"America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                    AMERICA BUILDS: CLEAN WATER ACT5                    PERMITTING AND PROJECT DELIVERY67=======================================================================89                                (119-6)1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON16                    WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT1718                                 OF THE1920                              COMMITTEE ON21                           TRANSPORTATION AND22                             INFRASTRUCTURE23                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2425                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2627                             FIRST SESSION28                               __________2930                           FEBRUARY 11, 202531                               __________3233                       Printed for the use of the34             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3536               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-39     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/40                             transportation41                                ______4243                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE444559-960 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 20254647             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE4849                     Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman50                 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member51Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,           Eleanor Holmes Norton,52  Arkansas, Vice Chairman              District of Columbia53Daniel Webster, Florida              Jerrold Nadler, New York54Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Steve Cohen, Tennessee55Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            John Garamendi, California56Brian Babin, Texas                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia57David Rouzer, North Carolina         Andre Carson, Indiana58Mike Bost, Illinois                  Dina Titus, Nevada59Doug LaMalfa, California             Jared Huffman, California60Bruce Westerman, Arkansas            Julia Brownley, California61Brian J. Mast, Florida               Frederica S. Wilson, Florida62Pete Stauber, Minnesota              Mark DeSaulnier, California63Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Salud O. Carbajal, California64Dusty Johnson, South Dakota          Greg Stanton, Arizona65Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey       Sharice Davids, Kansas66Troy E. Nehls, Texas                 Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois67Tracey Mann, Kansas                  Chris Pappas, New Hampshire68Burgess Owens, Utah                  Seth Moulton, Massachusetts69Eric Burlison, Missouri              Marilyn Strickland, Washington70Mike Collins, Georgia                Patrick Ryan, New York71Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Val T. Hoyle, Oregon72Kevin Kiley, California              Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,73Vince Fong, California                 Vice Ranking Member74Tony Wied, Wisconsin                 Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan75Tom Barrett, Michigan                Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina76Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska       Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania77Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,            Robert Garcia, California78  Pennsylvania                       Nellie Pou, New Jersey79Jeff Hurd, Colorado                  Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan80Jefferson Shreve, Indiana            Laura Friedman, California81Addison P. McDowell, North           Laura Gillen, New York82  Carolina                           Shomari Figures, Alabama83David J. Taylor, Ohio84Brad Knott, North Carolina85Kimberlyn King-Hinds,86  Northern Mariana Islands87Mike Kennedy, Utah88Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri89Vacancy9091            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment9293                   Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman94             Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, Ranking Member95Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,           John Garamendi, California96  Arkansas                           Jared Huffman, California97Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Patrick Ryan, New York98Brian Babin, Texas                   Val T. Hoyle, Oregon99Mike Bost, Illinois                  Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio100Doug LaMalfa, California             Laura Friedman, California101Bruce Westerman, Arkansas            Shomari Figures, Alabama102Brian J. Mast, Florida               Julia Brownley, California103Tracey Mann, Kansas                  Mark DeSaulnier, California104Eric Burlison, Missouri              Chris Pappas, New Hampshire105Kevin Kiley, California              Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan,106Vince Fong, California                 Vice Ranking Member107Tony Wied, Wisconsin                 Nellie Pou, New Jersey108Jeff Hurd, Colorado                  Laura Gillen, New York109David J. Taylor, Ohio                Eleanor Holmes Norton,110Brad Knott, North Carolina             District of Columbia111Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri       Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)112Vacancy113Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)114115                                CONTENTS116117                                                                   Page118119Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii120121                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE122123Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of124  Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and125  Environment, opening statement.................................     1126    Prepared statement...........................................     2127Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Congress from the128  State of Michigan, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on129  Water Resources and Environment, opening statement.............     3130    Prepared statement...........................................     4131Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of132  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and133  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5134    Prepared statement...........................................     7135136                               WITNESSES137138Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of139  Environmental Quality, oral statement..........................     9140    Prepared statement...........................................    10141Hon. Shawn M. LaTourette, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of142  Environmental Protection, oral statement.......................    12143    Prepared statement...........................................    14144Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor Corporation, on145  behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, oral146  statement......................................................    16147    Prepared statement...........................................    18148Buddy Hasten, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric149  Cooperatives of Arkansas, on behalf of the National Rural150  Electric Cooperative Association, oral statement...............    21151    Prepared statement...........................................    22152153                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD154155Submissions for the Record by Hon. Vince Fong:156    Statement of Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock157      Irrigation District........................................    30158    Statement of John Sweigard, General Manager, Merced159      Irrigation District........................................    31160Submissions for the Record by Hon. Brad Knott:161    Letter of February 10, 2025, from Paul N. Cicio, President162      and Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of163      America, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica164      S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources165      and Environment............................................    65166    Letter of February 10, 2025, from Amy Andryszak, President167      and Chief Executive Officer, Interstate Natural Gas168      Association of America, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and169      Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on170      Water Resources and Environment............................    67171    Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers.........    70172    Statement of the Western States Water Council................    71173    Letter of February 11, 2025, from the Waters Advocacy174      Coalition, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon.175      Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water176      Resources and Environment..................................    76177    Letter of February 11, 2025, from Aurelia S. Giacometto,178      Secretary, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental179      Quality, to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,180      Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment............    77181    Letter of February 11, 2025, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice182      President, Legislative and Political Affairs, Associated183      Builders and Contractors, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman,184      and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee185      on Water Resources and Environment.........................    79186Submissions for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins:187    Letter of February 11, 2025, from Amanda E. Eversole,188      Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer,189      American Petroleum Institute, to Hon. Mike Collins,190      Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,191      Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment............    80192    Letter of February 11, 2025, from Rich Nolan, President and193      Chief Executive Officer, National Mining Association, to194      Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,195      Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and196      Environment................................................    82197    Letter of February 20, 2025, from T. Lane Wilson, Sr. Vice198      President and General Counsel, The Williams Companies,199      Inc., to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S.200      Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and201      Environment................................................    83202203[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]204205                            February 7, 2025206207    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER208209    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and210Environment211    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and212Environment213    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: Clean214Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery''215_______________________________________________________________________216217                               I. PURPOSE218219    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the220Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on221Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn222House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing223entitled, ``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and224Project Delivery.'' The hearing will examine how Congress can225ensure that the Clean Water Act (CWA) balances the goals of226protecting water quality and ensuring project completion,227reducing supply chain challenges, and promoting commerce. At228the hearing, Members will receive testimony from witnesses229representing the State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental230Quality, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,231National Association of Manufacturers, and National Rural232Electric Cooperative Association.233234            II. BACKGROUND: OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT235236    Congress enacted the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water237Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water238Act (CWA), with the goal to ``restore and maintain the239chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's240waters.'' \1\ The CWA provides a major Federal-state program as241the principal law governing the quality of the Nation's surface242waters, including certain wetlands.\2\ The Environmental243Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary Federal agency tasked244with carrying out the CWA, while the United States Army Corps245of Engineers (Corps) is also tasked with certain246responsibilities. To achieve the objectives of the law, the CWA247established two goals: (1) eliminate pollutant discharge into248navigable waters by 1985, and (2) where possible, ensure water249quality that is ``fishable'' and ``swimmable'' by 1983.\3\250---------------------------------------------------------------------------251    \1\ CWA, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816.252    \2\ H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, Jurisdiction and253Activities of the Subcomm. on Water Resources and Environment, 119th254Cong., (2023) (on file with Comm.).255    \3\ Laura Gatz, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (RL30030), Clean Water Act: A256Summary of the Law, (Updated Oct. 18, 2016), available at https://257www.crs.gov/Reports/RL30030 [hereinafter CRS Report RL30030].258---------------------------------------------------------------------------259    The CWA consists of two major parts: (1) the authorization260of financial assistance for construction of municipal261wastewater treatment plants, and (2) the regulatory262requirements that apply to those who discharge into navigable263waters, including industrial and municipal actors.\4\ Planning,264financial, and technical assistance for various regions and265issues, tribal and state water quality programs, and oil spill266prevention and planning programs are also addressed.\5\267---------------------------------------------------------------------------268    \4\ Id.269    \5\ Id.270---------------------------------------------------------------------------271    The regulatory requirements in the CWA are found primarily272in Titles III and IV of the law. Title III establishes the273authority for EPA to develop the technological and water274quality-based effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and275requirements for points source dischargers to adhere to.\6\276Whereas Title III focuses largely on the creation of water277quality guidelines and limitations, Title IV primarily deals278with application of the regulatory program, informed by the279guidelines created pursuant to Title III, through which280dischargers must receive permits or certifications.\7\281---------------------------------------------------------------------------282    \6\ CRS Report RL30030, supra note 3; see also CWA, supra note 1 at283Sec. Sec.  301-320.284    \7\ CRS Report RL30030, supra note 3; see also CWA, supra note 1 at285Sec. Sec.  401, 402, 404.286---------------------------------------------------------------------------287288                  III. ``WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES''289290    The CWA applies to ``navigable waters,'' which is defined291in the CWA as the ``waters of the United States, including the292territorial seas.'' \8\ However, the statute does not further293define the term ``waters of the United States'' (WOTUS). As294such, the EPA and the Corps, which both play roles in clean295water permitting, have attempted to define which waters are296subject to Federal regulation under the CWA, through several297sets of rules interpreting the Agencies' jurisdiction over298WOTUS.\9\ For example, the prior three Administrations each299published regulatory changes to the definition of WOTUS in the300Federal Register.\10\301---------------------------------------------------------------------------302    \8\ CWA, supra note 1 at Sec.  502(7).303    \9\ See e.g. Clean Water Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the United304States,'' Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015); The305Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the United306States,'' 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020); Revised definition of307``Waters of the United States'' Final Rule, 88 Fed Reg. 3004 (Jan. 18,3082023).309    \10\ Id.310---------------------------------------------------------------------------311    Additionally, since passage of the CWA, there has been a312substantial amount of litigation in the Federal courts on313issues relating to the scope of CWA jurisdiction, including314Supreme Court cases.\11\ In May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled315generally on the scope of WOTUS under the CWA in Sackett v. EPA316(Sackett).\12\317---------------------------------------------------------------------------318    \11\ See e.g. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S.319121 (1985); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S.320Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States,321547 U.S. 715 (2006).322    \12\ Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023) [hereinafter Sackett].323---------------------------------------------------------------------------324    The Court's ruling in Sackett narrows the scope of325jurisdiction under the CWA as compared to both its longstanding326regulatory implementation and the interpretation adopted by327lower courts after the 2006 case of Rapanos v. United328States.\13\ While the extent of the change will depend on how329the Corps and EPA implement various aspects of the decision,330the Sackett majority's exclusion of wetlands that are separated331from covered waters by natural or artificial barriers means332that fewer wetlands will be covered than under any regulatory333framework developed by the Corps or EPA since the 1970s.\14\334The Court's ruling could also affect regulation of waters at335the state level.\15\336---------------------------------------------------------------------------337    \13\ Kate R. Bowers, Cong. Rsch. Serv. Legal Sidebar (LSB10981),338Supreme Court Narrows Federal Jurisdiction Under Clean Water Act, at 1339(June 21, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB10981340[hereinafter LSB10981].341    \14\ Id.342    \15\ Id.343---------------------------------------------------------------------------344    During the period from 2001 up to the Sackett decision, all345four Presidential Administrations adopted different approaches346to implementation of CWA jurisdiction, in part, reflecting347competing legal interpretations of prior decisions. The most348recent of these efforts, undertaken by the Biden Administration349and finalized in December of 2022, authorized CWA jurisdiction350under either test established by the Rapanos decision--the351``relatively permanent'' or the ``significant nexus''352tests.\16\ However, the Sackett decision specifically rejected353the significant nexus test as a basis of asserting CWA354jurisdiction, prompting EPA and the Corps to issue a conforming355rule, on August 29, 2023, titled ``Revised Definition of356`Waters of the United States'; Conforming,'' amending the357December 2022 rule post-Sackett.\17\358---------------------------------------------------------------------------359    \16\ Press Release, EPA, EPA and Army Finalize Rule Establishing360Definition of WOTUS and Restoring Fundamental Water Protections, (Dec.36130, 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-362finalize-rule-establishing-definition-wotus-and-restoring-fundamental.363    \17\ LSB10981, supra note 13; see also, Revised Definition of364``Waters of the United States''; Conforming, 88 Fed. Reg. 61,964 (Sept.3658, 2023).366---------------------------------------------------------------------------367    Although the Biden Administration's original (2022) and368conforming (2023) rules, as well as other prior regulations369were not litigated in Federal courts, the majority opinion in370Sackett has changed key jurisdictional interpretations371reflected in the Biden Administration's original rule.\18\372Currently, the conforming rule is in effect in 23 states, the373District of Columbia, and United States territories.\19\ In the374other 27 states, EPA and the Corps are regulating WOTUS375consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime.\20\376---------------------------------------------------------------------------377    \18\ Id.378    \19\ Id.; see also EPA, Definition of ``Waters of the United379States'': Rule Status and Litigation Update, available at https://380www.epa.gov/wotus/definition-waters-united-states-rule-status-and-381litigation-update.382    \20\ Id.383---------------------------------------------------------------------------384    Some states and stakeholders have raised concerns with the385pace of implementation of the conforming WOTUS rule, and386whether EPA and the Corps are complying with Sackett's387ruling.\21\ Other states and stakeholders have expressed388dissatisfaction with the Sackett ruling and called for states389and the Executive Branch to evaluate other authorities to390address the effects of Sackett.\22\ Additional stakeholders391have recognized that Congress could intervene to further speak392to the scope of waters addressed by the CWA.\23\393---------------------------------------------------------------------------394    \21\ Sam Hess, States, Industry Launch Broad Legal Attack on EPA's395Amended WOTUS Rule, InsideEPA, (Feb. 6, 2024), available at https://396insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-launch-broad-legal-attack-epa-397s-amended-wotus-rule.398    \22\ Sam Hess, Groups Urge Officials To Expand Wetlands Protections399In Wake of Sackett, InsideEPA, (June 4, 2024), available at https://400insideepa.com/daily-news/groups-urge-officials-expand-wetlands-401protections-wake-sackett.402    \23\ See James M. McElfish, Jr., What Comes Next for Clean Water?403Six Consequences of Sackett v. EPA, Environmental Law Institute,404available at https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/what-comes-405next-clean-water-six-consequences-sackett-v-epa.406---------------------------------------------------------------------------407408              IV. SECTION 401: WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION409410    Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a411Federal license or permit for any activity that may result in a412discharge covered by the CWA provide the Federal licensing or413permitting agency with a certification.\24\ Such a414certification is issued by the state or tribe (or EPA, in the415case of tribal lands where a tribe has not been granted416treatment as a state, as well as on Federal lands with417exclusive Federal jurisdiction) that would be affected by the418discharge.\25\ Under section 401, the certifying authority may419grant, grant with conditions, deny, or waive certification of420proposed Federal licenses or permits.\26\ Activities that421commonly require a certification under section 401 of the CWA422include hydropower projects that require licenses from the423Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), industrial and424municipal point sources requiring permits under section 402 of425the CWA, and projects requiring dredge and fill permits under426section 404 of the CWA or sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and427Harbors Act.\27\428---------------------------------------------------------------------------429    \24\ Laura Gatz & Kate R. Bowers, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R46615), Clean430Water Act Section 401: Overview and Recent Developments, (Aug. 24,4312022), available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46615 [hereinafter432R46615].433    \25\ Id.; see also CWA, supra note 1 at Sec.  401.434    \26\ Id.435    \27\ Id.436---------------------------------------------------------------------------437    On April 10, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order43813686, directing the EPA to review its section 401 guidance and439regulations.\28\ Prior to that time, regulations promulgated in4401971 and interim guidance published in 2010 were in effect.\29\441Later in 2019, the Trump Administration issued updated442guidance, primarily concerning statutory and regulatory443timelines for review, appropriate scope for section 401444certification, and information the certifying authority may445consider in its certification review.\30\ In 2020, the Trump446Administration published a final rule, rescinding the 2019447guidance, while addressing many of these concerns.\31\448---------------------------------------------------------------------------449    \28\ Exec. Order No. 13686, Fed. Reg. 7619, (Apr. 10, 2019),450available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/15/2019-45107656/promoting-energy-infrastructure-and-economic-growth.452    \29\ R46615, supra note 26.453    \30\ Id.454    \31\ Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 85 Fed. Reg.45542,210 (July 13, 2020).456---------------------------------------------------------------------------457    Similarly, on January 20, 2021, President Biden signed458Executive Order 13990, directing a review of regulations459promulgated during the first Trump Administration.\32\ In June4602021, EPA issued a notice of intent to amend the 2020 rule.\33\461Finally, in November 2023, the Biden Administration's amended462CWA Section 401 rule went into effect.\34\ In particular, the463rule again concerned timelines for review, appropriate project464scope for section 401 certification, and what information is465necessary for a certifying authority to include in its466certification decision.\35\467---------------------------------------------------------------------------468    \32\ Exec. Order 13,990, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037, (Jan. 20, 2021),469available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-47001765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-471science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis.472    \33\ Notice of Intention to Reconsider and Revise the Clean Water473Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 29,541 (June 2, 2021).474    \34\ Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification475Improvement Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 66,558 (Nov. 27, 2023), available at476https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/federal-register-477version-of-2023-clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-478certification-improvement-rule.pdf.479    \35\ Id.; see also EPA, Fact Sheet, Overview Fact Sheet on the480Final 2023 Rule, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/481documents/2023-09/Overview%20Fact%20Sheet%20on%20the482%20Final%202023%20Rule_508.pdf.483---------------------------------------------------------------------------484485      V. SECTION 402: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION486                            SYSTEM (NPDES)487488    Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the NPDES program for489regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources.\36\490Point sources are defined as ``any discernible, confined, and491discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,492discrete fissure, or container'' \37\ from which pollutants may493be discharged.494---------------------------------------------------------------------------495    \36\ CWA, supra note 1 at Sec.  402; CRS Report RL30030, supra note4963; EPA, NPDES Permit Basics, available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/497npdes-permit-basics [hereinafter NPDES Permit Basics].498    \37\ NPDES Permit Basics, supra note 38.499---------------------------------------------------------------------------500    NPDES permits require the point source discharger to attain501technology-based effluent limits, while specifying the502numerical effluent limitations that sources must meet in order503to guarantee water quality, where possible.\38\ If technology-504based limits are not sufficient to meet locally-established505water quality standards, the CWA requires permittees to achieve506more stringent water-quality based effluent limits designed to507meet applicable water quality standards.\39\ EPA is responsible508for defining the level of treatment required for municipalities509and various industries, as well as for developing minimum water510quality criteria specifying the maximum concentrations of511pollutants permitted for different designated uses of512waters.\40\513---------------------------------------------------------------------------514    \38\ CRS Report 30030, supra note 3.515    \39\ EPA, Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits, available at https:/516/www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/chapt_06.pdf.517    \40\ Id. at 48.518---------------------------------------------------------------------------519    NPDES permits are issued for up to five years and must be520renewed thereafter if discharge is to continue.\41\ Point521sources may in some instances apply for a NPDES general permit522as opposed to a NPDES individual permit. A NPDES individual523permit is written for site-specific discharges that are unique524to a specific location or discharge.\42\ Conversely, NPDES525general permits cover ``multiple dischargers with similar526operations and types of discharges.'' \43\527---------------------------------------------------------------------------528    \41\ NPDES Permit Basics, supra note 38.529    \42\ Id.530    \43\ Id.531---------------------------------------------------------------------------532    EPA runs the NPDES permitting program, but the CWA533authorizes EPA to approve individual states and tribes to534manage their own NPDES permitting programs.\44\ Nearly all535states have assumed administration of their own NPDES programs,536with only three exceptions: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and537New Mexico.\45\538---------------------------------------------------------------------------539    \44\ CRS Report 30030, supra note 3.540    \45\ Id.541---------------------------------------------------------------------------542543               VI. SECTION 404: DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL544545    Section 404 of the CWA authorizes a separate type of546regulatory program for permits required to discharge dredged or547fill materials. EPA and the Corps play complementary roles in548implementing the section 404 program, with the Corps in charge549of issuing permits for discharge of dredged or fill material,550using a set of environmental guidelines promulgated by EPA, in551conjunction with the Corps, to evaluate permit552applications.\46\ The Corps likewise administers the day-to-day553program, including jurisdictional determinations (JDs), which554certify the presence or absence of waters subject to CWA555regulation.\47\556---------------------------------------------------------------------------557    \46\ Id.; see also CWA, supra note 1 at Sec.  404(b).558    \47\ EPA, Permit Program under CWA Section 404, available at559https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404.560---------------------------------------------------------------------------561    Similar to NPDES permits, section 404 permits are typically562issued for a term of five years, and there are both individual563and general permits.\48\ The CWA authorizes the issuance of564general permits for discharges that are ``similar in nature,565will only cause minimal adverse environmental effects when566performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative567adverse effect on the environment'' \49\ and are issued on a568nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories569of activities.\50\ According to the Corps, approximately 94570percent of the 62,000 permits approved in fiscal year 2022 were571authorized by regional and nationwide permits, with the572remainder authorized by individual permits.\51\ Approximately57375 percent of the general permits were issued in 60 days or574less and approximately 59 percent of the individual permits575were issued in 120 days or less.\52\ The most recent reissuance576of nationwide permits (NWPs) went into effect in February5772022.\53\578---------------------------------------------------------------------------579    \48\ Id.580    \49\ Id.581    \50\ Id.; see also CWA, supra note 1, at Sec.  404(e).582    \51\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Library, FY2024 Corps583Justification Sheets: Regulatory Program at 12, available at https://584usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll6/id/2350.585    \52\ Id.586    \53\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit Program,587available at https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/588Permits/Nationwide-Permits-Program/.589---------------------------------------------------------------------------590    Similar to the NPDES permitting process, EPA may also allow591states and tribes to assume authority to grant or deny dredge592and fill permits under section 404, with the condition that593states or tribes develop a wetlands permit program consistent594with the CWA.\54\ Currently, two states are approved to manage595their section 404 program: Michigan and New Jersey.\55\ The596status of the approval of a state-managed program for the State597of Florida is under litigation.\56\ In December 2024, EPA598finalized a rule updating the regulations governing state and599tribal assumption of section 404 permitting for the first time600since 1988.\57\601---------------------------------------------------------------------------602    \54\ EPA, State or Tribal Assumption of the CWA Section 404 Permit603Program, available at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/state-or-tribal-604assumption-cwa-section-404-permit-program.605    \55\ Id.606    \56\ Id.; see also State of Florida, State 404 Program, available607at https://floridadep.gov/water/submerged-lands-environmental-608resources-coordination/content/state-404-program.609    \57\ Clean Water Act Section 404 Tribal and State Assumption610Program, 89 Fed. Reg. 10,345 (Dec. 18, 2024).611---------------------------------------------------------------------------612613                             VII. WITNESSES614615     LMr. Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director,616Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality617     LThe Honorable Shawn M. LaTourette, Commissioner,618New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection619     LMr. Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor620Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of621Manufacturers622     LMr. Buddy Hasten, President and Chief Executive623Officer, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, on behalf624of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association625626                    AMERICA BUILDS: CLEAN WATER ACT627                    PERMITTING AND PROJECT DELIVERY628629                              ----------630631                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2025632633                  House of Representatives,634   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,635            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,636                                                    Washington, DC.637    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in638Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins639(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.640    Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and641Environment will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that642the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time643during today's hearing.644    Without objection, so ordered.645    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the646subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at647today's hearing and ask questions.648    Without objection, so ordered.649    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into650the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.651    I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening652statement for 5 minutes.653654      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA,655       CHAIRMAN,  SUBCOMMITTEE ON  WATER  RESOURCES  AND656       ENVIRONMENT657658    Mr. Collins. For 50 years, the Clean Water Act has659functioned to improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams660throughout the country, including in my home State of Georgia.661Back in 1972, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act, they662recognized the importance of a Federal-State partnership as663crucial to improving water quality and to providing a664regulatory system that communities could realistically follow.665    While the Clean Water Act has had many successes in666maintaining and improving water quality for the benefits of667citizens and industries nationwide, it unfortunately has been668used to slow or stop progress on important projects.669    The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has begun670this Congress by focusing on the theme ``America Builds''671because we know how important it is to the well-being of our672country that we remain a world leader in our transportation673networks, infrastructure construction, and economic674development.675    The Clean Water Act is one of the most consequential laws676that our country has, and it is important to ensure that it is677being used to balance the goals of water quality with ensuring678project completion, improving supply chain networks, and679delivering economic prosperity.680    In short, to let America build, the Clean Water Act needs681to work.682    States, manufacturers, energy producers, cities, farmers,683builders, homeowners, utilities, and many others rely on a684Clean Water Act permitting process that is easy to understand,685easy to follow, and easy to implement. Unfortunately, too often686these groups referred to as regulated communities are left in687the dark or actively undermined by increased regulation under688the CWA by trial lawyers looking to make a quick buck,689entrenched bureaucrats who don't have the country's best690interest at heart, and administrations who bend the knee to691radical environmental activists.692    Now is the time to revisit the Clean Water Act to ensure693that it puts America first. To do this, we need to hear from694those most affected by the law in order to know how we can695improve our regulatory environment without decreasing696protections for water quality.697    President Trump has recognized the importance of unleashing698our Nation's natural resources, ramping up energy production,699and maintaining our physical infrastructure. These priorities700will enhance the Trump administration's ability to pursue an701America-first agenda that lets America build.702    As the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment703Subcommittee, I am looking forward to working with my704colleagues to ensure excellence in the transportation and705infrastructure space and furthering the President's goals.706    Today's hearing marks an opportunity to do so by hearing707from our witnesses on how to return the Clean Water Act to its708goal of protecting our water bodies and allowing important709projects to get done.710    [Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]711712 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress713   from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water714   Resources and Environment715716    For over fifty years, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has functioned to717improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams throughout the718country, including in my home state of Georgia. Back in 1972, when719Congress passed the CWA, it recognized the importance of a federal-720state partnership as crucial to improving water quality, and to721providing a regulatory system that communities could realistically722follow.723    While the Clean Water Act has had many successes in maintaining and724improving water quality for the benefits of citizens and industries725nationwide, it unfortunately has also been used to slow or stop726progress on important projects.727    The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has begun this728Congress by focusing on the theme ``America Builds,'' because we know729how important it is to the well-being of our country that we remain a730world leader in our transportation networks, infrastructure731construction, and economic development.732    The Clean Water Act is one of the most consequential laws that our733country has, and it is important to ensure that it is being used to734balance the goals of water quality with ensuring project completion,735improving supply chain networks, and delivering economic prosperity. In736short, to let America build, the Clean Water Act needs to work.737    States, manufacturers, energy producers, cities, farmers, builders,738homeowners, utilities, and many others rely on a Clean Water Act739permitting process that is easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy740to implement. Unfortunately, too often these groups we refer to as741regulated communities are left in the dark or actively undermined by742increased regulation under the CWA by trial lawyers looking to make a743buck, entrenched bureaucrats who don't have the country's best744interests at heart, and administrations who bend the knee to radical745environmental activists.746    Now is the time to revisit the Clean Water Act, to ensure that it747puts America first. To do this, we need to hear from those most748affected by the law in order to know how we can improve our regulatory749environment, without decreasing protections for water quality.750    President Trump has recognized the importance of unleashing our751nation's natural resources, ramping up energy production, and752maintaining our physical infrastructure. These priorities will enhance753the Trump administration's ability to pursue an America first agenda754that lets America build.755    As the Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee756I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to ensure excellence757in the transportation and infrastructure space and furthering the758President's goals.759    Today's hearing marks an opportunity to do so by hearing from our760witnesses on how to return the Clean Water Act to its goal of761protecting our waterbodies and allowing important projects to get done.762763    Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Scholten for 5764minutes for an opening statement.765766         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN OF767          MICHIGAN, VICE RANKING MEMBER,  SUBCOMMITTEE ON768          WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT769770    Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chairman Collins, and771congratulations for your selection to lead the Subcommittee on772Water Resources and Environment. I look forward to working with773you, as the vice ranking member, in meeting the water-related774needs of our Nation, our communities, and the hard-working775families that we represent.776    I am privileged to serve Michigan's Third Congressional777District in Congress, representing miles of beautiful Lake778Michigan shoreline. It is a district whose history, lifestyle,779and economic well-being are bound with the health of the Great780Lakes.781    The Great Lakes are arguably the largest source of782freshwater on the surface of the earth, containing roughly 20783percent of the world's freshwater supply. For our region, the784protections of the Great Lakes and the health of our785environment is not a partisan issue, it is something that is786ingrained in our culture, as we responsibly teach the next787generation to be good stewards of our environment.788    Our quality of life and our very existence depend on clean789water for everyday consumption--for commerce, recreation, and790the overall economic vitality of the region. It supports our791farmers who grow their crops from apples to pears, peach trees,792and soybeans. It supports the foundation of the great craft793beer that forms Beer City, USA, that I am so proud