Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
CLEAN LAKES AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT (COOPERSTOWN, NEW YORK)
Monday, October 18, 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 9:30 a.m., at the Fenimore Art Museum, Lake Road (State Highway 80), Cooperstown, New York, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. First of all, I'd like to thank Jane Duel and the people in this magnificent resource for making it available for this very important hearing. I think my colleagues from across the country have been very favorably impressed, not just with this outstanding facility, but with this magnificent village. It is very appropriate that we have the hearing today, which is the 27th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.
Third, I would point out to my colleagues that there's a little packet—they can refer to it later on; it doesn't pertain to this hearing directly, but it has to do with our efforts to clean up the environment, and we'll discuss that, perhaps, on the plane going back. But I think it's easy for my colleagues from around the country to—and incidentally, let me point out, this is probably one of the best attended field hearings of any committee in the Congress of the United States.
My colleagues from California, from across the country, are all vitally interested in the subject matter, and that's why they're here. I must say it helps that we have such an attractive venue as Cooperstown, New York.
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on clean lakes and water quality management. The protection of America's lakes from the pressures of development, invasive species such as the Zebra mussel, and nonpoint sources of pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing our nation.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As the Chairman of the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee and a life-long resident of Upstate New York, I believe the shores of Otsego Lake is the ideal setting to discuss the protection of our nation's lakes.
Otsego Lake, referred to by James Fenimore Cooper as Glimmerglass, is not only one of the most beautiful lakes in America, it is also the source of one our nation's largest river systems, the Susquehanna.
In Washington, there is an active local campaign to protect the Chesapeake Bay from further degradation and as part of this campaign, signs are often placed near drains and in bathrooms that say emphatically, ''The Bay begins here.''.
I have no doubt this clean water campaign has been effective, but I must say it always brings a smile to my face as I think about where the Chesapeake Bay actually begins: Right here in Glimmerglass, in Cooperstown, Otsego lake.
I hope my colleagues from Washington who have been so gracious to travel here today think of Otsego Lake and Cooperstown when they see those ''The Bay begins here'' signs in our nation's Capitol.
We are honored to have with us this morning some of the nation's leading federal, state and local experts on water quality protection.
Representing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, Mr. Charles Fox. Mr. Fox has been a leader in water quality protection for years, and he brings a background that makes me feel particularly reassured about EPA's commitment to Otsego Lake and the Susquehanna River.
We are also honored to have with us Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Corps of Engineers for Policy and Legislation. Mr. Davis and his office have been working close with me in authorizing over $42 million in funding for the New York City Watershed, as well as increasing the Corps involvement in protecting Otsego, Goodyear and Oneida Lakes.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Joining from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Senior Deputy Commissioner Gavin Donohue. Mr. Donohue is going to outline for us the growing threat from airborne toxics, like mercury, which poses a serious threat to our state's waters.
On our final panel this morning, we will hear from those folks on the front lines of lake and water quality science. Joining us from the Biological Field Station right here in Otsego Lake is Dr. Bill Harman.
Dr. Harman will help focus our minds on water quality. We were going to have a lake tour this morning; it was a little bit chilly, so we had the briefing ashore. But it was a very valuable briefing early this morning, and I thank Dr. Harman for providing that.
Joining us from the RPI Fresh Water Institute is Dr. Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer, a leader in lake studies and science.
We're also honored to have Dr. Gary Lovett from the Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Dr. Lovett is going to share with us some of the growing body of science on the nexus between air pollutants and water quality impairment.
Rounding out our final panel is Mr. Lew Stone, who will share with us insights on EPA's clean lakes. Mr. Stone is President of the New York Lake Associations and is a leader in the New York American Lakes Management Society.
Protecting lakes like Glimmerglass for our children and their children is perhaps the greatest legacy any Member of Congress could hope for. The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, is developing clean water legislation to send to the President and this Congress. I now would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Water Resources Subcommittee, my good friend and colleague, Congressman Bob Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a great pleasure for us to be here with you today.
Mr. Chairman, for the last five years, we've sat side by side—not quite as close as we are today—in Washington as we deal with some very difficult issues. Our full committee, the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, prides itself on its ability to work in a bipartisan vein. I think it's worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that our subcommittee has the most difficult issues. When you're dealing with the environment, it is not always easy to find common ground. But I want to commend you for your great leadership in bringing us to a point where we can work together to try and address these very difficult issues.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It's a great pleasure to be here in your district and to just get a little glimpse of the beauty of this area. It gives us, I think, a better understanding of why you are such an environmental leader in the Congress, and we wish we could have more Members come in. But I would like to note, as you had mentioned earlier, this is a very strong showing for a field hearing. And Cooperstown, of course, is part of the draw, but the rest of it is the high esteem that your colleagues hold you. It's nice to note there are even more Democrats than Republicans, and that's because you are so highly regarded on both sides of the aisle.
Today we are examining issues of the restoration and protection of the nation's lakes. We have learned all too well that lakes which were once pristine are suffering from the effects of pollution; pollution from point sources such as homes and businesses; nonpoint sources, such as agriculture and dairy; and airborne depositions, such as acid rain, nitrogen and mercury.
No areas are immune from the effects of pollution. As New Yorkers well know, less than two months ago hundreds of people were affected by e coli contamination in drinking water at the Washington County Fair. As these people learned, protecting the quality of our rivers, lakes and groundwaters is of paramount importance.
I congratulate the Chairman for his tireless efforts to raise public awareness of the problems associated with water pollution and his commitment to solving these problems. In working with Chairman Boehlert over the years, he has repeatedly emphasized that there are no expandable resources to be needlessly wasted, through pollution or otherwise. That is why it is so important that we protect that which is pure and restore where contamination has occurred.
Of course, accomplishing these goals takes money. Unfortunately, federal spending for these programs has not been keeping pace with needs. In the next few years, I fear that money will be even more scarce as limits on federal spending are tightened. Perhaps this hearing will play a role in convincing leaders in Washington of the immediate need to invest in the quality of our lakes, rivers and streams.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Regardless of what might happen, however, I feel confident that in working with Chairman Boehlert the citizens of Cooperstown and entire Twenty-Third Congressional District will have no better advocate for clean water and a safe environment.
I look forward to hearing today's witnesses.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Borski. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I first want to thank you for holding this hearing and for this invitation to be with you. As you know, this is my third visit to Cooperstown. I came here 30 years ago, shortly after I graduated from the University of Tennessee. And then seven years ago, I brought my two sons; my older son on his 12th birthday, as your guest and the guest of Mr. Rich. And it's a pleasure to be back.
This part of Upstate New York reminds me a lot of my home area of East Tennessee, with all of its mountains and hills and lakes. And certainly the Clean Lakes Program and all of the surrounding clean lakes and water quality management, are very, very important to East Tennessee and to this entire country.
As Mr. Borski said, you have been a real champion of the environment and a real leader in the Congress, and I think this district is very, very fortunate to have a man like you representing them in the Congress. And it's a real privilege and honor for me to be here with you today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Chairman Boehlert, it's a great honor to be here today. I represent Nashville, Tennessee, Country Music USA. And this is my first time here at Cooperstown; I assure you, it's not my last time. The furthest I've been in Upstate New York up until now is West Point, but I assure you I will correct that problem, and I will come up here again in the very near future because it's absolutely beautiful. We have in Tennessee have many lakes and rivers. I am a former member of the TVA Board, and so we do a lot when it comes to flood control and navigation and to preserve our waterways. And we sure want to do that for the entire country. Thank you.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us agree that this is one of the most beautiful areas in the United States that we've seen. And as one who grew up on a farm, I'm very sympathetic to farmers and their needs. And as I go through the museum here and see the Dutch farm of 300 years ago in this area, and William Cooper in particular I'm interested in as a collector of books. Mr. Copper had 750,000 acres here, and that's larger than the King ranch in Texas. So you can imagine what this was when it was pristine, pure. And on the pristine purity bit, we obviously have to do something as a Congress in relation to the air pollution that goes across state lines from the north and from the west. So I would hope that we can work that into our various clean water aspects to make it also clean air, so we'll have even cleaner water.
And I commend our Chairman for the great respect he has within the Congress on both sides of the aisle and the leadership he's taken in the environment. And no one has worked harder than Sherry Boehlert, and it's a pleasure to be in his constituency.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Horn.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I too want to thank you for calling this hearing today and thank you for your leadership on this important issue. And not only on this issue, but many other issues that come before our Committee and the Congress. But for your leadership and Mr. Borski's leadership, working in a bipartisan way, our Committee would not have been able to pass the Superfund legislation out of our committee this year. And it was only because of your hard work and the hard work of Mr. Borski that we were able to accomplish pushing that bill forward to the full House of Representatives. It's a pleasure to be with you. I look forward for hearing from our distinguished witnesses today. And thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Tauscher.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Boehlert. Thank you for your friendship and your leadership. And I once again want to commend you and Mr. Borski for the kind of partnership that you have that I think exemplified the opportunity for those of us in Congress that believe that working in a bipartisan way is what the American people want us to do.
I represent, as you know, the San Francisco Bay area. We're not big on lakes, but we are big on the Bay. And we look forward to your leadership in helping us with our challenges there. We have nonevasive species issues there. Clearly, we have water quality issues. And thank you for your continued leadership on those issues.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. And just for our audience, I want you to know these are veteran Members of Congress; no newcomers in the crowd. Mr. Duncan Chairs the Aviation Subcommittee. Dr. Horn and Ms. Tauscher are from California. Mr. Costello is from Illinois. Mr. Clement and Mr. Duncan are from Tennessee. Mr. Borski is from the City of Brotherly Love in beautiful Pennsylvania.
Mr. BORSKI. And sisterly affection, too.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I do want to mention one other thing. Our Subcommittee has the reputation of working across the center aisle on a bipartisan basis. One of the most significant pieces of legislation in this Congress this year is a three-plus billion dollar Water Resources Development Act, which was signed by President Clinton on August 17th. And that is a direct result of the work of this Subcommittee. We reported it out, the full Committee did. The Congress approved it. The President has signed it into law. And that's just one example.
Reference was made to Superfund reform. Very important legislation. Our full Committee reported our bill—and I say our bill because it's the combined effort by a vote of 69 to 2, dealing with one of the most contentious issues facing the Congress now.
Let's proceed. Our first panel consists of Mr. J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water from the Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Policy and Legislation.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Gentlemen, you know the drill. Your statements will appear in their entirety in the record. At this point, we would ask that you try to summarize in order to leave ample time for questioning.
We'll start first with Mr. Fox.
TESTIMONY OF J. CHARLES FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Mr. FOX. I would thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real pleasure to be here. I started my professional career in water resources policy in 1982 working on Chesapeake Bay issues. I never made it up here, but this has given me a new respect for the enormity of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the real challenges that we face.
