<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:42274.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-1025
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION'S STRATEGY TO RESTORE AND PROTECT
THE GREAT LAKES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 16, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-274 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 16, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 14
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 3
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 42
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 5
WITNESSES
Buchsbaum, Andy, director, National Wildlife Federation's Great
Lakes Office and co-chair, Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes
Coalition...................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 144
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 200
Senator Jeffords......................................... 200
Senator Voinovich........................................ 201
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio........... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Ettawageshik, Frank, tribal chairman, Little Traverse Bay Bands
of Odawa Indians............................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 125
Senator Jeffords......................................... 125
Senator Obama............................................ 127
Senator Voinovich........................................ 126
Howland, William G., manager, Lake Champlain Basin Program....... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 212
Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 45
Senator Jeffords......................................... 46
Senator Obama............................................ 51
Senator Voinovich........................................ 48
Katz, Diane, director of Science, Environment and Technology
Policy, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy.................. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 204
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 206
Senator Jeffords......................................... 211
Senator Voinovich........................................ 212
Kuper, George H., president, Council of Great Lakes Industries... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 140
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 143
Senator Voinovich........................................ 143
Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan........ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Taft, Hon. Bob, Governor, State of Ohio.......................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 58
Senator Jeffords......................................... 61
Senator Obama............................................ 64
Senator Voinovich........................................ 62
Ullrich, David, executive director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Cities Initiative.............................................. 23
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 135
Senator Jeffords......................................... 136
Senator Obama............................................ 139
Senator Voinovich........................................ 138
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters from:
Allen, Minister Jon, Political Affairs, Canadian Embassy..... 216
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative..............221-232
Miller, David, mayor, City of Toronto, to Mayor Daley........ 133
Statements:
Daley, Richard M., Mayor, City of Chicago, on behalf of the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative............. 128
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin.................................................. 43
Grau, Fred V., Jr., Farmer, State College, PA................ 234
Miller, David J., Executive Director, Audubon New York....... 233
The Government of Canada..................................... 217
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION'S STRATEGY TO RESTORE AND PROTECT
THE GREAT LAKES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.
in room 628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Voinovich, Thune, Jeffords,
Carper, Clinton, and Obama.
Senator Inhofe. I would like to ask those of you standing
in the hallway to come on in, we want to start on time.
There are votes that are taking place. Senator Voinovich
will be chairing this meeting as soon as I have a brief opening
statement. We are going to go ahead and start a couple of
minutes early because of that, besides that, I think everyone
is here anyway.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
First of all, let me just say, Senator Voinovich requested
this full committee hearing to examine the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy and I will be turning the chair over to
him as soon as I finish my opening remarks.
While I appreciate the work that went into the crafting of
the Strategy and understand the importance of the Great Lakes
to the region and the Nation, I have some concerns about the
administration of programs in the region as well as the budget
impacts of the Strategy's funding recommendations. As noted by
the Strategy and GAO, there is not enough data or monitoring on
the Great Lakes.
I commend the Coalition that drafted the Strategy for
acknowledging the data problems and for recommending several
approach for addressing them. However, the Strategy does not
outline a priority system for when the various recommendations,
including those to address the lack of data, should be
implemented. This is a critical piece that is missing.
The Strategy calls for an infusion of nearly $20 billion
over the next 5 years. In most cases the Strategy does not
identify the source of funds but much of it appears to be
designated as Federal dollars. In its report to the President,
the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force noted that in fiscal
year 2004, the Federal Government alone spent over $523.9
million on Great Lakes Basin restoration projects and over the
course of the next 10 years, anticipates spending $5 billion.
We need to take a very close look at the 200 programs currently
operating in the area and the $523.9 million we are currently
providing to the region.
Is there overlap and redundancy? Can some of the funds be
used to meet higher priority goals within the Strategy? These
are questions that must be answered before we can consider
adding to the Federal contribution.
Included in the $20 billion request is $7.5 billion in
Federal grants to assist the Great Lakes States with meeting
their water infrastructure needs. However, I must question how
we can provide $7.5 billion per year to the Great Lakes Basin
in grants, when we cannot even fund the National Clean Water
Loan Program at $1 billion per year.
The lack of data and the lack of funding are nationwide
problems and are not limited to just the Great Lakes Basin.
Therefore, any effort to address them must be part of a
nationwide approach that will assist all communities, not just
those in the Basin. Particularly in these times of limited
Federal resources, we must look at the requests for these
regional priorities in the context of their current funding and
the funding available for similar problems throughout the
Nation. We must also ensure that money is being spent wisely
and efficiently.
Senator Jeffords, I would recognize you for a brief opening
statement, and at this point, I will turn the chairing of this
committee over to Senator Voinovich.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Today we have a very distinguished group of witnesses to discuss a
topic of great importance to many members of this committee, how to
restore the Great Lakes. My colleague Senator Voinovich requested this
full committee hearing to examine the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy and I will be turning the Chair over to him
after I conclude my opening remarks.
The Great Lakes Strategy outlines goals and milestones that must be
achieved in order to fully restore the Great Lakes. It is a
collaboration of Federal, State and local stakeholders who have all
come together behind these goals. They are to be commended for this
effort. While I appreciate the work that went into the crafting of the
Strategy and understand the importance of the Great Lakes to the region
and the Nation, I have some concerns about the administration of
programs in the region as well as the budget impacts of the Strategy's
funding recommendations.
In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report that identified several concerns with the restoration effort in
the Great Lakes. The GAO found that there are 148 Federal and 51 State
programs funding environmental restoration in the Great Lakes basin
with 33 Great Lakes-specific programs. While the EPA administers most
of the Federal dollars, the GAO found that there was not one
organization in charge of coordinating the overall effort. According to
GAO, the EPA's Great Lakes Program Office had been charged with
coordinating the restoration effort in the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act but had not done so. The GAO also cited the need for one
decisionmaking body to prioritize funding and restoration projects.
In 2004 the President signed an Executive order establishing the
Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The Task Force was charged with
coordinating the Federal agencies with a presence in the Basin. The
Executive order also established a Working Group that will determine
how to implement the recommendations of the Task Force. The EPA's Great
Lakes program office will report to both the Task Force and the Working
Group. However, as noted in a September 2004 GAO report, ``both the
Great Lakes National Program Office and the newly created interagency
task force have coordination roles raising uncertainty as to how
leadership and coordination efforts will be exercised in the future.''
Further, as noted by the Strategy and GAO, there is not enough data
or monitoring on the Great Lakes. According to the Strategy report
``Unfortunately, ecosystem monitoring, observation, research, indicator
development and modeling efforts in the Great Lakes region are
currently under-funded, lack comprehensive ecosystem approaches and
exist only as piecemeal programs.''
I commend the coalition that drafted the Strategy for acknowledging
the data problems and for recommending several approaches for
addressing them. However, the strategy does not outline a priority
system for when the various recommendations, including those to address
the lack of data, should be implemented. This is a critical piece that
is missing.
The Strategy calls for an infusion of nearly $20 billion for the
next 5 years. In most cases the Strategy does not identify the source
of the funds but much of it appears to be designated as Federal
dollars. In its report to the President, the Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force noted that in fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government alone
spent over $523.9 million on Great Lakes Basin restoration projects and
over the course of the next 10 years, anticipates spending $5 billion.
We need to take a very close look at the 200 programs currently
operating in the area and the $523.9 million we are currently providing
to the region. Is there overlap and redundancy? Can some of the funds
be used to meet a higher priority goal within the Strategy? These are
questions that must be answered before we can consider adding to the
Federal contribution.
Included in the $20 billion request is $7.5 billion in Federal
grants to assist the Great Lakes States with meeting their water
infrastructure needs. This is in addition to the Strategy's call for
full funding the Clean Water SRF at $1.35 billion and the Drinking
Water SRF at $1 billion. I agree that the SRF needs to be fully funded
because it meets a nationwide need. However, we must heed the advice of
the Interagency Task Force when it stated that restoration goals should
``focus on what can be accomplished within current projections.'' While
I disagree with the Administration's proposed cut to the clean water
SRF, I must question how we can provide $1.5 billion per year to the
Great Lakes basin in grants when we cannot even fund the national clean
water loan program at $1 billion per year.
The lack of data and the lack of funding are nationwide problems
and are not limited to just the Great Lakes Basin. Therefore any effort
to address them must be part of a nationwide approach that will assist
all communities, not just those in the Basin. We simply cannot provide
funds to these States while ignoring the needs of other States,
including my State of Oklahoma which itself has pressing water quality
needs but lacks a national program office at the EPA.
I understand the significance of the Great Lakes to our Nation and
in particular to the people who live within the Basin. There is a
limited Federal role in the restoration of this and other watersheds.
Particularly in these times of limited Federal resources, we must look
at requests for these regional priorities in the context of their
current funding and the funding available for similar problems
throughout the Nation. We must also ensure the money is being spent
wisely and efficiently. While much progress has been made in just the
past few years in terms of the oversight of the Great Lakes programs,
much more is needed before we can add to the Federal contribution of
over one half a billion dollars per year.
My colleague, Senator Voinovich, will chair the remainder of the
hearing.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Good morning. I know we are all pressed
for time, so I will make a few quick remarks and submit my full
statement for the record.
We know that water quality problems do not respect State or
national boundaries. No program knows this better than the
Great Lakes. As you will see on this map, Lake Champlain has
two hydrologic connections with the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
first is along the Canadian border through the St. Lawrence
into Lake Ontario. The second is along the southern part of the
lake where it connects to the Great Lakes through the canal
system.
These lakes are all part of the same ecosystem, and face
many of the same problems. We do not want to make large
investments in the Great Lakes or Lake Champlain only to find
that a failure to comprehensively address a particular issue
limited our success.
We know that water quality problems do not respect State or
national boundaries. No program knows this better than the
Great Lakes. I urge the witnesses here today and the members of
the committee to keep Lake Champlain, the eastern end of the
Great Lakes ecosystem, in mind as we move forward.
As we move forward on Great Lakes restoration, we must
incorporate Lake Champlain into the process. Mr. Chairman, I
want to take a minute to identify something else these two
ecosystems have in common: they are both starved for money. In
the face of huge documented needs, this Administration proposed
this year to cut Clean Water funding by almost 50 percent from
what annual the appropriations were when President Bush took
office. We cannot resolve the problems in the Great Lakes and
Lake Champlain by ignoring them. We must turn the corner on
clean water funding.
Before closing, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Bill Howland,
the director of the Lake Champlain Basin Program, who will be
testifying on our last panel today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Good morning. The Great Lakes are the Nation's largest fresh water
reservoir. This is a resource we need to protect.
As you will see on this map of Vermont and New York, Lake Champlain
has two hydrologic connections with the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
first is along the Canadian border through the St. Lawrence into Lake
Ontario. The second is along the southern part of the lake where it
connects to the Great Lakes through the canal system.
These lakes are all part of the same ecosystem, and face many of
the same problems. For example, there are 48 invasive aquatic species
in the Lake Champlain Basin, and 13 of them have come from the Great
Lakes. It is imperative that we enact legislation to comprehensively
address invasive species this Congress.
As we move forward on Great Lakes restoration, we must incorporate
Lake Champlain into the process. We do not want to make large
investments in the Great Lakes or Lake Champlain, only to find that a
failure to comprehensively address a particular issue limited our
success.
We know that water quality problems do not respect State or
national boundaries. No program knows this better than the Great Lakes.
I urge the witnesses here today and the members of the committee to
keep Lake Champlain, the eastern end of the Great Lakes ecosystem, in
mind as we move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take a minute to identify something else
these two ecosystems have in common: They are both starved for money.
In the face of EPA's own study showing a spending shortfall of $270
billion for water infrastructure needs, this Administration continues
to cut spending. This year's proposed budget would cut the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund by almost 50 percent from what annual
appropriations were when President Bush took office.
At our committee's hearing on the EPA budget, I said that this
budget is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. We cannot
resolve the problems in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain by ignoring
them. We must turn the corner on clean water funding.
Before closing, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Bill Howland, the
director of the Lake Champlain Basin Program, who will be testifying on
our last panel today. Bill's experience leading efforts to restore Lake
Champlain is unmatched, and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on
the Great Lakes strategy and the role of Lake Champlain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
I would like to publicly thank Senator Inhofe for allowing
us to hold this hearing and for bringing Great Lakes
restoration to the full committee's attention. I welcome all of
our witnesses who have taken time out of their very busy
schedules. I also want to thank the Great Lakes Commission and
the Northeast-Midwest Institute for including this hearing on
the agenda for their annual Great Lakes Day. We are hoping to
see more of you every year on this day. It is one way we can
all monitor our progress on this special project that we all
care so much about.
As has been pointed out, we have a challenging morning,
four stacked votes at 10:30. So we are going to move along as
quickly as we possibly can. I am going to limit my statement to
a couple of minutes.
I want everyone to know that the members' and witnesses'
statements will be inserted in the record so we can ask that
everyone limit their time as much as possible. So here are a
couple of points that I am going to make.
First of all, I think that Chairman Inhofe kind of put
things into perspective as to where we are in terms of
finances. I think Senator Jeffords did the same thing. My
concern is that the domestic side of this budget is getting
clobbered and there are many things that we ought to be doing
that we are not doing. I think we have to face up to the fact
that we may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. There are things
that we are just neglecting. I think Senator Jeffords is aware,
he talked about the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and
the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund and so many other things
that need to be taken care of that are not being addressed. I
think that is the big picture issue that all of you ought to be
concerned about as we move forward.
Restoration of the Great Lakes, what I call the Second
Battle of Lake Erie, has been a long time commitment for me.
This is my 40th year in fighting that battle. We have made
great progress. But you all know that more needs to be done.
Shared by eight U.S. States and one Canadian Province, the
Great Lakes watershed is the largest system of surface fresh
water in the world. Let me repeat that: it is the largest
surface fresh water system in the world.
I have held two hearings, including an EPW field hearing in
Cleveland on the issue, and a 2003 report by GAO pointed out
the two main barriers to our restoration: lack of coordination
and no strategy. Lack of coordination and no strategy. I
lobbied President Bush for his leadership on this issue and he
signed an Executive order that created the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force to bring together 10 agencies and over
140 Great Lakes Federal programs, and to call for a regional
collaboration of national significance. I think the President
should be given credit for issuing this Executive order, and I
would be remiss if I did not mention Steve Johnson's
predecessor, who just did an outstanding job in putting this
program together. We are very, very grateful to him.
Over the past year, 1,500 people worked in eight issue-
specific teams to develop the strategy that we are focusing on
today. This collaborative work is showcased in our long and
illustrious list of witnesses and I thank them for being here.
I am interested in two key points as we move forward.
First, we need to examine the management of what is the biggest
restoration project in the world. Real important. I think that
Senator Jeffords is familiar with the work that we did with the
restoration of the Everglades. That has not gone as well as a
lot of folks would like it to, and I want to make sure that we
don't make some of the mistakes that they have made with what
we are doing.
Second, we need to do better and get a bigger bang for our
dollars. One of the things that we hope would happen, when you
get all these agencies together and 140 programs, that they
would figure out how, they would understand they had a
symbiotic relationship and figure out how they can get more for
the money that is now being provided.
A lot of great work has been done. We must continue to work
together if we are going to truly implement the restoration
strategy. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. Senator George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, thank you for agreeing to bring restoration of the
Great Lakes to the full committee's attention. It has been a lifelong
commitment for me.
It is a great pleasure to hold this hearing and continue what I
call the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's
Great Lake. I made a commitment to this fight nearly four decades ago
as a State legislator and have continued it throughout my career.
Considering that Lake Erie was once known as an international symbol of
pollution and environmental degradation, it is remarkable the progress
that has been made to clean it up.
The improvement of the Great Lakes is a testament to the dedication
of numerous officials and groups in the region that have focused on
this resource but our work is not done. This effort has not gained the
attention nationally or internationally that it deserves and needs.
Shared by eight U.S. States and one Canadian province, the Great
Lakes watershed is the largest system of surface freshwater in the
world. They support a wide array of wildlife and provide over 40
million people in the United States and Canada with drinking water,
recreation, and much more. Approximately 60 percent of U.S.
manufacturing is contained within the Great Lakes region. The
commercial and sport fishing industry alone contributes over $4 billion
annually to the Nation's economy.
A prime example of a regional issue that gained national
significance is the Florida Everglades. As Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, I had the distinct pleasure of
working on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I learned
from this experience that restoration requires that stakeholders have a
symbiotic relationship. The Everglades plan became a reality only after
everyone came together and made it a national ecological restoration
project.
A 2003 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) clearly
pointed out that this had yet to occur for the Great Lakes. Two main
barriers to Great Lakes restoration were identified: lack of
coordination and no strategy. I held two hearings on how to address
these issues, including a field hearing by this committee in Cleveland
in August 2003.
These hearings convinced me that leadership was desperately needed.
I personally lobbied President Bush and he responded. In May 2004, he
signed an Executive order officially recognizing the Great Lakes as a
national treasure and addressing the problems identified by GAO. The
Order created the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force with EPA as the
chair to bring together 10 agencies and over 140 Great Lakes Federal
programs. Additionally, it called for the Federal Government to partner
with State, local, tribal, and other interests in the region to
establish a ``regional collaboration of national significance.''
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration met in Chicago in December
2004 and returned only 1 year later to release a strategy to restore
and protect the Great Lakes. Our long and illustrious list of witnesses
testifying today is representative of the over 1,500 people who worked
in eight issue-specific strategy teams ranging from aquatic invasive
species to toxic pollutants.
I welcome all of our witnesses who have taken time out of their
very busy schedules to be with us. I also thank the Great Lakes
Commission and the Northeast-Midwest Institute for including this
hearing on the agenda for their annual ``Great Lakes Day.''
While I am interested to hear how the Collaboration's strategy will
guide future restoration activities, I am particularly interested in
two key points as we move forward. First, we need to examine the
management of what is the biggest restoration project in the world. Who
is the ``orchestra leader''? How do we best coordinate an eight State,
binational effort? Second, we must consider fiscal realities. What do
we need to do in terms of new and existing programs at the
international, Federal, State, and local levels to get the biggest bang
for our buck?
The Great Lakes are near and dear to my heart. I consider my battle
to preserve and protect Lake Erie and all of the Great Lakes to be
among the most significant of my career and of my life. A lot of great
work has been done, and we must continue to work together if we are
going to truly implement the restoration strategy. The decisions that
we make today will determine the longevity of this national treasure
that is so important to public health, the environment, our economy,
and our children and grandchildren.
Again, thank you Chairman Inhofe for allowing me to hold this
hearing. Thank you also to all of our witnesses. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Senator Voinovich. We are pleased today to have my senior
Senator, Senator DeWine. I always tell everyone he is the
senior Senator and I am the senior citizen Senator. Of course,
Senator Levin, who is the co-chair of the Great Lakes Task
Force, with Senator DeWine and Senator Stabenow. We appreciate
your being here today. We all realize we have a lot to do, and
I would appreciate if you could, just summarize your statements
for us this morning and we will certainly include them in the
record.
Thank you for being here. We will start with Senator
DeWine.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OHIO
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning and really,
it is good to see such a strong showing of Great Lakes support,
not only on the panel but in the audience.
We know the Great Lakes are a unique natural resource that
need to be protected for future generations. They hold one-
fifth of the world's surface fresh water and cover more than
94,000 square miles. Over 100 species in the basin are globally
rare or found only in the Great Lakes Basin. Six hundred
thirty-seven State parks in the region accommodate more than
250 million visitors each year. The Great Lakes are significant
to the States and Canadian provinces that border them, as well
as the millions of other people around the country who fish in
the Lakes, visit the parks surrounding the Lakes, or use
product that are affordably shipped to them via the Lakes.
Unfortunately, the Great Lakes remain in a degraded State.
The 2005 report from a group of scientific experts says that
historical threats are combining with new ones. The result is
that the Lakes are at a tipping point. We need to act now.
We cannot see the threats to the Lakes just by looking at
them. Zebra mussels, aquatic invasive species cause $500
million per year in damages to the Great Lakes. One study found
that since 1990, Lake Michigan's yellow perch population has
decreased by about 80 percent. In May 2004, more than 10
billion gallons, 10 billion gallons of raw sewage and
stormwater were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year,
over 1,800 beaches in the Great Lakes were closed, 1,800. Each
summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. More
than half the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been
lost along with 60 percent of the forests.
Because of these threats, and with encouragement from those
of us in the Great Lakes region, the President issued an
Executive order in 2004 calling for a Great Lakes regional
collaboration of national significance. This process brought
together experts who adopted a set of recommendations for
Federal, State, tribal and local actions. Using those
recommendations, Senator Levin and I, as well as our colleagues
in the House, will introduce a bill to implement those
recommendations.
Our bill will do several things. One, it would reduce the
threat of non-native species invading the Lakes through ballast
water. The bill targets the Asian carp and would authorize the
Corps of Engineers to improve the dispersal barrier project and
prohibit the importation of interstate commerce of live Asian
carp.
Two, it would address threats to fish and wildlife habitat
by reauthorizing the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Act at $20 million, a program that provides grants to States
and tribes. Three, the bill would reauthorize the State
revolving loan fund and provide $20 billion over 5 years to
assist communities with improving their wastewater
infrastructure.
Further, it would authorize $150 million per year for
contaminated sediment cleanup under the Great Lakes Legacy
program and provide EPA with greater flexibility in
implementing the program. The bill will also establish a new
grant program to phaseout mercury in products. It would improve
existing research programs and fill the gap where work is
needed.
Finally, the bill would establish the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force and the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Process to coordinate and improve Great Lakes
programs.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, today's hearing is a
perfect opportunity to bring attention to one of our Nation's
natural treasures and the resources needed to keep the Great
Lakes protected for future generations. Through the work of the
Great Lakes Task Force and the efforts of other members like
you in holding these hearings, we have been able to make
positive changes on the Lakes. Unfortunately, we all know that
more work is needed.
I hope this committee is able to move legislation that will
help protect and restore the Great Lakes, because the Lakes
need attention and they need action now.
I thank the Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator DeWine follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mike DeWine, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.
It's good to see such a strong showing of Great Lakes supporters.
The Great Lakes are a unique natural resource that need to be
protected for future generations. They hold one-fifth of the world's
surface freshwater, and cover more than 94,000 square miles. Over 100
species in the Basin are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes
Basin. The 637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250
million visitors each year. The Great Lakes are significant to the
States and Canadian provinces that border them as well as to the
millions of other people around the country who fish in the lakes,
visit the parks surrounding the lakes, or use products that are
affordably shipped to them via the Lakes.
Unfortunately, the Great Lakes remain in a degraded state. A 2005
report from a group of scientific experts says that historical threats
are combining with new ones, and the result is that the Lakes are at a
tipping point. We need to act now.
You cannot see the threats to the Lakes just by looking at them.
Zebra mussels--an aquatic invasive species--cause $500 million per year
in damages in the Great Lakes. One study found that since 1990, Lake
Michigan's yellow perch population has decreased by about 80 percent!
In May 2004, more than 10 billion gallons of raw sewage and stormwater
were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, over 1,850 beaches
in the Great Lakes were closed. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300
square mile dead zone. And, more than half of the Great Lakes region's
original wetlands have been lost, along with 60 percent of the forests.
Because of these threats and with encouragement from those of us in
the Great Lakes region, the President issued an Executive order in
2004, calling for a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration of National
Significance. This process brought together experts who adopted a set
of recommendations for Federal, State, tribal, and local actions. Using
those recommendations, Senator Carl Levin and I, as well as our
colleagues in the House, will introduce a bill to implement those
recommendations:
Our bill would do several things:
<bullet> It would reduce the threat of non-native species invading
the Lakes through ballast water. The bill targets the Asian carp and
would authorize the Corps of Engineers to improve the dispersal barrier
project and prohibit the importation or interstate commerce of live
Asian carp.
<bullet> It would address threats to fish and wildlife habitat by
reauthorizing the Great Lakes Fish & Wildlife Restoration Act at $20
million, a program that provides grants to States and tribes.
<bullet> The bill would reauthorize the State Revolving Loan Fund
and provide $20 billion over 5 years to assist communities with
improving their wastewater infrastructure.
<bullet> It would authorize $150 million per year for contaminated
sediment cleanup under the Great Lakes Legacy program and provide the
EPA with greater flexibility in implementing the program
<bullet> The bill would establish a new grant program to phase-out
mercury in products, and it would improve existing research programs
and fill the gap where work is needed.
<bullet> Finally, the bill would establish the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
process to coordinate and improve Great Lakes programs.
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing is a perfect opportunity to bring
attention to one of our Nation's natural treasures and the resources
that needed to keep the Great Lakes protected for future generations.
Through the work of the Great Lakes Task Force and the efforts of other
members, like you, in holding these hearings, we have been able to make
positive changes on the Lakes. Unfortunately, more work is needed. I
hope that this committee is able to move legislation that will help
protect and restore the Great Lakes because the Lakes need attention
and action now. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator DeWine.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, thank you
first of all for holding this hearing and I would of course
welcome putting the entire statement into the record, and I
will cut it short, in response to the Chairman's request.
While some of the environmental protections that were put
in place, have been put in place, have helped the Great Lakes
make strides toward recovery, the 2003 GAO report makes it
clear that there is much work still to be done. The report says
that ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the
Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain,
including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup
of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human
health threats.''
Plans to address these well documented problems have been
in place, the problems are well known. The region has invested
in Lake-wide management plans, remedial action plans, the U.S.
Policy Committee's Great Lakes Strategy 2002. We have a
strategic vision for our fisheries and we now have the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy which was the result of
the Presidential Executive order.
I am really delighted that a wide-ranging and highly
inclusive group has been formed. The Healing Our Water
Coalition, whose sole purpose is restoring the Great Lakes, is
great news for the Great Lakes and for the future of our Lakes.
I am disappointed that the Administration did not include
funding in its proposed budget to implement the recommendations
of the Regional Collaboration Strategy, which was the process
that the President began with his own 2004 Executive order. The
Strategy recommends that $20.1 billion be provided over 5
years, of which $10.5 billion would be new Federal funding.
That funding, as the Strategy points out, is needed in the
Great Lakes now to address so many things.
The plans are plentiful. There is no shortage of plans. The
data is available. There is no shortage of data. It is the
funding which is inadequate. That is what we all are committed
to try to provide, despite the challenges which we face,
challenges which have been eloquently and accurately outlined
by you, Mr. Chairman.
When you compare the funding, by the way, between the
Everglades and the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes receive about
half of what the Everglades receive in Federal funding. So it
is not only the first time that the so-called regional funding
is provided in our budget, federally and necessarily so, may I
add. I think Senator Jeffords' point is also important,
however, that we make sure that we have a comprehensive
approach to the waters of the Great Lakes, as he outlined.
Finally, Senator DeWine has described the effort which we
made last year in introducing the Great Lakes Environmental
Restoration Act. He has described also the bill which we are
introducing with our House colleagues. It is a Restoration bill
which is comprehensive, it is based on recommendations from the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, and I will leave
the bill summary for my statement rather than to repeat what
Senator DeWine has said.
The Great Lakes, Mr. Chairman, are a unique treasure for
the world. You can see the Great Lakes from the moon. I must
say, a little bit chauvinistically that what is outlined by the
Great Lakes is one particular State which is a competitor of
the Chairman's State, at least in football and basketball. Also
my good colleague, Senator DeWine's State. So I won't say that
it is Michigan that is outlined, I will leave that for my
statement as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Levin. We have an obligation as stewards of the
Great Lakes. It is an ethical obligation. It is a fiduciary
obligation. I thank our Chairman and all those who work to
carry out this responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to testify this morning on the state of Great Lakes
environmental restoration.
The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the Nation.
Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin
and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water
to 33 million people. They provide the Great Lakes States' largest
recreational resource. They form the largest body of freshwater in the
world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's freshwater. Only
the polar ice caps contain more fresh water. They are critical for our
economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move
products to market.
Yet the Great Lakes are not being protected as they should be.
Those of us who have lived near the Great Lakes have seen many
changes over the years. We have seen water levels rise and fall, water
quality improve and decline, and fish populations grow and fall. Some
of these changes are part of a natural cycle, but many are the direct
result of our management policies.
While the environmental protections that were put in place in the
early 1970's have helped the Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003
GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report
stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great
Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including
increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas
contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.''
The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years.
The region has invested in Lakewide Management Plans; Remedial Action
Plans; the U.S. Policy Committee's A Great Lakes Strategy 2002; we have
a strategic vision for our fisheries; and now we have the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration strategy which was the result of a Presidential
Executive Order.
I am delighted that a wide-ranging, very inclusive group has been
formed--the Healing Our Waters Coalition whose whole purpose is
restoring the Great Lakes.
So I am very disappointed that the President did not include
funding in the proposed budget to implement the recommendations of the
Regional Collaboration strategy, the process that the President started
with his 2004 Executive order. The strategy recommendations totaled
$20.1 billion over 5 years of which $10.5 billion would be new Federal
funding. That funding, as the strategy pointed out, is needed in the
Great Lakes now to address so many things.
When you compare the funding between the Everglades and the Great
Lakes, the Great Lakes receive about half of what the Everglades
receive in Federal funding.
Invasive species are one of the largest threats to the Great Lakes.
A new species is introduced into the Great Lakes about every 8 months.
They enter the lakes in ballast tanks, on boat trailers, and through
the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal. We need ballast technology on
ships entering the Great Lakes and programs to address other pathways
of introduction. Legislation is sitting before Congress that would
reduce this threat and make a significant impact on the Great Lakes and
all of our waters, but we have failed to act for 4 years.
Last year, Senator DeWine and I introduced the Great Lakes
Environmental Restoration Act to take the strong and swift action that
is necessary. Our bill would increase available funding for the lakes,
improve coordination of Federal programs, and establish a monitoring
program to help us make decisions on how to steer future restoration
efforts.
Today, we join some of our House colleagues in releasing an outline
for a new Restoration bill, based on the recommendations from the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration strategy. This bill would reduce the
threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive
species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it
specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the operation and
maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would restore fish and
wildlife habitat by reauthorizing the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act. It would provide additional resources to States and
cities for their water infrastructure. It would provide additional
funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and provides the EPA with
additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects
along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase-out
mercury in products. It would authorize additional research through
existing Federal establishments as well as our non-Federal research
institutions. And it would authorize coordination of Federal programs.
Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. If
you were to stand on the moon, you could see the Great Lakes and
recognize the outline of Michigan bounded by the lakes. We must
recognize that we are only their temporary stewards.
If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes,
the current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo
some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good
stewards by ensuring that the Federal Government meets its ongoing
obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Levin, I just want to make one
comment, and that is that one of the reasons why the Everglades
have done so well is because its plight has been brought to so
many people and it has become a national treasure. I think that
one of the biggest responsibilities we have is to bring to
national attention, maybe even world attention, this treasure
that we have. We need to restore and preserve it. I think the
better job that we do with that, the more likely it is that we
are going to get the kind of revenues that we need to get the
job done.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Stabenow.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Jeffords. It is always a pleasure to be here with my colleague
and friend from Michigan, Senator Levin and Senator DeWine, and
thank them for their leadership.
I also want to thank the four people who have come to be a
part of the testimony today from Michigan, who traveled here to
be with us today. We very much appreciate their leadership. We
are so proud of the efforts going on with the healing of our
waters and the Wage Foundation, all those who were involved in
pulling together a fantastic coalition.
I will simply say in echoing my colleagues and reinforcing
what they have said and putting my longer testimony in the
record, that we all know that the Great Lakes are more than
just 20 percent of the world's fresh water. For us in Michigan,
it is part of our identity. We love the Great Lakes. It is
about tourism, the economy, our way of life. It is about fresh
drinking water.
As we all know, we have a passion for protecting the Great
Lakes. I was very proud in 2001 to author the first successful
ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes, which was a 2-
year ban. I thank the Chairman again for his leadership in
extending that, and for all that we have been able to do
together.
Right now what we are focused on through the Great Lakes
Task Force, as we all know, is the implementation of the
regional collaboration strategy. I would simply echo the fact
that we have had a lot of efforts, a lot of studies, a lot of
groups come together. It is time to act, as we know. It is
about the funding, it is about the commitment. It is about
having a longer term vision that will actually get the job
done.
We don't need right now just another group looking at this
or another study. What we need is a sense of urgency. When we
look at the data, it is very clear that we need a sense of
urgency to act right now, to protect the Great Lakes. I
appreciate the Chairman's leadership,a nd with my colleagues,
all of us working together to implement this legislation,
hopefully we will see the kind of commitment coming from the
Administration and our colleagues in the House and the Senate
coming together to really, on our watch, get the job done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stabenow follows:]
Statement of Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator from the
State of Michigan
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Jeffords. I want to thank
you for holding this hearing on an issue that is personally very
important to me--the protection and restoration of our Great Lakes. I
also want to thank the four witnesses from the great State of Michigan
who traveled all the way to Washington to be here this morning. And
finally, I want to thank Senator Levin and Senator DeWine for their
leadership on our bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force.
There is no more important issue to Michigan and our region of the
country than the Great Lakes. For the people of Michigan, the Lakes are
more than just one-fifth of the world's fresh water and a unique
ecosystem--they are part of our identity. The Lakes are where we spend
summers with our families, where we boat and swim, and where we fish
and hunt. The Lakes also sustain our State and local economies by
providing a major route for intrastate and international commerce. The
health and future of Michigan is directly linked to the health and
future of the Great Lakes.
We in Michigan are blessed with a beautiful State full of lakes,
rivers, forests, and streams. I invite you all to come to travel to
Michigan and see for yourselves.
The people of Michigan have more public access to waterways than
all of the other 49 States combined. We enjoy access to four of the
five Great Lakes and more than 40,000 interior lakes, streams, and
trails. This rich abundance of natural resources has made the outdoors
a critical part of Michigan's economy and our way-of-life. The Great
Lakes are key in this. Consider:
<bullet> The total revenue from Michigan's fishing, hunting and
wildlife watching is nearly $5 billion every year.
<bullet> Fishing brings $2 billion annually to our State economy.
<bullet> Michigan has the most register boaters of any State
(nearly one million) and recreational boating brings $2 billion
annually to the State.
You can see why restoration of the Great Lakes is so important to
us.
So we are extremely proud of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy, which seeks to coordinate current and future efforts to
restore and protect this important national resource. There are
currently between 140 and 200 separate Great Lakes environmental
programs administered by 10 Federal agencies. Each of these is
important and has helped us significantly improve the health of the
Great Lakes over the past 35 years. That said true restoration will
take local, regional, and national coordination on projects that
address all of the critical challenges facing the health of the Great
Lakes. Everything from invasive species and habitat restoration to
cleaning up contaminated sediments and improving water quality must be
given equal attention if we are to truly restore the Great Lakes. In
the next few weeks, Senator Levin, Senator DeWine, and I, along with
other members of the Great Lakes Task Force, will introduce a bill that
implements the Regional Collaboration Strategy. I hope that my
colleagues on this committee will expedite this important legislation.
In addition, we must have a long-term funding commitment to realize the
goal of our Restoration bill. Authorization is a critical first step,
but without follow-through we will not succeed in restoring the Great
Lakes.
We take our commitment to the Great Lakes very seriously. At the
State level we are very busy making sure important protections for the
Great Lakes are in place. Just 2 weeks ago, Governor Granholm signed
legislation that for the first time protects Michigan waters from
large-scale water diversion and withdrawals. The bipartisan
comprehensive water legacy legislation is the result of 2 years of work
by a group of lawmakers, environmental groups, industry, and
agriculture advocates.
I know that the members of this committee understand the importance
of the Great Lakes to Michigan, the seven other Great Lakes States, and
to the Nation. I look forward to working with you on the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Implementation bill to secure the future
protection and restoration of natural treasure. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
I am pleased that Senator Clinton has joined us, and I
understand you have a short statement that you would like to
make, Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your leadership in this issue.
I just want to add my voice to those who care deeply about
the Great Lakes. I grew up on one of the Great Lakes, I
represent New York, where approximately 80 percent of New
York's fresh surface water, over 700 miles of shore line and 40
percent of New York's lands in over 25 counties are containing
the drainage basins of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the St.
Lawrence River. This is a very important part of our natural
heritage.
It also is an important part of our economy. In a 2001
study, it was estimated that expenditures in New York on
freshwater fishing are approximately $1.9 billion. So I invite
you all to come fishing on the Great Lakes, but also as a
indication of why it is important that we deal with this from
an economic perspective as well.
I look forward to working with Senators DeWine, Levin and
Stabenow in introducing legislation that would implement the
recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
These are very important recommendations. I don't want them
sitting on a shelf somewhere in a beautifully bound book. I
want them implemented. The only way we can do that is through
collaboration, but with Federal leadership.
Certainly, the plan calls for a set of actions over 5 years
that would cost approximately $20 billion. We need to get on
with it, because the longer we wait, the more the damage will
intensify. It will be even more expensive. These Great Lakes
are an absolutely essential part of our entire country's
freshwater system, to say nothing of the stewardship that we
should be expected to exercise over the natural beauty of
creation.
So Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit my
entire statement, but I want to thank you again for your
leadership.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Our first witness this morning is Steve Johnson. Steve is
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. As I
mentioned previously, Steve, I want to publicly thank again
Mike Leavitt for taking on this responsibility. I honestly
believe Mike spent more time on this initiative than he did
anything else at the EPA. I am really pleased that you seem to
get the importance of the Great Lakes, not only to those of us
from that part of the country, but also its national
significance.
We are glad to have you here and we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much and good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Jeffords and members of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee.
On behalf of President Bush and my fellow members of the
Federal Interagency Task Force, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to be here on Great Lakes Day. Senator Voinovich, I
would especially like to acknowledge your leadership in
supporting the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.
By establishing the Federal Task Force and calling for the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, President Bush recognized
the importance of the Great Lakes and their vitality, not just
to the region, but to the entire country. The unique nature of
these majestic lakes and the role and the cultural, economic
and environmental well-being of our Nation requires us all to
come together for their defense.
In order to deliver more efficient and effective Federal
support, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force was created,
created to streamline and better coordinate the more than 140
Federal programs that protect and restore the Great Lakes. The
importance of such coordination was highlighted in the Task
Force October 2005 report, which estimated that the Federal
Government spends approximately a half a billion dollars each
year on Great Lakes water quality improvement programs. So far,
much of the work has been focused on addressing high priority
issues requiring interagency cooperation. The Task Force has
identified 48 near-term actions to help speed restoration and
protection.
The Task Force is improving coordination and integration
among relevant Federal programs in the Great Lakes, and is
developing a plan to address all components of the Executive
order. The collaborative effort envisioned in the Great Lakes
Executive order became a reality with the formation of the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in December 2004. Federal
agencies joined with the Great Lakes Governors, mayors, tribes
and members of the congressional delegation where they worked
together to develop a set of recommendations for restoring and
protecting the Great Lakes. I appreciate the members who are
joining us today.
After receiving extensive public comment, the Collaboration
released its final strategy last December. This strategy serves
as a blueprint for prioritizing future action, which will help
guide our partners' actions to protect and restore the Great
Lakes. President Bush remains strongly committed to the future
of the Great Lakes. In his fiscal year 2007 budget request for
EPA, President Bush requested over $70 million to clean and
protect the Lakes.
This includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act
programs, which is an increase of about $21 million over last
year's enacted budget, demonstrating a true commitment to
preserving this natural wonder. This represents essentially
full funding of the authorized level in the Great Lakes Legacy
Act for cleanup of contaminated sediments in areas of concern.
The budget request contains important funding for other
agencies' work on the Great Lakes as well.
Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for inviting me to participate in this hearing. I
look forward to continuing to work with you and all our
Collaboration partners to accelerate the pace of environmental
progress in the Great Lakes. Thank you and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have now.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Because we don't
have the time that I would like to have today, because of the
votes, I am going to ask you a couple of questions for the
record and I am going to ask you some for this hearing.
The first one for the record is, you stated the
Administration is implementing 48 near-term actions in 2006 to
help speed restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. I am
going to insert into the record a letter sent to the President
from the Governors and mayors proposing near-term action items.
For the record, can you please detail for each item whether you
are implementing it and if not, then why not. So we want to
know that. Be pretty specific about what we need to do, what
are you implementing and what aren't you implementing, and if
you're not implementing why you are not implementing.
Second, you mentioned the Asian carp barriers. We worked
hard last Congress to provide funding and are now hearing about
more problems. Senator Jeffords and I know about those
barriers, don't we, Senator?
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. For just a few dollars, we had to work
several months to get the money.