to794represent.795    That is why I am so deeply concerned with the harm that796this administration and the allies in Congress are imposing on797our clean water future.798    In just 3 weeks, the President has thrown cities and towns799into chaos by shutting down funding allocated by Congress for800water infrastructure projects, including the historic801investments in water infrastructure provided through the802Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This disarray has forced803communities of all sizes to reevaluate how to deliver critical804water infrastructure projects and will result in these projects805taking longer, costing more, and ultimately delaying critical806local economic development, and environmental and public health807benefits.808    The administration's efforts will also undermine the809roughly 28,000 jobs that are created for every $1 billion in810water infrastructure investment, putting the jobs of laborers811and manufacturers at risk, in addition to threatening our812supply chains.813    Finally, these actions will hit the wallets of hard-working814American families who will see higher water bills because of815this uncertainty, at the same time that inflation is back on816the rise.817    The silence of my colleagues across the aisle whose States818and communities are equally impacted by the President's moves819to undermine water infrastructure spending is somewhat820surprising. It is my sincere hope that this silence is not a821green light for further reduction in Federal water822infrastructure spending. We need it more now than ever. Our823communities cannot withstand further setbacks to Federal and824State efforts to protect our water and our environment, and we825cannot allow the President and his allies to burden American826families with increased costs and public health risks.827    I welcome my colleagues to join me as I stand firmly in828defense of our Great Lakes and freshwater supplies across the829country to ensure a healthy environment and a strong economy830for future generations.831    We can do both, and I look forward to working with anyone832to realize this goal.833    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.834    [Ms. Scholten's prepared statement follows:]835836Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Con-837  gress  from  the  State  of Michigan,  and  Vice Ranking Member,  Sub-838  committee on Water Resources and Environment839840    Thank you, Chairman Collins, and congratulations for your selection841to lead the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. I look842forward to working with you as the Vice Ranking Member in meeting the843water-related needs of our nation, our communities, and the hardworking844families that we represent.845    I'm privileged to serve Michigan's 3rd Congressional District in846Congress, representing miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline. It's847a district whose history, lifestyle, and economic well-being are bound848with the health of the Great Lakes.849    The Great Lakes are arguably the largest source of freshwater on850the surface of the Earth, containing roughly 20 percent of the world's851freshwater supply. For our region, the protections of the Great Lakes852and the health of our environment is not a partisan issue, it's853something that is ingrained in our culture, as we responsibly teach the854next generation to be good stewards of our environment.855    Our quality of life and our very existence depend on clean water856for everyday consumption--for commerce, recreation, and the overall857economic vitality of the region. It supports our farmers who grow their858crops from apples to pears, peach trees and soybeans. It supports the859foundation of the great craft beer that forms Beer City, USA, that I'm860so proud to represent. That is why I am so deeply concerned with the861harm that this administration and the allies in Congress are imposing862on our clean water future.863    In just three weeks, the President has thrown cities and towns into864chaos by shutting down funding allocated by Congress for water865infrastructure projects, including the historic investments in water866infrastructure provided through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This867disarray has forced communities of all sizes to re-evaluate how to868deliver critical water infrastructure projects and will result in these869projects taking longer, costing more, and ultimately delaying critical870local economic development, environmental and public health benefits.871The administration's efforts will also undermine the roughly 28,000872jobs that are created for every billion dollars in water infrastructure873investment, putting the jobs of laborers and manufacturers at risk, in874addition to threatening our supply chains.875    Finally, these actions will hit the wallets of hardworking American876families who will see higher water bills because of this uncertainty at877the same time that inflation is back on the rise. The silence of my878colleagues across the aisle whose states and communities are equally879impacted by the President's moves to undermine water infrastructure880spending is somewhat surprising. It is my sincere hope that this881silence is not a green light for further reduction in federal water882infrastructure spending. We need it more now than ever. Our communities883cannot withstand further setbacks to federal and state efforts to884protect our water and our environment, and we cannot allow the885President and his allies to burden American families with increased886costs and public health risks.887    I welcome my colleagues to join me as I stand firmly in defense of888our Great Lakes and freshwater supplies across the country to ensure a889healthy environment and a strong economy for future generations. We can890do both, and I look forward to working with anyone to realize this891goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.892893    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of894the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening895statement.896897         OPENING  STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASH-898          INGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR-899          TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE900901    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Collins, for902holding this hearing on the ways we can ensure that job-903creating infrastructure keeps America moving and reduces supply904chain challenges.905    This hearing is part of a series, ``America Builds,'' and906thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, America is907building again, and we need to keep it going.908    Holding up job-creating investments will not help America909build. Slashing the workforce of agencies that play a critical910role in permitting these projects will not keep America911building.912    Congress invested $13.8 billion in the Bipartisan913Infrastructure Law to upgrade wastewater systems, prevent914pollution, and support the quality of life across the country.915These investments are critical, providing a lifeline to916communities struggling to maintain water quality.917    These investments equal jobs. For every $1 billion invested918in cleaning up pollution in your water, approximately 28,000919jobs are created, according to the National Utility Contractors920Association.921    These investments are helping drive the low 4-percent922unemployment rate while modernizing our infrastructure.923    In just the last few years, in my own district, Washington924State's Second District, local workers are upgrading aging925sewer and water equipment and protecting the local groundwater926supply.927    From a $1.4 million State Revolving Fund loan in Whatcom928County for replacing antiquated equipment, to a $200,000929engineering review grant to the Lummi Nation for assessing930their wastewater needs, these job-creating investments are931making a difference.932    And the work isn't finished. The most recent Environmental933Protection Agency report on wastewater infrastructure needs934estimated we would need $271 billion nationwide over the next93520 years to meet the standards that keep pollution out of your936water.937    These challenges are not limited to one region; they affect938communities from coast to coast, from my coast, to the chair's939coast, to the inland lakes and rivers of the vice ranking940member.941    Part of keeping America building is improving permitting942for infrastructure projects. Through the BIL, the Inflation943Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act, we are seeing the benefits of944investing in the workforce and the technology necessary to945approve projects.946    Through investments in enhancing permitting efficiency947across the Federal Government, the Biden administration reduced948the median time to complete an environmental impact statement949by 8 months--23 percent faster than Trump 1.0. So, let's keep950that going.951    We can invest in infrastructure and protect the environment952at the same time, ensuring that America builds while also953making sure America breathes clean air and drinks clean water.954    When Congress passed the Clean Water Act over 50 years ago,955Members recognized the effectiveness and importance of the956comprehensive, pollution-prevention measures--stopping957pollution before it happens rather than simply cleaning it up.958    The Clean Water Act was enacted with an overwhelming959bipartisan majority. Before this law, rivers and lakes served960as little more than open sewers. Lake Erie was pronounced dead961and Ohio's Cuyahoga River literally caught on fire.962    But thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Cascade River in my963district was designated as an Outstanding Resource Water by the964State of Washington, which protects that river from future965activities or development that would degrade water quality.966    For decades, Republicans and Democrats shared these967bipartisan principles to defend clean water, maintain a strong968Federal-State partnership to protect our waters, stop pollution969from entering the system in the first place, and support a970robust Federal floor of protections while allowing States to do971more, but not less.972    And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law shows what happens973when Congress does the right things and funds infrastructure.974    Step 1 to keep the progress going is to ensure that States975and local governments can continue to depend on this Federal976investment. Freezing funds from the State Revolving Fund, from977the Superfund, or other EPA programs is a step backwards.978    Predictable, reliable funding helps State and local979government leaders make their decisions on allocating dollars980to ensure the biggest bang for the buck.981    Sowing chaos and uncertainty on Federal and State efforts982to protect our water and environment will not continue to help983the American people.984    Working in a bipartisan fashion, Congress passed985comprehensive environmental protection laws like the Clean986Water Act and historic investments in infrastructure like the987Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I look forward to finding ways988to build on these bipartisan accomplishments this Congress.989    I want to thank our witnesses, all of them, for being here990today. I look forward to your testimony, and with that, I yield991back.992    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]993994 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress995   from the  State of Washington,  and  Ranking Member,  Committee on996   Transportation and Infrastructure997998    Thank you, Chairman Collins, for holding this hearing on ways we999can ensure job-creating infrastructure keeps America moving and reduces1000supply chain challenges.1001    This hearing is part of a series, ``America Builds.'' Thanks to the1002Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, America is building again, and we need1003to keep it going.1004    Holding up job-creating investments will not help America build.1005Slashing the workforce of agencies that play a critical role in1006permitting these projects will not keep America building.1007    Congress invested $13.8 billion in the BIL to upgrade wastewater1008systems, prevent pollution and support quality of life across the1009country.1010    These investments are critical, providing a lifeline to communities1011struggling to maintain water quality.1012    These investments equal jobs.1013    For every $1 billion invested in cleaning up pollution in your1014water, approximately 28,000 jobs are created, according to the National1015Utility Contractors Association.1016    These investments are helping drive the low, 4 percent unemployment1017rate while modernizing our infrastructure.1018    In just the last few years, in my own district, Washington State's1019Second District, local workers are upgrading aging sewer and water1020equipment and protecting local groundwater supply.1021    From a $1.4 million State Revolving Fund (SFR) loan in Whatcom1022County for replacing antiquated equipment to a $200,000 engineering1023review grant to Lummi Nation for assessing their wastewater needs,1024these job-creating investments are making a difference.1025    And the work isn't finished. The most recent Environmental1026Protection Agency (EPA) report on wastewater infrastructure needs1027estimated we would need $271 billion nationwide over the next twenty1028years to meet standards that keep pollution out of your water.1029    These challenges are not limited to one region; they affect1030communities from coast to coast, from my coast, to the Chair's coast,1031to the inland lakes and rivers of the Vice Ranking Member.1032    Part of keeping America building is improving permitting for1033infrastructure projects. Through the BIL, the Inflation Reduction Act1034and the CHIPS Act, we are seeing the benefits of investing in the1035workforce and technology necessary to approve projects.1036    Through investments in enhancing permitting efficiency across the1037federal government, the Biden administration reduced the median time to1038complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by eight months--231039percent faster than Trump 1.0.1040    So let's keep that going.1041    We can invest in infrastructure and protect the environment at the1042same time, ensuring that America builds while also making sure that1043America breathes clean air and drinks clean water.1044    When Congress passed the Clean Water Act over 50 years ago, Members1045recognized the effectiveness and importance of comprehensive pollution1046prevention measures--stopping pollution before it happens rather than1047simply cleaning it up.1048    The Clean Water Act was enacted with an overwhelming bipartisan1049majority. Before this law, rivers and lakes served as little more than1050open sewers--Lake Erie was pronounced ``dead,'' and Ohio's Cuyahoga1051River literally caught on fire.1052    Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Cascade River in my district was1053designated as an Outstanding Resource Water by the State of Washington,1054which protects that river from future activities or development that1055would degrade water quality.1056    For decades, Republicans and Democrats shared these bipartisan1057principles to defend clean water: maintain a strong federal-state1058partnership to protect our waters; stop pollution from entering the1059system in the first place; and support a robust federal floor of1060protections while allowing states to do more, but not less.1061    The BIL shows what happens when Congress does the right thing and1062funds infrastructure.1063    Step one to keep the progress going is ensuring that states and1064local government leaders can continue to depend on federal investment.1065    Freezing funds from the State Revolving Fund, Superfund or other1066EPA programs is a step backwards.1067    Predictable, reliable funding helps states and local government1068leaders make decisions on allocating their taxpayer dollars to ensure1069the biggest bang for the buck.1070    Sowing chaos and uncertainty on federal and state efforts to1071protect our water and environment will not continue to help the1072American people.1073    Working in a bipartisan fashion, Congress passed comprehensive1074environmental protection laws like the Clean Water Act and historic1075investments in infrastructure like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.1076    I look forward to finding ways to build on these bipartisan1077accomplishments this Congress.1078    Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to1079your testimony.10801081    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. I want to welcome our1082witnesses. Thank you for your time and for being here today.1083    We have with us today Mr. Robert Singletary, executive1084director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality;1085the Honorable Shawn LaTourette, commissioner of the New Jersey1086Department of Environmental Protection; Mr. Noah Hanners,1087executive vice president of the Nucor Corporation, on behalf of1088the National Association of Manufacturers; and Mr. Buddy1089Hasten, president and CEO of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative1090Corporation, on behalf of the National Rural Electric1091Cooperative Association.1092    I want to briefly go over the lighting system for you there1093in case you don't know. There are three lights. The green means1094you have plenty of time, the yellow means you need to start1095finishing up, and of course, the red means to go ahead and1096conclude with your remarks.1097    I am going to also ask for unanimous consent that the1098witnesses' full statements be included in the record.1099    Without objection, so ordered.1100    I also ask unanimous consent that the record of today's1101hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have1102provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them1103in writing.1104    Without objection, so ordered.1105    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open1106for 15 days for any additional comments and information1107submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record1108of today's hearing.1109    Without objection, so ordered.1110    As your written testimony has been made part of the record,1111the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 51112minutes.1113    And with that, Mr. Singletary, you are recognized for 51114minutes for your testimony.11151116     TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. SINGLETARY, EXECUTIVE DIREC-1117      TOR, OKLAHOMA  DEPARTMENT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  QUAL-1118      ITY;  HON. SHAWN M. LaTOURETTE,  COMMISSIONER, NEW1119      JERSEY  DEPARTMENT  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION;1120      NOAH HANNERS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NUCOR COR-1121      PORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF1122      MANUFACTURERS;  AND  BUDDY HASTEN,  PRESIDENT  AND1123      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,  ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES OF1124      ARKANSAS,  ON  BEHALF  OF THE NATIONAL RURAL ELEC-1125      TRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION11261127     TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. SINGLETARY, EXECUTIVE DIREC-1128      TOR, OKLAHOMA  DEPARTMENT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  QUAL-1129      ITY11301131    Mr. Singletary. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Vice1132Ranking Member Scholten, members of the committee. My name is1133Rob Singletary, and I have the privilege to serve as the1134executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental1135Quality.1136    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this1137morning and to share Oklahoma's views on the implementation of1138various portions of the Federal Clean Water Act.1139    The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is the1140primary agency responsible for protecting public health and the1141environment in the State of Oklahoma, and our responsibilities1142include the implementation of the Clean Water Act within our1143State.1144    This morning, my comments are focused primarily on section1145401 of the Clean Water Act with just a few minor comments1146related to section 402 and ``waters of the U.S.''1147    To begin, Oklahoma is a fierce proponent of the proper1148implementation of cooperative federalism as well as the right1149of States to set their own water quality standards and to1150protect water quality within their borders.1151    Section 401 of the act provides a powerful and very1152important tool that allows States to ensure that water quality1153within their borders is properly protected.1154    However, the 401 certification process has been used in the1155past as an opportunity to address general or nonwater quality-1156related concerns. We feel strongly that this powerful tool1157should be reserved for efforts specifically related to water-1158resource protection.1159    We believe that allowing the scope of this review under1160this provision to be broadened beyond the protection of water1161resources would undermine the legitimacy of the 4011162certification process and misalign it from the overall purpose1163of the Clean Water Act.1164    In addition, even if a particular State was not interested1165in expanding the process beyond the protection of water1166resources, third parties could potentially seek to force a1167State to address broader concerns through this process if a1168broader scope of review was adopted.1169    Even the scope of the current version of the rule, which1170purports to limit the 401 certification review to water-related1171impacts, is still ambiguous and potentially subject to1172misapplication.1173    This ambiguity expands the workloads of State agencies,1174complicates and lengthens the review process, and makes1175certification determinations more vulnerable to legal1176challenges, potentially forcing State agencies to defend in1177court why they did or did not consider every potential water1178quality-related impact, no matter how distant or how unlikely.1179    This, of course, would be a very difficult legal standard1180to meet.1181    If statutory changes are ever considered, we advocate for1182clarifying language that would ensure that future EPA1183administrations are unable to expand the use of this process1184beyond the protection of water resources or beyond those water-1185quality impacts clearly attributable to the project at issue.1186    In regard to section 402, currently the States are only1187allowed to issue NPDES permits for periods of 5 years or less.1188We strongly support providing States with the flexibility, at1189their discretion, to issue NPDES permits for longer periods, up1190to 10 years.1191    Providing a longer period would provide more certainty for1192applicants, and it would effectively cut the permitting process1193in half over that 10-year period.1194    In regard to ``waters of the U.S.,'' Oklahoma has not1195sought assumption of the section 404 permitting program. So,1196our permitting programs are focused solely on stormwater and1197direct discharge permits.1198    Since our agency has delegation under section 402 to issue1199NPDES permits into ``waters of the U.S.,'' and since we have1200authority to issue discharge permits into all other waters of1201the State, our permitting programs are not significantly1202impacted by the welcome changes to the definition of ``waters1203of the U.S.,'' under the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett.1204    However, we have heard from applicants within the State1205that they do continue to experience delays in receiving1206applicability determinations from our Federal counterparts.1207    We believe it would be useful if there was a joint Federal-1208State effort, employing the best available data and tools to1209map jurisdictional waters.1210    Of course, this type of initiative would require ongoing1211effort and some expense, but it would likely decrease1212permitting timelines and provide more clarity or certainty to1213applicants.1214    Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this1215important discussion. As always, we look forward to working1216with you, with our Federal co-regulators, and other1217stakeholders as we pursue our mission to protect and improve1218public health and the environment in a manner that supports and1219advances prosperity for current and future generations.1220    Thank you.1221    [Mr. Singletary's prepared statement follows:]12221223Prepared Statement of Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director, Oklahoma1224                 Department of Environmental Quality12251226                               Testimony12271228    Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members1229of the Subcommittee. My name is Rob Singletary and I have the privilege1230to serve as the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of1231Environmental Quality. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before1232you this morning and to share Oklahoma's views on the implementation of1233various portions of the Federal Clean Water Act.1234    The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is the primary1235agency responsible for protecting human health and the environment in1236the State of Oklahoma, and our responsibilities include the1237implementation of the Clean Water Act within the State.12381239                      Clean Water Act Section 40112401241    To begin, Oklahoma is a fierce proponent of the proper1242implementation of cooperative federalism, as well as the right of1243States to set water quality standards and to protect water quality (in1244general) within their boundaries. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act1245provides a powerful tool that allows States to ensure that water1246quality within their boundaries is properly protected. However, the1247Sec.  401 certification process has been used (in the past) as an1248opportunity to address general or non-water quality related concerns.1249We feel strongly that this powerful tool should be reserved for efforts1250specifically related to the protection of water resources.1251    Although not directly an issue with the current rule, we believe1252that allowing the scope of review under this Clean Water Act provision1253to be broadened beyond the protection of water resources (as has been1254done in the past) would undermine the legitimacy of the Sec.  4011255certification process and misalign it from the overall purpose of the1256Clean Water Act. In addition, even if a particular State was not1257interested in expanding the process beyond the protection of water1258resources, third parties could potentially seek to force a State to1259address broader concerns through this process--if the broader scope of1260review was allowed.1261    Even the scope of the current version of EPA's implementing rule,1262which purports to limit the Sec.  401 certification review to water1263related impacts, is still ambiguous and potentially subject to1264misapplication. For example, where a US Army Corps of Engineers permit1265would authorize discharges associated with building a pipeline, the1266current rule would require the certifying State to evaluate not only1267the effects of the discharges the Corps permit would authorize, but1268also any effects of operating the pipeline even though the operation1269may be subject to a different Federal license or permit. Effectively,1270this would result in the certifying authority addressing the adverse1271impacts contributed to by a federally licensed permitted activity, not1272just the adverse water quality impacts caused exclusively by the1273activity.1274    This ambiguity expands the workload of State agencies, complicates1275and lengthens the review process, and makes certification1276determinations more vulnerable to legal challenge--potentially forcing1277State agencies to defend in court why they did or did not consider1278every potential ``water-quality related'' impact of a project, a1279difficult legal standard to meet.1280    We don't anticipate that the current EPA administration will seek1281to broaden such review; however, if statutory changes are ever1282considered, we would advocate for clarifying language that would ensure1283that future EPA administrations would not seek to promulgate1284regulations expanding the use of this process beyond the protection of1285water resources or beyond those water quality impacts clearly1286attributable to the project at issue. It's important to mention that1287even in the event that unforeseen impacts to water quality were to1288occur, we (in Oklahoma at least) still have the authority to address1289any such pollution through our State program and State authority.12901291                  Waters of the United States (WOTUS)12921293    In regard to WOTUS, Oklahoma has not sought authority under Sec.1294404 of the CWA, so our implementation (except for the 401 certification1295process) is focused solely on stormwater and discharge permits. Since1296our agency has delegation to issue NPDES permits into WOTUS under Sec.1297402 of the Act and since we have State authority to issue discharge1298permits in all other waters of the State, our programs (except, of1299course, for our Sec.  401 certification program) are not directly1300impacted by the welcomed changes to the definition of WOTUS under the1301Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. However, we have anecdotally heard1302from applicants within the State that they continue to experience some1303delays in receiving Applicability Determinations from our Federal1304counterparts. We believe it would be useful if there was a joint1305Federal/State effort (employing the best available data and tools, of1306course) to map jurisdictional waters. This type of initiative would1307require ongoing effort, but it would likely decrease permitting1308timelines and provide more clarity or certainty to applicants.13091310                               Conclusion13111312    Again, thank you for the opportunity to come before you and to1313participate in this important discussion. As always, we look forward to1314working with you, our federal co-regulators, and other stakeholders, as1315we pursue our mission to protect and improve human health and the1316environment in a manner that supports and advances prosperity for1317current and future generations. Thank you!13181319    Mr. Collins. All right. The Chair will now recognize1320Representative Pou to introduce our next witness, Commissioner1321LaTourette.1322    Ms. Pou. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member1323Scholten. Thank you for holding this hearing on one of the most1324vital and limited resources in our Nation: clean water.1325    I am privileged to represent the Ninth Congressional1326District of New Jersey, and today, I am truly honored to be1327able to introduce one of our witnesses today, an expert in1328environmental issues, a leader in the great State of New1329Jersey, and a friend, Commissioner Shawn LaTourette.1330    Commissioner LaTourette has over 25 years of experience in1331environmental quality assurance, natural resource management,1332and infrastructure development.1333    When I was in the New Jersey State Senate, I was proud to1334vote to confirm him 4 years ago as our commissioner of1335environmental protection.1336    Commissioner, thank you for joining us today.1337    Mr. Collins. Thank you.1338    Next, Commissioner LaTourette, you are recognized for 51339minutes for your testimony.13401341         TESTIMONY OF HON. SHAWN M. LaTOURETTE,  COMMIS-1342          SIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL1343          PROTECTION13441345    Mr. LaTourette. Well, good morning to this entire1346committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing on this1347topic. Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking Member Scholten, our own1348Congresswoman Pou, thank you very much, honored to join you.1349    I have the privilege of serving the 9.3 million residents1350that call New Jersey home as their commissioner of1351environmental protection.1352    I also serve as a part-time adjunct professor of1353environmental law at the Rutgers Law School, and prior to my1354public service career, I was an attorney adviser that1355specialized in transportation and infrastructure projects,1356giving counsel to regulated entities on permitting issues1357including under the Clean Water Act.1358    Today, I hope to offer this committee a perspective from1359New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the Nation, and1360the perspective of a State regulator, because, as you know,1361State entities, like the New Jersey Department of Environmental1362Protection, implement the Clean Water Act.1363    Much like this subcommittee's work to evaluate regulatory1364processes and look for opportunities to improve them, so too do1365my NJDEP colleagues, working to consistently improve our1366programs and services, and in doing so, we ask ourselves hard1367questions about how we can best achieve the delicate balance of1368promoting economic growth and protecting the public health and1369the environment.1370    In answering those questions, we ground ourselves in the1371fact that natural capital is always performing valuable1372services for the public.1373    Our air, our land, our fish, our wildlife, they are all1374doing important work that our fellow residents would have to1375pay for if we don't act thoughtfully to conserve our resources1376and invest in improvements.1377    For example, degrade the marshes and wetlands that filter1378our water for free, or permit the discharge of too many1379pollutants into our waterways, and our residents and taxpayers1380pay more to build and operate drinking water treatment plants.1381    There is a poignant example of this balance within one of1382New Jersey's most notable industries: tourism. Our small but1383densely populated State has one of the Nation's largest1384coastlines, breathtaking bays, tidal rivers, and the famed1385Jersey Shore that is home to millions and that millions more1386visit each year as their getaway.1387    As this subcommittee knows, the Clean Water Act is a1388program of cooperative federalism that relies upon partnership1389between the States and the Federal Government to effectuate the1390national goal of ridding ourselves of pollutants in waterways1391and achieving fishable and swimmable waters.1392    The beauty of cooperative federalism lies in how the law1393empowers and supports States in taking local considerations1394into account, while meeting minimum Federal standards, and you1395see that cooperative federalism at play in section 401.1396    Additionally, as one of only two States that have1397successfully assumed responsibility for implementing section1398404, our wetland program provides another example of1399cooperative federalism under the Clean Water Act.1400    We initially sought assumption for two primary reasons: the1401first, to provide protective measures to minimize or avoid1402wetland disturbance, but importantly, to promote a streamlined,1403consistent, and more accessible permitting process, because in1404the absence of assumption, project applicants were often1405challenged to adhere to two different schemes under Federal and1406under State law.1407    In New Jersey, we have seen the stability of the wetlands1408program under 404 firsthand in that while under Federal law,1409404 has been subject of perennial change, New Jersey's assumed1410program has remained stable for decades, unaffected by changes1411at the Federal level. And that is a level of continuity that1412our regulating community expects and demands.1413    And as this committee also knows, our Nation's water1414infrastructure is critically important and underfunded. Even1415with the infusion of a mass of resources from the Bipartisan1416Infrastructure Law, we still have a $1.2 trillion national need1417for water infrastructure investment over the next 20 years.1418    We in New Jersey have used our Clean Water State Revolving1419Fund Program to invest in our communities, the health of our1420waterways, and the businesses that need clean water to thrive.1421    What I hope this committee learns today from our discussion1422is that we always have to be careful not to overburden business1423with regulation and processes that may not be as valuable to1424the public. But we also have to recognize the inextricable link1425between economic development and environmental protection.1426    But let us not make false choices between a healthy1427environment and a healthy economy. Thank you.1428    [Mr. LaTourette's prepared statement follows:]14291430   Prepared Statement of Hon. Shawn M. LaTourette, Commissioner, New1431             Jersey Department of Environmental Protection14321433    Good morning, Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking Member Scholten, and1434esteemed members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and1435Environment. I am honored by your invitation to join this morning's1436Subcommittee hearing on ``Clean Water Act Permitting and Project1437Delivery.'' For those members I have yet to meet, my name is Shawn1438LaTourette, and I have the privilege of serving the 9.3 million1439residents of the State of New Jersey as their Commissioner of1440Environmental Protection. I also serve as the chairperson of the1441Infrastructure Working Group of the Environmental Council of the1442States, the nonpartisan organization of state environmental leaders,1443and as an adjunct professor of environmental law at Rutgers Law School.1444Prior to my public service career, I was an attorney-advisor that1445specialized in transportation and infrastructure projects and provided1446counsel to private industry and public entities on permitting,1447including under the Clean Water Act.1448    Today, I hope to offer this Subcommittee a perspective from New1449Jersey--the most densely populated state in the nation--and the1450perspective of a state regulator, because, as you know, the Clean Water1451Act is largely implemented on the state level by agencies like the New1452Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).1453    The moniker ``environmental protection'' actually fails to capture1454the full scope of services that agencies like NJDEP provide for the1455public we serve--because our work sits squarely at the intersection of1456environmental, health, and economic improvement. We do not protect our1457environment simply because natural beauty should be recognized and1458preserved, but because the economic growth and long-term success of our1459communities demands that the government maintain the free public1460services that clean, healthy, and accessible natural capital provides1461for the people we all serve.1462    Much like this Subcommittee's work to evaluate regulatory processes1463and identify opportunities to expedite infrastructure development1464without sacrificing environmental quality, my NJDEP colleagues and I1465have committed ourselves to a practice of continual process1466improvement. As we work to consistently improve our programs and1467services, we ask ourselves hard questions about how best we can achieve1468the delicate balance of promoting economic growth while improving and1469protecting public health and the environment we all share.1470    In answering those questions, we ground ourselves in the fact that1471natural capital is always performing valuable but largely invisible1472services for the public. Our air, land, water, fish, wildlife and their1473habitats are all doing important work that our fellow residents and1474taxpayers would otherwise have to pay for if we do not act thoughtfully1475to conserve natural resources and invest in environmental improvements.1476Degrade the wetlands and marshes, which filter our water for free, or1477permit the discharge of too many pollutants into our waterways, and our1478residents will pay more to build and operate drinking water treatment1479plants. Remove too much riparian vegetation (i.e., the trees whose1480roots literally hold together our riverbanks and help control flooding)1481and our residents pay to build a flood wall where that forest once was1482that protected their community from riverine flooding.1483    In New Jersey, we see clearly our residents' expectation that their1484government will work to facilitate economic growth and opportunity1485while also improving and protecting water quality and, by extension,1486public health. There is a poignant example within one of New Jersey's1487most notable industries: tourism. Our small densely populated state has1488one of the nation's largest coastlines. Breathtaking bays, tidal1489rivers, and the famed Jersey Shore are home to millions, a cherished1490getaway for millions more, and an economic engine that helps powers our1491state and region. Our pristine beaches and quaint shore towns drive $501492billion in annual travel and tourism spending. And all of that depends1493on one thing: the quality of our waters.14941495                  The Value of Cooperative Federalism14961497    As this Subcommittee knows, the Clean Water Act is a program of1498cooperative federalism that relies upon a partnership between the1499states and the federal government to effectuate our shared national1500goal of improving and maintaining the quality of our waterways. The1501beauty of cooperative federalism as seen through the Clean Water Act1502lies in how the law empowers and supports state regulatory programs in1503taking local conditions into account while meeting minimum federal1504standards. This enables states to integrate their more discrete natural1505resource and economic considerations when determining how best to1506improve water quality.1507    This cooperative federalism is at play in Section 401 of the Clean1508Water Act, which enables states to review federal actions or federally1509regulated activities that may result in discharges to waters within a1510state's jurisdiction to ensure that federal action does not conflict1511with state water quality requirements, standards, or criteria. As just1512one New Jersey example of Section 401 in practice, note that NJDEP1513routinely denies a Water Quality Certification for all nationwide1514permits (NWPs) adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This denial1515is grounded in the fact that New Jersey administers its own water1516quality and related programs that have historically exceeded minimal1517federal standards. In short, NJDEP offers statewide general permits for1518the same activities governed by the NWPs, but with different and more1519stringent criteria. Thus, we routinely find that the NWPs do not1520adequately protect the health and safety of our jurisdictional waters.1521The practical application is that permit applicants must obtain a state1522permit for activities that would otherwise be subject to the NWPs.1523    As one of only two states that have successfully assumed1524responsibility for implementing Section 404, New Jersey's wetland1525program provides another important reflection on cooperative federalism1526under the Clean Water Act. New Jersey sought assumption to achieve two1527primary goals: (1) ensure protective measures that avoid or minimize1528wetland disturbance and (2) provide a streamlined, consistent, and more1529accessible permitting process. In the absence of assumption, project1530applicants were often challenged to adhere to two different but1531overlapping permitting processes at both the state and federal levels.1532With assumption, receipt of a state-issued permit obviated the1533requirement for a federal permit for the same regulated activity,1534especially since New Jersey's wetland program exceeds federal minimum1535standards.1536    Very importantly, assumption has provided a measure of consistency1537and reliability for New Jersey's regulated community. As federal1538implementation of Section 404 has been the subject of perennial change,1539New Jersey's assumed program has remained stable for several decades1540because state wetlands law remains unaffected by changes at the federal1541level. New Jersey's regulated community has appreciated this stability1542and has advocated for the State assumption. Additionally, assumption1543has enabled New Jersey to integrate its wetland program with other1544water-resource and watershed-management functions to implement one1545comprehensive program. As a result, NJDEP staff consider potential1546impacts more completely and seek to avoid or minimize potential1547conflicts resulting from isolated programs doing isolated reviews. This1548is both efficient and more protective of human health and the1549environment.15501551           The Criticality of Water Infrastructure Investment15521553    As this Subcommittee knows all too well, our nation's1554infrastructure is the backbone of our economy. We rely on water system1555assets to ensure that our people, communities, and businesses can1556thrive. As the most densely populated state in the nation, and with a1557thriving commercial and industrial sector, the stakes are particularly1558high for New Jersey when it comes to water infrastructure. The most1559recent Clean Water and Drinking Water needs surveys estimate twenty-1560year nationwide needs of over $1.2 trillion, which includes $31.61561billion in needs in New Jersey. Clean Water needs alone are estimated1562at $630 billion nationally over the next twenty years, which includes1563$19.4 billion in needs in New Jersey.1564    Over the last several years, New Jersey has put its base Clean1565Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and the added funds1566made available under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to work for the1567people, communities, and business of our state. The continuity of these1568federal funding sources is critical to our Water Infrastructure1569Investment Plan, which brings state, federal, and private market funds1570together to extend the reach and impact of our investments. With1571crucial federal support, our New Jersey Water Bank facilitated more1572than $1 billion of water infrastructure investments in the prior state1573fiscal year--the most project value facilitated in a single year.1574    All told, over the life of our water infrastructure program, the1575New Jersey Water Bank has issued $9 billion in low-interest long-term1576loans and has an additional $2 billion in short-term construction loans1577outstanding. Importantly, through reduced interest costs and principal1578forgiveness, these funding programs have saved New Jersey taxpayers1579$3.2 billion. The positive impact of these programs on our State's1580economy cannot be understated. Beyond the fact water infrastructure1581investments enable our communities and businesses to grow and thrive,1582our funding program itself has generated nearly 170,000 direct, one-1583year construction jobs throughout New Jersey.1584    The uncertainty created by intended or suspected disturbance to1585longstanding and reliable federal funding sources too cannot be1586understated. As an example, our water infrastructure funding program1587runs concurrent to our state fiscal year, which begins July 1. This1588means that right now, we are in the process of formulating our Clean1589Water SRF Intended Use Plan, which provides water utilities,1590contractors, and others in the regulated community with guidance about1591how best to sequence years-long infrastructure projects to maximize1592savings. A disruption in federal funding for Clean Water programs, even1593a temporary freeze, has cascading effects across the water sector and1594other industries, and can lead to the delay or abandonment of projects1595that are critical to economic development and to the protection of1596public health and the environment.15971598                               Conclusion15991600    In administering Clean Water Act permitting and funding programs,1601my NJDEP colleagues and I are ever mindful of the balance we must1602strike. We must always be careful not to overburden business with1603regulation and process that may not be as valuable to the public. We1604must also be attentive to the reality that the environmental1605externalities we fail to avoid or correct in one sector often become a1606cost dislocated to another sector, and that taxpayers are too often the1607ones left holding the bag. For example, the externalities wrought by a1608lack of adequate pollution control on wastewater discharges must1609inevitably be addressed and can fall unfairly upon the shoulders of1610other users of a waterway--be it the taxpayer-funded drinking water1611system that must now remove those pollutants, the commercial or1612recreational fisherman foreclosed from waters that are not fishable, or1613the disruption of tourist-serving businesses that line beaches forced1614closed due to poor water quality.1615    New Jersey has a long, proud, and bipartisan history of exceeding1616minimum federal standards for water quality, knowing that the quality1617of our waters bears directly upon our economic vitality. We view the1618protection and improvement of public health, safety, and the1619environment as a sound investment--because that is what our residents1620and economy demand. This Subcommittee may find that New Jersey provides1621an important case study for achieving balance among environmental1622quality and economic goals. We have assumed responsibility for critical1623sections of the Clean Water Act, enacted additional state-based water1624quality laws, and continued to grow our economy as we improve and1625protect public health and the environment. New Jersey is proof that a1626dynamic balance is possible without upending the Clean Water Act, which1627has not yet achieved its national goal of eliminating pollutant1628discharge into navigable waters and ensuring water quality that is1629fishable and swimmable. Let us not make false choices between a healthy1630environment and a healthy economy. Let us work instead to unite the1631forces of economic development and environmental improvement to promote1632the public good.16331634    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you.1635    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hanners for 5 minutes to give1636his testimony.16371638        TESTIMONY OF NOAH HANNERS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI-1639         DENT,  NUCOR CORPORATION,  ON BEHALF OF THE NA-1640         TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS16411642    Mr. Hanners. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member1643Larsen, Vice Ranking Member Scholten, and members of the1644subcommittee. My name is Noah Hanners, and I am proud to serve1645as executive vice president at Nucor Corporation, where I1646oversee our sheet products group.1647    Nucor is the largest and most diversified steel producer in1648the United States and the largest recycler of any type of1649material anywhere in North America, and we are the only1650American steel producer that makes 100 percent of its steel1651here in America.1652    Specifically, our method has a fraction of the carbon1653footprint and roughly 10 percent of the particulate emissions1654compared to an average integrated steel mill.1655    We use 95 percent less water than an average steel mill,1656and we capture and reprocess 86 percent of the process water we1657reuse before discharging.1658    Several of our 26, and soon to be 28, steel mill facilities1659also have strategically constructed stormwater retention ponds1660to capture stormwater runoff.1661    Manufacturers like Nucor create good jobs, drive1662innovation, and build our modern digital economy, all while1663making our environment cleaner.1664    But right now, cumbersome and overreaching permitting1665regulations are holding back progress and hurting our Nation's1666competitiveness. And we are not alone in this view.1667    In a recent survey of manufacturers, 72 percent said that1668the length and complexity of the permitting process affects1669their investment decisions.1670    If we want to grow America's economy, we need to fix this1671broken system.1672    Nucor can speak firsthand to the difficulties of navigating1673the Federal permitting process. In 2022, we announced the1674selection of Apple Grove, West Virginia, as the location for a1675new state-of-the-art sheet mill. At $3.5 billion, it is the1676largest manufacturing investment in the State's history.1677    Nucor sheet mills create an average of 800 full-time, high-1678paying manufacturing jobs, and we are proud to have already1679hired 300 West Virginia teammates. In addition, we anticipate1680approximately 2,000 contracting teammates at peak construction.1681    The strategic location of the mill on the Ohio River1682required us to seek Federal authorization under section 404 of1683the Clean Water Act.1684    As a responsible industry partner, we worked diligently1685with State and Federal agencies to gain the necessary approvals1686and begin turning dirt.1687    The permitting process was onerous. It required us to work1688with multiple Federal agencies with little direction and1689unclear timelines. This led to moving targets for our planning1690and execution, delaying the project and increasing costs.1691    America can do better to help manufacturers create good1692jobs in our communities while continuing to protect our1693environment.1694    Manufacturers have long advocated for commonsense1695permitting reforms. The National Association of Manufacturers1696supported bipartisan efforts, during the previous Congress, to1697update the NEPA process and speed up construction of energy1698projects.1699    Working together, policymakers can continue progress to1700achieve lasting, comprehensive permitting reform and make1701positive changes to our Nation's environmental laws.1702    This is critical as manufacturers contend with standards1703that are unreasonable and unworkable, such as those for PFAS1704and particulate matter.1705    Serious reforms should include manufacturers' priorities to1706provide certainty, streamline the permitting process, and give1707the regulated community a seat at the table.1708    This may be accomplished through changes to environmental1709laws, like the Clean Water Act, that expedite judicial review,1710create enforceable deadlines, and increase the use of1711categorical exclusions.1712    Last Congress, this committee took important steps toward1713reforming the Clean Water Act by advancing the Creating1714Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.1715    As you continue this work in the current Congress, we ask1716you to consider several areas for Clean Water Act reform:1717clarifying timelines for agency action and decisions during the1718permitting process; establishing clear, commonsense definitions1719regarding the scope of project areas subject to permitting and1720consultation requirements; provide certainty that permitting1721decisions are determinative and help prevent never-ending1722litigation; promote the use of general permits and speed up1723projects with limited impact on the environment; ensure the use1724of best available science when setting guidelines and rules;1725encourage State assumption of permitting responsibilities; and1726focus State authority under the Clean Water Act on water1727quality.1728    Nucor and America's manufacturers are the most advanced and1729sustainable in the world. Comprehensive permitting reform that1730increases certainty and removes unnecessary bureaucratic1731hurdles will enhance American economic competitiveness and1732protect our environment.1733    I encourage you to seize this opportunity, because when1734manufacturing wins, America wins. Thank you, and I look forward1735to your questions.1736    [Mr. Hanners' prepared statement follows:]17371738  Prepared Statement of Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor1739  Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers17401741    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the1742Subcommittee, my name is Noah Hanners, and I am proud to serve as1743Executive Vice President at Nucor Corporation where I oversee our sheet1744products group, which is comprised of six steel mills that make flat-1745rolled steel products for automotive, appliance, construction, pipe and1746tube and many other industrial and consumer applications.1747    Nucor is the largest and most diversified steel producer in the1748United States and the largest recycler of any type of material anywhere1749in North America. And, among America's three largest steel producers,1750we are the only one that still makes 100 percent of its steel here in1751America. Each year, our company recycles more than 20 million tons of1752ferrous scrap to produce more than a quarter of all the raw steel made1753in the U.S. This steelmaking method makes us one of the cleanest and1754most sustainable producers in the world. Specifically, our method has a1755fraction of the carbon footprint and roughly 10 percent of the1756particulate emissions compared to an average integrated steel mill. In1757addition, we use 95 percent less water than an average steel mill, and1758we capture and reprocess 86 percent of our process water for reuse1759before discharging. Several of our 26--soon to be 28--steel mill1760facilities also have strategically constructed stormwater retention1761ponds to capture stormwater runoff. Nucor is not only one of the1762cleanest and most efficient steelmakers in the world, but we are also1763one of the safest, with a steelmaking injury and illness rate that has1764consistently been at least 30 percent below the industry average year1765after year.1766    Manufacturers like Nucor create well-paying jobs, drive innovation1767and build our modern digital economy--all while developing and1768deploying technologies that make our environment cleaner. When1769manufacturing wins, America wins. But right now, cumbersome and1770overreaching permitting laws and regulations are holding back progress,1771delaying investments and making it harder to compete globally.1772Permitting delays, red tape and complicated bureaucracy make it1773difficult to complete projects that benefit communities across the1774country, especially for capital intensive industrial manufacturers like1775ours. It is no surprise that in a 2024 survey of manufacturers, 721776percent of respondents said that the length and complexity of the1777permitting process affected their investment decisions.\1\ That's the1778real problem. If we want to grow America's economy, we need to fix this1779broken system.1780---------------------------------------------------------------------------1781    \1\ National Association of Manufacturers, NAM Manufacturers'1782Outlook Survey, First Quarter 2024 (March 5, 2024), available at1783https://nam.org/2024-first-quarter-manufacturers-outlook-survey/.1784---------------------------------------------------------------------------1785    Nucor can attest first-hand to the difficulties of navigating1786federal permit processes. In 2022--we announced the selection of Apple1787Grove--West Virginia--as the location for a new state-of-the-art sheet1788steel mill. At $3.5 billion--it is the largest manufacturing investment1789in the state's history. Nucor's sheet mills create an average of 8001790full-time, high-paying manufacturing jobs, and we are proud to have1791already hired 300 West Virginia teammates. In addition, we anticipate1792approximately 2,000 contracting teammates at peak construction.1793    Our new steel mill is strategically situated on the Ohio River,1794which will provide logistical and transportation advantages and will1795better enable us to supply automotive, construction and industrial1796customers in the Midwest and Northeast regions, areas which consume1797half of the sheet steel in the U.S. Locating along a major navigable1798water of the U.S. precipitated the need for federal authorization under1799Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. While we worked diligently with our1800state and federal partners to secure the necessary permits to construct1801the facility's barge loading and unloading dock, the process became1802hindered by numerous requests from multiple parties for more1803information, additional studies or investigations and reformatting of1804previously submitted documents. These frustrating delays stemmed1805largely from consultation requirements under Section 7 of the1806Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic1807Preservation Act, which are characterized by overly vague and1808subjective timelines and lack of agency coordination and guidance.1809Based on Nucor's nearly six decades of experience building industrial1810facilities across the country, these tasks were far beyond the original1811scope of work and unnecessarily delayed the final permit decision--and1812thus the project--by several months. And delays in today's economic1813environment cost money. What was first announced as a $2.7 billion1814project is now a $3.5 billion project. We are excited for our future1815and to bring this transformative project to the state of West Virginia,1816but without the hard work and persistence from our federal, state and1817local representatives, this project may have never broken ground.1818    Manufacturers have been building a case for commonsense reforms to1819our nation's permitting laws for years. I'll say it again: we need1820commonsense permitting reforms. The National Association of1821Manufacturers supported bipartisan efforts during the previous Congress1822to update processes under the National Environmental Policy Act and1823speed up construction of critical energy projects. For example,1824manufacturers supported the permitting reforms made in the Fiscal1825Responsibility Act of 2023. The correct implementation of this statute1826is both important to the industry as well as germane to any1827conversation about CWA reforms, particularly regarding agencies1828evaluating ``reasonably foreseeable'' impacts and alternatives in the1829permitting process.1830    And while today's focus is on CWA reform, this is only the1831beginning. Working together, policymakers have a real opportunity to1832achieve lasting, comprehensive permitting reform and effect positive1833changes to our nation's environmental standards that support economic1834growth while protecting our communities. For example, while1835manufacturers support efforts to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl1836substances (PFAS) and other potentially harmful chemicals from our1837water systems, overly-severe standards proposed by the Environmental1838Protection Agency make compliance impossible and directly threaten our1839ability to invest, innovate and create jobs in America. And while our1840air quality standards for particulate matter (PM2.5) are necessary for1841public health, the unreasonably tightened limits for emissions of fine1842particles or soot which took effect last year are placing an1843unnecessary regulatory burden on our manufacturers and making1844permitting harder--hindering onshoring and raising global emissions.1845    Our U.S. manufacturing sector is cleaner than at any other time in1846history and cleaner than foreign competitors. That is why we strongly1847believe that comprehensive permitting reform is critical, and such1848reform must include American manufacturers' priorities that provide1849regulatory certainty, streamline the permitting process and give the1850regulated community opportunity for input when establishing the rules1851under which they will operate. Policymakers may accomplish these goals1852through changes to underlying statutes that expedite judicial review,1853create enforceable deadlines for agencies and increase the use of1854categorical exclusions.18551856                 Clean Water Act Reform Recommendations18571858    As Nucor's experience with our West Virginia site illustrates, the1859CWA is a statute wherein thoughtful changes would benefit and advance1860economic development projects across the nation. Last Congress, this1861committee took steps toward reforming the CWA by reporting out and1862securing passage by the House of Representatives of the Creating1863Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act. Among other changes, the1864legislation would have instituted reforms to permitting programs under1865Section 402 and Section 404 of the CWA to support the use of general1866permits under the programs, as well as to set guidelines on judicial1867review and enhance the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System1868(Section 402) permit shield.1869    Manufacturers commend the committee for its attention to CWA reform1870and the advancement of critical infrastructure and economic development1871projects. As the committee pursues this important work in the 119th1872Congress, we respectfully request that members consider several areas1873for improvement.18741875I. Timelines1876    Clarified timelines for agency action and decisions for a Section1877404 permit will assist applicants with project planning and execution.1878Currently, those seeking an individual permit are often caught in a1879winding process with multiple decision-makers and nebulous timelines.1880For example, the Army Corps of Engineers district office will delay1881action for the entire permit area while awaiting approval from the U.S.1882Fish and Wildlife Service for a specific portion of the project.18831884II. Scope1885    Similar to establishing timelines for agency decisions, clear and1886understood definitions as to the scope of project areas subject to1887Section 404 permitting requirements will help applicants with planning1888and execution. Over the past decade and more, manufacturers and others1889in the regulated community have been caught in a regulatory morass1890because of a prolonged disagreement over the definition of waters of1891the U.S. This has resulted in delays and confusion in the1892jurisdictional determination process by USACE. Furthermore, USACE1893recently proposed to update its regulations for implementing Section1894106 of the NHPA, potentially expanding the scope of areas of a project1895where agencies will need to consult on effects on historic properties,1896elongating delays.18971898III. Permit certainty1899    Once a permit is granted or a particular activity is verified as1900authorized under a general permit, the permittee should have a high1901degree of certainty that the agency's action is determinative. Limiting1902the timeline for judicial review and supporting the permit as shield1903will cut down on unnecessary litigation that delays projects and adds1904costs. Reasonable restrictions to the EPA's authority under Section1905404(c) of the CWA to prohibit areas as disposal sites--limiting1906retroactive vetoes of permits--will likewise increase confidence in the1907permitting process.19081909IV. General permits1910    The use of general permits should be promoted to the maximum extent1911practicable for those projects with limited impact on the environment.1912This may be accomplished through several means, such as extending the1913time between reissuance and limiting politically-charged reviews, as1914well as defining the scope of environmental effects during issuance or1915reissuance.19161917V. State assumption1918    State assumption of Section 404 permitting responsibilities should1919likewise be encouraged. States know best about their water resources1920and are better able to be responsive to applicants throughout the1921permitting process. Unfortunately, progress in this area has been1922hampered by subsequent litigation following approval of state1923assumption, with the State of Florida as a recent example.19241925VI. Water quality certification1926    Promoting federalism in the administration of the CWA should not be1927permission for states to go outside the bounds of statutory authority,1928however. It is important to focus state responsibility pursuant to1929Section 401 of the CWA on project impacts to water quality1930specifically. Unfortunately, some states have recently used this1931authority to block important interstate projects critical for1932dependable energy use.19331934                                 * * *19351936    Nucor and America's manufacturing sector are the most advanced and1937sustainable manufacturers in the world. We are proof that we can both1938protect the environment, while also creating well-paying jobs and1939strengthening our local communities. Comprehensive permitting reform1940that increases certainty for the regulated community while removing1941unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles will both enhance America's economic1942competitiveness and protect our environment. When manufacturing wins,1943America wins.1944    Thank you for inviting me to testify today and share our story. I1945look forward to your questions.19461947    Mr. Collins. Thank you.1948    Next, Mr. Hasten, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your1949testimony.19501951       TESTIMONY OF  BUDDY HASTEN,  PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EX-1952        ECUTIVE OFFICER,  ELECTRIC  COOPERATIVES OF  ARKAN-1953        SAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOP-1954        ERATIVE ASSOCIATION19551956    Mr. Hasten. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking1957Member Scholten, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for1958the opportunity to testify before you today.1959    My name is Buddy Hasten, and I serve as president and CEO1960of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, AECC, and1961Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Incorporated, AECI.1962    It is an honor to be before you today to talk about how we1963can better serve our members and your constituents.1964    AECC is a generation and transmission cooperative based in1965Little Rock, Arkansas, that proudly provides power for1966approximately 1.2 million members of Arkansas' 17 electric1967distribution co-ops.1968    AECI is the Arkansas statewide trade association which1969provides education, public relations, Government relations, and1970other support to the electric distribution co-ops in Arkansas.1971    Reliable and affordable electricity is essential to1972America's economic growth, and as our Nation increasingly1973relies on electricity to power our economy, keeping the lights1974on has never been more important or more challenging.1975    For example, Arkansas is losing 3,800 megawatts of baseload1976power in the near future, while simultaneously facing a1977tremendous increase in electricity demand from data centers and1978manufacturing facilities.1979    Reasonable and efficient environmental regulations,1980including permitting programs under the Clean Water Act, are1981often the critical link in being able to successfully complete1982a project on time to meet the growing generation demands of an1983electric co-op.1984    It takes several years to plan a transmission route or pick1985a viable property site to build a new powerplant. It is1986essential that Federal permitting programs, including those1987under the Clean Water Act, are implemented as intended by1988Congress and do not unnecessarily delay or hinder critical1989infrastructure projects that deliver electricity to homes,1990businesses, and farms across the country.1991    Because electric co-ops are owned and governed by the1992consumer members that we serve, we are committed to protecting1993and maintaining clean water within our communities.1994    However, having clean water is not, and should not be,1995mutually exclusive with having permitting programs that are1996reasonable, efficient, and meet the needs of our growing and1997ever-changing economy. We can and we should do both.1998    Electric co-ops rely on clean water permits to build new1999generation facilities, build transmission and distribution2000lines in a timely manner, perform routine maintenance and2001repair work, restore service after hurricanes or other natural2002disasters, and to undergo vegetation management practices along2003electric utility rights-of-way to prevent damage and wildfires.2004    All of these actions are a huge part of our work in2005providing reliable and affordable electricity to our consumer2006members.2007    To provide just one example, a few years ago, my co-op2008applied for an approved jurisdictional determination within the2009U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether a Clean Water2010Act permit was needed for a new electrical transmission-2011switching station--a very important new piece of infrastructure2012for us.2013    In the meantime, just to be safe and to try to expedite the2014process, we went ahead and applied for a Clean Water Act2015permit. We did not receive a permit decision within the 9-month2016timeframe initially predicted by the Corps, resulting in a2017delayed start for our project.2018    Then over a year after our original Clean Water Act permit2019application, the Corps informed us that a Clean Water Act2020permit would not be needed for the project.2021    Ultimately, AECC was subjected to the Corps' application2022requirements, construction delays and increased costs, and the2023associated risks of a Clean Water Act permit denial, for the2024Corps to determine that no Clean Water Act permit would be2025needed for the project--a decision that could have easily been2026determined as early as AECC's first meeting with the Corps 12027year earlier.2028    This is a pivotal time for my co-op. As we plan to meet the2029quickly growing demands of our members, a more predictable and2030efficient process for securing those permits for our electric2031infrastructure would help us better meet those challenges.2032    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this2033important issue. I look forward to responding to any questions.2034Thank you.2035    [Mr. Hasten's prepared statement follows:]20362037Prepared Statement of Buddy Hasten,  President and  Chief Executive Offi-2038  cer, Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas, on behalf of the National Rural2039  Electric Cooperative Association20402041                              Introduction20422043    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the Water2044Resources and Environment Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity2045to testify before you today. My name is Buddy Hasten, and I serve as2046President and CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC)2047and Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (AECI), which along with2048Arkansas' 17 electric cooperatives are collectively known as the2049Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas. I am testifying today to provide my2050own insights as a co-op leader but also representing the National Rural2051Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the nearly 900 electric2052cooperatives across the country it represents.2053    AECC is a generation and transmission (G&T) cooperative based in2054Little Rock, Arkansas that was established in 1949. AECC proudly2055provides power for approximately 1.2 million members of Arkansas' 172056electric distribution cooperatives. Specifically, AECC generates,2057sells, and delivers reliable and affordable wholesale electric energy,2058along with related services to Arkansas' electric distribution co-ops.2059AECI, formed in 1942, is the Arkansas statewide trade association,2060which provides education, public relations, government relations, and2061other support to the electric distribution co-ops in Arkansas. AECI2062also sells electric utility materials and equipment and provides2063related services to and for electric utilities across the United2064States.2065    NRECA is the national trade association representing nearly 9002066rural electric cooperatives across the country including 64 G&T2067cooperatives and 832 distribution cooperatives. America's electric co-2068ops comprise a unique sector of the electric industry. These not-for-2069profit entities are independently owned and governed by the people they2070serve. From growing exurban regions to remote farming communities,2071electric co-ops provide power to 42 million Americans across 48 states.2072They keep the lights on across 56% of the American landscape--areas2073that are primarily residential and sparsely populated. Those2074characteristics make it comparatively more expensive for electric co-2075ops to operate than the rest of the electric sector, which tends to2076serve more compact, industrialized, and densely populated areas. This2077means that co-ops are constantly asked to do more with less, and they2078deliver.2079    Reliable and affordable electricity is essential to America's2080economic growth. And as our nation increasingly relies on electricity2081to power our economy, keeping the lights on has never been more2082important--or more challenging. For example, Arkansas is losing2083approximately 3,800 megawatts of baseload power in the near future2084while simultaneously facing a tremendous increase in electricity demand2085from data centers and manufacturing facilities.2086    Reasonable and efficient environmental regulations, including2087permitting programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA), are often the2088critical link in being able to successfully complete a project on time2089in order to meet the growing generation demands on AECC. It takes2090several years to plan a transmission route or pick a viable property2091site to build a new power plant. It is essential that federal2092permitting programs--including those under the CWA--are implemented as2093intended by Congress and do not unnecessarily delay or hinder critical2094infrastructure projects essential to delivering electricity to homes,2095businesses, and farms across the country.2096    Because electric co-ops are owned and governed by the consumer-2097members that we serve, we are committed to protecting and maintaining2098clean water within our communities. However, having clean water is not2099and should not be mutually exclusive with having CWA permitting2100programs that are reasonable, efficient, and meet the needs of our2101growing and ever-changing economy. Congress can and should address the2102difficulties that the regulated community is facing with permitting2103under the CWA.21042105                          Section 404 Permits21062107Nationwide Permits2108    While providing electricity over long distances, power lines must2109occasionally cross wetlands and other ``waters of the U.S.'' (WOTUS),2110requiring authorization under CWA Section 404. Nationwide Permits2111(NWPs) are developed and issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers2112(Corps) and authorize activities that have minimal individual and2113cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Electric co-ops2114depend on CWA Section 404 permits, and on NWPs in particular, to build2115transmission and distribution lines in a timely manner; perform routine2116maintenance or repair work on those lines; restore service after2117hurricanes or other natural disasters; and to undergo certain2118vegetation management practices along electric utility rights of way to2119prevent damage and wildfires.2120    The availability of NWPs is critically important to electric co-ops2121as an environmentally protective means to streamline work on critical2122infrastructure while controlling unnecessary costs. Without NWPs,2123electric co-ops would be required to coordinate every planned utility2124line project with the Corps to find alternative CWA authorizations such2125as individual Section 404 permits. This could result in years of2126additional delays and substantial additional costs. For example, the2127Corps reported that in fiscal year 2018, the average time to process a2128standard individual permit application under Section 404 was 264 days,2129while the average time to process a NWP authorization was 45 days.2130Increased costs that result from delays are passed directly on to co-op2131consumer-members.2132    Because NWPs are issued by the Corps for a period of no more than2133five years, fifty-seven NWPs are set to expire in March of 2026. It is2134essential that the Corps prioritizes reauthorizing the expiring NWPs.2135This requires time-consuming steps like complying with CWA section 4012136requirements and working with Corps districts to add regional2137conditions which are critical for complying with statutes like the2138Endangered Species Act (ESA). We look forward to working with the2139Committee and the new administration to ensure that such permits are2140reauthorized expeditiously so that electric co-ops can continue to2141provide reliable and affordable electricity to our consumer-members2142without undue costs and delays.2143    Electric co-ops also support needed efforts to streamline the NWP2144program. For example, in 2023, AECC was required to perform repairs on2145one of its hydropower plants, which had been previously permitted under2146a Section 404 permit when the plant was built. Due to the nature of2147hydropower plants, repairs must be performed quickly when low river2148water levels in the Arkansas River allow. AECC met with the Little Rock2149District of the Corps and determined that a NWP 3 was needed. NWP 3s2150are for ``maintenance'' repairs and are designed to speed up the CWA2151permitting process for projects with minimal environmental impacts.2152Nevertheless, the permitting and review process to receive temporary2153construction authorization under NWP 3 took nine months. During that2154time, the river water levels rose to historically high levels, causing2155the repair window to close and exposing AECC's hydropower plant to2156increased risks of damage. Furthermore, because the temporary2157construction authorization that AECC received in compliance with the2158CWA is valid for only five years, AECC has no guarantee that it will be2159able to utilize the approval, should river conditions not be2160satisfactory for repair work within the remaining short timeframe.2161    Additionally, many electric co-ops apply for Rural Utilities2162Service (RUS) loans under the U.S. Department of Agriculture to support2163critical generation and transmission projects. Electric co-ops are2164required to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)2165reviews when RUS funded projects require wetland delineations,2166endangered species reviews, and other possible project surveys. If a2167RUS-funded project requires a Section 404 permit, the Corps will2168require the submission and processing of much of the same information2169required by and submitted to RUS. This process creates additional2170barriers without assurance that the federal agencies will align.2171Improvements to communication and collaboration between federal2172agencies would better streamline this process.2173    NRECA supports provisions in last Congress's House-passed H.R.21747023, Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, that would2175provide additional certainty regarding required ESA and NEPA reviews2176for Section 404 permits, prevent the EPA from vetoing a Section 4042177permit before a permit application has been filed or after a permit has2178already been issued by the Corps, set reasonable judicial review2179timelines for Section 404 permits, and other provisions that would2180ensure the continued use of NWPs for linear projects like transmission2181lines. We look forward to working with the Committee to advance similar2182and additional policies to streamline the NWP permitting process.21832184Approved Jurisdictional Determinations2185    Obtaining Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (AJDs) is an2186essential step in the CWA 404 permitting process. The AJD process is2187used by the Corps to determine whether aquatic resources in a given2188area are jurisdictional under the CWA and therefore must require CWA2189permits. NRECA is aware of some instances in which AJD applicants have2190had to wait over 18 months just for a decision from the Corps, which2191only then determines whether the waterbody in question is2192jurisdictional and whether the applicant must undergo the CWA 4042193permitting process which can take another couple years. Such delays2194impede the ability of electric co-ops to begin critical infrastructure2195projects and make investment decisions needed to meet rising2196electricity demands.2197    For example, AECC met with the Little Rock District of the Corps to2198discuss whether a CWA permit would be needed for a new electrical2199transmission switching station AECC planned to build. Based on the2200initial meeting, AECC was not told one way or another whether we should2201submit a formal permit application but gathered that a CWA permit would2202be needed. To be good actors and act in good faith, AECC submitted a2203formal AJD request. Based on information provided by the Corps, AECC2204expected that the Corps would issue a permit decision in approximately2205nine months from the application date. AECC did not end up receiving a2206permit decision within the nine-month timeframe initially predicted by2207the Corps, resulting in a delayed start date for AECC's project. Then,2208over one year after AECC's original CWA permit application, the Corps2209informed AECC that a CWA permit was not needed for the project.2210    Ultimately, AECC was subjected to Corp's application requirements,2211construction delays and increased costs, and the associated risks of a2212CWA permit denial, for the Corps to determine that no CWA permit would2213be needed for the project--a decision that could have easily been2214determined as early as AECC's first meeting with the Corps over one2215year earlier. To be clear, AECC had to wait for over a year just to be2216told that we could have proceeded with the project from the beginning2217without any CWA permit.2218    To prevent similar delays in the CWA permitting process, electric2219co-ops are eager to work with this Committee and the new administration2220to ensure that the Corps immediately prioritizes responding to AJD2221requests.22222223                          Section 402 Permits22242225    Electric co-ops build and maintain power plants, substations, and2226other infrastructure to meet increasing electricity demands and provide2227reliable and affordable electricity to their consumer-members. These2228facilities usually need to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge2229Elimination System (NPDES) permit under section 402 of the CWA. NPDES2230permits regulate discharges of pollutants through a point source into2231WOTUS and reflect both technology-based controls--known as Effluent2232Limitation Guidelines--and Water Quality Standards determined by the2233U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through notice-and-comment2234rulemakings. However, EPA also issues guidance documents--known as2235water quality criteria--that do not always solicit or receive public2236input that can have a significant influence on the requirements2237incorporated into NPDES permits.2238    Except in a small number of instances, NPDES permits are issued by2239states which have delegated authority from EPA to perform relevant2240administrative, permitting, and enforcement aspects of the program.2241State governments must meet rigorous requirements to be authorized to2242run permitting programs and must follow EPA regulations when issuing2243individual permits. The Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas are fortunate2244to have a positive relationship with the State of Arkansas when it2245comes to state-administered CWA permits.2246    Last Congress' H.R. 7023 would improve the NPDES permitting2247process. Specifically, the bill would require EPA to seek public2248comment on new or revised water quality criteria. This policy would2249increase stakeholder engagement and overall transparency in the CWA2250permitting process. It would also help ensure EPA policy can be2251informed by actual on-the-ground experiences and help ensure that2252unnecessarily burdensome water quality criteria do not impact a co-op's2253ability to comply with NPDES permits. Furthermore, H.R. 7023 would2254provide additional regulatory certainty by clarifying that holders of2255NPDES permits are only responsible under their permits for discharges2256of pollutants that are specifically identified by the federal or state2257agency during the permitting process.22582259                      Waters of the United States22602261    Under the CWA, the EPA and the Corps have jurisdiction to regulate2262``navigable'' waters, which are defined in the law as ``the waters of2263the United States,'' or WOTUS. The statute does not specifically define2264WOTUS but instead grants EPA and the Corps the responsibility to2265develop a definition through rulemaking. The definition of WOTUS under2266the CWA is significant because it determines which bodies of water are2267protected under the CWA, and therefore, whether certain activities that2268co-ops engage in that impact waterways will require a CWA permit.2269Broader CWA jurisdiction would increase costs associated with co-op2270activities in marginal areas, including construction and maintenance of2271transmission and distribution corridors, stormwater control, and plant2272construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning.2273    In Sackett v. EPA, decided in May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court2274provided regulated entities much needed clarity by narrowing the EPA2275and Corp's overly broad interpretation of WOTUS under the CWA.2276Unfortunately, the Biden Administration EPA and Corps did not2277faithfully comply with or implement the Sackett decision in issuing a2278revised WOTUS regulation or determining which waterbodies require a CWA2279permit. For example, they have issued ``Field