Today is the 27th anniversary of the Clean Water Act's enactment. Twenty-seven years ago, the Potomac River was too dirty to swim in, Lake Erie was dying, and the Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it burst into flames. Many rivers and beaches were little more than open sewers.
Enactment of the Clean Water Act dramatically improved the health of rivers, lakes and costal waters. It stopped literally billions of pounds of pollution from fouling the waters and doubled the number of waterways that are today safe for fishing and swimming. It is truly a remarkable success story.
Before I speak to Mr. Sweeney's Bill, H.R. 2328 regarding lakes, I'd like to briefly address the broader issue of the Clean Water Act Reauthorization.
As you know, key aspects of the Clean Water Act expired in 1994. Both your Subcommittee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have held hearings on a range of clean water bills. For example, both House and Senate Committees have considered bills to expand the federal funding for the existing state revolving loan funds established under the Act, a bill that was introduced by Congresswoman Tauscher.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
These bills provide significantly higher levels of federal funding of SRF's, and are critically important in achieving our nation's clean water goals. The Administration stands ready to begin a constructive dialogue on the appropriate and affordable long-term funding level for the SRF program.
Several other bills have been the subject of recent Congressional hearings. Although the Administration was pleased to provide comments on the specific provisions of each of the narrowly focused bills, I want to encourage the Congress to consider the need to strengthen the Clean Water Act in several critical areas that are not now the subject of proposed legislation.
For example, the Administration's proposal in 1994 called for strengthening authority to reduce polluted runoff, better protect wetlands, reduce toxic pollution and improve enforcement. But in addition, recent Court decisions have limited our ability to protect wetlands from the harmful effects of draining activities. As a result, we are losing literally tens of thousands of acres of wetlands. Indeed, our preliminary data suggests that we are losing more wetlands through this recent loophole that was created than through the entire permanent program.
Turning now to H.R. 2328, today there are simply too many lakes in trouble. States report that they assessed about 40 percent of the lakes and found that 39 percent of assessed lake acres are not meeting water quality goals. Leading causes of lake pollution problems are described in more detail in my testimony.
The good news for lakes is that many of the core programs now being implemented under the Clean Water Act to protect the nation's water generally are effective for protecting and restoring lakes. Some of the core clean water programs includes Section 319, Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program, the SRF Program, the Storm Water Permit Program, and the Total Maximum Daily Load—affectionately known as the TMDL Program.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Section 314 of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding for projects to protect and restore the quality of lakes. H.R. 2328 would authorize grants for the Section 314 program at a level of a hundred million dollars per year through fiscal year 2005, and it authorizes additional funding, approximately $40 million, for demonstration projects.
During the Bush Administration, the EPA stopped requesting funding for the Clean Lakes Grant Program. This action was partly a response to concerns about the Section 314 grant program and partly on the recognition that many of the new programs enacted in the 1987 amendment to the Act provided assistance comparable to that of the Clean Lakes Program. Today the combined effect of core national clean water programs and programs designed specifically to protect lakes are an effective and appropriate response to the water quality problems facing the nation.
In addition, given the funding restraints faced by the appropriations committees of the Congress, any new appropriations under proposed Section 314 funding are likely to deplete funding for the Clean Water SFR program and the Section 319 program. The SFR and 319 programs have been very successful and flexible tools, and we believe they should be our top priority for federal investments. Given these concerns, the Administration is opposed to H.R. 2328.
At this point, that concludes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. I am very pleased to be here on behalf of the Army today to talk about the Corps of Engineers' role in clean lakes and water quality. With me today is Mr. Doug Latie from our New York District Office.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman Boehlert, it is especially a pleasure to be here in your home state and your district. I believe you have the distinction of being the only Member of Congress to have four Corps of Engineers districts and two Corps divisions within your Congressional District, so I hope that's a good thing, but I believe you hold that distinction..
Mr. BOEHLERT. And I also hold the distinction of being the only member of Congress that houses the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Mr. DAVIS. It's also a pleasure to be here today with two fellow Tennessians.
Assistant Administrator Fox touched upon some of the problems and his testimony goes into great deal about some of the problems that the nation faces with our lakes and our water quality. What I'd like to do is focus a little bit on the Army Corps of Engineers and how perhaps the Corps can help the nation solve some of those problems.
For over two hundred 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 traditional missionary areas such as navigation and flood damage reduction. The Corps' environmental activities, however, have expanded over time with major changes in law, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, and in 1972 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is now often called the Clean Water Act.
In recent years, pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act and through the leadership of this Subcommittee, the Corps has elevated its environmental restoration and protection mission to a status equal to its flood damage reduction and navigation mission. With an overall objective to link economic growth with protection of the environment, the Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate and environmental expertise for environmental restoration and protection. In fact, I would submit to you that the Corps of Engineers is doing more environmental restoration around the nation than anybody else in the country.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Water quality management is an integral part of all Corps of Engineers civil works projects. Historically, the Corps' first water quality management activities were focused on addressing problems encountered at our flood damage reduction navigation and multipurpose dams. There were changes in water quality and other impacts as a result of a change from a free-flowing stream or river to an impounded lake or reservoir or the creation of large slackwater pools. These impacts were exacerbated by the subsequent development around these new bodies of water and their watersheds. Over time, the roles of many of these projects have changed or expanded to include recreation and potable water supply. Changes in environmental law and policy, and the increasing public interest in the protection, restoration and enhancement of our environment and water resources-related habitat have resulted in an expanded role for the Army Corps of Engineers in water quality protection and restoration.
New projects proposed can focus on the traditional purposes, but they also can focus on the restoration and enhancement of the environment. New projects will always include actions to minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts, including impacts to water quality. These same objectives apply to the manner in which we operate and maintain our existing projects throughout the country.
In addition to the need to effectively manage the existing Corps projects, beginning with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Congress expanded the existing authorities and provided new authorities to more effectively implement the missions of the Corps related to protection and restoration of the environment and water-related resources. Many site-specific projects to address the protection, restoration and enhancement of the nation's water, including water quality, have been authorized in water bills.
Some of the national and regional authorities that the Corps now has includes Section 103 program WRDA 86, which is the Upper Mississippi River Management Program, a very effective, a very successful program involving about seven states on the Upper Mississippi River. Our Section 1135 Program gives us the authority to go back and look at problems created by past Corps project and try to mitigate and address those problems from the projects. We have several of those going on in the State of New York. Our Section 204 authority, which allows us to take clean dredge materials from our rivers and harbors and create wetlands and use it for other beneficial purposes. A relatively new authority called Section 206, which was granted in the WRDA 96 bill, gives the Corps broad aquatic ecosystem restoration project authority, including the authority to go in and address water quality problems with our lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. Section 528 of WRDA 96 gave the Corps the mission of developing what is perhaps the world's largest ecosystem restoration effort in South Florida.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On July 1 of this year, the Corps of Engineers, along with others in the administration and in partnership with the State of Florida, submitted to your Committee a plan to restore the South Florida ecosystem, an $8 billion, 25-year road map for restoring this unprecedented ecosystem. And finally, one other authority, an exciting new authority that we have received in the Water Resources Bill of 1999, which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is a new program that we call Challenge 21. It gives the Corps an authority to go in and work very effectively with communities that have experienced repeated damages from flooding. It will give the Corps a new tool to go in and work with these communities, to get them out of harm's way and go back in and restore these flood plains for natural purposes of restoring wetlands and other riparian systems.
In addition to the civil works project authorities, we also have authority under the Clean Water Act. Along with the EPA, the Corps of Engineers administers Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act involving the discharge of dredged or film material under the nation's waters, including wetlands.
Water quality is an important consideration in an evaluation of each and every new permit that the Corps does. We know very well the important role that wetlands play in protecting and improving water quality.
As indicated by Mr. Fox, unfortuntately, today we are witnessing the serious degradation of water quality resulting from the ditching and drainage of wetlands, ditching and drainage that is unregulated because of the Circuit Court decision on the Tollack Rule. The Administration, including the Army, feels strongly that Congress should act legislatively to close this loophole that has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of wetlands each year.
Chairman Boehlert, I would like to thank you for your leadership and the things that you've done for the nation in terms of water quality and protection of the environment. Mr. Borski, thank you as well, and other Members of the Subcommittee. Your efforts have provided the Army Corps of Engineers many tools with which to address the nation's water resources needs. The Army embraces fully this role for the Corps of Engineers, and looks forward to working with you to improve such a role.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That concludes my statement.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And, as usual, you can expect some follow-up questions in writing after this hearing and we would appreciate timely responses.
We are going to devote most of our questioning time to our visitors. We see you, Mr. Fox and Mr. Davis, on a regular basis in Washington, and we have a constant interaction.
But let me start with you, Mr. Fox. You note in your testimony that the development of pollution pressures on our nation's lakes have never been greater. Then you go on to state that the Administration is in opposition to reauthorizing the only clean water act program specifically dedicated to restoring our lakes, the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program.
Can you sort of explain that seeming inconsistency?
Mr. FOX. We have, in this Administration, with the support of Congress, doubled the amount of funding into our Section 319 program, so that's a national program today of $200 million to deal with nonpoint source pollutions problems.
Fundamentally, virtually all of the activities under Section 314 would be eligible under Section 319, and the Administration simply believes that we should give the states the flexibility to use these dollars as they see fit and they shouldn't necessarily go down the path of dedicating certain parts of these funds to be used for certain kinds of resources.
Traveling around the country, there is no shortage of needs out there. I think our real challenge is to understand the state's role, which is different, and if we can give some consistent long-term federal support, we can let the states decide where their priorities should be.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Davis, you know, has been vitally interested in the New York City Watershed problem because the source of water for millions of New Yorkers that come from this Congressional district are up in the watershed town.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Can you sort of give us a status report? We pumped a lot of money into that, and rightfully so. How are we doing?
Mr. DAVIS. I guess, based on what I know, I'd probably give us about a C, if they were grading the effort. We are moving along. I think there have been some 23 projects identified overall; 12 on the west side of the Hudson, 11 on the east side. In this fiscal year, I think we're anticipating $1.8 million. We hope to sign about eight to ten project corporation agreements, or PCA's, to keep some of these projects or go to the next step on some of these projects.
I think the one issue that we have is, if you look at the list of projects that are out there, we do have some concerns with some of the projects that the state has laid out as their priorities. We would perhaps like to take a look at the that list and maybe reshuffle some things so we can focus more on actual restoration than some of the other things that have been identified as priority projects.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I would be glad to work with the staff and you on that, because we're trying to provide the resource from this Committee and Congress, and now we want the job to be executed in an orderly and timely fashion because it's too important to let any slippage occur.
Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fox, at least part of the problem here with water quality is air pollution blown in from the Midwest. What opportunities do you see for a more coordinated effort between the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act Programs?
And perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we should have Mr. Fox's predecessor here with us today to answer that question, and I hope the answer isn't that we have different committees of jurisdiction, because that makes it more difficult.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. Mr. Petrosky, who now runs the air program—in fact, is quite a baseball fan and has brought his two daughters up here I think at least twice, if not three times, to encourage them to take same path he has taken. The problem of airborne sources of pollution is, in fact, an ongoing problem. And particularly as we do a better job of controlling other sources of pollution, the air component becomes even more important. Here in this part of New York, mercury deposition, for example, is a very significant source of pollution. We are still doing some research to try and diagnose exactly where this is coming from, but certainly a lot of fingers are pointing to coal-fire power generation. And the agency is on course to make a determination by December of 2000 as to whether or not additional controls on mercury are going to be necessary from utilities. This, as you would imagine, is a potentially expensive and very significant step and so it is one that we want to make sure that we have the right data about in place.
On the question of acidification of the lakes, which is still something that's plaguing so many lakes in this region, frankly we've been stymied by some court cases recently, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find an administration who has led the way on air pollution control like we have. But we are finding ourselves in a very difficult time right now in trying to get additional reductions of nitrogen pollution, in particular, because of court cases.
We're trying to work very closely with states in as much of a consensus fashion as we can. Obviously, that does break down sometimes along regional lines. But we are continuing that effort.
Mr. BOEHLERT. If I may interject here. You're familiar with what New York State is doing, and we're trying once again to lead the way. And this also is a bipartisan basis. Governor Pataki has been very strong in this area, just made a major announcement within the past week, and the Attorney General of the State of New York, Mr. Spitzer. So you've got a Republican Governor and an Attorney General working much like Mr. Borski and I do in this subcommittee, because it's too important to let politics interfere. Thank you.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fox, let me just follow that. Do you see any need for any additional legislative tools to better address water pollution from airborne pollution?
Mr. FOX. At this time I don't. And I would appreciate the opportunity to take that question and give it some more thought. We are exploring a couple of pilot programs in the Midwest dealing with our TMDL program. And basically, if you find waters that are impaired primarily because of atmospheric sources, we are looking at different control mechanisms and how you would model the different pollution loads. Chesapeake Bay, in fact, they've done most of the outstanding work in this area, and they tried to quantify nitrogen inputs from the atmosphere, and they've done a very good job of doing that. And they are now able to predict what different air control strategies will yield for the Chesapeake Bay.
So far, it doesn't seem to be a legislative problem as opposed to some of the other challenges we face.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Fox, I know that even people that live in the cities and suburbs like to look at and live near small farms, and there's probably no group in the Congress that has more sympathy and support, I suppose, in the Congress than the small family farmer. And yet rules and regulations that are imposed from Washington seem to hit the hardest on the small farmer. And I noticed that Dr. Harman, in his briefing this morning, mentioned agricultural runoff or spilloff, and that's become a big issue.
How do we meet the balance of protecting our lakes, and so forth, without driving more small farmers out of business or out of existence?
Mr. FOX. That is a very difficult challenge, and particularly with the farm economy today the way it is. We have been focusing mostly on some of the bigger sources of pollution, and by that I mean the livestock operations: Hogs, poultry, dairy, cattle. And we've trying to work very closely with the Department of Agriculture to craft a balanced approach that emphasizes that the vast majority of these farmers would be dealt with through voluntarily technical means.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If you, in fact, though, are operating a large operation, what we would consider a factory farm, we do believe that it's appropriate that you enter the regulatory regime and we treat you not unlike we treat other factories because of the potential pollution problem associated with the large factory farm.
We've actually been very successful in New York State and in Pennsylvania. I know we've had a very good relationship with the states in this area. It is one that is still emerging, and that close relationship isn't necessarily uniform across the country. But I think that's going to be the single biggest problem, is dealing with these animal feeding operations.
Mr. DUNCAN. That's a good answer and I'm glad that you're trying to work on a voluntary basis with the small farmer and aiming at the more regulatory efforts at the bigger operations.
Mr. Davis, in a similar way, I know a few years ago I went to a home builders convention, and the National Home Builders Association told us at that time that if there was strict enforcement of the wetlands regulations in effect at that time, that over 60 percent of the developable land in this country would be off limit for development.
And I know development is a bad word to a lot of people, but also to many young families being able to build a home is a big part of the American dream. And you're getting ready to modify this Permit 26, it says to ensure greater protection of wetlands. Are you going to be able to do that in a way that we're not going to cause new home construction to double in price, where many people would be priced out of the market? Is that going to stop a lot of construction, do you think?
Mr. DAVIS. Congressman, I've been involved in this program of wetlands protection for 21 years and I've seen it evolve over that time frame. And we've seen a lot of fears in that time frame, and people had suggested that the sky is falling or development is going to stop. And I think history proves that that has not been the case as we've, over that 20-year period, tightened up, if you will.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I do not believe that the proposed changes that we have underway right now will do that, either. I think we've been very sensitive to the need for reasonable growth and development. At the same time, we were looking very hard at issues such as developing in the floodplain, for example. We spend about $4 billion every year in this country paying for flood damages, and perhaps the permit program that we've had in place in the past has actually created incentives to develop in the floodplain. So we're working to eliminate those types of incentives.
There will be more review required at times, perhaps a few more permits denied. But it will not stop home building. In fact, this Administration in 1995, we issued a permit, another general permit—not Nationwide 26 that you mentioned, but another for the development of single family homes. We realized that most landowners in this country want to do one thing with their property: They want to build a house. And we have a permit for that. Up to a quarter of an acre of land—or wetlands—can be involved for the development of a house. And that will cover about 90 percent of the landowners in this country.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I agree with you that we shouldn't be giving people incentive to develop in floodplains or along the costal areas. Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Fox, as is so often the case, we know how to take steps to improve water quality, but it costs money. The state revolving loan program is the greatest source of assistance to the state, yet recent budget requests have cut this program. Should we expect a cut in that program again next year? And if so, how can we make sure that those cuts do not happen?
Mr. FOX. I think the real challenge here is for us to find a bipartisan path to work towards a long-term funding for the SRF program. When Congress passed the 87 amendments, it envisioned that the SRF program would vanish in 1994 and it would not exist. This Administration has continued to provide funding for the SRF program, even after the authorization expired.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I really think the challenge is to craft a new authorization that provides this kind of long-term funding for the states and perhaps at an increased level.
I agree with you completely. This is probably the single most important program that we have for the states to improve water quality.
One of the challenges that I'd ask you to consider, as you move down the path of reauthorizing this, is providing the states with more flexibility to use these funds to help run some of their water quality programs. When Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, there were additional flexibilities that were included in that so that the states could manage their drinking water programs. We have so many new exciting opportunities, whether it's controlling animal feeding operations or TMDL's, that really are putting burdens on the states. So if we could find a way to give them the flexibility to use some of that money to run those programs, I think that would be a real asset.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Davis, is the Corps Aquatic Restoration Program broad enough to permit the Corps to assist in restoration efforts in areas such as where we are here, Upstate New York? And does the Corps have any experience or examples of any such efforts?
Mr. DAVIS. The answer to both questions would be yes. The authority is very broad, and in fact we do have some of our aquatic ecosystem restoration projects underway in New York State. I'm not sure if we have any in your district. I know we have some in the State of New York.
And so yes, we do have some experience. We have a pretty good track record of doing this. It ranges from very small projects; five or 50 acres to hundreds and thousands of acres. We do have a pretty good record.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. I would point out, and as counsel reminds me, this is Jeff Moore's home county. His home is few miles from here. We have funding for Otsego Lake, which you saw this morning, and Oneida Lake, which is the largest lake in New York State entirely within the state. And that's also part of my Congressional district.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd be curious, Mr. Fox, has the Environmental Protection Agency taken a position on H.R. 25, which has to do, as you know, with reducing acid deposition in the Clean Air Act.
Mr. FOX. I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't know the answer to that question, sir.
Mr. HORN. I'd like Mr. Chairman, for them to make a statement in the record at this point.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Duly noted, Mr. Fox. Please respond in a timely fashion.
Mr. HORN. The reason I ask about that, is here's a very strong letter from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supporting strong support, as it says, for H.R. 25, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act. The legislation will help address a longstanding serious problem for the Chesapeake Bay, the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen.
And as you may know, nitrogen pollution is perhaps the single largest pollution problem faced by the Bay. And as much as 30 percent of the nitrogen reaching the Bay comes from the sky.
Now, obviously we have both in Congress and in the Executive Branch, bureaucratic entities that have pieces of this: Water, air. And what can we do to bring that together, since it's clear that the nitrogen from the west and the north is affecting our lakes and its water quality?
Mr. FOX. We are continuing to do some modeling to try and determine more specifically what that actual impact is. I know that the numbers you cited for Chesapeake Bay, I've seen similar numbers for Long Island Sound, as well as some other East Coast estuaries down in North Carolina.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think the ultimate solution here is going to be part of the ozone solution as well, and that we're going to have to, as a nation, do a better job of controlling all of these different air pollutants that cause this wide range of environmental impacts.
Mr. HORN. We have charts in our briefing book on this from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program and National Transnetwork. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. FOX. Yes, I think those are our charts from EPA.
Mr. HORN. So it seems, as you read it, that it's pretty clear that that's a major problem.
Mr. FOX. I would agree.
Mr. HORN. Is the Administration planning to do something about it?
Mr. FOX. Well, without turning this into an air hearing-- one of which I, perhaps, am not as experienced as I need to be on—but I know that we had a number of steps that we had proposed to try and further reduce nitrogen oxide inputs to the atmosphere. I mentioned briefly, we were frustrated a little bit by a recent court case, and we're trying now to find some common sense conclusions so that we can, in fact, get a handle on this. But all the data suggests, as you say, that we need to do a much better job of reducing these sources of pollution.
Mr. HORN. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, there was language that authorized $15 million in protection of the New York City watershed. Is it true that the Administration is not including one dollar in subsequent budgets to protect the water quality of lakes and reservoirs that provide drinking water for nine million Americans? What's happened on that?
Mr. FOX. I don't know enough about the specific issue to give you a definitive answer. I can get you more information. I can tell you that in general the EPA has spent a lot of time and energy working with the City and the State in the watershed to protect the water supply for so many millions of New Yorkers. That specific provision, we have not requested the requested funding for. I am aware of that. But that doesn't suggest, I don't think, that our commitment to it is any less.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. Horn: So the EPA has not sought the funding. It's not a case of being cut off by OMB?
Mr. FOX. That's what I'd like to just check on.
