UMRBA Update

October 5, 2001

Washington News

• Ballast Water---On September 27, EPA issued a request for comments on a draft report entitled Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options. The report comes in response to a January 1999 petition that called on EPA to regulate ships’ ballast water under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In considering the petition, EPA explored both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to controlling aquatic nuisance species (ANS) in ballast water discharges. In the draft report, EPA recommends that it take a variety of specific actions to promote development of effective ballast water treatment technologies and prevent species introductions. These actions include several steps to promote research, provide technical assistance, maximize compliance with existing National Invasive Species Act (NISA) regulations, foster government-shipper partnerships, encourage national consistency, and review federal actions related to ANS under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, on the matter of regulating ballast water under the NPDES program, the report recommends "deferring consideration." According to the report, "the effectiveness of other programs, including the level of compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard’s program under NISA, will be a factor in EPA’s future consideration of this issue." EPA is accepting comments on the draft report through January 11, 2002. The report and related information are available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/petition.html.

Committee Action

• EPA Cabinet Level Status---At a September 21 hearing, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs heard a variety of perspectives on elevating EPA to a cabinet level department.  None of the Congressional members or outside witnesses who testified argued against such a move.  Instead, the focus was on whether EPA elevation legislation should also address reorganization and reform of the agency.  As subcommittee Chair Doug Ose (R-CA) noted "elevating EPA to a cabinet level department will not, in and of itself, change the agency’s size, jurisdiction, or effectiveness."  However, Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who has been working to elevate EPA to cabinet level status for 10 years, warned against getting sidetracked by other environmental issues and controversies.  "Only a straightforward, clean elevation bill can make it through the process. This has been the message I’ve been receiving from the Administration and many in Congress and I believe they’re right."  Conceding that the symbolism of elevating EPA can itself be useful, a number of witnesses, including Clarence Davies, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, urged Congress to use the opportunity to make a number of substantive changes.  In particular, he argued that the legislation should also give EPA a statutory mission, seek to integrate federal environmental statutes, improve EPA’s use of science, enhance environmental monitoring systems, require better evaluation and economic analysis of environmental programs, encourage innovation, and increase EPA’s international role. Witness testimony is available at http://www.house.gov/reform/reg/hearings/index.htm.

• Farm Policy---On September 26, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee to outline the Administration’s views on food and agriculture policy. It was primarily an opportunity for her to discuss the report released the week before entitled Food and Agriculture Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century, which sets forth the Administration’s principles for developing policy related to trade, a farm safety net, agricultural infrastructure, conservation and environment, rural communities, nutrition and food assistance, and program delivery systems. The report’s principles for conservation include sustaining past environmental gains, accommodating new and emerging environmental concerns, designing and adopting a portfolio approach to conservation policies, reaffirming market-oriented policies, ensuring compatibility of conservation and trade policies, coordinating conservation and farm policies, and recognizing the importance of collaboration. Citing a "current imbalance favoring land retirement," the report calls for a broader mix of approaches to conservation, including stewardship incentives for working lands, conservation compliance requirements, and regulatory assistance. This has become particularly important, according to USDA, as conservation objectives have grown beyond reducing soil erosion to include protecting water quality, wetlands, and wildlife habitat; conserving water; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Veneman’s hearing testimony is available at http://www.senate.gov/~agriculture/Hearings/Hearings_2001/September26__2001/september26__2001.html and the report is available at http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/farmpolicy01/fpindex.htm.

• Wetlands Permitting Process---On October 3, the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing to take testimony from farmers, landowners, and wetland consultants on the fairness of the Section 404 wetland permitting process and their experiences working with the Corps of Engineers and EPA. In describing the purpose of the hearing, Subcommittee Chair John Duncan (R-TN) said "a growing number of Congress members have been approached by their constituents who fear that the federal agencies have lost a sense of fairness and rationality in carrying out the wetlands program.…Many potential witnesses were sufficiently frightened by the actions of the agencies that they declined to come forward and participate in the hearing. A consistent theme was articulated: they feel overwhelmed by the government, they are almost out of money and hope, but believe if they tell their story the agencies will only make it worse on them." Abuses cited by witnesses were related to wetland determinations, enforcement actions, and agency arrogance. Colonel Michael Walsh, Executive Director of the Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Directorate, defended the Corps’ permitting actions, stating his belief that the Corps acts "fairly and equitably in carrying out its responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." In describing the Corps’ approach to enforcement actions, he noted "the reality is that only 1 percent of all enforcement actions result in any kind of civil or criminal penalty. The vast majority of violations are resolved by after-the-fact permits and voluntary actions by landowners. Only in extreme cases does the government pursue litigation and fines. These highly publicized cases have mostly involved individuals who have clearly disregarded Clean Water Act requirements." Background on the hearing and some of the witness testimony are available under Hearings/Testimony of the Water Resources Subcommittee at http://www.house.gov/transportation/.