Memos''--essentially,2280guidance documents to Corps staff in the field on how to interpret the2281WOTUS regulation--with overly broad interpretations of key terms which2282do not accurately reflect Sackett. This refusal to comply with the2283Supreme Court's decision has created uncertainty, litigation, and2284delays which are directly hurting co-ops and other businesses.2285    Now is the time to correct the failure of the previous2286Administration and provide the regulatory clarity that electric co-ops2287and other businesses need.22882289                               Conclusion22902291    As the electricity demands of our nation continue to grow, electric2292co-ops are committed to meeting increasing demand while continuing to2293provide reliable and affordable electricity to their consumer-members2294and promoting clean water within the communities they serve.2295    Permitting programs under the CWA directly impact electric co-op's2296ability to invest in and build critical infrastructure needed to meet2297growing demand. Electric co-ops support efforts to streamline CWA2298permitting programs and look forward to working with members of the2299Committee to advance policies that will result in a more reasonable and2300efficient CWA permitting process.2301    I thank the Subcommittee for its important work on this issue and2302look forward to answering your questions.23032304    Mr. Collins. We are going to move on to Member questions2305now, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.2306    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.2307    Mr. Hasten, wonderful to see you, a fellow Arkansan here2308today. I appreciate you being here.2309    The Arkansas Electric Cooperative powers a huge part of my2310district, as you know. Of the 17 co-ops in Arkansas, I think2311that 10 of them are responsible in some capacity throughout my2312district for delivering power to constituents that I represent.2313    So, it is incredibly important for my constituents to know2314that their Federal Government is working with their member-2315owned electricity provider.2316    In your testimony, you mentioned that projects funded2317through USDA's Rural Utilities Service loan program, to go2318through the NEPA process. Should the project also require a2319Corps of Engineers' section 404 permit as well, the Corps2320requires duplicative paperwork and studies to be done. A NEPA2321and a 404 environmental review for the same project seems to me2322the height of bureaucratic waste.2323    In your experience in Arkansas, can you estimate how much2324time, money, staff hours, et cetera, lost productivity, could2325have been avoided, or saved, had the Corps and USDA worked2326together on this instead of working separately?2327    Mr. Hasten. Well, Congressman Crawford, welcome from2328Arkansas. Yes, what we see is different agencies interpret NEPA2329differently. So I think that, to us, is a challenge.2330    When you have got RUS on one side, Army Corps of Engineers,2331Department of Energy, Fish and Wildlife, each have the purview2332to interpret NEPA how they want, and then so that gives us2333uncertainty as to what exactly we are going to be exposed to.2334    When you get down into section 404--and maybe an example2335would be, we know a project is going to need a section 4042336Clean Water Act permit. We are going to intend to fund it with2337RUS, and so we work a lot with RUS so we know those2338requirements.2339    And those may trigger the right reviews with their2340interpretation of NEPA, and so we would go do a cultural survey2341or endangered species review or a wetlands review. And we2342complete all those, and they go through a process.2343    For instance, with a cultural survey review, we would turn2344that in to the State Historical Preservation Office, the SHPO.2345That goes through a process, let's say, 60 days.2346    They would then share that with the Tribes, and so they--I2347think they have got maybe 60 days to respond. As you can see,2348you have got months that build up. You are going through a2349proper process.2350    Well, once we then get where we need to and we turn that in2351to the Corps, they will turn right around and take that same2352exact application and run it through the exact same process. So2353we got to go back to the SHPO, got to go back to the Tribes,2354and so you can just see it is a redundancy that is built in.2355    Mr. Crawford. Right.2356    Mr. Hasten. So right there you can say, well, that added 22357to 4 months----2358    Mr. Crawford [interposing]. Sure.2359    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. Just right there.2360    Mr. Crawford. So, we have addressed this to some extent. We2361codified some aspects through the One Federal Decision, fees in2362the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but was it enough? Do we need to2363do more?2364    Mr. Hasten. I think the more that can be done, in any2365business, to streamline and make processes efficient so there2366is not wasted time, I would say yes.2367    Mr. Crawford. Okay. I appreciate that.2368    Mr. Hanners, I am going to shift gears real quick. I am2369glad to see that you are here today. Nucor is a big presence in2370my district. Arkansans know firsthand your company's commitment2371to environmental responsibility and how you can co-exist with2372economic productivity.2373    In fact, your entire business model is based on2374sustainability. I want you to talk about that a little bit,2375some of the ways American steel manufacturing can be advanced2376through commonsense environmental reforms and what effects that2377would have on economic developments in communities like mine?2378    Mr. Hanners. Thank you for the question, Mr. Crawford, and2379your support, and, yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity2380to talk about sustainability in Nucor.2381    So if you look at our process, we are the cleanest2382steelmakers in the world, and we are continually striving to2383innovate while benefiting society both economically but then2384also achieving higher and higher levels of sustainability2385performance.2386    So I come here with a lot of pride in the way our team2387thinks about caring for the environment. At the same time,2388building a project like our West Virginia mill that will employ2389hundreds of Americans, but also thousands of contractors who2390come on site and then untold numbers of people who are impacted2391by that project in the region.2392    So if you think about our West Virginia mill, we are2393building a mill that will be the cleanest steel production in2394the United States, and it will employ hundreds, and by second2395and third order, impact thousands of Americans in that West2396Virginia region.2397    So we are very proud of that legacy.2398    Mr. Crawford. I appreciate you. Thanks for being here.2399    I yield back.2400    Mr. Collins. Thank you.2401    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Scholten for 5 minutes.2402    Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all2403of our incredible witnesses for taking your time to be here2404today.2405    As I stated in my opening remarks, water issues are not,2406and should not be, a partisan issue. I hope I am not alone in2407saying that I am deeply concerned with the President's efforts2408to freeze critical Federal funds, including dollars necessary2409to support our Federal water infrastructure.2410    We all can agree that regulatory reform is needed, clarity2411is needed, but what has happened in the last 10, 20 days has2412been the opposite of clarity. It has increased chaos and2413confusion.2414    This uncertainty could stifle all of the progress that this2415committee, and Congress as a whole, has made through historic2416legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.2417    Stoking this kind of chaos will result in very tangible2418threats to every single community that is represented here at2419the dais.2420    Commissioner LaTourette, can you speak a little bit to how2421some of the directly blocked funds, as well as the uncertainty2422in Federal funding, is not only going to harm water2423infrastructure projects, but also prevent local and State2424governments from looking ahead to fulfill their communities'2425water needs?2426    Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate this question. My pause is2427because I am thinking. I am thinking hard about it. I mentioned2428in my testimony that we have a $1.2 trillion need nationally2429over the next 20 years for drinking water infrastructure; $31.62430billion of that is in New Jersey alone.2431    And we rely, the States, which are the ones that implement2432the investments in our infrastructure. State governments do2433that, not the Federal Government.2434    And what we see in New Jersey is an opportunity, using2435those Federal funds, we couple them with State funds, and then2436we use the governmental funds together to then leverage private2437market funds, so that we are able to create a capital stack for2438investment in water infrastructure that needs to be planned out2439over the course of many years.2440    And so we have projects that are in the queue right now2441that are phased, meaning that one fiscal year, you might do a2442pump station, and the next year, a main, right? And so when2443there is a disruption in Federal funding, or even just the2444uncertainty that is created by a suspected disruption, and even2445a temporary one, it reverberates throughout the system.2446    What I mean by that is right now, our State is in the2447process of formulating our clean water intended use plan for2448the next fiscal year, which for us starts July 1, and that2449provides water utilities, contractors, and others with guidance2450about how they should be sequencing their projects, such that a2451disruption in the Federal funding source, upon which all of2452that investment is built, has a cascading effect that can lead2453to the delay certainly, but potentially even the abandonment of2454a project, right?2455    And here we are talking about water that every business,2456every person needs.2457    Ms. Scholten. Certainly critical in Michigan's Third2458Congressional District. I firmly believe that the U.S. can have2459both a healthy economy and a healthy environment.2460    In fact, through the Great Lakes region, I would argue that2461these two outcomes are wholly interconnected, as I discussed in2462my opening remarks.2463    Commissioner LaTourette, again, I know New Jersey is a2464little different from west Michigan's shoreline, but can you2465speak to how water pollution can negatively impact communities'2466economies with potential harm to the tourism industry, property2467values, and commercial operations?2468    Mr. LaTourette. Appreciate that question as well,2469Congresswoman.2470    So, tourism in particular is a huge driver of New Jersey's2471economy, right? Our pristine beaches, our quaint shore towns2472bring in $50 billion a year in tourism spending.2473    And all of that spending, all of that tourism, is dependent2474upon one thing: clean waterways.2475    I grew up in the 1980s at a time when our parents didn't2476let us go to the beach in New Jersey because of high levels of2477pollution. And today the Jersey Shore has the best water2478quality that we have ever seen, and that is a function of2479implementation of the Clean Water Act as a matter of permitting2480enforcement, but also because of that investment paradigm,2481which, since the beginning of our clean water investment2482strategy, has created 170,000 one-year direct construction2483jobs, right?2484    And so, not only is the Clean Water Act a necessity in2485terms of the health of our waterways, the health of our people,2486but it promotes the very businesses that dot our shoreline.2487    So, imagine those businesses that dot the shoreline, that2488rely on the influx of tourism dollars, imagine their struggles2489when they have to close a beach because of bad water quality,2490and nobody visits, and nobody spends.2491    Ms. Scholten. Thank you. I yield back.2492    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fong for 52493minutes.2494    Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this2495hearing, and thank you for the witnesses for their input.2496    Mr. Singletary, I wanted to ask you a few questions. I am2497glad that you highlighted the need to clarify the section 4012498certification process. I wanted to get your input in regards to2499this specific area.2500    In California, it feels like we are constantly having to2501fight against our State Water Resources Control Board, which2502has used its authority provided under the Clean Water Act,2503along with other State and Federal environmental laws, to delay2504efforts to develop new water projects and actually undermine2505our ability to utilize the infrastructure we have.2506    The result is less water delivered to our farms and2507communities in my district, less clean and renewable hydropower2508generated for our grid, and less water security for everyone2509who lives in our State.2510    There are numerous examples of less water security, and2511there are examples of the State Water Board issuing draft Clean2512Water Act 401 certifications aimed at implementing a plan that2513calls for the flushing of billions of gallons of water out into2514the Pacific, rather than storing it to mitigate drought impacts2515during dry years.2516    Much of the time, the requirements and these regulations2517have nothing to do with water quality or even the operation of2518the projects they are regulating.2519    And I have statements from the Modesto, Turlock, and Merced2520irrigation districts which neighbor my district, that provide2521two very recent examples that paint the picture of what is2522happening all over California, and I ask those to be included2523in the record.2524    [The information follows:]25252526Statement of Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District,2527             Submitted for the Record by Hon. Vince Fong25282529    We appreciate the Subcommittee holding a hearing to discuss how the2530Clean Water Act (CWA) impacts the development and continued operation2531of our critical infrastructure. As you examine this important issue, we2532urge you to consider and address how the CWA, and section 401 in2533particular, is slowing down other vital national infrastructure, such2534as the ability to license and relicense hydropower facilities through2535Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Modesto Irrigation2536District and Turlock Irrigation District (collectively ``the2537Districts'') own and operate the FERC licensed Don Pedro Project and2538the as-yet unlicensed La Grange Project ( the Projects), which together2539generate over 200 MW of hydroelectric energy, and appreciate your2540consideration of our experience with Section 401 implementation in our254114-year effort to relicense the Projects. Ultimately, the CWA is a2542significant driver of the cost, uncertainty, and long duration of the2543FERC relicensing process, and if it is not addressed, it has the2544potential to disrupt, restrict, or even prevent the generation of2545affordable, reliable, and emission free electricity that is critical to2546the grid.2547    The Don Pedro Project is a federally licensed hydroelectric2548generating facility located on the Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada2549foothills approximately 130 miles east of San Francisco. As a multi-2550purpose project, the Project provides over 2 million acre-feet of water2551storage for irrigation and domestic use, critical flood control, and2552renewable energy. Don Pedro Project operations also benefit fish,2553wildlife, and recreation resources. The Districts also applied to FERC2554for a license for the La Grange Project, which generates about 5 MW of2555hydroelectric energy, and serves as a diversion dam to provide2556irrigation and municipal water supplies to the Districts' customers.2557    FERC issued the original 50-year license for the Don Pedro Project2558in 1966. Consistent with FERC regulations, the Districts began the2559relicensing process in 2011. Since then, at the cost of over $302560million dollars, the Districts have conducted over 30 scientific2561studies of everything from aesthetics to fishery resources, held dozens2562of public meetings and workshops, and developed state of the art flow,2563temperature, reservoir operation and fish models that work together to2564evaluate the efficacy and impacts of various license conditions. In25652021, based on that huge body of Tuolumne-specific scientific studies,2566FERC issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as required2567by the National Environmental Policy Act and a suite of proposed2568conditions for the new Project license. At this point, FERC was ready2569to issue the new license but could not until the Districts obtained a2570CWA section 401 certification from the California State Water Resources2571Control Board (SWB).2572    Although the SWB is required to issue a CWA 401 certification2573within one year of receiving an application, the Districts filed three2574applications, none of which resulted in a CWA section 4012575certification. Despite informing the Districts that the applications2576were complete, the SWB denied the first two (filed in 2018 and 2019,2577respectively) without prejudice to give themselves more time, forcing2578the Districts to refile the identical application. Then, in 2021, the2579SWB purported to issue a CWA section 401 certification even though the2580Districts had not applied for one. This certification, which was2581unilaterally withdrawn by the SWB in 2024, included 45 conditions, many2582of which were individually onerous, expensive and unduly restrictive,2583and collectively would have placed the daily operations of the Project2584subject to the control and oversight of the SWB. These conditions2585required the release of large volumes of water for downstream2586environmental purposes which were magnitudes greater than recommended2587by FERC in its FEIS. These conditions would also prevent the diversion2588of water when a federal facility located in a completely separate2589watershed was making releases required by its water right permits,2590reduce the releases of water from the Project for irrigation, domestic,2591and hydroelectric generation in order to maintain storage levels for2592later environmental use, dictate the process, methods and means for2593nearby road construction, and guarantee compliance at locations that2594are dozens of miles from the Projects' point-source discharges--beyond2595FERC's regulatory jurisdiction and so far downstream that the Districts2596are incapable of meaningfully controlling flows to meet the conditions.2597    Section 401 of the CWA provides the States with the vital2598opportunity to make sure that any federally licensed discharge complies2599with its applicable water quality requirements, which in California are2600rarely reviewed and approved in their entirety by the Federal2601Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as required by law. California2602has abused and expanded this opportunity, using it not as the2603opportunity to ensure that any federally authorized discharge complies2604with applicable water quality, but rather as an opportunity to seize2605control and oversight of the Project as a whole to achieve policy goals2606that are often only tangentially related to water quality and which2607have nothing to do with the licensed activity itself--the generation of2608hydroelectric power. Further, States have regularly failed to issue the2609required certification within the statutorily mandated 1-year2610timeframe, unilaterally requiring the licensees to refile the2611applications and delaying the issuance of a final license from FERC,2612all at an immense cost to local rate payers.2613    We appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to this issue and are2614happy to answer any questions or provide any additional information.26152616Statement of John Sweigard, General Manager, Merced Irrigation District,2617              Submitted for the Record by Hon. Vince Fong26182619    Dear Chairman Collins and members of the Subcommittee:2620    I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony. The issue of2621Clean Water Act permitting could not be more dire for Merced Irrigation2622District (MID) and the community we serve in rural Merced, California2623at this moment.2624    Without federal intervention related to a Clean Water Act 401 Water2625Quality Control Certification issue MID is now facing, all signs point2626to the California State Water Resources Control Board subverting our2627current federal hydropower relicensing effort with FERC, resulting in a2628complete takeover of water operations of our locally owned and operated2629reservoir, resulting in dire consequences for our community.26302631                               Background26322633    The Merced Irrigation District is a California Public Agency under2634the California Irrigation District Law. MID was established in 1919. It2635owns, operates and maintains the New Exchequer Dam and Reservoir (Lake2636McClure) and McSwain Dam and Reservoir (Lake McSwain) on the Merced2637River. They are located in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada2638mountain range, approximately 23 miles northeast of the City of Merced.2639    Lake McClure has a storage capacity of 1,024,600 acre-feet, while2640Lake McSwain has a storage capacity of 9,730 acre-feet and is operated2641principally as a regulating reservoir for MID's hydroelectric2642generation facilities at New Exchequer Dam (Federal Energy Regulatory2643Commission Project No. 2179).2644    The water managed by MID flows west from Lakes McClure and McSwain2645through the New Exchequer Dam hydroelectric plant creating more than2646100 megawatts of clean, renewable energy. The water then continues down2647the Merced River through more than 700 miles of canals for irrigation2648use by more than 2,200 Merced County growers.2649    The water supplied by New Exchequer Dam and Lake McClure supports2650thousands of jobs and is associated with $1.5 billion in economic2651output in an otherwise economically disadvantaged community. The2652majority of those served by MID's water are small generational family2653farmers, with the average farm size being fewer than 50 acres.2654    Additionally, MID's operations provide:2655      140,000 acre feet of local groundwater recharge,2656sustaining local drinking water quality for roughly 150,000 people2657      Flood protection for 15 different communities,2658representing 169,000 people, for 130 miles2659      Flows down the Merced River during droughts2660      Cold-water releases down the Merced River during critical2661time periods2662      On-demand voltage regulation for the statewide electric2663grid26642665                At Stake: Local Control of Our Reservoir26662667    In 2005, MID began preliminary work on a new license through the2668Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2008, MID issued its2669Notice of Intent to Relicense and Preliminary Application Document.2670This began numerous costly studies analyzing the impacts of the2671project. Based on these studies and multiple years of collaboration2672with federal and state agencies, in 2012 a final application was filed2673with FERC. In 2015, FERC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement2674(FEIS).2675    The FEIS dictated several conditions and studies to be conducted2676under the new license for New Exchequer Dam, including new increased2677flow releases downstream of the reservoir. The federal relicensing2678process represents a $36 million investment paid completely by the2679local community that depends on Lake McClure for its water supply,2680economy, and way of life.2681    As part of the FERC relicensing process, MID is required to obtain2682a Clean Water Act (CWA) 401 Water Quality Control Certificate from the2683Environmental Protection Agency. Implementation of the CWA varies from2684state to state; in California, that authority has been delegated to the2685State Water Resources Control Board.2686    At the same time MID has been pursuing a new FERC license,2687California's State Water Resources Control Board has sought to update2688its Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin2689River Delta which the Merced River ultimately flows into.2690    In summary, the Bay Delta plan calls for an unimpaired--and2691adaptable--flow regime from Lake McClure and other local reservoirs.2692The resulting new flows would be sent downstream nearly 200 miles for2693the purported benefit of water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin2694Bay Delta.2695    The effects of the Bay Delta Plan flow diversions would have a2696devastating impact on our agricultural water supply, domestic food2697production, local employment and economic activity as well as local2698drinking water quality.2699    Further compounding these negative impacts would be reduced2700hydroelectric production that is crucial for our regional and national2701electric grid support and reliability. The issue of the Bay Delta Plan2702has been contentious and the subject of multiple past and present2703lawsuits by MID and many other local irrigation districts.2704    More than a decade ago, the State Water Resources Control Board had2705stated on its website that it intended to use its CWA 401 certification2706authorities to implement the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. When2707asked about this during a public meeting in Merced, California, at the2708time the chair of the Board said that would not be the case. Yet here2709we are and that's exactly what has happened.2710    Which brings us to today.2711    In January of 2025, the State Water Resources Control Board issued2712its draft CWA 401 certification for the federal hydropower relicensing2713process. It spans more than 100 pages and in no uncertain terms,2714directly implements its Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.2715    In addition to attempting to implement its plan through the CWA 4012716certification process, the State Water Resources Control Board included2717many other onerous requirements that result in effectively removing2718authority from FERC and operational management of the reservoir from2719MID.2720    Among the most problematic conditions placed on the operations of2721the Merced River Hydroelectric Project by the State Water Resources2722Control Board through the CWA 401 certificate:2723      Decisions about water management and releases from Lake2724McClure would, in part, be recommended by three separate committees,2725rather than MID's knowledgeable engineers and managers who have safely2726and efficiently managed the reservoir for decades. The ultimate2727decision about management of the water supply would rest solely and2728exclusively with the Executive Director of the State Water Resources2729Control Board, an unelected career bureaucrat.27302731      MID would be responsible for maintaining flows all the2732way to the confluence of the San Joaquin River, nearly 30 miles2733downstream of MID's last point of control on the river. That stretch of2734river has dozens of water users which are not part of MID and exist2735outside its jurisdiction.27362737      The minimum year-end carryover storage in our reservoir2738proposed by FERC in its FEIS is rendered meaningless. As proposed in2739the CWA 401 certificate, the Deputy Director of the State Water2740Resources Control Board, another unelected career bureaucrat, would2741annually make that carryover determination regardless of consequences2742to MID.27432744      Perhaps most egregious, at any time, these two career2745bureaucrats can modify the flow schedule--and carryover storage--2746anytime they want with no accountability to anyone, creating total2747uncertainty about water supply for MID's agricultural water users and2748hydroelectric operations.27492750    Without immediate federal intervention, the State Water Resources2751Control Board will steal a local water project and leave the local2752community holding the empty reservoir.2753    MID will find itself burdened with:2754      All the on-going operations costs of maintaining the lake2755and dam facilities for flood control and dam safety2756      Inadequate water supplies for critical domestic food2757production2758      Severely reduced hydroelectric production to fund these2759operations2760      The loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in economic2761activity and thousands of jobs in one of the most economically2762disadvantaged communities in the state.27632764    Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to2765working with you and the Subcommittee to resolve this urgent matter2766immediately.27672768    Mr. Fong. If I could ask you, what advice do you have for2769making sure that States are accountable to the spirit of the2770Clean Water Act when implementing these delegated authorities?2771    Mr. Singletary. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I2772think that--I mean, it has kind of been a back-and-forth over2773the years. Different States have utilized that 4012774certification in different ways.2775    Sometimes it is used or weaponized against a specific2776project, and how we use it in Oklahoma, we use it specifically,2777again, to protect water quality resources within the State, and2778we don't expand it beyond that.2779    I think if there was some language in the Clean Water Act2780that specified that it was to be focused solely on water2781quality projects, discharges, water quality standards, those2782type of things, list out specifically what those 4012783certifications can be used for, that would probably limit some2784of the ability to take it beyond those water quality impacts2785that we feel that it is intended to cover.2786    Mr. Fong. Do you have, like, specific recommendations that2787maybe delve a little deeper in terms of, I mean, how does it2788work in Oklahoma? And then when you talk to other States, what2789guardrails would you want to put in?2790    Mr. Singletary. You are talking about specific language?2791    Mr. Fong. Yes.2792    Mr. Singletary. I don't have any specific language, but I2793can propose some for you and get it to you.2794    Mr. Fong. I mean, do you believe that the Biden2795administration's 2023 rule regarding 401 certifications, do you2796believe that it expanded the extent of 401 review beyond2797congressional intent?2798    Mr. Singletary. We do. We believe that there is the2799potential for that to be misapplied and go beyond impacts that2800are clearly associated with a proposed project and taken to2801other downstream activities that may occur as a result of a2802project but maybe aren't specifically related to that project.2803We think that potential is definitely there.2804    Mr. Fong. And in your testimony, you mentioned concerns2805about third parties, potentially seeking to force States to2806address broader concerns outside the scope of the Clean Water2807Act if the current section 401 rule is left intact. Can you2808expound upon that, like, give some specific examples?2809    Mr. Singletary. Sure. I mean, there is the potential, if2810that broader application is allowed, or broader scope of review2811is permitted--that even though in Oklahoma we want to tie those2812reviews, our 401 certification review, to specific water2813quality impacts coming from a proposed project--some third2814party who may have an interest in stopping that project could2815try and utilize our 401 review. Any decisions we make, that is2816going to be subject to an appeal. So they could take us to2817court and try and force us to take that review further than how2818we believe it is intended.2819    Mr. Fong. Well, I certainly appreciate your testimony. I2820think the section 401 certification has been weaponized and to2821prevent needed water storage projects and energy projects. We2822need to find that balance.2823    I look forward to working with you and the members of the2824committee to clarify the 401 projects and streamline it as much2825as we can. Thank you.2826    Mr. Chair, I yield back.2827    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member,2828Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes.2829    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2830    Mr. Hanners, I have a bit of a curveball for you because--2831sorry about this--we have a Nucor facility in Seattle as well.2832I don't know if that fits under sheet products or not, but I2833did note yesterday Nucor said effective new orders received2834after close of business on February 10th, the Nucor Bar Group2835will increase prices by $40 per ton on all rebar products.2836    It may not impact sheet products, but it seems unusual--or2837no--coincidental that the day the President announced 252838percent tariffs on aluminum steel products coming to the United2839States that Nucor is announcing an increase on rebar products,2840and I am wondering if you know, in fact, if there is a2841relationship between the call for a 25-percent tariff on2842aluminum and steel imports in the United States and this price2843increase?2844    Mr. Hanners. So to answer the first part of your question,2845Congressman Larsen, rebar products does not fall under my group2846sheet products.2847    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Mr. Spicer has rebar products?2848    Mr. Hanners. That is right--Mr. Spicer. So you know Randy.2849It is a better question for him, but I will answer it at a high2850level in that we are very supportive of the actions taken by2851the President to impose tariffs on all steel products. And we2852believe that there is a strong tie to national security----2853    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Okay. I am sorry.2854It sounds like you memorized something or are reading it. I am2855just wondering, is there a relationship between these price2856increases and the tariffs?2857    Mr. Hanners. I can't comment on that in rebar.2858    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Okay.2859    Mr. Hanners. I can't.2860    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right.2861    Mr. Hanners. There are a lot of unfairly dumped and traded2862imports that come into the country that are rebar----2863    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes.2864    Mr. Hanners [continuing]. But I can't comment on the direct2865relationship----2866    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Great. Thanks a2867lot.2868    Is there a similar price increase coming for sheet2869products?2870    Mr. Hanners. Can't comment on that either. I mean, pricing2871has been increasing already. If you look at trends, sheet2872pricing has been at a low point for the last quarter before any2873tariff action. So I think that there are other demand drivers2874that may contribute to prices moving up.2875    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Fair enough. Thank you. I2876appreciate that very much.2877    Mr. Singletary, in Oklahoma, as in my State, certainly in2878New Jersey, I am sure, we have local governments, water2879districts, using the State Revolving Fund money for2880infrastructure improvements. I alluded to this in my opening2881statement.2882    Are you right now aware of any pause on that money? Are you2883seeing impacts or hearing from your local water districts or2884even sewer districts or other municipalities on whether or not2885that money is available or they are having to wait at all?2886    Mr. Singletary. No. In fact, I have confirmed that it is,2887the money is flowing currently.2888    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Okay. As recently as when?2889    Mr. Singletary. I am sorry?2890    Mr. Larsen of Washington. As recently as when?2891    Mr. Singletary. As recently as last week, beginning of the2892last week.2893    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. That is good. A lot of2894other money has been paused, and so we are--we approved this2895money--Congress did--approve this money. There was a pause,2896there was a startup for some, not for others.2897    Mr. Singletary. Yes.2898    Mr. Larsen of Washington. And we are not getting really2899clear messages at all from the current administration on what2900is moving forward and what isn't. So I do appreciate that.2901    Do you want more of it?2902    Mr. Singletary. Of course.2903    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Probably the most2904important question and answer we can get from anybody. I2905appreciate that very much.2906    And then Mr. LaTourette, I want to ask you about forever2907chemicals, and what's been your experience in controlling the2908discharge of PFAS and PFOA in New Jersey?2909    Mr. LaTourette. So, New Jersey has been at the tip of the2910spear on PFAS issues dating back to 2006. We did some of the2911first occurrence studies. And we have a prolific PFAS2912contamination problem in the State of New Jersey, in part2913because of the manufacturing centers, particularly in the2914southern part of the State.2915    But we first set standards to control for PFAS2916contamination in drinking water back in 2020, and we put those2917standards in place before the Federal Government had acted.2918    Those standards are now applied to drinking water systems.2919There are over 100 drinking water systems in the State of New2920Jersey that have impacts from PFAS chemicals, meaning, to the2921point I had made earlier of, if we are not careful about our2922discharges into waterways and if we are not regulating them and2923enforcing that regulation, inevitably, that enters into the2924water cycle.2925    That which enters into the water cycle ends up coming into2926our drinking water systems, and we must put treatment on it to2927remove it.2928    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right.2929    Mr. LaTourette. Huge cost.2930    Mr. Larsen of Washington. And, quickly, are you hearing2931from any New Jersey water systems or sewer systems about State2932Revolving Fund money being paused at all? What is your2933experience?2934    Mr. LaTourette. The way that our intended-use plans and2935our----2936    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. All right.2937    Mr. LaTourette [continuing]. Our--function----2938    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Can you give me a2939yes or a no? Or get back to me.2940    Mr. LaTourette. Not at this very moment, no.2941    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Got it. I will get back--okay.2942Thank you.2943    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hurd for 52944minutes.2945    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2946    Good morning to our witnesses.2947    Mr. Hasten--am I pronouncing that right?2948    Mr. Hasten. Yes, sir.2949    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. I want to get that right.2950    I represent Colorado's Third Congressional District, which2951covers about half of the landmass of the State, and rural2952electric cooperatives are vital to my district, just as they2953are to much of rural America.2954    When it comes to the distribution cooperatives that2955actually deliver power to rural America, whether in Arkansas,2956your home State, or in Colorado, my home State, who owns those2957distribution cooperatives?2958    Mr. Hasten. The cooperative business model, the members--we2959call them member consumers--they are ultimately the owners of2960the cooperative.2961    All the--as a CEO, I am charged with running the company; I2962report to a board. The board of directors comes from these2963local communities that serve these co-ops. And so the board of2964directors comes from the community. I report to that board.2965And, through that, we run the cooperative.2966    But, ultimately, we look at the business model as: All of2967this exists to serve our members in a cooperative fashion.2968    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Just to be specific, so the members2969at the distribution cooperative, those are families? Those are2970small businesses? Those are ranchers? Is that correct? They are2971the owners of those distribution cooperatives?2972    Mr. Hasten. Yes. Yes. All of the members of that community2973that we serve, yes.2974    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Your testimony mentions the cost of2975complying with Federal permitting programs, like section 4042976permits, Endangered Species Act, particularly the costs of2977delay.2978    When it comes to those costs of delay, who pays for that?2979    Mr. Hasten. In a co-op?2980    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Yes, sir.2981    Mr. Hasten. Every cost I get ultimately gets passed2982directly on to those members, the members of the community that2983we serve. So it is a passthrough. So any cost that comes to us,2984we are going to pass it right back on to the community that we2985serve.2986    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. So those get paid--those additional2987costs get paid by the farmers, the small-business owners, the2988families that are served by that cooperative?2989    Mr. Hasten. Yes, in the form of, we will set electric rates2990to cover the cost of service, so any costs that we incur go2991into how much we have to charge for rates. So, yes, indirectly,2992through their electric rates, they will pay for any costs that2993are incurred in making the power and getting it to them.2994    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Mr. Hasten, would it be fair to say2995that these permitting delays effectively act as a hidden tax on2996rural America?2997    Mr. Hasten. Yes.2998    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much.2999    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.3000    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for 53001minutes.3002    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to3003be with you in your first hearing. And, my, you have certainly3004stepped into the big issue right at the outset. Thank you for3005doing so.3006    I think I will go to a piece of legislation that is3007bipartisan in this House, that we have been working on for3008several years, and it is NPDES.3009    And, specifically, Mr. Singletary, you raised this issue3010early on, that the permit is presently a 5-year permit for3011municipal districts, sanitation districts. That gives them just3012about enough time to figure out what they are going to do, and3013then they have to go get a new permit, which means they go back3014through the whole cycle again.3015    The legislation we have been talking about is a 10-year3016permit period. Please comment on this. You raised the issue3017early on.3018    Mr. Singletary. Certainly.3019    Just recognize all the effort it takes to submit an3020application, go through that permitting process, allowing the3021State to expand the terms of those permits--you would still3022have the same environmental protection. States have the3023authority to address any issues, unforeseen issues, that come3024up. But it would provide some certainty for the regulated3025entities. They would have it for that longer period.3026    And it would, like I said, essentially cut that whole3027permitting process in half. Over that 10-year period, you are3028only having to do it once instead of every 5 years. Because,3029like you said, by the time you get a permit issued, we are very3030close to--it is not very much longer that you have to start3031that process all over again and start planning for the next3032one.3033    Mr. Garamendi. You did raise a piece of the concern, and3034that is, in that intervening 10-year period, there could very3035well be some extraordinary event, unknown, unforeseen, that3036might cause--or, should cause new review.3037    I think you talked about that briefly or skipped right over3038it. Could you get to that in a little more detail?3039    Mr. Singletary. Certainly, Congressman.3040    If there was an issue that is discovered, we still have the3041ability to address that through our implementation and3042enforcement process, but we can also trigger additional review.3043And we can--actually, there are provisions that allow us to3044require that permit to be amended to address those concerns if3045something is discovered.3046    Mr. Garamendi. I raise this--we are going to reintroduce3047this bipartisan bill in the next few weeks, and I draw the3048attention of the committee and the new chair to it. I think it3049would be one of the ways in which we can expedite the3050permitting--or, reduce the amount of permitting that is3051required.3052    So I will let it go at that.3053    There are other issues. I suppose I ought to pound away on3054the impoundment issues that are out there.3055    Do any of you have specific examples of the way in which3056the current Trump impoundment of funds is affecting your3057district?3058    