Mr. HORN. Okay. If we could, Mr. Chairman, let's have an exhibit at this point in the record as to who killed Cock Robin.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me point out, Dr. Horn, that while the Administration didn't ask, Congress gave. And because of our efforts, we have $10 million in this year's VA-HUD Independent Agency Appropriation bill. Our colleague, Congressman Walsh from Syracuse, the Chairman of that subcommittee, was very helpful.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davis, the Corps has significant responsibilities and opportunities for protecting water quality. The wetlands program under Section 404 suffers from a major shortcoming because of the inability to regulate draining activities.
I wonder if you might talk a little bit about the importance and the important role that wetlands play in protecting being water quality, as well as the need to protect wetlands from draining.
Mr. DAVIS. We have lost about 50 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 states, some 105,000,000 acres, and as a result of that our water quality has deteriorated, been diminished. We have more flooding. Fish and wildlife habitat has been diminished, leading to threatened and endangered species. It's well documented in the scientific literature the important role that wetlands play in terms of purifying water and reducing flood damage and providing habitat.
We have a very good success story to talk about in terms of wetlands protection. If you look in the 1970s, we were losing about 500,000 acres of wetlands a year. As a result of the Clean Water Act 404 Program and programs that states are bringing on line, we have reduced that loss rate to about a hundred thousand acres a year. So I think this is one program where we have actually really good data probably to show that these public programs are, in fact, working.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We do have a very serious problem today, however. As a result of the court decision in Tulloch, unregulated ditching and draining is occurring throughout the country, and particularly in the southeast where we're losing tens of thousands of acres.
It seems interesting and almost implausible to us that we could be regulating half-acre, tenth-of-an-acre wetlands fields, when five- or six-hundred-acre wetlands are being drained legally, if you will, because of this loophole that's been created from this court decision. So that seems to be our single biggest challenge today in terms of continuing the progress that we've made over the last 27 years under the Clean Water Act.
Mr. COSTELLO. One other question. I know the Administration has an ambitious plan for addressing the problems facing the Florida Everglades in WRDA 2000. Are there going to be new Corps initiatives focused on improving the quality of our nation's lakes as well?
Mr. DAVIS. We do not have any specific initiative right now in terms of lakes, but they certainly fit under the broader aquatic restoration and protections that the Corps had. When we look at our protection—well, environmental protection mission, it's not just wetlands; it certainly includes rivers and streams and lakes. We're also looking at a recreation initiative, which would include lakes as a component. The Corps owns some—or manages 13 million acres of lands, 9 million of which is water, or most of that is lakes. So we do have a very, very big lake component within the Corps, and certainly we would administer that in a manner that protects that the best that we possibly could.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Costello. Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davis, in the 1999 WRDA Act we established the Challenge 21 Watershed Restoration Program. How do you see that program assisting in the protection and restoration of lakes and water quality generally?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DAVIS. I think there's a very clear and strong nexus between the Challenge 21 Program and water quality, clean lakes, clean rivers and healthy wetlands systems.
First, I would again commend the Subcommittee for its leadership in providing the authority that the Administration had requested.
Challenge 21 has two fundamental pieces, and both are required. One is that we want to get communities out of harm's way. We want to go into communities where people live in the floodplain, have businesses in the floodplain, and move them out. This is where communities are coming to us; it's not the federal government going in and saying you have to move. It's communities coming to us, ''We want to do this.'' So we work with FEMA, work with other agencies to get people out of harm's way.
But the second piece is where we can go back in and we can restore wetlands in that floodplain that once occurred there, which will improve water quality. We can restore aquarian vegetation that will help water quality. We can restore rivers and streams that may have been straightened before some attempt at reducing flood damages in the past. So there is a very clear connection between clean water and Challenge 21.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Great. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And thank both of you for your testimony. Once again, we will back in touch as we get back to the nation's Capitol.
Our next panel is a panel of one, Mr. Gavin Donohue. Mr. Donohue is Senior Deupty Commissioner for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and someone with whom this Subcommittee enjoys an outstanding working relationship.
He is number two to Commissioner John Cahill of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, who my colleagues will recognize as a frequent source for this panel and testimony.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Donohue, the floor is yours. And you know what the deal is: We ask that you to try to summarize in five minutes or so, so we'll have some time for questioning. We do appreciate your being available as a resource and we enjoy an outstanding relationship with you and your agency at the state level, because we think the states are the laboratories and they can give us the best guidance. And I'm sure your heart was warmed by hearing the previous panel's testimony that they want to give states more flexibility. That's something you've been arguing for for a long time.
The floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF GAVIN J. DONOHUE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a pleasure in the past day or so to meet the rest of the Congressional delegation and the members of this Committee that deal with the issues that your staff and we talk about so frequently. To hear their perspectives on issues is a real educational tool for myself, and I really appreciate this opportunity on behalf of Governor Pataki and Commissioner Cahill.
Many of the many things for which New Yorkers are renowned, the abundance and the quality of our surface waters-- lakes, streams and rivers—are among the highlights. Within DEC, Department of Environmental Conservation, we have worked aggressively for nearly three decades to protect and improve the quality of these water bodies.
While our achievements have been tremendous, work still needs to be done. We recognize that the actions which need to be undertaken to further enhance the quality of our surface waters cannot be done by New York State alone. Congress, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, and other states must be involved as well.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In all of our efforts, you have been a tremendous partner. With the support of your colleagues in the New York State Congressional delegation year after year, you have led the fight to enact federal legislation needed to restore the quality of our most damaged water bodies and to preserve the quality of healthy water resources.
The growing body of evidence demonstrates, however, that New York's lakes continue to be threatened by factors outside of the state's control. Airborne pollutants from sources to the west of New York State continue to impair lakes that otherwise would be pristine. Invasive species are a constant concern to New Yorkers who both enjoy and make a living through their interactions with New York's lakes.
This morning I'd like to address both of these issues as well as the need for federal funds authorized to the Clean Water Act.
Over the past 30 years, scientists have collected evidence demonstrating that air pollutants can be deposited on land and water sometimes at great distances from the original sources of pollutants. The airborne transport can be an important contributor to the declining water quality of surface waters through direct deposition or through eventual deposition resulting from nonpoint source pollution and groundwater into which the pollutants might leach.
These air pollutants can have undesirable health and environmental impacts; contaminating fish, generating harmful algal blooms, and making drinking water unsafe.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, last Thursday you joined Governor Pataki, Senator Moynihan and Congressman Sweeney and environmental groups from across New York State in endorsing a new, statewide initiative to further reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen that have ravaged water bodies in sensitive areas of this State. These reductions follow nearly two decades of action by the State of New York to save the woodlands, lakes and streams of the Adirondacks, Catskills and Hudson Highlands from the devastation of acid rain.
Unfortunately, in this fight we have not been supported by the federal government. EPA has been unwilling to assert its authority by requiring controls on smokestacks in upwind states which are at least as strict as the requirements New York has placed on its own utilities. We wish that all states shared this commitment to protect sensitive natural resource so that upwind states will not enjoy an economic advantage which results from the damage they cause to our environmental quality here in New York.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As Governor Pataki said last week, we must have intelligent and effective national legislation to fight acid rain. Your commitment to this issue, along with Congressman Sweeney and Senator Moynihan, is viewed with tremendous enthusiasm by New Yorkers.
But we must bear in mind that other air pollutants also are responsible for impairing the quality of New York's waters. Just last month, the National Wildlife Federation released a report which dramatically catalogs the danger posed by airborne mercury to our surface waters. This report, ''Clean the Rain, Clean the Lakes'', documents the contamination caused by mercury to the Great Lakes region. Ironically, Midwestern states—those same states which so strongly oppose controls on their smokestacks—are seeing the highest levels of mercury contamination in their Great Lakes resources, according to this report. Because exposure to mercury can result in brain damage, many Great Lakes states have issued formal advisories warning people to limit consumption, or avoid entirely eating certain species of fish caught in their lakes and streams.
Mercury deposition has been documented in New York as well. A 1996 report which the Massachusetts Institute of Technology prepared for DEC and others, including the Empire State Electronic Energy Research Corporation, analyzed the spatial distribution of particulate mercury levels in the State. By examining the trajectories of pollutants, this report found high mercury concentrations at five sites which received air pollution from the west and north. The MIT report concluded that Canadian and Midwestern sources appeared to be large contributors to New York's mercury deposition problem. Seasonal variations in mercury pollution matched well-known seasonal variations in SO2 pollution as well.
Similarly, EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced on September 24, 1999 new efforts to reduce direct discharges of toxic chemicals into the Great Lakes. In making this announcement, Administrator Browner noted that emissions from coal-fired electric power plants account for approximately one-third of all mercury air emissions. This finding is consistent with other scientific reviews.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
While a growing body of scientific evidence shows that airborne pollutants transported from other states and nations causes great damage to New York State's environment, New Yorkers feel frustrated that other states and the federal government do not share our concern. On a separate but related issue, the emissions which case acid rain, Commissioner Cahill and I deeply regret that the Midwestern and southeastern states ceased recent negotiations that would have reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by nearly one million tons annually. Through these negotiations, we hoped to avoid protracted litigation, improve the quality of our air, and avoid the deposition of air pollutants to our lakes, streams and lands. While New York State will continue to take those actions available to us—as Governor Pataki's announcement last week to dramatically cut emissions from New York State utilities demonstrates—the need for Congressional action becomes more urgent every day.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, nonindigenous invasive species have become established throughout the waters of the United States, causing economic and ecological degradation to the affected near-shore regions. Zebra mussels are present in the Great Lakes and inland waters, including the Hudson River and Lake Champlain. Other exotic species infestations, such as the mitten crab, brown mussel, ruffe, Eurasian, watermilfoil and hydrilla, occur throughout US waters. If preventive measures are not nationwide, the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species will continue in marine and fresh waters.
Within New York State, we are undertaking a number of ecologically appropriate activities to control populations of invasive species. In these efforts, Congressionally- appropriated funds have been an invaluable asset, as has legislation such as the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. Congressional guidance has provided the foundation on which our efforts to protect New York's surface waters from nonindigenous species are based, while federal funds have enabled us to pursue these and other activities.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Round Goby: We are in the process of promulgating a regulation in New York to ban the use and possession of goby for bait on waters and banks of all New York waters, except our Great Lakes resources, where these fish are already present.
Zebra Mussel: Using federal funds, DEC is monitoring changes in the aquatic community, such as the abundance of zooplankton and fish, and fish growth rates in several Finger Lakes as part of the Aquatic Nuisance Species program.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan: We are updating New York's Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan with federal funds. New York was one of the first states in the nation to have an approved plan, which has served as a model for other states' plans.