• Science at EPA---On October 3, the House Science Committee marked up H.R. 64, "Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act," approving the bill as amended in May by the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards. H.R. 64 establishes environmental science and technology research as a central mission of EPA and directs that such research "be used to help initiate, formulate, and carry out the Agency’s agenda." The bill creates two new EPA positions: Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology and Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. The qualifications and responsibilities of these Presidential appointees are also described. A copy of the amended bill and statements of the Committee Chair and bill’s sponsor are available at http://www.house.gov/science/full/fchearings.htm.

• Infrastructure Security---On October 4, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing to address the question of who’s in charge of protecting critical infrastructure. Although the hearing had been scheduled prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the issue obviously took on new meaning and urgency in light of those events. While the hearing focused primarily on cyber threats, some witnesses addressed physical infrastructure threats as well, noting that many of the physical systems are controlled by information and communications systems that are vulnerable to cyber attacks. Among the critical infrastructure are water supply facilities. Frank Cilluffo, Co-chair of the Cyber Threats Task Force of the Homeland Defense Project, cited the October 1987 threat to blow up the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River as an example of the vulnerability of the nation’s water supply. Testimony is available at http://www.senate.gov/%7Egov_affairs/100401witness.htm.

• Arsenic in Drinking Water---On October 4, the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards held a hearing on the science, benefits, and costs of regulating arsenic in drinking water. In January 2001, the outgoing Clinton Administration changed the arsenic standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. The Bush Administration then delayed the effective date of the new rule and commissioned three studies as part of its reassessment of the standard. Those reviews have now been completed and EPA is summarizing the new information to publish in the Federal Register for public comment this fall. The Agency then plans to issue a proposed final rule in November, with a goal of finalizing it by February 2002.

The October 4 hearing focused specifically on the results of the three independent reviews. According to the Subcommittee, the National Research Council’s review of arsenic health effects and risks found that risks are greater than previously estimated and are above levels that EPA usually accepts. Although the NRC cannot say definitely how arsenic causes cancer, it believes that cancer effects are present at doses lower than 10 ppb. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed EPA’s analysis of benefits associated with the arsenic drinking water rule and recommended that, in its benefit analysis, EPA address the latency period, discount the value of human life, assess risks and benefits from health effects other than cancer, differentiate between small and large water systems, and more clearly state its assumptions about uncertainty. The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) reviewed the cost estimates associated with the regulatory options under consideration and judged EPA’s estimates to be "credible," but suggested that estimates be presented as a range and that the approach to estimating costs of arsenic removal be modified.

In addition to hearing from those involved in the studies, the Subcommittee also took testimony from critics of the studies, including representatives of environmental groups, industry, and public utilities. The Subcommittee’s summary of the three reports and witness testimony are available at http://www.house.gov/science/ets/etshearings.htm.

Floor Action

• Farm Bill---Rejecting the Bush Administration’s call to defer action on the farm bill, the full House began considering H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act, on October 3. Floor debate continued well into the evening on October 4, but the House has not yet completed action on the bill. (See the August 14 UMRBA Update for details of H.R. 2646 as reported to the full House.) On a vote of 220 to 226, the House rejected an amendment that would have added $1.9 billion annually to H.R. 2646’s conservation spending. Sponsored by Representatives Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Ron Kind (D-WI), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), and John Dingell (D-MI), the amendment would have shifted the $1.9 billion per year from commodity support payments to conservation programs. Among its provisions, the amendment would have authorized annual funding of $1.0 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and enrollment of 250,000 acres per year in the Wetlands Reserve Program. It would have increased the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage cap to 45 million acres, and permitted up to 3 million acres in permanent easements under the CRP. According to Boehlert, "our amendment [would have helped] … more farmers in more states than the base bill." However, House Agriculture Committee Chair Larry Combest (R-TX) charged that the amendment would "totally devastate the bill," stressing in particular the loss of funds to the new countercyclical commodity payments.