We put language into WRDA, and I am going to insert into
the record a letter that Senator Obama and I sent with over 40
members of the House and Senate. We want you to please provide
us for the record a detailed update on the project and what the
Administration is doing about it. That should be a lay-up shot
and it is not getting done.
For the record, third, you detailed funding in the
President's budget for Great Lakes programs. While you
mentioned increases, the President's budget decreases in other
key areas, such as the Great Lakes National Program Office, the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I would like you to provide for
the record a cross-cutting budget analysis on the increases and
decreases for all the Federal programs that impact the Great
Lakes.
For the hearing today, I am interested in the management of
this effort. We have held two hearings that focused on that GAO
report that pointed out two barriers to restoration, lack of
coordination and no strategy. The big deal was no orchestra
leader to get the job done.
The Interagency Task Force brought together 10 agencies and
140 Federal programs. EPA is the chair, but you have a lot of
other responsibilities. This also involves eight States,
Canada, cities, tribes and others. I would like to know how are
we, who is going to be the orchestra leader? I hope it is not
Region V, and have them take this on as a responsibility as was
once envisioned. I think if you really look at the time Mike
Leavitt spent on this, I think you understand how much work
this is going to be. Could you share with us just exactly how
you intend to get this job done and give us that orchestra
leader?
Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am the orchestra leader
of the Federal Interagency Task Force, and I am proud to serve
in that role. I think it is an important role, and I will
continue to serve to make sure that the over 140 Federal
programs are coordinated and we actually focus our attention on
those critical actions that have been identified.
I think you may be aware, but we have newly approved the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy Implementation
Framework, which in essence says what we have decided to do as
a collaboration is to continue and to maintain our current
organization of the executive committee, some of which are here
today, to make sure that we have this team of people in place
to help direct these efforts to make sure that the strategy
that we have all worked so hard to put together is actually
implemented.
As part of the direction of not only maintaining this
current organization structure of the executive committee but
also focusing on making sure that we are directing the
activities, that we are promoting accountability, that we are
actually demonstrating the results to all citizens,
particularly the citizens of the Great Lakes.
Senator Voinovich. I am putting you on notice that we are
going to have a hearing in 3 months on how you are handling
this from a management point of view. Because I have to tell
you, you have a lot of other responsibilities. I don't think
you can expend the extraordinary time that Mike Leavitt spent
on this. I would like to know we have some hotshot over there
that gets up early in the morning and goes to bed late at night
worrying about getting this job done.
So the last thing, and I will leave that for the record,
too, is just that my hope was that as these agencies got
together and you looked at the funding streams that were coming
down the pike, that somehow we could demonstrate that we are
utilizing those dollars in a much more efficient and effective
way.
In other words, everybody is starting to look at what we
are doing. How can we meld these dollars in order to have a
greater impact on the challenges facing us? I would like to
find out if any of that has occurred as a result of these folks
getting together.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Administrator Johnson, the Great Lakes
Strategy identifies a funding need for wastewater treatment
upgrades totaling about $7 billion over 5 years. This
Administration's proposed budget for this year would cut the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund by almost 50 percent from what
annual appropriations were when President Bush took office. Can
you describe how the EPA can be a serious partner in the Great
Lakes Restoration when the Agency is totally unable to support
the wastewater infrastructure needs identified in this
strategy?
Mr. Johnson. Senator Jeffords, as you have pointed out, the
needs for our wastewater treatment systems far exceed EPA's
$7.3 billion total budget. What the President's 2007 budget
requests is in light of his commitment to make sure that the
State Revolving Loan Fund for the Clean Water program revolves
at approximately $3.5 billion. The President's 2007 budget
reflects that commitment and again, the needs are great. But as
part of the President's budget, we are honoring the President's
commitment to make sure that we establish a Revolving Loan Fund
of approximately $3.5 billion.
But you are correct, the needs are great, which is going to
take more than just funds. It is going to take a number of
other efforts, which we have launched, including issues of
water efficiency and issues of using technology, because part
of the President's 2007 budget was also an additional $7
million to help a research and development arm to identify
those new technologies that will help us advance in the
engineering and technology arena, so that we can help bridge
that gap. There are other things we can do as well.
Senator Jeffords. I understand the problems you have. I
just want to let you know that there is somebody sitting right
here that is ready to go yelling and screaming for you. I wish
you luck.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to point out one other
thing, that if you are the coordinator, you have these other
budgets of departments.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. The Army Corps of Engineers, when I was
chairman of the subcommittee that had them, 5 years ago had a
backlog of $250 million. Today it is $1\1/4\ billion. So a lot
of these agencies that are going to be essential to get the job
done, the budgets just aren't there.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I am going to not ask any questions. I want
to thank Administrator Johnson for being here. We have a lot of
other witnesses to come and I think we are going to start
voting any minute. So I will just refrain from asking questions
and just say thanks.
Mr. Johnson. Good to see you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. We are looking forward, I am going to
leave the record open so that my colleagues can get questions
over to you and I appreciate your getting them back to us and
perhaps maybe in the next several weeks you and I can sit down
and talk about some of the things that I have raised here today
and other Senators.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for your testimony
and we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to it
as well.
Senator Voinovich. Because of the cooperation of my
colleagues today, we are moving along and hopefully we may be
able to have an opportunity to hear from our third panel, my
Governor, who is testifying on behalf of the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and also Frank Ettawageshik, Tribal Chairman of
the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, that are with
us today.
Governor Taft, I would like to say thank you for all of
your efforts in the Great Lakes restoration. I think many
people are not aware that you have been chairman of the Great
Lakes Council of Governors for, I think, 4 years. That is heavy
duty. I had it for 2 years and I was surprised to see that you
had taken it on for 4. You have done a great job and I am glad
that you are head of the Department of Natural Resources, Sam
Speck, on the Great Lakes Charter Annex, which I wondered if it
ever would get done. You have done a great job of organizing,
helping on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. We are
really glad to have you here today. If you will start with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB TAFT, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF OHIO
Governor Taft. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you very
much for your strong leadership on behalf of the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes community has reached an amazing milestone:
1,500 people, representing States, cities, tribes, the Federal
Government, environmental, business and farm groups have come
together in an unprecedented effort to create the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Strategy, a blueprint for action to
restore and protect the Great Lakes.
Now that planning is complete, it is time to act.
Collaboration members are moving forward on a number of actions
using our own resources, yet significant policy and funding
impediments remain. Without your support here in the Congress
in this critical first year, there is a danger that the plan
will be for naught and our momentum will be undermined. That
would be tragic, because the Great Lakes remain threatened by
emerging environmental threats such as the introduction of a
new invasive species every 8 months, and by historical
problems, such as contaminated sediments.
A lack of sufficient coordination and focus among existing
programs is also hindering progress. Congress can help by
tackling problems that must be addressed on a regional or
national level, such as the control of invasive species, by
modifying the way funds are directed to the Great Lakes
priorities to improve coordination, and by appropriating funds
to address the most pressing environmental needs, as part of
the current budget.
Let me address each of these areas in which we seek your
assistance. Invasive species pose perhaps the greatest threat
to the Great Lakes in a generation. Therefore we urge you to
pass the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. Second, in some
areas, most notably wetlands restoration, a multiplicity of
Federal programs with differing requirements complicates
effective use of resources. In the Great Lakes Environmental
Restoration Act, Senators Levin and DeWine have identified a
promising way to direct funds toward priority needs. By funding
priorities rather than programs, Congress can effectively
channel the work of Federal, State and local agencies toward
key objectives.
We applaud all the bill's sponsors and join their call for
long-term large scale funding through a reform process. This
will take time, and therefore we ask that you fund key actions
in this budget. Specifically, the completion and operation of
two permanent dispersal barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal to keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. It
will cost $6 million to protect the Great Lakes Fishery, a
small fraction of its $4 billion economic value.
Second, support the President's request for the Great Lakes
Legacy Act to be funded at $49.6 million. In Ohio, we are
thrilled by the U.S.A. decision to use funds from the Legacy
Act to clean up contaminated sediments in the Ashtabula River.
Similar success stories in other Great Lakes can be realized if
Congress agrees to the President's request.
Third, provide an additional $50 million to the EPA's
Brownfield program to clean up abandoned industrial waterfront
properties in the Great Lakes Basin. The economic return can be
tremendous. For example, a $3 million Clean Ohio fund grant at
an abandoned manufacturing site in Sandusky is generating $37
million in private investment in housing, retail and outdoor
recreational areas.
Finally, support the President's commitment to restore
200,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin by
appropriate $28.5 million. These first steps will help fulfill
the moral obligation to preserve the Great Lakes, a national
treasure, for future generations.
The Great Lakes are also vital to our economic health.
Thirty percent of our Nation's gross domestic product, 60
percent of U.S. manufacturing and shipping and tourism also
produce significant economic activity. One specific problem
illustrates the link between environmental restoration and
economic viability.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Army Corps of Engineers
annually dredges the Toledo harbor to maintain navigation. The
corps has been depositing the sediments in the shallow western
basin, which has been stressing the most productive fishery in
the entire Great Lakes. We reached agreement with the corps to
cut back on open lake disposal and eliminate it entirely by
2012, using the dredged material for a habitat restoration
project. Ohio will provide the non-Federal match, and together
we will turn a negative into a positive. This would be a
striking example of collaborative success.
However, the agreement is seriously in peril, because the
feasibility study did not qualify for funds under Section 204
of the Water Development Appropriations Act in Federal fiscal
year 2006. The corps needs $1.2 million for this study. I ask
that you specifically name this project in the 2007
Appropriations bill.
The lack of priority funding for this study parallels the
lack of funds allocated to the dispersal barriers that I
mentioned a few moments ago. Projects like these are key in our
attempts to protect and improve the Great Lakes, require a
small investment relative to the damage they promise to
prevent, and need to be given serious consideration at the
Federal level.
This matter is made more urgent by the fact that across
Lake Erie, an average of 4 years of disposal capacity remains
for navigation channel dredging. This looming crisis will force
us to choose between dredging to support shipping and open lake
dumping to the detriment of the Lake and its fishing and
boating industries.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration is needed to address
emerging problems such as this, to oversee implementation of
its Strategy and to continue its collaborative work on behalf
of Great Lakes restoration. We would welcome congressional
action to codify both the collaboration and the Federal
Interagency Task Force.
Our members are actively working to identify areas in which
all levels of government can coordinate efforts toward clearly
defined goals. While I have spoken today of how Congress can
help, be assured that the Great Lakes States and other
stakeholders remain committed to doing our share to protect and
preserve our greatest natural resource.
I am pleased that not only Director Speck is with me today,
but also Director Joe Koncelik of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. We will be prepared to respond to whatever
questions you all may have. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Governor Taft. I really
appreciate your testimony today, and I can assure you that some
of the issues that you have brought before us are being worked
on. I am personally involved in some of them. I understand how
important it is that we move on them.
But it also underscores again the fact that the resources
that we need to get the job done are not available. You were
not here earlier, but we're concentrating all our attention in
terms of working harder and smarter and doing more with less
with the non-defense discretionary budget, which has been
pretty well flat-funded the last couple of years. I think what
we are doing is we're being short-sighted in that. It is a
concern of mine and hopefully more of the members of the Senate
and Congress will get it.
Just one example is the levees there in New Orleans. We had
testimony by the top civil engineers in the country who
basically said that had the budget been adequate, if they had
done what they were supposed to do, they felt that those levees
would have survived those winds. So I think that it is time for
us to start looking at the big picture and we do have to do
that. I had to do it when I was Governor, I had to do it as
Mayor. It is about time that we in Congress did the same thing.
Thank you.
Governor Taft. Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Chairman Ettawageshik, we are so happy
to have you here with us today to give the perspective of your
tribe and I suspect some of the other tribes that are in the
Great Lakes area. Thank you for being here today.
STATEMENT OF FRANK ETTAWAGESHIK, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, LITTLE
TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS
Mr. Ettawageshik. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, boozho, hello. [Greeting in native
tongue.]
My name is Noon Day, otherwise known as Frank Ettawageshik.
I am the tribal chairman of the Waganawksing Odawa. Our tribe
is from the lower peninsula of Michigan.
Senator Voinovich. Pardon me, could you get your mic a
little bit closer?
Mr. Ettawageshik. It is known also as the Little Traverse
Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.
I am here today with the humbling task of speaking on
behalf of many tribes that make up the ad hoc tribal caucus of
the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. I am also here as a
member of the executive committee for the collaboration. I
would like to acknowledge several of the tribal leaders that
are in the audience with us today as well. It is quite an honor
for me and quite a responsibility to speak for so many people
and so many different tribes. They put faith and trust in me to
speak to the important role that tribal nations play in the
Collaboration and how the Collaboration's strategy can be
implemented in a way that not only will achieve its ultimate
goal of protecting and restoring the Great Lakes ecosystems but
also in a way that is faithful to the U.S. treaty obligations
and trust responsibilities to tribal nations.
We have submitted a written statement, and I realize that
we are short on time.
But I have several points that I would like to make in this
oral statement. Mr. Chairman, when considering matters of great
importance, our tribal elders teach us that we must think
beyond the current generation to the seventh generation. We are
also taught that each of us living today is someone's seventh
generation. As we carefully consider our actions and the
actions of our governments, we must continually ask ourselves,
what are we leaving for a future seventh generation?
We understand that the whole earth is an interconnected
ecosystem. The health of any one part affects the health and
well-being of the whole. We are taught that it is our spiritual
and cultural responsibility to protect our local lands and
water, in order to help protect the whole of mother earth.
We all often think of the Great Lakes as so large that they
would be difficult to damage. But consider this image: from
30,000 feet, when you are flying west over Lake Michigan, there
is a point when you can't see either shore and you are looking
at this vast expanse of water. If you look down, you see one of
those 1,000-foot freighters, and it looks about this big. If
you take that 1,000-foot freighter and you were to stand it on
its end in the deepest part of that lake, over 200 feet of it
would be sticking up out of the water. The vastness of the Lake
takes on a whole new, more fragile perspective when you think
of it in this manner.
In the mid-1800s, in the Great Lakes States, we had a
resource that was considered inexhaustible. Yet it lasted for
barely two generations. This was our white pine forests. The
white pine of the current century is our water. The work of the
Collaboration has identified issues and suggested solutions.
All of these proposals will require appropriations over many
years. Numbers of dollars have been brought up here and were
brought up in our plan. We really worked hard to bring those
numbers down to a realistic number. Yet that number, with the
budget concerns that there are today, that number seems very
large indeed.
Tribal governments also allocate funds from our tribal
enterprises to do this work of preserving and protecting the
environment. We also utilize funding from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, EPA and many other Government agencies to accomplish
our work. But the task is immense. The neglect and poor choices
made by individuals and governments over the last century have
compounded upon each other until no one government or people
alone can accomplish the restoration and preservation without
the help of the others.
We must all work together. We must do this now. The lack of
adequate actions today will cause us much harm and additional
costs in the coming years. Our grandchildren are waiting for
our actions. Their grandchildren deserve to inherit an
environment at least as healthy and clean as the one that our
grandparents grew up within.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Chairman. That was an
eloquent statement, the seventh generation. I think all of us,
particularly at the stage I'm at in my life, worry about the
legacy for my children and for my grandchildren. I have been
fighting the Battle of Lake Erie, the second battle, for 40
years. I happen to live where in a half a minute, I can be at
the edge of the Lake. It is a great treasure. We should treat
it as a great treasure. Thank you very much.
I have to go and vote. So Governor Taft, I know you are
busy. What I will do, if you don't mind, I am going to submit
my questions to you for the record.
I guess the biggest question I have is, your thoughts on
how you organize this thing on a national level to make sure it
gets the attention that it needs. I asked that same question to
Steve Johnson and he came back with, he is going to do it.
Well, as Governor, you know if it wasn't for Sam Speck and Joe
Kocelik, your EPA director, you wouldn't be able to get a whole
bunch of things done.
So I would really like to have you think, with some of your
other governmental colleagues, how we can best organize this
here in Washington to make sure that the job gets done. I want
to thank both of you for being here. I am going to run out and
hopefully be back probably in 20, 25 minutes, depending on what
happens. Thank you.
Governor Taft. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ettawageshik. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. The panel is dismissed and we are going
into a short--I hope--recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Voinovich. The good news is we are resuming this
hearing. The bad news is that the votes aren't finished. So I
am going to try to see if I can't give our witnesses the chance
to get their testimony before I have to run back and vote
again. I think we should have, everything being equal, about 25
minutes. So I thank you all for being here. I thank you for
your patience.
If you could, to the best of your ability, and I know it's
tough, because I know you have these words you have worked on,
I have been here, and then we say, well, you have 5 minutes or
4 minutes. So without further words, we have David Ullrich, who
is the director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiatives, who is testifying for Mayor Daley, since he is
sick. Please give the Mayor our regards and tell him how much I
appreciate him. I was going to brag all about him, about all
the leadership he's exercised with the mayors.
So we will start out with you, Mr. Ullrich.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ULLRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES AND
ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE
Mr. Ullrich. Thank you very much, Chairman Voinovich. I
greatly appreciate your having this hearing. Senator Obama,
thank you so much for being here, and we appreciate all of the
attention to the Great Lakes.
My name is David Ullrich. I am executive director of the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. It is a
coalition of 48 U.S. cities and 37 Canadian cities, located
along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. I am representing Mayor
Richard M. Daley of Chicago, who could not be here today
because of illness. He is the chair of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative. His written testimony has been
submitted for the record and I will present his remarks today
on his behalf.
I want to point out up front that attached to the Mayor's
testimony is a letter from Mayor David Miller of Toronto, with
whom the Mayor works very closely, who is vice chair of our
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. He has
indicated in that letter his support for Mayor Daley's
testimony.
In 2004, the President issued an Executive order that
formed the Federal Interagency Task Force and the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration. I would like to thank the
Administration for their leadership in this regard. This was
followed by a series of meetings that drew more than 1,500
people from 8 States and dozens of cities. They represented all
levels of government, tribal members, the private sector and
the non-profit community.
Those meetings resulted in a consensus on Great Lakes
actions and investments for years to come. For the first time,
we are all on the same page and a long-term strategy that will
require large scale investment from all levels of government
and stakeholders. Local governments are committed to doing
their part for Great Lakes restoration.
The cities represented on our board of directors each spend
an annual average of over $200 million for needs related to the
Great Lakes, including drinking water, wastewater
infrastructure, stormwater management, parks, open space,
pollution prevention, shoreline protection. Great Lakes mayors
are implementing innovative changes in water policy and
sustainable building practices, stepping up efforts to conserve
water, protecting our shorelines from erosion and passing
ordinances to stop invasive species.
In Chicago, the Daley administration is ensuring that new
city buildings are certified as green buildings and using
incentives to encourage developers and citizens to conserve
water and use stormwater as a resource. The city of Chicago is
also building a stormwater tunnel that will collect clean
rainwater from the roof of McCormick Place and return it to
Lake Michigan instead of dumping it into the sewer system. The
tunnel will keep approximately 60 million gallons of water out
of the storm sewer system every years and conserve water and
reduce sewer overflows during large storms.
Racine, WI is doing some of the most innovative work in the
country on reducing beach contamination. Erie, PA and
Rochester, NY have made great strides in reducing sewer
overflows. Gary, IN is transforming 21 miles of contaminated
industrial property along the Lake Michigan shoreline into
publicly accessible park land. Cleveland, a city I know you're
very familiar with, Senator, recently approved a lakefront plan
to reconnect the city with Lake Erie.
Long-term protection of the Great Lakes will require a
commitment at all levels. Of course, the Federal Government is
no exception.
As a result of the regional collaboration process, the
Great Lakes community has asked the Administration to support
$300 million in new funding for programs that address a range
of high priority issues. Local and State Governments would
invest approximately $140 million in matching funds.
I would like to highlight several of these near term
actions that are of critical importance. The Army Corps of
Engineers must be authorized to build and operate two invasive
species barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, along
with a $6 million appropriation to carry out this work. This is
a fraction of the cost of the devastation the Asian carp could
cause the Great Lakes.
We need comprehensive legislation to stop the next invasive
species from coming into the Great Lakes and other important
waterways. Invasive species legislation has lingered far too
long. U.S. EPA's Brownfield program should be increased by $50
million and the funds should be targeted to shoreline
communities around the country. We must fully fund the Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Program, which helps cities repair
aging water infrastructure. We also support the President's
requests for full funding of the Great Lakes Legacy Act, and we
ask you to support the President's commitment on 200,000 acres
of wetlands and $28.5 million to be appropriated.
Legislation is being introduced----
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Ullrich, your time's just about up.
Mr. Ullrich. OK, very good. I will wrap up.
Again, we greatly appreciate, and speaking for Mayor Daley,
I know he would have far preferred to be here. Local government
very much wants to be part of the solution. We sense the
urgency and importance of this and are prepared to work with
you, the States, the tribes, our Canadian neighbors to bring
about what we all want in the Great Lakes.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Kuper, who is president of the Council of Great Lakes
Industries. We are very happy to have you here today.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. KUPER, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES
INDUSTRIES
Mr. Kuper. Industry, via the Council of Great Lakes
Industries, welcomes the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. We want to express our support for
additional and better coordinated Federal resources to restore
our Great Lakes ecosystem.
We are also pleased to have been included in the
collaboration process, the process that developed the
restoration strategy that we are here to discuss. The resulting
consensus around our Basin's needs is truly remarkable.
However, we really believe the whole collaboration effort
missed a huge opportunity by not focusing more directly on the
specific elements necessary for sustainable development in the
Basin.
So when it comes time to discuss specific aspects of the
restoration strategy, we as industry do have more to say.
But in the meantime, the Nation as a whole needs to
understand how important the health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem is to our national well-being. Industrial managers
are accustomed to making arguments for why their project or
their plant or company is deserving of somebody's investment.
Our region's leadership understands this, too.
But translating the need for Federal investment in regional
ecosystem restoration is not something we've yet done very
well. That situation is in spite of the remarkable contribution
our region makes to the Nation's well-being, critical to both
our national economic well-being and to our national defense
capability. Our region provides one-third of the gross State
product in the country from eight States, with less than a
quarter of the U.S. population. In other words, our region
carries more of its own weight, considerably more.
Sixty percent of the Nation's manufacturing is located in
our region. That manufacturing base, along with the region's
ecosystem, needs help. The region needs direct investment in
ecosystem protecting infrastructure as called for by the
restoration strategy.
I also need to make a plug. The region also needs national
policy to support the transition from industry-supported health
care and retirement burdens, which sit disproportionately on
the region, and indeed, make us less competitive.
It is clear the region needs infrastructure to support the
growth of our population and our continued industrial activity,
while protecting our treasured natural resources. We have
identified much of what has to be done and we do believe the
restoration strategy will have a positive economic development
impact on the region.
We are currently organizing an economic analysis jointly
with the Healing Our Waters Coalition in order to identify and
quantify these positive economic impacts. We hope to be able to
report back to you on the specifics of the spinoff economic
development impacts you can anticipate from funding key
elements of the restoration strategy.
As I said, when it gets time to fund the specific actions
identified in the restoration strategy, industry has more
thoughts. I have outlined some of those in my written
submission. For instance, with coastal health, we believe that
sewage treatment capacity in the Basin needs to be expanded and
improvements funded.
For toxic pollutants, because of the substantial reductions
made already, it is now critically important to consider the
magnitude and relative importance of the remaining levels of
these materials from a risk management and a risk assessment
perspective, to ensure that resources are directed to
reductions that will have meaningful outcomes.
But the restoration strategy is not just about the
specifics of what needs to be done. It is also about how we
organize and govern those activities. We must make the most
efficient use of public dollars to meet restoration and
strategy objectives.
Over the last dozen years, I have been privileged to
witness a transition in the way stakeholders engage in
ecosystem issues in the Great Lakes Basin. The consensus
represented by the restoration strategy is but one example of a
growing willingness to work together to achieve great ends.
Industry in the region, where many companies are in a fight
for their continued existence, is pleased to be part of this
process and support many of the initial recommendations of the
restoration strategy.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Buchsbaum.
STATEMENT OF ANDY BUCHSBAUM, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION'S GREAT LAKES OFFICE AND CO-CHAIR, HEALING OUR
WATERS-GREAT LAKES COALITION
Mr. Buchsbaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andy
Buchsbaum. I am the co-chair of the Healing Our Waters
Coalition and also the director of the Great Lakes Office of
the National Wildlife Federation.
The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a broad-based group of
85 organizations, including a dozen national, many local and
State conservation, environmental and even government
organizations and zoos and aquaria. We are dedicated to the
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes and to the
process, really, that you started with your hearings several
years ago.
We thank you for your leadership, for the committee's
leadership and for your championing of Great Lakes causes now
for as long as you have been in public office. You are a true
champion of the Lakes and we thank you for that.
You have heard from Senator Stabenow and others about the
importance of the Great Lakes to the people in the region. In
fact, a Joyce Foundation report, a study, a poll came out and
said that 96 percent of the people in the Great Lakes region
believe that Great Lakes protection and restoration are
important. Ninety-six percent. You can't get 96 percent to
agree what day of the week it is, and they agreed on that.
In my written testimony I go into more detail about my
family background. Let me just emphasize here that the families
in the Great Lakes, the millions of families in the Great
Lakes, share memories, they share experiences that make the
Great Lakes a way of life. You have heard also today, you have
heard from several of the Senators and from Mr. Kuper about the
importance of the Great Lakes to the Nation.
I just want to emphasize that that importance is reflected
not only by those here, but those across the country. We have
in the written testimony, there are quotations, quotes, support
from representatives from coastal Louisiana, from the
Chesapeake Bay, from Puget Sound. We will be submitting also,
we have support also from the Everglades, of course, but they
didn't get it in time for my testimony. But you will see that,
we will submit that later.
We are very pleased to be partnering with the Council of
Great Lakes Industries to look at the real hard numbers,
economic numbers of what ecological restoration will mean for
the Great Lakes economy.
But I want to return to something that Senator DeWine
talked about right at the beginning, when he talked about
scientists in the region coming to a consensus that the Great
Lakes were at a tipping point. This is a major change in the
context of Great Lakes policy and restoration. Up until now, we
thought, it's taken decades for us to get to this point in the
Great Lakes, what's so urgent? It might be important, but
what's so urgent about taking action?
This report identifies the urgencies, and it's alarming,
it's shocking. It says that the Great Lakes ecosystem has
experienced what they call ecosystem breakdown. They say the
immune system is damaged. So what happens is that there is a
cascading effect, a change reaction of degradation that occurs.
These are not my words. These are the scientists' words. Their
paper is in my written testimony as Appendix B.
They reached this conclusion because of some well-known
problems, such as the growing dead zone in Lake Erie, but also
because of similar problems they are seeing in Saginaw Bay,
Lake Huron and also in Green Bay in Lake Michigan. There are
some problems that aren't so well know, such as really the
impending crash, the crash that's really already occurred, of
the Great Lakes food web. Huge crash which is also in my
written testimony, and as a chart, Appendix C, it graphically
demonstrates that.
In fact, the scientists have said in the last 5 to 15
years, they have seen ``the rapidness of this process is unique
in Great Lakes recorded history.'' So we can't wait, we have to
act now.
There is a common sense solution. If the immune system is
damaged, you restore the immune system and you make sure that
new insults don't come in. That's what the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration has done. It has provided a blueprint for wise
investment.
You have heard about the precedent setting nature of the
way those recommendations are made, and you have heard about
the precedent setting nature of the recommendations. They
follow the scientists' recommendations. That's not surprising,
because the scientists were on those panels.
What they do is, they do three basic things. They attempt
to fix and streamline existing programs, they authorize new
programs where they are needed and they provide substantially
new funding. All three are necessary to fix the Great Lakes.
Several quick highlights: wetlands and buffer strips are
critical, because they provide the buffering capacity for the
Great Lakes. That's essential in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy. That repairs the immune system.
Stopping untreated sewage from dumping, a major Federal
investment, but again, it's a new insult we have to do without.
Probably the biggest problem identified by the scientists is
the onslaught of invasive species, on average, one every 8
months. Unless we can stop those, the system can never recover.
There's plenty for you all to do. We encourage you to take
up Senators Dewine's and Levin's legislation when it comes up,
to make the funding priorities happen. I will be happy to
answer questions.
I just want to leave you with one final thought, which is,
which you said, Senator, at the beginning, penny-wise and
pound-foolish, this is an investment we need to make. There is
a return on investment. The longer we wait, the worse it will
get. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. I agree. Thank you.
Ms. Katz.
STATEMENT OF DIANE KATZ, DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE, ENVIRONMENT AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY, THE MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Ms. Katz. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Diane
Katz, and I am director of Science, Environment and Technology
Policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
The Mackinac Center is a Michigan-based, non-partisan
research and educational institute that assists law makers, the
media and the public in evaluating policy options. We greatly
appreciate the opportunity to join this discussion of the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy.
Before you is an ambitious strategy intended to restore the
Great Lakes ecosystem. The architects of this strategy claim
that we have failed to protect our beloved Lakes. The
shortcomings of the current approach, however, stem not from
any lack of regulation or resources, as the strategy report
contends. On the contrary, the problem is the excess of well-
intended but ill-conceived programs that fall under disjointed
regulatory agencies at the international, Federal, State,
provincial and local levels.
Unfortunately, the problem will not be remedied by the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, which prescribes
more unwieldy and inefficient regulation. As the report states,
the Strategy was developed through an inclusive process aimed
at achieving the broadest consensus possible. That means the
Strategy is more a product of the political process than the
scientific method, just like the existing regime.
Numerous restoration strategies for the Lakes have been
hatched over the years. Most, if not all, have advocated an
expansion of the regulatory State. But we will achieve better
results only by applying the most basic truths of good
governance, that incentives are more powerful than punishment,
that sound science yields better results than rhetoric, and
most importantly, that citizens are far better stewards of
their property than the State will ever be.
There is no definitive accounting of the billions of
dollars allocated for Great Lakes programs. That in itself says
a great deal about the status quo. There is also no
comprehensive accounting of the numerous Great Lakes programs
initiated over the past three decades. To fill this information
gap, the Mackinac Center has undertaken a census of Great Lakes
programs that so far has identified more than 200 Government
initiatives. Many lack measurable goals, and there is little of
the coordination necessary to maximize environmental
improvements.
Rationalizing these myriad programs was the principal tasks
of the eight strategy teams that crafted the restoration plan.
What has materialized instead is a regulatory wish list that is
sweeping in scope but limited in scientific and economic
rationale. Hopefully the executive committee will pursue
meaningful change rather than tinkering at the margins. This
would entail identifying for elimination dozens of redundant,
ineffective programs while also advocating for the restoration
of property rights, common law and impartial risk assessment as
the foundation of Great Lakes strategy. The Lakes deserve no
less.
The Strategy also suffers from an internal inconsistency.
On the one hand, the report laments the failure of existing
programs to adequately protect the Great Lakes. On the other
hand, the Strategy calls for greatly expanding the regulatory
powers of the very government agencies that the Strategy argues
have mis-managed the job. It's time to abandon the command and
control methods that empower the environmental bureaucracy.
The Strategy is also compromised by its underlying
supposition that the Great Lakes are teetering on the verge of
collapse. In fact, water quality has improved dramatically
during the past three decades in large measure because of more
efficient technologies. Michigan's 2006 report, Water Quality
and Pollution Control, states ``The open waters of the Great
Lakes have good to excellent water quality.'' Contrary to the
tipping point theory, and it is only a theory, wildlife is
thriving, with hatchery stocks comprising less than 20 percent
of the trout population in Lake Superior. Moreover, eagle
sittings have soared, while analysis of blood and feathers
document a dramatic decrease in PCP concentrations.
Missing from the Strategy is any examination of
Government's role in exacerbating contamination of the Lakes.
Agricultural subsidies, for example, have long contributed to
excessive use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. The
infiltration of non-native species is a legitimate concern. But
a lack of comprehensive data has precluded informed
decisionmaking on environmental priorities.
Many Government agencies only collect data on program
inputs, not outcomes. Similarly, the pesticide information
grant program measures success only by the rate of inspections
that result in enforcement action, rather than any actual
reduction of pesticide runoff.
The waste of resources is rampant. For example, some 88
research vessels operate independently in the Great Lakes,
according to the Great Lakes Association of Science Ships.
Senator Obama [presiding]. Ms. Katz, I apologize, but we
are out of time on your initial testimony. You can submit the
rest of it into the written record.
Ms. Katz. OK. If I may just provide my recommendations,
which are just five short sentences.
Senator Obama. OK. But we're all pressed for time.
Ms. Katz. I understand.
Eliminating programs that cannot document environmental
improvements commensurate with costs. A greater reliance on
property rights and market based incentives to revive areas of
concern. Private sector involvement in crafting more effective
Great Lakes policy. Development of Basin-wide data base of
ecological conditions, with which to set stewardship priorities
and determine effective remedies.
Thank you.
Senator Obama. Thank you very much, and I apologize, we
ended up being scheduled for votes, as all of you know. So
Senator Voinovich and I and Senator Jeffords are going back and
forth, playing a tag team here, so that none of us miss any
votes.
Mr. Howland, you're batting cleanup. Then we will have an
opportunity for some questions.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. HOWLAND, MANAGER, LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN
PROGRAM
Mr. Howland. Thank you, Senator Obama.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is William
Howland, I am the manager of the Lake Champlain Basin Program.
I want to talk today about three particular points that focus
on how intertwined the ecosystems of Lake Champlain and the
Great Lakes are. Also the environment and economic disaster of
invasive aquatic nuisance species. Then finally, the importance
of sharing our management experience in Lake Champlain with
that of the Great Lakes.
The Lake Champlain Basin program is a bi-State,
international partnership to restore water quality and improve
the economy of the Lake Champlain Basin. Our partnership, now
in its 15th year, involves the States of Vermont and New York,
the Province of Quebec, the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission and numerous U.S.-Federal
agencies. The Lake Champlain Basin program partners all work to
implement a comprehensive management plan called Opportunities
for Action, which is included, I believe, at every Senator's
place as an exhibit. It is an evolving plan for the future of
the Lake Champlain Basin.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to restore
and protect the Great Lakes being considered by this committee
is a first-rate, comprehensive management plan with many
similarities to our Opportunities for Action plan for Lake
Champlain. It identifies the key challenges for the Great Lakes
and it provides a clear road map for a collaborative
restoration effort.
Today, water quality in many near-shore areas of the Great
Lakes is experiencing terrible problems. It is virtually in a
free fall in some of the near-shore areas where blue-green
algae blooms are found, phosphorus and nutrient levels are
surging and there are the continuing problems of invasive
species. Present trends are heading toward drinking water that
is a serious health risk for tens of millions of Americans,
burgeoning numbers of invasive species and ecosystem
impairments that will take centuries and untold billions of
dollars to remedy should they continue on present trends.
Senate bill 508 provides a multi-State, multi-agency
collaborative leadership of the sort that has a proven track
record in Lake Champlain. The Lake Champlain Basin program,
which was established by Congress in the Special Designation
Act of 1990 and again authorized in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act of 2002, created our
Federal, State and local Agency collaboration. S. 508
establishes a similar collaboration that will generate
measurable in-the-water results to get this job done.
The common interests of Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes
are made especially clear on this map here. Both Lake Champlain
and Lake Ontario enter into the St. Lawrence River, as you can
see. Also, the map shows a second water connection where the
second part of Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are connected
by the New York Canal System and the Hudson River. This is an
extensive canal system, which includes the Hudson River, which
has been a passageway for aquatic nuisance species into Lake
Champlain from the Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, zebra mussels, which are native to Europe,
were introduced into the Great Lakes by shipping ballast waters
and they invaded throughout the Great Lakes and then they
invaded Lake Champlain by way of the Erie Canal, the Hudson
River and the Champlain Canal. Now they are established
throughout our Lake.
Of the 48 invasive aquatic species in the Lake Champlain
Basin, 13 have entered Lake Champlain from the Great Lakes by
way of the canals. So we applaud the recognition of this
problem in the Strategy and the plan to re-examine the canals
and consider the cost benefit of a barrier. Over the 15 years
that we have been working at the Lake Champlain Basin program,
we have issued nearly 600 research and monitoring and plan
implementation contracts to guide our management. While we are
only 120 miles long, I believe that our 15-year record of
research and management is of value to the Great Lakes. My
point is that we would get a better bang for the buck if we
share lake management science that both our systems require.
We do have a memorandum of agreement with the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission that does provide for joint work and that
is a model that we might be able to extend. We have in the Lake
Champlain Basin reversed the trend of phosphorus loading in a
number of tributaries. We have found ways to manage the water
chestnut and we have removed PCB contaminated sediments in one
large bay of the Lake. So we have some success stories, and we
need to learn from the Great Lakes as well as to share our
experience with them.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. The full
extent of my comments and the two documents, Management Plan
and the State of Lake Champlain, are included as exhibits.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Obama. We will make sure to include all of those
into the record.
[The documents are retained in the committee's file.]
Senator Obama. Normally the freshman has to ask questions
last, but I have this great opportunity to have the panel to
myself.
[Laughter.]
Senator Obama. Let me start with you, Mr. Ullrich. One of
the questions obviously in the amount of resources that we
devote to Great Lakes restoration has to do with the degree to
which this is considered a regional problem or a national
issue. I'm wondering how your organization, how the Mayor and
the various groups are thinking about where this ranks in terms
of priorities, when we look at environmental issues across the
country?
Mr. Ullrich. The mayors, and I know Mayor Daley
particularly and Mayor Miller of Toronto, have obviously put
this on a very, very high priority level. The Lakes are so
incredibly important to the quality of life and the economies
of our cities that it must be extremely high. It's not only a
national issue, it is clearly an international issue.
In many respects, I think people are starting to recognize
that it's a global issue, with 20 percent of the surface fresh
water in the world, we have an incredible responsibility to
protect this. Particularly through this recent collaboration, I
think there is a much better appreciation of the importance of
integrating Federal, State, local, tribal levels, working with
the stakeholders and then doing it across on an international
level, to make sure that this many trillion dollar value
resource that we have is really protected.
There are huge threats if we do not act in the very near
future and have a sense of urgency. What we are going to pay
down the road is going to be much higher and our grandchildren
will look at us and say, why didn't you do it and make the
investments back then?
So I don't think there is any question but that, in terms
of Mayor Daley, Mayor Miller and the other mayors, for their
own local priorities, what they think on a State and regional
level, on a national level and international level, this must
be a very, very high priority.
Senator Obama. Mr. Buchsbaum.
Mr. Buchsbaum. Thank you, Senator.
I completely agree with what Mr. Ullrich has said. We don't
look at the Great Lakes as an environmental issue, just as
Coastal Louisiana and Everglades really are not environmental
issues. Mr. Kuper testified before, the Great Lakes drive the
economic engine of the region as well. The economic engine of
the region has a major say in the national economy.
More than that, the people in the Great Lakes Basin think
of the Great Lakes as a part of their lives, or their way of
life. They don't look at them as an environmental issue. Their
ability to fish, to go swimming, to go out on the dunes to
watch the sunsets is one thing. But the other thing is, they
define the geography, the incredible geography of the region.
They are huge. Yet they are fragile.
So the entire region's prosperity and identity are wrapped
up here. It's really not an environmental issue and that's what
makes it both a regional and a national priority.
Senator Obama. Good.
Mr. Kuper. When the representative of the National Wildlife
Federation makes industry's argument better than industry does,
I think we've accomplished a great deal.
[Laughter.]
Senator Obama. It's a good sign.
Mr. Kuper. I just think that we might want to raise the
level of understanding of what we're about here. Teddy
Roosevelt, who said, ``The Nation behaves well if it treats
natural resources as assets, which it must turn over to the
next generation increased and not impaired in value.'' Pretty
interesting, in 1910 he was saying this stuff.
Senator Obama. He was a pretty smart guy.
Mr. Buchsbaum, I noticed in talking about comprehensive
invasive species legislation, I know there are some who have
argued that that's a preferable approach to the ballast water
discharge control approach. I was wondering if you could just
elaborate on that just a little bit.
Mr. Buchsbaum. Sure. Ballast water discharges are probably
the leading source of invasive species in the Great Lakes. But
they are only one source. To really address invasives that
enter the Great Lakes, you can't look at just one vector, which
is what ballast water is.
So yes, we have to deal with ballast water discharges, we
need to make sure that those are addressed. But there are
invasives that come up through canals, there are invasive
species that are brought in intentionally as pets or for food
and other means. Invasives are used in education, baits,
dumping bait in waters, transport of boats between waterways.
There are all sorts of avenues and routes for invasive species.