In discussions with other states, New York has learned that there is interest in restoring appropriations through Section 314 of the Clean Water Act, or potentially earmarking a specific percentage of Section 319 for Clean Lakes activities. Funds that Congress has appropriated to New York State through Section 314 were critically important to the success of several lake studies and implementation projects. Such projects have been extremely useful in developing the management plans that serve as the focal point for many DEC activities and as a basis for many Department-wide environmental initiatives and implementation programs, such as the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the Environmental Protection Fund, which has infused tremendous amounts of money into locally-driven environmental benefits projects, and demonstrated Governor Pataki's overwhelming commitment to New York State's environmental quality.
For example, the Lake Champlain Management Plan and Conference, which drives interstate and international management activities within the Lake Champlain basin, used diagnostic feasibility studies generated within the Section 314 structure. The successful restoration and ultimate rebirth of Saratoga Lakes could not have been implemented without the Phase I and Phase II Clean Lakes projects. Aquatic plant management tools developed within the Phase II project on Lake George have been used by local communities and lake managers throughout the state. Many other projects have resulted in improved water quality, increased usage of these water bodies, and improved public involvement in and support of environmental stewardship.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Currently, EPA encourages states to use Section 319 funds in part for Clean Lakes projects. Unfortunately, in New York State, the demands on Section 319 funds have not allowed for funding of Clean Lakes projects. Of the amounts authorized under the Clean Water Act, initially Section 106, Section 314, and Section 319, the nonpoint source pollution, could be used on projects to protect water quality of lakes. For the past several years, however, funds have only been appropriated under Sections 106 and 319.
As an alternative to a reinfusion of funds under Section 314, I strongly urge you and your colleagues to consider increasing authorization levels for the broader and more flexible base program grant under the Clean Water Act. Appropriations for this program, authorized pursuant to Section 106 of the Act, have not kept up with the increased program demands. By increasing appropriations under this Section, Congress could allow states to target monies for particular problem areas, and enable us to best address the water quality issues which are more important to all of us. In addition, using this approach would effectively and appropriately limit EPA's administrative oversight while providing the states with the funds and the flexibility which they so greatly need.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, as Governor Pataki recognized last week in his announcement to further cut emissions from New York's utilities, your leadership in protecting the State's sensitive areas from the tremendous damage caused by acid rain is unparalleled. By holding this hearing today, you are demonstrating that your interest in protecting the State's lands and waters from airborne pollutants goes beyond the acid rain issue. Your assistance in Congress, through measures to protect New York State's waters from the damage caused by airborne contaminants and invasive species, is clearly needed and greatly appreciated.
Commissioner Cahill and I look forward to our continuing working relationship. And I would be happy to answer any questions now.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. And I particularly appreciate—and I know Members of this panel do—your eloquent plea for Section 106, which is the State Revolving Fund. That's something that Mr. Borski and I are vitally interested in, and Ms. Tauscher one of leaders in Congress, along with Sue Kelly of New York, getting the reauthorized funding.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A couple of things. First of all, you mention in reference Senator Moynihan. Senator Moynihan is a resident of this congressional district and I've enjoyed an outstanding working relationship with him for many years. He points out that I'm his Congressman and he answers my questionnaire. And he also says—you'll get a kick out of this one—he puts a stamp on it; he doesn't use the frank.
And we have packets for all the panel that we'll be discussing following this hearing.
And the other thing is, New York is not one that points a finger at someone else and says, ''You know, you've got to clean up your act.'' We started cleaning up our act here at home, and I'm very proud of that program that was announced this past week by the Governor. Californians have come to expect that from their state, too, providing leadership in these issues.
You tell how us how New York State can address the air pollution problems impacting water quality within our states. But what if the air deposition comes from outside the state? Then what do you do?
Mr. DONOHUE. That is a difficult question. We in New York at the agency level have worked for the past—I don't know—eight, ten months with various environment groups; Adirondack Council, Audubon Society, many other groups that are really leaders—League of Conservation Votes, Environmental Defense Fund—on trying to come up with something we could do in New York to impact New York facilities while not impacting the sales of the utility companies' items, but show leadership from a state perspective, so that when Commissioner Cahill or I come to this Committee and ask for your legislation and support in Congress, we can turn to New York and show what we have done in New York to clean up our own facilities, what we have done on a regulatory basis through our general powers under the Clean Air Act to force electronic generators and New York State to ratchet down their emissions to a way so that we can come to you and talk to other Members of Congress from other parts of the country to express our support for your legislation in a way to show that we're doing what we can to cut our emissions rates.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. I think I know the answer to this one; it's probably as apparent as the nose on my face. But the first panel, Mr. Fox and Mr. Davis—you heard them talk about the SRF—the two SRF's, one safe drink watering and the other one. Do you think they should be interchangeable? Do you think the State should have that flexibility?
Mr. DONOHUE. We believe that—you know, and again we've had a continued working relationship with your office and other Members of Congress where you have, in the House, been very supportive with New York projects. And we feel that the cooperative relationship from the State working with your Committee, or the flexibility of the State to issue these grants, knowing what we believe to be in the New York State what's in the best interest of cleaning up our rivers and lakes, we're the best ones to make that decision.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We compliment you on your testimony. It's very well done. I also send my regards to Mr. Cahill and Governor Pataki for their leadership on these issues.
Let me ask you this: The federal spending caps that we're struggling with in Washington do limit the opportunity for greatly expanding federal grant programs. Are we sending federal dollars to the right programs or should we rearrange where the dollars go?
Mr. DONOHUE. I think we're sending the money to the right programs. Of course, there is never enough money. And there are certain programs dealing with lakes and rivers that need to be enhanced and boosted, and I think—I don't want to reiterate what Mr. Fox said, but more money would be better. I think the complexity of air pollution and the way it's being transported and, I guess the public interest in air pollution and the impact that air pollutants have on the water bodies, we need to be a little more innovative, I think, at a state level and a federal level to come up with programs to—you know, we're very good at addressing the in-the-water problem, but we're not very good at addressing the pollution and the results of that from an air pollution standpoint. So I think we have great programs in the SRF and wonderful clean water programs, but I think we need to, as a State and as a federal government, look to expand our air pollution protection programs.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BORSKI. I asked Mr. Fox whether he thought we needed any more tools.
Mr. DONOHUE. Just to further expand, I think we need more tools to develop more programs that work on a regional basis to impact air pollution. I think the significance of acid rain and the impacts that I have seen firsthand here in New York, and the fact that we really haven't been able to get much done on a national or regional basis, is very alarming. I think the more people understand that, the more focus and the more pressure will be on the federal government to do more in the air pollution arena.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Both Mr. Borski and I know one of the problems in the Congress is, you have jurisdictional problems. We have water and the Resources Committee has air, and I think we should be doing more talking to each other because pollution is a major problem that should involve us both working cooperatively, not each trying to protect their turf and not daring to venture into someone else's area.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have any questions, but I know Mr. Dohonue has done a good job in pointing out what I know are very serious problems. But I will mention one other problem from another direction, and that is: In the last quarter, we had a trade deficit of $87 billion, which is an annual rate of almost $350 billion. And all the economists tell us that we lose, conservatively, 20,000 jobs per billion. If we keep that up, that means seven million jobs to other countries.
So unfortunately, most of these jobs that we're losing are manufacturing jobs. So I think that our challenge is to find a way to do something about these problems that you've pointed out, but in such a way that we don't run all of our industry and manufacturing out of this country.
I know it's a sore point with some people in New York and some parts of country that a lot of industry for many years is moving down south. But I can tell you that now all over the country, industry, when it's starting to move now, is not looking so much south as it is looking to move to other countries.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks for that observation, Mr. Duncan. The good news from New York's perspective is that jobs are moving back to New York. Over the last couple of years, we've had rather substantial growth in employment opportunities. And it gets into the taxing question, which is an entirely different subject for a different hearing. But New York is becoming more business friendly, lowering taxes rather than increasing taxes. Thank you very much for that comment.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. You've already answered one of my questions, which is if you feel like we needed any additional legislation to better address water pollution from airborne pollutants. But I would like to follow up: How would you rate the level of cooperation that New York receives from Midwestern states? Positive steps?
Mr. DONOHUE. You really want me to answer that?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question.
Mr. DONOHUE. You know, I talked a little bit about the negotiations that Commissioner Cahill led at Administrator Browner's request with the commissioner—whose name escapes me at this point—from Ohio, to try to come to some sort of negotiated settlement on air pollutants. And you know, as Congressman Boehlert mentioned, the whole regional divisions and the politics of regional divisions, and we talked a little bit about this last night with the impact on the rates. And I think what Congressman Duncan said, and the impact on jobs, really plays a lot into air pollution and addressing air pollution and the politics of air pollution. So, to answer your question briefly, the cooperation with the Midwestern states, they have a vested interest in—you know, generating energy cheaply and to what they believe to be efficient and protective of the environment. We have a different position on that. I think, as we can always see when the Commerce Committee is controlling air, you having the water jurisdiction, there needs to be more communication between these two committees, because the impacts impact three-fold.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So the cooperation hasn't been the best and it could be better. We made a good faith effort, but some things we just can't resolve in a negotiated settlement, I guess. So I think unfortunately, to resolve this issue in a way that's beneficial to everybody, I think we're going to end up in court.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point I'd like the one-page summary of H.R. 25, your Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act, put in the record at this point.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. HORN. And you mentioned H.R. 25 several times, Mr. Donohue, and we appreciate your testimony. I guess I'd ask you, have you had a chance throughout the state government to look at H.R. 25 and what is the reaction of the state government? Do you have any changes you would like to see made? How do you feel about it?
Mr. DONOHUE. At this point, we would like to see the bill as it is adopted into law, if we had our way. And what Governor Pataki announced last week and I spoke about, is the provisions of the Boehlert/Moynihan legislation but on a state-wide level. So by the Governor doing what he did last week and showing that leadership, clearly shows how strongly he supports it. And we've worked behind the scenes and written letters to this Committee and other Committee Members about the need for this legislation. So we strongly support H.R. 25 and we hope it will get adopted as soon as possible.
Mr. HORN. Well, I have great respect for your Governor. I've heard him a number of times before our Committee on government reform, and he's done a great job in explaining to us, along with three governors we did over two days of testimony, explaining to us how New York has cut taxes and brought industry back to the state. So we're glad to hear that.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Horn. Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Donohue has already answered two of my questions. I just want to compliment you on your testimony today and thank you for being here.
Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Donohue, does the National Governors Association have any specific subcommittees or panels that could help this problem between the different Midwest states, perhaps, and these issues? I know that our Governor in California, Ray Davis, has worked closely since he came into office in January to shake up the Governors Association and kind of make more relevant some of these committees. Is that a way for perhaps something to be moved forward?
