The bill that I've joined Senator Baucus in introducing makes that commitment. Bill, I hope that we'll have your enthusiastic support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. According to our "early bird" rule, the next Senator will be Senator Lieberman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening this hearing, and thank you, Administrator Reilly and Ms. Wilcher, for being here. I know you did a quick turn-around on this one, and I know all the members of the committee appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I would really just associate myself with what's been said by everyone here. I would just make perhaps two or three quick points. The first one I want to make is that this bill is significant from its beginning, from its title, which puts pollution prevention in front of pollution control. This may be the first time that's ever happened in a major piece of environmental legislation. I think it is significant. It reflects the belief of this committee and I know you, Administrator Reilly, that we can no longer afford to continue to react to pollution only after it has occurred; but that we've got to be proactive, we've got to be preventative, and we've got to understand that probably the most efficient and effective way for us to deal with pollution is to stop it before it ever occurs. This bill recognizes that fact and in that I think is a significant step forward. Secondly, without breaking the budget agreement, the bill does manage to provide substantial resources which will be critically helpful in the effort to clean up our Nation's waters. While there is a lot of need for law and prevention, a lot of this stuff is not going to happen and we're not going to have cleaner water unless we make a financial investment in that task. We managed to provide, in this bill, for approximately $2 billion a year in a Clean Water Fund that will continue the State Revolving Fund program at least to meet our previously stated Federal obligation of $18 billion. It doesn't really meet the need, but at least it meets the promise. It keeps the promise that was made in earlier legislation. It would fund, as Senator Chafee and others indicated, at roughly $400 million a year serious non-point source reduction program. It would provide approximately $200 million a year to the States for their water quality management programs, with which they are having a lot of trouble. And it would create Federal grants, real grants, for the purpose of eliminating the problem of Combined Sewer Overflows, which is so fundamental to so much of our water pollution in this country. Somewhere in all of this, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note the presence of $3.6 million a year for the Long Island Sound. That's important to us, needless to say, because it will enable the Long Island Sound program office, which will be established this year, to make the kind of watershed-based management decisions in grants that are going to give the States of Connecticut and New York and Rhode Island a real boost in our efforts to restore this great natural resource. But I must say in a larger sense, the entire bill is a Long Island Sound protection bill, it's a protection bill for every body of water in this country. And Long Island Sound shows why we need this bill. Long Island Sound's problems involve a tremendous amount of urban run-off, excess nutrients, combined sewer overflows from outdated sewer systems that simply can't handle what's there now. We have a lack of funding to adequately run the permit programs that are supposed to protect the Sound and to keep on top of our water quality monitoring. All of those are addressed in this bill and they will immeasurably assist the State in its efforts to clean up this body of water. Mr. Chairman, as you know, and as Administrator Reilly knows, obviously, we adopted an historic Clean Air Act in the last session of Congress and there was tremendous public interest in it. As Senator Lautenberg has just suggested, I think there is probably even more interest among the public in what we're doing here with the Clean Water Act. There is, I suppose, a natural way in which people are more able to identify, in some senses even adopt, bodies of water that are adjacent to where they live because they see them and appreciate them and are angered when they're dirtier than they want them to be. So that I think we're going to find substantial public interest in the work that we do on this bill. I think the public understands that we've come a long way from where we were on the Clean Water Act as originally adopted, but that we've got a long way to go yet before we can say that our waterways, bodies of water, are truly fishable and swimmable. Thank you. Senator BAUCUs. Thank you very much, Senator. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE DURENBERGER, U.S. Senator DURENBERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me begin by thanking my colleague, John Chafee, for that statement on non-point source pollution. Not only was it a terrific statement, but it highlights a new commitment we made in the last bill that we haven't been fully able to implement, not because our heart wasn't in the right place and the authorizations weren't moving in the right direction, but in large part because we really failed for several years to finance the Federal commitment to this intergovernmental partnership that it needs to make that system work. Today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention two items that were not included in the bill that was introduced this week. Those items are wetlands and groundwater. Our colleagues on the House side have indicated their intention to include amendments to the wetlands program under section 404 as part of their Clean Water Authorization bill. So, while a full debate on 404 may not be the best thing to happen to the Clean Water Bill, I don't think we're going to be able to avoid it. In my view, section 404 was not intend ed to be a wetlands protection program; and it clearly is not. Ninety percent of the activities which adversely affect wetlands are outside the jurisdiction of 404, as should be evident to every member here. The program also doesn't protect the interests of people who own wetlands, either. I don't know that wholesale amendments to section 404 are necessary to fix the problem, but I do think that more activity should be addressed in our protection efforts. The States should have a larger role in implementation and we need to find a better way to mix the private and the public interests that are tied to wetlands use. Secondly, on groundwater, this committee has searched for a long time for a proper way to express the Federal role in groundwater protection. We have plenty of Federal laws on the subject but we really haven't articulated the Federal role. RCRA has groundwater provisions for hazardous waste in underground tanks, Superfund is principally a groundwater clean-up program. So we've made a commitment to groundwater quality, but we have yet to amend Federal law to adequately prevent groundwater contamination. There would be no better time to do it than now. It seems to me this is the place. The double track process for RCRA and Clean Water that we're starting on today gives us our best opportunity to make Federal policy on groundwater quality. So, Mr. Chairman, I mention these issues in the context of the bill that went in last week not to diminish in any way the importance of the many other provisions in the legislation. There is a lot of work to be done on clean water. But one question we will be asking is where do the Federal dollars go after the State Revolving Funds have been capitalized. Your bill provides an allocation of $2.5 billion to various purposes, but neither the protection of wetlands nor the prevention of groundwater contamination is on that list. I have to say that not only should they be on the list for funding, but they deserve a substantial commitment. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make that statement. At this point, I was going to do a demonstration-my hockey demonstration on why everybody ought to be all revved up about the fact that there are two American teams in the hockey finals. But I also was reminded that I have been carrying around a little sort of token for the Administrator, a gift for the Administrator, which I need to do in public in case it has some value, everybody sees I'm doing this. But he was good enough to come out to the twin cities, St. Paul specifically, a few weeks ago. He stood in an audience of about 400 to 500 people in the auditorium that Garrison Keillor made famous on the Prairie Home Companion and he took at least an hour of the toughest questions that could be asked in Minnesota and did a marvelous job. So we have here one of the toughest animals that has been raised in this country, one of the most beautiful-the one that if Al Simpson were here, he would remind you we keep shipping to Wyoming to the detriment of their cattle. The very famous Doctor Dave Meech has done a great study, as you all know, on this particular animal. And a wonderful photographer by the name of Jim Brandenburg has done a great job on the wolf. While you don't get the whole of the wolf here, you get enough of that incredible animal to know that it is with a great deal of affection that the people in Minnesota want to express to you, Bill, our feelings about your commitment to natural resources of this country and the way in which you expressed that commitment under some of the most difficult of circumstances. I won't make any other comparisons with the wolf. But I do appreciate it. [Laughter.] And I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator LAUTENBERG. That is a Minnesota commercial, I would say. Rightfully deserved. [Laughter.] Senator BAUCUS. Senator Mitchell is unable to attend today's hearing. He has submitted a statement and, without objection, it will be included in the record. [Senator Mitchell's statement follows:] Statement of Hon. GEORGE J. MITCHELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM the State of Maine Good morning Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank Senators Baucus and Chafee for their work in developing comprehensive legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water Act and for holding this important hearing today. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (S. 1081). This legislation proposes a major step forward in the continuing effort to protect the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters. I also want to join in welcoming EPA Administrator William Reilly. I know that Administrator Reilly will give us thoughtful and constructive comments on proposed legislation and I look forward to working with him to refine and improve our proposals. I also want to note, Mr. Chairman, two bills I have introduced concerning water quality. These bills address the quality of coastal waters (S. 1070) and lake assessment and protection (S. 1069). During the past two Congresses, we have held a series of hearings to document the serious pollution problems in coastal waters. We learned of a wide range of coastal pollution problems, including closed beaches throughout the Northeast, after the discovery of medical wastes; the existence of a large "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico; massive pollution problems in Boston Harbor and other estuaries, and sediment contaminated toxic materials, including heavy metals and pesticides. A report by the Office of Technology Assessment summed up the coastal pollution problem, stating, "In the absence of additional measures to protect marine and coastal waters, the next few decades will witness new or continued degradation in many estuaries and coastal waters around the country." The coastal protection legislation I have introduced with Senator Lautenberg is based on the bill reported by the Environment Committee in the last Congress. It amends the Clean Water Act and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act to expand and strengthen programs for research and protection of marine waters. It is intended to provide a direct and comprehensive repsonse to well-documented pollution problems in coastal waters. There are over 90,000 lakes throughout the country, covering some 40 million acres. These lakes are a natural, economic, and recreational resource of outstanding value and importance. There is growing evidence of significant water quality problems in lakes. EPA estimates that 25 percent of our lakes are impaired by pollution and that an additional 20 percent are threatened by pollution. Lakes are one of the outstanding natural resources of my home State of maine. For over 100 years, Maine's lakes have been known far and wide for their exceptional quality and recreational value. Maine lakes are also an important source of drinking water. Fifty-three lakes are the primary drinking water source for several of the largest cities in Maine. My legislation strengthens the Clean Lakes Program established in section 314 of the Clean Water Act. This bill would expand research of lakes, strengthen lake water quality standards, require a phase out of phosphates in detergents, and expand the lake grant assistance program. I look forward to discussion of these bills at hearings later this spring. Senator BAUCUs. Administrator Reilly, we're very happy to have you here. I am going to let you speak as long as you wish because we've all spoken as long as we each wanted. However, at the conclusion of your statement, I am going to restrict each of the members of the panel to five minutes and we'll have more than one round, if needed. But as far as you're concerned, you're our only witness today, you're the man, so I'll let you have as much time as you wish. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. REILLY, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED BY LA JUANA WILCHER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER Mr. REILLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask that my prepared statement be included in the record and I will make it a little more abbreviated for purposes of this presentation. Thank you very much for that presentation of the photograph of the wolf. I am a fan of wolves and appreciate very much the gesture and the sentiment behind the gift. In preparing for this hearing back last fall, Mr. Chairman, we organized I think probably an unprecedented program of outreach under the direction of LaJuana Wilcher, Assistant Administrator for Water, to try to consult the community of interest-the academics, the business and environmental leaders, economists, the whole range of State and local Government officials who actually have to be on the line to implement our water quality laws-and have that material from those some 60 groups that we have specifically separately consulted in two major symposia one on ecological risk, chaired by Doctor William Cooper of the University of Michigan State, who was also the chairman of the panel on ecology of the Science Advisory Board, which completed the report on reducing risk for us last September; and another symposium on economics on funding issues and economic incentives questionschaired by Doctor Toby Clark, now the Secretary of Natural Resources for the State of Delaware. I would very much encourage the committee to take advantage of the materials that were developed, the papers prepared and the various other documents that were simulated by that set of meetings. As you indicated, the country today is blessed with extraordinarily high quality water, which is especially remarkable considering our growing population and economic development. We have made these gains in the face of very significant increase in the number of facilities and the sources of pollution over the past 20 years or so. There's no doubt that the Clean Water Act deserves a great deal of the credit for that. The law has helped us reclaim water bodies that were seriously degraded 20 years ago, and it has helped us preserve the quality of many others. Since 1972, EPA has established National Technology-Based discharge Standards for 51 industrial categories, typically reducing the pollution entering service water by 90 percent. Over 65,000 in |