. 1775 be expanded to include the Great Lakes and island territories and commonwealths.
In addition, you should consider broadening the definition to include near-shore marine and coastal habitat areas, as well.
Again, this is a system, and while National Estuarian Programs are significant contributions within nationally significant estuaries—I think there are 28 of them at this point—there are over 100 estuarian areas and other coastal and habitat issues that we should look at as we try to knit together habitat restoration objectives across the country.
The subcommittee should also take a close look at the project review process to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication in effort between the national and regional councils and that the results will be on outputs, not on process.
In looking at the bill, it looks like it will work that way, but I think we need to be careful that we not have repetitive processes set up for the national and regional levels.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To the extent possible, project priorities should be selected at the state and regional level as long as the projects are consistent with the national strategy and consistent with coastal watershed and estuarian management plans.
We also suggest that Federal agencies should be directed to coordinate funding from related habitat restoration programs in support of the national strategy and projects recommended by regional council should receive preference for funding from these programs.
Regarding the NEPs, CSO supports the objectives of both the Saxton and DeLauro-Lowey bills respectively to authorize funding to implement plans to develop and to restore water quality and habitat in estuaries within the National Estuary Program.
One of the greatest strengths of the NEP is that it brings together a broad range of stakeholders to develop comprehensive plans.
Most of those plans have been completed. These plans usually contain hundreds of action items. While parts of the plans are being implemented, many actions remain to be undertaken.
For example, while many funding commitments, as I indicated, have been secured to implement the CCMP and Maryland's coastal bays NEP, there is still $1.1 million in unmet needs for the coming year and approximately 5.2 million for the balance of the 15-year planning horizon.
Federal assistance will be necessary if the objectives of the stakeholder planning process are to be fully fulfilled.
Although CSO also supports the objectives of H.R. 1096, we have not taken a position on some of its specific provisions, and on quick review, there are a few details of the bill which cause us concern.
Those are the provisions which would require that a specific percentage of each state's revolving loan fund be set aside for funding NEP activities and the provisions which would place management conferees in a position to direct how states would use their SRF funds. The implementation of plans developed under the NEP are already eligible as a use for SRF.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are also concerned about the provisions of the bill which would provide NEP management conferees and EPA Administrator veto authority of how states would allocate funds for water quality programs.
One of the basic features of the Clean Water Act is that states have the primary responsibilities for addressing pollution.
H.R. 1096 would require states to conduct assessments of needs for implementing NEPs and allow the EPA Administrator to withhold part of the SRF allocation if the NEP management conference does not approve of states' needs assessments. States should not cede the authority over clean water priorities and budgeting to management conferences.
We would like an opportunity to work with you and the staff to work out these differences, but we think these are extremely positive efforts and deserve your support. If you have any questions, we would be happy to answer them.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Ms. Thomas, how much is needed to improve and protect water quality in the Keys, and what do you believe is the appropriate mix of Federal, state, and local and other funding to meet these needs?
Ms. THOMAS. Well, at this point, it is a theoretical question, because our plan will be done at the end of this year, and it is very hard to predict where on that range of costs I gave you we will end up because of the need to mix and match kinds of systems in different parts of the Keys. So, I really do not know the total amount.
The county estimates for the Marathon plant that it would be as much as four times the national average, we are looking at a non-Federal share of 25 percent, as in the Deutsch legislation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Non-Federal share? That would be state and local combined?
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is Monroe County an area of great growth?
Ms. THOMAS. It has been. We are considered an area of critical state concern under Florida law. So, we are, right now, under very strict growth requirements.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Requirements or restrictions?
Ms. THOMAS. Restrictions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. OK. I see a lot of people moving south.
Ms. THOMAS. In our county, this year, 88 building permits will be issued, if we continue to make the wastewater upgrades. If we do not make the wastewater upgrades in a timely enough way and begin this process, that will not happen either.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Who has the authority of permits? The county has the authority?
Ms. THOMAS. The county does, but it is in negotiation and because we are an area of critical state concern in the State of Florida, the State actually has final say over that at this point in time. When we reach the terms, the negotiated terms of the area of critical state concern plan, we can go back on our own and make those decisions entirely on our own.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I must compliment you on your very graphic display there.
Ms. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I would also just like to point out that County Commissioner Nora Williams has come up today, was not able to have a spot, but her presence, I think, gives you an idea of how serious the county is on moving forward on this.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, it has to be very difficult for a former county executive. I know the problem. Eighty-five thousand people—where do you get the money from?
Well, I also would like to point out that 85,000 is the total population. The population of the City of Key West is about 28,000. They have their own system. So, the cost we are talking about, the up to 1.2 billion, will be borne by 57,000 people.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. I do not want to dwell too long on this one, because we are going to learn a lot more about it.