Mr. DONOHUE. Absolutely. We are very active in NGA. I can't recall off the top of my head what committees the Governor is chairman of, but we have, at the staff level, worked quite aggressively with NGA and other national groups. I actually gave a speech last week at Cleveland with the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and a major focus of the speech was the regional acid rain deposition issue. But those groups certainly help build consensus, and they do it at a technical staff level outside of the political arena. And they've been very helpful, one, as an educational tool for someone like myself. But, two, just to really air out the issues on the merits. And as we are very active in those groups. And, as you know, Washington is full of national organizations, and we welcome any opportunity we have to sell our message and what we believe needs to be done here, we take advantage of it.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Good. I yield back.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Donohue, and thank the Commissioner for making you available.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our third and final panel for the day is a public panel consisting of Mr. Lewis Stone, President, New York Federation of Lake Associations for the North American Lake Management Society; Dr. Bill Harman—and Dr. Harman early this morning provided us with a briefing. Dr. Harman is a professor at the State University of New York through the Otsego Lake Biological Field Station. We have Dr. Sandra A. Nierzwicki-Bauer, Director of RPI—that's Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute—Fresh Water Institute, out of Lake George. And Dr. Gary M. Lovett, who's a plant ecologist out of Dartmouth College. He's with the Institute of Ecosystem Studies.
Mr. Stone, you can proceed. We ask that you—first of all, your testimony will appear in its entirety in the record. At this juncture we ask that you try to summarize in five minutes or less to leave time for questioning.
TESTIMONY OF LEWIS STONE, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK FEDERATION OF LAKE ASSOCIATIONS, INC.; BILL HARMAN, PROFESSOR, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK; SANDRA A. NIERZWICKI-BAUER, DIRECTOR, DARRIN FRESH WATER INSTITUTE, RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE; AND DR. GARY M. LOVETT, PH.D., INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES, MILLBROOK, NY
Mr. STONE. Okay. I think I'm the only person who never got the groundrules. I have to admit I did not know that there was going to be five minutes; not that I'm going to talk much longer than that. But I don't think I really got the groundrules. They may have to Wisconsin, but they never got to me.
Anyway, I thank you for the opportunity to testify for the Committee. As the Chairman said, I'm Lewis N. Stone. I'm President of the New York Federation of Lake Associations; we call it NYSFLA. We are also the New York Chapter of the North American Lake Management Society, which is NALMS.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, you did honor us at NYSFLA a year and a half ago when you were our keynote speaker at our conference, and I want to thank you publicly for taking the time to come and speak to us.
NYSFLA is a nonprofit, all-volunteer association, and that's the important thing why I'm here today. I appear to be the only volunteer on the panel, and probably therefore the least knowledgeable of any of the panelists here. But our mission is to protect the water resources of New York State by assisting local organizations and individuals through public dialogue, education, information exchange and collaborative efforts. We are volunteers and we help other volunteers. People who care about lakes in New York State and all around the country are very strong advocates for bodies of water in this country.
NALMS is also a non-profit, all-volunteer organization. It actually takes in North America, including Canada and the United States. And its mission is to forge partnerships among citizens, scientists and professionals to foster the management and protection of lakes and reservoirs for today and tomorrow, and it has many objectives.
Basically, I'm appearing here today on a very narrow issue. I mean, I've heard all of these other bills and all of these things, most of which I am not knowledgeable about, I have to admit. But I am here today seeking reauthorization of the Clean Lakes Program Section 314. That's the one that we talk to in NALMS.
Lakes big and small serve as dynamic engines that drive local economies. They are unique resources most worthy of preservation and conservation. They provide recreation for millions; they provide employment for thousands, and they provide visual relief and pleasure for each one of us. They are part of ecosystems that support varieties of plant and animal life, many unique and sensitive. Many lakes are abundant fisheries that ensure adequate supplies of fresh water fish for sport and consumption.
But the quality of many of our lakes, as all of you know, is slipping because of many factors, including storm water runoff, acid rain, nutrient and wastewater excesses, and exotic species incursions. Our lakes need to be protected, and we volunteers stand prepared to help government do that. There is certainly a very strong multiplier effect when you take in all of the free labor and all of the free activities that you get from volunteers. And we can help local government. Of course, one of the things that we like to do we do is help, but we do need resources. We recognize that thing.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'd like to just read briefly the opening of the statement made by Lisa Conley, who is the Government Affairs Co-Chair of NALMS, and she asked respectfully that this Subcommittee support reauthorization of the Clean Lakes Program.
This program was a uniquely effective, cost-efficient federal program that provided seed money to state lake programs and to local communities for protection and improvement projects on public lakes.
The EPA has combined the Clean Lakes Program with the Section 319 Nonpoint Pollution Program. In our opinion, this has not worked, and the Clean Lakes Program is drying up.
The 314 Clean Lakes program has not received separatefunding since 1994. As a result, the special needs of lakes beyond watershed remediation are not receiving program attention and funding. The Clean Lakes Program focused on the whole lake ecosystem, as well as the watershed. Degraded in-lake and shoreline habitat, acid rain, wetlands loss, nuisance exotic species, nutrient recycling and fishery imbalances are examples of problems the Clean Lakes Program helped communities address. These problems are not traditionally covered under 319 project guidelines and have not competed well for 319 funding. Watersheds are crucial elements of any lake, but they are not the whole answer, and without attention to these other issues, the goals of fishable and swimmable public waters cannot be met.
We respectfully ask for the Subcommittee support of 314 funding. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Dr. Harman, once again, let us thank you on behalf of the entire Subcommittee for the briefing you gave us this morning. It was rather brisk out there, but it was very educational and I do appreciate that.
Dr. HARMAN. Thank you so much. And we really appreciate you coming to Cooperstown and giving us a chance to discuss the items, the issues that we feel are of greatest concern regarding the degradation of our lakes as economic and ecological resources.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'm going to address Otsego Lake specifically, since we're now on its shores. It's the lake closest to my heart and professional experience.
To the casual observer, Otsego Lake appears to be in better condition than dozens of the regional lakes we have studied and a majority of others throughout the entire nation. However, long-term monitoring documents the extent to which it has deteriorated. Therefore, I speak for all our inland lakes and those deriving benefit from them, as I describe the situation in Otsego.
As you know, the Clean Lakes Program was originally created to mitigate problems of degraded lakes and to protect those with relatively good water quality such as Otsego. But Otsego Lake, like every lake, has other unique dimensions that should be considered despite its comparatively good water qualities.
Limnologists classify lakes into two distinct types based on size, shape and the potention for them to provide resources necessary for the growth and productivity of aquatic organisms. The first group, oligotrophic lakes, those with low productivity and well oxygenated deep water, that can maintain cold-water fish like salmon and trout. They are extremely susceptible to excess nutrient loading. The second, or eutrophic lakes, are those with naturally high productivity, are devoid of fish in deep water in the summer because at that time all oxygen is lost from those deep waters, making it impossible for oxygen-dependent organisms to survive. This class of lakes is comparatively resistant to the cultural pollution that we've talked about to begin with.
Otsego is in the first group, but because of its small size for that type of lake, it can be easily moved into the second even by small amounts of pollutants. That also means that it's quickly responsive to management efforts and serves as an excellent example for techniques that could be potentially used elsewhere.
Otsego Lake is the headwaters of the Susquehanna River and therefore symbolically and ecologically serves as a reference sites for all downstream areas in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Indeed, it is the only standing body of water in the Susquehanna River Drainage Basin that maintains cold-water fish like lake trout, broth trout and Atlantic salmon. We expect it to have the best water quality in the drainage basin, the one that all downstream waters should have the potential to attain.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Lake, known as the Glimmerglass in James Fenimore Cooper's writings, and surrounding areas are notable in American history and literature, important enough for its entire 15,000-acre viewshed to be included in both the State and Federal Historic Registers.
Otsego Lake is a proxy for a great number of medium- sized inland lakes in temperate regions because its problems have been exhaustively documented and represent those found universally. Thee are many more lakes that haven't been studied; however, the same problems can be expected to be found when they are examined.
These are: Excess nutrient loading from nonpoint sources; and, two, the presence of introduced exotic organisms. There are many other concerns, but these two are well documented as having the most negative impacts and lead directly and indirectly to all recognized problems affecting Otsego Lake's water quality.
Excess nutrient loading in Otsego Lake is manifested by aggressive algal and rooted aquatic plant growth, reduced clarity, loss of oxygen in deep water, diminishing biodiversity, added expense to the production of potable water, and reduction of aesthetic and recreational potential. These concerns can be technically managed with a host of engineering strategies to directly reduce nutrients, and with land use planning methodologies in an attempt to modify social behavior contributing to nonpoint source pollution. All of those, of course, cost money, as you all know.
In Otsego, the greatest problems caused by exotic organisms involve the introduction of the aquatic plants Eurasian milfoil and curley-leaved pondweed, and most significantly the forage fish, the alewife. They are responsible for recreational problems where plant growth impacts boating and swimming, and exacerbates the nutrient problems mentioned above. Additionally, we have lost fish and invertebrate fish-food species of ecological, recreational and commercial importance. Without mitigation, under the present conditions, we could very possibly lose the cold-water salmonid fisheries.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Introduced exotics should be managed by prophylactic measures before invasion actually takes place. While we are currently dealing with our introduced species, prophylactic actions are of great local concern because of Otsego's proximity to other exotic invaders, such as zebra mussels—which I've already mentioned—spiny water fleas, water chestnuts, and a host of others. After introduction, mitigation is always expensive and often ineffective.
To address these concerns, we've been busy locally. The community has developed the databases to document the problems. There's been continued environmental monitoring to assure our recognition and understanding of the current status of the lake and to enable us to be responsive to changes that occur, including responses to management efforts and their applications. There's been a management plan created to document local citizen, government and agency recognition of the problems and recommendations for monitoring and correction when resources become available. And we've organized a team of local private and public organizations and agencies willing to lead remedial activities in areas of their responsibility or interest.
Illustrations of the actions being implemented include: Limnological and hydrological monitoring with local, private and State University of New York funding; federally funded Agricultural Best Management Practices with local funds being provided by our local Otsego County Conservation Association; the employment of a lake manager using New York State resources in combination with a mix of local, state and federal dollars and services through the Otsego Lake Watershed Council and the Natural Resource Conservation Service; and a series of additional lesser activities in the watershed using state and local resources.