If we just focus on ballast water, or we just focused on
our region, we're slowing down the rate of invasive species
into the Great Lakes, but ultimately we're just putting off the
problem. We need a comprehensive approach like the National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act, which I know is before this
committee. It is just critical. It is not just critical for the
Great Lakes. I believe that zebra mussels now have spread all
over the Midwest, through the whole system. I apologize, as a
citizen of the Great Lakes, they started with us in this
country. We are the source of invasive species as well as the
victim.
But that's the way it is for every waterway, for every
place. So unless we do it comprehensively, we might delay the
problem, but we won't solve it.
Senator Obama. Yes, Mr. Kuper.
Mr Kuper. I would just like to add, Senator, that the
Collaboration advances are understanding, from a policy point
of view, what we have to do and that it points out, there's a
distinction between new introductions, which comes from the
salties, and they are going to have to have treatment systems
for their ballast water, versus the spread of exotic species by
the lake carriers, which the Collaboration suggests they use
best management practices. So already there is a better
understanding as a result of the collaboration process as to
what kind of policies we need to put in place.
Senator Obama. Good. I apologize, it turns out that Senator
Voinovich hasn't quite made it back here yet. I am about to
miss the last vote that we have to take. He will be back here
in a second. I am just going to have to recess this just for
one moment. Ms. Katz, you will be next. Everybody should tell
the truth when Senator Voinovich returns, that it's her turn.
[Laughter.]
Senator Obama. So we will be right back. The committee
stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Voinovich [presiding]. We call the committee
meeting to order. According to my staff person, Ms. Katz, you
were going to respond to a question from Senator Obama, is that
correct?
Ms. Katz. Yes, we were discussing aquatic invasive species
and ways to address that legitimate problem in the Great Lakes.
I just wanted to suggest that with respect to AIS and some
pending legislation, that many of the regulatory goals are
unscientific, which undercuts the credibility of the proposals
to deal with them.
For example, the Strategy calls for preventing all new
introductions of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes,
as well as the elimination of any or all persistent toxic
substances to the ecosystem. But non-native species are an
unavoidable fact of nature. To the extent that we lay out
unrealistic or unscientific goals, we're not going to be as
effective as we otherwise would.
Senator Voinovich. The organization you represent, where is
it located?
Ms. Katz. We're located in Michigan.
Senator Voinovich. Where is it?
Ms. Katz. It's based in Midland, MI, and we have offices in
the metro Detroit area and in Lansing.
Senator Voinovich. Who funds your organization?
Ms. Katz. A great many individuals, foundations, companies.
We have a variety of funding sources. We do not take Government
funds, however.
Senator Voinovich. You're basically saying that the
invasive species are a what?
Ms. Katz. I'm saying there's a legitimate concern with the
invasive species. I'm just suggesting that we would be more
effective if we do not attempt to draw this as a bigger problem
than it is, or to suggest unreachable goals.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I've been living with it for 40
years, and I have to tell you something. Invasive species are
terrorists.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Katz. Yes, and I've been living with them for 50 years.
I agree we need to respond to the problems.
Senator Voinovich. Zebra mussels and quaga mussels, and you
get the carp into this Lake and God help us. So there are many
of us that want these, we're going to try and get this Act
passed. We are trying to get the Coast Guard to inspect these
boats and get at their ballast waters where they empty them
out, then they come in and they say they're all right. But then
they clean them out in some of the ports and this stuff gets
into them.
Ms. Katz. I'm hoping that we do in fact dramatically reduce
the introductions of invasive species. I'm just suggesting that
if our goal, if we throw our resources at a goal of eliminating
them all, then we're going to lack resources to take care of
other problems as well.
Senator Voinovich. Well, we need a whole lot more
resources.
Is somebody here from the Army Corps of Engineers? OK.
According to the information I have, the corps budget has been
riddled, in the budget. We have to get real about some of these
things. If we don't do something about them, ultimately we're
going to lose our Lakes.
So anyhow, Mr. Ullrich, I'd like you to answer questions in
terms of two key hurdles that you stated: excessive bureaucracy
and funding delivery. I would also like you to comment about
how we coordinate with Canada, as you included a letter from
Toronto, Mayor David Miller. I also want to insert testimony
from Canada into the record, which we will do.
[The referenced information referred to may be found on
pages 133-134 and 216-220.]
Senator Voinovich. I was really pleased that earlier, I
don't know if he's here or not, but Senator Grafstein is here
today, or was here. Jerry and I have been friends for a long
time. I'm on the Canadian-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. In our
last meeting, we brought up the issue of the Great Lake and
what we should do. He's working on a task force there in Canada
to kind of coordinate all their activities so that maybe down
the road we can kind of get both groups together.
As many of you know, I had hoped, and I do hope that the
President and the new Prime Minister will come together and
agree that this is going to be the most significant bilateral
effort in the world, to restore our Great Lakes. I think it
will require the resources and cooperation of all of us to get
that job done. I am looking forward to that happening here.
So I would be interested in your comments, Mr. Ullrich.
Mr. Ullrich. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think you are aware
how much Mayor Daley does not like bureaucracy, and the
importance of cutting through it as much as possible. Simply
stated, we can't have this mix of 140 different programs spread
out over 10 plus Federal agencies and expect to be able to
deliver Great Lakes protection in an effective manner.
I think that this Interagency Task Force is definitely a
step in the right direction. But as reflected in your exchange
with Administrator Johnson this morning, it's too big a job,
when you look at the number of programs and the number of
agencies involved. It seems somehow or another there's got to
be a consolidation of those.
We would suggest a good place to start would be with
wetlands programs. It's a priority for the President, it's
critically important to the quality of the Lakes and to the
wildlife and fish. Frankly, we continue to keep losing wetlands
across the Basin. I have an unofficial count of somewhere in
the neighborhood of 35 to 40 different wetlands programs spread
across the Federal Government.
But I think that would be a good place to start, and
looking at this combined issue of programs and bureaucracy, to
really focus that down and have real accountability measures on
an annual basis is, are we restoring and increasing as my
understanding the President wants, and there's money in the
budget to do some of this, or are we in fact losing them? So I
think that is critical.
In terms of the cooperation with Canada, which is
absolutely essential at every step of the way, and why Mayor
Daley reached across the Lakes to Mayor Miller and the other
mayors is that we're neighbors. I don't care if we're hundreds
of thousands of miles or kilometers apart, we're neighbors,
because this same water that we have out in front of Chicago
flows by Toronto, Quebec City, Montreal, out the St. Lawrence
River.
So recognition of that up front is critical, and I know
that the Governors work with the premiers, have done so on the
annex process recently. There is good cooperation at the
Federal level with a bi-national executive committee. We really
need to focus on this new Great Lakes water quality agreement
in terms of that's the mechanism to really bring people
together more. The mayors, I think the tribes need to be part
of this, along with the States and the Federal Government, but
really focusing and honing in on all of that I think could make
a big difference. The place to start is with the wetlands
program.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Howland, what are your thoughts,
after hearing the testimony today, on the most effective means
for Lake Champlain Basin program to collaborate on Great Lakes
restoration?
Mr. Howland. Senator, we noted in the Collaboration
document that about 1,500 stakeholders and partners put the
consensus effort together, and aquatic nuisance species
management was the first goal to appear in that document. We
feel that that was well placed.
I think that our Lake Champlain experience is that aquatic
nuisance species invasions, many of them from the Great Lakes,
have been one of the most severe headaches that we have. I feel
that our existing collaborative document, a memorandum of
agreement between the Basin program, Lake Champlain Basin
program partners, and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission,
which we operate under and have for the last period of time, is
a good model.
But we would be hopeful that as this management strategy
takes place and as the Senate bill to authorize a collaborative
partnership coordinating Great Lakes management takes shape,
that the Basin program for Lake Champlain could have some
advisor or observer role, to share our management experience
with the Great Lakes and to reciprocate. Because it is clear
that our problems are so similar, we hope that that would be a
possibility.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Ullrich, I noted in your written
testimony that there are no mayors from the Lake Champlain
Basin in your group. What are your thoughts on how we can
increase participation from that region and what the primary
areas of cooperation might be at such a local level?
Mr. Ullrich. A place to start would be at our annual
conference this summer up in Perry Sound, Ontario. I have
spoken with your good director of the Lake Champlain program,
we are going to try to get him up there as well. Also, we will
reach out to the mayors out there. As you know by our name, we
are Great Lakes and St. Lawrence because of the critical
integration of those two resources and the extent to which the
Lake Champlain Basin ties in with the St. Lawrence Basin, we
open our doors to mayors up there. We have quite a few from
Quebec. I don't see any reason why we can't open our doors and
arms up there, and I will work with your director to make sure
that that happens.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Buchsbaum, how do you explain the
difference between the scientific assessment of the Great Lakes
with the view presented by Ms. Katz?
Mr. Buchsbaum. I can't. There are, we've been working in
the scientific community for decades. Government scientists,
non-government scientists, academics alike, 60 of the region's
leading scientists in a very scientifically sound, non-
ideological way were asked, what's wrong with the Great Lakes
and how do you fix it, and what's the condition of the Great
Lakes.
They came up with a report which I actually found shocking.
I have been working in this region, in this area for a long
time. I thought things were not good. But as Ms. Katz said,
water quality is better, there are some indicators that have
gone up, some of the Government reports are somewhat favorable.
The scientists say that when you look under the surface,
you are seeing ecosystem crashes in large swaths of ecosystem.
They are seeing it, the anoxic zone in Lake Erie, they can't
explain it. They don't know why it's there. They don't know
what's going on. They don't know how to fix it. They are seeing
massive changes in the Lake Erie ecosystem, including botulism
and bird die-offs and all sorts of things that show that the
ecosystem is sick.
In Lake Michigan, they in large, vast stretches of the lake
bottom, they can't find any freshwater shrimp, diporeia, which
is the basis, it's 80 percent of the food that fish eat. They
can't find any in vast stretches. They've gone from 10,000
organisms per square meter to 5 or 10 or zero in places. Now
the science is documenting that's happening not only in the
southern part of Lake Michigan, but throughout Lake Michigan,
in Lake Huron and Lake Erie and parts of Lake Ontario. So the
scientists, this information has been well-known to the
scientific community for the last 5 years, but it's not getting
out to the public. Now, and certainly it's not getting into
policymakers.
So now that we know, that's why the scientists have said,
I'll quote that again, they said that ``The rapidness of the
process of change is unique in Great Lakes recorded history.''
These are 60 of the leading scientists in the region, from all
the major universities, Government scientists, Canadian
scientists, U.S. scientists. So I guess I respectfully simply
disagree with the assessment of the Mackinac Center on this
one.
There will always be questions as to what's to be done.
There will always be questions as to how bad the problem is or
what the causes are. There will always be theories. But if we
wait to take action until every I is dotted and every T is
crossed, we will be much too late, and we will not have, the
Great Lakes will not be there.
Now, let me say one thing about another consensus that's
emerging. It's about invasive species. Most scientists believe
that invasive species are probably the worst problem facing the
Great Lakes. Because you can't bring a system into equilibrium
when you're getting a new insult, a new invader, to shake up
the ecology every 8 months. On average, that's what we have.
So what we're doing now is absolutely not working. That's
one of the reasons for the fundamental changes that were
recommended by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, and
that's one of the reasons why we support them so strongly.
Senator Jeffords. Well, sir, that is reassuring.
Ms. Katz. Senator, if I may respond.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Katz.
Ms. Katz. I would explain it as a difference in opinion on
degree as opposed to kind. That is, we have seen throughout the
last 30 years or so when it has come to environmental issues a
great range of opinion on the degree of risks that are posed by
various environmental issues. I would say that there is a
pretty big chasm sometimes between scientists who are arguing
for much more Government action, who see a much more elevated
risk versus those who, while cognizant of changes in the
environment, may not be viewing them as cataclysmic.
So I would suggest that for every scientist that Mr.
Buchsbaum is able to bring to the table, claiming that the
Great Lakes are about to crash, there could be another
scientist at the table who would say there have been changes,
that ecosystems are not static. In fact, these changes may be
bringing about effects that we don't want to see, but that we
are not on the verge of environmental doom.
Senator Jeffords. I want to say thank you, but I'm not sure
that's the appropriate word. But thank you.
Senator Voinovich. I will comment that we had hearings on
the issue of the dead zones in the Lake with some of the best
scientists, and they can't explain it. That is worrisome. So we
need to continue to work on that research, to see if we can't
pinpoint just exactly what the real problem is.
But I think that, I sure don't want to get into another
argument in this committee on climate change. We've been
dealing with that for several years around here. I think we
know that there are some things that need to be done and we
need to get on with them.
Mr. Kuper, I was kind of impressed with the fact that you
are doing an economic analysis and impact of investments.
Ms. Katz. Jointly, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Jointly, good. Because I think that
there are two things that need to be done. One is if we don't
do it, here's what's going to happen in terms of the economy
and the fishery and all the other things that are connected
with it, including, Mr. Kuper, including getting the Army Corps
of Engineers budget to where it is, because the docks, locks,
you name it, that's very important to moving transportation.
We're in deep trouble right there with that situation all over
the country.
In fact, many people are worried about whether we're going
to be able to transport agricultural commodities because of
what's happened there. We've kind of just closed our eyes to
it.
But in addition to that, in terms of getting money from
Congress, the commitment, it's also good to be able to say,
``gee, if you do this, it's going to have some positive impact
on the economy of the area.'' I'd like to commend, maybe the
two of you, on what you're doing.
Mr. Buchsbaum. We're looking at, what we would like to do
is have a researcher--a top-notch researcher, someone with
national prominence, we have somebody in mind that we're
negotiating with now--look at several different levels of
economic impact restoration might have. There's the direct
impacts, fishing, tourism, things that you would associate with
the Great Lakes.
We're also looking at the next level of impact, which would
be the way that property values might change, the way that
cities might change the way they do their investments. Then
there's a final level we're looking at, which is looking at how
the Great Lakes create a, I hate to say competitive advantage,
because I don't want to disadvantage other reasons, because
this is a national effort. What sort of asset does the Great
Lakes bring to the region that the region's economy can
essentially market to the rest of the country and the world. Is
that fair?
Mr. Kuper. Very clearly done, yes. Our problem right now
is, though, we're at the stage where we're trying to organize
funding for this project. It doesn't come for free, it's fairly
expensive. We also understand that it needs to happen fast. So
we're working very hard at bringing this to bear.
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to ask you, as you were talking
about money, we have the Great Lakes Protection Fund, and I
know that quite well, because when I was Governor, we fully
funded Ohio's share of it. There's only seven States that
participate in it.
I just wonder whether or not this project that you're
talking about might qualify for that. States get an annual
distribution of funds from the fund and then there's a
competitive process that's in place to do research work. It
seems to me that this might be some source of revenue to you.
I'm not sure it fits into the charter of it. But I would think
that you could well argue that it does.
Mr. Kuper. With your recommendation, we'll ask them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. I'll get on the phone and call Governor
Taft right now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. The other thing that we talk about,
metrics. That's real important to me, because so often we get
into doing things and then we really don't go back and measure
what we've accomplished or not accomplished. My last year as
Governor, actually about a year and a half before, we came up
with what we called the Lake Erie Water Quality Index.
What it did was measure where we were in terms of fishery,
in terms of wetlands and other things that impact on Lake Erie.
We had been doing all this work over the years and never had
something that kind of captured where we were. I had hoped that
the next Administration would maybe 4 years later take another
snapshot and just see where we are.
I have long felt that we need that for the Great Lakes.
I've co-sponsored the Great Lakes Water Quality Indicators and
Monitoring Act that would create an index to measure water
quality for all the Great Lakes. I'd like to know, are you
familiar with it and what would your thoughts be. I'm
interested, too, Ms. Katz, about your opinion.
Ms. Katz. Thank you.
Mr. Kuper. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who
think similarly to you in terms of demand for understanding
where we are in the ecosystem, where we are making progress and
where we need to make more progress. There has been an effort
mounted by Environment Canada, jointly with the Great Lakes
National Program Office and the U.S. EPA called the State of
the Lakes Ecosystems Conference, which is a biannual affair
that convenes scientists from throughout the Basin. They have
developed some 80 different indicators that they want to
accumulate data on, so they can start answering the very
questions you're asking across the Basin bases.
The next meeting will take place in November. We have
invested very heavily in the success of this effort, because
like you, there's no point in making an investment unless you
know why you need to make the investment and whether or not
your investment is making progress. So we're very anxious that
this should happen.
There's also a burgeoning effort under the Oceans Observing
System. There's a Great Lakes program being mounted by the
Great Lakes Commission to achieve water quality data more
remotely and more comprehensively than we have to date. There
are a number of issues going on in the Basin that, you're
correct in pointing out, need to be brought together. Perhaps
this committee would like to hear from the State of the Lakes
Ecosystems Conference organizers. They produce a report that
might influence your thinking.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Katz. Senator, if I may.
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Ms. Katz. I think science information about Lake conditions
is crucial. It's crucial for us to know what priorities need to
be set and what actions need to be taken. I would suggest that
a lot of resources for that effort could be amassed were we to
eliminate programs that are sucking up funding but are not as
effective as more research would be.
I would also suggest that another very important aspect of
our research needs to be on program effectiveness. Right now we
are allocating huge sums of money to dozens and dozens of
programs, most of which we have no idea whether they are having
any impact whatsoever.
Senator Voinovich. As part of the work that your
organization does, have you got a report on all that?
Ms. Katz. We are in the process of doing a census on Great
Lakes programs. I'd be happy to communicate with your office on
the information that we have to date, and when it's finished.
Senator Voinovich. I'd appreciate that, if you spend the
time on it, looking at a program and how long has it been in
existence and what result have we got back from it. I think all
of us would be interested in that perspective on it.
Ms. Katz. OMB has run some initial evaluations and has,
those are available and I would be happy to pass those along as
well.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Howland, do you want to talk about
this?
Mr. Howland. Thank you, Senator. The State of the Lake
report which you referenced is our attempt to describe the
conditions presently in Lake Champlain. We have chosen some
indicators to do that. In fact, we are now, this last year,
introducing an ecosystem indicators program that will evaluate
the pressures on the lake ecosystem. Those include economic as
well as physical, environmental pressures, measurements of the
State of the Lake, with a number of indicators for that, and
indicators of the management response. So we have a pressure-
state-response model. The management response should change the
pressures and improve the State. This is the model that we have
chosen for Lake Champlain. We are now in the process of trying
to identify what the best indicators are, and coincidentally, I
think we are looking also at a slate of 80 candidate
indicators. This is where the best science available to us, and
to other Lake systems, has kind of converged on the same need.
We have to be able to show outcomes for the funding that we
use. We have to be able to show progress to our public and our
citizens, and we have to also be to recognize our problems and
know how to address them.
The State of the Lake report that you have there is our
latest best assessment of where we are. We will hope to be
doing that every 3 or 4 years, according to our present plans.
Senator Voinovich. That's wonderful. We will look at it as
part of this legislation that we have.
Mr. Howland. We hope that some process that can be shared
with our colleagues in the Great Lakes and that we can benefit
from the work on indicators that they are doing, because this
is a developing initiative of ours. That's one of the reasons
we are eager to have a collaboration.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I want to thank all of you.
It's 12:30, and I know some of you have to be somewhere at 1
o'clock o'clock. I want to thank you very much for being here
and thank you very much for your patience today.
I have several more questions that I'm going to go through
and prioritize and you may be getting a little letter from me
asking for your response. We're going to get in writing the
answers to some of the questions that you heard me ask Mr.
Johnson. I will share them with you.
In addition to that, we'll be getting from him a specific
plan in terms of how he's going to handle this initiative. Then
I'd be really interested in getting feedback from you as to
whether you think that's adequate to get the job done. Because
the key right now is to make sure that we have someone that's
going to give this the attention that it deserves, and that
it's not going to fall off the list because there's other
priorities that are commanding the attention of whoever it is
that's supposed to be doing the work.
It's a major effort, and I want to thank everybody that's
here. The fact that you got 1,500 groups together and, I just
say, stick to it, keep it going. We are going to need your
help. I think that if we continue to work together, we're going
to make some progress.
I will say this, that a big problem that all of you should
be aware of is the whole infrastructure problem. You can look
at the Great Lakes and look at your needs there. But we have
nationwide needs to be addressed. Quite frankly, this
Administration and the one before it have basically kind of
ignored it. The chickens are coming home to roost.
I think that we need to convince the American people that
they have to invest in this infrastructure if we're going to
maintain our quality of life and our competitiveness. Quite
frankly, not run into situations like we ran into down in New
Orleans, where had we done the job that we were supposed to do,
it might not have occurred.
So thank you very, very much for being here today.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
Statement of Hon. Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, in December, I wrote to the two of
you and asked that you hold a hearing on the restoration strategy for
protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. I greatly appreciate your
accommodating my request and thank the witnesses for appearing today.
The Great Lakes are a natural wonder of the world that hold one-
fifth of the world's fresh surface water. Lake Michigan alone provides
over 40 percent of the drinking water used by the residents of my home
State of Illinois. By providing drinking water, the Great Lakes are
important to our citizens' physical health. By providing shipping,
fishing and recreational opportunities, they are important to our
region's--as well as our Nation's--economic health. Along with our
neighbor to the north, Canada, we are the stewards of this great
resource.
For some time now we have known that the natural ability of the
Lakes to cleanse themselves has been stretched too thin. Using the best
science and technology, we have tried to remedy the ills inflicted upon
the Lakes but all too often, we have failed to do so in a coordinated
manner.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration has been a remarkable break
from the past. The Collaboration has attempted to examine the needs of
the ecosystems present in the Great Lakes through a partnership of
1,500 stakeholders, including Government officials, private sector
representatives, and environmental organizations. The Collaboration's
recommendations do not contain all the answers, but they do provide a
blueprint for rebuilding our way to environmental health. I'd like to
take this opportunity to commend the participants in the Collaboration
for their dedication to the Great Lakes, and their national service in
meeting their commitment to the task at hand.
It is imperative that we not lose momentum, that we commit adequate
resources to the effort, and that we provide the stewardship these
resources deserve. Every day our Nation waits, restoration of the Great
Lakes becomes more difficult and more expensive. Holding this hearing
today is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will be the first
of many taken together in the weeks and months to come.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Hon. Russell D. Feingold, U.S. Senator from the
State of Wisconsin
I thank the Environment and Public Works Committee for holding this
hearing today. I also thank Senator Levin and Senator DeWine for their
ongoing leadership as co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force.
The Great Lakes are a national resource like no other. Beyond
inspiring all those who witness their majesty, they provide freshwater
for our communities, sustain numerous fisheries, support agricultural
activities, and provide an economic base for the region, among other
things. Unfortunately, like so many other of our natural resources, the
Great Lakes require our immediate attention and commitment if they are
to remain a vibrant resource for the country. I applaud the efforts of
all those who participated in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration--
your willingness to spend a year working to compile recommendations to
help restore the Great Lakes is commendable. All levels of government
must heed the Collaboration's warnings and take action on its
recommendations.
Finally, I am hopeful that today's hearing truly indicates a new
pledge of stewardship not only with respect to the Great Lakes, but to
all of parts of our environment. Continuing to turn a blind eye to the
fact that our fate is tied to the fate of the environment will only
result in more problems. In addition to caring deeply about the Great
Lakes, my constituents also care about so many other natural resource
issues. Whether it be safeguarding wetlands, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, or protecting wildlife refuges, the U.S. Senate must step up
and provide the environmental leadership that my constituents, and the
American public, yearn for.
__________
Statement of Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, and members of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I am pleased to have the
opportunity to be here on ``Great Lakes Day'' to discuss the Strategy
to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes that was developed by the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration. I would like to specifically acknowledge,
Mr. Voinovich, your leadership and efforts in support of restoring and
protecting the Great Lakes--one of our country's most important
environmental treasures.
As we begin, I would like to highlight the $70 million request for
the Great Lakes included in the President's FY07 budget for EPA. Nearly
$50 million of this request is to fund the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This
represents essentially full funding of the authorized levels in the
Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) for cleanup of contaminated sediments in
the Areas of Concern, and is a clear demonstration of the
Administration's commitment to the restoration and protection of the
Great Lakes.
background
On May 18, 2004, President Bush signed the Great Lakes Executive
Order establishing the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and Promoting
a Regional Collaboration of National Significance for the Great Lakes.
The Interagency Task Force was created to increase and improve
collaboration and integration among the more than 140 Federal programs
that help fund and implement environmental restoration and management
activities throughout the Great Lakes system. It was also designed to
help ensure that these programs are funding effective, coordinated, and
environmentally sound activities.
The purpose of the Regional Collaboration was to create a
partnership among the Federal Government, Great Lakes States, tribal
and local governments, communities, and other interests to address
nationally significant environmental and natural resource issues
involving the Great Lakes.
Much has been accomplished to date to meet both of these
objectives.
progress to date/next steps
The Interagency Task Force
In its October 2005 report to the President on Implementation of
the Great Lakes Executive Order, the Federal Interagency Task Force
estimated that the Federal Government spends approximately half a
billion dollars annually in support of Great Lakes water quality
improvement programs.
In addition, the Administration recently has committed to begin
implementing 48 near term actions in 2006 to help speed restoration and
protection of the Great Lakes. These activities address issues in all
eight of the priority areas identified in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration's recently released Strategy to Restore and Protect the
Great Lakes.
Examples of these activities at EPA include: developing a
standardized sanitary survey form, for use by the State and local
governments to help identify sources of contamination affecting public
beaches in the Great Lakes; providing improved policy guidance on
managing peak flows at sanitary sewer plants to reduce overflows;
conducting surveillance for emerging chemicals of concern; and, working
with the Corps of Engineers to streamline and improve the permitting
process for projects to restore wetlands and other aquatic habitat in
the Great Lakes Basin.
These efforts are larger than EPA, however, and include
collaborative efforts with our sister agencies. These activities
include: restoring productive fisheries through efforts of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in
partnership with States, Tribes, and Canada; conducting rapid watershed
assessments on critical watershed areas to collect natural resource
data and applying critical conservation on the ground through the
Department of Agriculture; supporting authorization to make permanent
the demonstration barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
through the Corps of Engineers; and, joining with the States in an
equally shared effort to develop wetlands restoration plans that will
enhance and protect a total of 200,000 acres through the Great Lakes
Federal Interagency Task Force.
Next Steps
Of equal importance to these specific activities is the Task
Force's attention to its charge to improve collaboration and
integration among relevant Federal programs in the Great Lakes. To this
end, the Task Force is developing a work plan for its efforts to
address all components of the Executive order, including fostering
consistent Federal policies toward the Great Lakes, developing outcome
based goals, improving the exchange of information, coordinating
scientific research programs, and collaborating with Canada on
binational issues.
The Regional Collaboration of National Significance
The collaborative effort envisioned in the Great Lakes Executive
Order became a reality with the formation of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration (GLRC) in December 2004. The Collaboration partners,
through the outstanding efforts of the eight Strategy Teams, spent the
subsequent year developing recommendations for restoring and protecting
the Great Lakes. After receiving extensive public input to the draft
recommendations, the GLRC released its final Strategy last December. As
part of the resolution signed at the ceremony marking the release of
the Strategy, all of the Collaboration partners affirmed that the
Strategy will guide future efforts to protect and restore the Great
Lakes.
Next Steps
This unprecedented document offers a unique opportunity to make
real improvements to the Great Lakes. For the first time, all levels of
government, as well as our non-governmental partners, will be looking
to the same goals, objectives, and recommendations to help guide their
actions regarding the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration will continue into the future to guide implementation of
the Strategy. The partners have been working on an implementation
framework, which will ensure the plan is carried out and
accomplishments are reported on.
The President's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
The Administration already is using the Strategy as a guide as it
plans its future activities in the Great Lakes basin. For example, the
President's FY07 budget contains several requests for funding that will
support priorities in the GLRC Strategy:
<bullet> As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, the budget for EPA
includes essentially full funding of the authorized levels in the Great
Lakes Legacy Act for cleanup of the Areas of Concern, almost $50
million or approximately 70 percent more than appropriated in fiscal
year 2006. This funding will help leverage at least $25 million from
our State and local partners as well. Already, 200,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments were remediated through the Legacy Act in 2004
and 2005. We estimate that in 2006 and 2007, GLLA projects will
remediate over 650,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments.
<bullet> Several of USDA's conservation programs, including the
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program and the Conservation Security
Program, would see increases. Of particular note is a proposed increase
of 100,000 acres and $153 million over FY06 enacted levels for the
Wetlands Reserve Program. These are all national programs, of course,
but the Great Lakes basin stands to benefit as well.
<bullet> In support of Great Lakes regional collaboration, NOAA's
budget requests $1.5 million to establish a Great Lakes Habitat
Restoration Program that will mobilize NOAA's restoration assets to
restore the Great Lakes' aquatic resources. This funding will be used
to identify an optimal restoration plan and to provide outreach,
facilitation and technical assistance to stakeholders and communities
participating in the restoration activities. In addition, NOAA's budget
contains an increase in funding of $1.5 million for its nation-wide
Aquatic Invasive Species Program, a portion of which will benefit the
Great Lakes.
<bullet> With an increase of nearly $18 million, the Corps of
Engineers will continue construction of the McCook Reservoir flood
damage reduction project that will virtually eliminate the backflows of
raw sewage to Lake Michigan, reducing beach closings, and enhancing
coastal health.
<bullet> And with an increase of over $12 million, the Corps of
Engineers also will continue construction of a facility for the safe
and effective management of more than 4 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments from the Indiana Harbor navigation channel and
adjacent areas.
<bullet> A portion of the increase for the Department of the
Interior's North American Wetlands Conservation Fund will help advance
wetlands restoration in the Great Lakes.
<bullet> The Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
budget includes funding for its Aquatic Invasive Species Program and an
increase of more than $3.3 million to restore fish habitat and fish
passage under the National Fish Habitat Initiative, portions of which
also benefit the Great Lakes.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the
committee for inviting me to participate in this hearing. The
Administration looks forward to working with you and all of our
Collaboration partners to continue this important work, because it is
only through concerted, coordinated action that we will realize our
mutually held goal of a cleaner, healthier Great Lakes. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
Question 1. The Strategy establishes funding levels for each of its
goals. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to who will be
providing those funds. In your view, how much of the $20 billion in the
Great Lakes Strategy do you expect from the Federal Government, the
State governments and the local governments?
Response. All levels of government provide substantial resources to
the Great Lakes. For instance, the Federal Government alone provides
approximately $500 million annually to support Great Lakes water
quality activities. As part of the Federal spending, the Interagency
Task Force, which strongly believes in protecting the Great Lakes, is
implementing 48 Near Term Actions within existing resources. To the
Agency's knowledge, a comparable summation of current State and local
activities and spending does not exist at this time.
As highlighted in the Interagency Task Force (IATF) Report on the
Implementation of the Great Lakes Executive Order, the Federal
Government strongly encouraged the regional collaboration to focus the
strategy on activities that can be accomplished within current budget
projections. The IATF also encouraged the collaboration to focus the
strategy on prioritizing and coordinating these substantial resources
across all of the Collaboration partners in order to improve efficiency
and effectiveness while maximizing results. While the final Strategy
acknowledged these principles, they were not used to guide development
of the recommendations. For that reason, the IATF continues to have
serious concerns with the Strategy, including the recommended funding
levels. The IATF will continue to work with State and local partners to
protect the Great Lakes.
Question 2. The near term actions outlined by the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
in a letter sent to the President on December 12, 2005 and the near
term actions developed by the Administration are inconsistent. Given
the discrepancies in these near term action items, how can we make sure
that the goal of better coordination is met?
Response. The Federal Interagency Task Force (IATF) has finalized a
workplan to track the near-term actions agencies will carry out to
implement a subset of actions contained in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration (GLRC) strategy. We are reviewing these actions, along
with the actions outlined in the letter to the President, to coordinate
which actions can be accomplished within current funding levels, and
which agencies can contribute to completing these actions under current
program authorities.
In addition, the GLRC's Executive Committee released a Strategy
Implementation Framework on March 16, 2006. The Framework affirms the
role of the Executive Committee as the body that will fulfill various
roles and responsibilities related to implementing the GLRC Strategy.
Among those roles and responsibilities are: (1) identifying and
resolving major implementation issues; and (2) facilitating
coordination of Great Lakes restoration and protection activities among
GLRC participants. In carrying out these responsibilities, the
Executive Committee will provide the best forum for identifying
opportunities to improve coordination.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Administrator Johnson, what criteria were used to
select the 48 near-term actions you cite in your testimony as near-term
priorities for the Administration?
Response. In identifying the activities to include on its near-term
list, the Administration's intent was to demonstrate a commitment to
early action and tangible progress in each of the eight Strategy Team
priority areas. Therefore, items on the near-term list address all
eight priority areas, and are being initiated in 2006 using existing
resources.
Question 2. Administrator Johnson, who will be responsible for
monitoring the completion of the 48 near-term actions and will that
person have some type of organizational or oversight responsibility for
the actions of other Federal agencies?
Response. The President's Executive Order on the Great Lakes
provides clear direction to Federal agencies to improve coordination
and collaboration on Great Lakes issues through the auspices of the
Interagency Task Force and the Regional Working Group. This structure
brings the right Federal agencies to the table, at both the national
and regional levels, to ensure that our programs are supporting
effective and coordinated activities in the Great Lakes basin, and that
we are making real environmental progress.
As the Chair of the Interagency Task Force, I have the ultimate
responsibility to ensure that the Task Force implements the provisions
of the Executive order, and delivers environmental results for the
Great Lakes, including the completion of the Interagency Task Force's
48 Near Term Actions. Ben Grumbles, EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Water, shares this responsibility as well. In addition, I have
designated Gary Gulezian, Director of EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office, as the senior manager in charge of monitoring progress
on implementing the Interagency Task Force's 48 Near Term Actions. Mr.
Gulezian also serves as Chair of the Regional Working Group, a role
that gives him the capability to engage other Federal agencies in
implementing the Interagency Task Force's 48 Near Term Actions and to
monitor their progress.
Question 3. Administrator Johnson, have you established measurable
interim and final goals against which progress restoring the Great
Lakes can be measured? If so, were they established using public input?
If you have established interim goals, please submit them for the
record.
Response. At this time, interim goals have not been established for
the GLRC. The IATF/RWG will be looking at the status of existing goals
for the Great Lakes and comparing them to the new GLRC Strategy in
order to develop a set of goals that can be measured and reported. The
IATF/RWG will also be working with our Canadian partners through the
State of the Lakes Ecosystem conference (SOLEC) to measure progress and
assess trends associated with the Great Lakes.
Question 4. Administrator Johnson, how will the Administration
ensure that the implementation of the Great Lakes Strategy is
coordinated, and executed according to priority?
Response. The GLRC's Executive Committee released, on March 16,
2006, a Strategy Implementation Framework. The Framework affirms the
role of the Executive Committee as the body that will fulfill various
roles and responsibilities related to implementing the GLRC Strategy.
Among those roles and responsibilities are: (1) identifying and
resolving major implementation issues; and (2) facilitating
coordination of Great Lakes restoration and protection activities among
GLRC participants. In carrying out these responsibilities, the
Executive Committee will provide the best forum for identifying
opportunities to improve coordination.
In terms of coordinating Federal efforts related to implementation
of the GLRC Strategy, including the Interagency Task Force's 48 Near
Term Actions, the Task Force and the Regional Working Group both have
key roles. In addition, I have designated Gary Gulezian, Director of
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, as the senior manager in
charge of coordinating implementation of the Interagency Task Force's
48 Near Term Actions.
Question 5. Administrator Johnson, what is the EPA's Assessment of
the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem? Please include in your
assessment a list and short description of the scientific documents,
included peer reviewed studies, on which you base your assessment.
Response. EPA and Environment Canada have been developing,
maintaining and implementing a suite of Great Lakes indicators since
1997. An assessment of the status and trends of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem is conducted every 2 years based on the indicator suite, and
a comprehensive, peer reviewed report is prepared. The State of the
Great Lakes 2005\1\ report presents the compilation, scientific
analysis and interpretation of data about the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem. The report is peer reviewed by distinguished scientists from
the United States and Canada participating in the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem process. The final report will be issued on June 26, 2006.
The information is derived from the combined efforts of many scientists
and managers in the Great Lakes community representing Federal, Tribal/
First Nations, State, provincial and municipal governments, non-
government organizations, industry, academia and private citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State of the Great Lakes 2005 Highlights, EPA 905-F-05-006 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and Cat. No. En161-3/2005E Environment
Canada, ISBN 0-662-41451-9, Chicago and Toronto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information in the State of the Great Lakes 2005 report was
presented to participants at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC), October 6-8, 2004, in Toronto, Ontario. Draft
reports were available for public review and comment following SOLEC
2004, and suggested additions, corrections and revisions were
considered and incorporated as appropriate. This bi-national peer
review process ensured that the data were presented accurately by the
report authors, and that the conclusions were supported by the data.
The indicator reports acknowledge the authors and affiliations,
give information about the sources for the data, and list relevant
peer-reviewed literature, agency reports, or other citations supporting
the information presented. The final technical report will be available
online on June 26, 2006 at www.binational.net and at http://epa.gov/
glnpo/solec/index.html. Documents currently available are: State of the
Great Lakes 2005 Highlights\2\ and State of the Great Lakes 2005
Indicator Summaries\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ State of the Great Lakes 2005 Highlights, EPA 905-F-05-006 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and Cat. No. En161-3/2005E Environment
Canada, ISBN 0-662-41451-9, Chicago and Toronto.
\3\ State of the Great Lakes 2005 Indicator Summaries, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, Chicago and
Toronto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Voinovich
Question 1a. You stated that the Administration is undertaking 48
near-term actions in 2006. Please provide the timetable for
implementation of each item on the list.Response.
Interagency Task Force 48 Near Term Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed/ Expected Due
Action Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete analysis for Asian Carp and make ASAP
listing decision.............................
Support Carp Barrier legislation and explore FY 2006
options for long-term operations and
maintenance..................................
Develop action plan to develop inventories, FY 2006
mapping, and treatment of terrestrial
invasive species for the GL basin............
Test shipboard ballast water treatment FY 2006
technologies aboard a MARAD-owned barge......
Perform EPA's validation testing for Ballast FY 2006
Water Treatment Test Protocols...............
Develop Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Completed
Response document for State and local natural
resource mgrs................................
Create a Rapid Response Subcommittee in the FY 2006
RWG to serve as central point of contact
related to aquatic invasive species rapid
response efforts in GL basin.................
Support a five-yr goal for CSO/SSO communities Ongoing
to complete Long- Term Control Plans.........
Issue improved policy guidance on managing FY 2006
peak flows at sanitary plants................
Develop a standardized sanitary survey form FY 2006-2008
for State & local governments and support
implementation pilots using the new survey...
Develop revised criteria to evaluate safety of FY 2006
beaches for swimming, and advance pathogen
prediction studies for beach closings and
harmful algal blooms forecasting.............
Develop AWQC for cryptosporidium in source FY 2007
water, criteria will help states & tribes
develop standards to ease burdens on water
treatment facilities.........................
W/states, analyze WQS data to determine if FY 2007
WQSs are supportive of a drinking water use
for surface water intake systems.............
Issue new handbook for Managing Onsite & Completed
Clustered Wastewater Treatment Systems.......
Fully maximize & implement the GL Legacy Act.. Completed
AOC-EPA committed $25M to clean up Ohio's Completed
Ashtabula River, to be matched by State and
local partners...............................
AOC-EPA expanded EPA-STATE RAP group to Completed
include COE, FWS, and NOAA...................
Support creating a State-Federal-local-tribal FY 2006
Legacy Act coordinating committee............
Evaluate implementation schedule and future FY 2006
directions for Binational Toxics Strategy....
Begin surveillance for emerging chemicals of FY 2006
concern......................................
Work with partners to initiate a toxic FY 2007
pollution prevention outreach campaign for
local & tribes...............................
Support efforts to develop basin-wide mercury FY 2007
product stewardship strategy.................
Support outreach campaign offering FY 2007
alternatives to burning & educate on
consequences of burning......................
Support efforts of GL Sport Fish Advisory Task FY 2006
Force to develop new fish consumption
advisories...................................
Provide guidance to regional offices asking FY 2006
them to include updated mercury methods in
permits with mercury limits..................
Develop draft Methylmercury water quality FY 2007
criteria implementation guidance for states..
Support development of several watershed TMDL FY 2007
pilot efforts in regions-pilot planned for GL
region.......................................