Mr. Singletary? I will go on down. Maybe Mr. Hanners, I3059don't know. Mr. Hasten surely.3060    Mr. Singletary. I am sorry. Impoundment?3061    Mr. Garamendi. This is the current impoundment of the3062Federal funding.3063    Mr. Singletary. Oh, the funding.3064    Mr. Garamendi. Yes, sir.3065    Mr. Singletary. I think we in Oklahoma recognize the3066current administration's--that they see a benefit in reviewing3067these funds. We hope that review goes quickly.3068    We do think that the projects that come through us, they3069are so critically important, whether it is wastewater or public3070water supply projects, that they are going to survive any3071review that occurs. We think they are that essential to3072Oklahoma and, obviously, the country.3073    Mr. Garamendi. Well, we have heard from Mr. Hanners that3074delays cost money. So you are seeing delays in Oklahoma on3075projects?3076    Mr. Singletary. We are not seeing any delays at this point.3077    Mr. Garamendi. Could there be delays if this impoundment3078continues?3079    Mr. Singletary. Well, right now, the funding--the money is3080continuing to be released. We have reached out to EPA, who kind3081of controls the purse strings for us, and they let us know that3082all the funding sources that we are involved in, that that3083money is still flowing to those projects.3084    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. LaTourette, examples in New Jersey?3085    Mr. LaTourette. So we saw some immediate implications from3086the funding freeze a couple weeks ago, so much so that New3087Jersey took legal action in a court case with other States. And3088that judge returned a decision that the funds could not be3089frozen.3090    They continued to be frozen, and the court had to issue3091another order just yesterday reminding the President of3092complying with the law.3093    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Hasten, examples from your State?3094    Mr. Hasten. I don't have any examples where it has cost us3095any delay.3096    Mr. Garamendi. So we have a red State and a blue State3097different. Interesting. Maybe there is targeted impoundment.3098    I am going to let it go. I am going to yield back my 23099seconds.3100    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3101    Mr. Collins. Thank you.3102    The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison for 5 minutes.3103    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to3104see you up there. Congratulations.3105    Mr. Hanners, the Clean Water Act was enacted to restore the3106integrity of our Nation's waters. However, in recent years, it3107has been weaponized, mostly by environmental zealots with a3108political agenda that goes far beyond the primary purpose of3109protecting water.3110    Do you agree that the Clean Water Act has strayed from its3111original intent?3112    Mr. Hanners. I can speak to what we have gone through at3113our West Virginia mill project. I appreciate the question,3114Congressman.3115    We started off with an understanding of the Corps of3116Engineers that we needed--a certain scope was going to be3117included in the permitting for this project. So, what happened3118in this situation--and we have encountered in other projects of3119this size and scope as we navigate the 404 process--is the3120scope that was initially explained to us and that we entered3121into changed dramatically as we got further into the project.3122    So, very frequently throughout the process, we have other3123entities that are involved in doing a study, whether that is on3124artifacts we may come across, whether that is on wetlands. And3125each of those different interfaces with the permit causes3126examples of--I can give you examples of very long delays3127related to each of those different directions of the permit.3128So, for our West Virginia project, for example, we incurred3129hundreds of millions of dollars in additional loss attributed3130to the extenuation of this permitting process.3131    So it is an example of us--we need certainty, stability,3132and consistency in the process. We know what to expect when we3133enter the process, and we understand that the process is going3134to be timely, and we understand how to navigate the process.3135    We are fully on board with navigating a process that both3136provides us the opportunity to get a project of that scope3137permitted and also protects the environment.3138    Mr. Burlison. How would you like to see that? Would you3139prefer to have it streamlined so that all of those entities3140that might be affected are asking for that research to be done3141concurrently? Or what ideas are there to streamline that3142process?3143    Mr. Hanners. The States know best about their water3144resources. And our interactions at the State level have been3145very good. They are responsive; they are knowledgeable. If3146there is a question about how to navigate something, we get a3147quick resolution on what steps we should take.3148    So we believe that we should get that process to the State3149level and also keep the States focused on their statutory duty3150to prioritize water quality as they navigate the process.3151    Mr. Burlison. I know in my own State of Missouri, I would3152agree with you; our State, the Department of Natural Resources3153does a better job than the EPA.3154    However, our State and probably many States have an3155arrangement in place where they are required to enforce3156whatever the EPA has issued. So we had a lot of issues, for3157example, when it came to trichloroethylene being in our water3158supplies. There was a dispute as to what was acceptable levels3159of this product, which I guess is diesel cleaning fluid, is3160basically what it is, or it is a byproduct of that.3161    So, what we determined was, when we tracked it down, there3162wasn't a law that was put into place, there was no one on the3163Federal level that changed anything, but an unelected official3164had issued a guidance document, and that subsequently caused3165the State of Missouri and, I am assuming, many other States to3166change regulations radically.3167    Do you see that happening in other States?3168    Mr. Hanners. We do. We have experienced that with our West3169Virginia project, another one we executed recently in3170Brandenburg.3171    And listening to Mr. Hasten describe his project early on,3172we experienced a very similar challenge to what you just laid3173out as well and the process that he nailed down during his3174project description.3175    Mr. Burlison. It would seem that we need to do something3176just universally up here to make a statement or put into the3177law that the Federal Government, unless it is an act of3178Congress or somebody who is elected making this decision--the3179force of an unelected official shouldn't carry the same weight.3180So I think that is something we ought to look into.3181    Thank you. My time has expired.3182    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Sykes for 53183minutes.3184    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you to the chair and ranking member for3185holding this hearing today and kicking us off for the 119th3186Congress for the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.3187    I appreciate your leadership on this subcommittee and look3188forward to working with you both as we work to improve our3189Nation's water infrastructure and ensuring access to clean3190water for the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District,3191where I have the honor of representing, and all across the3192United States of America.3193    The Clean Water Act exists for a reason.3194    On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire due to3195extreme pollution for the 13th time. This poster next to me3196shows, although in black and white, what it looked like in3197Cleveland as a river caught on fire. Imagine a body of water3198catching on fire.3199    And this image, which was taken of the fire in 1952, was3200published in a Time magazine article covering the 1969 fire3201that helped catalyze a movement to protect our waters and our3202planet, ultimately leading to the creation of Earth Day, which3203is on April 22nd, and in a movement around protecting water in3204a much more substantial and meaningful way.3205    You all know in this committee how much I love to brag on3206my district and particularly my home State of Ohio, and this is3207not something that we could brag about, but, thankfully, the3208bad news was not the last news for Ohio or for this country,3209because this movement also led to the creation of the3210Environmental Protection Agency and, after much bipartisan3211collaboration, the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.3212    I take some exception to some of the testimony I heard3213today about the Clean Water Act and enforcing it, because it3214has been very hard for Cleveland--I don't represent Cleveland--3215to shake off the misnomer ``the mistake on the lake,'' and it3216has reverberated for generations to come. So it is important3217that we protect water not just for this century, this3218generation, but futures to come so we don't see other mistakes3219on the lake or whatever you want to call it.3220    And so, now, the Cuyahoga River, which runs through my3221district, through the Cuyahoga Valley National Park--and it is3222one of the most visited national parks in the United States. It3223took 20 years and $3.5 billion in infrastructure investments to3224clean up the Cuyahoga River and to allow nature to return to3225its shores, something that we are still working on every single3226day.3227    This underscores what it costs when we don't protect our3228waters and the billions of dollars we can save by investing in3229clean water and water infrastructure before disasters strike.3230And so that is why I am such a proud supporter of the3231Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which has authorized over $173232billion for communities nationwide to improve America's water3233infrastructure.3234    Now, one of the largest investments that we have received3235was in the city to Canton to modernize some of its water3236systems. But I do want to talk about the impact on the Federal3237freeze and this pause-and-review strategy, because this is3238significant. And I know we don't always like to talk about our3239history, but history will repeat itself if we continue to make3240the same mistakes.3241    And so, Mr. LaTourette, as a State leader who is tasked3242with protecting your waterways and the infrastructure, can you3243talk about what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has done for3244communities, mid- and small-size communities like Akron and3245Canton, where I represent, and how this freeze or the pause-3246and-review strategy is impacting the ability to keep our3247waterways clean?3248    Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.3249    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, in the water space,3250brought about $1 billion over 5 years to the State of New3251Jersey. And I mentioned before that we have a need for water3252infrastructure investment that is nearly $32 billion over 203253years. And I make that comparison because, while the Bipartisan3254Infrastructure Law was historic in the size and scope of its3255investment in our infrastructure, it is nowhere near enough,3256and we have to continue making the investments.3257    We should fully federally fund the Clean Water State3258Revolving Fund to its maximum amount. Because what we are able3259to do in New Jersey when we have a greater amount of Federal3260funding and there is not the specter of risk that it will not3261be there for us when the next cycle of intended-use planning is3262right around the corner, what we are able to do with it is turn3263that $1 billion into $4 billion with the way that we leverage3264our State funds and the private funds we bring in. And that----3265    Mrs. Sykes [interrupting]. Mr. LaTourette, I am so sorry to3266cut you off, because I could sit and listen to you talk about3267the State Revolving Fund for hours, but I only have 2 seconds3268left and I want to make sure I make a point, that this poster3269is, again, indicative of what happens if we don't act.3270    I believe in permitting reform. We should and we can do3271better. But their next frontier is PFAS. And I have seen a lot3272of the testimony hitting against it and trying to keep us from3273ensuring that we are keeping our water safe. Let's not let this3274happen again. And let's commit to working with one another to3275find appropriate permitting reform and ways to keep our3276waterways safe.3277    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you giving me a couple3278extra moments, and I yield back.3279    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Onder for 53280minutes.3281    Dr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3282    Mr. Hasten, in your testimony, you underscore the3283importance of rural electric co-ops in providing power,3284especially to rural areas, in your home State. And in Missouri,3285co-ops play a very vital role in our infrastructure and3286supplying power to those communities.3287    Can you describe how inefficient clean-water permitting3288adds to costs, which are already higher for rural electric3289consumers, than if the permitting process were more efficient3290and sensible?3291    Mr. Hasten. Congressman, thank you for the question. And3292for 8 years, I made power in Missouri for their electric co-3293ops, so I am very familiar----3294    Dr. Onder [interposing]. Yes.3295    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. With the co-ops in your State.3296    Delays--if you have an expected sort of timeline, right--so3297the projects that we do, if I wanted to build a new powerplant3298today, even the simplest powerplant, a simple natural gas3299powerplant, it is a 5-year process.3300    Dr. Onder. Right.3301    Mr. Hasten. And so, we layer in all of the planning and all3302of the--when we need to put in for permits and when we need to3303invest in infrastructure.3304    Well, if you buy things, let's say very expensive capital3305infrastructure, and you have this expected timeline of when it3306goes into service----3307    Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.3308    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. But then it doesn't--so imagine a3309$500 million powerplant that doesn't go online. Everything is3310sitting there, and you are gaining interest during3311construction, right?3312    Dr. Onder. Right.3313    Mr. Hasten. All of that is just adding to the cost. That3314thing is not creating any benefit. You are not putting power3315out to members or to supply load, generate revenue to make it a3316useful asset.3317    So it is on that scale----3318    Dr. Onder [interrupting]. And that is a cost.3319    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. That these delays just add cost.3320    Dr. Onder. Right.3321    Mr. Hasten. Not to mention staff hours, consultants,3322lawyers. Those are just administrative fees that add up.3323    And as the Congressman from Colorado had mentioned, every3324one of those, as a co-op, I am passing that right on to the3325people that I serve in my communities. They are paying for it.3326I am just the conduit.3327    Dr. Onder. So, in your experience, dealing with the State3328of Arkansas on permitting, how does that compare with your3329experience dealing with the Federal Government: the EPA and the3330Army Corps of Engineers?3331    Mr. Hasten. I would say that, for section 401 and section3332402 permits, we are lucky in the State of Arkansas that the3333ADEQ, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, is able to3334control those. They have been delegated that authority to do3335that.3336    Dr. Onder. Yes.3337    Mr. Hasten. My experience with them is outstanding.3338    Dr. Onder. Good.3339    Mr. Hasten. Yes, they are my regulator; yes, they tell me I3340have to do things that are like, ``Oh, that's hard to do''----3341    Dr. Onder [interposing]. Sure.3342    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. But there is a partnership.3343    Dr. Onder. Right.3344    Mr. Hasten. So I am trying to serve the community, I am3345trying to serve economic development, I am trying to do that.3346They have their job to do, and--but you feel that sense of3347partnership. So, if they tell me it is going to be 60 days, I3348get it in 60 days. If they do it--sometimes they get it to me3349faster. So, a real partnership, good communication.3350    When we go to section 404 and we are working with Federal3351agencies, it is, I would say, generally poor communication or3352ignored communication or continual emails and calls from us to3353get anyone to answer the phone type of communication. And to3354say that it is a bit of the runaround, instead of partnering3355together to say, ``Look, this is important. Clean water is3356important. We have these rules. How do we comply?''3357    Working with our Arkansas department--I would also say, I3358have worked with Oklahoma. Great. Worked with Missouri DNR; I3359have worked with Iowa DNR. I have had great experiences with3360all those State agencies.3361    Dr. Onder. Good.3362    Mr. Hasten. What you get at the Federal level, there is a3363certain sense of, ``We are the law. We are the top. And what we3364say goes, no questions asked. And I don't really feel compelled3365to--I don't have to do this under a timeline other than what I3366want. And your project isn't really a timeline that means3367anything to me.''3368    Dr. Onder. Yes, you must at times wonder whether this is3369really the law that you are hearing about or the opinion of3370some unelected bureaucrat.3371    From your perspective, what would be the impact on electric3372co-ops if nationwide permitting were not reauthorized?3373    Mr. Hasten. If it was not reauthorized?3374    Dr. Onder. Not reauthorized.3375    Mr. Hasten. It would be detrimental. Very detrimental.3376    I mean, there are a lot of things we do under nationwide3377permits, right? Transmission line maintenance, right-of-way3378clearing, recovering from storms.3379    Dr. Onder. Sure.3380    Mr. Hasten. So, if every single thing we did that needs to3381be in some way sort of time-sensitive, if it had to go through3382the full review--and some things need to go through that full3383review----3384    Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.3385    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. But a lot of things do not. And if3386you got rid of those, it would be really damaging.3387    Dr. Onder. Thank you.3388    I yield back.3389    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Friedman for 53390minutes.3391    Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Collins and Vice Ranking3392Member Scholten.3393    I am very honored to be a member of this subcommittee.3394Water is hugely important in my area, in California and Los3395Angeles. I served on the Metropolitan Water District board of3396directors for 8 years and sat on the water committee in the3397California legislature. And I am really looking forward to3398working with all of you on water issues.3399    The health of our families and our economy and local water3400bodies and wetlands depends on robust investment in water3401infrastructure and strong water standards. And I have been very3402interested to hear today about the, sometimes, tension between3403environmental protections and economic development and moving3404projects forward.3405    And, certainly, everybody wants to make sure that any3406regulation that we have moves quickly, that entities that are3407looking for permitting in the regulated community have a3408process that is fair, that moves rapidly, and that makes sense.3409    But, at the same time, I do want to push back a little bit3410about some of the terms that I have heard, like ``radical3411environmental activist.'' I don't think that it is radical for3412families to want to make sure that their children are not3413drinking PFAS, chromium-6, lead, and other harmful materials.3414It is certainly not radical for the people of Los Angeles to be3415very frustrated that when we have our droughts like we have3416every year, that we can't drink from the giant aquifer that is3417under Los Angeles because of historic pollution.3418    And I think that, also, those of us who want Government to3419be efficient really bristle at wasting billions of dollars3420every year cleaning up pollution--air pollution, water3421pollution, pollution of the ground--from industries that could3422have been prevented from causing this pollution in the first3423place through strong environmental protections and3424environmental regulations.3425    So it is not at all at odds for those of us who want3426efficiency and economic development to also demand strong3427regulation to prevent that kind of waste, to prevent the human3428cost and human health impacts from not regulating, which we3429have seen happen so far over the years.3430    Now, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA to3431exclude certain wetlands from the definition of ``waters of the3432United States'' pushes back decades-old regulation and makes3433fewer wetlands to be covered under the Clean Water Act since3434the 1970s. The ruling excluded ephemeral waters and3435intermittent waters, both of which are incredibly important to3436California because of the way our hydrology works. In fact, 903437percent of California's original wetlands have already been3438destroyed.3439    And the Trump administration stripped away environmental3440protections in their last administration, and there is every3441indication that they want to do so again. That would be harmful3442to our pocketbooks and certainly harmful to public health.3443    I was proud in the California legislature to have passed AB34442875, which codified the Executive order from Governor Pete3445Wilson to establish a State policy of no net loss of wetlands3446and only long-term gain. And I am proud to say that that bill3447was bipartisan, that it was supported by Republicans and3448Democrats alike who recognized the importance of these3449resources.3450    Commissioner LaTourette, I want to thank you for being with3451us today. Can you just maybe briefly speak to the importance of3452the Clean Water Act and robust environmental protections to the3453State of New Jersey?3454    Mr. LaTourette. Thank you for the question.3455    I think we have to recognize that every single thing we do3456across our landscape, every single thing we build, how we3457operate our businesses, how we run the Government, always has3458an environmental externality. Everything has an environmental3459externality.3460    The question that I think we should be asking ourselves is,3461how do we reduce those externalities such that it is not a3462great cost to business? Because when those externalities are3463not addressed at the beginning, they become a cost,3464necessarily, to someone else: harming someone's health,3465diminishing our recreational and commercial fisheries, right?3466    Because the externality that is wrought by a lack of3467adequate pollution control on wastewater discharge has to be3468addressed somewhere else, because there is only one water, and3469it is all connected. And so, if we are not reducing our3470pollutant loadings to waterways, the public, the taxpayer, is3471going to be left holding the bag, such that that pollution is3472then remedied by a drinking water system, right, for example.3473    So we, I believe, have to look at this more holistically3474and not only as a cost center to any one particular regulated3475actor.3476    Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much.3477    I yield back.3478    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Westerman for 53479minutes.3480    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Collins.3481    And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.3482    And I am just going to keep rehashing something that has3483been talked about a lot. It is something I have--I am going to3484start with a story that I have talked about a lot that doesn't3485really deal with clean water, but it deals with a broken3486process.3487    I think, if my staff wants me to wake up in the morning,3488they give me a lot of coffee and they schedule meetings with3489people who are frustrated with our permitting process.3490    And, this morning, I had a--first meeting was with a county3491executive from back home in Arkansas, who was telling me about3492how long it took him to get a permit from the Corps of3493Engineers to build a bike trail, a little section of bike3494trail, and ended up having to go to Vicksburg from Little Rock3495even though there is a Little Rock District right there close3496by.3497    And then I had the pleasure of meeting with FHWA on a road3498project that--I am going to keep talking about this, if I live3499long enough and keep getting reelected, until they get the3500project finished. But we had a road washout--Forest Service3501road washout in 2020 and then another landslide on the road in35022022. And they have $6 million to study and fix the project.3503And the best date they could give me this morning was 2027.3504    So we are looking at 6 or 7 years to fix a 1-acre landslide3505on a gravel road in the national forest that is causing people3506to have to go 30 and 40 minutes out of the way to get to3507school, to get to the hospital. There is a concessionaire on3508the Forest Service land that--his business has been hurt by3509this. And it is all because we have a broken permitting3510process.3511    So FHWA, they are doing what the Forest Service wants to3512do, because they are dealing with emergency funding and it3513doesn't come out of the Forest Service budget. So, instead of3514building a road around the slide, they are having to repair the3515slide, so we are talking about $6 million to fix a gravel road.3516And if you stand back and look at it, you think, this has no3517environmental benefit. It is just the bureaucracy that is3518dealing with an antiquated system.3519    So I asked, why does the Forest Service not want you to3520build a road around it? Well, we have to go through at least an3521EA and maybe an environmental impact statement through the NEPA3522process, but if we go where the road already is, we can just do3523a CE. Well, my question is, why do you have to do a CE to fix a3524road that has been there for a long time? I mean, there is no3525common sense in these laws.3526    And I don't totally fault the bureaucrats; I fault Congress3527for not fixing the system. And Mr. Collins and I serve on3528another committee that has jurisdiction over NEPA, and I think3529there is going to be a good bipartisan effort this Congress to3530fix the myriad problems with NEPA.3531    And in talking to FHWA, they said the worst group to deal3532with is Corps of Engineers. You have to do a permit with Corps3533of Engineers.3534    So we need broad permitting reform. And we will just start3535at the end, and if you have one suggestion on permitting3536reform--we want to protect the environment, but we want a3537streamlined process where we can actually build stuff in3538America again.3539    Mr. Singletary. If I had one suggestion, I would give3540States more authority to implement the programs and, kind of,3541make changes to the programs as necessary within their States.3542    A lot of times, they are much closer to the projects. We3543have a lot more at stake for some of them, because they are3544happening in our State. We can be a lot more responsive.3545Sometimes when we are working with our counterparts, our3546Federal counterparts, they may not be located--in fact, almost3547none of ours are actually located within the State, so we are3548dealing with folks at distance, and sometimes that can slow3549down the process.3550    Mr. Westerman. Mr. LaTourette.3551    Mr. LaTourette. I agree with my colleague here from3552Oklahoma that State environmental agencies are more present and3553in the work with the regulated actor than Federal agencies are,3554unquestionably.3555    New Jersey has maximum assumption under almost every one of3556the Federal environmental laws, and then we add additional3557protections, because that is what our public demands. And we3558are able to trim permitting timelines down as a function of3559everything living under one roof.3560    We have an office called the Office of Permitting and3561Project Navigation, for example. They exist to steward projects3562through the regulatory process so as to not land in one of the3563gaps that folks have identified here today.3564    And so I believe maximum State assumption--but that needs3565to be funded by Congress, right? Categorical grants to State3566environmental agencies need to go up.3567    Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chair, if it is okay if the other3568witnesses would submit a written answer to that, I would3569appreciate it.3570    I am obviously out of time, and I yield back.3571    Mr. Collins. Yes, I will probably finish with that question3572myself.3573    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 5 minutes.3574    Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3575    And thank you to all the witnesses that are here today.3576    We have heard and much has been said that, over the 503577years, the Clean Water Act has served to reduce pollution in3578waterways across this Nation.3579    With the passage of time, it is easy to forget why the law3580was enacted in the first place. Lakes were filled with3581chemicals. Streams were clogged with sewage. And we heard3582earlier testimony, or comments, about how rivers were literally3583on fire.3584    Our environment and public health has changed for the3585better thanks to the bipartisan Clean Water Act.3586    I would like to mention and to ask Commissioner LaTourette:3587New Jersey is an excellent example of how States can improve3588efficiency in the permitting process. Could you please share3589with us what are some of the best practices from New Jersey3590that you would recommend to other States?3591    Mr. LaTourette. So the first thing that I would recommend3592is that we support, federally, the assumption of the programs3593we have talked about here today by States, that the Federal3594Government increase its funding to States for implementation.3595    Our State employees are cheaper than your Federal3596employees, and I think that that is an important point. And3597they are closer to the work on the ground, and what we have3598seen in the State of New Jersey is a greater degree of3599efficiency and speed because of that integration of permitting3600processes.3601    Now, I know we have heard a lot today about delays costing3602time, costing money, and then that can be a problem. I3603recognize that that can be a problem. But permitting reform3604isn't just one thing. When we say that ``it has taken 7 years3605to get this project permitted,'' there are local, State, and3606Federal considerations.3607    The most important thing that any regulated actor can do--3608and I know this because I counseled them as a lawyer in the3609private sector before--is to run all of their processes3610concurrently. There are so many issues that you can identify3611upfront and then talk to your State regulated agency3612beforehand, well before you ever make a permit application.3613Because we are there to work with you and identify any of the3614flags way upfront. And when you do that upfront, your3615permitting process is far more expedient.3616    Ms. Pou. Thank you for that.3617    Can you also share with us how ensuring clean water for our3618communities pays dividends in terms of savings in other areas3619like public health and contributing to the economy?3620    Mr. LaTourette. So, aside from creating the 170,0003621construction jobs that I mentioned, our water bank investments3622help to make our waterways more swimmable and more fishable,3623directly bearing on our tourism and recreational economy.3624    But there are really important public health issues at work3625here. Take, for example, in the northeastern section of New3626Jersey, where there are communities built out 100 and 150 years3627ago with really dated, old infrastructure--combined sewers that3628bring together the stormwater and the sanitary water, all going3629through pipes that are not big enough. And then what happens?3630Backups of that sewage into our streets that our children have3631to walk through on their way to school. That is not okay,3632right?3633    And by making more investment, we can both increase3634permitting timelines but get more projects in the ground.3635    Ms. Pou. Thank you.3636    First of all, thank you very much for responding to that3637question, because my very own city of Paterson knows all too3638well what that impact is like, particularly when we are talking3639about combined sewer systems and how antiquated they are and3640how costly they can be. Having this in place is certainly going3641to be very helpful.3642    Thank you very much for your remarks.3643    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.3644    Mr. Collins. Thank you.3645    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.3646    Mr. Hanners, Nucor, it says you are the largest, most3647diversified steel producer in the United States. Carbon3648footprint roughly 10 percent of the particulate emissions of3649the average steel mill out there; 95 percent less water than3650the average steel mill. Eighty-six percent of your process3651water is reprocessed before it is discharged.3652    I think it is safe to say that Nucor wants to be the best3653in the industry, hire the best people, take care of the3654environment, and, overall, be the best steward that you can be.3655    So I want to kind of delve into something real quick. I3656read through a lot of your testimony here, and I want to get3657into your West Virginia project, because I want--I live by3658example. I am just a commonsense-type person. You give me an3659example of what is going on, I can better understand it.3660    I want to kind of look at the loading dock and the barge3661problem that you had there. And I don't know how much you can3662speak on it, but I do know that, in reading here, it caused3663your project to go from $2.7 billion to $3.5 billion.3664    And then, if you could, I don't know if you can intertwine3665some NWP, the nationwide permitting, in that. Would that have3666helped? Not helped? Since this is obviously not the first3667loading dock and barge dock that you have ventured on.3668    Mr. Hanners. Certainly. I appreciate the question.3669    You are right; we are as passionate about the environment3670and continuing to innovate to find cleaner ways to make steel.3671You would be astounded at our team and any of our sites you3672visited. It is part of our culture to find new ways to better3673serve the environment.3674    To your questions about West Virginia, the port facility is3675one example--there are others--of us finding a specific3676instance--in this case, it is mussels in the water, in the Ohio3677River, West Virginia--and then really struggling to find a3678solution to partner with the entity--in this case, the Corps of3679Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife department--to create a3680solution.3681    And it wasn't that we weren't ready to make the investment3682to create the solution; it is that we couldn't get clarity on3683what the solution needed to be. And that is where the3684boundaries and where we think reform could come in and really3685help us be much more efficient and on time and on budget with a3686project like this, is, we are willing to make the investments3687necessary to meet our responsibilities to the environment, but3688we need to know what they are. We need clarity, and we need the3689ability to take action in the way that is expected of us.3690    As long as the permitting process is consistent and it is3691clear to us what we need to do, and we can get the answers and3692responses we need in a timely manner, we are fully on board3693with making those investments and making those changes.3694    Mr. Collins. Well----3695    Mr. Hanners [interrupting]. So your point about the $2.73696billion to $3.5 billion, over $3.5 billion now, that was one3697instance, but I could list off five or six others that were3698very similar to that.3699    Mr. Collins. Well, let me ask kind of what Chairman3700Westerman was asking when he said the one big change, if you3701could make one change.3702    And I know the two gentlemen to your right suggested more3703State rights. And believe me, I am big on State rights. I mean,3704it is a whole lot better than having this place up here make3705decisions for you.3706    But would you say clarifying regulations or States' rights3707would be--or something else?3708    Mr. Hanners. So States' rights, yes. The State entities we3709work with are responsive, they are thorough. We partner with3710them; it feels like a partnership.3711    But I would also add judicial review, limiting judicial3712review. We are fully on board with complying, but we need3713resolution. And sometimes we will get, midnight, last day of3714the permitting process, we will get somebody who will drop in a3715challenge, and then we will need to extenuate the permit in3716order to----3717    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. I know----3718    Mr. Hanners [continuing]. Go after that challenge.3719    Mr. Collins. I don't mean to break in. I know, in highways3720and transit, a lot of your road-builders just factor in an3721extra 30 percent of the cost to build roads and bridges just3722because of the environmentalists' frivolous lawsuits.3723    Mr. Hanners. Yes.3724    Mr. Collins. Is there a number you all add into the3725equation?3726    Mr. Hanners. No, we don't account for that upfront. But3727I'll tell you, what happens is, when we have bad experiences, a3728challenging experience, like West Virginia, it makes us more3729conservative with our next iteration of how we think about the3730returns we are going to generate on a process, which makes us3731less likely to make an investment in the future.3732    Mr. Collins. Right.3733    Mr. Hanners. We are a successful company. We plan to3734continue to grow. But it does take a little bit of our3735willingness to make that next investment. It makes us ask more3736questions, to be more conservative.3737    Mr. Collins. Mr. Hasten, I want to give you 30 seconds to3738answer Chairman Westerman's question. What out there would you3739like to change first if you had the option?3740    Mr. Hasten. I agree with everyone else that said, push as3741much down to the States as you can. They are in the local3742community, they know the situation, and there is more of a3743partnership.3744    And then I would think, at the Federal level, just some3745consolidation. You got all these individual fiefdoms all trying3746to determine things in an individual way, with no real3747accountability. Like----3748    Mr. Collins [interposing]. Yes.3749    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. In my company, if I tell you, ``I3750want this in 30 days,'' in 30 days, I am going to send you an3751email and say, ``Where is it at?'' and you will be held3752accountable. There is no accountability anywhere.3753    Just some accountability. Set some clear deadlines. We are3754not asking for anybody to lower the hurdles. Keep the hurdles3755high. Keep the standards high. Keep the water clean. But let's3756run the race, and let's hold people accountable to timelines.3757    Mr. Collins. Thank you. Thank you.3758    And I yield back.3759    The Chair now gives 5 minutes to Ms. Gillen for questions.3760    Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Chairman.3761    And thank you to our witnesses for coming and testifying3762today.3763    Mr. LaTourette, in your testimony, you highlighted how,3764under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project applicants3765were often challenged to adhere to two different but3766overlapping permitting processes at both the State and Federal3767level.3768    Can you talk about some of the ways that we can streamline3769the permitting process to get rid of duplicative and redundant3770requirements, but yet keep strong environmental protections in3771place?3772    Mr. LaTourette. Yes. I think one of the biggest things that3773we can do is to provide States with the incentive to adopt the3774Federal programs and implement them on behalf of the Federal3775Government.3776    Now, that doesn't give States a free pass, let's be clear.3777The States are still overseen--and should be--by the U.S. EPA3778and, in some instances, the Army Corps to ensure that we are3779compliant with the minimum Federal standard. But bringing it3780down to the State level would necessarily have a beneficial3781impact, as folks up here have recognized.3782    But that does not mean compromising environmental quality.3783And I am glad to hear everybody up here speak to that point.3784Because we have to acknowledge that the pollution controls that3785EPA sets are minimums--truly minimums. They are not acceptable3786in the State of New Jersey, and they don't allow us to be3787proactive about new pollutants that are emerging in the3788marketplace and in our water supplies.3789    Ms. Gillen. Yes. Just following up on that, I want to get3790rid of redundancies in our permitting processes. I was a local3791government official before I got here, and I know that3792sometimes we could get caught up, as you say, Mr. Hanners, in3793litigation forever just trying to get a project across the3794finish line. But we do have States with varying standards. So3795that is why, when I hear ``States' rights'' and things like3796that--some States don't have the same standards that others do.3797    Mr. Hanners, in your written testimony--I was not here for3798your verbal testimony--you talked about emerging contaminants3799and that some of the standards may be too high. Well, we know3800that these are carcinogens. And I certainly don't want my3801family drinking carcinogens; I don't want other people's3802families drinking carcinogens. And I do know the real costs of3803filtering these emerging contaminants out of our system, but I3804think that we need to agree that we have to have a very high3805standard when we are talking about water containing these3806emerging contaminants.3807    So what do you think is the best way forward to get some3808uniform agreement so we can streamline the permitting process,3809Mr. Hanners?3810    Mr. Hanners. Well, I will say that manufacturing processes3811like ours, Nucor--but I can speak more broadly--are cleaner3812than ever. And we strive to find new technology to make it even3813cleaner. And I can give you examples like a carbon3814sequestration project we are navigating in Louisiana where it3815will make a material impact to the cleanliness of our steel. We3816are making those investments. We are working on those things3817all the time.3818    The challenge with the new regulation you mentioned,3819PM2.5, is, we need a seat at the table. Because some3820of those standards are either unclear or we are not sure how to3821manage that problem. And if we have a seat at the table during3822the implementation or the build of that policy, then we can3823help, one, equip us with a better understanding of how to3824navigate that, but, two, potentially push back or help shape3825something that achieves an outcome of making the environment3826cleaner but also is feasible and implementable by companies3827like ours and manufacturers like ourselves.3828    Ms. Gillen. Thank you.3829    Mr. Singletary, I believe in your written testimony you3830spoke a bit about how the permitting process is also3831complicated by multiple different agencies weighing in.3832    And I think that is also the litigation that you spoke3833about in your testimony, Mr. Hanners.3834    What is a way that you think that we could streamline the3835permitting process with giving a seat at the table to all the3836different various agencies that might be involved in a big3837project or might have some impact on a big project?3838    Mr. Singletary. Your question--I am sorry, Congresswoman--3839was regarding multiple agencies----3840    Ms. Gillen [interrupting]. Correct.3841    Mr. Singletary [continuing]. In the same process?3842    I think making sure that the role of each of the agencies3843is well-defined and coordinated is probably the biggest issue.3844    I can tell you, when we look at our permitting program at3845the agency, I mean, we are looking beyond just what3846coordination with other agencies is like. We are looking--we3847have an Office of Continuous Improvement that has gone through3848every step that we take internally to help determine what are3849the slowdowns in our process that are caused by us, how can we3850improve those.3851    We are putting big investments into different platforms3852that