Those watershed actions that still need be addressed include wetlands reclamation and construction of sediment basins to reduce nutrient loading. We are anxious to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address this issue, and did so until a Project Study Plan was completed. Unfortunately, it became apparent that it may be more feasible for us to proceed with local engineering resources to maximize the benefits from available funding. Local matching fund requirements for the Army Corps work appear to be greater than the entire project would cost if we were to take care of those costs locally. We are maintaining communication with the Corps in the hopes that the situation may be altered in a way more favorable to our continued partnership.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Development of local land use regulations that better address problems of nutrient runoff are also imperative. Other problems that don't impact Otsego Lake, such as acid precipitation and pollution by hydrocarbons, pesticides and toxic wastes, are special needs for many lakes and are extremely important for you to be considering.
All of the above watershed-oriented activities are important, and can be potentially addressed through federal programs. However, those resources are not available for in-lake mitigative actions that also must be implemented to affect degraded habitats, aquatic nuisance species, nutrient recycling and fishery imbalances.
Mitigation of these above needs requires improvement of sanitary waste disposal systems; aquatic plant control—which is really a subset of our exotic species problems; navigational use regulations and no-wake zones to reduce in-lake nutrient cycling and habitat degradation; hull washing facilities to intercept exotic introductions; and fish stocking for water quality purposes. These actions are of national concern and are not currently receiving adequate federal attention.
Let me provide one example. Historically, we had large populations of crustacean zooplankton—little shrimp-like critters—efficiently harvested planktonic algae in Otsego Lake, keeping algal densities low and water clear, despite moderate levels of nonpoint source nutrient pollution. The lake also maintained large populations of cisco and lake whitefish. Both were known as Otsego bass and provided valuable commercial and recreational fisheries.
A herring-like forage fish, the alewife, was illegally introduced into Otsego lake in the mid 1980s, we assume because it is excellent lake trout forage. Alewives are also voracious and highly effective crustacean zooplankton grazers. As a result, through their introduction, we lost our cisco due to competition for food and predation of fry and lake whitefish because of trophic changes and fry predation.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The crustacean zooplankton populations have crashed. Since those crustaceans no longer harvest significant amounts of algae, lake clarity has declined despite our efforts to control algae through reduction of nutrient loading. So now we must devise some way of reducing a large alewife population. The only apparent feasible technique may be by using predatory fish. Lake trout cannot control alewives since much of the summer the lake trout are restricted to the deep waters that we talked about this morning, and the alewives are reproducing up near the surface. Brown trout and Atlantic salmon have some positive effects, burt still aren't high enough for the water column to reach the preponderance of the alewives.
Shallow-water fish, like bass and pickerel, eat the alewives that move into the plant beds near shore, but have no impact on alewives that stay in open water. Walleye, a fish that was present in Otsego Lake in the past and provided an excellent recreational fishery, could follow alewives everywhere and possibly control them. Walleye were lost, apparently because the cisco—that we talked about earlier that had been inadvertently introduced years ago—preyed on walleye fry, precluding successful reproduction of those animals.
So, if we were to stock walleye now, could the population be sustained under present conditions? Could they reduce the alewife population? No one knows. And since fish stocking has traditionally been used to enhance recreational fisheries, not improve water quality, poly concerns must be addressed as we move towards solutions.
I am sure that any lake studies exhibit problems at least as complex as Otsego's. To help Otsego Lake, the headwaters of the Susquehanna/Chesapeake Bay Drainage Systems, and all other inland waters, I urge passage of H.R. 2328, a bill reauthorizing the Clean Lakes Program, Section 314 of the Clean Water Act.
And I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf our inland lakes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Our next two panel members, Dr. Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer, connected with the RPI Fresh Water Institute, and Dr. Gary M. Lovett, Institute of Ecosystem Studies.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And while the panelists are taking their chairs, let me point out that sometimes the best of intentions go awry. When we originally scheduled this hearing, we did so on a Monday, fully expecting that Congress would not be in session. Congress will be in session, and we have to leave to get back to Washington much earlier than anticipated.
So two things I would ask: One, that you summarize, as we've asked other witnesses, your statements in approximately five minutes. And two, we'll have consensus questions from the Chair for the Panel as we try to juggle here. And we've got to get back to Washington, D.C. And the bells are going to start ringing. And that's life in the big city.
Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer, you're up.
Dr. NIERZWICKI-BAUER. Good morning, Chairman Boehlert and Members of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on a matter vital to all of us: Clean lakes and water quality management. I'm Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer, Director of the Darrin Fresh Water Institute at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York.
Since 1968, the Institute has conducted basic and applied research as well as educational programs in freshwater biology, water quality assessment and environmental science.
Let me begin by posing two questions. Why are lakes and streams so important? And why should we expend so much time, money and energy to preserve or recover their quality? The answers, as you well know, are economic, recreational, ecological and aesthetic. The threats to the health and viability of our lakes are manifest. Chief among them are three threats: Acid deposition, aquatic non-indigenous species, and pollution from nonpoint sources.
My purpose today then, is to briefly describe these threats and to stress the important role of long-term data gathering and monitoring as we attempt to help reverse the damage that we have already caused, and to prevent further damage from taking place. We cannot begin to understand or hope to reverse the environmental trends that make our lakes and streams so vulnerable without rigorous scientific documentation of such insidious threats. Our strategy must be proactive.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Close to us here in Cooperstown is the Adirondack Mountain region of New York State. This region contains more lakes and streams affected by acid deposition than any other region in the U.S. The ongoing effects of atmospheric deposition on the Adirondacks have had serious consequences for the tourism and timber industries, as well as for the quality of life of all New Yorkers.
Many of the lakes and streams in the Adirondacks are slowly dying from constant and relentless attacks of air pollution. Studies show that more than 20 percent of the Adirondack lakes are dead, and more than 50 percent are highly acidic.
Nearly a decade ago, in 1994, Congress authorized and funded a research program, the Adirondack Effects Assessment Program, AEAP, at the Darrin Fresh Water Institute to study the status of acidification in the Adirondack region and to determine the factors involved in future effects and/or recovery.
This program has provided the only biological data baseline in the Adirondacks. This examines bacteria, algae, invertebrates, fish and aquatic plants in 30 lakes in order to assess the recovery of lakes from acid rain. This program also supports a comprehensive watershed study to define the effects of nitrogen deposition in the Adirondack region. Also, the program has provided support for the only National Deposition Program monitoring sites that are located within the Adirondacks. Collaborators on this project are numerous, involving the scientists from the Department of Environmental Conservation, USGS, SUNY Syracuse, SUNY Oswego, and others. This program will provide four years of watershed data and eight years of lake data for areas in Herkimer and Hamilton counties where acid deposition has been most acute.
Thanks to the recent efforts of Congressman John Sweeney, we will be able to expand the geographical focus of our work on acid deposition and extend the duration of these studies. This will allow us to extend scientific lake data to be collected for a total period of up to ten years, which is a minimum amount of time necessary to accurately access recovery. These data will enable elected officials to make well-informed decisions that address vexing problems related to acid deposition.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Another significant threat to the vibrancy of our waterbodies is the introduction and proliferation of non-indigenous aquatic species. One biologist has described exotic species as the least reversible of all human impacts on the natural environment. Lakes dear to many of us in this room have been practically destroyed by milfoil. Here in New York, as well as in many other places, zebra mussels have had a significant impact on numerous types of power plants and industrial facilities, as well as recreational waterbodies.
Water users in the Great Lakes alone spend tens of millions of dollars to monitor and control zebra mussels every year. More than 20 states have reported zebra mussels in their lakes, and it is expected that most North American bodies of water that can support them will be infested within several years. In the U.S., zebra mussels cause an estimated $5 billion a year in economic damage, a number that continues to escalate.
To control them, we need to develop cost-effective and sensitive methods for their detection using modern technologies. Also, we need to invest funding towards identifying environmentally safe and effective biological controls for zebra mussels as well as other non-native aquatic species. We need to prevent their additional introduction of new non-native species and prevent their spread.
Another major threat to our lakes is pollution from nonpoint sources; that is, diffuse sources of pollution carried to lakes and streams by stormwater runoff, which often includes wastewater. Nonpoint source pollution from urban and agricultural runoff is the largest single source of contaminants to many lakes. Many scientists are actively involved in carrying out research on biological, chemical and geological aspects of surface and groundwater. It is now essential that results from basic studies be integrated into stormwater assessment and management plants.
Fresh water, representing less than 1 percent of all of the water on earth, is perhaps our most vital resource. It affects health of all human and other biological systems. If unchecked and unmonitored, the threats to our lakes and streams will only get worse. In order to improve our understanding of water quality and water management, we must strive to understand the intricate relationships between socio-economic systems and natural systems. That's why vigilant monitoring as well as basic and applied research by scientists with backgrounds in various disciplines is so important.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Can some of our unhealthy lakes recover? Probably. Will all of them recover entirely? Even with our best efforts, probably not. But it's essential that we act to prevent further damage to these fragile, life-sustaining ecosystems. Properly using and managing fresh water is one of the most critical issues for the 21st Century.
As a biologist, I have seen dead lakes. Very few organisms are growing in them, and you will not find in such lakes many people fishing, swimming, boating. These are silent places, more like cemeteries than vibrant hubs of human and biological activity. They sadden us and diminish our lives. Our children as well as the natural world deserve a worthier inheritance. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you for the impact of your closing statement. We really appreciate that.
Dr. Lovett.
Dr. LOVETT. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for inviting me to talk to you. I am Gary Lovett and I am with the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York, and I do research on air pollution and forested watersheds. And that includes streams and lakes that are at the bottom of those watersheds.
I'd like to point out, first of all, that the Institute of Ecosystem Studies is a scientific organization, not an advocacy group. I would also like to say that in the witness list, I'm listed to have an affiliation with Dartmouth College. I did graduate from Dartmouth more years ago than I would like to admit, but I don't have any further affiliation with Dartmouth.
In the interest of time, I just want to summarize. You have testimony there in front of you. I just want to summarize quickly what I'd like to say.
I want to talk about the linkage between air pollution and water pollution. And there's one simple point here, and that is that you can't have clean water until you have clean air. And I think that as soon as we drive that point home, then the message becomes clear that you have to cooperate across disciplinary lines in science and across jurisdictional lines in the Congress in order to solve the problem.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Just three examples of that, all of which you've heard a little bit about today. Once is acidity, another is mercury, and another is nitrogen. We don't have to talk about, I don't think, the sources of acidity in the atmosphere, the burning of fossil fuels. I think everyone knows that. You probably know that the Clean Air Act Amendments have caused a reduction in sulfur emissions, and I think we ought to all be proud of that. That's an environmental success story, that has resulted in a reduction in sulfur deposition. It hasn't, unfortunately, resulted in an improvement of the acidity of many of the lakes in the Adirondacks and Catskills and other areas of the U.S.
The reason why that hasn't happened isn't totally clear. It appears to be a reduction in the buffering capacity of the soils due to years of acid deposition. So it's pretty clear we still need research on the causes of this lack of recovery. It is pretty clear that if we're going to have a quicker recovery of our lakes, that we need further reductions in sulfur emissions.