Leonard Boswell (D-IA) offered an amendment that would have established a 10-year renewable energy reserve program to purchase and store agricultural products that can be used to produce renewable fuels. Boswell likened his proposal to the existing strategic petroleum reserve program. The House rejected Boswell’s amendment by a vote of 100 to 323.

In its October 3 statement of Administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget was quite critical of the House measure, stating that "the Administration does not support H.R. 2646 and urges the House of Representatives to defer action on the bill." In particular, according the OMB, "H.R. 2646 misses the opportunity to modernize the nation’s farm programs through market-oriented tools, innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to working lands, and aid programs that are consistent with our trade agenda." OMB’s reform priorities parallel those articulated in the USDA’s September 19 agriculture policy report (see Senate Agriculture Committee hearing discussion above for a description of the USDA report). Citing current economic uncertainties, OMB rejected the size, structure, and duration of H.R. 2646’s spending provisions. H.R. 2646 includes 10-year authorizations, in contrast to the typical five-year farm bill cycle. Noting that the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act’s provisions have not yet expired, OMB stressed that "the upcoming year will provide Congress and the Administration a valuable opportunity to take a much-needed critical review of the nation’s agricultural and rural economy, examine the policy’s implications for our trade relationships, and evaluate our long-term fiscal capacity." The statement of Administration policy is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/107-1/HR2646-h.html.

Executive Action

• FY 02 Continuing Resolution---On September 28, the President signed H.J.Res. 65 (P.L. 107-44), a measure to fund the federal government through October 16, 2001. The House and Senate passed the resolution without controversy on September 24 and 25, respectively. As yet, Congress has not completed work on any of its 13 annual appropriations bills. H.J.Res. funds agencies at their FY 01 levels.

Committee Schedules

• Terrorism---On October 10, the House Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will hear testimony on the question of "Terrorism: Are America’s Water Resources and Environment at Risk?" On October 11, the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries will examine the roles of the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in strengthening security against maritime threats.

River Basin News

• Proposed New Refuge---The Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking public comments on the draft environmental assessment (EA) for a proposed new national wildlife refuge. The refuge would be on part of the former Savanna Army Depot, a 13,062-acre site along the Mississippi River near Savanna, Illinois. The depot, which was used for munitions testing, storage, and manufacturing, was closed in 2000 and is listed as a Superfund site. Approximately 3,300 acres at the southern end of the depot are being developed for private commercial and industrial use and would not be part of the refuge. The proposed 9,113-acre refuge would be known as the Lost Mounds National Wildlife Refuge and would include over 5,000 acres of bottomland forest and approximately 4,000 acres of sand prairie/savanna habitat. According to the Service, the proposed refuge area supports 47 state-listed threatened and endangered species as well as the federally-listed bald eagle and Higginsii pearly mussel. The refuge would be managed jointly by the Service and Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The Service’s draft EA presents three alternatives: 1) no action—i.e., the refuge is not established and the Army disposes of the land; 2) establish refuge, but with no public use due to safety concerns and potential damage to sensitive upland habitats; 3) establish refuge and permit limited public access. The Service has identified the third option as its preferred alternative. According to the Service, "placing limits on public access will give refuge staff the opportunity to manage threatened and endangered species and critical migratory bird habitat while still providing the public with safe, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities." The draft EA also includes an Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan that would guide management of the refuge until detailed plans are developed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting comments on the draft EA through October 31, 2001. The draft assessment and related information are available at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/lostmoundtop.htm.

• Illinois Conservation Grants---On September 24, Illinois Governor George Ryan announced more than $7 million in state grants under the Illinois Conservation 2000 program. The grants, which will be matched with $9.8 million in cash and in-kind contributions, went to 34 local private-public partnerships. In combination, the projects include 1,300 acres of acquisition or easements and 18,660 acres of habitat improvements. According to Governor Ryan, "these grants, combined with local matching funds and other support, provide important land management, habitat enhancement, and resource conservation projects in watersheds throughout Illinois." Many of the grants will be going to various projects along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Projects in the Illinois River Basin received $2.6 million in state grants, which will be combined with over $2.8 million in local contributions. Details on the grants are available at http://www.state.il.us/gov/press/01/sep/0924conservation2.htm.