we need for the permitting process, bidding a rulemaking,3853and potentially some legislation to help streamline our3854process. I think something like that at the Federal level would3855really help coordinate all those efforts.3856    Ms. Gillen. Thank you so much.3857    I yield back.3858    Mr. Knott [presiding]. Thank you, ma'am.3859    The Chair recognizes Representative LaMalfa.3860    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3861    Thank you, panelists, for being here with us today as we3862talk about the Clean Water Act and its well intention back in3863the 1970s when passed and its weaponization these days to stop3864so many projects and other things beyond the scope of what I3865think was ever intended and been reinterpreted according to3866Army Corps and others.3867    So, when you talk about the different permits, the 4023868permit under NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination3869System, all pollutant discharges into a ``water of the U.S.''3870are prohibited unless that 402 is granted. So this is for3871private sector as well as Federal.3872    I know we talk about a 404 permit for dredge/fill on3873something called the ``waters of the U.S.,'' which--the3874definition of ``water of the U.S.'' has been abused greatly in3875the last 20 years or so.3876    And when we are talking about dredge permits, for example,3877I can think of a really absurd example where there was a new3878bridge being constructed, where some of the pilings had to be3879within a lake. And so they had to move some of the soil to3880build the new uprights. And so that soil, being moved, it was3881now considered a pollutant, even though it is the same soil3882that started out under the water and could have just been moved3883to the side and remained under the water. Instead, it had to be3884hauled away, at who knows what expense and delay.3885    So the 402, again, is being abused. And the concern I want3886to bring up here is how it applies to firefighting and what the3887Forest Service has been looking at with requiring a permit to3888use a material for fighting fires--the fire retardant that is3889so extremely important--to be more effective in fighting and3890preventing the spread of fire.3891    I mean, again, we have seen it time and again with the3892fires in the West, in my home State of California. In my own3893district, the community of Paradise destroyed, community of3894Greenville destroyed, town of Happy Camp partly destroyed,3895others. And then what has really gotten a lot of people's3896attention, obviously, is what happened in Los Angeles here so3897far, even though it can be known that each year you are going3898to have the Santa Ana winds, you have the brushy hillsides,3899they suspend removal of brush, and that is partly why we are3900where we are in SoCal.3901    So, when we talk about the use of fire retardant--that is3902the pink stuff that gets dropped out of the aircraft, the DC-390310s, the helicopters, and all that, when it isn't just straight3904water--we have to work to hang on to that.3905    So there was a lawsuit, incredibly. An environmental group3906sued the Forest Service a couple years ago to stop the use of3907that. And then, 2023, the court ruled the Forest Service3908violated the Clean Water Act by failing to get an NPDES permit3909to use it. So the court declined to use an injunction to3910completely stop the use of retardant, but at any moment, it3911could be taken away.3912    So for Mr. Hanners: We have never seen this before, where3913the Forest Service had to get this NPDES permit for applying3914the retardant. My understanding is that they make both aerial3915fire retardant and airplanes use it to put out fires.3916Firefighters somehow have to battle through this lawsuit3917process.3918    So would you talk to us about this a little bit, Mr.3919Hanners? It would have to come from either EPA or jump through3920the hoops of California, and it can take a very long time. We3921could lose this product if they get their way. Would you please3922comment on that a little bit?3923    Mr. Hanners. Certainly. I can't comment on the specifics of3924fire retardants and that policy, the decision you are3925referencing. But I can say, for manufacturers like Nucor across3926America, it is important we have a robust supply chain of fire3927retardants and, I think more importantly, a little bit more3928broadly, we understand the rules of usage of not just fire3929retardants but navigating a permit process or using a new type3930of--or even a well-used type of consumable we may use in our3931process.3932    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, if we had to go to straight water, if3933you didn't have this material, which has a sticky factor to it3934and it lasts longer--water just coming out of an aircraft,3935especially in hot weather, once it hits that fire, completely3936dissipates.3937    If we don't have this material, how effective are we going3938to be at suppressing or controlling the spread of fire?3939    Mr. Hanners. I can't comment on that.3940    Mr. LaMalfa. You can't comment on it. All right.3941    Should Congress look at clarifying the Clean Water Act to3942ensure these activities continue to be done?3943    Mr. Hanners.3944    Mr. Hanners. Could you repeat the question?3945    Mr. LaMalfa. Should Congress look at clarifying the Clean3946Water Act to ensure these activities, such as aerial3947application, can continue without this onerous permit?3948    Mr. Hanners. I can't comment on that.3949    Mr. Knott. The Chair recognizes Representative Norton.3950    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3951    This is a question for Mr. LaTourette.3952    The District of Columbia, the Nation's capital, which I3953represent, has greatly benefited from Federal investments in3954our water infrastructure over the last decade. The DC Water and3955Sewer Authority's multibillion-dollar Clean Rivers Project is3956expected to reduce combined sewer overflows in the District's3957waterways by 96 percent by 2030.3958    Mr. LaTourette, how do investments in clean water3959infrastructure improve public health and grow the economy?3960    Mr. LaTourette. I believe the question is, how do clean3961water investments improve the environment and the economy?3962    Ms. Norton. And grow the economy, yes.3963    Mr. LaTourette. So the first thing that I will say is, the3964clean water investments first and foremost protect public3965health and the environment. Our first job is always protecting3966the health of our residents. And when we have discharge into3967waterways that is above any of our State or Federal standards,3968there is a risk of public health exposure. That is what this is3969all based upon.3970    So, first and foremost, the investments in clean water are3971helping to protect people's health and their lives.3972    And, then, in addition to that value--we have a growing3973economy in the State of New Jersey. We are continuing to build3974out our State with new businesses that rely on sewer service3975expansions. No sewer service, no new multifamily residential3976projects, no new business expansions into AI or other sectors3977that we are focused on. And so those investments are critical,3978right? It is the bones upon which our entire economy is based.3979    Ms. Norton. Thank you.3980    This is another question for you, Mr. LaTourette.3981    The Potomac River provides over 75 percent of the national3982capital region's drinking water and is the only drinking water3983source for DC and parts of northern Virginia, which have just 13984day of backup water supply, which poses a risk to residents of3985the national capital region, the region's economy, and the3986national security.3987    What are the immediate and long-term implications of3988pausing and cutting Federal funding for critical Clean Water3989Act investments?3990    Mr. LaTourette. I think that the impact of pausing Federal3991funding, scrutinizing it--whatever the words that are being3992used to describe what is happening--the implications are3993exactly what we are hearing folks talk about from the3994perspective of business and industry about permits holding up3995projects and delaying economic growth. The same is true for3996either an intended, accidental, temporary--whatever we call3997it--pause on Federal funding to the States that are funding3998these water infrastructure projects.3999    And we need them now more than ever. I am glad you point4000out the issue of water supply, Congresswoman, because in New4001Jersey we lack, in many places, the continuity that is4002necessary to make sure we have several days of water4003availability were there to be an issue with a major water4004source like you are explaining. And that investment is critical4005to solving that allocation need.4006    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette.4007    And I yield back.4008    Mr. Knott. Thank you.4009    The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.4010    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for4011holding this hearing today.4012    And thank you to our witnesses for their testimony and4013insight.4014    With the Ohio River running through my district, I want to4015ensure the Federal Government implements policies that utilize4016the river's resources to support businesses and people while4017creating jobs and economic opportunities which we desperately4018need. I am excited to work with members of this committee to4019pass meaningful legislation and a strong WRDA bill that allows4020the United States to prosper.4021    Previous administrations have implemented several4022regulations related to the ``waters of the United States,'' or4023WOTUS. Through redtape and litigation, these WOTUS regulations4024have hindered States, businesses, and energy producers from4025carrying out simple projects.4026    Mr. Hasten, in your testimony, you highlighted how the4027Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation received a4028streamlined Nationwide Permit 3, which took 9 months to get,4029causing damage to your hydropower plant.4030    I am confident that a streamlined permit should not have4031taken 9 months to complete. Based on your expertise, what would4032a normal timeframe have been?4033    Mr. Hasten. Thank you, Congressman. I think it depends on4034the work. So, there are different permits. I think in our4035estimation, given that it is an existing structure, everything4036we were asking for was to return it to the design condition.4037    The fact that the Arkansas River is an extreme water4038resource, that adds a level of additional scrutiny. So, that4039scrutiny takes some time. But I think in our estimation and4040planning, we would have thought for a nationwide permit to do a4041repair on a weir, which is there to prevent cavitation of--4042well, accidental cavitation of the turbines, which if you don't4043take care of that, can affect reliability--we would have4044thought 60 to 90 days, 30 days. It is in that timeframe,4045definitely not 9 months.4046    And then the challenge is, when you finally get it--it is4047valid for 5 years, so that is a good thing--but these4048conditions in the river that allow this maintenance, you are4049sort of at the whim of God and nature as to when that will4050occur.4051    And if it doesn't happen in the next 5 years, we have to go4052through the same process. You see how we could keep missing the4053boat.4054    Mr. Taylor. Got you. With a 9-month approval process for4055maintenance repairs on existing energy projects, what does this4056administration and Congress need to do to eliminate some of4057these burdensome requirements?4058    Mr. Hasten. I think definitely continuation of these4059nationwide programs, which the intent of those is streamlined4060reviews. Maybe set some clearly defined timelines on what those4061are, and maybe push us to say, hey, let's do the right thing,4062but let's do it in a more efficient fashion, increase4063coordination between the different agencies, right?4064    Instead of it just being a scattergram of confusing4065requirements, as Mr. Hanners said, not sure what you have to4066comply with, something that requires a singular source, a4067singular--somebody's the lead agency, but there is an answer,4068here is the answer, we know what it is, and we know what to do.4069    I think also--from Arkansas, so your razorbacks--I4070shouldn't want to put up a transmission line and find a hog4071wallow out there where the wild hogs have been digging around,4072and there is some mud and some water, and then have to wonder4073if that is a ``water of the U.S.''4074    But I do have to wonder, and I have to hire consultants to4075come tell me if a pig wallow in the middle of a field is4076``waters of the U.S.''4077    And so the Sackett decision, I think, tried to eliminate4078some of that lack of common sense and good environmental4079science, but I think we still have very broad determinations of4080what are ``waters of the U.S.''4081    And so in my opinion, adhering to what the Supreme Court4082said and requiring Federal agencies to comply with that, and4083let's get clear definitions: ``waters of the U.S.,'' waterways,4084as I have heard other testimony.4085    We want to protect the water, but a mud wallow in the4086middle of a field that stops a transmission line, when I have4087got a huge lithium deposit in Arkansas that I think our Nation4088also wants to get lithium out of the ground, rare earth metals,4089that kind of thing, if it delays those types of projects, you4090are just delaying those types of national priorities.4091    And I would say also just better communication and4092transparency so that everybody can see a request is in, here is4093your due date, here is the status, something that is more4094transparent than you just send it and then hope for the best4095and wait for months.4096    Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.4097    Chairman, I yield back.4098    Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir.4099    The Chair recognizes the Representative from Alabama.4100    Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the4101committee leadership for hosting this--or holding this hearing4102rather, and thank you to all of you guys for being here for4103your time. I know it is not easy to sit here and take all of4104these questions.4105    Listen, as I have sat through this hearing, I think4106something is becoming abundantly clear, and that is that there4107is a balance that is needed.4108    I have not heard anyone on this panel say that there should4109be no Federal role for permitting.4110    I have certainly heard several pieces of testimony that4111indicate that the State needs a more dynamic role and a more--I4112guess, more of a leadership role in the permitting processes.4113    So if we can go down the line, about 45 seconds each or so,4114can you talk to me about what you think that appropriate4115balance is between State and Federal involvement starting with4116you, Mr. Singletary?4117    Mr. Singletary. Thank you. Like I already said, I think the4118States, I mean, we, this is our homes, right? I mean, we are4119permitting activities, regulating activities that affect us4120directly, affect our citizens directly.4121    I think having more control at that State level. Obviously4122there is a role for EPA and for the Federal Government to play4123in environmental protection, but nobody has as much of an4124interest as the States do in protecting their environment, but4125also ensuring that we have prosperity, economic prosperity in a4126State.4127    To us, economic prosperity and environmental protection, it4128is all about the well-being of Oklahomans. So I think that is4129where our real interests come.4130    So I think that kind of highlighting the State's role in4131implementing these programs, and in some ways, even helping4132design the programs, would be very beneficial.4133    Mr. Figures. Thank you.4134    Mr. LaTourette.4135    Mr. LaTourette. I would say with respect to the Clean Water4136Act permitting programs we have been discussing here today,4137consider the State of New Jersey a case study, if you will.4138    We have grown our economy at the same time that we have4139consistently, over years, on a bipartisan basis, exceeded4140minimum Federal standards, at the same time, having 90-day,4141120-day clocks on permitting decisions.4142    We can do both. The balance exists. It is a bit of a4143fallacy to suggest that it doesn't.4144    Mr. Figures. Mr. Hanners. And I will note that Nucor has a4145facility in Eufaula, Alabama, which is in my district.4146    Mr. Hanners. We do, and thanks for your support,4147Congressman. We have hit on a number of these items, but I will4148just summarize. Nationwide permits are very important to us. We4149do a lot of projects that have very minimal impact on the4150environment, and we need that expedited process of being able4151to get that permit nailed down in an efficient manner that is4152understandable and a little bit more responsive, as you have4153heard from the others providing testimony.4154    The second thing is pushing more decisionmaking to the4155State side. I hit it again, but I think it is so important. We4156have partners with State authorities, and it works very well4157when we can go to a State, whether it be Alabama, we can talk4158about the project we are trying to accomplish, and we can get4159quick answers, and we can get solutions on how we navigate4160together the permitting process.4161    And every time for us, in the States we work in, it has a4162good outcome.4163    The last thing I would say is just further limiting4164judicial review. With each of our projects--I shouldn't say4165``each,'' but many--we will gets to the finish line of what we4166expect to be the end of a permit, and we will often have4167midnight entries of a challenge to the permitting process, and4168that dramatically can extend the permitting process.4169    And we are not against--we want those challenges to be4170heard, but we do need some better limits on how long those4171challenges can persist without a solution.4172    Mr. Figures. Thank you.4173    Mr. Hasten.4174    Mr. Hasten. Yes, I think clean water and good efficient4175permitting for infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. So if4176you look at--and I heard the questions, the balance, sort of4177like where the Federal role and the State's role in this4178process.4179    I see the Federal Government as sort of that higher,4180overarching looking at how the States impact each other and4181so--I grew up in Iowa. So if a polluter in Iowa did something--4182now I live in Arkansas--it is going to make its way down the4183Mississippi River to Arkansas.4184    So, therefore, I think the Federal Government has a role in4185that because each State would individually--could act in their4186own interest or have different rules.4187    So, when it comes to setting the standards, when it comes4188to those types of waterways, when it comes to overarching rules4189that protect those types of bodies of water and ensures good4190compliance among the States, I think the Federal Government has4191the role there.4192    I think to the maximum extent that they could then say,4193well, these are the rules, this is what it is, push some of the4194enforcement of those rules and the permitting down to the4195States where they are in those local communities with those4196companies, I think, to the most extent that you could do that,4197I think the process would be more efficient.4198    Mr. Figures. Thank you. And one thing I will note about4199you, Mr. Hasten, one decision that cannot be balanced is your4200decision to attend Auburn University instead of the University4201of Alabama. Roll tide.4202    Mr. Hasten. War eagle.4203    Mr. Figures. Thank you, gentlemen.4204    Mr. Knott. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.4205    Mr. Hanners, I want to talk to you, going back to this4206topic of the West Virginia plant project, that the price4207overrun almost eclipsed $1 billion. And for the average person,4208I think that is a very sort of esoteric subject.4209    Can you walk me through what led to that, who was the4210source that challenged the permitting process, and how did that4211cost breakdown unfold once it was in motion?4212    Mr. Hanners. Certainly. I appreciate the question, Mr.4213Congressman.4214    Mr. Knott. I mean, the average person has no idea. You get4215a permit----4216    Mr. Hanners [interposing]. Right.4217    Mr. Knott [continuing]. And you start to build a project--4218--4219    Mr. Hanners [interposing]. Right.4220    Mr. Knott [continuing]. How in the world could it be4221delayed and then $1 billion added to the cost?4222    Mr. Hanners. Right. And when we make a decision to make an4223investment like that, the many millions of dollars, the biggest4224in our company's history, the biggest in West Virginia's4225history, and we are looking forward to the period of--it is4226going to take us 4 years, potentially longer, to build that4227project.4228    So once that decision is made to make that investment, we4229started the permitting process immediately.4230    And if you are asking for how did that go wrong, or where4231did we run into challenges there, it was really with the Corps4232of Engineers as it relates to the scope of what needed to be4233permitted for that project.4234    Mr. Knott. Right.4235    Mr. Hanners. It started off with a smaller area. It was4236then broadened months after we got into the project, and that4237required us to include many other studies on a bigger piece4238of----4239    Mr. Knott [interrupting]. So you received an initial4240permit, and then the goalposts were moved?4241    Mr. Hanners. No. We were in the permitting process when the4242goalpost was brought.4243    Mr. Knott. Okay.4244    Mr. Hanners. And then that led to your other point about4245the costs you incur because of that. You are executing a4246project like this, and you have to buy equipment that is4247shipping from many locations. And this is massive equipment.4248    So now this equipment has to sit in storage, and you are4249paying for storage, you are paying for additional4250transportation.4251    You made decisions to employ a team, because you have to4252make those employment decisions very early on in a project to4253start to build out the capabilities you need from a people4254standpoint. So now you have extra people that you are paying4255early, right?4256    You have contractors on site that you need, but they are4257not doing productive work yet.4258    Mr. Knott. Right.4259    Mr. Hanners. So all that cost stacks up to a very big4260impact.4261    Mr. Knott. And do you have any type of relief once the Army4262Corps of Engineers starts to move those goalposts, do you have4263any way to challenge it, appeal it, question the reasonableness4264of it?4265    Mr. Hanners. No. Very minimal. And the responsiveness is4266frustrating at times. It is very hard to get an answer at4267times. You don't know exactly who to go to or who is the4268authority making what decision within that Corps of Engineers4269specific challenge you are trying to navigate.4270    So from a company like ours standpoint, from a4271manufacturer's standpoint, it is very frustrating to navigate4272what the actual challenge is you are trying to tackle.4273    Mr. Knott. Right. And in terms of the problem, would you4274say it is the implementor or the actual language within code4275itself that is the problem, or is it----4276    Mr. Hanners [interrupting]. Oh, that is a tough question.4277    Mr. Knott. Is it the regulator or is it the regulation?4278    Mr. Hanners. I think it is a combination of both, but I4279will tell you that we have very different interactions with the4280Corps of Engineers in different areas on the Ohio River even.4281    So there is an implementor factor certainly, just an4282understanding of the policy that is applied differently from4283this area to this area.4284    Mr. Knott. Right.4285    Mr. Hanners. But that can also be, I think there is a need4286to tighten up some of that language so that we understand the4287rules, the implementor has a very clear understanding of the4288boundaries, and I think that best is answered by pushing more4289authority to the State in those instances.4290    Mr. Knott. Sure. What deference or what consideration does4291the Army Corps in this West Virginia project, what did they4292give to the billion-dollar increase in cost?4293    Mr. Hanners. I don't know that they--any. I----4294    Mr. Knott [interrupting]. No consideration?4295    Mr. Hanners. Very little recognition.4296    Mr. Knott. No consideration. So is it also improper for me4297to conclude or to assume that this project would have led to a4298more efficient, cleaner operation, more modernized technology,4299et cetera? Is that correct?4300    Mr. Hanners. Absolutely.4301    Mr. Knott. And so with all of these delays and increased4302costs, they are preventing a more modern operation from coming4303online?4304    Mr. Hanners. Absolutely.4305    Mr. Knott. So there is a perverse incentive here.4306    Mr. Hanners. Absolutely.4307    Mr. Knott. They are using ``waters of the United States''4308to slow the bringing of a new project online?4309    Mr. Hanners. I would absolutely agree with that.4310    Mr. Knott. And that is not just unique to West Virginia and4311your one project, correct?4312    Mr. Hanners. That is correct.4313    Mr. Knott. Okay.4314    Sir, Mr. Hasten, in terms of one of the answers you gave4315earlier, you said that it takes 5 years, and what stuck out to4316me is, to build a simple, natural gas powerplant.4317    If there was more regulatory certainty, less judicial4318review vagueness, and the ability just to construct it with a4319front-end permit, and that gave you a smooth sail, how long4320should the construction, start to finish, take?4321    Mr. Hasten. If you streamlined the permitting process, you4322just look at what is the time right now until you get your4323permit--and each project is different, so it is hard to give4324you an exact number of months.4325    Mr. Knott. Yes.4326    Mr. Hasten. But it would translate directly into,4327reductions in that timeline are going to reduce the overall4328time, right?4329    The delays that are most costly are when you think you have4330got it all laid out, and then as Mr. Hanners said, you have4331purchased very expensive equipment, and then when the permit4332doesn't come through or those delays come in, then there are4333huge carrying costs on these projects.4334    So any efficiency we can do there, and if we can tighten4335timelines and not lower the standard, but, like, why look at4336the same thing three times, let's do it one time----4337    Mr. Knott [interposing]. Yes.4338    Mr. Hasten [continuing]. That type of thing, that will4339translate into savings in projects, and we will be able to get4340infrastructure in service, online faster.4341    Mr. Knott. Great. Thank you.4342    The Chair recognizes Representative DeSaulnier.4343    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank4344the witnesses as well.4345    I represent a district in northern California that4346represents most of the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, the4347largest estuary west of the Mississippi. It provides over half4348of the river flow in the State of California.4349    Our current President is becoming familiar with these4350dynamics. I have represented it for most of the last 35 years4351at the local, State, and Federal level.4352    Mr. LaMalfa is not here, but we negotiated a partnership4353when we were in the legislature that would help change the4354dynamic. So the first time in the history of the State, we4355would require permitting by our ag industry because their4356aquifers were collapsing.4357    The San Joaquin Valley creates one-third of the vegetables4358and fruit in the United States. It is an enormous agricultural4359and economic benefit. So getting this balance, from that4360perspective, has always been interesting.4361    In 1972, if my memory serves me, when the Clean Water Act4362was passed, one of the premier, in my view, pieces of4363legislation environmentally--and it should be businesswise as4364well--Richard Nixon was President. It passed out of the Senate4365with no ``no'' votes. It passed out of the House with, I think436611 ``no'' votes.4367    And then President Nixon vetoed it, and they overrode the4368veto with huge bipartisan support.4369    In that context, it seems as if, and for all of you, but I4370am going to start with Mr. LaTourette and his experience4371specifically about the delta smelt and how all of that is4372intertwined in our instance, but in other instances in4373environmental protection.4374    But it does seem as if we could have improved our4375efficiency to the point of--and to the chair's point--of doing4376more of this upfront.4377    Litigation is not an effective way, I don't think, as a4378progressive Member of Congress, to provide oversight. So to the4379degree we can do it, it is more efficient.4380    And I am somewhat frustrated sometimes that we haven't made4381it more efficient for everyone. Although I think we have made4382great strides, in particular in California.4383    The California Water Project, one of the great engineering4384feats in American history, started by Governor Pat Brown,4385allowed for all of this.4386    So in that context, the recent news, having dealt with, the4387Endangered Species Act and the delta smelt specifically, it is4388the canary in the coal mine as a lot of these circumstances4389are.4390    And still having the balance of when to hold water, when to4391release water, in an environment that is changing every year4392because of climate change and the relationship to the Sierra4393snowpack in our case.4394    So could you speak, Mr. LaTourette, in your experience,4395that dynamic where it is not just about, in our instance, the4396delta smelt. It is the canary in the coal mine that they4397represent, about the health of the largest estuary west of the4398Mississippi, which obviously has context of clean drinking4399water and the supply of clean drinking water for the country.4400    So how do we meet that balance but also in the context of,4401it is, in this case, it is not just about that particular4402species--although it is important in and of itself--but it is4403more the impact that it represents to the health of the delta4404in this case?4405    Mr. LaTourette. Can you just say that last part one more4406time, maybe a little closer to the mic? I want to make sure I4407am getting it. I think it is an Endangered Species Act4408question.4409    Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, no, more generally, the health--the4410environmental health of someplace like the San Joaquin Delta is4411important to clean water, that if you are not balancing all of4412this, you are going to have to spend more money on clean water4413rather than less.4414    Mr. LaTourette. So----4415    Mr. DeSaulnier [interrupting]. So, the environmental4416balance that benefits everybody.4417    Mr. LaTourette. So, I think it is important, as I said to4418the Congresswoman before, that we look at this issue a bit more4419holistically, right, because any one project that is getting4420built, and we are concerned about a permit from under the NWP4421or a permit under the Clean Air Act for particulate matter,4422there are multiple things going on in the development of any4423one site, that all bear on the greater environmental impact in4424that region.4425    And so I think we have to look at the permitting matters4426across the board, and the way that we do that, to promote4427coordinated environmental governance that is conscious of the4428air issue, the land issue, the water issue, across the board,4429is that we have a mechanism inside our State environment agency4430that brings every internal State agency and the Federal4431agencies that touch that, to one table.4432    It is a service that we provide to the regulated community,4433because any one regulated actor may not see the greater context4434of environmental health. If we bring everyone around the table,4435we can help share that information so that we are doing the4436best to protect the environmental health across all media.4437    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.4438    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Always willing to work with you4439and others to try to make the system work more efficiently.4440    Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir.4441    The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry for 5 minutes.4442    Mr. Perry. I thank the chair and thank the witnesses. This4443to me falls into the category of ``No good deed goes4444unpunished.''4445    To me, the radical left has been so hell-bent at stopping4446traditional energy power and projects, the things that provide4447us with nearly every modern, imaginable good that we have, and4448the abuse of the system that we have, to do their bidding.4449    That is what I have seen over the course of my time here.4450The radical left's weaponization, particularly of section 4014451of the Clean Water Act, is a perfect example of the anti-energy4452mindset.4453    It is actually kind of like an anti-civilization mindset4454taking hold and being used to attack projects for which they4455disagree. And as many have stated here along the line, you get4456a permit, you think you are going to work, and then it is4457actually a strategy to let you build out as much of the project4458as possible and stop it at the end to chill investment for4459future projects, which is just mind-numbing.4460    I will give you a couple examples. The State of Washington4461used section 401 to kill the Millennium Bulk Terminal Project4462due to nonlisted adverse impacts.4463    Now, they might have all been valid adverse impacts.4464Unfortunately, none of them related to water quality. And,4465again, I will remind everybody, this is section 401.4466    The State of New York used section 401 to deny a pipeline4467project in Raritan Bay due to the potential greenhouse gas4468emissions from the project.4469    Well, greenhouse gas emissions are unrelated to water4470quality, right? This is 401. And, oh, by the way, like, I get4471that they don't love a pipeline. I am not sure I want a4472pipeline in my backyard, either.4473    But so now we are going to put the fuel on a train, and4474they are not going to like that, either. So then we are going4475to buy the fuel from Russia or some other country that hates4476us. This is a brilliant plan.4477    The State of Oregon killed an LNG export terminal using4478section 401 process.4479    The State of New Jersey denied a water quality permit for a4480proposed pipeline project, and they actually cited water4481quality issues. However, the environmental groups that pushed4482the State into action made it very clear they were just simply4483in opposition to traditional energy projects.4484    Fortunately, during the first term of the Trump4485administration, it was identified, this weaponization, for what4486it is, and took action to limit the scope of the 401 to actual4487water quality issues.4488    And I would cite the gentlelady from Ohio, Representative4489Sykes. I was alive when the Cuyahoga River was on fire.4490    None of us on this committee, probably none of you in the4491audience, agree with a pipe coming out of a factory dumping4492into a river and filling it with a bunch of stuff that is4493flammable and killing--like, none of us agree with that, but4494that was 50 years ago. We don't do that anymore. And to use 4014495to stop legitimate projects for everything other than what 4014496is used for, like, has to be recognized, acknowledged, and4497something has to be done about it.4498    It is vital that Congress acts to make the change4499permanent. Last Congress, we took action to do so by passing4500the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement4501Act through this committee and included it in H.R. 1.4502    And it has got to be brought back up and taken across the4503finish line. It is an important step to stop the radical4504assault on traditional energy projects.4505    Mr. LaTourette, your Governor Murphy is appointed alternate4506commissioner to the Delaware River Basin Commission. God bless4507him.4508    The DRBC, as we know it, is under immense pressure from4509environmental groups that receive significant Federal funding.4510It is not just paid for by people out in the community that4511say, well, we want it to--it is paid for by tax dollars, to4512move forward with a ban on hydraulic fracturing. And4513Pennsylvania has got a lot of resources, so does New York.4514    But in doing so, the commission denied Pennsylvanians in4515the river basin the ability to access the mineral rights that4516they themselves own, the underpinning of the United States of4517America and free society itself. They can't extract it but for4518the commission's actions.4519    It has also denied the Nation and the world a critical4520source of natural gas at a time of high price and significant4521volatility in the market, and, again, we turn to Russia,4522because of things like the Jones Act and these type of things,4523to buy gas for New England.4524    And I don't want to be paying those rates, but I don't4525think those people do either, but we can't get--Pennsylvania4526can't get its product to market because of this kind of stuff.4527    The DRBC is an unelected group of bureaucrats. Legislation4528that I have offered, the DRILL Now Act, will be reintroduced4529this week, and addresses the misguided power grab by the DRBC.4530    This river basin commission--and there are three of them in4531Pennsylvania that cover the State--impose more stringent4532regulations than the duly elected representatives of the4533Commonwealth.4534    That kind of stuff has got to end, somebody has to be4535accountable, and it can't be people at these commissions that4536aren't elected and impose these kind of--these regulatory4537prohibitions on the citizenry and our country.4538    I yield the balance.4539    Mr. Knott. Thank you, Representative Perry. The gentleman4540yields back.4541    Are there any further questions from any members of the4542subcommittee who have not yet been recognized?4543    Seeing none, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the4544record the following letters related to the Clean Water Act4545permitting: From the Industrial Energy Consumers of America,4546dated February 10th, 2025; the Interstate Natural Gas4547Association of America, dated February 10th, 2025; American4548Society of Civil Engineers, dated February 11th, 2025; the4549Western States Water Council, dated February 11th, 2025; the4550Waters Advocacy Coalition, dated February 11th, 2025; the4551Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, dated February455211th, 2025; and lastly, the Associated Builders and4553Contractors, dated February 11th, 2025.4554    Without objection, so ordered.4555    [Mr. Knott's submissions for the record are on pages 65-455679.]4557    Mr. Knott. This concludes our hearing for today. I would4558like to thank each one of the witnesses for your time and your4559testimony. The subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.4560    [Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]45614562                       Submissions for the Record45634564                              ----------45654566Letter of February 10, 2025,  from Paul N. Cicio,  President and Chief4567 Executive Officer,  Industrial Energy  Consumers of  America, to Hon.4568 Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,4569 Subcommittee on  Water Resources and  Environment,  Submitted for the4570 Record by Hon. Brad Knott4571                                                 February 10, 2025.4572The Honorable Mike Collins,4573Chairman,4574House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC4575        20515.4576The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,4577Ranking Member,4578House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC4579        20515.45804581Re: Comments for the Record on Hearing ``America Builds: Clean Water4582Act Permitting and Project Delivery''--44 Natural Gas Pipelines Issue4583Orders to Manufacturers to Reduce/Curtail Use of Natural Gas Due to4584Inadequate Pipeline Capacity45854586    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:4587    The manufacturing sector's economic growth has never before faced4588such a growing crisis as we are faced with today, due to inadequate4589natural gas pipeline capacity. The recent protracted cold weather has4590once again shown the fragility of our nation's natural gas system as 444591pipelines (see Figure 1) across the country have issued either4592operational flow orders (OFOs) or curtailment notices to manufacturing4593companies to reduce demand in order to service the needs of homeowners,4594power companies, and LNG exports. When there is inadequate pipeline4595capacity, manufacturing companies are always the first to be curtailed.4596Curtailment can cost millions of dollars per day, disrupt operations,4597damage equipment, impact supply chains for consumer, industrial, and4598national defense products.4599    Some manufacturers saw their natural gas prices increase4600twentyfold. If we do not reduce our natural gas consumption after4601notice has been given to do so from the pipeline, the pipeline can4602penalize the manufacturer by charging higher prices ranging from $404603per MMBtu to $120 per MMBtu.4604    One hundred percent of IECA member companies are from the4605manufacturing sector and their competitiveness is dependent upon the4606affordability of natural gas and electricity. Natural gas is used as a4607fuel and feedstock. The U.S. manufacturing sector consumes 26 percent4608of the U.S. natural gas and 25 percent of U.S. electricity.4609Manufacturing is the only sector that operates 24/7, which requires4610reliability of natural gas and electricity.4611    Weather in December and January challenged the pipeline supply4612chain of interstate, intrastate, and Local Distribution Systems (LDCs).4613Pipeline warnings/notices to reduce or curtail supply are now in both4614winter and summer, more frequent and severe due to higher demand for4615electricity generation and LNG exports. Increasing electrical demand by4616data centers, crypto currency, and the electrification of the economy4617are all intensifying the problem. Despite increased demand, the U.S.4618Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that the U.S. added4619record low interstate natural gas pipeline capacity in 2022 and 2023.4620    The manufacturing sector is especially vulnerable along the entire4621East Coast from Georgia to New York, which is supplied by the Transco4622Pipeline. There is zero availability of firm natural gas pipeline4623transportation that is needed to expand existing facilities or invest4624in new ones. Until there is an increase in pipeline capacity, we urge4625electric utilities to not prematurely shut down coal-fired electric4626generating units. IECA sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory4627Commission (FERC) on February 4 urging them to address this issue by4628holding a Technical Conference.\1\4629---------------------------------------------------------------------------4630    \1\ IECA Requests FERC Hold Technical Conference--No Firm Pipeline4631Capacity Available on East Coast for Manufacturing, https://www.ieca-4632us.org/wp-content/uploads/02.04.25_Request-for-FERC-Technical-4633Conference.pdf4634---------------------------------------------------------------------------4635    We ask Congress to take swift, decisive action to address this4636urgent problem. First, we urge Congress to quickly advance energy4637permitting legislation, which would expedite the expansion of our4638nation's natural gas pipeline network to serve our nation's growing4639demand.