Mercury is a related pollutant in that much of it is released from burning in coal-fired power plants. It acts very differently, though. It's not a direct water pollutant in terms of our drinking water because it's not in high enough concentration, but it bioaccumulates up the food web, and you have probably all been exposed to that. Therefore, eating fish, either by humans or by other animals that eat fish, it becomes a neurotoxin and is extremely dangerous. And you know, probably, that mercury is the toxin in fish that causes the greatest number of fish advisories in the U.S. While we, as humans, can choose not to eat mercury-tainted fish, other animals that eat fish, like loons and eagles, don't have that choice. And they also suffer from mercury as a neurotoxin.
And the third issue I wanted to address was nitrogen. Nitrogen is related to acid rain in that it's emitted through fossil fuel combustion in power plants, but also more than sulfur, it's released through tailpipe emissions as well. And so it has a little bit different distribution of sources, and it's more complicated in the environment, since it's a major plant nutrient. But it is clear that in recent years, especially in the last 20 years, we've seen increases in nitrate—which is a form of nitrogen—nitrate leaching from many watersheds in the Eastern U.S. But not only in the Eastern U.S.; we've seen that in the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee; we've seen it in the Poconos of Pennsylvania; we've seen it in the Front Range of Colorado; and also we've seen nitrogen pollution around the Los Angeles area of California. So this isn't just an eastern problem.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Nitrogen, nitrate in particular, when it gets into stream water, has several deleterious effects. It is a toxin in drinking water, usually at higher concentrations than you'd reach from atmospheric deposition alone, but it is a toxin in drinking water. It is part of the acid rain problem, so it leaches nutrients out of soil in the same way that sulfur emissions do. And it causes eutrophication in downstream waters, like we've heard about the Chesapeake Bay today. Many other downstream costal waters are subject to nitrogen—excess loads of nitrogen are causing eutrophication of the Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, Naragansett Bay. And so that is a serious problem.
I just want to—all three of those examples show us that air pollution is linked to water pollution. We can't solve one problem without solving the other.
And I just wanted to finish up by saying that the scientific results that give us the information that I just told you about are all from long-term monitoring programs, and those long-term monitoring programs are constantly subject to cutbacks and reductions in funds, probably because they're easy to cut; they're sort of quiet programs. They think that if the cuts are made there, that there won't be any noise made. But those are the most crucial programs for understanding what's going on with our environmental pollution and also managing our natural resources. And, in fact, trying to manage the nation's natural resources without an effective national environmental monitoring program is, I think, reckless behavior. And we have—there's a framework for a national monitoring program that has been suggested by a consortium of agencies. The program seems to be dying some sort of a slow death of a thousand cuts, or whatever. But it seems to be faltering, anyway, and I don't exactly know the reasons why that is.
We certainly need to continue the monitoring efforts and enhance them, and we need research on important questions, like: Why are we not recovering from acid deposition in the way that we expected? How does mercury bioaccumulate in the food chain? And what causes the release of nitrate of surface waters?
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thanks very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to thank all of the panelists for serving as resources to this Subcommittee. I think to a lot of people the ways of Congress are often mysterious and they wonder how we do things. Well, we do things just exactly the way we're doing it today. We have a public hearing. We invite people who are expert in their field and we listen. And I must compliment all of you being skilled in anticipating our questions and in your testimony, all of which is part of the record; I know you summarized.
You anticipated many of those questions, so I thank you very much for that. It's very helpful to all of us. We don't want to be guilty of any reckless behavior, so let me give you a softball question to start, and I think Dr. Harman will jump right in.
Do we need funding with greater federal resources for biological monitoring stations like the one we have here in Cooperstown Dr. Harman?
Dr. LOVETT. Yes, I think chemical monitoring is way ahead of biological monitoring in the country, especially for surface waters. And we need more focus on biological monitoring. We don't have any idea about the recovery of biology in response to reductions in acid emissions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I assumed you'd say amen to that. Where do you get your funding, Dr. Harman?
Dr. HARMAN. Most of it comes from the local community, to give you the bottom line. We have been monitoring for quite a few years locally. Our oldest data starts in 1848. But for the last 40 years, we have been monitoring intensively at the biological field station, and we have had federal monies, the EPA Phase I Diagnostic Feasibility Study, and so forth. But that was enabled by local funds and your support, of course—and we thank you for that. But the local community has been the source of all of it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer, can you outline now RPI is interacting with both state and federal agencies in their efforts to learn more about lake water quality?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. NIERZWICKI-BAUER. Sure. We have a number of different programs, and I guess our involvement with either the state or the federal government depends upon the specific program. In the example with our zebra mussel work, we have received funding from New York State Sea Grant to carry out that work, looking at molecular methods for more rapid, accurate identification of young veligers and potential usefulness of this to reduce the cost of treatment in power plants that are impacted.
We also have a very strong working relationship, even at our facility, with scientists who are employed by the Department of Environmental Conservation. And the USGS is located at Rensselaer's Technology Park. So we have collaborations and arrangements with all of those groups. We've received federal funding—as you may have noted from my testimony—from the EPA, as well as a number of other sources for acid rain research, as well as in many instances receiving support from foundations.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Stone, one of the real problems we have is that so many of our fellow Americans take for granted the notion that our lakes are just fine and dandy, no real problem, we don't need any investment of public treasury in doing anything differently. Because if you drive down the highway and you look at a beautiful lake, and you see they're magnificent, particularly up in the Adirondacks where we have such problems, where 20 percent of the lakes, as has been stated, are dead.
What's been your experience with NALMS, your group, with regard to public interest in lake water quality? Are you able to energize the public?
Mr. STONE. Let me speak from the local level first, because that's where I started. I've been involved with the Lake George Association, which is an organization that goes back 114 years, I guess, now, that had been concerned about Lake George, which of course is, as far as we're concerned, a unique lake and that's where the Darrin Fresh Water Institute is located.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We were fortunate that we haven't had that many problems there, but it's very difficult. The basic problem is that we can get the volunteers interested; it's very hard to get the local politicians interested. That's one of the reasons that I happen to be running for office for the third time. As a Democrat it's very tough in Warren County.
But we need to get cooperation. I mean, from what they tell me, if you look at a dead lake, it's very attractive to people because it's clear. You don't see any algae, as far as the lake public is concerned. But it's in serious trouble.
I think the public is not as involved as it should be unless their literal backyard is involved. And I see that in running for office. People care about money and their backyard, and it's very hard to get them to extend their backyard, even to the rest of the town, much less an area as wide encompassed by many lakes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Do they sort of feel that their voice doesn't count, they're just one voice?
Mr. STONE. Yes. In fact, I was at a neighborhood group, and all seven of us who were talking to this group were saying get involved. Go to town board meetings, go to planning board meetings, go to other meetings and make your ideas known, because there is no exclusive on ideas. And we were trying to encourage them to add to the process, and eventually we will get the right solution.
Mr. BOEHLERT. My colleagues—and I'm in my 17th year in Congress—frequently will say to me, ''Why are you involved in environmental issues?'' Because I am proud to be an activist. And, one, I say, it's the right thing to do because people expect us to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. But secondly, the people I represent are very involved. If I wasn't involved, they'd get me out of office and get someone else involved. Because people in this area—and this community particularly—are very actively involved.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. STONE. Well, I'm very pleased to hear Representative Sweeney's name mentioned so much. He happens to be the other party and I didn't necessary support him at the beginning, but I think he's doing a fantastic job of trying to lead or help lead this fight for the environment. And I congratulate him for that. And we hope to work with him even more. Because I think we have some very active representatives in New York State: Yourself, Representative Walsh and Representative Sweeney. I think we can do a great deal. And I think the people will there, if given the opportunity, but you've got to get the prod to make them aware that there's a problem.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I can speak for all my colleagues. People say well, I'm not going to write my Congressperson. That doesn't make a difference. It does, too, make a difference. And I can tell you, we all pay attention to mail. We don't necessarily agree with it, but we pay attention to mail.
So I would encourage you to keep up your missionary work, if you will, supported by some of the documentation we have from some of our great experts in the field, because this is very important business. And that's the reason why this subcommittee is in this community on this day. It is a very important subject and we're going to deal with it in a responsible manner as we go forward.
It's been mentioned many times that we have H.R. 25, which is the emissions reductions bill that Senator Moynihan and I have co-sponsored. You've mentioned Congressman Sweeney's bill. We've indicated to you that this panel, Ms. Tauscher is leading the way on refunding the State Revolving Fund. Every single member of this panel up here is personally involved in this area. So I think it's very important.
Let me ask, Dr. Horn, did you have any observation you'd like to make?
Mr. HORN. Just one question I'd like you to answer. And Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer, maybe you could do it the best. We have charts on where the deposition of nitrate ammonium and so forth are. And if you look at the producing states, such as Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, they suffer in parts of their states, such as New York suffers. New York suffers even a little more as it's coming in from the west and the north. And I just wonder, what's the best way to start building environmental groups in those states to do what we did in Southern California? We had very strict air pollution rules. That doesn't mean we've gotten rid of everything, but the fact is 30 years make a major difference. And it used to be our eyes just were bleeding red. And I wondered along that line as well, have you ever correlated any of these areas where they have heavy concentrations with some of the health data in terms of cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer? Is there any relationship to any of these cancers, which there's hundreds of them? But we seem to have a plague in this country. And I just wondered if there's a group of people in ill health, one disease or the other, in this area, and the degree to which you've matched those data that's easy to get from Atlanta and the HSS, Center for Disease Control.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. NIERZWICKI-BAUER. I can't give you a good answer to that because we haven't tried to match those data. I don't know if Dr. Lovett has any knowledge.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That's something to pursue, though.
Mr. HORN. We definitely ought to pursue that.
Dr. NIERZWICKI-BAUER. That's a good suggestion.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Before concluding, just let me make one last observation. People will always say, well, what's all this about? You come with a congressional hearing to Cooperstown, New York, and you hear some experts give some opinions and some facts. What do you do with it? The answer is, we're going back to Washington and begin immediately on a Water Resources Development Act for the Year 2000. As you know, we this year authorized that bill which I mentioned earlier in the hearing, three billion dollars, in a very environmentally friendly piece of legislation, and everyone's fingerprints on this panel are on that. And the President has signed it into law.
We're not going to wait two more years to do a second bill; we're going to do one in the year 2000. And that's going to be one of the first items of business for this subcommittee as we go back in January after the end of this session.
Let me once again thank all of you for anticipating our questions, being comprehensive in your response to them, being available as resources to the Subcommittee. We are fellow missionaries doing good things for the right reasons, and we appreciate it.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]