Feds, states, & NGOs develop wetlands FY 2006
restoration plans to enhance & protect
200,000 acres in the GL basin................
Review Federal wetlands management programs to FY 2007
identify possible improved program
coordination.................................
Expedite processing and review of permits to FY 2006
restore wetlands and other aquatic habitat in
the GL basin.................................
Update National Wetlands Inventory maps for GL Ongoing
wetlands.....................................
Include and implement selected Great Lakes Ongoing
watersheds in the Conservation Security
Program......................................
Conduct rapid watershed assessments on FY 2006
critical watershed areas to collect natural
resource data and implement results..........
Adopt innovative conservation technologies & Ongoing
approaches using Conservation Innovative
Grants Program to improve quality of natural
resources in basin...........................
Join others in evaluating effectiveness of Ongoing
conservation practices/systems on improving
soil, water quality and related resources to
include GL states............................
Hold information & education workshops to TBD
strengthen watershed protection through
improved coordination........................
Convene gathering of State transportation FY 2006
agencies to explore what can be done to
reduce storm water runoff in GL region.......
Convene a special session at 2006 SOLEC on key FY 2006
indicators related to GLRC strategy
recommendations..............................
Review monitoring programs to ensure effective FY 2007
& efficient gathering & reporting of data....
Under the Regional Data Exchange initiative Ongoing
enhance the collaborative efforts between
data managers................................
Continue to implement US portion of Global Ongoing
Earth Observation System of Systems and
Integrated Ocean Observing System............
Coordinate existing GL National Status & Ongoing
Trends monitoring with other agencies........
Council of GL Research Managers will promote FY 2006
bi-national coordination & prioritization of
research activities & implement it in
conjunction w/IJC............................
Explore ways to consider sustainable practices TBD
in reviewing SRF & brownfields programs......
Explore possibility of GL Green Highways forum FY 2007
with the states..............................
Review the feasibility of reviewing existing FY 2006
GL grant, loan & subsidy programs &
incorporate sustainable criteria.............
Encourage application of planning methods that FY 2007
lead to development of sustainable &
integrated land use, transportation, & other
public infrastructure plans; and encourage
Metro Planning Organizations to undertake
scenario planning & integrated sustainable
development planning & provide technical
assistance...................................
Support establishment of a national Alliance FY 2006
for Water Efficiency in Chicago..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1b. I inserted into the record a letter that I recently
received from the Great Lakes governors and mayors. It includes a
letter sent to the President on December 12, 2005 proposing a list of
near-term action items. Please detail for each item whether you are
implementing it, and if not, then why you are not.
Response. As noted, the Administration is implementing the
Interagency Task Force's 48 Near Term Actions within existing
resources. Several of these near-term actions were included in the
December 12, 2005 letter to the President from the Great Lakes
governors and mayors. In addition, the Administration is continuing
work on many of the other requested actions within current resources.
Question 2. You mentioned the Asian carp barriers in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal as a priority. Last Congress, we worked hard to
get language passed to provide the Army Corps of Engineers with more
funding to construct the second barrier. We have heard about more
problems recently with the continued operation of the first barrier. I
inserted into the record a letter that Senator Obama and I sent in
December with over 40 members in the House and Senate. We have included
provisions in WRDA but have yet to move that bill through the Senate.
Please provide for the record a detailed update on this project and
what the Administration is doing about it.
Response. The Administration is committed to working with Congress
and non-federal entities, as appropriate, to halt the spread of
invasive species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River
Basin.
As you know, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) is a man-
made waterway that connects the Chicago River and the Des Plaines
River, which creates a connection between Lake Michigan and the
Mississippi River. A demonstration dispersal barrier has been operating
in the CSSC since April 2002. The permanent barrier (Barrier II) is
needed to provide more permanent protection against invasive species.
Barrier II will again be an electric field barrier, but will include
design improvements identified during monitoring and testing of the
demonstration barrier and be capable of producing a more powerful
electrical field.
Barrier II is being constructed in two phases. Construction of the
first phase (Barrier IIA) is complete and it is now undergoing startup
and safety testing. This phase consists of construction of two
underwater electrode arrays and one control house. This control house
will be able to operate one of the two arrays. It cannot be operated at
full strength until the safety testing results are approved by the
Coast Guard, expected by the end of June 2006.
The second phase (IIB) consists of construction of a second control
house that will allow both arrays to be operated at the same time. The
non-federal sponsor is the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR). The sponsor and others believe the project is of regional
importance and should become a full Federal responsibility. The
navigation industry is concerned that the barrier may be unsafe for
passing barge tows and their crews. Safety testing will be completed in
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard to address these concerns.
Final design of Barrier IIB will be completed within FY 2006.
Construction of IIB would not begin until final costs from Barrier IIA
have been verified and final contract negotiations completed for
Barrier IIB. Upon availability of funds, Barrier IIB construction would
likely take 6 months.
Question 3. You detail some of the funding in the President's
budget for Great Lakes programs. While you mention increases, I
understand that the President's budget decreases funding in other key
areas, such as the Great Lakes National Program Office, Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, and several corps projects. Please provide for the
committee a cross-cutting budget analysis for FY 2007 detailing
increases and decreases for all of the Federal programs that impact the
Great Lakes.
Response. A cross cutting budget analysis has not been undertaken
at this time.
Question 4a. The ``Report to the President on the Implementation of
the Great Lakes Executive Order'' stated that the Great Lakes receive
$500 million annually in Federal funds for restoration. Please list the
programs and amount of funds that go towards Great Lakes restoration
annually.
Response. Relevant information from the Report to the President on
the Implementation of the Great Lakes Executive Order is attached. It
contains the programs and funding levels that were included in the
$500M estimate. See Attachment A.
Question 4b. How did the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force
determine which programs relate to the Great Lakes? What criteria were
used to determine whether to include a program or not?
Response. The Task Force included three levels of information in
its assessment. Level 1 contains quantitative data on programs that
have a direct impact on the water quality of the Great Lakes. Level 2
includes qualitative descriptions of programs that lack a direct water
quality connection, but are more broadly beneficial to the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Level 3 includes qualitative descriptions of programs that
lack clear water quality and broader ecosystem benefits, but are
beneficial to the Great Lakes region.
Question 4c. How did the Interagency Task Force determine how much
funding from national programs benefited the Great Lakes ecosystem? Did
the Task Force evaluate whether funding, particularly funding through
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service programs, was spent within the Great Lakes basin?
Response. In cases where national programs were included in the
Task Force report, the Task Force attempted to break out from the
national totals the resources directed to the Great Lakes basin.
For example, expenditures in the relevant United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs are tracked in a way that
can differentiate between in-basin and out-of-basin expenditures. For
some programs however; e.g. EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
expenditure data exist only at the state-wide level, and those are the
numbers that were included in the report.
Question 5. In your role as Chair of the Federal Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force, what are your plans for integrating and
improving the multiple Federal wetlands protection programs which are
spread out over a number of agencies so that the President's goal of
restoring 3 million acres nationally over 5 years is achieved?
Response. The IATF/RWG is developing a subcommittee of Agencies
that administer wetlands programs to work on improving coordination, as
well as implementing and tracking the wetlands related activities in
the list of the Interagency Task Force's 48 Near Term Actions committed
to by the Administration. These activities include:
<bullet> The Federal Government will join the States in an equally
shared effort to develop wetlands restoration plans that will enhance,
and protect a total of 200,000 acres.
<bullet> The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA will work with the
other Federal agencies in the Interagency Task Force and States to
expedite the processing and review of permits for projects to restore
wetlands and other aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes Basin.
<bullet> The Administration will continue to update the National
Wetlands Inventory as scheduled, which will provide valuable
information about Great Lakes wetlands.
Question 6. What are the next steps for the Collaboration? What is
the Federal Government's role?
Response. The next steps for the Great Lakes Collaboration are to
work with partner Agencies and others to ensure that high priority
actions identified in both the Federal Near Term Action plan, including
the Interagency Task Force's 48 Near Term Actions, as well as the
priority actions identified by the other members of the GLRC, are
implemented taking into consideration current fiscal constraints. The
IATF and RWG will work to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
ongoing programs and actions in the Great Lakes with an emphasis on
improving coordination and managing toward environmental results.
Question 7. How is EPA orchestrating this effort at the Federal,
state, and local level? Who is in charge of coordinating the day-to-day
Great Lakes restoration activities?
Response. The primary forum for orchestrating Federal programs and
activities is the IATF/RWG. The Agencies are represented on the
Executive Committee of the GLRC by the Chair of the IATF. States,
Tribes and municipalities also are represented on the Executive
Committee, and numerous other stakeholders are involved as well.
Within EPA, the Great Lakes National Program Office, in close
coordination with the Office of Water, is providing day-to-day support
in carrying out coordination and support to a wide variety of these
efforts. In addition to these efforts, there are other coordination
forums within the Great Lakes, such as the Binational Executive
Committee, the U.S. Policy Committee, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, and the International Joint Commission, that serve to
coordinate, or act as a clearinghouse for programs or information at
the binational, as well as national or basin-wide, levels.
Question 8. How can we better coordinate Great Lakes programs at
all levels of government so that we are more efficient and effective?
Response. On March 16, 2006, the GLRC's Executive Committee
released a Strategy Implementation Framework that, among other things,
affirms the role of the Executive Committee as the body that will
fulfill various roles and responsibilities related to implementing the
GLRC Strategy. One of the key responsibilities is to facilitate
coordination of Great Lakes restoration and protection activities among
GLRC participants. In carrying out these responsibilities, the
Executive Committee will provide a forum for all levels of government
to identify opportunities to improve coordination.
Regarding what the Federal Government can do in particular, the
President's Great Lakes Executive Order directs the IATF to improve
coordination and management of Great Lakes programs in nine specific
areas. Implementing the order will help to ensure that Great Lakes
programs are directed at the most significant problems in the Great
Lakes, that there is no duplication of effort, and that programs are
well coordinated and accomplishing results.
The IATF already has identified two key opportunities for improved
coordination--Federal wetlands programs and aquatic invasive species
rapid response. The Task Force has directed the Regional Working Group
to create two subcommittees to address these issues, and call letters
will be sent to IATF agencies soon to solicit participation.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Obama
Question 1. Does the President support the recommendations of the
Regional Collaboration? If so, then why has the Administration
requested such a small increase in resources to implement these
recommendations?
Response. The Administration is committed to the restoration of the
Great Lakes, and to using the GLRC Strategy to guide its future
restoration and protection efforts in the basin. As the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force's 2005 Report to the President on Implementation
of the Great Lakes Executive Order cites, the Federal Government spends
approximately half a billion dollars annually to improve water quality
in the Great Lakes region. The Administration already is moving forward
within its current budget to implement the Interagency Task Force's 48
Near Term Actions that respond to all eight priority issues identified
in the Collaboration Strategy.
Question 2. Since you are the chair of the Federal Task Force, what
specific actions can we expect the Task Force to take in 2006 and 2007?
Response. The Task Force is moving forward actively to implement
the 48 Near Term Actions it committed to after the release of the GLRC
Strategy. All of the actions will be initiated in 2006 and are
scheduled for completion no later than FY08, except in the case of
several ongoing actions. In addition, the Task Force is implementing
the other provisions contained in the Great Lakes Executive Order. The
Task Force recently completed a work plan, which will allow it to track
its progress in implementing both the 48 Near Term Actions and the
other provisions of the Executive order. The work plan activities are
all possible within existing resources.
Question 3. By definition, the Task Force is Federal in nature.
What are you willing to do to ensure the state, tribal, and local
governments play a more equal role in setting priorities and
determining how Federal resources are utilized?
Response. The IATF will work to include all relevant state, tribal
and local government partners as it works within existing resources to
improve efficiency and effectiveness of current programs, and to
implement the Interagency Task Force's 48 Near Term Actions committed
to by the Administration.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Statement of Bob Taft, Governor, State of Ohio, on behalf of the
Council of Great Lakes Governors
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
The Great Lakes community has reached an amazing milestone. Fifteen
hundred people representing States, cities, tribes, the Federal
Government, environmental, business and agricultural organizations came
together in an unprecedented effort to create the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy, a blueprint for action to restore and protect
the Great Lakes.
Now that planning is complete, it is time to act. But there are
barriers to implementation, and we need your help to surmount them.
While the Collaboration members are moving forward on a number of
actions using existing resources, significant policy and funding
impediments remain. Without your support in this critical first year,
there is a danger that the plan will be for naught and our momentum
will be undermined.
That would be tragic, because the Great Lakes remain threatened by
emerging environmental threats, such as the introduction of a new
invasive species every 8 months, and by historical problems such as
contaminated sediments. A lack of sufficient coordination and focus
among existing programs is also hindering progress.
Congress can help:
<bullet> By tackling problems that must be addressed on a regional
or national level such as the control of invasive species;
<bullet> By modifying the way funds are directed to Great Lakes
priorities to improve coordination; and
<bullet> By appropriating funds to address the most pressing
environmental needs as part of the current budget.
Let me briefly address each of the areas in which we seek your
assistance.
Invasive species pose perhaps the greatest threat to the Great
Lakes in a generation. We urge you to pass the National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act.
In some areas, most notably wetlands restoration, a multiplicity of
Federal programs with differing requirements complicates effective use
of resources. In the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act (S 508),
Senators Levin and DeWine have identified a promising mechanism for
directing funds toward priority needs. By funding priorities rather
than programs, Congress can effectively channel the work of Federal,
State and local agencies toward key objectives.
We applaud all the bill's sponsors and join their call for long-
term, large scale funding through a reformed process. But this will
take time. That is why we ask that you fund key actions in this budget.
We particularly ask for your support of the following:
<bullet> Fund completion and operation of two permanent dispersal
barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to keep the Asian carp
out of the Great Lakes. It will cost $6 million to protect the Great
Lakes fishery, a small fraction of its $4 billion economic value.
<bullet> Support the President's request for the Great Lakes Legacy
Act to be funded at $49.6 million if not the full $54 million
authorized level. In Ohio, we are thrilled by the U.S. EPA decision to
use funds from the Legacy Act to clean up contaminated sediments in the
Ashtabula River. Similar success stories in other Great Lakes States
can be realized if Congress agrees to the President's request.
<bullet> Provide an additional $50 million to U.S. EPA's brownfield
program to clean up abandoned industrial waterfront properties in the
Great Lakes basin. The economic return in our coastal cities can be
tremendous. For example, a $3 million Clean Ohio Fund grant at an
abandoned manufacturing site in Sandusky is generating $37 million in
private investment in housing, retail, and outdoor recreational access.
<bullet> Finally, support the President's commitment to restore
200,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes basin by appropriating
$28.5 million. To ensure these resources are used efficiently, we also
ask that you join us in encouraging the Federal Interagency Task Force
to consolidate many Federal wetland programs.
These first steps in implementing the Strategy will help fulfill
our moral obligation to preserve this natural treasure for future
generations. Another reason we must act is that the Great Lakes are
vital to the economic health of the Nation. Nearly 29 percent of our
nation's gross domestic product is produced by the Great Lakes States,
including approximately 60 percent of all U.S. manufacturing. Shipping
and tourism also produce significant economic activity, as others will
testify here today.
One problem in particular illustrates the link between
environmental restoration and economic viability. As Senator Voinovich
knows, the Army Corps of Engineers annually dredges Toledo Harbor to
maintain navigation. Sediments have been disposed in the shallow
western basin, stressing the most productive fishery in the entire
Great Lakes.
We reached agreement with the corps to cut back on open lake
disposal and eliminate it entirely by 2012, using the dredged material
for a habitat restoration project. Ohio will provide the non-Federal
match and together, we will turn a negative into a positive. This can
be a striking example of collaborative success.
However, the agreement is seriously imperiled because the
feasibility study did not qualify for funds under section 204 of the
Water Development Appropriations Act in Federal fiscal year 2006. The
corps needs $1.2 million for this study. I ask that you specifically
name this project in the 2007 appropriations bill.
The lack of priority funding for this study parallels the lack of
funds allocated to the dispersal barrier I mentioned moments ago.
Projects like these are key in our attempts to protect and improve the
Great Lakes, require a small investment relative to the damage they
promise to prevent, and need to be given serious consideration at the
Federal level.
The matter is made more urgent by the fact that across Lake Erie,
an average of 4 years of disposal capacity remains for navigation
channel dredging. This looming crisis will force us to choose between
dredging to support shipping, and open lake dumping to the detriment of
the Lake and its fishing and boating industries.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration is needed to address
emerging problems such as this, to oversee implementation of its
Strategy, and to continue its collaborative work on behalf of Great
Lakes restoration. We would welcome congressional action to codify both
the Collaboration and the Federal Interagency Task Force.
Collaboration members are actively working to identify areas in
which all levels of government can coordinate efforts toward clearly
defined goals. While I have spoken today of how Congress can help, be
assured that the Great Lakes States and the other stakeholders remain
committed to doing our share to protect and preserve our greatest
natural resource.
______
Responses by Bob Taft to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. The Strategy establishes funding levels for each of its
goals. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to who will be
providing those funds. In your view, how much of the $20 billion in the
Great Lakes Strategy do you expect from the Federal Government, the
State governments, and the local governments?
Response. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy contains
roughly 40 recommendations, the total cost of which is approximately
$20 billion. The partners agree that the Strategy clearly defines the
challenges facing the Great Lakes, and that prompt action to address
those challenges is imperative. While the Strategy includes many
excellent recommendations for doing so, alternate approaches may prove
equally effective. To view the Strategy as a definitive list of
projects with a firm price tag would be a misinterpretation. Rather,
the Executive Committee of the Collaboration has described the Strategy
as a guide to future actions to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
The non-federal Collaboration partners have been clear throughout
this process that each party must contribute its share if restoration
efforts are to succeed. There are many instances in which State and
local governments, as well as private sector partners, are currently
contributing financially and expect to continue to do so. States and
other non-federal interests currently provide 25 percent-60 percent of
project costs through a wide range of existing authorizations ranging
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to U.S. EPA, the Army Corps and
NOAA. Increased Federal appropriations would be followed by increased
nonfederal investments.
Among the current State and local government investments are:
<bullet> The non-federal match for Great Lakes Legacy Act projects
to remove contaminated sediments is 35 percent. Assuming that the
President's request for $49.6 million in Legacy Act funding is
supported in Congress, the non-federal match would amount to nearly
$17.5 million in FY 2007, and by extension $87.5 million if that
funding level were sustained over the 5-year timeframe of the Strategy.
In addition, States and local entities spend millions to evaluate these
sites and design the restoration projects before applying for Legacy
Act support. Further, the non-federal match may exceed 35 percent, as
it does for the project getting underway in the Ashtabula River, where
the State of Ohio and local entities are providing $25 million to match
the $25 million investment from the Legacy Act.
<bullet> The States operate numerous programs to reduce nonpoint
source loadings including: Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 projects,
which generate a non-federal match of approximately 40 percent; CWA
state revolving fund assistance for a variety of nonpoint source
projects; agricultural and urban runoff management; implementation of
best management practices (BMPs); conservation programs; shoreline and
streambank stabilization programs; priority stream, lake and watershed
programs; stormwater runoff permit programs; animal feedlot operation
controls; bio-solids programs; nutrient management programs; erosion
and sediment control programs; contaminated sediment remediation
projects; and others. Great Lakes States' expenditures range from
$889,000 to $10,575,000 annually. A conservative estimate for eight
State expenditures for these important nonpoint source programs might
be $20 million to $30 million annually. In Ohio alone, the State
Revolving Loan (SRF) awarded $5.2 million for BMP loans, and $12.3
million--with no repayment requirements--for stream restoration and
protection.
<bullet> The largest single expense identified in the Collaboration
Strategy is the cost of wastewater infrastructure. This reflects the
national situation; Ohio has collected documentation to support an
estimate for State needs in 2004 of more than $12.9 billion, an
increase of 50 percent from the last survey in 2000. Approximately $6.9
billion of that amount is for combined sewer overflows.
Currently, the States provide a 20 percent non-federal match for
the capitalization grants which fund the State Revolving Loan Funds.
The States strongly support the $2 billion national funding level
recommended in the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act for FY
2007, and stand ready to provide the necessary non-federal match. In
addition, it should be noted that local governments ultimately bear the
cost of wastewater infrastructure. Although the SRF program provides
great assistance via loans at less than market rate, they are loans
nonetheless and are repaid by local governments and their ratepayers.
In Ohio alone, we estimate the cost of eliminating sewer overflows
within the Lake Erie basin at $3 billion.
These are only a few examples of State and local spending on the
Great Lakes. The GAO has reported that the States currently outspend
the Federal Government on Great Lakes programs by a wide margin. The
Great Lakes States administer 51 programs funding restoration in the
Great Lakes Basin. A Policy Solutions, Ltd. report prepared for the
Council of Great Lakes Governors in 2004 showed that the Great Lakes
States reported spending a total of $4,963,235,314 for restoration from
FY92-04 in multi-year funding programs. In addition to this spending
that is directed through multi-year funding programs, the Great Lakes
States spend an estimated $24,945,260 annually on other programs in
support of the Governors' nine priorities for restoration and
protection. For more information, the complete report is available
online at http://cglg.org/projects/priorities/PolicySolutionsReport12-
10-04.pdf
Question 2. The near-term actions outlined by the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
in a letter sent to the President on December 12, 2005 and the near-
term actions developed by the Administration are inconsistent. Given
the discrepancies in these near-term action items, how can we make sure
that the goal of better coordination is met?
Response. To ensure better coordination, the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration and the Federal Interagency Task Force should be made
permanent in law so that lines of communication can remain open through
these important avenues. Although the Collaboration Executive Committee
and the Federal Interagency Task Force have not reached complete
agreement, they have proven to be valuable means of exploring issues.
The Great Lakes Governors favor the adoption of a collective
problem solving model. Political leadership as represented on the
Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration should
set interim goals for addressing the items outlined in the Great Lakes
Strategy. Technical experts from all levels of government should work
together to create plans to meet each of those goals, and then work
with Congress, State legislatures, Tribal and municipal governments,
and the private sector to obtain funding to carry out the plans.
One reason that the near-term action items developed by the Federal
agencies differ from those of the other Collaboration partners is that
those agencies cannot by law advocate for increased funding before
Congress, and through the Federal Interagency Task Force they have
chosen to focus on the use of existing resources. As we stated in our
November 1 letter to the Administration, the Great Lakes Governors
share the goal of accomplishing greater results with existing
resources. We also share the overwhelming view of our Collaboration
partners that Federal resources must be increased in the FY 2007 budget
to better restore and protect Great Lakes. Therefore, in the near-term,
we call on Congress to help fund the near-term action items outlined by
the Great Lakes Governors and Mayors in our December 12, 2005 letter to
the President.
Question 3. Please provide documentation detailing the roles of the
States and local authorities and their contributions to this
restoration process, including funding each will provide to meet the
objectives outlined in the restoration strategy.
Response. Invasive Species.--The State of Ohio has authority under
State law to restrict importing, exporting, selling and possession of
injurious species. Ohio completed an aquatic nuisance species plan in
1997 which is now under revision. We have been unable to meet many of
the goals under the plan due to a lack of funding. Most States rely on
the funding authorized under NAISA to fund invasive species programs.
The States estimate that they are devoting more than $3.5 million
annually to the control and prevention of invasive species in the Great
Lakes. Industry and municipalities in the Great Lakes basin spend
roughly $70 million annually on removing zebra mussels from water
intakes.
Coastal Health.--The authority to control Combined Sewer Overflows
and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (CSOs and SSOs) comes from the delegated
permitting authorities to the States in the Clean Water Act.
Elimination of sewage overflows to the Great Lakes and their
tributaries is a region-wide need and the most direct means of
improving coastal health.
In Ohio's Lake Erie basin, there are 35 small communities (less
than one million gallons per day treatment plant) with CSOs and 29
large communities (more than one million gallons a day treatment plant)
with CSOs. Each of these 64 communities will invest significant
infrastructure funding (totaling billions) over the next 15 to 20 years
to meet the requirements of their Long Term Control Plans to address
this source of discharges to the Lake Erie basin. At this time, we do
not have a precise total for this list of communities.
The State of Ohio Lake Erie Protection Fund is currently providing
nearly $150,000 for research into fecal contamination at beaches. The
Ohio Water Development Authority is currently providing $335,000 for
research into fecal contamination at beaches.
Areas of Concern/Contaminated Sediment.--Areas of Concern (AOC) are
the most polluted rivers and bays around the Great Lakes where the
objectives of the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(Agreement) are not being met. These sites were proposed by the States
and identified as such by the International Joint Commission in 1985.
The 1987 amendments to the Agreement call for the preparation of
Remedial Action Plans (RAP) for each of the AOCs that look at all
components of the ecosystem. Each plan was to include an assessment of
the environmental problems and their causes, an evaluation of remedial
measures already in place as well identification of the additional
remedial actions needed, implementation of those actions, and
monitoring to ensure that the remedial actions had restored the AOC.
The Agreement further stated that the Federal Government would
cooperate with State governments to develop RAPs and ensure the active
involvement of the public. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
1990 amended the Clean Water Act to include the development of RAPs. In
most AOCs, either local coordinating committees or public advisory
committees were established to work with the States to implement the
RAP program. This is important to note because many of the actions
needed to restore the AOCs must be implemented by local agencies or by
raising public awareness to voluntarily adopt more environmentally
friendly behaviors in day to day actions.
Throughout the history of the RAP program, some level of Federal
funding has been available to assist the State and local agencies in
planning and implementing RAP program remedial actions. This funding
was authorized under Section 104 (b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. This
amount has fluctuated widely, but largely funded critical staff support
and smaller remedial actions. The States and local RAP committees have
relied on pursuing grants from a number of Federal and State programs,
with the local committees also obtaining support from private
foundations, dues, donations and fundraising activities. No long-term
records have been kept reflecting how much funding has been Federal,
State or local, but this ratio would vary greatly from State to State
as well as RAP to RAP. However, most Federal or State grants require
anywhere from a 5 percent to 50 percent local match which is often
provided by the local community. The value of volunteer participation
cannot even begin to be estimated.
The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act also authorized a program to
begin assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments. Through
this effort, the extent of sediment contamination was identified along
with the need for a focused, dedicated program to direct remediation.
This led to the passage of the Great Lakes Legacy Act in 2002, which
carried at least a 65/35 Federal/local cost-share requirement. To date,
four projects are underway or completed at a cost of $42 million
Federal and $34.2 million state/local match.
Toxics.--A main focus of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is
the reduction or virtual elimination of toxic substances. The Clean
Water Act holds a similar goal. The main program to regulate point
source discharges of pollutants is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Authority for implementation of
this program has been delegated to the States from U.S. EPA. The Great
Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amended Section 118 of the Clean
Water Act to devise water quality guidance for the Great Lakes system
that conformed to the objectives and provisions of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. Known as the GLI (Great Lakes Initiative), the
initiative provided guidance to the Great Lakes States to develop
minimum water quality standards, anti-degradation policies and
implementation procedures to further restrict release of persistent
toxic substances and their impacts on human health, aquatic life and
wildlife. Efforts to ensure enforcement of these standards in NPDES
permits are ongoing. As an example of the state/local commitment, Ohio
invested over $1 million to follow the GLI and adopt the revised water
quality standards and associated policies. Each local permitted
facility had to revise treatment efforts or monitoring requirements to
meet the new discharge standards.
The requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement also
led to the development of the Bi-national Toxics Strategy. The United
States, Canada, States and Provinces worked to devise efforts to reduce
the presence and discharge of persistent bioaccumulative substances.
Mercury and PCB are high on the list, and efforts are focused on
controlling discharge (the discharge of PCBs is banned) as well as
sponsoring recycling efforts on a household and industry basis to
collect and dispose of equipment or items that contain these
substances.
Nonpoint Source Pollution.--The authorities for the States to
control nonpoint source pollution comes the Section 319 program in the
Clean Water Act. In addition, there are a variety of State and local
authorities depending on the jurisdiction. The Section 319 program
provides grants to the States and requires a state/local match of 40
percent. The States provide some of the match with the remainder
provided by the local projects receiving grant funding.
Section 319 Program: Ohio receives approximately $6 million in
Federal funds from the Section 319 program and matches this grant with
$4 million (approximately $1 million from the State of Ohio and $3
million from local entities). Each year the amount directed towards
projects in the Lake Erie basin varies depending on the local projects.
Approximately 20 percent of the Ohio Section 319 program is directed
towards projects in the Lake Erie basin.
Conservation Reserve: Through the Lake Erie Conservation
Enhancement Program (CREP), Ohio has a goal to enroll 67,000 acres in
conservation practices over a 10-year period. As of March, 2005, 34
percent of this goal was realized. An investment of nearly $6 million
in State funds has helped generate nearly $15 million in in-kind
contributions. Projects include 1,800 acres of wetland restoration;
14,300 acres of filter strips; 1,500 acres of riparian forest buffers;
and 1,500 acres of field windbreaks.
Watershed Coordinators: Ohio EPA and ODNR have jointly created the
Watershed Coordinator Grant Program, through which full time watershed
coordinators are working to develop and implement watershed action
plans in the Maumee River, Duck and Otter Creeks, the Sandusky River,
Euclid Creek, the Grand River, and the Chagrin River watershed. State
and local resources contribute approximately half the annual $240,000
cost of the program.
Soil and Water Conservation Districts: The State provides
approximately $4 million in matching funds annually to the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts in the Lake Erie Basin. They assist
landowners with conservation practices, and provide community education
regarding soil erosion prevention and water management.
______
Responses by Bob Taft to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Governor Taft, can you describe the effect that the
significant budget cuts in clean water spending proposed by the
President will have on your State's ability to meet water
infrastructure needs?
Response. In FFY 2004, Congress provided $1.35 billion nationally
to capitalize the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). Funding levels have
been dropping since that time. For Ohio, the proposed funding level in
the President's FFY 2007 budget equates to an almost 50 percent
reduction over the FFY 2004 level.
Specifically for FFY 2007, the President's proposed budget would
result in $37.2 million reduction in Federal support for the SRF. For
2007 alone, including interest the toal loss to the program would be
over $50 million. Since Ohio expands its funding capacity by issuing
bonds based on the Federal dollars provided, we lose $2 to $3 for every
dollar cut. Therefore, the total loss in SRF leveraging capacity of
$100 million to $150 million per year.
Over the past several years, as a result of our leveraging of
funds, Ohio's SRF program has been able to fund all projects requested
by local governments. Due to reduced capitalization levels, we will no
longer be able to do so. In 2007, we expect to reduce our available
funding by approximately $200 million a year due to recent
capitalization trends. We will also likely limit the amount larger
communities can borrow to a small fraction of their requests, and we
expect to run out of funding before all projects are funded.
Question 2. Governor Taft, do you have any comments on the
effectiveness of EPA programs for assistance to the States and Tribes
for water quality issues?
Response. Ohio generally concurs with the findings of the April
2003 ``GAO Report on the Great Lakes--An Overall Strategy and
Indicators for Measuring Progress.'' While U.S. EPA has a number of
programs designed specifically to address a particular environmental
issue (regulating point source discharge, reducing nonpoint source
pollution, watershed planning, Superfund cleanups, remediation at
hazardous waste sites, monitoring, Total Maximum Daily Load studies,
etc.) there is no overarching plan to tie together those strategies and
program activities to attain and measure any large scale ecosystem
restoration.
Programs that provide funding assistance to States often compete
against each other to obtain a slightly different goal. An example is
the requirements under Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Clean water Act
(focused on determining and reducing critical loadings), guidance to
develop watershed plans under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (focus
on nonpoint sources), the development of Remedial Action Plans to
provide an ecosystem approach to restoring the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern, and the development of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) to
address each Great Lake. All of these programs have the same goal of
attaining fishable, drinkable and swimmable conditions in all water
bodies, but they are just different enough to require totally separate
administrative and implementation structures. The requirement of many
Federal grant programs to be bid competitively does not always allow
for the funding of the highest priority projects that might make the
most measurable difference.
______
Responses by Bob Taft to Additional Questions from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. How much funding are the States contributing to Great
Lakes restoration?
Response. The GAO has reported that the States currently outspend
the Federal Government on Great Lakes programs by a wide margin. The
Great Lakes States administer 51 programs funding restoration in the
Great Lakes Basin. A Policy Solutions, Ltd. report prepared for the
Council of Great Lakes Governors in 2004 showed that the Great Lakes
States reported spending a total of $4,963,235,314 for restoration from
FY92-04 in multi-year funding programs. In addition to this spending
that is directed through multi-year funding programs, the Great Lakes
States spend an estimated $24,945,260 annually on other programs in
support of the Governors' nine priorities for restoration and
protection. For more information, the complete report is available
online at http://cglg.org/projects/priorities/PolicySolutionsReport12-
10-04.pdf
Question 2. How can we better coordinate this massive restoration
effort? How can we better coordinate Great Lakes programs at all levels
of government so that we are more efficient and effective?
Response. To ensure better coordination, the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration and the Federal Interagency Task Force should be made
permanent in law so that lines of communication can remain open through
these important avenues. Although the Collaboration Executive Committee
and the Federal Interagency Task Force have not reached complete
agreement, they have proven to be valuable means of exploring issues.
The Great Lakes Governors favor the adoption of a collective
problem solving model. Political leadership should set interim goals
for addressing the items outlined in the Great Lakes Strategy.
Technical experts from all levels of government should work together to
create plans to meet each of those goals, and then work with Congress,
State legislatures, Tribal and municipal governments, and the private
sector to obtain funding to carry out the plans.
Question 3. What can the states do to raise the profile of this
restoration effort beyond the region?
Response. The Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration, on which the States are represented, is currently
developing a communications strategy to publicize about the need for
restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem. There are several key
audiences for this information:
<bullet> Elected representatives at all levels of government from
the Great Lakes States. State legislatures in particular may be asked
to support funding for Great Lakes priorities. In Ohio, approximately
one-third of the State lies in the Lake Erie basin, so it will be
important to convey the significance of Great Lakes restoration to
legislators from downstate areas.
<bullet> Members of Congress from States outside the Great Lakes
basin. It will not be possible to pass a Restoration bill without
support from a broad array of Congressional representatives. It will be
important to convey the national significance, indeed the global
importance, of the Great Lakes.
<bullet> There are many professional organizations of environmental
professionals. The directors of State environmental agencies
communicate with one another through the Environmental Council of
States (ECOS). The heads of drinking water programs, those involved in
wastewater treatment, and managers of State Revolving Loan Funds have
similar organizations. Comprising leaders in environmental protection
and restoration, these groups can be an important conduit for building
support for restoration of the Great Lakes.
<bullet> Many nongovernmental organizations are participating in
the Collaboration. The Executive Committee has committed to ongoing
public participation, including continuing to engage these groups, some
of which are national in scope.
<bullet> The environmental NGOs in particular have organized
through the Healing Our Waters Coalition. HOW is contracting with a
public relations firm to help develop communications materials; the
Executive Committee will coordinate its own plan with the HOW effort.
Question 4. What is the relationship between this restoration
effort and the States' Great Lakes Protection Fund?
Response. The Governors of the Great Lakes States created the
Protection Fund in 1989. Its mission is to support efforts that
identify, demonstrate, and promote regional action to restore the
health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. This private corporation was
created to supplement the restoration activities of government
entities, and every year supports approximately $3 million of new
projects. Since it was incorporated, the Fund has provided over $46
million to support efforts that identify restoration opportunities and
design regionally relevant restoration actions. Since the release of
the Governors' nine priorities in October 2003, the Fund has focused
its support on efforts that support their priorities. These investments
develop and test the best ways to meet the Governors' shared priorities
for Great Lakes restoration, which also formed the organizing principle
of the Collaboration Strategy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Invasive Species:............................ $6.0 million
Habitat/Species:..................................... $7.1 million
Coastal (Human) Health:.............................. $5.0 million
AOC/Sediments:....................................... $2.0 million
Nonpoint Source (and Water Resources):............... $9.8 million
Toxic Pollutants:.................................... $10.4 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, Fund grantees have:
<bullet> Designed and tested ship-board methods to reduce the
threat of exotic species,
<bullet> Evaluated technologies to stop the spread of invasive
species through canals,
<bullet> Created and offered training to boat operators to contain
spread invasive species,
<bullet> Designed and tested methods to restore wetlands, buffers,
and hydrologic integrity of basin streams,
<bullet> Identified key habitat management and restoration
locations,
<bullet> Provided technical assistance to the clean-up of Areas of
Concern,
<bullet> Developed new, farmer-friendly, nutrient and pesticide
management approaches,
<bullet> Tested watershed restoration strategies in urban settings,
and
<bullet> Identified important sources of toxic materials entering
the Great Lakes.
The Fund has also returned over $34 million directly to its member
states for use in support of their individual Great Lakes priorities.
Going forward, the Protection Fund hopes to support teams that
develop and test new ways to finance the State and local share of the
priority work contemplated by the Strategy. At a minimum, some nine
billion dollars will need to be raised by State and local governments.
While the Fund cannot pay for those public works projects or other
activity that remains a responsibility of government, it can and will
help test new financing strategies. To date, the Fund has invested some
$6.3 million in using markets to support environmental restoration. The
Fund expects to make significant new investments in this area over the
next year.
For further information on current projects, see www.glpf.org
______
Responses by Bob Taft to Additional Questions from Senator Obama
Question 1. How would your respective organizations want the Task
Force to incorporate governors and tribal leaders in future decision
making? Do you believe that non-federal stakeholders need to be given a
more formal role?
Response. The Federal Interagency Task Force was charged by
President Bush with the task of better coordinating the 140 Federal
programs that impact the Great Lakes. The non-federal partners in the
Collaboration believe that the Task Force has made some strides in that
direction, but that much more can and should be done. We would like to
see the Task Force first review priority needs in the Basin, and then
evaluate how Federal programs can be used in a coordinated fashion to
address them. Too often, the Federal Government begins with an
inventory of its programs, and then looks for projects those programs
can take on. Given the nature of the Task Force's mandate, the non-
federal partners believe the Federal agencies are best positioned to
coordinate their own programs. That said, we strongly urge the Task
Force to work more cooperatively both among its Federal members and
with the other members of the Collaboration toward effective
coordination of programs.
The Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
includes representation of the Federal Interagency Task Force, the
Great Lakes Governors, the Great Lakes Mayors, the Tribes, and the
Congressional delegation. This group guided the preparation of the
Collaboration Strategy, and has adopted a framework for its continued
leadership of the Collaboration process.
Question 2. What are your organizations' plans to coordinate future
restoration efforts across the region?
Response. The Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration is currently working to identify specific collaborative
projects through which the members can cooperatively move forward
toward the goals in the Collaboration Strategy. The Executive Committee
is specifically interested in projects that can be accomplished within
existing resources over the next 2 years. While the non-federal members
of the Collaboration concur that substantial additional investment will
be needed to fully protect and restore the Great Lakes, we are also
committed to making better use of existing resources, and to taking
prompt action to begin implementing the Strategy's recommendations.
In addition, the Great Lakes Governors, through the Council of
Great Lakes Governors, have formed the Governors' Priorities Task Force
to coordinate restoration and protection efforts among the States. This
Task Force developed the priorities that guided the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration and provides a forum for information sharing,
communication and coordination among the States. This Task Force will
continue to serve as a venue for State policymakers and technical
experts to advance Great Lakes restoration and protection.
__________
Statement of Frank Ettawageshik, Tribal Chairman, Little Traverse Bay
Bands of Odawa Indians
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, my name is Frank
Ettawageshik, Tribal Chairman of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians.
I am here today with the humbling task of speaking on behalf of the
ad hoc Tribal Caucus of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. I am
honored by the faith and trust that the Tribal Caucus has placed in me
to express perspectives and sentiments that speak to: (i) the important
role that Tribal Nations play in the Collaboration and (ii) how the
Collaboration Strategy might be implemented in way that not only will
achieve its ultimate goal of protecting and restoring Great Lakes
ecosystems, but that also is faithful to this Nation's treaty
obligations and trust responsibilities toward Tribal communities.
The Tribal Caucus has coordinated Tribal participation under the
Collaboration's Framework Agreement on the Executive Committee and on
the various Strategy Teams. It will continue this role under the
recently approved Strategy Implementation Agreement. In providing the
Tribal Caucus's voice today in the context of its coordinating role, I
do not presume to officially represent any particular Tribal government
or Tribal governing body beyond that voice.
The Collaboration's Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes
exemplifies the region coming together to support protection and
restoration of the Great Lakes. The Collaboration partners and the
Great Lakes stakeholder community can be proud of this unified effort.