Has Florida had a recent environmental bond act? In New York, we recognize some legitimate needs in the state, and so we passed the voters passed a $1.75 billion bond act to get on with dealing with some of the sensitive environmental problems in the state, including land acquisition and wastewater treatment plants, that type of thing. What is Florida doing?
Ms. THOMAS. Florida has a very strong and active land acquisition program which has helped in Monroe County. We have acquired over 6,000 acres of land to put in protective status, which helps on this issue, certainly.
Three hundred million dollars a year is set aside in Florida for land acquisition purposes and, of course, Everglades.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Three million?
Ms. THOMAS. Three hundred million.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Oh, 300 million.
Ms. THOMAS. It is a $3 billion, 10-year program.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Baker, let me ask you—a goal in H.R. 1775 which you rightly praised is to restore one million acres of estuary habitat. Would this fully restore all compromised estuary habitat?
Mr. BAKER. Nationwide, no. It would only begin to change a system which has been losing habitat to one that is starting to gain habitat.
So, it would only touch the tip of the iceberg. Somewhere around 50, 55 million acres of just emergent wetlands have been lost in this country.
So, a million acres of all habitat is just a start.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Can you guesstimate a percentage?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAKER. Well, 1 percent.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Really?
Mr. BAKER. If 55 million acres of just wetlands have been lost in this country, and the definition of habitat in this bill is broader than just wetlands, it is a small percentage, but it is a start. It just to the year 2010.
It has taken a long time to lose the habitat we have lost, and we cannot expect to turn that around overnight, but the goal is to change from a loss to beginning to experience a gain, and that would be a huge achievement, and it would be starting to go in the right direction.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. MacDonald, do you have any guesstimate how much it would cost to fully implement the 28 national estuary management plans?
Mr. MACDONALD. You should have asked Dana that question. She was here.
I had heard some numbers around the $400 billion, but maybe Will or some other—I mean they were working on some numbers at one point, but NEPs—and I defer to Will on this, or some of the other speakers, but they have some broad action plans that may be covered by other sources of funding, as well.
So, again, I do not think that the implementation funding here is intended to be all the funding.
As I indicated in the Maryland case, 225 of their initiatives are already funded. So, they should look for other sources of funding, as well.
So, I do not know what the full cost over the life of the program would be.
Mr. BOEHLERT. A lot of money.
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. The red light is on, and I usually have the Chair respect it for the Chair as well as any other member, but I will have liberty right now and ask another question, because it is Abbott and Costello up here, just the two of us.
See, we are providing some fun, too.
Ms. Savitz, are you encouraged by the conversations between Mr. Forbes and the EPA and the Corps of Engineers and the letter of agreement that they have? From my perspective, I think Mr. Forbes has come a long way in terms of protecting the interests that you want to protect, and I want to know if you react the same way.
We are not there yet, obviously, but are you encouraged?
Ms. SAVITZ. I think it is very clear that Congressman Forbes' efforts have made a huge difference, in particular his litigation. However, I do not think a member of Congress should have to file a lawsuit in order to ensure that the law is enforced.
I think that the letter of agreement between the Corps and the EPA is an acknowledgement that there is a problem that needs to be solved. It does not essentially do anything, if you will, for three years, and the question remains, how will the agencies act in those three years?
Will there be continued disposal of dredge material?
A number of sites were mentioned that are in need of disposal, and I think there is a concern among citizens in the Long Island Sound area that there will be continued disposal during that interim time period, and what happens after that three-year time period is really anyone's guess, and that is why I think the efforts of Congressman Forbes, what he is pursuing through this committee, are still very important.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, he has got our attention, and it is not just because I am a fellow New Yorker, although I am upstate. It is just that I am vitally interested, obviously.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baker, just a couple of questions.
Last year, I think the Chesapeake Bay Foundation issued a report on the Chesapeake Bay and said, I think, it was about—out of a top score of 100, the bay was around 25, 26, 27, something like that.
Do you see existing programs like, for example, the Chesapeake Bay program showing what an earlier—I think Ms. Yozell from NOAA described as innovative?
Has the Chesapeake Bay program been successful in trying to restore the health of the bay, and have they been innovative in that process?
This is just purely an opinion question.
Mr. BAKER. I think there has been so much that needed to be done that did not require innovative solutions but just basic fundamental changes in how we manage a system like the Chesapeake Bay that we have not been as innovative as we will need to be going forward in the future.
The term ''out of the box'' has been thrown around recently, as you know, in terms of things that need to be considered, but there are a lot of basic things that can continue to be done, like the restoration of habitat, bringing partnerships together.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Do you think the Chesapeake Bay program, having operated now for, I guess, almost a couple of decades, can fit in smoothly with the bill we are proposing here, H.R. 1175, could be a major player?
Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. In fact, we see a tremendous amount of momentum at the Federal, state, local level moving forward towards the concept of improving the system, not just putting all of our efforts towards stopping deterioration. We must start to set benchmarks and goals for improvement, and that is clearly the embodiment of your bill.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHRIST. One of the goals in the bay program was to reduce nitrogen by a certain percentage by the year 2000, which I am not sure if we are going to meet that or not, and one of the Chesapeake Bay programs—and I am not hear to bash the Chesapeake Bay program, but—was to reduce nitrogen.
Recently, we have found out that the Chesapeake Bay program did not monitor nitrogen releases into the bay from dredging projects.
Would the Chesapeake Bay Foundation recommend to the Chesapeake Bay program that, in the future, it uses the same type of monitoring technique for nitrogen into the bay from a variety of sources, including agriculture, housing developments, air deposition, but they also include nitrogen infusion into the bay from dredging projects?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Baker, before you respond, may I ask, Mr. Gilchrist, if you would be willing to conclude the meeting? I am called to the floor. I have to speak on an important amendment involving the land and water conservation fund.
See, we are all in this together.
So, let me thank all the panelists. I appreciate you serving as resources for the committee.
Would you mind concluding the hearing? You are at liberty to go on as long as you would like with questions.
Mr. BAKER. Congressman, the answer is very much yes. We are concerned that the goal of reducing nitrogen and phosphorous by 40 percent included a caveat which stated 'from controllable sources', and the definition of what was controllable is somewhat open.
So, whether it be nitrogen, phosphorous released from the placement of dredge material or atmospheric deposition or other ways that nitrogen and phosphorous get into the system that are not counted, we very much would support an expansion of that definition.
Mr. GILCHRIST [PRESIDING]. Ms. Thomas, this is sort of a simple, complex question.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Could you just tell us what is needed to protect water quality in the Florida Keys? I mean, if somebody just said what do we have to do to protect the water quality, putting cost aside, what would the list be?
Ms. THOMAS. The Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Florida, the Nature Conservancy, everyone agrees that the single biggest threat to water quality is the inadequate wastewater infrastructure and the lack of storm-water runoff treatment.
So, getting that infrastructure project underway tomorrow would be the thing to do, the simple answer.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Could you tell us how the Florida Keys reached the point that they are? As development grew, no one was cognizant of the problems they were creating or somebody was trying to cover up the problems they were creating or they just went helter-skelter into economic development or whatever?
Ms. THOMAS. A little bit of all of that, I would say.
Development really took off in the Keys around the '50's and '60's, and that is when it just ballooned, and around about the '70's, people started thinking, gee, maybe there is a problem.
Wastewater has always been a local concern, and back then, the county was about 30,000 people, and so, the county did not keep up with the requirements that were on the books.
It has been illegal in Florida for a long, long time for cess-pits to be someone's primary sewage treatment option.
Mr. GILCHRIST. There was a long period of time when a good portion of sewage treatment plant construction and upgrades were paid for by the Federal Government, and nobody targeted the Florida Keys for that?
Ms. THOMAS. Well, Key West did a plant, you see, and one of the major population centers, especially at that time, was Key West. So, Key West was the target. We built a plant, and now we are doing upgrades, serious upgrades to AWT standards there.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Key West is historically the center of the Keys. The rest of the Keys dribbed and drabbed and dribbed and drabbed. The upper Keys are now exploding as a suburb of Miami.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Is there any effort to not make the same mistakes again?
Ms. THOMAS. Yes. We are, as I said, working on very strict growth restrictions at the current time. The county commission is putting together the plan and is committed to moving forward. So, yes, I think that times have changed.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary enactment was one of the big motivators, and actually, the Federal Government assisted us by providing the water quality protection plan within that piece of legislation.
So, now we have the science. We have—that is all convergent. We have a new commission at the local level. I think we are getting to the point where we are ready to move forward, and yes, there were years and years where a lot of people did the wrong thing.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you.
Ms. Savitz, I think I will just read this question.
Ms. SAVITZ. OK.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Why do you believe the MPRSA dredge material disposal standards to be more protective than the Clean Water Act dredge material disposal standards?
Ms. SAVITZ. The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act says that, for certain chemicals, which are defined in the act, that no more than trace amounts can be disposed of in the open waters, marine waters.
The Clean Water Act requirements are less stringent—standards are less effective. Testing requirements of the MPRSA are also more stringent.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
They require bio-accumulation testing, for example, which, as you know, bio-accumulation is a problem when you are talking about dumping a lot of these chemicals into open waters.
Unfortunately, this uneven playing field plays out in a way that I think directs disposal sometimes more towards inland waters than marine waters, and that can be a bad thing for our inland bays and estuaries.
Mr. GILCHRIST. This dumping incident happened about three years ago?