\2\ Second, we urge this Subcommittee to hold a hearing to allow4640manufacturing companies to explain the gravity of the impacts of4641inadequate natural gas pipeline supply.4642---------------------------------------------------------------------------4643    \2\ 49 Consumer Organizations Support Permitting Reform to Build4644More Natural Gas Pipelines, https://www.ieca-us.org/wp-content/uploads/464507.29.24_Senate_House-NG-Pipeline-Coalition-Letter_FINAL.pdf4646---------------------------------------------------------------------------4647            Sincerely,4648                                             Paul N. Cicio,4649President and Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers4650                                                        of America.46514652cc:  House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure4653                               __________46544655The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is a nonpartisan association4656of leading manufacturing companies with $1.3 trillion in annual sales,4657over 12,000 facilities nationwide, and with more than 1.9 million4658employees. One hundred percent of IECA members are manufacturing4659companies whose competitiveness is largely determined by the cost and4660reliability of natural gas and electricity. IECA's sole mission is to4661reduce and avoid energy costs and increase energy reliability through4662advocacy in Congress and regulatory agencies, such as the Federal4663Energy Regulatory Commission. IECA membership represents a diverse set4664of industries including chemicals, plastics, steel, iron ore, aluminum,4665paper, food processing, fertilizer, insulation, glass, industrial4666gases, pharmaceutical, consumer goods, building products, automotive,4667independent oil refining, and cement.46684669                                Figure 14670------------------------------------------------------------------------46714672------------------------------------------------------------------------46731.........................................  Atlanta Gas Light46742.........................................  Acadian: LA46753.........................................  Alabama Tennessee Gas4676                                             Pipeline46774.........................................  ANR Pipeline Company46785.........................................  Atmos Energy: VA46796.........................................  Blackhills Pipeline46807.........................................  Columbia Gas Transmission4681                                             Company: MD, VA, PA, WV46828.........................................  Danville Utilities46839.........................................  Dominion Energy: SC468410........................................  Duke Energy: OH, KY, SC, NC468511........................................  East Tennessee Natural Gas468612........................................  Eastern Gas Pipeline468713........................................  Enable Gas Transmission, LLC468814........................................  Enterprise Acadian468915........................................  Enterprise Intrastate469016........................................  Enterprise Texas Pipeline469117........................................  Houston Pipeline469218........................................  Kinder Morgan Texas469319........................................  Liberty Utilities469420........................................  Louisville Gas and Electric469521........................................  Michigan Gas Utilities469622........................................  MoGas Pipeline469723........................................  National Grid469824........................................  Natural Gas Pipeline (NGPL)469925........................................  NIPSCO470026........................................  Northern Border Ventura470127........................................  Northern Natural Gas: SD470228........................................  Northwest Pipeline470329........................................  North Shore Gas470430........................................  Ozark Gas Transmission470531........................................  Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line4706                                             Company470732........................................  PECO, An Excelon Company470833........................................  Peoples Gas470934........................................  Piedmont Natural Gas: TN,4710                                             NC, SC471135........................................  Public Service Company of4712                                             Colorado471336........................................  Southern Natural Gas Company471437........................................  Spire MoGas Pipeline471538........................................  Summit Natural Gas471639........................................  Tennessee Gas Pipeline4717                                             Company471840........................................  Texas Eastern Transmission4719                                             Pipeline: TX, TN472041........................................  Texas Gas Service472142........................................  Transco: VA, NC, VA, SC, GA472243........................................  UGI Pipeline472344........................................  Until, Maine Natural Gas4724------------------------------------------------------------------------47254726 Letter of February 10, 2025, from Amy Andryszak, President and Chief Ex-4727  ecutive Officer, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, to Hon.4728  Mike Collins, Chairman,  and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,  Ranking Member,4729  Subcommittee  on  Water Resources and  Environment,  Submitted for  the4730  Record by Hon. Brad Knott4731                                                 February 10, 2025.4732The Honorable Mike Collins,4733Chairman,4734Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, United States House of4735        Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,4736        Washington, DC 20515.4737The Honorable Frederica Wilson,4738Ranking Member,4739Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, United States House of4740        Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,4741        Washington, DC 20515.4742    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson,4743    I am writing to offer the views of the Interstate Natural Gas4744Association of America (INGAA) for the Subcommittee's America Builds:4745Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery hearing.4746    INGAA is a trade association representing the interstate natural4747gas pipeline and storage industry. Our members transport most of the4748natural gas consumed in the United States through a network of4749approximately 200,000 miles of interstate transmission pipelines. These4750large capacity, critical infrastructure systems are analogous to the4751interstate highway system and span multiple states or regions. Our4752industry delivers natural gas to end users such as local distribution4753companies, electricity generators, industrial manufacturers, and LNG4754export facilities.4755    For more than a decade, the shale revolution has gifted our country4756with abundant natural gas supplies, which has elevated the need for4757additional infrastructure to move gas around the country. Pipelines4758make it possible to deliver North America's abundant natural gas4759reserves to fuel our homes, businesses, and the American economy.4760    Natural gas infrastructure is inherently reliable, built in4761compliance with exact safety regulations and engineering standards.4762According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration4763(PHMSA), these linear infrastructure networks are not only the most4764efficient but also the safest way to transport large energy quantities4765like natural gas and petroleum products with over 99.999% of all4766pipeline deliveries being made safely each year. The North American4767Electric Reliability Corporation indicated in its recent summer4768assessment that ``natural gas supply and infrastructure is vitally4769important to electric grid reliability, particularly as variable energy4770resources satisfy more of our energy needs . . . '' Moreover, the4771Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated that natural gas was4772the primary source--roughly 43 percent--of U.S. utility-scale4773electricity generation in 2023 and projected last month in its short-4774term energy outlook that domestic natural gas demand will outpace4775supply over the next two years.4776    The United States needs a modernized network of natural gas4777infrastructure to meet its energy, economic and security goals.4778Although enactment of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) contained4779incremental permitting improvements, broad reforms to the Clean Water4780Act (CWA) and other statutes are needed to address the fact that4781current permitting processes to site and approve new and expanded4782natural gas and liquid energy infrastructure remain slow, inefficient4783and overly litigated. These ongoing challenges hamper access to4784domestic natural gas resources and other fuel sources, raise energy4785costs in certain regions, and in the worst cases, limit access to4786energy and create reliability issues during periods of extreme weather.4787    INGAA applauds the Subcommittee's interest in potentially advancing4788legislative measures that would expedite energy infrastructure4789permitting and asks that you consider the following CWA recommendations4790of importance to the natural gas transmission pipeline industry.47914792       CWA Section 401 energy infrastructure permitting reforms.47934794    Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) adopts a ``cooperative4795federalism'' approach to regulation by giving each State or Tribe a4796significant, carefully defined role in regulating discharges into4797waters of the United States (WOTUS). If an activity authorized by a4798federal agency would result in a discharge into WOTUS, the State or4799Tribe where the discharge occurs must certify that the discharge4800complies with CWA Sections 301, 302, 303, and 307. The federal agency4801may not authorize the activity unless the State or Tribe certifies the4802discharge's compliance, certifies compliance subject to specific4803conditions, or waives its right to certify. Section 401 requires the4804State or Tribe to determine compliance within a ``reasonable period of4805time,'' not to exceed one year.4806    Interstate natural gas pipeline projects frequently cross WOTUS, so4807INGAA members' projects often require a Section 401 certification,4808which has broad applicability to a variety of infrastructure projects,4809including interstate natural gas pipelines, roads, electric4810transmission, hydroelectric transmission and flood control. Based on4811our experience, Section 401 works well in most States. Certain States4812have misused Section 401, however, to burden, delay, or outright veto4813critical energy infrastructure projects, namely natural gas pipelines.4814In so doing, those States disrupt the role of federal and state4815authorities, undermine the actions of other States and damage4816cooperative federalism.4817    Misuse of Section 401 has taken many forms. For example, States4818have denied certification for policy reasons other than protection of4819water quality. In addition, States have disregarded or circumvented the4820one-year time limit on review. Although pipelines can seek judicial4821review of a State's certification decision, projects cannot move4822forward while the pipeline appeals a denial, and the delay and4823uncertainty associated with litigation make it costly and time4824consuming. Indeed, judicial review of Section 401 certifications4825presents an additional obstacle to infrastructure development and in4826some instances, led to cancellation of projects even when the project4827developer was successful in the courts.4828    Actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the4829prior Administration compounded the uncertainty and risk created by4830States' misuse of Section 401. In 2023, the EPA rescinded a rule4831promulgated by the agency in 2020 \1\ to address misuse of Section 4014832and replaced the rule with one that significantly expands the scope of4833Section 401 review to the activity as a whole rather than discharges4834from the point of discharge. This authorizes the certifying authority4835to potentially take an overly expansive analysis of the water quality4836impacts caused by other aspects of the project potentially unrelated to4837the discharge that triggered the certification requirement. INGAA4838maintains that the 2023 rule \2\ exceeds EPA's authority under the CWA4839and affords States and Tribes significantly greater latitude to4840potentially deny Section 401 certifications to block essential4841infrastructure development on policy grounds unrelated to water4842quality.4843---------------------------------------------------------------------------4844    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/13/2020-484512081/clean-water-act-section-401-certification-rule4846    \2\ https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401/final-2023-cwa-section-401-water-4847quality-certification-improvement-rule4848---------------------------------------------------------------------------4849    INGAA members need regulatory certainty--consistent, legally sound4850``rules of the road''--to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in4851critical infrastructure projects. Persistent misuse of Section 401 and4852regulations that change wildly every few years undermine this4853certainty. We urge Congress to act to ensure that States adhere to4854their carefully defined role in the CWA's cooperative federalism4855framework and that a reasonable regulatory framework can survive longer4856than four years. Actions to clarify the scope of Section 401 review are4857of paramount importance. Specifically, we ask Congress to restore4858cooperative federalism by clarifying that:4859      Section 401 authorizes States to review discharges into4860WOTUS, not the entire activity subject to federal authorization4861(including activities which occur in other states). This clarification4862would help ensure that states act within appropriate limits of their4863Section 401 authority and confirm compliance with federally approved4864water quality criteria as intended by the underlying statute.48654866      States must base their certification decisions on whether4867the discharge complies with the enumerated sections of the CWA, not4868compliance with other state laws or policies.48694870    INGAA also urges Congress to address judicial review of Section 4014871certification decisions so that there is an effective, efficient, and4872predictable process for appealing State determinations.48734874       CWA Section 404 energy infrastructure permitting reforms.48754876    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of4877dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including4878wetlands, without authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting4879through the Corps of Engineers. There are two types of authorization4880under Section 404.4881    First, Section 404 requires an individual permit for discharges4882with potentially significant impacts. The agency or a State or Tribe4883acting through a Corps-approved program--evaluates applications for an4884individual permit using a ``public interest'' standard and4885environmental criteria published by the EPA.4886    Second, Section 404 allows the Corps to establish a general permit4887that authorizes discharges that have minimal adverse environmental4888effects. The general permit reduces the length of review for discharges4889that have minimal effects and meet the strict set of conditions4890established in the permit. The CWA provides an additional limit on the4891use of a general permit: a district or division commander can revoke4892the nationwide permit in a state or other geographic region.4893    The Corps' most recent set of general permits \3\ (Nationwide4894Permits (NWPs))--became effective on February 25, 2022, and will expire4895on March 14, 2026. The NWPs authorize discharges associated with a4896variety of industrial projects so long as those discharges meet each4897NWP's stringent criteria. For example, developers must notify the Corps4898of certain planned projects prior to construction, which provides the4899Corps an opportunity to determine the project's eligibility for the NWP4900program.4901---------------------------------------------------------------------------4902    \3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/27/2021-490327441/reissuance-and-modification-of-nationwide-permits4904---------------------------------------------------------------------------4905    The Corps must maintain its NWP program to meet the United States'4906energy needs. To complete work on the pipeline network to deliver4907natural gas securely, reliably, and affordably, operators specifically4908rely on NWP 12, which authorizes discharges from utility lines crossing4909waters of the United States, including natural gas pipelines. Without4910NWP 12, it would be extremely difficult to complete myriad maintenance,4911repair, and modernization projects that must be done quickly to4912preserve the integrity and safety of our systems, including projects4913required by the Pipeline Safety Act and the Pipeline and Hazardous4914Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).4915    Despite the agency's well-established, effective oversight process,4916the NWP program has been targeted in recent years with various4917stakeholders filing legal challenges and urging the prior4918Administration to revoke NWPs to hinder essential linear infrastructure4919projects. In 2022, the Administration launched an inquiry into whether4920``modifications or other future actions'' with respect to NWP 12 were4921appropriate, creating significant uncertainty as to whether the Corps4922would maintain an effective NWP program moving forward.4923    Like planning under Section 401 under the Clean Water Act,4924pipelines need to know the ``rules of the road'' when investing4925substantial time and capital into the planning and completion of4926critical work their networks. We cannot afford regulatory actions that4927cast doubt on the availability of the NWP program, which burdens the4928agency by increasing the need for individual permits for activities4929that have only minimal impact, and delays service to the public.4930    INGAA urges the Corps to reissue all NWPs prior to their scheduled4931expiration in March 2026. We also support additional action by Congress4932to protect the NWP program and promote regulatory certainty. Introduced4933in the 118th Congress, H.R. 7073, Creating Confidence in Clean Water4934Permitting Act, would extend the length of the Corps' general permits4935from five years to ten years. Additionally, H.R. 7023 would clearly4936define discharge activities within the Corps' CWA Section 4044937authority. These commonsense changes would provide additional certainty4938for developers of all types of linear infrastructure, not just natural4939gas pipelines.4940    Thank you for your attention to these important matters. INGAA4941stands ready to work in a bipartisan manner to enact these CWA reforms4942and other durable permitting process improvements that enable4943development of the energy infrastructure to continue delivering the4944benefits of natural gas to the American people.4945            Sincerely,4946                                             Amy Andryszak,4947    President & CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.49484949Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the4950                       Record by Hon. Brad Knott49514952                              Introduction49534954    The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the4955opportunity to submit a statement to the House Committee on4956Transportation & Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water Resources and4957Environment for its hearing on permitting regulations under the Clean4958Water Act. We are grateful to Subcommittee Chairman Mike Collins and4959Ranking Member Frederica Wilson for holding this hearing on this4960important subject.4961    Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation's oldest civil engineering4962society. ASCE represents more than 160,000 members of the civil4963engineering profession in 177 countries. As the professionals who4964design, construct, and maintain critical aspects of the United States'4965water resources, ASCE welcomes the opportunity to offer perspective on4966the important subject of Clean Water Act permitting and project4967delivery.49684969ASCE's 2021 Infrastructure Report Card4970    Our nation's infrastructure is the foundation that connects our4971businesses, communities, and people. It serves as the backbone of the4972U.S. economy, and is critical to the nation's public health, safety,4973and welfare. Every four years, ASCE publishes the Report Card for4974America's Infrastructure, which grades 17 major infrastructure4975categories using a simple A to F school report card format. In 2021,4976the nation's clean water infrastructure, comprised of stormwater and4977wastewater infrastructure, received grades of D and D+ respectively. On4978March 25, 2025, ASCE will release the 2025 Report Card for America's4979Infrastructure. The 2025 Report Card will provide an updated snapshot4980of the nation's stormwater and wastewater infrastructure and note areas4981of progress and ongoing challenges that have been observed over the4982past four years.49834984Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act4985    For more than 50 years, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has provided a4986foundation for ensuring that the nation's waterways are fishable and4987swimmable. Since this landmark law was passed in 1972, the CWA has4988prevented 700 billion pounds of pollutants from contaminating the4989nation's waterways annually, significantly slowed the loss of America's4990wetlands, and has helped generate billions of dollars in economic4991activity through industries such as fishing and recreation.\1\ Under4992the CWA, critical tools like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund4993(CWSRF) program were created and have provided billions of dollars to4994states and communities to support low interest loans for upgrades to4995wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Continued support for the CWA4996is critical to ensuring that America's waterways are free of pollution4997and do not pose health and safety risks to the public.4998---------------------------------------------------------------------------4999    \1\ https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2022/5000Five-Decades-of-Clean-Water15001---------------------------------------------------------------------------5002    ASCE recognizes the critical importance of providing proper balance5003between timely permitting for infrastructure projects and mitigating5004and preventing harmful effects to the environment. ASCE strongly5005believes that reforms to permitting processes should focus on using the5006best available science to make objective determinations on5007environmental impacts while streamlining permitting and approval5008decisions to reduce delays to critical infrastructure projects.5009    To better protect the health and beneficial use of the nation's5010waters, ASCE supports and encourages the reauthorization of the Clean5011Water Act.\2\ Amended several times since becoming law in 1972, the CWA5012has not received Congressional reauthorization since the Water Quality5013Act of 1987, which included, among other provisions, the creation of5014the CWSRF to support low interest financing for stormwater and5015wastewater infrastructure capitalization projects.5016---------------------------------------------------------------------------5017    \2\ https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps420---clean-5018water-act-reauthorization5019---------------------------------------------------------------------------5020    Reauthorization would provide more consistent access to federal5021appropriations, creating greater certainty and planning ability for5022infrastructure development. It should also take a stronger approach to5023non-point source pollution, a leading cause of water quality5024challenges, and incorporate a watershed approach which recognizes the5025connectivity of water systems across geographical and political5026boundaries and brings a wide range of voices and perspectives to the5027table.5028    ASCE also encourages any CWA reauthorization be accompanied by the5029development of nationwide best practices supporting sustainable and5030consistent approaches to protection of waters which are also mindful of5031the need to minimize timing of regulatory processing and associated5032costs.50335034Addressing Non-Point Source Pollution5035    One of the most important functions of the Clean Water Act is the5036prevention and mitigation of point-source pollution in the nation's5037waters. Point-source pollution is pollution originating from a distinct5038and identifiable source, such as a pipe leak, runoff from sewage5039treatment plants, and discharge from factories and other industrial5040facilities. However, ASCE supports the development of more aggressive5041efforts under the CWA to address non-point source pollution, which is5042pollution originating from more discrete sources such as urban and road5043runoff, agricultural activity, and mine runoff. Non-point source5044pollution has been identified as the leading remaining contributor to5045water quality issues, creating harmful effects for drinking water5046supplies, fisheries, and recreation.\3\ ASCE supports efforts to5047prevent and mitigate non-point source pollution through a variety of5048methods. These include the development of regulations and mechanisms5049requiring mitigation of the impacts of non-point source pollution,5050increased funding for research into the impact of non-point source5051pollution on surface water and groundwater, and improving sustainable5052best management practices.\4\5053---------------------------------------------------------------------------5054    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/nps/basic-information-about-nonpoint-5055source-nps-pollution5056    \4\ https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps461---non-5057point-source-pollution5058---------------------------------------------------------------------------5059Watershed Approach5060    ASCE strongly believes that the most effective way to protect the5061nation's waters, including the mitigation of non-point source5062pollution, is through a watershed approach. This approach focuses on5063water quality and quantity and considers the connectivity of all5064systems. It acknowledges the overlapping nature of systems which cross5065political and geographical lines and brings all stakeholders from the5066public and private sectors to the table. This also allows for the5067incorporation of local and regional viewpoints into planning and5068decision-making processes.\5\5069---------------------------------------------------------------------------5070    \5\ https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps422---5071watershed-management5072---------------------------------------------------------------------------5073Conclusion5074    ASCE greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide the Water5075Resources and Environment Subcommittee with comments on this critical5076issue. One of ASCE's primary policy goals is supporting proper balance5077between timely and efficient infrastructure development as well as5078reducing and mitigating harmful effects to the environment. We look5079forward to working with the committee on how best to address these5080issues throughout the 119th Congress.50815082Statement of the Western States Water Council, Submitted for the Record5083                           by Hon. Brad Knott50845085    On behalf of the Western States Water Council (WSWC), we wish to5086express our appreciation for the opportunity to provide written5087testimony on Clean Water Act (CWA) Permitting and Project Delivery. The5088WSWC is a bi-partisan government entity created by Western Governors in50891965, representing eighteen states. Our members are appointed by and5090serve at the pleasure of their respective Governors, advising them on5091water policy issues. Our mission is to ensure that the West has an5092adequate, secure, and sustainable supply of water of suitable quality5093to meet its diverse economic and environmental needs now and in the5094future. The WSWC has long supported legislation that addresses needs5095related to the challenges of aging and inadequate infrastructure, while5096ensuring a reliable and secure water supply. The WSWC also has a long5097history of involvement in discussions between states and the federal5098government related to CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404, including state5099permitting authorities and jurisdiction over waters of the States and5100waters of the United States (WOTUS).5101    Water in the West is a limited resource. Water must be recognized5102as a critical public policy priority given the importance of the5103resource to our public health, economy, food security, environment, and5104the western way of life. We must cultivate a western water conservation5105ethic through a greater understanding of and appreciation for water's5106value. A secure and sustainable water future will be determined by our5107ability to maintain, replace, expand, and make the most efficient use5108of critical water infrastructure. Sustainable water resource management5109should enhance the protection and restoration of significant aquatic5110ecosystems and improve economic and environmental security.5111    The West and the Nation depend on an intricate and aging system of5112weirs, diversions, dams, reservoirs, pipelines, aqueducts, pumps,5113canals, laterals, drains, levees, wells, stormwater channels, and water5114and wastewater treatment and hydroelectric power plants. Substantial5115and sustained investments in water project construction, maintenance,5116rehabilitation, and replacement are necessary and pay long-term5117dividends to the economy, public health and safety, and the5118environment. The federal government has a significant role in financing5119and cost-sharing for water-related infrastructure, given federal5120economic and environmental objectives, federal tribal trust and treaty5121obligations, past commitments, and federal regulatory mandates. See5122WSWC positions #481, #486, #519, and #521--Resolutions Summary, Western5123States Water Council.5124    The CWA Section 101(b) expressly recognizes, preserves, and5125protects ``the primary responsibilities and rights of States to5126prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and5127use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and5128water resources. . . . '' and Section 101(b)(7) commits resources ``to5129support and aid research relating to the prevention, reduction, and5130elimination of pollution and to provide Federal technical services and5131financial aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in5132connection with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of5133pollution.''5134    CWA Section 101(g) further provides that the primary and exclusive5135authority of each state to ``allocate quantities of water within its5136jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired5137by this Act.''51385139                     State Certifications (CWA 401)51405141    The Western States strongly support the planning and development of5142critical infrastructure and streamlined permitting processes, but such5143efforts should not come at the expense of States' authority to5144allocate, manage, and protect their water resources. The Council5145supports a balanced and integrated approach to achieve water and energy5146policy goals that plans for the future in sustainable ways, and5147recognizes legitimate state water resource and water quality5148management, protection, and planning authorities to balance competing5149water uses. The development of hydropower and other federally permitted5150and licensed projects involving activities that may impact states'5151water quality standards should be appropriately undertaken in5152compliance with substantive and procedural state water law and5153delegated authority under CWA Section 401.5154    States have responsibly exercised their delegated authority under5155the CWA Section 401 and under state water quality statutes to protect5156water quality, and they must consider proposed activities and5157discharges in light of the States' designated water uses and related5158water quality standards. An overly narrow reading of Section 401 would5159deprive the States of the ability to maintain the very beneficial uses5160that the CWA was designed to protect, and would threaten the existing5161partnership between state and federal agencies based on cooperative5162federalism.5163    CWA Section 401 certification denials by states are rare and5164carefully considered, and are not examples of the failure of the5165system, as the process has been historically well-understood, reliable5166and supported by case law that provides certainty for both state and5167federal agencies, and the regulated community. The vast majority of5168Section 401 certification requests are processed by States within 905169days, well within the one year allowed by current law, with relatively5170little if any backlog of certification actions. Most delays are5171typically due to submission of an incomplete application, applicants'5172non-responsiveness to requests for additional information, the5173completion of necessary study requirements, the size and complexity of5174some projects (and related impacts), substantive changes to the5175proposed project requiring further review, or constraints on state5176resources.5177    Substantial and recurring changes to regulatory definitions,5178policies, and programs between federal Administrations create5179uncertainty for co-regulators and the regulated community, often5180leading to unreliable results, indecision, inconsistency, and lawsuits.5181    Actions taken by the federal government under the 2020 CWA Section5182401 Certification Rule (85 FR 42210) caused some Western States to5183issue an increased number of denials, due to inflexible deadlines that5184did not accommodate state public engagement laws or allow sufficient5185time to gather adequate information on project impacts. The 2020 rule5186revision led to federal agencies waiving reopener conditions in5187nationwide permits imposed on federal projects by States under CWA5188Section 401, inconsistent with CWA Sections 101(b) and 101(g), Section518927 of the Federal Power Act, and the Supreme Court ruling under P.U.D.5190No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology.5191    The 2023 CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement5192Rule (88 FR 66558) identified 16 national parks that EPA declared to be5193``lands of exclusive federal jurisdiction'' and asserted that EPA is5194the Section 401 certifying authority in those parks, although States5195have been the certifying authority in some of those parks for decades.5196    The WSWC strongly supports early state engagement in federal5197permitting and licensing actions and the coordination of state and5198federal environmental requirements and review processes for critical5199infrastructure without diminishing state authority. WSWC encourages EPA5200to consult with affected states regarding certifying authority in5201national parks designated as ``lands of exclusive federal5202jurisdiction'' in order to resolve any jurisdictional disputes in a5203manner that upholds the CWA's direct grant of Section 401 certifying5204authority to States and its intent to empower States to protect water5205quality within their boundaries.5206    The WSWC supports any changes that strengthen the deference to5207state water laws and do not diminish the primary state authority and5208responsibility for the appropriation, allocation, development,5209conservation, and protection of their water resources, including5210minimum streamflows, and the protection of water quality and designated5211uses.5212    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision declaring5213that minimum streamflow requirements are a permissible condition of CWA5214Section 401 certifications. A Washington city and local utility5215district sought a license to build a hydroelectric project on the5216Dosewallips River. The proposed project would reduce the water flow5217below the state's minimum stream flow requirement to protect fish5218habitat, a state designated use of the water under Section 303 of the5219CWA. The Washington Department of Ecology issued a Section 4015220certification imposing a minimum stream flow requirement as a condition5221of the hydropower license, and the applicants objected to the state's5222authority to impose water flow requirements.5223    In P.U.D. No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of5224Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the Court upheld a state's authority to5225impose conditions under the Section 401 certification process where5226necessary to protect a designated use for fish habitat. The Court5227rejected the argument that water quality requirements were limited to5228discharges under the CWA, noting that Washington's instream flow5229requirement was necessary to enforce the designated use of the river.5230The Court said that the CWA preserves each state's authority to5231allocate water quantity between users and does not limit Section 401 to5232water quality concerns when protecting designated uses. Importantly,5233the Court also rejected an effort to read ``implied limitations'' into5234Section 401 based on a perceived conflict between Section 401 state5235certifications and FERC authority under the Federal Power Act and the5236interpretation in First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 3285237U.S. 152 (1946).5238    Again in 2006, the Supreme Court recognized that State 4015239certification authority is `` . . . essential in the scheme to preserve5240state authority to address the broad range of pollution.'' S.D. Warren5241Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006),5242citing 116 Cong. Rec. 8984 (1970).52435244                   NPDES Permits and Water Transfers52455246    The CWA prohibits discharging ``pollutants'' through a ``point5247source'' into a ``water of the United States'' without first obtaining5248a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The5249permit includes limits on what can be discharged, monitoring and5250reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the5251discharge does not violate state water quality standards.5252    EPA in 40 CFR Part 122.3(i) expressly excluded water transfers from5253regulation under the NPDES permitting program, and defined a water5254transfer as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United5255States to another water of the United States without subjecting the5256water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. The rule5257relies on EPA's CWA interpretation and does not limit any ability of a5258State to use any available authority, including authority regarding5259nonpoint sources of pollution, to protect the water quality of the5260receiving water body in a water transfer.5261    Water transfers and water quality are essential to the social,5262economic and environmental well-being of the Western States. The United5263States Court of Appeals, in the cases of Friends of the Everglades v.5264South Florida Water Management Dist., 570 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009),5265and New York State et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 846 F.3d5266492 (2nd Cir. 2017), upheld EPA's Water Transfer Rule, holding it to be5267a reasonable construction of the CWA and therefore entitled to5268deference by the Federal Courts and on which decisions the United5269States Supreme Court subsequently denied Petitions for Writ of5270Certiorari.5271    The WSWC supports EPA's amendment to its CWA regulations in 40 CFR5272122.3(i) and supports the codification of 40 CFR 122.3(i) into statute5273by Congress. The WSWC has long declared its position that the transport5274of water through constructed conveyances to supply water for various5275uses without the ``addition'' of a pollutant should not trigger federal5276NPDES permitting requirements, simply because the transported water5277contains different chemical concentrations and physical constituents.5278The WSWC supports the ability of each Western State to use available5279authorities to place appropriate conditions on water transfers to5280protect water quality. With few exceptions, States have been delegated5281full or partial federal authority to administer the NPDES program and5282issue permits. Moreover, regardless of the extent of federal5283jurisdiction over waters of the United States, States have authority to5284protect their waters of the State, including any waters that may not5285fall under CWA delegated NPDES permitting authority.52865287                  Waters of the United States (WOTUS)52885289    The CWA is built upon the principle of cooperative federalism in5290which Congress intended the States, the EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of5291Engineers (USACE) implement the CWA as partners, delegating co-5292regulator authority to the States. This cooperative federalism5293framework has resulted in significant water quality improvements since5294the law's enactment in 1972, and Western States have made great strides5295in protecting water quality and coordinating water quality and water5296quantity decisions. It is imperative that EPA and USACE actively seek5297meaningful state consultation, engagement, and participation in the5298review and development of any new proposed or final rule to define5299WOTUS. States are best positioned to manage the water within their5300borders because of their on-the-ground knowledge of the unique aspects5301of their hydrology, geology, and legal frameworks.5302    States have both state statutory and constitutional authority5303pursuant to their ``waters of the state'' jurisdiction to protect the5304quality of waters within their borders, and such jurisdiction generally5305extends beyond the limits of federal jurisdiction under the CWA. Again,5306CWA Section 101(b) supports the States' critical role in protecting5307water quality as Congress explicitly declared that it did ``recognize,5308preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States5309to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.'' The Supreme Court has5310limited the jurisdictional scope of the CWA in U.S. v. Riverside5311Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985); Solid Waste Agency of5312Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Corps, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v.5313United States, 547 U.S. 715, 723 (2006); and Sackett v. EPA (#21-424).5314    Perennial streams with a relatively permanent surface water5315connection to navigable waters are presumptively considered to be under5316federal CWA jurisdiction consistent with Rapanos and Justice Scalia's5317plurality opinion. In Sackett, the Court affirmed the phrase ``waters5318of the United States'' includes only relatively permanent, standing, or5319continuously flowing bodies of water.5320    A one-size-fits-all national approach to federal regulations,5321guidance, and programs pertaining to the CWA does not recognize5322specific conditions and needs in the West, where water and5323precipitation can be scarce and a variety of unique waterbodies exist,5324including small ephemeral washes and arroyos, snow dependent5325intermittent streams, effluent dependent and dominated streams, prairie5326potholes, playa lakes, and terminal lakes, as well as numerous man-made5327reservoirs, impoundments, and water and stormwater conveyance5328structures. Further, there are physical, biological, and chemical5329differences between waters, and hydrologic differences, both spatially5330and temporally, as well as considerable differences in legal doctrines5331that govern water in Western States, which mean that federal effort to5332clarify CWA jurisdiction will inevitably impact each State differently,5333thus underscoring the need to thoroughly involve States in developing5334and implementing any rule so as to clearly respect and avoid conflict5335with state authority over the regulation of water quality and the5336allocation of waters and water rights within their respective borders5337    Any efforts to redefine or clarify CWA jurisdiction have, on their5338face, numerous federalism implications that have the potential to5339significantly impact States and alter the distribution of power and5340responsibilities among the States and the federal government. As co-5341regulators, States are separate and apart from the general public, and5342have a unique role with the federal government in the development and5343implementation of any rule to clarify or redefine CWA jurisdiction.5344Information-sharing does not equate to meaningful consultation, and the5345uncertainty and differences of opinion that exist regarding CWA5346jurisdiction requires EPA and the USACE to develop and implement5347federal CWA jurisdiction efforts in authentic partnership with the5348States. Uncertainty and differences of opinion have and continue to5349exist regarding CWA jurisdiction among States, and challenge EPA and5350the Corps to develop and implement any new rule in cooperation with the5351States, based on principles of cooperative federalism, and together to5352provide greater certainty and a clearer definition of the limits of5353federal jurisdiction.5354    As noted above, substantial and recurring changes to regulatory5355definitions, policies, and programs between federal Administrations5356create uncertainty for co-regulators and the regulated community, often5357leading to unreliable results, indecision, inconsistency, and lawsuits.5358Congress and this Administration should ensure that any federal effort5359to clarify or define CWA jurisdiction and define Waters of the United5360States:5361    1.  