The Strategy is not an all encompassing solution to Great Lakes'
problems. Nevertheless, its priorities and recommendations create an
effective blueprint worthy of the political, economic and community
commitment that will be necessary to realize its vision. It must be
used as the guide to make correct fiscal and substantive policy
decisions by all levels of government, by the private sector and by
households throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
i. summary of overriding tribal caucus perspectives
At the outset, I wish to highlight some primary points from the
Tribal Caucus's perspective. The remainder of my testimony then
provides background information and additional detail to support these
points:
<bullet> The Framework Agreement recognized Tribal issues and
perspectives as an overarching issue for an important reason--
for the over 35 Tribal Nations on the United States side of the
Great Lakes Basin, ecological sustainability and Tribal
sustainability go hand in hand. The same is true for our
relative First Nations in Canada. Tribal communities are
intricately tied to the natural environment to meet their
subsistence, economic, cultural, spiritual and medicinal needs.
This interdependent and reciprocal relationship between humans
and the rest of nature will not endure if natural resources are
too scarce, too contaminated or too degraded to meet Tribal
needs and support Tribal culture.
<bullet> The Tribal Caucus is very pleased that the Strategy
aligns so well with the values, traditions, and needs of Tribal
communities. We all can be very proud that the Great Lakes
region answered President Bush's call to set forth a consensus-
based, action-oriented Strategy for preserving and restoring
Great Lakes ecosystems. The Collaboration represents an
unprecedented alignment ofpriorities and guiding principles
among Tribal Nations, States, cities, industry and business,
non-governmental organizations, and everyday citizens.
<bullet> The needs of the Great Lakes and the Collaboration's
action plan to address them truly represent both a national and
an international imperative. As the Strategy clearly
demonstrates, the benefits flowing from Great Lakes ecological
sustainability in harmony with economic vitality extend to the
rest of our Nation and across our borders. Moreover, from the
unique aspect of the United States' relationships with Tribal
Nations, furthering the goals of the Strategy through funding
of Tribal environmental and natural resource programs fulfills
specific national obligations and policies embodied in:
<bullet> Treaty obligations under various treaties
between the Federal Government and Great Lakes Tribal
Nations.
<bullet> The Federal trust responsibility toward
Tribal Nations.
<bullet> Numerous Executive orders and statutes, such
as the Indian Self-Determination and Educational
Assistance Act, the Clean Water, and the Clean Air Act.
<bullet> Various court decisions affirming the treaty
and other reserved rights of Great Lakes Tribal
Nations.
<bullet> The Strategy is a sound and effective blueprint for
better focused and more efficient programs to address its
priorities, yet we must be vigilant in implementation to not
oversimplify the nature and extent of the ecological
imperatives we face or the programs and actions that must be
undertaken to address them. The Tribal Caucus recognizes the
need to prioritize immediate actions and budgetary commitments
as we begin to implement the Strategy. However, we are
concerned that even further shortening of the list of
priorities contained in the Strategy, simply for the sake of
improved program efficiencies or cost savings, will short-
change what needs to be done. We must keep in mind a number of
key points as we proceed with implementation:
<bullet> The Great Lakes region is comprised of a number of
complex and diverse ecosystems. There is a risk of over-
portraying the Great Lakes as a single ecosystem. Creating a
``short list'' of priority actions carries the associated risk
of abandoning or undercutting currently successful programs,
such as the lakewide management planning efforts. It also
creates a risk of proceeding on a ``least common denominator''
basis or on a pared down list of actions developed for
immediate political expediency.
<bullet> The Tribal Caucus is sensitive to this Nation's
current fiscal and budgetary climate. Tribal Nations face many
of the same dilemmas as others in this regard. Nevertheless, we
must not sacrifice our ability to achieve the Strategy's goals
under the guise of trying to achieve ``more bang for the
buck.'' Ours is a Nation of vast financial wealth and
resources. Great Lakes protection and restoration clearly falls
within primary governmental functions at all levels. The
political will to make correct budgetary and substantive policy
decisions must be nurtured. The correct decisions will lead to
the appropriate application of our Nation's wealth and
associated actions to the task at hand.
<bullet> The Federal Government must maintain a leadership
role in setting the appropriate tone and taking the appropriate
actions in response to this unprecedented Strategy. We are
encouraged by the significant commitments and actions already
undertaken by other Collaboration partners--Tribal, State and
local governments, industry and business, non-governmental
organizations and everyday citizens. We are witnessing an
amazing momentum and confluence of energy among all
Collaboration partners to make good decisions and significant
financial commitments from tight budgets. We ask Congress and
the Administration to do its part as well.
<bullet> The Federal Government plays an important role in
ensuring the continuing capabilities of Tribal natural resource
and environmental management programs. Those programs are
particularly vulnerable to budget reductions. Any reduction in
funding for a Tribal program, even a reduction that would be
considered small by others, could result in the elimination of
that program. In some cases, simply losing funding for a single
Tribal staff member can eliminate or significantly reduce the
ability of a Tribal Nation or Tribal agency to hold up their
end of the bargain relating to the protection or restoration of
Great Lakes ecosystems.
<bullet> The Strategy goes a long way to identify actions that
can be undertaken to progress toward better-protected and more-
restored Great Lakes ecosystems. Nevertheless, we can and
should do more whenever possible. For example, the Tribal
Caucus would like to see a more aggressive schedule for
reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired utility plants.
Moreover, there are other areas where the Tribal Caucus would
like to see a more rapid and effective response to compelling
problems, such as the control of invasive species through the
implementation of more effective ballast water controls both
under existing Clean Water Act authority and under new
legislation.
The Tribal Caucus appreciates the committee's sensitivity toward
and consideration of these perspectives. The other Collaboration
partners have been particularly welcoming and supportive of Tribal
concerns. The Collaboration has engendered mutual trust and respect
among those interested in advancing Great Lakes protection and
restoration. The Great Lakes Tribal Nations remain committed to that
end, and will support and advance both the terms and the spirit of the
Strategy wherever and whenever possible. They trust that Congress and
the other partners involved will do the same.
ii. tribes of the great lakes basin
The United States portion of the Great Lakes Basin is home to over
35 federally recognized Indian Tribal Nations who, although distinct
and unique in their own right, have common history, culture and
traditions, especially in their relationship to the natural environment
and dependence on natural resources for subsistence, economic,
cultural, spiritual and medicinal purposes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For additional background on the culture and history of Great
Lakes Tribal Nations and their relationship to the natural environment,
the following documents from the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Appendix are attached and incorporated by reference: (1) Tribal Nations
Issue and Perspectives; (2) Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force
Position on the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Tribal Nations have historical, spiritual and cultural
roots in the Great Lakes Basin stretching from time immemorial. Tribal
Nations continue to occupy and use their ancestral homelands with a
notion of geographic place that embodies views of their origin,
migrations and historical identity, the way Tribal cultural reality is
perceived in the modern world, and the social and political means to
partitioning and distributing resources. These connections between
Tribal Nations and the Great Lakes are evident in the willingness to
accept the responsibility of restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.
Tribal Nations understand that the whole earth is an interconnected
ecosystem. The health of any one part is related to the health of the
whole. Tribal Nations have a spiritual and cultural responsibility to
protect the waters of the Great Lakes as part of a greater overall
effort to protect Mother Earth.
For Tribal Nations of the Great Lakes Basin, ecological
sustainability and Tribal sustainability go hand in hand. Tribal
Nations recognize the reciprocal relationship between humans and the
rest of the natural world. Religious beliefs, including a spiritual
interdependence and connection between all living and non-living
things, guides Tribal members in the harvest and use of natural
resources for subsistence, ceremonial, medicinal, ceremonial, spiritual
or economic purposes.
The use of traditional foods is uniquely beneficial for members of
Great Lakes Tribal Nations, including:
<bullet> the improvement of diet and nutrient intake;
<bullet> the prevention of chronic diseases associated with
the consumption of non-traditional foods;
<bullet> the opportunities for physical fitness and outdoor
activities associated with harvesting traditional foods;
<bullet> the opportunity to experience, learn, and promote
cultural activities; and
<bullet> the opportunity to develop personal qualities desired
in Tribal culture such as sharing, self-respect, pride, self-
confidence, patience, humility and spirituality.
For Tribal Nations of the Great Lakes Basin and their members, the
relationship to the natural environment, especially the Great Lakes,
and dependence on natural resources for subsistence, economic,
cultural, spiritual and medicinal purposes means little if there are
insufficient resources, or if the available resources are contaminated
or degraded to the point that they are unusable. It is important to
remember the health benefits of traditional foods are quickly
outweighed by the risks posed by the contaminants contained therein.
For Tribal members ``food security'' means having traditional food
sources that are both sufficient and free from contaminants.
iii. environmental and natural resource programs of great lakes tribal
nations and tribal agencies
In light of the importance of the Great Lakes to Tribal Nations
within the basin, many Tribal Nations and several intertribal agencies
engage in a diversity of significant environmental and natural resource
management programs that are consistent with the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy. The nature of the programs of each particular
Nation or agency is contingent on the funding available and the needs
or priorities of the community involved. With regard to the
relationship between funding and these programs:
<bullet> Important Federal funding sources for Tribal programs
include:
<bullet> Bureau of Indian Affairs funds provided
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and
Educational Assistance Act;
<bullet> United States Fish and Wildlife Service funds
provided under a variety of project-specific
authorizations; and
<bullet> Environmental Protection Agency funds
provided under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act,
the Tribal General Assistance Program, and other
authorizations.
<bullet> Discretionary revenue generated from Tribal economic
enterprises serves to supplement Federal and other funding for
these programs for some Tribal Nations.
<bullet> Because of the myriad of funding paths for Tribal
environmental and natural resource programs, individual Tribes
must ensure their ability to pursue their own funding path and
work with whatever resources are available to them.
<bullet> Since Tribal environmental and natural resource
management programs are particularly vulnerable to budget
reductions, any reduction in funding for a Tribal program, even
a reduction that would be considered small by others, could
result in the elimination of that program. In some cases,
simply losing funding for a single Tribal staff member can
eliminate or significantly reduce the ability of a Tribal
Nation or Tribal agency to hold up their end of the bargain
relating to the protection or restoration of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
The Strategy recognizes that maintaining base level funding for
Tribal programs is necessary so that Tribal Nations are able to both
provide for the health and welfare of their communities and so that
Tribal Nations can remain effective partners in Great Lakes protection
and restoration efforts. Despite their fiscal and staffing limitations,
Tribal Nations and their agencies are particularly efficient delivery
systems for environmental and natural resource programs. More
importantly, they often provide the only delivery mechanism of such
programs for Tribal members. Tribal Nations need to provide services,
such as fish contaminant testing and consumption advisories focused on
the specific waters fished by Tribal members, because no other
government or agency does so in such a focused manner. Tribal members
need to know which fish are safer to eat from the waters that they
fish. Generalized fish consumption advisories do not accomplish this.
In addition to the value of Tribal environmental and natural
resource programs to Tribal members, there are significant overall
public benefits that result from Tribal programs. If Tribal Nations
fulfill their responsibilities toward Tribal members, benefits will
flow to Federal, State and local governments, their constituents and
surrounding communities. These benefits include enhanced water quality,
increased numbers of fish with reduced levels of contaminants, improved
aquatic, wetland and upland habitat, and protection from invasive
species, as well as numerous others.
Depending on the availability of funding and the extent of the
particular governmental infrastructure, efforts Great Lakes Tribal
Nations undertake in their role as partners in the protection and
restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem include:
<bullet> Operation of fish hatcheries and involvement in a variety
of fish stocking programs in the Great Lakes.
<bullet> Harvest management, monitoring and regulation for a
variety of fish, plant and animal species within the basin.
<bullet> Development of natural resource management plans and
conservation codes.
<bullet> Population studies and assessments for a variety of fish,
plant and animal species within the basin, including lake trout
studies.
<bullet> Monitoring and restoring water quality of Great Lakes
tributary streams and rivers through development of watershed
management plans, repair of road and stream crossings, stream bank
stabilization, habitat inventories, invertebrate surveys and fish
assessments.
<bullet> Participation in joint efforts to protect Great Lakes
tributary waters by placing watershed land in conservation easement
status.
<bullet> Adoption of burn barrel ordinances and initiation of burn
barrel outreach and elimination programs.
<bullet> Habitat enhancement within the basin for various plants,
fish and animal species including wetland protection and restoration as
part of the Circle of Flight initiative in conjunction with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
<bullet> Exotic species control including work in conjunction with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to control and reduce sea
lamprey populations.
<bullet> Voluntary efforts to reduce the presence of mercury by
providing thermometer exchanges, cleaning up household hazardous waste
and progressing toward making Tribal facilities mercury free.
<bullet> Research projects and fish consumption advisories, based
largely on sampling of fish or other traditional foods, to help prevent
contamination of natural resources and to help Tribal members maximize
the health benefits from a traditional diet.
<bullet> Incorporation of alternative energy technologies and
incorporation of energy conservation measures in new construction.
<bullet> Establishment of household and agricultural waste disposal
depots.
<bullet> Conducting public information and education activities.
Many of the programs just mentioned are the result of Tribal
Nations or Tribal agencies partnering with Federal, State and local
governments, colleges and universities, non-governmental organizations,
conservation groups and private landowners in cooperative efforts to
protect and restore the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Such partnerships are
necessary for several reasons:
<bullet> Because treaty rights often extend to areas of shared
jurisdiction and use, other governments are compelled, whether legally
or practically, to acknowledge the rights and associated self-
regulatory systems and to integrate Tribal Nations as natural resource
management partners.
<bullet> When dealing with fish and wildlife, the tendency of the
resource to migrate across governmental boundaries necessitates co-
management of the resource to ensure collection of accurate information
on State and Tribal harvests and on the status of natural resource
populations.
<bullet> Pollution in air and water is transient. Contaminants
discharged upstream or upwind directly affect those downstream and
downwind. Cross jurisdictional partnerships help to track pollutants as
they move and to monitor levels of contaminants in resources such as
fish and plants.
Importantly, inter-governmental and other partnerships allow the
parties to achieve public benefits that no one partner could achieve
alone. Some examples of the public benefits of these partnerships
include:
<bullet> Identifying mutual natural resource concerns, and
implementing joint conservation and enhancement projects (e.g. wild
rice restoration, waterfowl habitat restoration and improvement
projects, and exotic species control projects).
<bullet> Providing accurate information on State and Tribal
harvests and on the status of natural resource populations e.g. joint
fishery assessment activities and jointly prepared reports).
<bullet> Maximizing financial resources to avoid duplication of
effort and costs e.g. coordinating annual fishery assessment schedules
and sharing personnel/equipment).
<bullet> Contributing scientific research and data regarding
natural resources and public health (e.g. forbearer/predator research,
fish consumption/human health studies, and other fish contaminant
research particularly regarding mercury).
<bullet> Engendering cooperation rather than competition (e.g.
cooperative law enforcement and emergency response, joint training
sessions, mutual aid emergency services arrangements, and cross-
credential agreements).
iv. implementation of the great lakes regional collaboration strategy
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Executive Committee recently
approved the Strategy Implementation Framework to guide implementation
of the Strategy and to define the continuing role of the Collaboration.
The Framework sets forth a process to ensure ongoing coordination of
activities promoting the goals and priorities of the Strategy. A
continuing commitment to implementation of the Strategy through the
efforts of the Collaboration partners is important to advance the
Strategy's goals of protecting and restoring the Great Lakes.
When viewed through the lens focused on protection and restoration,
the needs of the Great Lakes are many and diverse. The Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Strategy aims to identify and prioritize those
needs. It is crucial to remember, however, that the Strategy is neither
a cure all nor an end all.
To fully address the goal of protecting and restoring the Great
Lakes and to ensure that important needs of the region are not left
behind, the priorities set forth in the Strategy should serve as a
substantive and fiscal policy decisionmaking guide for the region, but
not an exclusive set of actions. As the Strategy is implemented by the
partners and the greater stakeholder community, it will be important to
follow the Strategy priorities while allowing room for parties to
engage in programs utilizing resources and funding outside of the
parameters of the Strategy. A program beneficial to the Great Lakes
should not be turned away or cast aside simply because it does not fit
into the neat box created by the Strategy.
There has been significant pressure on the Collaboration partners
to develop a list of ``near term'' actions to begin implementation of
the Strategy. Consensus on ``near term'' actions has been difficult to
reach. Regardless of any consensus on ``near term'' actions to
implement the Strategy, protection and restoration of the Great Lakes
cannot be oversimplified by the creation of a list.
As the Strategy is implemented the partners must keep an eye on the
``Big Picture.'' That is, the focus must be on addressing the
challenges of the Great Lakes ecosystem by making the Collaboration
greater than the sum of the particular actions carried out in its name.
This requires the ability to look past any ``action'' lists that are
developed and even past the specified Strategy team priorities to
remember that, as set forth in the Strategy, the end is to protect and
restore the Great Lakes and the means must be by whatever vehicles are
available. Implementation must include continued support for currently
successful programs in the region in addition to the creation of new
programs. For Tribal Nations and their treaty ceded territory agencies
such as the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC),
the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) and the 1854 Authority,
at the very minimum this means continued support for existing programs.
v. funding for environmental and natural resource programs
As noted, the focus of implementing the Strategy needs to be on the
``Big Picture'' goals of protection and restoration of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Similarly, the focus within the context of funding Great
Lakes environmental and natural resource programs must look beyond the
four corners of the Strategy document to ensure continued support for
programs that may not have been specifically captured by the Strategy
or its appendices, but that still relate directly to it or will further
its priorities and principles. For both Tribes and the Great Lakes
region, this means keeping all doors open when it comes to the goals of
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. By doing so, our
opportunities to engage in beneficial programs are not constrained by a
set of priorities or funding sources that are artificially limited by
the current political or budgetary climate.
While Tribal Nations recognize the need, from both the standpoint
of efficiency and fiscal responsibility, to prioritize and coordinate
programs within the region, this cannot serve as a justification or
excuse for giving the region as a whole, and Tribal Nations in
specific, less from a funding perspective. As these streamlining
efforts go forward, the Federal Government's unique trust and treaty
obligations to Tribal Nations must remain an overarching consideration
and cannot be compromised in the process.
The Strategy should not be used as a means to force us into a
situation where we have to bargain against ourselves as a region or
within the Tribal stovepipe itself to get funded as we should or even
simply to maintain our base funding. Despite the uncertainties of the
budgetary process, the Strategy must serve as a guide for all levels of
government, the private sector and households throughout the Great
Lakes Basin for making to correct fiscal and substantive policy
decisions at every opportunity.
vi. conclusion
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy sets forth
important priorities for protection and restoration of the Great Lakes.
The collaborative effort to achieve these goals must go forward, guided
by, but not limited by, the priorities and principles enumerated in the
Strategy. A key to successful implementation of the Strategy, both for
Tribal Nations and for the region, is to support and promote the spirit
of the Strategy by whatever means possible.
Tribal Nations and Tribal agencies are valuable partners in this
process, providing a multitude of environmental and natural resource
programs that efficiently deliver services to Tribal communities that
in turn benefit surrounding communities. The need for continuing Tribal
programs is given patent recognition by the Strategy, as is the
coexisting need for base funding for these programs. As guided by the
blueprint of the Strategy, Tribal Nations will and must maintain their
ability to engage in beneficial programs notwithstanding artificial
limitations imposed by priorities, funding sources or potential
misguided substantive policies controlled by others.
The Strategy provides us all with an agreed upon path to follow to
achieve the ``Big Picture'' goal of protection and restoration of the
Great Lakes. Now it is up to everyone, both in and outside the region,
to build on the priorities and principles set forth in the Strategy; to
let the Strategy be their guide for making the right choice at every
fork in the road.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Response by Frank Ettawageshik to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. The Strategy establishes funding levels for each of its
goals. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to who will be
providing those funds. In your view, how much of the $20 billion in the
Great Lakes Strategy do you expect from the Federal Government, the
State governments and the local governments?
Response. Tribal Nations are not in a position to determine
particular funding responsibilities among the Federal, State and local
governments in terms of contributions toward implementing the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy.
As Strategy implementation funding options are considered, the
Federal Government has the responsibility to fund Tribal environmental
and natural resource programs above and beyond any other commitments
made in the name of Great Lakes protection and restoration. Congress
must keep in mind the unique treaty commitments, statutory obligations
and trust responsibility that the Federal Government has toward Tribal
Nations. As called for in the Strategy, the continuing capabilities of
Tribal natural resource and environmental management programs must be
maintained.
Tribal Nations will continue to provide care and stewardship for
the Great Lakes as called for by our customs, traditions and teachings.
We will do this each and every day, some with more governmental
infrastructure than others, yet all with the resources and the programs
we already have. We will work with any and all from our surrounding
communities toward achieving the Strategy's goals.
However, at the same time, Tribal Nations fully expect the Federal
Government to live up to treaty obligations and trust responsibility
for the additional financial help that is needed to fulfill the
Strategy's vision and to undertake the actions that the Strategy
requires. Moreover, we fully expect those who have created the
ecological problems that we now face to accept responsibility and to
commit the financial resources necessary to solve those problems
without sacrificing this Nation's treaty and trust responsibility
commitments to Tribes.
______
Responses by Frank Ettawageshik to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Ettawageshik, do you have any comments on the
effectiveness of EPA programs for assistance to the States and Tribes
for water quality issues?
Response. EPA programs and associated funding for Tribal Nations
are essential for water quality protection both within Tribal
reservations and outside the reservations. Tribal Nations have been
particularly successful in combining traditional ecological knowledge
and western science to provide leadership in water quality management
in a number of areas such as non-point source pollution. This success
is in large part directly attributable to the Tribally dedicated
funding provided under EPA-administered statutes, the Indian Self
Determination Act, the Snyder Act and miscellaneous authorizations. The
budgetary situation for many Tribal Nations is such that any cut in
funding, regardless of how small, will have significant impacts and
will often result in a de facto elimination of a program.
This type of Federal program assistance provided to Tribal Nations
has been successful for another very important reason--Tribal
governments are the most effective and appropriate mechanism for the
delivery of the programs and services involved to the affected
communities. Tribal governments are the best suited to know the needs
of our communities consistent with underlying culture, teachings and
traditions. We are thus best suited to operate these programs in an
economically efficient and culturally appropriate manner that achieves
results in the communities they are intended to benefit.
Question 2. Mr. Ettawageshik, I found your testimony regarding
consideration of the impact of our own decisions on our seventh-
generation descendants to be compelling. Can you provide your view of
how we're doing in that regard with the major environmental issues of
our time including climate change, water quality, and air quality and
wildlife protections?
Response. When we can walk down to the lake and drink its water and
eat its fish without fear for our health, and see our traditional
plants and game around us in well being and plenty, we will know
success. We have made progress toward these ends, but we are not there
yet.
When the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy was released
at the Summit II event in Chicago on December 12, 2005, I delivered the
following remarks:
<bullet> All of this plan and the hundreds of pages of
appendices can be summed up as follows: If it is harmful, don't
do it; if we are already doing it, then stop; if harm is coming
from what we already have done, then we must undo it.
To determine our effectiveness in dealing with Great Lakes
restoration and the other major environmental issues of our time we
must measure our actions against that philosophy. To the extent that we
follow it, we are making progress. To the extent that we do not follow
it, we are failing.
Today's budget difficulties and political realities cannot be
ignored, yet they cannot be used as an excuse to ignore actions that
can be taken within existing fiscal capabilities or to stop those
practices that we know are harmful. We must openly acknowledge and
attempt to address each of the problems we face, including those
resulting from climate change, if we are to be successful in passing on
a cleaner, healthier Great Lakes ecosystem to our descendents.
______
Responses by Frank Ettawageshik to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. How can we better coordinate this massive restoration
effort?
Response. We should build upon the unprecedented success of the
Great Lakes community pulling together to acknowledge a shared vision
and to create an action-oriented blueprint for achieving it. We must be
careful not to impose an overly centralized structure or too much
regimentation on the process of implementing the Strategy. There is no
``silver bullet'' solution to how best to ``quarterback'' this effort.
The parties involved in the restoration effort and the needs of the
Great Lakes are many and diverse, and their interrelationships are
complex and dynamic. The mutual trust and respect that has so far been
engendered in the GLRC process should be relied upon to drive the
creativity and maintain the commitments that are necessary to ensure
that the sum total of all the efforts of all those involved--
governmental, non-governmental, private sector and everyday citizens--
will be greater than their separate but individually necessary efforts.
The Strategy provides us with a blueprint to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. The GLRC Executive Committee has drafted an
Implementation Framework that adopts an approach for implementation,
monitoring and tracking of the Strategy's priorities. The partners
necessary for an effective effort to restore and protect the Great
Lakes are at the table and willing to do their part. The Collaboration
partners are starting to take joint actions to implement the Strategy
and start the restoration process. This process must be given a chance
to work.
Question 2. How can we better coordinate Great Lakes programs at
all levels of government so that we are more efficient and effective?
Response. Many of the things that are already being done by the
Collaboration partners in the name of the Strategy are working well and
do not need to be changed. The partners do need to strive for
efficiency and effectiveness in implementation of the Strategy. EPA has
served as an effective leader throughout the collaborative process and
can continue to do so as the Strategy is implemented. By taking the
lead on restoration and protection of the Great Lakes, both by
supporting existing programs that are working well and embracing new
programs where there is a need, Congress and the Administration will be
doing their part and demonstrating a commitment to the Great Lakes that
will carry over to the rest of the Collaboration partners.
To fully address the goals of protecting and restoring the Great
Lakes and to ensure that important needs of the region are not left
behind, the priorities set forth in the Strategy should serve as a
substantive and fiscal policy decisionmaking guide for the region, but
not an exclusive set of actions. As the Strategy is implemented by the
partners and the greater stakeholder community, it will be important to
follow the Strategy priorities while allowing room for parties to
engage in programs utilizing resources and funding that may not have
been specifically identified in the Strategy. A program beneficial to
the Great Lakes should not be turned away or cast aside simply because
it does not fit into a neat box created within the Strategy.
I believe that there is a concern shared among the Tribal Nations
over any significant revamping of Federal funding streams that would
rely upon exclusive competitive project-oriented funding. Tribal
governments rely on a variety of funding sources for both program and
project funding simply because we would be unable to carry out the
projects without the requisite expertise of on-going professional
staff. As recognized by the Indian Self Determination Act, because we
are based in the communities we serve, Tribal governments are really in
the best position to deliver programs to our members. The current
funding delivery system puts funds in the hands of Tribal governments
to do this. Moreover, Tribal governments are the only ones providing
many of the programs that benefit our members and if we do not provide
those programs, no one will.
Question 3. What is the key to keeping together all of the groups
involved in the creation of the blueprint strategy in order to
implement the goals established by the Collaboration?
Response. There are three keys to keeping all of the groups
involved in the creation of the Strategy together for implementation of
the Strategy. These keys are: (i) an open and transparent process
involving public participation, (ii) action on the Strategy priorities
and (iii) inclusively of groups and programs rather than exclusivity.
As recognized by the GLRC Implementation Framework developed by the
Executive Committee, the implementation process must be an open and
transparent process. There must be opportunities for public input and
participation. In constructing the GLRC and developing the Strategy,
the public was always welcome and the process was always open. This
model worked well, encouraged participation and should continue.
Implementation needs to move forward, seizing on the amazing
momentum and confluence of energy among all Collaboration partners. The
Collaboration partners and the greater Great Lakes stakeholder
community present a diverse and varied group based on the common
concern for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. To keep
that group together, that common concern for the Great Lakes must
remain the focus of implementation. Any delay in action to implement
the Strategy will result in the loss of momentum and the will of
various groups to remain involved. The time to act is now.
Finally, because of the diversity of the Collaboration partners and
other groups involved in the effort to protect and restore the Great
Lakes, it is crucial to avoid marginalization of particular groups
because programs they support do not make it on an ``action list''
created in the name of Strategy. There are numerous beneficial programs
at work in the Great Lakes basin. As the Strategy moves toward
implementation there is increasing desire on the part of some, both
inside and outside the basin, for efficiency and streamlining of
programs and funding delivery systems. While Tribal Nations recognize
the need for efficiency in this process, streamlining programs and
funding delivery systems results in a growing risk of abandoning or
undercutting currently successful programs. It also creates a risk of
proceeding on a ``least common denominator'' basis or on a pared down
list of actions developed for immediate political expediency. We are
concerned that even further shortening of the list of priorities
contained in the Strategy, simply for the sake of improved program
efficiencies or cost savings, will short-change what needs to be done
and leave some groups interested in the effort on the outside looking
in.
______
Responses by Frank Ettawageshik to Additional Questions
from Senator Obama
Question 1. How would your respective organizations want the Task
Force to incorporate Governors and tribal leaders in future
decisionmaking? Do you believe that non-Federal stakeholders need to be
given a more formal role?
Response. As part of the unique relationship between the United
States and Tribal Nations, the Federal Government has treaty and trust
obligations that require the Federal Government to consult on a
government-to-government basis with Tribal Nations prior to making
decisions affecting Tribal lands, resources, people or treaty reserved
rights. Tribal Nations expect the Task Force and all Federal agencies
to live up to these obligations throughout the Strategy implementation
process. Specifically there is a continued vital role for the EPA
American Indian Environmental Office in maintaining the tribal caucus
as an instrument for effective Tribal communications.
Assuming the Federal Government fulfills it obligation to engage
with Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis, we do not see
a more formal role for Tribal Nations on the Task Force. Each partner
in the GLRC has a role, including Tribal Nations and the Task Force.
This consensus based process has worked well. The Implementation
Framework drafted by the GLRC Executive Committee provides for the
continuation of this process and should be the model for the
continuation of the Collaboration. However, Tribal Nations would
certainly encourage anything to make the Task Force more open in its
activities and more accountable to the other Collaboration partners and
greater stakeholder community.
Question 2. What are your organizations' plans to coordinate future
restoration efforts across the region?
Response. Tribal Nations have recognized responsibilities to our
communities to protect the environment and natural resources in the
past, now, and into the future. We can and do fulfill some of these
responsibilities within limitations of budget and personnel by
coordinating with others to restore and protect the Great Lakes,
including among the Tribal Nations themselves, with the First Nations
in Canada, and with other governments and groups.
Tribal Nations and our agencies will continue doing the things that
we have been doing and that have been working well as it relates to the
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes as funds allow. To this
end, over 140 Tribal and First Nations of the Great Lakes basin
previously signed the ``Tribal and First Nations Great Lakes Water
Accord'' that pledges us to work together with each other and with
other governments to secure a healthy future for the Great Lakes. The
GLRC Tribal Caucus will continue to function for the purposes of the
implementation framework if funding is maintained. In addition, Tribal
Nations that share treaty ceded territories utilize intertribal
agencies such as Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(GLIFWC), Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) and the 1854
Authority. Tribal Nations are and will continue to be active partners
and participants in the wide array of existing initiatives that
effectively coordinate, including the Binational Program to Protect and
Restore Lake Superior, the GLRC and the Great Lakes Strategic Fisheries
Management Plan.
In these cooperative efforts, Tribal governments will continue to
speak on behalf of Mother Earth, the water, the plants and the animals.
We will continue to speak on behalf of our communities to preserve life
ways based upon culture, traditions and teachings. We will continue to
be active members of the larger Great Lakes community, partnering with
other governments, with the private sector, with non-governmental
entities and with everyday citizens to achieve a cleaner, healthier
Great Lakes ecosystem.
__________
Statement of Richard M. Daley, Mayor, City of Chicago, on behalf of the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Good morning Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Voinovich, Ranking Member
Jeffords, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
My name is Richard M. Daley, and I am here today in my capacity as
Mayor of Chicago, the largest city on the Great Lakes, and as Chairman
of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a coalition of
85 United States and Canadian mayors who represent cities and towns
located along Great Lakes shorelines. A list of the Initiative's
members is attached. Also attached is a letter from Toronto Mayor David
Miller, Vice Chairman of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative. On behalf of the Canadians mayors, Mayor Miller's letter
supports my testimony today.
I created the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative in
2002 to provide a forum for mayors to engage in a focused effort
regarding the important work of protecting and restoring the Great
Lakes. The Initiative provides a bi-national entity for mayors to share
best practices on protecting the Great Lakes and for mayors to become
more involved in future Great Lakes policies and decisionmaking. Mayors
are on the front lines of the Great Lakes, and are usually the first
persons that citizens turn to when issues or concerns arise regarding
the Great Lakes. While the Great Lakes seem vast and permanent, Great
Lakes mayors are well aware that they are vulnerable to mismanagement.
The Great Lakes are critical for our cities and town, and mayors know
first-hand that they need to be protected.
I am pleased to be here today for this important committee meeting,
and I thank Chairman Inhofe and Chairman Voinovich for making this
meeting possible. It is clear that the members of the EPW Committee
recognize how important the Great Lakes are, not only to the Midwest,
but also to the Nation and the world.
Over the last year, many people in this room have been involved in
a very important collaborative effort relating to the future of the
Great Lakes.
First, many of us were present in Chicago when the Administration
announced the Executive order that created the Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
Without leadership from the President, along with the active
participation of many Great Lakes members of Congress, this Executive
order would not have been signed and the important work of the Regional
Collaboration would not have proceeded. I thank the Administration and
Congress for taking that important step.
Second, many people in this room were also present several months
after the Executive order was announced, when the Regional
Collaboration had its official kickoff meeting, and many were present
yet again this past December for the signing of the Regional
Collaboration's consensus document, the ``Great Lakes Strategy''.
These major events offered promise and hope for the future of the
Great Lakes. While they were heralded with great press attention and
ceremony, there were other significant developments during the past
year that received less attention.
At meetings in Rochester, New York; Toledo, Ohio; Traverse City,
Michigan; and Duluth, Minnesota, hundreds of professionals joined
together through the Collaboration to determine the best ways to
protect and restore the Great Lakes.
Approximately 1,500 people from dozens of cities and eight States
rolled up their sleeves to participate in this process. They
represented all levels of government, tribal nations, the private
sector and the non-profit community, and they worked together in a non-
partisan fashion.
As you can imagine, this was not a simple process. But the benefits
of the Regional Collaboration cannot be overstated.
We now have a consensus strategy for Great Lakes actions and
investments for years to come. Members of Congress can feel confident
that this strategy represents the will of the Great Lakes community.
For the first time, we are all on the same page with a common vision.
Thanks to these efforts, I am proud to report to you today that, as
you requested, the priorities have been identified and the planning for
Great Lakes protection has been completed. Today we are here today to
discuss the next steps for implementing a long-term strategy for
protecting and restoring the Great Lakes.
The Collaboration Strategy recognizes that repairing the damage to
the Great Lakes cannot be done overnight. It is a long-term undertaking
that will require large-scale investment from all levels of government
and all stakeholders.
The Congress can be assured that we in local government will do our
part. As Chair of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative,
I'm proud of the investment, innovation and leadership that mayors in
the United States and Canada are already bringing to Great Lakes
issues. And more innovation is planned.
Great Lakes mayors have numerous responsibilities as a consequence
of our shoreline locations. Among those responsibilities, we must
supply clean drinking water to our regions, ensure safe and clean
beaches, develop our shorelines responsibly, ensure proper sewage
treatment, guard against excess runoff, provide safe water recreation
opportunities, and be cognizant of our responsibility to conserve this
important resource for generations to come.
The cities represented by our board of directors each spend an
annual average of well over $200 million for needs related to the Great
Lakes, including drinking water and wastewater infrastructure,
stormwater management, parks and open space, pollution prevention and
shoreline protection.
In addition to financial investments, Great Lakes mayors are
implementing innovative changes in water policy; stepping up efforts to
conserve water; implementing sustainable building practices; protecting
our shorelines from erosion; and passing ordinances to stop invasive
species.
In Chicago, we are leading the way in innovative green building and
green water infrastructure. We're ensuring that new city buildings are
certified as green buildings, and encouraging private-sector developers
and citizens to conserve water and use stormwater as a resource.
As Great Lakes Mayors, we are investing our own local resources in
innovative approaches to protect the Great Lakes, and we are learning
from each other about how to do even more.
In Chicago, we are building a stormwater tunnel that will collect
clean rainwater from the roof of McCormick Place, the largest
convention center in the nation, and return it to Lake Michigan instead
of dumping it in the sewer system.
The tunnel is 12 feet in diameter, 3,300 feet long, and extends 150
feet under existing buildings and roadways. It will keep approximately
60 million gallons of water out of the sewer system every year. This
will help conserve our Great Lakes water and reduce sewer overflows
during large storms.
Racine, WI is doing some of the most innovative work in the country
to come up with solutions for beach contamination.
Erie, PA and Rochester, NY have made great strides in managing wet
weather flows to reduce sewer overflows.
Gary, IN is transforming 21 miles of contaminated industrial
property along Lake Michigan into publicly accessible parkland.
And Cleveland recently approved a Lakefront Plan to reconnect the
city with Lake Erie.
These are just a few examples of Mayors' leadership in the efforts
to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
As I stated previously, long-term protection of the Great Lakes
will require a sustained commitment at all levels, including the
Federal Governments of the United States and Canada, State and local
governments and tribal nations. It should be clear from today's
hearing, that these groups have already demonstrated their willingness
to make a commitment to move forward.
With respect to role of the Federal Government, on December 12,
2005, I joined Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin and Governor Bob Taft of
Ohio in sending a letter to President Bush, outlining the first near-
term actions toward making our Great Lakes vision a reality.
These actions were developed through the Regional Collaboration
process and are supported by the Great Lakes community.
We asked the Administration to support $300 million in new funding
for programs to address a range of high priority issues, including
sewer and water infrastructure, toxic pollutants, wetlands restoration,
river restoration and brownfields programs.
Given this Federal funding commitment, local and State governments
would invest approximately $140 million in matching funds. This would
be in addition to the billions of dollars that local governments
collectively spend annually on things like water infrastructure,
shoreline and habitat improvements, pollution prevention, and
stormwater management.
Investing in these near-term actions is an important down payment
toward our long-term commitment to implement the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration strategy, and will help address the most urgent
priorities.
I would like to highlight several of these near-term actions that
are essential for protection of the Great Lakes.
<bullet> The Army Corps of Engineers must be given authorization to
build and operate two invasive-species barriers in the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal, along with a $6 million appropriation to carry out this
work.
This is not a State of Illinois issue; it is a Federal issue. The
amount of resources needed to complete this work is a fraction of the
costs associated with devastation to the Great Lakes that Asian carp
will cause if they move into Lake Michigan.
<bullet> In order to stop the next invasive species from entering
the Great Lakes and other important waterways, we need comprehensive
invasive species legislation. I know many in Congress have been working
on such legislation and I appreciate your work.
<bullet> USEPA's brownfields program should be increased by $50
million and those funds should be targeted to shoreline communities
around the country, so that waterfronts can be better protected.
<bullet> I also want to highlight the importance of fully funding
the Clean Water State Revolving Loan program. Municipalities throughout
the country are in dire need of funding to address aging water and
wastewater infrastructure and this program is critical to that work.
<bullet> We also support the President's FY07 request for full
funding of the Great Lakes Legacy Program to address toxic hot spots.
<bullet> Finally, we support the President's commitment to restore
200,000 acres of wetlands and ask that $28.5 million be appropriated
for this cause.
These actions, as well as others outlined in our December 12 letter
to President Bush are important first steps that we, as a region and as
a nation, need to take in the short term.
While these projects are under way, we also need to examine two key
elements of Great Lakes protection and restoration: excessive
bureaucracy and funding delivery.
There are more than 140 separate Federal programs related to the
Great Lakes. Too often these programs are not coordinated and lead to
delays in implementation and inefficient use of resources.
The Asian carp barrier in Illinois is only one example. Despite
being hailed as a victory for increased coordination among Federal
agencies, the barrier has continued to run into bureaucratic road
bumps. It is hard to believe that we are still trying to figure out how
to secure funds and determine who will operate it once it is finally
constructed.
In order to better address these coordination issues, I am joining
with the Great Lakes Governors in calling for Congress to codify the
Federal Interagency Task Force. This will help legitimize the Task
Force and provide a mechanism for Congressional oversight.
Finally, we need to better target our scarce resources for Great
Lakes restoration programs. We should to explore long-term strategies
that give State and local governments more control over directing these
resources, using the Collaboration Strategy as a guide.
I am well aware that there are competing priorities and limited
resources. However, investments we make now will prevent the need for
far larger expenditures in the future. We shouldn't let the potential
costs deter us from making the plans necessary to preserve the source
of 95 percent of the Nation's fresh water and 20 percent of the earth's
fresh water.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. We have already shown that the
Great Lakes community is willing and able to work together to find
solutions.