Ms. SAVITZ. Well, it not just an incident, actually, Congressman, it is a series of incidents. Disposal of sediments in Long Island Sound has been going on for about 25 years, in spite of the fact that they have never actually designated the site.
At least for the past 18 years, they should have designated a site, because that——
Mr. GILCHRIST. This is overboard dumping into the Long Island Sound.
Ms. SAVITZ. Yes, disposal directly into the open water in the sound.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Did the Corps have a permitting process? Was there a public comment period?
Ms. SAVITZ. Yes.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Did EPA and Fish and Wildlife and NMFS make comments?
Ms. SAVITZ. There is a public comment period and a permit. The problem is that there is no designated site, which is the requirement that they are sort of skipping.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHRIST. So, there is no designated site, so they just go out there and dump it somewhere?
Ms. SAVITZ. Well, it is designated—it is like there is the site, but there is no officially designated site. They do not go through the designation process required by law.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Has this stopped?
Ms. SAVITZ. No, it has not. As a matter of fact, most recently, disposal of sediments that were dredged out of a place called Mamaroneck were disposed of last, I think, February, during the winter flounder spawning season, and we have every reason to believe that this will continue until something is done about it.
Mr. GILCHRIST. It sounds sort of outrageous.
Where does the dredge material come from, and do you have an estimate of percentage of toxins in that dredge material? Is the dredge material 95-percent clean, 90-percent clean? Does anybody know?
Ms. SAVITZ. I am afraid I do not have that number, but I could probably get it for you. It comes from various Federal or non-Federal projects.
The one mentioned earlier was the Seawolf submarine site.
In Mamaroneck, it was actually a number of different sites that were accumulated together. Some of them are marinas. Some of them are larger harbor dredging projects.
Mr. GILCHRIST. How deep is the water that the material is dumped in?
Ms. SAVITZ. I do not remember that offhand, but I probably have it in here somewhere.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Would it be 100 feet, 50 feet, 200 feet?
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. SAVITZ. I think it is relatively deep. It is not shallow water. The sites have been used for a long period of time, and so, I think they are pretty much right in the middle of the sound, between the two land masses there.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Between Connecticut and Long Island?
Ms. SAVITZ. Uh-huh.
Mr. GILCHRIST. And so, the people of Long Island—does most of the stuff come from Connecticut?
Ms. SAVITZ. In the case of the Seawolf site, it came from Connecticut and was disposed of in New York. In the case of Mamaroneck, it came from New York and was disposed of in Connecticut.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. MacDonald, I think you said in your testimony that our bill, H.R. 1775, your recommendation is to include the Great Lakes into that legislation?
Mr. MACDONALD. Uh-huh.
Mr. GILCHRIST. So, it would not then be restore America's estuaries, it would then be restore America's estuaries and habitat around the Great Lakes. You do not think the Great Lakes program is sufficient to deal with the problems that they have up there now?
Mr. MACDONALD. No. In addition, I recommended that you change the definition. I think EPA recommended it, as well, to talk about coastal ecosystems, because there are estuary-like habitats in the Great Lakes that we think are deserving of this targeted support on restoration as a nationwide program.
So, we think that when you look at estuaries in coastal areas that you should also look at all the Nation's needs.
So, we do not think that it would be addressed by any particular area, just as the Chesapeake Bay programmer any of the other regionally-specific areas look at other issues, as well.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHRIST. That would sort of change the configuration of the regional councils, then. I mean it is not an impossible thing to do. I also would assume that we might want to increase the authorization.
Mr. MACDONALD. I think, as you look at that, expanding the scope of it, you might look to the authorization levels, as well, yes.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Will, do you have any parting thoughts about the future of the Chesapeake Bay?
Mr. BAKER. I could wax the rest of the afternoon on that, Congressman, but no, I think we have covered a great deal. Thank you.
Thank you for your leadership. I mentioned that before, when you were out of the room.
Mr. GILCHRIST. Did you see the recent article by Tom Horton where he was not exactly pessimistic, but the article from this writer from Maryland about the Chesapeake Bay estuary is that the only thing we have done, with all our effort over the last 20 years, is to keep the bay from degrading further. We just have not made a lot of progress in restoring the bay. So, I guess that is the effort we are about here this afternoon.
Any other comments from any of the witnesses?
[No response.]
Mr. GILCHRIST. I really want to thank all of you for coming here this afternoon and being patient with us and with your thoughts and recommendations for each of the various pieces of legislation, will go a long way in helping us do all of this the right way.
Without objection, I am inserting in the record a letter by a commercial interest from Connecticut in opposition to H.R. 855 and the statement of Nora Williams, Monroe County Commissioner, Florida, in support of H.R. 673 and efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Florida Keys.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows.]
[Insert here]
Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you all once again.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Insert here]