By continuing to work together we can turn this strategy into
action.
This is a serious commitment, and one we must all make.
In closing, I would like to again thank Chairman Inhofe, Chairman
Voinovich, Ranking Member Jeffords and the members of this committee
for holding today's meeting to address the very important topic of the
Great Lakes, and for providing me with the opportunity to share the
views of Great Lakes mayors.
The Great Lakes mayors are strongly encouraged by the support of
many members of Congress, and we look forward to working cooperatively
with you and others in any way we can to advance progress on the Great
Lakes.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Responses by David Ullrich to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. The Strategy establishes funding levels for each of its
goals. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to who will be
providing those funds. In your view, how much of the $20 billion in the
Great Lakes Strategy do you expect from the Federal Government, the
State governments and the local governments?
Response. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC
Strategy) developed by over 1500 people during a 1-year-period included
cost estimates for the various programs included in the restoration
process. Although there are not precise figures, approximately \2/3\ of
the money would come from Federal sources, and the remaining \1/3\
would be split about evenly between State and local governments,
although Federal programs requiring State and local matches often go
well above the 33 percent level. Given the national and international
nature of the resource, it is not surprising that the largest portion
would come from the Federal Government. The United States has formal
obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty, the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, the 1955 United States/Canadian Convention on Great
Lakes Fisheries that must be met. Also, looking at the magnitude of the
resource, its value, and its importance to the quality of life and
economy throughout the United States and Canada, this level of
investment now will likely avoid much larger expenditures in the
future, as has been learned in other recent experiences, such as the
hurricanes.
Question 2. The near term actions outlined by the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
in a letter sent to the President on December 12, 2005 and the near
term actions developed by the Administration are inconsistent. Given
the discrepancies in these near term action items, how can we make sure
that the goal of better coordination is met?
Response. The near term action items set out in the letter from
Governor Taft, Governor Doyle, and Mayor Daley to President Bush on
December 12, 2005, reflect extensive discussion among the members of
the strategy teams and of the Executive Subcommittee to the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration. These action items include a mixture of actual
restoration projects, monitoring, strategy development, and indicator
development, with a heavy emphasis on actual restoration. These actions
come out of the GLRC Strategy, and also reflect the public input from
over 700 people at public meetings, in addition to the 1500 people who
developed the GLRC Strategy. The overall thrust of the GLRC process
initiated under the President's Executive order was to move forward
with implementation, not just develop another strategy to add to all
the plans developed in the past but not implemented. The near term
action items from the Governors and Mayor are fully consistent with the
spirit of that process.
The near term actions were developed by the Administration were
developed outside the GLRC process, and never given to the other
parties until the week before the GLRC Strategy was scheduled to be
signed. There was no opportunity to work through the two lists to come
up with a more consistent list, and the Administration did not indicate
any willingness to negotiate. A close look at the Administration's list
of 50 actions shows an extensive number of things such as analysis,
coordinating, evaluating, reviewing, creating or expanding teams,
committees, and task forces, providing guidance, and many other
activities that may be of value, but are not tangible Great Lakes
restoration work. Many are things are already underway or should have
been completed some time ago.
The best way to make sure that the goal of better coordination is
met in the future is for all parties to come to the table with the
authority to negotiate specific actions that can be taken. All parties
need to be flexible in reaching a consensus on near term actions. This
is still possible as the GLRC moves forward with implementation.
Question 3. Please provide documentation detailing the roles of the
States and local authorities and their contributions to this
restoration process, including funding each will provide to meet the
objectives outlined in the restoration strategy.
Response. Local authorities have major roles and responsibilities
for restoration of the Great Lakes, and have been contributing
significantly to the process for some time, as they will in the future.
It should be noted that many of these responsibilities are shared with
State and Federal authorities. The fundamental responsibility of local
government is to build, improve, and maintain infrastructure that forms
the foundation for cities. Sound management of the infrastructure and
the activities that rely on the infrastructure are essential to the
quality of life for the citizens.
Cites and other local authorities have been responsible for
providing water supply and wastewater management services to their
citizens for a very long time. As the many demands on local budgets
have continued to increase, the challenge to expand, upgrade, and
maintain the water infrastructure has become more difficult. Federal
and State funding in the form of grants in the past and now lower
interest loans has been essential and very helpful. With very few
grants available now, the local taxpayers are assuming almost the
entire burden of these capital investments and operating expenses.
Storm water management is another activity for local governments.
Especially because of the problems with combined sewers, cities are
taking steps to reduce and slow flows from roofs, streets, parking
lots, and other impervious surfaces. Even such things as street
cleaning collects materials for proper disposal, rather than having
them carried into the rivers and lakes with the storm water runoff.
The parks, beaches, harbors, and marinas along the shores of the
Great Lakes are tremendous assets and require major management
attention and financial investment.
Cities, through their park districts and other authorities, must
maintain the facilities and upgrade them on an ongoing basis. These
facilities are an integral part of the social and economic fabric of
the cities, and must be managed in a way that accommodates human use
and protects the resource.
The waterfronts as a whole are exceedingly important to the cities
along the Great Lakes. Maintaining their vitality, and revitalizing
them where this is needed, are major items on the agendas of cities.
Most of the cities have some form of waterfront plan in the conceptual,
planning, or implementation stage. Mayors are instrumental in putting
together the public, private, and non-profit partnerships that make
this revitalization possible. Cities are seeking to do this in a
sustainable way that will preserve the waterfront for the long term.
Dealing with invasive species is another responsibility that local
governments share with State and Federal Governments. Although
comprehensive national aquatic invasive species legislation is a far
more cost effective way to reduce the flow of invasive species to the
Great Lakes, until such time as Congress acts, State and local
governments have taken steps within their jurisdictions to address this
problem. States and cities have passed or are considering legislation
that would restrict the introduction of such species. In addition,
cities must deal with such problems as keeping water intakes and
beaches clear of zebra mussels.
Cities are working to keep toxic waste out of the Great Lakes.
Several local authorities have had successful programs to reduce the
amount of mercury that gets into the wastewater stream. Household
hazardous waste collections keep these materials from being put in
landfills or dumped down drains.
These are just some of the many things local governments are doing
to protect and restore the Great Lakes. State and tribal governments
are also very active, and there responses to these questions will
address their roles and responsibilities.
______
Responses by David Ullrich to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Ullrich, can you describe the effect that the
significant budget cuts in clean water spending proposed by the
President will have on the ability of cities to take care of water
infrastructure issues?
Response. The effects of the significant budget cuts to the clean
water State revolving fund will have serious effects on the ability of
cities to take care of water infrastructure issues. The investments
needed on the Great Lakes alone to deal with sewer overflow problems
are in the many billions of dollars. The low interest loans from the
various federally financed revolving funds are an essential financing
option available to cities for these investments. As those funds have
been cut back nationally, the availability of financing these critical
improvements for cities goes down and they fall further behind in
maintaining the infrastructure.
If the Administration's FY07 budget proposal to fund the CWSRF at
$687.6 million is approved, this would equate to a cut of $240 million
to the eight Great Lakes States when compared to FY01 when the CWSRF
was fully funded. This cut translates to a direct hit on communities.
It is particularly damaging now, because many communities face rapidly
escalating costs for water infrastructure repairs and upgrades, which
are needed to ensure clean and safe local waters, and it especially
troubling for the Great Lakes region, where many cities are older and
have aging water infrastructure. Faced with such significant reductions
in Federal water funds, many municipalities must sacrifice other
important local needs or increase local water rates for consumers.
Question 2. Mr. Ullrich, do you have any comments on the
effectiveness of EPA programs for assistance to the States and Tribes
for water quality issues?
Response. The EPA programs for assistance to the States and Tribes
for water quality under the Clean Water Act are generally sound and
well established in over 30 years of implementation. Based on the
foundation of Federal water quality criteria and State water quality
standards, all of the programs have a clear set of goals to achieve.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program
resulted in a dramatic reduction of pollutants discharged from point
sources, and lead to major water quality improvements. Central to the
success of that effort was the Federal and State funding to help pay
for municipal wastewater infrastructure. Many efforts for dealing with
non point source pollution under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
have been very successful. Some of the more recent work under watershed
programs shows great potential for future water quality improvements.
Other program areas have not been as effective. The process of
setting total maximum daily loads for streams, then getting the
necessary reductions from point and non point sources has been very
slow. Monitoring has not been funded at the level necessary to have a
good picture of water quality over time for many of our lakes, rivers,
and streams. Numerous, uncoordinated and in some cases conflicting
programs administered by multiple agencies have resulted in minimal
advancement in Great Lakes restoration and protection. For example, EPA
has only a small portion of the wetland programs, and the remaining
wetland programs are spread out over a number of Federal Agencies, and
suffer from a lack of coordination that could make them much more
effective. Because of the critical importance of wetlands from a water
quality, flood control, and habitat perspective, there needs to be much
more consolidation and coordination of the Federal effort.
Funding is probably the most serious problem faced across all
programs. As State and Federal budgets are strained, the water programs
have often suffered the most. Without adequate resources, the water
programs will fall further behind in trying to reach the goal of being
able to drink the water, eat the fish, and swim at the beaches of all
of our lakes and streams.
Question 3. Mr. Ullrich, can you describe your thoughts on the need
for comprehensive invasive species legislation?
Response. Comprehensive national invasive species legislation is
essential if we are going to protect our ecosystems and avoid even more
costly problems caused by the introductions of species from across the
globe. In this area, we have one of the few opportunities to prevent a
problem before it develops. This must be done on a national basis, and
coordinated closely with both Canada and Mexico, because there are so
many potential pathways for the invasive species. Aquatic and
terrestrial plants and animals are all threats. The elements of
effective legislation should include, at a minimum:
<bullet> ballast water discharge limits that protect the
receiving waters from invasive species, force the development
of better technology, apply as soon as possible, and move
toward a goal of no discharge of viable organisms;
<bullet> new vessels would have to meet the tighter standards
immediately upon operation;
<bullet> old vessels must meet stringent best management
practices until they meet the new standards;
<bullet> ships claiming no ballast on board would need to meet
all standards hull management requirements;
<bullet> comprehensive programs for non ballast water
introductions, including stringent review of all organisms in
trade before they are brought in, especially if introduced for
aquaculture;
<bullet> rapid response capability to eradicate or limit the
spread of newly introduced species;
<bullet> expanded monitoring and research to better understand
the potential for introducing new organisms, detecting
introductions, and improving treatment methods;
<bullet> better information, education, and outreach so the
public and the business community better understands the
threats from invasive species and how to prevent their
introduction;
<bullet> enforcement, and provide adequate resources for the
task;
<bullet> full coordination of the entire effort with Canada
(for the Great Lakes) and Mexico;
<bullet> strong enforcement of the requirements with
appropriate sanctions to deter the violations;
<bullet> no pre-emption of State or local laws;
<bullet> preserve Clean Water Act authority to regulate, if
necessary.
While this legislation is pending, as it has been for a number of
years, more invaders come into our country on a continuing basis. In
the Great Lakes alone, one new species about every eight months
arrives. The potential costs and damages each one could inflict are
substantial. It makes no practical sense for individual States and
cities to pass laws and ordinances to try to stem the flow, when this
is a matter of interstate and international commerce that should be
dealt with at the Federal level. In addition, when there is Federal
authority to act, like under the Lacy Act for dealing with injurious
species such as the black, silver, and bighead carp, Congress needs to
hold agencies accountable for timely action.
______
Responses by David Ullrich to Additional Questions from
Senator Voinovich
Question 1. How much funding are the cities contributing to Great
Lakes restoration?
Response. We do not have an accurate figure that covers all the
expenditures on Great Lakes related matters for cities from the United
States, or from Canada. However, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Cities Initiative (GLSL Cities Initiative) performed an informal survey
of eight cities represented on the Board of Directors for a variety of
capital and operating expenditures on a variety things. The results
showed that these cities were spending, on average, about $200 million
annually on capital and operating expenses. The categories of
expenditures included: wastewater, drinking water, storm water,
constructed wetlands, lakefront parks, watercourse/flood protection,
shoreline protection, redevelopment, and pollution prevention. These
were medium to larger cities, and there were several Canadian cities
included. The average across all cities would be lower, but these eight
alone amount to almost $2 billion annually for operating and capital
expenditures together.
Question 2. How can we better coordinate this massive restoration
effort?
Response. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was an excellent
effort on the part of all participants, and we need to take full
advantage of the outstanding work done by everyone. The success of the
effort goes well beyond coordination, and includes a number of factors.
First, with the amount of planning done in the past, including the GLRC
strategy, there must be an understanding that, now, far more emphasis
should be placed on implementation than on planning. Second, more
accountability at individual levels of government and collectively
among the parties will be very important. Third, stronger leadership at
each level is essential for success. Periodic Congressional oversight
hearings would help in this accountability process. In addition, it
would improve the overall performance if the parties could agree upon a
central leadership position or authority to provide more direction to
the efforts of all the parties. Fourth, the goals and objectives in the
GLRC strategy should have timelines attached to them so that progress
can be tracked against schedules. Fifth, substantially more funding
will be required to move forward with restoration, and Congress, State
legislatures, city councils, and tribal councils, as well as the
private and non-profit sectors, need to work very hard on this. These
are not all the actions needed, but are some of the most important for
improving coordination and success on Great Lakes restoration.
Question 3. How can we better coordinate Great Lakes programs at
all levels of government so that we are more efficient and effective?
Response. Looking at just the issue of coordination, we have the
mechanism in place to improve coordination across all programs at all
levels of governments by fully utilizing the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Executive Committee and the Implementation Framework.
This should be the focal point for communication, coordination, and
action. It would be helpful if the parties would look at the other
Great Lakes institutions and Federal programs that have been created
over the years to see if some of them are redundant and could be
reformed, consolidated, or discontinued. This could help reduce the
burden of travel time and meeting time on many of the participants and
also might better clarify roles and responsibilities.
Question 4. What can cities do to raise the profile of this
restoration effort beyond the region?
Response. Cities are currently taking actions to raise the profile
of this restoration effort beyond the region, and will continue to do
so in the future. The leadership of the GLSL Cities Initiative has
traveled to Washington, DC, on a number of occasions to testify before
Congress, meet with Administration officials, and speak at Great Lakes
gatherings. Because the GLSL Cities Initiative has members from both
the United States and Canada, an from the St. Lawrence and the Great
Lakes parts of the basin, we are raising the profile in a large portion
of Canada that has a significant portion of the Canadian population. We
also will be more involved in Canadian matters in Ottawa.
Representatives from the GLSL Cities Initiative recently participated
in the World Water Forum in Mexico City. GLSL Cities Initiative also
plans to be more visible in the U.S. Conference of Mayors activities.
Question 5. What is the key to keeping together all of the groups
involved in the creation of the blueprint strategy in order to
implement the goals established by the Collaboration?
Response. Several things are key to keeping the groups together for
implementing the GLRC Strategy. First, all parties need to commit to
the GLRC Executive Committee and Implementation Framework. This should
serve as the driving force in all the actions taken by the various
levels of government and the private and non-profit parties. Second,
the focus must be on implementation rather than more planning. Even
without significant increases in funding, the parties must figure out
how to move forward. Third, it is important to celebrate all levels of
success under the GLRC Strategy. In order to achieve success,
additional funding will clearly be needed. This will give all the
parties the encouragement that they need to continue their efforts.
Fourth, effective communication among the parties so that work is
coordinated, and that there are no surprises. These actions should all
help keep the parties together.
Question 6. Please elaborate on how the mayors and the entire
Collaboration are working with Canada and their restoration activities.
Response. The GLSL Cities Initiative mayors from the United States
are working with the Canadian mayors on a continuing basis. The Board
of Directors, consisting of eight mayors each from the United States
and Canada has monthly conference calls and a midwinter meeting to make
sure that efforts are moving forward in both countries. The GLSL Cities
Initiative has an annual meeting of all members, plus many outside
guests, to showcase much of the work that has been done and what is
planned for the future. As part of the planning for the future, the
GLSL Cities Initiative is nearing completion of a business and
operating plan that should be approved at the June 2006 annual meeting
and will serve as a guide for the next 3 years for activities in both
countries. The GLSL Cities Initiative also plans to open an office in
Toronto in the near future so that activities in Canada receive the
necessary attention. The web site for the GLSL Cities Initiative is
also place where the work in both countries is shown for the benefit of
all members and the broader public. Much as the mayors were extensively
involved in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in the United
States, the mayors will also be participating in discussions on the new
Canadian Ontario Agreement and on the St. Lawrence Action Plan. With
the review and revision of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
underway, representatives from cities are already engaged in those
discussions.
The States work with the Canadian provinces in the context of the
Council of Great Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes Commission. The
Native American Tribes have a working relationship with the First
Nations in Canada, and have been developing a Great Lakes organization.
At the Federal level, the Binational Executive Committee is the primary
place for interaction. Many of the parties also participate in the
activities of the International Joint Commission.
______
Responses by David Ullrich to Additional Questions from Senator Obama
Question 1. Are the mayors concerned that they may be left out of
Federal decisionmaking regarding how priorities are determined and how
resources are allocated?
Response. For many years, mayors and other representatives of local
governments were not included in Great Lakes decision-making. That has
changed significantly over the past 3 years. The mayors are now
included as full and equal partners in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration, the Agreement Review Committee for the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, the International Joint Commission--Water Quality
Board, and have served on a number of advisory committees. The Council
of Great Lakes Governors has been especially inclusive to the mayors in
much of their work. The tribal organizations and many Federal agencies
have also reached out to the cities. The mayors are confident that when
resource distributions are considered, the cities will be included in
the deliberations.
Question 2. How will the mayors be coordinating their future
restoration efforts across the region?
Response. As noted above, the mayors will be working as part of the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Executive Committee to coordinate
its activities with the other orders of government. For coordination
with other cities, the GLSL Cities Initiative is in continuing contact
with its members to make sure that its work is planned and implemented
effectively. There are over 80 cities from the United States and Canada
that have been involved in efforts to protect and restore the Great
Lakes, and they are working with one another through the organization
web site, sharing things such as best practices in different cities and
information about developments at the national, regional, State,
provincial, and local level. Through the annual meeting, many members
come together to showcase especially successful efforts, pass
resolutions to convey the organization's position on key issues, and
create opportunities for joint efforts on protection and restoration of
the resource. The Board of Directors meets monthly by conference call
and mid-year in person. There is a newsletter that shares information
on key actions of the organization and its members.
Question 3. Given the number of people who depend on the Great
Lakes for their drinking water, how critical is it that we restore the
health of the Great Lakes?
Response. The Great Lakes are probably one of the most valuable
resources, if not the most valuable, to the citizens, governments, and
businesses in this region of Canada and the United States, as well as
providing benefits to the rest of both countries. The contributions to
the social, economic, and ecological well being of the region are
tremendous, and go well beyond just their value as a drinking water
supply. With the increasing concerns about adequate water supplies
around the world, the value of the Great Lakes for that purpose alone
will continue to increase significantly. There are very major threats
to the integrity of the resource that will increase with time. If the
United States and Canada do not recognize the very high priority of
investments in protection and restoration, its value will diminish,
like any other asset, for the many uses it offers such as a domestic
water supply, food source, recreation location, and many others. In
fact, cost burdens from such things as invasive species will likely
increase, as well. We should not learn the lesson the hard way on the
Great Lakes like we have in other areas of the country where timely
investments could have avoided astronomical costs.
Question 4. People outside of the Great Lakes region often assume
that restoration of the Lakes is a regional issue. Is it the opinion of
your organization that the health of the Great Lakes is a national
issue? If so, why?
Response. Restoration of the Great Lakes is clearly a national
issue. There are many reasons for this. The sheer volume of the
resource, being almost twenty percent of the surface fresh water in the
world, makes it internationally significant. Because they are shared
with Canada, and forms much of our northern border, the Great Lakes
must be addressed on a national level. They provide a flow of
interstate commerce, not only in the region, but to other parts of the
country, making it important to other parts of the country. The
boating, fishing, and other recreational opportunities add billions of
dollars to the economy and attract people from all over the country, as
well. Much as the Everglades, the Rockies, Chesapeake Bay, and other
features of our landscape help define us as a country, the Great Lakes
are very much a part of the identity of the United States.
__________
Statement of George H. Kuper, President, Council of
Great Lakes Industries
Good morning. Thank you for your leadership in and support of the
Great Lakes Restoration Strategy. And, thank you also for this
opportunity to express our support for the breadth and
comprehensiveness of the Strategy and to express industry's
perspective.
I am here today representing the Council of Great Lakes Industries
(CGLI), which is made up of three dozen United States and Canadian
companies and industrial associations with significant investments in
the Great Lakes basin. CGLI is a member driven organization focused
exclusively on policy issues in the Great Lakes Region. We have
substantial experience in the function of multi-stakeholder, consensus-
building efforts and our individual members have real world, practical
experience of doing business in the Great Lakes region. In CGLI, work
gets done by the members and is developed from members' priorities. The
mission of our organization is ``promoting the economic growth and
vitality of the region in harmony with its human and natural
resources'' or in other words, sustainable development.
Industry has been, and continues to be, actively engaged in a range
of basin-wide and local initiatives to address the issues in the Great
Lakes Restoration Strategy. Council of Great Lakes Industries' members
and senior public policy managers from Great Lakes industrial
organizations were actively involved in the Collaboration process.
Like many others, I am here today to represent industry's support
for environmental restoration in the Great Lakes. In order to avoid
repetition, I will focus on issues that others might not mention--
issues that we believe must be considered for the sustainable
development of our Great Lakes Region. This testimony will evidence
industry's support for the Restoration Strategy; the national
significance of investing in the restoration of the Great Lakes region;
and, some specifics of the Strategy that we feel are worthy of
attention.
I. From industry's perspective, we view the Collaboration's
Restoration Strategy as a useful guide to many of the--primarily
environmental-concerns of the citizens of the Great Lakes basin. We
welcome the 12 December 2005 commitment of the Great Lakes Governors,
Federal administrators, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Mayor's
organization, Tribal Leaders, and others to develop a plan for going
forward. There is a need to address the uncertainty surrounding what
happens next, making sure that rigorous analysis, including risk
assessment, is conducted before priorities are set and programs funded.
Therefore, we look forward to the release by the Collaboration
Executive Committee of their priority plans for the continuation of the
GLRC and implementation of the Restoration Strategy.
The Collaboration process has given the region an opportunity to do
things differently. It was a complicated, multi-stakeholder process.
But it provided a chance for many participants to offer input.
Unfortunately, the process did not always include enough rigor to
determine the true costs and societal benefits, and accurately
determine priority needs--needs we trust will be addressed by the
Executive Committee's plans. We also hope they will include ways to
streamline the implementation process for priority programs. But, the
multi-stakeholder process did allow some industry representatives to
bring their important and sometimes unique perspective to the
individual task groups including:
<bullet> a scientific focus;
<bullet> details regarding accomplishments in the basin over the
last three decades and industry's role in the significant reduction of
persistent, bio-accumulating toxics releases;
<bullet> recognition of current regulations and the roles they play
in protecting the environment;
<bullet> an understanding of what encourages sustainable economic
development and what does not; and,
<bullet> experience regarding the real costs associated with
achieving specific objectives.
Not surprisingly, we industrial representatives feel that the
entire focus of the Collaboration should be on sustainable development.
A healthy environment, social progress and a strong and vibrant
economy--all elements of sustainable development--are essential to the
well-being of our Region's, and the country's, manufacturing economy.
The environment is only one leg of the three-legged sustainable
development stool--the other legs are social and economic. It is
important to remember that the environment is an arena where the region
has worked hard and effectively to change the way we do things. While
we still face challenges, we are achieving environmental improvement.
Our big challenge now is to continue to improve the environment while
increasing jobs and the tax base that support education and quality of
life. This is not to say that we're in a ``jobs verses environment''
situation. The people of the Great Lakes Region need a healthy
environment and the jobs that support them. The two are inextricably
linked. We can't have one without the other. It is the infrastructure
necessary to provide for a healthy environment that is in need of
attention.
II. It is important for us all to understand that successful
implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Strategy is not just a
Great Lakes Regional issue. The Great Lakes Region is a vital component
of the U.S. economy. A strong Great Lakes economy is very important for
the country as a whole.
The Great Lakes Region is responsible for producing a third (32.5
percent) of the U.S. gross State product [based on Gross State Product,
2004]. We do this from a population base of 40 million people or less
than a quarter of the Nation's population.
But, we need your help. The Region that has made this significant
contribution to the Nation's economic welfare is now in need of the
Nation's care and attention. Our manufacturing base--60 percent of all
U.S. manufacturing--is clearly having problems. The global information
and communications revolution is contributing to a critical period of
what economists refer to as ``creative destruction'' in the region's
economy. The old ways of doing business are giving way to the new ways
of doing business and some of our industries and many of our citizens
are caught in this transition. At the same time our manufacturing base
must implement significant productivity improvements in order to reduce
costs and strive to remain globally competitive.
In order to protect this contribution to the Nation's GDP, the
region is going to need the Nation's investment. Industry is working
hard to identify the things needed to be done to improve our
productivity and our competitiveness. In addition to individual company
efforts, there is the newly formed Great Lakes Manufacturing Council
which has identified some common elements of manufacturing
competitiveness that can be worked on collectively. That agenda is
similar to the agenda of the National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences, which develops new technologies for common factory functions.
The outcomes from these collective efforts will be available to
manufacturers throughout the country. In the region we will need new
investment to apply the results. We will need to attract significant
private investment in new plants and equipment to harvest the
productivity improvement opportunities we have identified. We need to
capitalize on the talent of the people in this Region, their up-graded
skills and our R&D successes. And, I must add, that new investment will
be easier to attract when the national problems related to the
transition from industry supported health care and retirement burdens--
which sit disproportionately on the Region and make us less competitive
are fixed.
A vibrant sustainable development infrastructure is a key
ingredient in attracting essential industrial investment. A significant
Federal commitment to the Region in support of modern and improved
water and wastewater infrastructure will have a profound impact on the
economy of the Region and the Nation as a whole. Public funding and
pursuit of key parts of the Restoration Strategy will have a positive
economic development impact on the Region. We are currently trying to
organize a study jointly with the Healing Our Waters/Great Lakes
Coalition and Mr. Buchsbaum in order to understand how to quantify
these positive economic impacts. We hope to be able to report back to
you specifics on the spin-off economic development impacts you can
anticipate from funding the Restoration Strategy.
III. Industry has specific ideas about how we can begin to focus on
and achieve sustainable development within our region using the outputs
from the Collaboration. Setting the right priorities are important. As
we've said, our resources are strained and the needs are many.
Some of the Restoration Strategy identified needs that we feel are
important to the development of our economy include:
<bullet> Coastal Health.--We believe the sewage treatment capacity
in the basin needs to be expanded and improvements funded. These
infrastructure improvements are essential to protect the Great Lakes
ecosystem and also positively impact future economic development in the
region.
<bullet> Areas of Concern (AOCs) and Sediments.--We have testified
in support of the original legislation and for an increase in funding
for the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) in the past and we continue to
support it. The Restoration Strategy calls for--and we support--
streamlining the approval process and improving coordination between
all the levels of government to speed-up clean-ups. The proposed
increased flexibility in selecting sediment treatment and disposal
options is good policy. The GLLA deserves to be fully funded.
<bullet> Toxic Pollutants.--We've made a lot of progress in this
area. And there is much more to do. But things have changed. Because of
the substantial reductions made, it is now critically important to
consider the magnitude and relative importance of remaining levels of
these materials from risk assessment and management perspectives to
ensure that resources are directed to reductions that will have
meaningful outcomes. The industries I represent--and others--are
heavily involved in the Great Lakes BiNational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS)
where we are working hard and meeting the targets for substance release
reduction/elimination and timetables set out within this program. But,
a word of caution on issues like mercury and other substances of
concern. If, in our efforts to ``virtually eliminate'' (whatever that
means) this naturally occurring substance we become more restrictive on
operations in the Region, we will make our Region less competitive and
cripple economic development. This means that informed risk-based
solutions are needed, not arbitrary additional reductions in pursuit of
broad non-quantified policies.
<bullet> Non-Point Sources.--We support the recommendations of the
task group that are directly related to the control of pollution from
indirect sources. And we support the deployment of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as a reasonable approach to dealing with the current
circumstances prevailing in the Basin.
<bullet> Aquatic Invasive Species.--The Restoration Strategy calls
for important actions--like the carp barrier--that should be actively
pursued in order to preserve the efficacy of Great Lakes shipping and
preserving our access to world markets. We support these.
<bullet> Information and Indicators.--Coordinated monitoring and
assessment is essential to ensuring success in Great Lakes protection
and restoration efforts. The collection of information is vital but we
need to make sure we make the right decisions and we need to measure
the right things. And, we must make this information readily available
to track progress and support research.
<bullet> Sustainability.--While in support of the recommendations
from this area, we are disappointed that it has been split out as a
separate area of the Collaboration. As I said before, sustainable
development is not one segment of this effort but the overriding
enabler needed to support both the environment and economy in our
Region. The balancing of environmental, social and economic factors is
key to each element in this Restoration Strategy. It should form the
organizing framework of the entire strategy.
Again, while these actions will improve the environment, they will
also add to the economic viability of the region currently under
enormous economic pressure.
Looking at the Restoration Strategy as a whole, we should all
understand that there must be a shift in emphasis from some old
programs and their obsolete objectives to new areas. We must make the
most efficient use of public dollars to meet Restoration Strategy
objectives, especially when funding for existing programs can be
directed and/or redirected to meet Restoration goals. Programs such as
the BiNational Toxics Strategy and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference have great potential to satisfy some critical needs raised
in the Strategy.
Industry in the region--where many companies are in a fight for
their continued existence--supports many of the initial recommendations
of the Restoration Strategy, as we understand them. Many of these
programs deserve funding for the betterment of our great region. But,
we must caution that the economic viability of the region needs to be a
part of each funding decision, not only for the sake of the Region, but
the good of the country.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our experience. Please call
on us to provide additional information and perspectives.
______
Response by George H. Kuper to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. The Strategy establishes funding levels for each of its
goals. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to who will be
providing those funds. In your view, how much of the $20 billion in the
Great Lakes Strategy do you expect from the Federal Government, the
State governments and the local governments?
Response. We support the Strategy recommendation for funding.
According to the Strategy recommendations, the most important item for
support through Federal, State and local funding is in response to the
Coastal Health recommendations for improvements to wastewater treatment
systems. As part of a 55/45 percent Federal/local cost share $7.535
billion in Federal grants would be made available over 5 years. These
Federal funds would stimulate commitment to the required State and
local resources of $6.21 billion over the 5-year period. Other funding
recommendations, such as those regarding Areas of Concern, provide for
full funding of existing programs such as the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
And, some of the funds called for in the Strategy are not really new
monies since they will include the redirection of funds in current
programs.
______
Responses by George H. Kuper to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. What is the key to keeping together all of the groups
involved in the creation of the blueprint strategy in order to
implement the goals established by the Collaboration?
Response. The Collaboration has created a very large collective
group of citizens, government representatives, tribal interests,
industry people, environmental groups and others who actively
participated in the Collaboration process. Some participants were
interested in one particular issue workgroup while others participated
on several groups. A key to keeping these groups and individuals
involved is communication. They need to be informed about the
continuing process, the progress on the issues addressing their
particular concerns and, most importantly, opportunities for their
continued involvement so that the priorities they are concerned about
can be addressed.
The Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act (SB 2545 & HR
5100) calls for the Collaboration to serve three roles. The first is to
develop and maintain as current the protection strategy. The second is
to serve as a forum to address near-term regional issues relating to
ecosystem restoration and protection. Third is to establish an
oversight forum to coordinate and enhance implementation of Great Lakes
programs. To accomplish these objectives, an ongoing two-way
communication effort has to be maintained and opportunities for
meaningful involvement offered.
Question 2. How can we best coordinate this massive restoration
effort?
Response. The Restoration Strategy identifies many stakeholders'
concerns regarding threats to the Great Lakes eco-system. And, it
outlines specific needs to address restoration objectives. Coordination
of the actions necessary to deliver on those needs fall into several
different categories:
<bullet> Reviewing and revising existing program activities as they
may relate to restoration objectives with a view to increase funding in
pertinent areas;
<bullet> Abandoning those programs which have either accomplished
their objective(s) or are not likely to do so, in favor of new
approaches and new objectives; and,
<bullet> Create new programs where no existing program is now in
place to respond to the restoration need.
The proposed restoration activities will be beyond the scope of any
single Federal Agency. And many of them will have a bi-national
component. Therefore, a different governance structure will be
necessary.
We haven't yet reviewed thoroughly The Great Lakes Collaboration
Implementation Act introduced in the U.S. Senate (SB 2545) and House of
Representatives (HR 5100) earlier this month. This legislation has
presumably been crafted to coordinate the implementation of the
Collaboration priorities. We will be studying the proposed coordination
of Federal efforts through the Interagency Task Force and overall
coordination through the Executive Committee of the Collaboration. But,
we are initially predisposed to see that proposal as inadequate because
of the immense scope of the restoration and the role that must be
played by numerous stakeholders. A successful coordination and
governance effort will require the provision of roles for stakeholders.
This does not seem to be a part of the existing structure.
Question 3. How can we better coordinate Great Lakes programs at
all levels of government so that we are more efficient and effective?
Response. See response to No. 2 above.
Question 4. What can industry do to raise the profile of this
restoration effort beyond the region?
Response. Industry was an active participant in and supporter of
the Collaboration process and will continue to participate. Industry is
eager to see a restoration process with priorities determined on the
basis of risk and focused on a sustainable Great Lakes Region. Industry
fully understands the importance to the national economy of the Great
Lakes Region, as we produce more than 32 precent of the Gross State
Product. We are working to raise the profile of Great Lakes Restoration
within our member companies, most of whom are international in scope,
and within our trade associations that have national reach. Further,
industry is working to bring these issues to the attention of law
makers at the Federal, State and local level.
More specifically, the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) is
working with the environmental community on a project to document the
national economic benefits of Great Lakes restoration. CGLI and the
Healing Our Waters Coalition (HOW) are cosponsoring a Brookings
Institution study on the benefits of Great Lakes restoration on both
the Great Lakes and national economies. We believe that the results of
this study will facilitate national support for Great Lakes
restoration.
__________
Statement of Andy Buchsbaum, Director, National Wildlife Federation's
Great Lakes Office and Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters<SUP>'</SUP>--Great
Lakes Coalition
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today on this issue of critical
national importance: Great Lakes protection and restoration. My name is
Andy Buchsbaum, and I come here wearing two hats. First, I am the
director of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Office. NWF
is the America's oldest and largest conservation organization, with one
million members and affiliated organizations in 47 States. The second
hat I wear is as the co-chair of a broad-based national coalition, the
Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition, dedicated to the protection
and restoration of the Great Lakes. The Healing Our Waters (``HOW'')
Coalition is truly national in scope with 85 national, regional, State
and local organizations. These include Great Lakes State and regional
conservation organizations such as the Alliance for the Great Lakes,
Great Lakes United, and the Ohio Environmental Council; national
conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife
Federation, National Parks Conservation Association, Trout Unlimited,
the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society;
educational institutions such as Shedd Aquarium and Brookfield Zoo; and
government representatives such as the County Executives of America. A
full list of the Healing Our Waters Coalition accompanies this
testimony as Appendix A.
My testimony today will focus on three areas: the importance of a
healthy Great Lakes to the Nation; the accelerating deterioration the
Great Lakes are currently experiencing; and the critical role of the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration recommendations in stopping and
reversing the lakes' precipitous decline. The bottom line is this:
making a substantial investment in the Great Lakes now will earn a
significant economic and ecological return for the region and the
Nation. Delaying that investment will make future actions far more
costly, and likely will result in irreversible damage to this national
and global treasure.
the great lakes: a national priority
The Great Lakes certainly define the region for the 42 million
people who live there. They mean more to us than places to swim or fish
or hike; more than places to watch a beautiful sunset or hike through
some of the world's most beautiful dunes and national lakeshores; more
than our source of drinking water; more than the lifeblood of commerce
and industry. For those of us who live there, they are part of our way
of life, the way we define ourselves and our future. When I was growing
up on the outskirts of Chicago, the high points of each summer were my
trips to Lake Michigan's North Avenue Beach in Chicago, the Indiana
Dunes, and the Warren Dunes in Michigan. My friends and I would play in
the water, race down the dunes, and watch the incredible sunsets over
waters so vast you could not see the other side. And now my family is
reprising those wonderful times. The best part of my sons' summers are
when we go up north to roam the shoreline of Lake Superior, swim in the
bone-biting cold of its waters, and watch those spectacular sunsets.
The lakes create the memories that bind our family and millions of
others, and link my generation with my parents' and my children's.'
They are the defining features of our physical world, our continuing
constant.
So it is no surprise that the Great Lakes are a top priority for
those of us who live there. A 2003 Joyce Foundation poll asked Great
Lakes residents if protecting and restoring the Great Lakes is
important; 96 percent said yes. Ninety 6 percent. You can't get 96
percent to agree on what day it is--but they agree on the importance of
the Great Lakes.
It is equally clear that the health of the Great Lakes is
critically important to the Nation as a whole. Even if you live in our
region, it is hard to appreciate their vast size and scope and how they
define our nation's geography. These lakes constitute 95 percent of the
surface freshwater in the United States. They have a coastline of
10,000 miles--longer than the combined U.S. coastlines of the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans. They supply the drinking water, shipping,
recreation, and economic lifeblood to millions of people in eight
States. They constitute a 1,000-mile border between the United States
and Canada. They are continental features that attract migratory birds
from the Canadian Arctic to South America. Millions of migratory
waterfowl breed in the Great Lakes and then fly to the eastern and
southern United States to supply hunters and birdwatchers from New
Jersey to Louisiana.
The Great Lakes are a national resource. Tom Kiernan, the President
of the National Parks Conservation Association and co-chair of the
Healing Our Waters coalition puts it this way: ``The Great Lakes are
national icons, a beautiful natural treasure you can see even from
space. Like the majestic Grand Canyon and Everglades, these inland
oceans help define the soul of a region and the landscape of a
nation.'' Their national importance has prompted 11 national
organizations to actively participate in the Healing Our Waters
campaign to protect and restore them. Leaders from around the country--
including those from the Chesapeake Bay, Restore America's Estuaries
and Coastal Louisiana, each of which also have national iconic status
and pressing needs for restoration--understand the national importance
of the Great Lakes and their need for protection and restoration:
``Like the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes are resources of
national significance. They have helped shape our history as a
Nation and they have provided immeasurable recreational,
economic, and cultural opportunities for our citizens.
Unfortunately, they share a history of insufficient investment
in their protection and restoration. National attention,
national funding, and national commitment to the restoration of
natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes
is critical for us, as a Nation, to ensure a legacy of clean
water, abundant fisheries, and economic development for future
generations.'' Roy A. Hoagland, Esq., Vice President,
Environmental Protection and Restoration, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation
``The Great Lakes are extraordinary resources of national
importance, and they require national attention and funding to
get back to health. Like the Great Lakes, many of our nation's
Great Waters--such as Puget Sound, the Louisiana Coast, the
Everglades or Chesapeake Bay--are in grave condition.
Investments in the restoration of these critical ecosystems
will repay us many fold, and will benefit the Nation as a
whole.'' Mark Wolf-Armstrong, CEO of Restore America's
Estuaries.
``The Great Lakes are of national importance. If we can't
save Coastal Louisiana, we can't save the Great Lakes, and vice
versa. It can't be that we have to choose one place over
another, or we'll be set up to fail everywhere. The
consequences to the Nation of inaction or delay are enormous.
We cannot afford to wait, either here in Coastal Louisiana or
in the Great Lakes.'' Mark Davis, Director, Coalition to
Restore Coastal Louisiana
The Great Lakes' economic importance to the Midwest and the Nation
also is immense. The Great Lakes annually generate billions of dollars
of economic revenue directly:
<bullet> Tourism in Ohio is a $7 billion industry sustaining
over a quarter of a million jobs.
<bullet> In Michigan, tourism generates $16 billion annually,
and in Wisconsin, $11.8 billion.
<bullet> Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching account for
more than $18 billion annually in the Great Lakes States.
But the economic impact of the Great Lakes is far greater than
this. Twenty-five million people rely on the Great Lakes for their
drinking water. Industries such as auto, power, agriculture, and steel
depend on them to supply and cool their industrial processes. Consumers
and businesses throughout the region and the Nation rely on them for
the shipment of goods such as grain, steel, and manufactured goods. The
Great Lakes define not just the recreational and ecological footprint
of the region; they drive the economic opportunities in the Midwest.
The economy of this region is vitally important to the Nation. As
you will hear from George Kuper, the director of the Council of Great
Lakes Industries, fully one-third of the Nation's economic gross state
product is produced by the Great Lakes region. And as Mr. Kuper will
tell you, the Great Lakes are the natural infrastructure that supports
that productivity; we believe their health is critical to our economy
of the Midwest and the Nation.
The Healing Our Waters Coalition is partnering with the Council of
Great Lakes Industries and the Brookings Institution to organize an
independent study of the ways in which investing in Great Lakes
ecosystem restoration will support the economy of the region. When that
study is completed, we will be happy to share it with the committee.
a resource in peril: ``ecosystem breakdown''
Despite their vast size, the Great Lakes are fragile. In recent
years, the Great Lakes have been increasingly plagued by beach closings
due to untreated sewage; invasions by harmful exotic species (on
average, one new invasive species enters the Great Lakes every 8
months); contamination of sportfish and commercial fish; and loss of
habitat for wildlife. Each of these and other problems has been viewed
as a separate challenge to be researched and addressed independently;
few have tried to assess the condition of the Great Lakes as an
ecosystem and design solutions on that basis. Until last year.
Last December, over 60 of the leading scientists in the Great Lakes
region issued an alarming report. In a paper titled ``Prescription for
Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration'' (accompanying this
testimony as Appendix B), the scientists concluded that the Great Lakes
are experiencing an historic crisis. Deterioration of large sections of
their ecosystem is accelerating dramatically, and if not addressed now,
the damage is likely to be irreversible. In their own words:
``There is widespread agreement that the Great Lakes
presently are exhibiting symptoms of extreme stress from a
combination of sources that include toxic contaminants,
invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land
use changes, and hydrologic modifications. . . In large areas
of the lakes, historical sources of stress have combined with
new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which
ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly,
confounding the traditional relationships between sources of
stress and the expected ecosystem response. There is compelling
evidence that in many parts of the Great Lakes we are beyond
this tipping point. Certain areas of the Great Lakes are
increasingly experiencing ecosystem breakdown, where
intensifying levels of stress from a combination of sources
have overwhelmed the natural processes that normally stabilize
and buffer the system from permanent change.'' (emphasis added)
The scientists' report was a surprise because to many, the Great
Lakes and their tributaries seem to be improving. Due to fundamental
policy shifts like the Clean Water Act, massive government investment
in better sewers, and responsible private initiatives, rivers no longer
catch fire; Lake Erie has come back from the dead; the water often
looks clearer; and many pollutant indicators have improved. But such
observations only scratch the surface, and the scientists looked much
deeper to find an ecosystem in crisis. They have documented:
<bullet> The destruction of the foundation of the Great Lakes
food web in many of the Great Lakes. Populations of the basic
food group for most fish, a freshwater shrimp called Diporeia,
have declined from over 10,000 per square meter of lake bottom
to virtually zero over vast stretches of Lake Michigan and the
other Great Lakes. The scientists cannot be sure, but they
believe the decline is linked to the infestation of the Great
Lakes by an invasive species, the zebra mussel, which colonizes
the lakebeds in thick mats of shells that extend for acres and
acres and leaves the surrounding lakebeds barren of life. A
chart illustrating this decline is attached to this testimony
as Appendix C. NWF has produced a report describing the
devastating impact that invasive species have had on the Great
Lakes in a report titled Ecosystem Shock that can be found on
the Healing Our Waters Coalition website at
www.restorethelakes.org/reports.html.
<bullet> Lake Erie's so-called ``dead zone,'' an area deprived
of oxygen, has reappeared in central Lake Erie. Accompanying
this anoxic zone is the return elsewhere in the lake of blue-
green (toxic) algae blooms, and episodic die-offs of fish and
fish-eating birds from avian botulism. Scientists are seeing
similar eutrophication problems in Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay and
Lake Michigan's Green Bay.
<bullet> Many fish populations are showing signs of stress and
decline in the Great Lakes. Scientists have found ``widespread
decline in growth, condition and numbers of yellow perch, lake
whitefish, and other valuable fish species in Lake Michigan and
portions of Lake Huron.''
The scientists concluded that these and other large-scale ecosystem
changes result from the loss of the Great Lakes' capacity to buffer
themselves against sources of stress--essentially, damage to the Great
Lakes immune system. Much of the buffering capacity for the Great Lakes
comes from healthy near-shore communities and tributaries. As these
areas are damaged by pollution, hydrologic modifications, invasive
species, and shoreline development, they lose their capacity to buffer
the Great Lakes. Without that buffering capacity, each new stress--
whether it be an invasive species or additional pollution--can set off
a cascade of damage to the ecosystem that occurs rapidly and
unexpectedly. In the scientists' words,
<bullet> ``In the Great Lakes, nonlinear changes are no longer
a future threat--these types of changes are taking place now.
While in some areas some indicators of ecosystem health have
continued to improve over the past decade, other large areas of
the lakes are undergoing rapid changes where combinations of
effects of old and new stresses are interacting synergistically
to trigger a chain reaction process of ecosystem degradation.
The rapidness of this chain-reaction process, seen over the
past 5 to 15 years and involving sudden and unpredictable
changes, is unique in Great Lakes recorded history.'' (emphasis
added)
As alarming as the scientists' diagnosis is, they have also
identified concrete and achievable remedies:
restore Great Lakes buffering capacity (their immune system)
by restoring the ecological functions of their near-shore
communities and tributaries. On the ground, this means
restoring coastal and riverine wetlands, making shorelines and
watercourses more natural, and improving tributary health;
remediate the practices that cause the sources of stress.
This means reducing pollution and new damaging habitat
alterations and stopping the entry of new invasive species;
protect the functioning parts of the ecosystem from new
impairments, particularly through sustainable development
practices; and
measure the health and health trends of the Great Lakes to
evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken above.
As discussed below, these remedies are reflected in the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration's Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great
Lakes.
saving the great lakes: the great lakes regional collaboration
Given the national significance of the Great Lakes and their
rapidly accelerating deterioration, the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration (``GLRC'') recommendations come just in time. The
Collaboration is truly an historic event in two important respects.
First, it is the first time that all levels of government and virtually
all private stakeholders have come together to draft and support a
single Great Lakes restoration plan, the ``Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy.'' Over 1,500 people participated in the
drafting of the final plan, including cities, counties, State agencies,
tribal representatives, Federal agencies, congressional staff,
businesses, conservation organizations, university scientists, and
concerned citizens. Many of the scientists who drafted the
``Prescription'' report actively participated in the Collaboration,
helping to shape it to reflect the diagnosis and solutions in the
report. Healing Our Waters Coalition members also were highly engaged,
as were members of industry and local government.
The resulting Strategy sets a second precedent: it is the most
comprehensive Great Lakes restoration and protection plan in history.
It documents virtually all of the problems besetting the Great Lakes;
it recommends concrete solutions; it identifies programs to implement
those solutions; and it recommends the funding needed for those
programs to succeed.
The Healing Our Waters Coalition is fully supportive of the
Strategy's recommendations. Because it is the product of a large and
arduous negotiation process, it certainly is not perfect; but it is by
far the best blueprint the Great Lakes have ever had for protection and
restoration. And if it is implemented quickly, it will give the lakes a
fighting chance to reverse the ``chain reaction of degradation'' the
scientists have identified and return to health.
The Strategy's recommendations are a mix of improvements to
existing programs, sweeping new program recommendations, and
substantial new investments of Federal, State, tribal and private
resources. This mix is appropriate. Some efficiencies and progress can
be gained by improving existing programs and improving coordination
among them. So, for example, modifying the Great Lakes Legacy Act will
improve delivery of funds to clean up Areas of Concern. But simply
improving existing programs is not nearly enough; even if the Legacy
Act cleanups are made more efficient, they are woefully underfunded--
only $29 million this year, when the AOC cleanup costs will exceed $2.5
billion. For that reason, the GLRC Strategy did not only recommend
modifying the Legacy Act program; it also recommended substantial
funding of $150 million annually.
Likewise, improvements to existing programs are not enough when
there is no effective program to begin with. The most glaring example
is invasive species. Scientists generally agree that invasive species
are the worst problem facing the Great Lakes. Over 185 invasive species
have been discovered to date, and they have wreaked havoc on the Great
Lakes, its fisheries, and its businesses. The GLRC estimates that the
economic costs of invasive species to the Great Lakes are $5 billion
per year. The most common pathway of invasive species into the lakes is
via the discharge of ballast water from ocean-going ships. Yet there is
no effective program for stopping those discharges; the Coast Guard has
acknowledged in the Federal register that its current programs to
control those discharges are ineffective. To address invasive species,
then, the GLRC recommends a bold new program: new legislation and
regulations to set and implement ballast water discharge standards that
reflect the best technology available and protect the Great Lakes.
For the purposes of today's testimony, I will focus on the larger
programmatic and funding recommendations of the GLRC Strategy; but I
want to emphasize that there are also important recommendations to
improve existing programs that I will not discuss today. The major
changes recommended by the Strategy and fully endorsed by the Healing
Our Waters Coalition include:
<bullet> Create a net increase of 550,000 acres of wetlands and
335,000 acres of buffer strips by 2010. This recommendation, made by
both the habitat and nonpoint source strategy teams, is critically
important to restoring the buffering capacity of the Great Lakes; it
aligns perfectly with the scientists' ``Prescription'' report. Losses
of wetlands and riparian buffers have impaired coastal and tributary
health; they have magnified pollution pathways; and they have disturbed
native species, facilitating the establishment of invasives. In
addition to their well-known filtering capacity for chemical
pollutants, wetlands can actually repel invasive species and reduce an
outbreak after they have become established. More fundamentally, they
stabilize aquatic systems, making them more resilient to stress.
Implementing this recommendation will not only require new Federal and
State funding; it will also require changes to the way that agencies
make decisions in selecting the wetlands to be restored.
<bullet> Eliminate the discharge of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage into the Great Lakes system through new funding and
better enforcement. This recommendation would provide $13.75 billion of
Federal, State and local dollars over 5 years to upgrade sewage
treatment facilities to stop untreated sewage from damaging the Great
Lakes and their tributaries. These funds are critical both to protect
the health of summer beach-goers and to reduce one of the largest
sources of stress to the near-shore coastal communities so important to
the Great Lakes immune system. The Federal share (in a 55/45 match)
would be $7.355 billion.
<bullet> Stop the introduction of new invasive species through new
laws and regulations (described above) and by erecting barriers in
canals and waterways to repel invaders. Also, determine the feasibility
of separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems. As
invasive species are the worst source of stress to the Great Lakes
ecosystem, implementing these recommendations are essential; the Great
Lakes cannot recover without them.
<bullet> Provide adequate funding--$150 million per year--for
cleaning up Areas of Concern under the Legacy Act (see above). These
sources of toxic pollution permeate the sediments in regions that
historically were some of the most biologically productive. These toxic
sediments not only add new sources of stress to the system; they also
prevent the lake bottom from performing its natural buffering
functions. They are a major factor in the accelerating pattern of Great
Lakes ecosystem breakdown, and their remediation is essential to
restoring the Great Lakes immune system.
<bullet> Double the Federal research budget for the Great Lakes.
Research funds at the State and Federal level have declined in recent
years, just as the ecosystem is exhibiting new and complex responses to
accumulating sources of stress. To ensure that we are taking the right
steps and spending our Federal and State investments wisely, we need to
be able to measure impacts on the ground and in the water. Significant
increases in research dollars are vital to making sure our investments
are being used efficiently. A substantial portion of those increases
need to be directed at academic research institutions; it is essential
to bring together all of the brightest minds and innovations that
academia brings to bear to complement the efforts in Federal
laboratories.
next steps
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy expresses the
consensus that these and other significant new actions, policy and
funding, are urgent and essential for the Great Lakes. Delay may lead
to massive and rapid deterioration of the lakes and cost far more than
the actions recommended in the Strategy. If we wait, the costs will
skyrocket. However, if we make the necessary investments now, we will
see excellent returns, both ecological and economic.
To implement the Strategy's recommendations in a timely way,
several steps need to be taken, preferably concurrently. They are:
1. A Great Lakes Restoration bill needs to be drafted and
enacted to implement major portions of the Strategy. The bill
will need to incorporate modifications to existing laws, such
as the Great Lakes Legacy Act (toxic cleanup) and the Lacey Act
(importation of invasive species). It may need to reauthorize
existing programs targeted at restoring wildlife habitat and
wetlands, such as the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Act. It will also have new programs, such as a $40 million
annual program to support physical restoration of Great Lakes
tributaries. Finally, it will need to have much higher
authorization levels for existing programs, such as $150
million annually for the Legacy Act, $1.35 billion annually to
enable cities to upgrade their water infrastructure to stop raw
sewage from contaminating our beaches, and additional funds for
wetlands restoration programs. The Great Lakes Restoration bill
introduced by Senators DeWine, Levine and Voinovich last year
is a good starting point, but needs to be revised to take into
account the GLRC recommendations.
2. Key policy measures can and should move independently. For
example, rapid enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act or equivalent legislation is absolutely critical in
addressing invasive species, which scientists agree is the
worst problem plaguing the Great Lakes. Attached to this
testimony as Appendix D is a letter the Healing Our Waters
Coalition has sent to Senator Voinovich on this matter.
3. In the short term, next year's appropriations should
implement the GLRC Strategy's recommendations. The Healing Our
Waters Coalition has culled the top budget recommendations from
the Strategy, consulted with the Great Lakes Mayors and the
Great Lakes Governors, and identified fiscal year 07 budget
priorities. Those are attached as Appendix E.
4. One of the fiscal year 07 priorities deserves special
mention: funding to make permanent and operate the electric
barrier in the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal. This barrier, now
temporary and lacking funds for operations, is the only
obstacle between a voracious invasive species, the Big-Headed
Asian Carp, and the Great Lakes. These carp eat every aquatic
organism in their path. Once into Lake Michigan, they will out-
compete all native fish and turn the Great Lakes into a giant
carp farm. Funding for the barrier is absolutely critical to
saving the Great Lakes, their fisheries, and their economy.
conclusion
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Strategy to Restore and
Protect the Great Lakes provides a first-ever comprehensive blueprint
to return the Great Lakes to health, and just in time. According to
leadings scientists, the lakes are suffering ecosystem breakdown, a
chain reaction of degradation that could become irreversible if action
is not taken quickly. This deterioration, if unchecked, will have
massive ecological and economic consequences for the Midwest and the
Nation.
As essential and useful as the Collaboration's Strategy is, it is
only a first step. Without implementation, it will simply become yet
another Great Lakes plan, sitting on a shelf and gathering dust.
We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee for
your leadership in scheduling this hearing and maintain the momentum
for Great Lakes restoration. We particularly would like to thank
Senator Voinovich for his longstanding efforts as a champion of the
Great Lakes.
This committee is uniquely situated to transform the
Collaboration's Strategy into concrete action. We encourage you to
exercise your outstanding leadership to ensure that the Strategy's
recommendations are implemented.
The Great Lakes are the natural infrastructure of the Midwest, the
industrial center of the Nation. Just as bridges and roads crumble
without adequate investment, so are the Great Lakes deteriorating. The
longer the wait, the more expensive the investment will be and the more
we will lose because of the delay. On the other hand, if we act now,
the Great Lakes will return to health, bringing with them jobs,
recreation, tax revenues, wildlife, and the future on an entire region.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Response by Andy Buchsbaum to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. The Strategy establishes funding levels for each of its
goals. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to who will be
providing these funds. In your view, how much of the $20 billion in the
Great Lakes Strategy do you expect from the Federal Government, the
State governments and the local governments?
Response. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's December
strategy reports common-sense recommendations on how our Nation can
restore and protect the Great Lakes. It outlines both funding and
policy recommendations aimed at ending sewer overflows, stopping
invasive species, and cleaning up toxic sediments. It shows that the
strategy's goals can only be met if every stakeholder group is prepared
to invest time and resources in protecting and restoring the Great
Lakes.
Overall, the GLRC's strategy recommends that about sixty percent of
the total recommended funding of about $20.0 billion come from the
Federal Government, forty percent from other stakeholders such as
state, local and tribal governments and leading NGOs. We think this
reflects an overall understanding in the Collaboration that states and
cities are responsible for providing the match Congress requires for
the Federal programs that contribute to Great Lakes restoration and
protection. We feel that this is an appropriate division of what it
will take to restore the health of the Great Lakes. We emphasize,
however, that restoring the Great Lakes is a collaborative effort and
all stakeholders must be willing to invest in achieving its goals,
including NGOs and member groups of the Healing Our Waters Coalition
who already are investing financial resources and in-kind services.
This collaborative spirit is reflected in the GLRC's
recommendations. For example, one recommendation in the GLRC strategy
recommends that $13.75 billion be spent to eliminate inadequately
treated wastewater, which is a health risk to our families, from being
dumped into the Lakes. Sixty percent of this funding would come from
the Federal Government; forty percent from local sources. State and
tribal governments and leading non-governmental organizations have also
demonstrated a willingness to match wetlands funding provided by
Federal agencies and Congress.
It is also important to note that there are some programs that
should be funded solely by the U.S. Government like programs
implementing the international conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico
and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources, the
1955 convention on Great Lakes fisheries, and the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty. The United States has interstate obligations that must be met
in order to fully protect and restore this resource. Funding for the
Asian carp barrier, for example, and other Army Corps projects has
benefits beyond the States bordering the Great Lakes. These obligations
are known and should be fully funded by the Federal Government without
State or municipal support.
__________
Responses by Andy Buchsbaum to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Can you elaborate on and submit any materials for the
record regarding your explanation of the scientific assessment of the
health of the Great Lakes?
Response. The best description of the scientific assessment of the
health of the Great Lakes is the paper published by 60 of the Great
Lakes region's leading scientists: Prescription for Great Lakes
Ecosystem Protection and Restoration. The paper cites 44 specific
scientific studies, and identifies an additional 27 studies as general
references. One of the paper's authors, Dr. Donald Scavia (Professor
and Sea Grant Director, University of Michigan) has prepared testimony
for a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee that
further explains this assessment. His testimony and the original
Prescription paper, with its listing of additional sources, are
provided with these responses.
In addition, the National Wildlife Federation published a study
documenting the collapse of the foundation of the Great Lakes food web.
That study, Ecosystem Shock: The Devastating Impacts of Invasive
Species on the Great Lakes Food Web, is also provided here.
Question 2. Can you describe your thoughts on the need for
comprehensive invasive species legislation?
Response. The scientists in the two studies referenced above
(Prescription and Ecosystem Shock), as well as Dr. Scavia in his
testimony, identify the introduction of invasive species into the Great
Lakes as one of the most severe and urgent threats to the integrity of
the lakes' ecosystems. The reason is simple: with over 180 invasive
species already established in the Great Lakes and one new invader
entering the lakes on an average of every 28 weeks, the lakes cannot
hope to establish any sort of ecological equilibrium, and instead are
seeing increasing episodes of ecosystem breakdowns. The collapse of the
foundation of the food web in large stretches of the bottoms of the
lakes described in the Ecosystem Shock report has been attributed to
these invasions.
The scientists and many others recommend a comprehensive approach
to preventing new introductions. Most invasive species (e.g., zebra and
quagga mussels) historically have entered the Great Lakes via
discharges from ballast water. But ballast water controls are not
enough; others (e.g., sea lamprey) have entered via canals, and still
others through intentional introductions. We need comprehensive
legislation to address all vectors.
The Great Lakes ecosystem has not only felt the devastating impacts
of invasive species, it has also unfortunately been the gateway for new
invaders into other U.S. waters. For example, the zebra mussel has
spread as far west as Oklahoma and continues its march across America's
inland lakes and streams, threatening those ecosystems, fish and
wildlife as it goes. Science tells us that invasive species anywhere
are a threat to ecosystems everywhere, and the proof can be seen in
some of the country's most magnificent natural resources: San Francisco
Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Coastal Louisiana, to name a few. Once a non-
native species establishes itself, it is there for good. When it comes
to an effective policy to deal with invasive species, prevention is the
key, which is why the Nation needs a strong, comprehensive solution to
deal with the problem that afflicts United States and international
waters.
Question 3. I want to thank you for your support for the Lake
Champlain Canal Barrier project. Can you elaborate on how important
that project and the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal Barriers are for the
Great Lakes?
Response These two barriers are absolutely critical. Canals and
other channels provide routes in and out of the Great Lakes for
invasive species that are highly damaging. For example, sea lamprey
have devastated the Great Lakes trout fishery, and states and the
Federal Government now must spend millions each year in order to
control them.
Now, Asian carp are traveling up the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal and are poised to invade Lake Michigan. If they do, they will
quickly decimate the existing ecosystem, turning the Great Lakes into
what one scientist has called a ``giant carp farm.'' The Chicago
Sanitary Ship Canal Barrier is the only measure standing between the
Asian carp and the Great Lakes; it is the only thing saving the Great
Lakes from a completely devastated ecosystem and loss of high-value
fisheries (trout, walleye, whitefish and perch). Congress must
authorize the completion and operation and maintenance of this bather
any way it can.
Likewise, the proposed Lake Champlain Canal barrier is essential in
closing another invasive species vector to the Great Lakes: stopping
invasive species from traveling up through the Hudson, into Lake
Champlain, and then into the Great Lakes system via the St. Lawrence
Seaway. The Lake Champlain bather will have important benefits for the
Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes.
______
Responses by Andy Buchsbaum to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. What is the next critical step for the Collaboration?
Response. The Collaboration needs to take two steps: one, establish
short-term measures, and two, set up long-term success. In the short
term, the Collaboration should develop a list of priority budget and
policy recommendations made in the GLRC strategy. For example, passage
of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act is probably the highest
priority policy recommendation in the strategy, and should be a
legislative priority for the Collaboration. On the budget side, the
Great Lakes states and cities have identified priority budget items, as
has the Healing Our Waters Coalition. These similar budget
recommendations should be the Collaboration's fiscal year 2007 budget
priorities.
An immediate step that can be taken, which would show clear
commitment to this process, is for Congress to provide funding for the
almost identical priorities of the states and cities and non-government
organizations. We have a restoration blueprint that is backed by
science and has the support of the region's leaders. A down payment now
will demonstrate to citizens that our Nation's leaders understand that
we cannot wait to address the problems facing the lakes. To do so only
makes the problems worse and more expensive to solve.
In the long term, the Collaboration should recruit co-sponsors and
additional champions for legislation designed to implement the
Strategy--the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act--and other
legislation that will provide the Great Lakes region with the resources
necessary to meet the Strategy's many recommendations. The
Collaboration must also continue to set short-term budget priorities to
ensure that we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively.
In taking these steps, the Collaboration needs to reconvene and
begin identifying concrete ways to both fulfill the GLRC strategy's
recommendations and meet its goals. The Collaboration is the perfect
venue to clarify future responsibilities of GLRC stakeholders. It also
should report back to Congress and the public on the weaknesses and
strengths of strategy implementation.
Question 2. How can we best coordinate this massive restoration
effort?
Response. We believe that the mechanisms codified in the Great
Lakes Restoration bill (Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act)
will help coordinate the restoration effort: the coordination of
Federal efforts through the Interagency Task Force and the coordination
of all efforts by the Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration. We also believe that there needs to be a special
emphasis on the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Great Lakes National Program Office. We make these recommendations with
two caveats. First, the Interagency Task Force needs to have full
participation by high-level officials from all the agencies. The bill
makes it a task force of the U.S. EPA, creating the risk that it will
be viewed as a creature of U.S. EPA and not a multi-agency effort where
other agencies have full responsibilities and accountability. The EPA's
oversight role, however, must be scrutinized. Second, the GLRC
Executive Committee will be an effective coordinating body only if it
fully engages all stakeholders in the region--state, local, tribal and
non-governmental organizations--and remains responsive to their
concerns and recommendations. We believe the bill has the proper
structure to lead to that result, but the way the bill is implemented
will be critical.
Question 3. How can we better coordinate Great Lakes programs at
all levels of government so that we are more efficient and effective?
Response. As discussed above, through the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration and the mechanisms established in the GLRC implementation
bill. The implementation bill's reporting requirements gives Congress
the opportunity to conduct proper oversight on the implementation of
the GLRC.
Question 4. What can the environmental community do to raise the
profile of this restoration effort beyond the region? Canada?
Response. There is no single, easy answer to these questions, and
they are ones that we have wrestled with for years. As to the first
question, we have embarked on a multi-pronged strategy:
First, we must take advantage of the fact that many people outside
the Great Lakes region know and love the lakes, either from visiting or
because they used to live near them. Millions of people have enjoyed
the lakes and the outdoor recreational opportunities they present,
including world- class fishing, swimming, hunting, camping, and hiking
The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition plans to activate the
support of this large population of Great Lakes supporters from outside
the region through national media and outreach efforts.
Second, we must document the national economic benefits that Great
Lakes restoration will provide. The Great Lakes region is responsible
for producing a third (32.5 percent) of the U.S. gross State product
[based on Gross State Product, 2004] with less than a quarter of the
Nation's population. The HOW Coalition is co-sponsoring a Brookings
Institution study with the Council of Great Lakes Industries to show
the benefits of Great Lakes restoration to the Great Lakes and national
economies.
Third, we must encourage members of Congress from outside the
region to visit and appreciate the Great Lakes.
Lastly, environmental and conservation organizations in Canada are
also working on Great Lakes restoration. For example, organizations in
the two countries are coordinating work on the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, a bi-national agreement that addresses not just
Great Lakes water quality but also toxic sediment cleanup and ecosystem
integrity. The Water Quality Agreement provides a forum to enhance the
coordination of protecting and restoring the Great Lakes between our
two countries. We address this issue in more depth below.
Question 5. What is the key to keeping together all of the groups
involved in the creation of the blueprint strategy in order to
implement the goals established by the Collaboration?
Response. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration must continue to
be convened in order that its recommendations can be implemented,
modified when appropriated and adapted to new information and science.
The Collaboration must also be able to review progress and report to
the American public on the strengths and weaknesses of implementing the
2005 strategy.
It is also critical that the GLRC continue to forward meaningful
recommendations that are based on current science and reflect progress
that has been made. The GLRC should not be convened just to gather and
share information. Instead, it should continue to serve as a forum for
what needs to be done to restore and protect the Great Lakes. It should
also serve as the clearinghouse for what the restoration priorities
should be for each calendar and fiscal year. The GLRC should be able to
tell Congress and the public each year what projects and programs are
significant towards achieving the goals established through the
collaborative effort. The benefit of using the GLRC for priority
setting is that it builds a strong political constituency who all agree
on specific steps and benchmarks for achieving success. This process
also ensures fiscal accountability at every level of government.
There has been a high level of interest and participation among
non-governmental organizations throughout the GLRC process. There also
needs to be continuing high-level participation from government
agencies, both at the Federal, State and local levels. Restoring and
protecting the lakes will take time and citizens need to know that its
elected leaders are truly invested in achieving the Collaboration's
goals. This means Federal agencies investing time in the Interagency
Task Force as well as the IATF and the GLRC executive committee--which
is made up of state, city and tribal representatives--continuing to
make Great Lakes restoration and protection a top priority.
Clearly, a financial commitment by the GLRC to defray the travel
costs of GLRC stakeholders would demonstrate interest in keeping the
collaboration together. All stakeholders, including the non-
governmental organizations, must also have a say in setting the
collaboration agenda.
The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition holds an annual
conference on Great Lakes restoration every year. We are prepared to
provide this forum as an in-kind contribution for the GLRC to convene
and set next year's Great Lakes restoration and protection priorities.
Question 6. How are the Coalition and the entire Collaboration
working with Canada and their restoration activities?
Response. There are existing venues of binational cooperation on
Great Lakes issues like the Lakewide Management Plan processes, the
Binational Toxics Strategy, and the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Some of these provide roles for non-governmental
communities. Nonetheless, working with Canada on the kind of Great
Lakes restoration currently being discussed--the. combination of
dramatic improvement in the coordination of existing Great Lakes
programs with a substantial increase in overall effort--is challenging
because U.S. State governors and Members of Congress have put that kind
of restoration on the political agenda while the provincial premiers
and Canadian Federal legislators to the same extent have not. Thus for
the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) and the Healing Our
Waters (HOW) Coalition alike, ``working with Canada'' on restoration
requires a degree of unilateral action.
For the Collaboration, working with Canada involved facilitating
the presence of Canadian observers, who, unfortunately, preferred not
to actively participate. There was perhaps an overvalued deference to
existing Great Lakes binational discussion venues where Canada and the
United States are on more equal footing. The Collaboration's strategy
reflected this lack of participation, generally mentioning Canada only
five times in the seventy-page document. The existing venues of
binational cooperation noted above constitute the limits of the status
quo. HOW hopes that implementation of the Strategy's more comprehensive
recommendations is more directive than implied by the Strategy.
For the HOW Coalition, we are working with Canadian environmental
non-governmental allies and mid-level officials in an effort to create
equal fervor for restoration on both sides of the border. Coalition
members rather than the Coalition itself are leading in this work so
far. For example, the Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United,
and the Biodiversity Project are engaged with the Canadian
Environmental Law Association over the official review of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Their intent is to integrate
ideas from the new restoration strategy into the potentially powerful,
if arguably currently moribund, existing mechanisms provided by the
GLWQA.
Great Lakes United also brings together on a routine basis Canadian
and U.S. environmental organizations to develop common positions and
action plans. The Sierra Club in the United States works in tandem with
its Canadian counterpart. The Michigan-based Great Lakes Aquatic
Habitat Network and Fund also supports initiatives on both sides of the
border. Finally, in order to foster stronger support among decision-
makers, HOW member groups are also conducting valuable Canadian public
opinion polling to determine how and why the Canadian public values the
Great Lakes and what efforts to protect it they will support. Member
groups like Great Lakes United are also educating the Canadian federal
and provincial Parliaments on the opportunities and long-term payoffs
of enhanced Great Lakes restoration, maintaining full partnership in an
enhanced U.S. effort being one of those payoffs.
Clearly, more must be done in working with Canada if U.S. efforts
to protect this international treasure will be successful. Accordingly,
the Healing Our Waters Coalition recommends that Congress consider:
<bullet> Using existing or new processes for binational restoration
consultation. Specifically, provide placeholders for Canadian
participation in all U.S. Great Lakes programs, when appropriate, with
use of such placeholders by Canadian officials conditional on
reciprocation.
<bullet> Enhancing U.S. Federal support for monitoring and research
and requires commonality in data standards between both countries and
the most extensive possible binational exploration of research needs in
advance of conducting such research.
<bullet> Ensuring direct dialogue on Great Lakes needs between
United States and Canadian legislators.
__________
Statement of Diane Katz, Director of Science, Environment, and
Technology Policy, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Senators, good morning. My name is Diane
Katz, and I am director of science, environment and technology policy
for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The Mackinac Center is a
Michigan-based, nonpartisan research and educational institute that
assists lawmakers, the media and the public in evaluating policy
options. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to join this discussion
of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy.
In the interest of brevity and clarity, I will speak plainly.
Before you is an ambitious Strategy intended to ``restore'' the
Great Lakes ecosystem. Using passionate language, the architects of
this Strategy claim that we have ``failed to protect'' our beloved
Great Lakes. Putting aside, for the moment, legitimate differences of
opinion about the actual state of the lakes, there is broad agreement
that our stewardship of these amazing waters requires significant
change. But the shortcomings of the current approach stem not from any
lack of regulation or resources, as the Strategy report contends. On
the contrary, the problem is the excess of well-intended but ill-
conceived programs that fall under disjointed regulatory agencies at
the international, Federal, State, provincial and local levels.
Unfortunately, the problem will not be remedied by the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Strategy, which prescribes more unwieldy and
inefficient regulation. As the report states, the Strategy was
``developed through an inclusive process aimed at achieving the
broadest consensus possible.'' That means the Strategy is more a
product of the political process than the scientific method--just like
the existing regime.
Numerous restoration strategies for the lakes have been hatched
over the years. Most, if not all, have advocated an expansion of the
regulatory state. But we will achieve better results only by applying
the most basic truths of good governance that incentives are more
powerful than punishment; that sound science yields better results than
rhetoric; and, most importantly, that citizens are far better stewards
of their property than the State will ever be.
There is no definitive accounting of the billions of dollars
allocated for Great Lakes programs. That in itself says a great deal
about the status quo. There is also no comprehensive accounting of the
numerous Great Lakes programs initiated over the past three decades. To
fill this information gap, the Mackinac Center has undertaken a
``census'' of Great Lakes programs that so far has identified more than
200 Government initiatives. Many lack measurable goals, and there's
little of the coordination necessary to maximize environmental
improvements.
Rationalizing these myriad programs was the principal task of the
eight Strategy teams that crafted the restoration plan. What has
materialized instead is a regulatory wish list that is sweeping in
scope but limited in scientific and economic rationale. Hopefully, the
Executive Committee will pursue meaningful change rather than tinkering
at the margins. This would entail identifying for elimination the
dozens of redundant, ineffective programs, while also advocating for
the restoration of property rights, common law and impartial risk
assessment as the foundation of Great Lakes stewardship. The lakes
deserve no less.
The Strategy also suffers from internal inconsistency. On the one
hand, the report laments the failure of existing programs to adequately
protect the Great Lakes. On the other hand, the Strategy calls for
greatly expanding the regulatory powers of the very government agencies
that the Strategy argues have mismanaged the job. It's time to abandon
the command-and-control methods that empowers the environmental
bureaucracy.
It is further confounding that implementation of the Strategy is
assigned exclusively to Federal cabinet officials, Governors, mayors
and American Indian tribal leaders. But successful stewardship requires
market-based approaches that rely on private sector input.
The Strategy is also compromised by its underlying supposition that
the Great Lakes are teetering on the verge of collapse. According to
the report, ``Our Great Lakes. . . are succumbing to an irreversible
`invasional meltdown.' ''
In fact, water quality has improved dramatically during the past
three decades in large measure because of more efficient technologies.
As stated in Michigan's 2006 report, Water Quality and Pollution
Control, ``The open waters of the Great Lakes have good to excellent
water quality.'' Indeed, wildlife is thriving, with hatchery stocks
comprising less than 20 percent of the trout population in Lake
Superior. Moreover, eagle sightings have soared, while analyses of
blood and feathers document a dramatic decrease in PCB concentrations
compared to a decade ago. Likewise, trout samples taken from four Great
Lakes show an 85 percent drop in PCB concentrations, from a high of
more than 20 parts per million (ppm) in the early 1970's to less than 3
ppm more recently. The fall fish survey by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources recorded double the number of juvenile perch than the
previous record, set in 1989, when the survey was launched. Mercury
levels are lower, while lead accumulations have declined in every
sample since the 1980's.
Nor has public access to the Great Lakes seriously diminished
despite such claims in the Strategy report. Michigan state forests, for
example, provide 485 water access sites. The 96 State parks in the
Great Lakes State feature a total of 100 boat launches. Two national
lakeshores, Pictured Rocks and Sleeping Bear Dunes, span miles of Great
Lakes coast.
Missing from the Strategy report is any examination of government's
role in exacerbating contamination of the lakes. Agricultural
subsidies, for example, have long contributed to excessive use of
pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, while water and sewage treatment
grants have produced inefficient facilities. In Michigan, more than 45
percent of the cases settled by the water enforcement bureau in the
past 15 years involved errant municipalities, as well as counties and
other public entities.
The infiltration of non-native species is a legitimate concern. But
a lack of comprehensive data has precluded informed decisionmaking on
environmental priorities. No basin-wide monitoring currently exists.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has largely relied on a
shrinking set of indicators to gauge basin conditions.
Many government agencies only collect data on program inputs, not
outcomes. We know, for example, that $37 million has been allocated
this year for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. But there never
has been an independent evaluation of program effectiveness, according
to the Federal Office of Management and Budget. Similarly, the
Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program measures success only by the rate
of inspections that result in enforcement action, rather than any
actual reduction of pesticide runoff.
The Collaboration Strategy does emphasize a need for ``consistent
methods to measure and monitor key indicators of the ecosystem's
function.'' All of which would be most welcome. But unless and until we
abolish ineffective programs, there isn't likely to be funding
available to properly launch new research initiatives.
The waste of resources is rampant. For example, some 88 research
vessels operate independently in the Great Lakes, according to the
Great Lakes Association of Science Ships. Or consider that the Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI) targets discharges from point
sources despite the fact that non-point sources, such as air
depositions and agricultural runoff, are now the greater sources of
pollution. Moreover, many of the chemicals regulated under GLI have
long been restricted or banned.
The sheer number of proposed regulatory initiatives belies any
claim that the Strategy establishes priorities. Science would offer the
most reliable guidance for such a task. Unfortunately, a good many of
the regulatory goals are as unscientific as they are unrealistic, which
undercuts the credibility of the plan. For example, the Strategy calls
for preventing ``all new introductions'' of aquatic invasive species
into the Great Lakes, as well as the elimination of ``any or all''
persistent toxic substances to the ecosystem. But non-native species
are an unavoidable fact of nature, as are naturally occurring toxics.
It is also important to recognize that a zero-tolerance mentality
toward resource use forecloses the development of environmentally
friendly technologies, and in doing so diminishes the wealth creation
necessary to further enhance environmental improvements. Well-meaning
though it may be, this doesn't make effective policy.
Ideological absolutes also exacerbate the difficulties of
negotiating the policy tradeoffs necessitated by limited resources. But
even if we were to devote $20 billion more to lakes' protection, as
called for in the Strategy, the benefits would not be commensurate with
costs. Major pollution sources are now under control and, for the most
part, we are left to make marginal improvements that are much harder to
achieve. Just as dieters struggle hardest to shed those last unwanted
pounds, so, too, does further progress on the environmental front
demand more concentrated effort. Now more than ever, then, more
effective policy is needed, but the Strategy will only put that further
out of reach.
In presenting this critique, it is not my intention to denigrate
the efforts of task force members. Their public service is admirable.
But meaningful progress in Great Lakes restoration requires more than
good intentions. It requires political courage in tandem with the
application of sound science and time-tested economic principles.
Toward that end, I recommend:
<bullet> Eliminating programs that cannot document environmental
improvements commensurate with costs.
<bullet> A greater reliance on property rights and market-based
incentives to revive areas of concern.
<bullet> Private-sector involvement in crafting more effective
Great Lakes policy.
<bullet> Scrutiny of government's role in exacerbating
contamination of the lakes.
<bullet> Development of a basin-wide data base of ecological
conditions with which to set stewardship priorities and determine
effective remedies.
<bullet> Ongoing measurement of program outcomes, not inputs.
These recommendations spring not from mere ideology alone, although
I fervently believe in limited government. These recommendations
reflect fundamental principles of governance that have long proven to
be the most successful in fulfilling policy goals. Finally, these
recommendations are rooted in my summers spent floating in Lake Huron,
climbing Lake Michigan dunes, and quenching my thirst with Superior's
chilly waters Isle Royale. Such adventures are invaluable to the human
spirit, and more effective stewardship will help to ensure that the
same opportunities exist for generations to come.
______
Response by Diane Katz to an Additional Question from Senator Inhofe
Question. Mr. Andy Buchsbaum expressed disagreement with your
characterization of the health of the Great Lakes. How do you respond
to his criticisms of your statement and what do you believe to be the
current state of the Great Lakes?
Response. The question posed by Senator Jeffords to Mr. Buchsbaum
was based on a faulty premise. As the hearing transcript shows, the
Senator asked Mr. Buchsbaum to explain ``the difference between the
scientific assessment of the Great Lakes with the view presented by Ms.
Katz.'' In so doing, Senator Jeffords erroneously insinuated that my
testimony lacked scientific merit as compared to the opinions offered
by Mr. Buchsbaum. That is not the case, as the data below affirms.
Mr. Buchsbaum did not rebut my testimony directly. In fact, he
concurred with my overall assessment that water quality has improved,
stating: ``(A)s Ms. Katz said, water quality is better, there are some
indicators that have gone up, some of the Government reports are
somewhat favorable.''
I hold that Great Lakes water quality has improved overall. Indeed,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is not prone to
optimism, has concluded that, ``The Great Lakes have improved
tremendously.''\1\ That is not to say there aren't ecological
challenges to overcome. The infiltration of non-native species, for
example, is a legitimate concern. But in the absence of basin-wide
monitoring and coordinated research, it is difficult to determine the
extent of the problem or the most beneficial course of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Great Lakes Ecosystem
Report,'' Great Lakes National Program Office, Washington, DC, January
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following facts informed my testimony about the state of the
Great Lakes:
<bullet> Ten of seventeen United States/Canadian goals for the
reduction of Level 1 toxic substances in the lakes have been achieved,
and three others will be reached this year.\2\ Progress toward the
remaining four goals will be well advanced by year's end. (The Level 1
toxics include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins/
furans, hexachlorozensene (HCB), benso (a) pyrene (B(a)P),
octachlorostyrene (OCS), alkyl-lead, aldrin, dieldrin, mirex,
chlordane, toxaphene, and DDT.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy Progress Report 2004,''
Chicago, IL. http://binational.net/bns/2004glbts en.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> According to the State of the Great Lakes 2005, ``Over the
last 30 years, a decrease in the amount of contaminants in the Great
Lakes suggests overall improvement. There is a marked reduction in
levels of toxic chemicals in air, water, biota and sediments.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``State of the Great Lakes 2005,'' Chicago, IL; Toronto, Ont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Wild lake trout are abundant in Lake Superior once again.
(Lake trout are good indicators of aquatic ecosystem health because of
their potential extended life span.) As reported by the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, ``Currently, lake trout
populations are nearly rehabilitated in all areas of Michigan's waters
of Lake Superior . . . Hatchery lake trout comprise less than 20
percent of lake trout abundance.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Harrison, K.G. (Ed.), ``State of Michigan's Environment 2005:
Third Biennial Report,'' Lansing, MI, January 2006.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> PCB levels in lake trout in the Great Lakes have declined
dramatically.\5\ PCB levels have also declined in Chinook salmon from
Lakes Michigan and Huron, leading to cancellation of the Chinook
consumption advisory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Harrison, K.G. (Ed.), State of Michigan's Environment 2005:
Third Biennial Report, Lansing, MI, January 2006.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> The bald eagle population has increased from a low of 50
nests in 1961 to 427 in 2004.\6\ (The bald eagle is recognized as a
useful indicator of environmental health by the International Joint
Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> Bald eagle productivity, measured as the number of young
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fledged per nest, has increased 50 percent since 1961.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> PCB levels in the blood of bald eagles have fallen
``dramatically,'' according to the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Harrison, K.G. (Ed.), State of Michigan's Environment 2005:
Third Biennial Report, Lansing, MI, January 2006.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> The Environmental Protection Agency reports that
``nutrient targets have largely been achieved.''\8\ The decline in
phosphorus has reduced excess algae growth and changed the composition
of the algal population.\9\ Nuisance algal species have given way to
more desirable and historically prevalent species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy Progress Report 2004,''
Chicago, IL. http://binational.net/bns/2004gjbts en.pdf
\9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book,'' 1995,
Chicago, IL; Toronto, Ont. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/index.html
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> Concentrations of PCBs, hexachlorobenzene and mirex in
suspended sediments in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie decreased between 38
percent and 74 percent from 1997 to 2000.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Marvin, Christopher H.; Sverko, Ed; Charlton, Murray N.;
Thiessen, P.P. Lina; Painter, Scott, ``Contaminants Associated with
Suspended Sediments in Lakes Erie and Ontario, 1997-2000,'' Journal of
Great Lakes Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 277-286, International
Association for Great Lakes Research, 2004.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Response by Diane Katz to an Additional Question
from Senator Jeffords
Question. On what scientific documents and peer reviewed studies do
you base your assessment of the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and
the level of risk posed to that ecosystem should restoration actions
not be taken?
Response. My most recent assessment of the state of the Great Lakes
is based on the documents and studies listed below, as well as dozens
of other studies and research documents that I have read and critiqued
in the course of my 15 years of researching and reporting on the Great
Lakes. Most of my sources are the very regulatory agencies that would
assume additional authority and funding should Congress approve the
collaboration strategy the Senator advocates.
I did not suggest in my testimony--nor do I believe--that
restoration actions should not be taken. Therefore, I have no documents
or studies to cite for such a conclusion. Finding fault with the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy does not mean that I oppose
restoration actions. On the contrary, my testimony includes six
specific recommendations to improve stewardship of the Great Lakes.
1. Bails, Jack et al., ``Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem
Protection and Restoration (Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible
Changes),'' December 2005.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Great Lakes Ecosystem
Report,'' Great Lakes National Program Office, Washington, D.C.,
January 2001.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy Progress Report 2004,''
Chicago, IL.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``State of the Great Lakes 2005,'' Chicago, IL; Toronto, Ont.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada,
``The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, Chicago,
IL; Toronto, Ont., 1995.
6. Marvin, Christopher H. et al., ``Contaminants Associated with
Suspended Sediments in Lakes Erie and Ontario, 1997-2000,'' Journal of
Great Lakes Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 277-286, International
Association for Great Lakes Research, 2004.
7. Sagoff, Mark, ``Do Non-Native Species Threaten the Natural
Environment,'' Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vo.
18, pp. 215-236, 2005.
8. U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Great Lakes: An Overall
Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better
Achieve Restoration Goals,'' Washington, DC, April 2003.
9. U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Invasive Species: Federal
Efforts and State Perspectives on Challenges and National Leadership,''
Washington, DC, June 2003.
10. U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Great Lakes: Organizational
Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to be Better Defined for
Monitoring Restoration Progress,'' Washington, DC, September 2004.
11. U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Great Lakes Initiative,'' EPA
Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent Implementation of
Water Quality Standards,'' Washington, DC, July 2005.
______
Response by Diane Katz to an Additional Question from Senator Voinovich
Question. What are your thoughts on S. 208? How would you envision
a program to monitor the Lakes?
Response. I regard S. 208 as a well-intended but flawed attempt to
improve monitoring of Great Lakes water quality.
This legislation, if enacted, would direct the Great Lakes National
Program Office to ``develop, implement, monitor and report on
indicators of water quality and related environmental factors.'' Such a
delegation of responsibility is ill-advised. The Great Lakes National
Program Office already has failed to develop environmental indicators
as called for under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. According
to a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office:
Since our 1988 report on EPA's management, GAO has stressed
numerous times that EPA place priority on developing indicators
to guide the agency's priority setting, strategic planning, and
resource allocation . . . EPA has not initiated or planned an
institutional framework with clear lines of responsibility and
accountability for developing and using environmental
indicators, and no processes, procedures, or work plans exist
to link the results of the initiative with EPA's strategic
planning and performance reporting cycle.
Moreover, as the GAO stated in a 2004 report, the EPA and its Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) have also failed to lead and
coordinate Great Lakes restoration efforts. ``This role has never been
completely filled by GLNPO because it has not fully exercised its
coordination authority,'' the GAO concluded. ``Other organizations have
attempted to fill the void.''
S. 208 is also problematic because it employs only vague language
in dictating the type of indicators and monitoring to be developed by
the EPA, i.e. ``a set of science-based indicators of water quality and
related environmental factors.'' Such statutory generalities grant too
great a degree of discretion to a regulatory agency with a long and
troubled history of ``mission creep.'' An explicit statement of
monitoring priorities is needed to ensure that legitimate policy goals
are achieved.
The authorizations outlined in S. 208 are excessive, particularly
in light of the lack of accounting for the billions of dollars
appropriated to numerous Great Lakes programs over the past three
decades. Funding for the development of indicators and basin-wide
monitoring should be generated by eliminating existing programs that
cannot document environmental improvements commensurate with costs.
Developing a set of credible and relevant indicators is no easy
task. I recommend that Congress first demand an accounting of existing
indicator sets and monitoring activities before launching a new
initiative. And given the technical and political pitfalls of
developing a new monitoring regime, Private researchers would be
preferable to government bureaucrats who have already failed to fulfill
their responsibilities for monitoring restoration progress.
__________
Statement of William G. Howland, Basin Program Manager, Lake Champlain
Basin Program
Chairman Senator Inhofe, Ranking Member Senator Jeffords,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here
today to testify about The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes.
I will speak today about the tremendous importance to our Nation of
preserving and improving water quality in the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence hydrological system.
Before taking my position managing the Lake Champlain Basin Program
nearly 7 years ago, I was a staff scientist in an environmental
engineering firm, a member of the research faculty at McGill University
specializing in military geosciences with a doctorate in biophysical
remote sensing, and served on the faculty of the University of Vermont
and Middlebury College.
I have a working knowledge of the water quality challenges facing
large lakes across the Nation. And I appreciate the pressing need for
Federal leadership in restoring and sustaining ecosystems that have
become impaired through the development of our American society. The
Great Lakes represent quite literally the greatest water quality
challenge faced by our Nation.
The Lake Champlain Basin Program is a bi-state and international
partnership to restore water quality and improve the economy of the
Lake Champlain Basin. Our partnership, now in its 15th year, involves
the States of Vermont and New York, the Province of Quebec, New England
Water Pollution Control Commission, and numerous U.S. Federal Agencies,
including the USEPA, the USDA, USDI, and the USACE.
The Lake Champlain Basin Program partners all work to implement a
single comprehensive management plan called Opportunities for Action--
An Evolving Plan for the Future of the Lake Champlain Basin. Our
partnership with Federal agencies is highly effective and through our
work to restore our lake ecosystem, we are ensuring a better economic
future for citizens of our region. The water quality of Lake Champlain
is vitally important to our regional economy, particularly the tourism
and recreation economy for which Vermont and the north country of New
York are so well known.
Among the lessons learned in our work in the Lake Champlain Basin
Program is that two of the greatest problems in our lake--water
pollution and invasive aquatic nuisance species--have a key feature in
common.
(1) Water pollution due to excess nutrients and toxic substances is
far cheaper to avoid and prevent than to clean up after the fact.
(2) The invasion of a lake by aquatic nuisance species introduced
from other continents is a catastrophe that is far cheaper to prevent
than to cope with after the infestation occurs.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and
Protect the Great Lakes--being considered by this committee--is a
first-rate comprehensive management plan with many similarities to our
Opportunities for Action plan for Lake Champlain.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy identifies the key
challenges for the Great Lakes, and it provides a clear road map for a
collaborative restoration effort. In fact, whether we are talking about
Lake Champlain or the truly' Great Lakes--our first order of business
is to keep their condition from dramatically worsening during our
watch.
Today, water quality in many near-shore areas of the Great Lakes is
in a virtual free-fall, and the Nation needs this committee to
intervene with a program to turn aside some very troubling trends.
Present trends are heading toward: drinking water that is a serious
health risk for tens of millions of Americans; burgeoning numbers of
invasive aquatic nuisance species; and ecosystem impairments that, if
left unchecked, will take centuries and untold billions of dollars to
remedy.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy is an action plan
that clearly addresses the most pressing lake stewardship needs. Senate
bill S. 508 provides a multi-state, multi-agency collaborative
leadership of the sort that has a proven track record in Lake
Champlain, and mandates the kind of interagency cooperation that we
have found essential for success.
The Lake Champlain Basin Program, established by Congress in the
``Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990,'' and further
authorized in the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan Great Lakes and Lake
Champlain Act of 2002'' has created our active Federal, State and local
agency collaboration. S. 508 establishes a similar collaboration that
will generate measurable in-the-water results to get this job done.
The common interests of Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes should
be no surprise, especially concerning invasive nuisance species
management, because both Lake Champlain and Lake Ontario empty into the
St. Lawrence River. Lake Champlain is drained to the north by the
Richelieu River into the St. Lawrence, which also is the outlet river
for Lake Ontario.
There is also a second water connection where the southern part of
Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are connected by the New York Canal
System and the Hudson River. One can travel by boat from Chicago, IL to
Burlington, VT, using either route. These two connections are used by
many recreational boaters.
Unfortunately, these two waterway connections also have been used
for decades by invading nuisance species. Zebra mussels, native to
Europe, were introduced to the Great Lakes by the dumping of
contaminated shipping ballast waters. Then, they invaded Lake Champlain
by way of the Erie Canal, the Hudson River, and the Champlain Canal.
Now zebra mussels are established throughout Lake Champlain.
This invasion route was also used by white perch, which is rapidly
displacing our native yellow perch. Gizzard shad, blue-back herring,
faucet snail, globe siltsnail, purple loosestrife, yellow floating
heart, and the infamous water chestnut, also have invaded our lake. Of
the 48 invasive aquatic species in the Lake Champlain Basin, 13 species
have entered Lake Champlain from the Great Lakes by way of the canals,
and the rate of new arrivals is increasing. We applaud the recognition
in The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy of the need to
examine the costs and benefits of techniques to intercept the passage
of invasive species through the Champlain Canal system.
There are now more than 160 invasive aquatic species plaguing the
Great Lakes watershed. We face a critical and immediate need to tighten
our Nation's control of ballast water management by ships transiting
the St. Lawrence River, or this problem will go from very bad to even
worse. These ships are the primary sources and vectors of invasive
aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and this critical problem
is clearly presented in the The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy.
Over the past 15 years, and with continuing Federal funding, the
Lake Champlain Basin Program has issued nearly 600 research, monitoring
and plan implementation contracts. Last year we introduced a new
Ecosystem Indicators program to characterize the pressures on our lake
water quality, to better measure the current state of this resource,
and to guide our adaptive management response.
While Lake Champlain is only 120 miles long, I believe that our 15-
year management and research experience is of real and immediate value
to the management collaborative dealing with the Great Lakes system. My
point here is that we all achieve a better bang for the buck if we
share the lake-management science both our systems require.
To that end, the Lake Champlain Basin Program stands ready to share
the lake management experiences of our smaller system in all aspects of
plan implementation, research, ecosystem indicators, monitoring,
education and outreach. We also acknowledge the great benefit to us
that would accrue from increased cooperative linkages with the Great
Lakes restoration efforts.
We have had success in the Lake Champlain Basin in reversing the
nutrient trends to reduce phosphorus in several major tributaries, we
have successfully removed PCB-contaminated sediments and reclaimed
Cumberland Bay, and we have effectively controlled water chestnut
infestations in the southern part of Lake Champlain. We have
established a well-coordinated program to monitor for blue-green algae
toxins and to alert State and provincial agencies when human health
risks occur. Whether modeling the effects of excess nutrients, the
impact of invasive species, the persistence of toxins, or conducting
trials of restoration strategies, the Lake Champlain Basin can be an
ideal proving ground for Great Lakes management initiatives. This would
allow more effective designs for the much larger Great Lakes
watersheds.
The challenges facing Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are so
similar, that a more collaborative approach to sharing the science and
management experience that we both need is cost-effective and good
common sense. We would welcome any opportunity to participate in an
Advisory or Observer role envisaged by S. 508, and offer appropriate
reciprocity.
America today faces unprecedented challenges of ecosystem damage
and resultant declines in water quality, contaminated and weed-infested
waterways, and polluted lakes and estuaries across the Nation. Nowhere
is there more at stake than in the Great Lakes, which contain 20
percent of the fresh surface water on the planet, and 90 percent of the
fresh surface water of the Nation.
Our cultural habits have compromised drinking water supplies for
millions of Americans, caused desperate struggles for survival in the
tourism and recreation industries, and created an alarming trend toward
more and greater problems in the near future.
Short-funding the stewardship of our surface waters, whether in
Lake Champlain or in the much larger Great Lakes, is surely no way to
save money. With each passing year, water pollution and invasive
species problems get far more costly, not less costly. The most cost-
effective solution to ensure the future of the Great Lakes is to invest
adequately in their restoration, including the toughening of ballast
water controls, at the earliest possible date. Any alternative is
likely to be a false economy in the short term and result in a
burgeoning burden of additional accrued contamination and sharply
increased costs of restoration in the long term.
Finally, the work of environmental restoration is not only about
conservation philosophy or environmental ethics. As we know so well in
the northeast, it is about the vitality of towns and cities, and the
vigor of the recreation economy and quality of life for hundreds of
shoreline communities large and small. It is also about our Nation's
economic engines. It is about ample clean water for industry, and clean
effluent from industry. It is about trucks on the highway, the pulse of
commerce and trade. It is about smell and safety of tap water for some
40 million people in the cities of America's heartland.
I thank the committee for taking on this high priority challenge. I
thank you also for the invitation to testify and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[Exhibits provided: Opportunities for Action--An Evolving Plan for
the Future of the Lake Champlain Basin and (2) State of the Lake--Lake
Champlain in 2005, A Snapshot for Citizens are retained in the
committee's file.]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Statement of David J. Miller, Executive Director, Audubon New York
My name is David J. Miller, executive director of Audubon New York,
and I offer into the hearing record the following testimony in support
of Great lakes programs. Audubon New York is the State program of the
National Audubon Society, with 50,000 members, 30 local chapters and 8
Audubon Centers and Sanctuaries across the State of New York. Audubon
has a long history of Great Lakes conservation in both New York State
and the entire Great lakes region. Audubon's mission is to protect
birds, wildlife and their habitats through advocacy and education based
on sound science. There is no more important body of freshwater than
the magnificent Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Ecosystem.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system represents nearly twenty
per cent of the World's freshwater resources. Its bio-diversity and
abundance of wildlife makes it one of the most unique ecological
systems in the world. For Audubon, the Great Lakes Basin hosts over a
hundred Important Bird Areas, including the State and globally
recognized Niagara River, as well as other critical habitats for other
wildlife and fisheries. Its links to people are as strong as its ties
to the natural world. It has been the backbone of the Nation's early
transportation routes to the Mid-West and remains a vital shipping
waterway connecting commerce from Duluth to Chicago to Detroit to
Cleveland to Buffalo to Montreal. It provides drinking water to tens of
millions of American and Canadian citizens and the regional economy has
vital manufacturing, agricultural and recreational components all tied
to the waters of the Great Lakes.
New York State has the second longest coastline of any Great Lakes
State hosting the shores of Lakes Erie and Ontario and rivers of
Niagara and St. Lawrence. The Great Lake Basin encompasses close to
fifty per cent of New York State's landmass including major population
centers such as Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. New York has been a
leader in Great Lakes policy development and during the past twenty-
five years has strongly supported the Great Lakes Charter, the
Governors Great Lakes Toxic Substance Control Agreement and the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River International Water Quality Agreement. The
State has also been a strong participant in the International Joint
Commission, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, as well as developing
the lake-wide Management Plans for Lakes Erie and Ontario. In 1996, New
York's Great Lakes twenty-five year plan was launched with 25 million
dollars of new funds allocated through its Clean Water, Clean Air Bond
Act. Today, New York State is continuing that leadership role with its
Government, Academic and Conservation institutions playing a vital role
in the development and finalization of the Great lakes Regional
Collaborative Strategy and Restoration Plan. Under President Bush's
collaborative planning program, New York brought forth its expertise to
critical issues facing the Great Lakes including water quality, habitat
protection and stewardship, quantitative use of its waters,
contaminated harbors and sediments areas as well as the introduction of
invasive species to the region. All of these issues and more became
components of the Great Lakes Collaborative Strategy and it became
clear that they must be addressed if this magnificent and globally
significant resource is going to be preserved for future generations.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Strategy sets forth a bold
vision for the future of the Great Lakes. It establishes a $20 billion
funding goal over the next 5-10 years in order to meet Goals and
Milestones in eight Strategic areas. These Strategic Areas include
Aquatic Invasive Species, Habitat and Species Management, Coastal
Health, Areas of Concern and Contaminated Sediments, Non-Point
Pollution programs, Release of Toxic Pollutants, Ecological Indicators
and Sustainable Development. These eight specific issue areas are
critical to the future of New York State's Great Lakes region, both
ecologically and economically.
The Bush administration's response to this bold Strategy released
in December of 2005 has been, at best, slow in its development. The
President's budget clearly did not set a direction on how a Federal,
State and local partnership could be forged to finance a multi-billion
program over the next decade. There are bi-partisan legislative
proposals in the House and Senate, which if enacted would authorize
between $4 and $6 billion from the federal government for this program.
However, the President's proposed executive budget provides little to
no new investments in Great Lakes programs and gives no indication of
how the agencies will build their resource capacity to meet the
challenges facing the Great Lakes.
In New York, the response has been significantly different. The
State of New York has a dedicated Environmental Protection Fund for
open space, habitat, biodiversity, farmland, watershed and other
program protection, stewardship and/or restoration projects. In
Governor Pataki's executive budget, he proposed expanding this fund to
$180 million annually in 2006 with two new categories that could
specifically fund projects under the Great Lakes Collaborative
Strategy. The two new categories are Ocean and Great Lakes Initiative
and Water Quality Improvement Projects. In addition, the existing
categories of open space, habitat restoration, biological diversity and
other examples are posed to fund new projects under the Strategy. The
legislature and environmental conservation community is now pushing to
further expand this fund to $200 million with both Ocean and Great
Lakes Initiative and Water Quality Improvement Categories at the $10
million level. This budgetary investment and dedicated funding base can
be used to match new federal dollars and help move the Great Lakes
Collaborative Strategy with specific projects on the ground.
New York State is blessed with abundant water resources within and
beyond the Great Lakes Basin. These areas range from the Atlantic coast
to Long Island Sound to the Hudson River to Lake Champlain to the Great
Lakes Basin. With this in mind, New York's needs are enormous and the
environmental conservation community is rallying behind a 2008 multi
billion dollar Clean Water Bond Act proposal. These dollars in addition
to existing programs and the growing Environmental Protection Fund will
constitute incredible investments by the State of New York for the
Great Lakes.
However, it brings us back to the disappointing direction of our
federal administration, which is cutting back on these vital programs
instead of investing in them. The Great Lakes need a partnership of
significant fiscal consideration at all levels of government. The
federal government has lead with putting forth a dynamic and
collaborative plan, but this effort is all for naught if it cannot be
followed by real dollars and investments on a federal level. Washington
needs to lead by example and be the catalyst region-wide to get the job
done.
Across the Great Lakes, coalitions are building for the restoration
of the Lakes. We are proud members of the Heal Our Waters Coalition and
are coordinating the legislative work of groups in that coalition in
New York State. Audubon is pleased to report that with the efforts of
groups such as Environmental Advocates, Great Lakes United, New York
Rivers United and Citizen Campaign for the Environment this coalition
is expanding and more and more people are getting involved to advocate
the Collaborative Strategy and its implementation. In the State
Legislature, a coalition of Great Lakes legislators are revitalizing
themselves to address issues ranging from Great Lakes Collaborative to
the Great Lakes Annex. We are also working closely with our
Congressional delegation and we applaud their support and dedication to
Great Lakes issues. Now, we must all join forces to truly make this a
national priority, for that is what it will take to get the job done.
With twenty per cent of the World's freshwater at stake, one wonders
how it cannot be one.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my testimony into the
record.
__________
Statement of Fred V. Grau, Jr., Farmer, State College, PA
introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony to the
Committee. To briefly introduce myself, I am a farmer and seed grower
whose family history in production agriculture goes back beyond written
records if my German ancestors are to be included. I will be the last
in this line, in large part to the ``native ecosystem'' ``Invasive
Species'' agenda. I have been researching the ``Invasive Species''
agenda since February 1999--the year President Clinton, at Vice
President Gore's behest, issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 13112,
``Invasive Species''.
``Invasive Species'' as defined in the E.O. as well as how the term
has been employed by so-called environmental groups and Federal and
State bureaucracies, is a bogus agenda. Simplistically, those who
endorse ``Invasive Species'' place all organisms into two categories:
native and nonnative. This has not one whit of scientific meaning, and
it is grounded in a ``natives-good/nonnatives-bad'' philosophy--the new
paradigm, in the current vernacular. In short, advocates of ``Invasive
Species'' legislation and regulation are adamant in their view that
species not present in a given ``ecosystem'' before European settlement
(usually meaning 1492) are harmful, even cataclysmic to that ecosystem.
The term ``biological pollution'' is liberally used as a synonym for
``Invasive Species'', allowing us a glimpse of their worldview.
My focus will be mainly on this issue, but will also include a few
comments about other aspects of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes (Strategy). These
additional comments will relate to the steady decimation of production
agriculture, resource industries and the communities that support them
that are due in no small part to misguided environmental policies and
regulations. Coming from Pennsylvania, the similarities between the
community-destroying effects of aspects of the Chesapeake Bay Program
in my State, and the policies proposed in Strategy are as striking as
they are alarming.
review of the strategy's introduction
The case for Strategy Team Recommendations is made in the
Introduction. We see here some disturbing inconsistencies in what is
meant to be the underlying reasons for the Strategy's Recommendations.
The Team uses as its example that of the introduction of the sea
lamprey, a poster child for ``Invasive Species'' research funding,
regulation and legislation. The lamprey is tied to both the opening of
the St. Lawrence Seaway and the collapse of, to quote Strategy: ``the
once ubiquitous lake trout--within a few years''. There are several
factual problems here.
<bullet> First, the sea lamprey has been variously reported by
universities and government agencies to have been in the Great Lakes
system since 1819\1\ or 1830\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SGS: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/gl129.htm
\2\ USGS: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/--files/factsheets/2000-
8%20Sea%20Lamprey.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> The Seaway opened in April, 1959--at the minimum, 129
years after the lamprey was introduced to the Great Lakes.
<bullet> Massive commercial fishing led to the decline of trout
(and other native fish) populations beginning in the 1930's\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Univ WI--Madison: http://www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress/books/
3053.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Stable trout populations previous to the 1940's were
followed by near-collapse in the 1960's, in turn followed by record
highs in the 1970's\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USGS: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/imagefiles/m2130f01.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Sea lamprey populations are now 10 percent of what they
were at their peak in the 1950's, due in large part to known technology
and practical application of the lampricide TFM\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ WI Sea Grant: http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/
sealamprey.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Current native perch populations are reported by the USGS
to be at their highest levels in more than 30 years. The Wisconsin DNR
reports juvenile perch populations to be double that of the previous
record year (1989). This follows the near-total ban of commercial perch
harvests in the mid-1990's\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USGS/WIDNR: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/
nation/14091047.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one questions the undesirability of the lamprey. What must be
questioned are the fundamental reasons exemplified under Strategy's
Introduction for the massive funding for further research and highly
restrictive regulations presented in Strategy's Recommendations. It is
clear that conditions other than the presence of the lamprey have been
at work on trout populations for well over a century. It is equally
clear that the technology exists for lamprey control, if only the
funding were going toward actual control and not further research,
Outreach and Education, etc. If this is the case for just one poster
species, one must seriously question what faulty logic lies behind the
massive funding for other nonnative ``invasive'' species.
Troubling, too, is the statement that more than 160 exotic species
now exist in the Great Lakes. The intent is to imply that this, in
itself, is a negative ecological factor. It is not. Among the exotic,
``invasive'' species found in the Lakes are the various salmon species,
brown trout and rainbow trout--hardly detrimental species\7\. The
implication that nonnative species are the primary cause of native fish
population implosions, when the correlation with overfishing data is
high, suggests the need for extreme caution before endorsement of the
``Invasive Species'' aspects of the Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USGS: http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/Science%20Centers/
GreatLakesGLSC.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From experience in the terrestrial plant arena, the Senate should
know that all nonnative species are targets for regulation, as
exemplified by A.B. 2631, a California ``Invasive Species'' bill
(mercifully vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger) that included even domestic
livestock, genetically improved crops, property seizures, and criminal
penalties. Since the signing of the E.O., Congress has wisely rejected
dangerous ``Invasive Species'' language in such legislation as Healthy
Forests, the Noxious Weed Act, and the recently-passed Transportation
Bill. ``Economically harmful'' or ``harmful to human health'' are
quantifiable, sensible terms. ``Invasive Species'' is based on a
mythical ``nativeness'', is value-laden, and has no scientific or
economic justification whatsoever.
review of the strategy's recommendations
Problem Statement. The Problem Statement under Strategy's
Recommendations is a continuation of the justifications for ``Invasive
Species'' actions initiated in Strategy's Introduction. Suspicion
should arise when such alarmist phrases are used in the text, such as:
``wave after wave'', ``irreversible invasional meltdown'' and ``cannot
afford even one new invader''. The estimate that economic losses from
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) are at $5 billion per year is certainly
suspect, unless one considers Federal and State expenditures for
duplicative research, overlapping bureaucracies, grants to non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and the proliferation of manuals,
brochures, posters, calendars and videos. This estimate is reminiscent
of the ``Invasive Species'' white paper out of Cornell (1999) that
claimed, through estimates of estimates of estimates, that cats cost
the U.S. economy $14 billion and that ``Invasive Species'' overall
costs $137 billion\8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Cornell University: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/
species--costs.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the most blatantly false statement from Page 17 of Strategy is
quoted here: ``Moreover, 42 percent of threatened and endangered
species in the U.S. are at risk, mainly because of invasive species.''
How is the Senate to justify Strategy program funding or, incredibly,
legislation when the bases for the appeal are misleading and, in this
and other cases, patently false?
Goals & Milestones. The salient point under this section is
Strategy's full endorsement of all aspects of S. 770, H.R. 1591 and
H.R. 1592. These pending bills are legislative versions of this Great
Lakes Strategy, but applied to the Nation as a whole. There will not be
a discussion of these individual bills here, as the many arguments
against dangerous ``Invasive Species'' legislation dealt with in this
testimony apply to them as well. Passage of any of these bills without
Congress's full understanding of the unintended consequences is not
recommended.
Recommendations. In a brief review of a document as large as the
Strategy (70 pages), it is not possible to address every aspect. This
includes the many points under Recommendations in Strategy itself as
well as those presented in Appendix A. (88 pages). It should be
understood that the items selected for discussion here do not connote
approval of those that have been left unaddressed.
(1) Ship and Ballast Water. Although there are problems with
Strategy's Recommendations, these will not be addressed in the interest
of brevity. It is hoped that industry, labor, recreational interests
and other parties who will be directly affected will present their
view.
(2) Canals and Waterways. As with item 1, above, this will not be
discussed, leaving space for the fundamentally more important issues in
items 3, 4 and 5.
(3) Listing, Screening and AIS Trade Prevention. Every bullet in
this section deserves vigorous, individual rebuttal. The most alarming
of these is the incorporation of ``whitelisting''--the legal
implementation of the Precautionary Principle. This is the antithesis
of the very system that has made the United States the envy of the
world in agriculture, aquaculture, genetics, and every segment of the
``living things'' industries, including the American consumer. In
Strategy, individuals and commercial interests are forced to do the
impossible: prove a negative before they are allowed to trade, either
internationally or interstate, in living organisms. By itself, this is
the most commerce-killing philosophy one can imagine.
But making Strategy (and S. 770) even more absurd is that the
absence of ``harm'' to be proved is grounded on the value-based
(arguably, religious) concept that post-European settlement species are
ecological damaging. Taken to its logical conclusion, the proposed
recommendation guarantees the failure of any individual or commercial
interest to succeed in overcoming the screening process. Most, if not
all Federal bureaucracies and NGOs are on record as defining harm by
nonnative/``invasive'' species as (paraphrased): ``replaces native
species in the environment''\9\. Often, they use ``could'' or ``may''
to preface this phrase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NPS: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are disclaimers in the Strategy that not all
participating parties have necessarily agreed to all the items, and
that no party is bound by these recommendations, it stretches credulity
that any commercial interest could have agreed to the items under
Strategy Recommendation 3 or S. 770. Not only would international
commerce come to a screeching halt, interstate trade of living
organisms (including seed) would be disrupted as never before. Even if
one assumes good intentions and actions by the bureaucracies,
litigation by radical environmental groups is guaranteed.
If the Senate gleans nothing more from this testimony, it is begged
to consider the unintended (but guaranteed) consequences of putting
American citizens, industry and society as a whole into a U-turn from
the policies that have brought us the highest standard of living in
history. Codifying the Precautionary Principle is a radical departure
from the American experience.
(4) AIS Management Plan. Any plan, when based on flawed philosophy
and lack of science, should be questioned. The Strategy's AIS
Management Plan fits this description. The four most egregious of the
nine points are: (1) voluntary agreements and codes of best practices
for industrial trade groups, (2) economic requirements and incentives,
(3) the revolving fund--the proposed de facto tax on (presumably)
commercial interests and (most likely) all users of Great Lakes
resources, including recreational activities, and (4) the de facto
codification of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC).
<bullet> Voluntary agreements and codes of best practices are two
codes in themselves, albeit with another meaning. The order is usually
reversed, as economically disinterested parties write the codes, then,
through outcome-prescribed ``stakeholder'' processes, these parties
present to unsuspecting and disunited industry groups what can only be
termed an ultimatum: sign on to some form of agreement or be branded
anti-environment. This ultimatum works well for the NGOs, who
apparently authored much of Strategy. The St. Louis Declaration,
unwisely signed by leaders in the nursery and landscape trade, has, in
part, resulted in State laws highly detrimental to the trade\10\. The
other form of ultimatum is especially effective when industry is
presented the choice by Government regulatory agencies, such as the EPA
or State ``DEPs.'' We have seen the effectiveness of this technique in
Pennsylvania, as production agriculture was forced to ``voluntarily''
accept (sign off on) several new environmental restrictions because the
Federal and State agencies convinced it that ``it is going to happen
anyway''. But most importantly, conduct codes, best management
practices, and agreements inevitably become regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Connecticut:http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtSearch--lpa.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Combining (2) and (3) from the AIS Management Plan above,
the Strategy's bullets of ``economic requirements and incentives'' and
``establish a revolving fund'' appear to be recommendations for funding
for the bureaucracies and NGOs who wrote the Strategy's bullets, all at
the expense of industry and resource users. Posting bonds, buying
insurance or paying user fees (user fees being unstated in Strategy,
but a common practice) will not, as stated in Strategy's
Recommendations, ``help industry participants''. These de facto taxes
will only help the grant recipients and their true partners, the
expanded bureaucracies. If trade groups agree to these recommendations,
it will be a classic case of sanction of the victim.
<bullet> Both the NISC and the bogus issue of ``Invasive Species''
would be strengthened and centralized if Strategy is followed. They
will also be forever codified into law if the recommendation for
passage of S. 770 is successful. (Environmental NEPA litigators, take
note.)
<bullet> (5) Outreach and Education. This point might be the most
insidious of them all. First, billions of taxpayer dollars have already
been spent on ``Invasive Species'' at the Federal level alone, and for
the most part, all there is to show for it are hundreds, if not
thousands of slick brochures, calendars, posters, websites, hotel and
airline bills, and, significantly, an emboldened, expanded complex of
NGOs and bureaucracies who now call for more of the same. My files are
overflowing with these items, including a 650-page handbook filled with
poetic quotes, predictions of collapsed ecosystems and outright
falsehoods. Just one of the blatant falsehoods is the statement that
plants such as clover, perennial ryegrass and crownvetch are noxious
weeds\11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FHWA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/handbook.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no lack of funding for bogus ``invasive species'' Outreach
and Education. It is already there in the millions of dollars from
existing programs. Visit any facility managed by Federal, State, or
sometimes County agencies. You will see posters. You will be given
brochures. You can listen to lectures, live or on film. Do a Google
search for Aquatic Invasive Species and you will get nearly 3 million
entries. Just looking at the first 20 websites you will find dozens of
educational resources and links to hundreds more.
But the aspect that is the most disturbing is the indoctrination of
K-12 students with ``Invasive Species'' nonsense at best and the fear-
mongering falsehoods at worst. Just one document by the Minnesota Sea
Grant, Aquatic Invasive Species: An Educator's Information and
Materials Guide\12\, lists 12 curricula, 13 posters and print
materials, and 7 videos. An ecosystem is not in collapse due to the
presence of ``nonnative'' species. ``Invasive Species'' are not the
cause of species extinction, except in the rarest of circumstances
(predators in ``island'' environments. There is no biological
difference between a ``native'' and ``nonnative'' species. Nonnative
species are no more likely to dominate wetland areas than are native
species\13\. Yet, this misinformation is injected into the K-12
curriculum--now with universal regularity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ MN Sea Grant: http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/exotics/ais--
guide.pdf
\13\ Sagoff: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles04/
do--invasive--species--threaten--the.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several times per semester since about the 4th Grade, I remind my
7th Grade son that he will have to unlearn just about everything he is
taught in school about the environment. This was brought home when his
5th Grade class came to the two-page section in its Science textbook
that was about ``Invasive Species'' in everything but name: native vs.
nonnative was the theme. It was adorned by a \1/3\-page color photo of
kudzu, a legally noxious weed that happens to be nonnative. In
Pennsylvania, wild grape, Virginia creeper, and poison ivy fill the
ecological niches that kudzu occupies in the Old South. But they are
noticeably absent from any ``Invasive Species'' list or discussion--
Federal, State or local. Why? Simply because they were here when
William Penn received his charter from King Charles II in 1681.
conclusion--``invasive species''
Concluding my comments on the ``Invasive Species'' section of the
Strategy, there is no doubt that some species cause economic harm or
harm to human health. There is equally no doubt that economic and human
harms come from species that were both present in North America in 1492
and those that were not. Efforts to control or even eradicate species
that meet these criteria are understandable. If the economic/human
harms outweigh the benefits, and those harms are severe enough, it is
logical to expend resources for control, prevention and even
eradication.
However, since the issuance of President Clinton's E.O. in 1999,
``Invasive Species'' has evolved into an all-pervasive, illogical, and
dangerous agenda that has all the hallmarks of previous contentious
legislation, such as The Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is both
ironic and alarming that while Congress wrestles with reforms of the
ESA (H.R. 3824, TESRA), it is at the same time considering implementing
the ``Invasive Species'' sections in the Great Lakes Strategy and the
passage of such ``Invasive Species'' legislation as S. 770, H.R. 1591
and H.R. 1592.
comments on remaining items
There are serious concerns about the seven Strategy Team
Recommendations that follow the first (``Invasive Species''). As a
farmer who is witnessing (note present tense) the destructive effects
of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) on rural Pennsylvania, it is
fervently hoped that production agriculture, foresters, and other
resource interests in the Great Lakes region will carefully read
Strategy, investigate how the CBP is steadily eroding Pennsylvania's
rural economic base, and then comment themselves on Strategy, S. 770
and other Recommendations. Space does not allow ample development here.
Allowing for just one of many Chesapeake Bay watershed examples
(mimicked in Strategy), the one-two punch of the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
is having a devastating effect on farmers who actually farm for a
living. By taking entire farms out of production (CRP) and with
government CREP set-aside payments at four to five times the local land
rental rate, financially-strapped retired (or retiring) farmers take
land out of production, leaving the active, productive farmers in a
dire situation--prohibitively expensive land to rent or even no land at
all. The exodus of Pennsylvania dairy cows to ag-friendly States such
as Indiana, New Mexico and Texas is at least partially due to CRP, CREP
and other ill-advised State, Federal and Regional programs.
One of the baffling inconsistencies of these programs (and
Strategy's various Recommendations) can be exemplified by the case of
crownvetch and tall fescue in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. They have
been indispensable in protecting the Bay watershed for over a half-
century--and at little or no maintenance cost. Penngift crownvetch is
even the Official State Conservation Plan of Pennsylvania. Empirical
data from Penn State University shows water, soil and pesticide loss to
be near-zero in corn planted to a crownvetch cover crop under the same
conditions (17 inches of rainfall) that resulted in soil loss of 14
tons per acre under conventional tillage\14\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Penn State University: Crownvetch and No-Tillage Crop
Production for Soil Erosion Control, PSU Cooperative Extension Bulletin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet within months of the Executive order, both crownvetch and tall
fescue became poster species of most bureaucracies and the NGOs as
``Invasive Species'', in the process putting enormous pressure on
PennDOT and other highway departments to discontinue their use.
Inferior, weed-prone (but expensive) species were recommended, even
demanded in the case of the FHWA. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the $4
billion lead NGO on ``Invasive Species'', even proudly proclaims in a
March 2006 bulletin that its influence on State agencies was great
enough to stop the Indiana Department of Transportation from using
crownvetch\15\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ TNC: http://www.nature.org/pressroom/press/press1377.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, do the people of Indiana, Michigan or any of the Great Lake
States want the cleanest water and air that technology and science can
produce? Or do they want their State and Federal agencies, in concert
with unelected NGOs, to pursue an agenda based on a mythical
``nativeness'', excluding in the process the most effective means for
clean water and air? Strategy leaves one wondering what the most
important goals are. With ``Invasive Species'' being the first of the
eight Strategy subjects addressed, concern is warranted.
This will conclude with two quotes, in case this testimony is
viewed as isolated and/or anti-environment:
From noted Biologist and author Stephen Jay Gould, regarding the
scientific bogusness of ``Invasive Species'': ``How easy the fallacious
transition between a biological argument and political campaign.''
From a current USDA researcher (name withheld), in response to a
particularly vehement ``Invasive Species'' lecture given by an FHWA
official: ``Ma'am, has anyone considered any common sense on this
issue?''
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Great Lakes
Strategy.
<all>