Creates an enduring and broadly supported definition.5362    2.  Acknowledges and addresses the needs, priorities, and concerns5363of states as co-regulators.5364    3.  Includes robust, meaningful, and representative state5365participation and consultation in the development and implementation of5366any rule, acknowledging the inherent federalism implications.5367    4.  Gives full force and effect to Congress' intent to maintain a5368reasonable balance of state and federal authority and the purposes of5369CWA Sections 101(b) and 101(g).5370    5.  Complies with the limits set by Congress as interpreted by the5371Supreme Court, and appropriately incorporates those limits.5372    6.  Specifically identifies waters and features outside the scope5373of the CWA jurisdiction including but not limited to groundwater and5374historically recognized agricultural exemptions.5375    7.  Acknowledges that States have authority to protect all ``waters5376of the state,'' and that excluding waters from federal jurisdiction5377does not always mean that they will be exempt from state regulation and5378protection.5379    8.  Continues to provide access to appropriate technical and5380financial assistance to the states to protect and improve water quality5381under existing EPA programs without regard to jurisdictional5382determinations.5383    9.  Provides a clearly delineated process for resolving differences5384of opinion over federal and non-federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction5385between different States and Tribes (treated as states).5386    10.  Provides for mapping of jurisdictional waters as a joint5387federal/state/tribal effort employing the best available data and5388tools, with appropriate provisions and processes for map maintenance.5389    11.  Includes an appropriate delay in the effective date of any new5390rule or otherwise allows for a transition enabling states to take such5391actions as may be necessary to address any gaps in state law,5392regulation and protection, and to ensure sufficient time for tools to5393be developed by federal agencies, in collaboration with states, that5394facilitate implementation of the new rule.5395    12.  Recognizes the need to balance definitional clarity with5396flexibility in implementation to address the unique landscapes, flow5397regimes, and legal frameworks in various regions of the Nation and5398appropriately weighs all factors of science, law, and effective policy5399to draw jurisdictional conclusions that are appropriate, and that do5400not impinge on the rights of States.5401    13.  Considers a regional approach to the definitions of terms for5402foundational and any categorical waters in the rule and defines regions5403building upon existing classification systems based on hydrology,5404geology, and climate.5405    14.  Provides, in the rule development process, a representative5406number of states, as co-regulators, with diverse perspectives and5407regions to engage actively in an integrated way with the EPA and Corps5408staff to provide direct and effective feedback on the implementability5409of a proposed rule which requires ample time for development of new5410regulatory language.54115412                    EPA Veto Authority (CWA 404(c))54135414    EPA's actions in the Section 404 permitting process have not always5415been consistent with established protocols, creating challenges for5416States' engagement and public and private investment in projects5417requiring Section 404 permits.5418    CWA Section 404(c) grants the EPA Administrator the power ``to5419prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal of specification)5420of any defined area as a disposal site, and . . . deny or restrict the5421use of any defined area . . . as a disposal site, whenever he5422determines . . . that the discharge of such materials into such area5423will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies,5424shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding5425areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.''5426    In 1992, as directed by CWA Section 404(q), EPA and USACE executed5427a Memorandum of Agreement (``1992 MOA'') that bound the two agencies to5428specific procedures for resolving potential disagreements, including5429``elevation of specific individual permit cases . . . that involve5430aquatic resources of national importance.''5431    WSWC supports the promulgation of regulations and guidance: (1)5432improving predictability in Section 404 permitting, specifically the5433404(c) and 404(q) processes; (2) improving communication between5434federal agencies and States, particularly providing States with a5435meaningful opportunity to address EPA concerns prior to the exercise of5436its veto power; and (3) requiring EPA to adhere to established Section5437404 permitting processes and protocols, and to update those protocols5438as appropriate to reflect current procedures.5439    WSWC also supports documentation of the rationale for any Section5440404(c) veto, including: (1) verification that impacted waters are5441Waters of the United States; (2) findings from any Final Environmental5442Impact Statement pertaining to the proposed project; (3) impacts to5443municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, and5444recreational areas; and (4) resolved issues emanating from discussions5445between the USACE and EPA.5446    Thank you for the opportunity to submit our written testimony.54475448Letter of February 11, 2025, from the Waters Advocacy Coalition, to  Hon.5449 Mike Collins, Chairman, and   Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,  Ranking Member,5450 Subcommittee  on  Water Resources  and  Environment,  Submitted  for the5451 Record by Hon. Brad Knott54525453                                                 February 11, 2025.5454The Honorable Mike Collins,5455Chairman,5456Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on5457        Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of5458        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.5459The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,5460Ranking Member,5461Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on5462        Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of5463        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.5464    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:5465    The Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) applauds your leadership in5466holding today's hearing on ``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting5467and Project Delivery.'' WAC represents a large and diverse cross-5468section of the nation's broad business community, including the5469construction, transportation, real estate, mining, manufacturing,5470forestry, agriculture, energy, wildlife conservation, and public health5471and safety sectors. Our members are vital to building a thriving5472national economy and are essential to achieving the nation's critical5473infrastructure, manufacturing, supply chain, transportation, and energy5474goals.5475    Our members operate their businesses in compliance with a5476comprehensive framework of federal and state laws, regulations, and5477policies. They regularly obtain federal Clean Water Act (CWA) permits,5478including dredge and fill permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers5479under CWA section 404 and discharge permits from the U.S. Environmental5480Protection Agency and state permitting authorities under CWA section5481402. Many of our members also conduct activities under the Corps'5482Nationwide Permit program, which provides an important option to5483expedite projects that have lower environmental impact. We therefore5484have a significant interest in the Committee's work to address CWA5485permitting and project delivery challenges and opportunities.5486    For many of our members, CWA permitting can be a major hurdle in5487moving essential projects forward efficiently. We appreciate the5488Committee's work to address these challenges and ensure that essential5489projects are not hindered by bureaucratic delays or uncertainties,5490while supporting the CWA's cooperative federalism framework,5491environmental protection, and the need for a more streamlined,5492predictable regulatory framework.5493    We look forward to working with you to identify opportunities for5494targeted reforms that will help achieve our nation's ambitious national5495priorities and support the communities that depend on these projects.5496            Sincerely,54975498American Exploration & Mining           National Association of Home5499  Association.                            Builders.5500American Farm Bureau Federation.        National Association of Realtors.5501American Road and Transportation        National Mining Association.5502  Builders Association.                 National Asphalt Pavement5503Associated Builders and                   Association.5504  Contractors.                          National Stone, Sand & Gravel5505Associated General Contractors of         Association.5506  America.                              The Fertilizer Institute.5507Leading Builders of America.            RISE (Responsible Industry for a .5508Liquid Energy Pipeline Association.       Sound Environment)5509National Club Association.              Southeastern Lumber5510                                          Manufacturers Association.55115512cc: Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure55135514Letter of February 11, 2025, from Aurelia S. Giacometto, Secretary, State of5515 Louisiana,  Department   of   Environmental   Quality,  to   Committee   on5516 Transportation   and   Infrastructure,   Subcommittee  on  Water  Resources5517 and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brad Knott55185519                                State of Louisiana,5520                     Department of Environmental Quality,5521                                       Office of the Secretary,5522                                               February 11, 2025.5523Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,5524Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,5525U.S. House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,5526        Washington, DC 20515.55275528Re: America Builds55295530    Dear Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, and ranking members:5531    I understand that the House Committee on Transportation and5532Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment is5533interested in confronting challenges with Clean Water Act (CWA)5534permitting and encouraging federalism in environmental protection. I am5535pleased to provide Louisiana's experience and perspective as it relates5536to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of5537Engineers implementation of CWA Section 404. Louisiana is committed to5538protecting the quality of our waters. At the same time, we are5539committed to fairness in permitting, economic progress, and natural5540resource development. I believe Congress intended that the States would5541play a critical role in implementing the CWA within their states. I5542look forward to working with the Committee to improve the federal-state5543partnership established under the CWA cooperative federalism framework.55445545                        CWA Section 404 Permits:55465547    As a primacy state, Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality5548authorizes over 30,000 environmental permits per year. Currently, the5549U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implements the CWA Section 404 program in5550the state. Unfortunately, federal agency overreach through the Section5551404 program interferes with the ability of states to determine economic5552activity within our borders. Two recent examples illustrate my5553concerns.55541. Corps use of National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review5555        to delay permits.5556    In the context of reviewing a CWA Section 404 permit application5557for development of a large-scale grain elevator and associated5558infrastructure, on June 10, 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers5559requested a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the5560National Register of Historic Places under the 36 C.F.R. Part 8005561regulations. At the urging of environmental advocates, the Corps5562request included a huge swath of land within the State, over 22,0005563acres, far beyond the area of permitted effects identified by the Corps5564during review of the permit. After prolonged delay, the applicant5565withdrew the permit and requested that the Keeper suspend review of the5566Corps request due to the absence of any proposed federal action and no5567potential effect to historic resources.5568    Without any jurisdiction or authority, on Oct 16, 2024, the Keeper5569issued a determination finding the entire area eligible for listing.5570The Keeper noted that ``the Section 106 consultation has since been5571terminated because the applicant has withdrawn its permit request, but5572the Army Corps has stated . . . that it is still requesting this5573determination on eligibility.'' Going forward, any development within5574the 22,000 acre boundary must fully comply with the NHPA Section 106.5575The Corps illegal and overreaching actions were intended to stop all5576project development within a substantial area of Louisiana, amounting5577to federal zoning within our State.55782. EPA's weaponization of regulations implementing Title VI of the5579        Civil Rights Act.5580    Under the Biden administration, EPA has taken unprecedented steps5581to use EPA's Title VI regulations to leverage states to include5582conditions on or preclude permitting altogether under the guise of5583preventing ``disparate impacts.'' EPA's regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 7,5584prohibit actions that ``have or may have the effect of subjecting a5585person to discrimination.'' However, the Supreme Court clarified that5586Title VI only prohibits intentional discrimination. Alexander v.5587Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-81 (2001). The Court expressed skepticism5588on the validity of EPA's regulations. Id. at 282. Last year, a federal5589court in Louisiana enjoined EPA from enforcing its regulations against5590the State of Louisiana, finding Title VI has no disparate impact5591language, only intentional discrimination is prohibited. Louisiana v.5592EPA, No. 2:23-cv-692, 2024 WL 250798 (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 2024). The5593Court found that EPA has weaponized Title VI as a blanket grant of5594authority to veto permitting decisions and that the regulations require5595decision-makers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies and5596to make decisions on those racial outcomes. While limiting the decision5597to Louisiana, Judge Cain cast doubt on the legality of EPA's5598regulations in any state. Twenty-three states, Louisiana included,5599requested the EPA amend its regulations to bring them in line with the5600text of the statute and with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.5601Constitution. Congress should ensure EPA complies with the States'5602request.56035604                   CWA Section 404 Program Assumption56055606    The CWA Section 404 program remains one of the widely misused5607federal environmental permitting programs. It is for this reason that5608Louisiana, among several other states, has expressed interest and even5609taken steps toward assuming permitting responsibility. On December 18,56102024, EPA published a final rule revising the regulations governing5611State and Tribal assumption of the CWA section 404 permitting program.5612Unfortunately, that rule raises several concerns, particularly with5613EPA's oversight of compliance with CWA 404(b)(1) and determining the5614list of waters that would be retained as federally regulated waters. As5615written, the final rule will do little to motivate states to seek5616assumption. Congress should require EPA to withdraw that rule and5617publish a new rule that reflects state input.5618    I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department's view on5619these important permitting issues.5620            Sincerely yours,5621                                     Aurelia S. Giacometto,5622Secretary, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality.56235624Letter of February 11, 2025, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice President, Leg-5625 islative and Political Affairs,  Associated Builders and Contractors,  to5626 Hon. Mike Collins,  Chairman,  and  Hon.  Frederica  S.  Wilson,  Ranking5627 Member,  Subcommittee  on  Water  Resources  and  Environment,  Submitted5628 for the Record by Hon. Brad Knott56295630                                                 February 11, 2025.5631The Honorable Mike Collins,5632Chairman,5633Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water5634        Resources and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives,5635        Washington, DC 20515.5636The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,5637Ranking Member,5638Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water5639        Resources and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives,5640        Washington, DC 20515.5641    Dear Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson and Members of House5642Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water5643Resources and Environment:5644    On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national5645construction industry trade association with 67 chapters representing5646more than 23,000 members, thank you for holding the hearing, ``America5647Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery.'' ABC members5648play a significant role in building America's infrastructure and seek5649to inform the committee of legislative opportunities to responsibly5650streamline CWA Section 404 permitting by eliminating persistent5651statutory barriers to state assumption.5652    Section 404 prohibits the deposition of dredge or fill material5653into the waters of the United States without a permit. The U.S. Army5654Corps of Engineers exclusively administers Section 404 in every state5655except Michigan and New Jersey. Completion of the USACE Section 4045656permitting process averages nearly 800 days and nearly $300,000 in5657applicant administrative costs per permit, frustrating action on5658America's critical housing and infrastructure priorities.5659    The recent divestiture in federal court of Florida's Section 4045660authority exemplifies persistent statutory barriers to state5661implementation, contrary to the CWA's explicit preservation of states'5662``primary responsibilities and rights'' to ensure the integrity of5663water resources. Improving the statutory framework would eliminate5664duplicative permitting, achieve decisional consistency, and promote5665transparency by reducing points of contact for permittees. For example,5666at the time of Florida's Section 404 assumption, Florida's state-5667administered wetland program covered 86% of waters subject to5668concurrent USACE permitting, and permitted in 17 days the same activity5669in the same waterway that USACE permitted in 300 days.5670    Congress should enact amendments consistent with the following5671recommendations to simplify Section 404 assumption and vest states with5672the authority to exert the superior efficiency, consistency, and5673transparency achievable via localized administration of wetland5674permitting.5675      Authorize Endangered Species Act Section 7 liability5676protection to flow through state or tribal Section 404 enforcement5677agencies: Congress should allow states to secure Endangered Species Act5678Section 7 incidental take permits covering all state-administered5679Section 404 program permittees, subject to adequate state regulatory5680provision for subsequent species- and site-specific U.S. Fish and5681Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service determinations.56825683      Authorize states and tribes that assume Section 4045684authority to issue permits of equivalent duration to USACE Section 4045685permits: Congress should ensure parity in the duration of permits5686issuable by USACE and state authorities by substituting the present5687five-year lifetime of state-issued permits under Section 404 with5688provision that state permits may not exceed statutory or regulatory5689limitations governing the duration of permits issued by USACE.56905691      Clarify that states and tribes may assume authority to5692issue Section 404 permits for discharges into a portion of assumable5693waters: Congress should eliminate the current ``all or nothing''5694assumption framework and afford states latitude to administer5695permitting for those activities and assumable waters they are best5696equipped to manage.56975698      Authorize expenditure of EPA Wetland Development Grant5699Program funding to offset continuing state Section 404 implementation5700costs by supplementing state fee-for-service revenues: In view of the5701potential for wider Section 404 assumption to relax demands on federal5702personnel and resources, Congress should at minimum eliminate present5703obstacles to expenditure of existing federal funding for state water5704quality programming on continuing administration of assumed programs.57055706    ABC appreciates the opportunity to comment on today's hearing and5707looks forward to working with the committee during the 119th Congress.5708            Sincerely,5709                                        Kristen Swearingen,5710                 Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs,5711                               Associated Builders and Contractors.57125713Letter of February 11, 2025,  from  Amanda E. Eversole,  Executive Vice5714 President and Chief Advocacy Officer, American Petroleum Institute, to5715 Hon. Mike Collins,  Chairman,  and  Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,  Ranking5716 Member,  Subcommittee on  Water Resources and  Environment,  Submitted5717 for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins57185719                                                 February 11, 2025.5720The Honorable Mike Collins,5721Chair,5722Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 2165 Rayburn House5723        Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.5724The Honorable Frederica Wilson,5725Ranking Member,5726Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 2165 Rayburn House5727        Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.5728    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:5729    The American Petroleum Institute (API) writes regarding the5730upcoming Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Hearing:5731``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery'' on5732Tuesday, February 11, 2025.5733    API is committed to meeting the challenge of providing affordable5734and reliable energy while continuing to reduce emissions. As the5735leading trade association representing the entire value chain of the5736U.S. oil and natural gas industry, API supports policies that5737strengthen our nation's energy security and economy and protect our5738environment. Permitting reform, including changes to the Clean Water5739Act, is essential to unlocking investments in the infrastructure we5740need to build to unleash American energy.5741    Investments to modernize infrastructure, including expanding5742current pipeline capacity and building new capacity, can help ensure5743that energy remains affordable for American consumers, create good-5744paying jobs, give U.S. manufacturers a competitive advantage through5745lower energy and raw material costs, and provide revenue to local,5746state and federal governments. Yet, decades-long challenges with the5747existing permitting process have hampered the development of critical5748infrastructure projects and jeopardized American energy security.5749    Many of those permits are issued at the state or federal level5750under the Clean Water Act (CWA) when a project may impact navigable5751waters. The permitting process can take years, and those delays can5752lead to skyrocketing project costs or even cancellation. Last Congress,5753this committee passed two bills--H.R. 1152 and H.R. 7023--that would5754have made meaningful reforms to the CWA to create a more conducive5755environment for moving critical projects forward.5756    H.R. 1152 would have helped ensure that water quality5757certifications reviewed and issued by states, tribes or EPA under5758Section 401 are limited to direct water quality impacts from point5759source discharges to navigable waters and are not be used by certifying5760agencies as a de facto veto of critical energy projects. H.R. 70235761would have codified the Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program under Section5762404 to ensure the ongoing viability of the program for linear5763infrastructure projects and extended the reissuance period to provide5764greater regulatory certainty. We are pleased to see the committee5765revisit this important topic this Congress and hope to see legislation5766reintroduced that aligns with the following recommendations for CWA5767permitting reform:57685769Section 401:5770      Clarify that it applies only to federal activity--Need5771for certification arises only when a federally licensed or permitted5772activity has the potential to result in a discharge from a point source5773into a ``water of the United States.''5774      Scope of reviews--Certification review is limited to5775assuring that a discharge from a Federally licensed or permitted5776activity will comply with water quality requirements. Certification5777review shall not include review of other sources, indirect impacts,5778and/or the ``activity as a whole.''5779      Start of the clock--Certification review period commences5780upon the date of the certifying authority's receipt of a request for5781certification, and this review period cannot exceed one year, as5782specified in the statute.5783      Prohibit withdrawal / resubmit--Certifying authorities5784should not be allowed to restart the one-year time review requirement5785solely by recommending withdrawal and/or resubmission of applications.5786      Clear application requirements--Require states to publish5787requirements for certification requests and require states to notify5788applicants within 30 days of receipt of application whether the states5789have all the materials needed to process a certification request.5790      Determinations--Final decisions on whether to grant,5791grant with conditions or deny a request for certification must be in5792writing and based only on local water quality reasons, and certifying5793authorities must provide rationale for decision.5794      Conditions--Each certification condition should be5795supported by an explanation for why the condition is necessary to5796certify compliance with water quality requirements and supported with a5797citation to applicable legal requirements that protect water quality.5798Section 404:5799      NWP renewals--Extend the reissuance cycle for NWPs from5800five to ten years, which would help provide increased regulatory5801certainty for project developers and avoid potential disruption to5802critical infrastructure projects.5803      Confined EPA Authority--Ensure that EPA does not pre-5804emptively bar potential activities requiring a CWA Section 404 permit5805before there is an applicant or a project; for EPA to make a veto5806determination under 404(c), an entity must apply for an actual Section5807404 permit with the Corps.5808      One NWP--To help ensure predictability for project5809developers, clarify that one linear project can be authorized under one5810NWP, even if there are multiple owners or developers and even if there5811are multiple crossings of the same water body in different places or5812multiple water bodies in the same location.5813      Consultation--Because the Corps' issuance and reissuance5814of NWP 12 is limited to only those activities that have ``no effect''5815on listed species or designated critical habitat, clarify that5816consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not required.5817      Use for oil / pipelines--Ensure that the Administration5818maintains NWP 12 for activities associated with oil and natural gas5819pipelines that do not result in the loss of greater than \1/2\ acre of5820Waters of the United States for each single and complete project.5821      Judicial review--Include a provision to ensure that an5822action seeking judicial review of an individual or general permit under5823section 404 must be filed no later than 60 days from the date the5824permit is issued. In addition, ensure that if a federal court remands5825or vacates a permit under section 404, the issuer of the permit must5826act on the remand or vacatur no later than 180 days from the date the5827permit is remanded or vacated. In addition, ensure that those permits5828already approved as of the date of enactment are not subject to5829challenge.58305831    Applying these reforms to Section 401 and 404 of the CWA would help5832create a more conducive environment for moving critical projects5833forward by providing a more transparent, timely and consistent process.5834    API looks forward to working with Congress to advance meaningful5835bipartisan permitting reform this year.5836            Sincerely,5837                                        Amanda E. Eversole,5838               Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer,5839                                      American Petroleum Institute.58405841CC:  The Honorable Sam Graves, Chair, House Committee on Transportation5842and Infrastructure5843     The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, House Committee on5844Transportation and Infrastructure58455846Letter of February 11, 2025, from Rich Nolan, President and Chief Execu-5847 tive Officer, National Mining Association, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chair-5848 man,  and  Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,  Ranking Member,  Subcommittee  on5849 Water  Resources  and  Environment, Submitted for  the  Record by  Hon.5850 Mike Collins58515852                                                 February 11, 2025.5853The Honorable Mike Collins,5854Chairman,5855Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on5856        Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of5857        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.5858The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,5859Ranking Member,5860Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on5861        Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of5862        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.5863    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:5864    On behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA) and our nearly5865280 member companies and organizations, I applaud your leadership in5866holding today's hearing on ``America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting5867and Project Delivery.''5868    The NMA is the only national trade organization that serves as the5869voice of the U.S. mining industry and the hundreds of thousands of5870American workers it employs before Congress, the federal agencies, the5871judiciary, and the media, advocating for public policies that will help5872America fully and responsibly utilize its vast natural resources. We5873work to ensure America has secure and reliable supply chains, abundant5874and affordable energy, and the American-sourced materials necessary for5875U.S. manufacturing, national security, and economic security, all5876delivered under world-leading environmental, safety, and labor5877standards. The NMA has a membership of more than 280 companies and5878organizations involved in every aspect of mining, from producers and5879equipment manufacturers to service providers.5880    The NMA and our members support regulations that both foster5881environmental protection and promote responsible development. Our5882members operate under a comprehensive framework of federal and state5883laws, regulations, and policies that govern nearly every inch of a mine5884site. Our members regularly obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) section 4045885dredge and fill permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)5886and CWA section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System5887(NPDES) permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and5888state permitting authorities. We therefore have a significant interest5889in the Committee's work to identify challenges and opportunities in the5890CWA permitting process.5891    Mining companies rely on fair, consistent, and predictable5892permitting processes to support our national priorities and remain5893competitive in the global economy. But for too long, regulatory5894uncertainty in the permitting process has delayed projects, chilled5895investment in U.S. mining operations, and inhibited the ability to mine5896the raw materials on which our nation's energy, infrastructure,5897manufacturing, and mining supply chains depend. The U.S. already has5898one of the longest mine permitting processes in the world. A recent5899report by S&P Global found that it takes an average of 29 years to5900bring a mine online in the U.S.--longer than any other country except5901Zambia, which takes 34 years.\1\ These delays have real world5902consequences. Unexpected delays alone can reduce a typical mining5903project's value by more than one-third, and the higher costs and5904increased risk that can arise from a prolonged permitting process can5905cut the expected value of a mine in half before production even5906begins.\2\ Permitting uncertainty can also cause project proponents and5907investors alike to look outside the U.S. when determining where to5908invest and develop projects. This puts our nation's supply chain5909independence at risk and creates a dangerous situation where we become5910increasingly import-dependent on necessary materials from adversarial5911countries.\3\5912---------------------------------------------------------------------------5913    \1\ S&P Global, Mine Development Times: The U.S. in Perspective5914(June 2024), available at https://cdn.ihsmarkit.com/www/pdf/0724/5915SPGlobal_NMA_DevelopmentTimesUSinPerspective_5916June_2024.pdf.5917    \2\ SNL Metals & Mining, ``Permitting, Economic Value, and Mining5918in the United States,'' at 9 (June 15, 2015), available at https://5919nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SNL_Permitting_Delay_Report-5920Online.pdf (last visited Feb. 11, 2025).5921    \3\ SNL Metals & Mining, ``Permitting, Economic Value, and Mining5922in the United States,'' at 9 (June 15, 2015), available at https://5923nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SNL_Permitting_Delay_Report-5924Online.pdf (last visited Feb. 11, 2025).5925---------------------------------------------------------------------------5926    For our members, CWA permitting is often a significant hurdle to5927executing critical projects efficiently and effectively. The NMA5928appreciates the Committee's work on addressing CWA permitting5929challenges and strongly supported key provisions of the 118th Congress'5930H.R. 7023, Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.\4\ \5\5931Specifically, we\\ supported Sections 2, 5, and 6. Those provisions5932would promote transparency in EPA's water quality criteria development5933process; provide regulatory certainty in shoring up the existing CWA5934section 402(k) permit shield provision; and clarify timing of the CWA5935section 404(c) veto process to support fairness and predictability.5936---------------------------------------------------------------------------5937    \4\ National Mining Association, ``Transportation and5938Infrastructure Clean Water Act Letter of Support,'' (January 2024),5939available at https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/TI-CWA-Letter-5940of-Support-1-30-23-Final.pdf5941    \5\ Waters Advocacy Coalition, `` `Waters of the United States'5942Implementation,'' (March 2024), available at https://nma.org/wp-5943content/uploads/2024/06/FINAL-WAC-Letter-on-WOTUS-Implementation-5944Questions.docx5945---------------------------------------------------------------------------5946    In addition to these provisions in H.R. 7023, the NMA also5947encourages the Committee to explore statutory revisions to the CWA5948Section 401 state certification process to clarify the factors states5949and authorized Tribes can consider in their review; support the5950reauthorization of the Corps' current suite of Nationwide Permits;5951promote flexibility in the compensatory mitigation process; and find5952ways to help states and the federal government work together to support5953the CWA's cooperative federalism framework.5954    The NMA stands ready to assist the Committee on identifying5955opportunities to improve the CWA permitting process to support domestic5956mining. We look forward to working with your teams on next steps.5957            Sincerely,5958                                                Rich Nolan,5959President and Chief Executive Officer, National Mining Association.59605961 Letter of February 20, 2025, from T. Lane Wilson, Sr. Vice President and5962  General Counsel,  The Williams Companies, Inc.,  to  Hon. Mike Collins,5963  Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on5964  Water  Resources and  Environment,  Submitted for  the  Record by  Hon.5965  Mike Collins59665967                                                 February 20, 2025.5968The Honorable Mike Collins,5969Chairman,5970Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water5971        Resources and Environment, United States House of5972        Representatives, 2251 Rayburn House Office Building,5973        Washington, DC 20515.5974The Honorable Frederica S, Wilson,5975Ranking Member,5976Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water5977        Resources and Environment, United States House of5978        Representatives, 2251 Rayburn House Office Building,5979        Washington, DC 20515.5980    Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:5981    Thank you for holding this important Hearing in the U.S. House of5982Representatives Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure5983Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment about the need for5984commonsense Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting reforms.5985    Williams is a trusted energy industry leader committed to safely,5986reliably, and responsibly meeting growing energy demand. We use our598733,000-mile pipeline infrastructure to serve 12 key supply areas and5988handle about one-third of the nation's natural gas. We operate Transco,5989the country's largest interstate natural gas network, with more than 405990percent more volume than the next largest natural gas pipeline.5991            Pipelines are Essential, Pipelines Power America5992    Pipelines are the safest, cleanest, and most cost-efficient means5993of transporting energy. The U.S. Department of Transportation5994recognizes that pipelines are essential infrastructure capable of5995moving greater volumes of energy resources than any other mode of5996transportation.5997    Oil and natural gas account for 74 percent of our nation's energy5998mix--nearly all of that product is transported via pipeline.\i\5999---------------------------------------------------------------------------6000    \i\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/6001---------------------------------------------------------------------------6002    Regions of the country where pipelines are more abundant see lower6003energy costs, and it is no coincidence that regions with higher energy6004costs are known for overly aggressive permitting regimes or abuses of6005the permitting process to block or cancel interstate natural gas6006pipeline projects.6007    During peak demand, New England experiences extremely high price6008spikes compared to other areas of the country. For example, gas prices6009have spiked numerous times during winter months in New England (as high6010as $75 per MMBtu) in the past decade, while prices have remained6011moderate and more stable in Southwest Pennsylvania (consistently under6012$5 per MMBtu), where abundant supplies have adequate pipeline outlets6013to serve peak demand.6014    Growth in U.S. natural gas is driven by LNG exports, data center6015growth, electrification, and a general increase in energy consumption.6016Lower-48 gas demand growth driven by LNG exports is expected to more6017than double by 2030, with an additional 13.2 Bcf/d of growth expected6018from 2024-2030.\ii\6019---------------------------------------------------------------------------6020    \ii\ Source: Wood Mackenzie North America Gas, Investment Horizon6021Outlook, November 2024.6022---------------------------------------------------------------------------6023    Electricity demand is also experiencing 10 times faster growth per6024year this decade than what was seen in previous decades, driven by the6025energy needs of artificial intelligence and the emergence of new,6026large-load data centers. U.S. data center power demand is expected to6027more than double from about 22 GW in 2023 to 45 GW in 2030 per S&P base6028case, requiring as much as 4 Bcf/d of incremental gas demand. It is6029notable, however, that this new technology's demand needs could be6030underestimated. If combined-cycle gas-fired generation provided 1006031percent of the electricity for the range of forecasts already6032presented, it could translate into incremental U.S. demand for power as6033high as 12 Bcf/day.6034    This growing demand cannot be met by intermittent resources such as6035wind and solar. In fact, excluding this forecasted growth, to replace6036the energy supplied by natural gas to New York's homes and businesses6037in February 2023 alone, New York would need 285 times more utility6038scale solar installations than the state had in 2022 and enough solar6039panels to cover 549,000 football fields. And it would require $16040trillion in solar construction costs.\iii\6041---------------------------------------------------------------------------6042    \iii\ Williams' analysis utilizing data from S&P Global Platts, US6043Energy Information Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and6044National Renewable Energy Laboratory. To replace the natural gas Btus6045that NY state's residential/commercial customers used on 02/3/2023, it6046would take 285x more utility scale solar installations than the state6047had in 2022.6048---------------------------------------------------------------------------6049    Additionally, Americans cannot rely on intermittent wind and solar6050to meet demand during peak hours or extended weather events. The U.S.6051saw record high power demand in 2023, averaging 35.2 Bcf/d (2.1 Bcf/d6052higher than in 2022), even as wind and solar grew. And peak day demand6053for natural gas hit a record high of 54.8 Bcf/d in August of 2024,6054highlighting the continued need for reliable natural gas to meet peak6055day needs and back up intermittent resources.6056    Peak day gas demand for power generation is expected to increase6057across all major Independent System Operators (ISO), due to the growth6058in electrification, artificial intelligence (AI), and data center6059growth.60606061    America Needs More Pipelines to Meet Growing Demands and Ensure6062                           National Security60636064    Data centers driving advancements in artificial intelligence will6065be built overseas if we do not build the critical energy infrastructure6066required to support their operations here. The U.S. has the abundant6067energy resources to meet this need, but a byzantine permitting system6068coupled with fervent opposition to human advancement from activist6069groups makes building infrastructure unnecessarily challenging. To6070ensure America's long-term competitiveness, Congress must prioritize6071permitting reform.6072    Demand for natural gas has increased 43 percent since 2013, while6073the capacity of infrastructure to support the demand has only grown 256074percent. Without action, the gap between demand and physical6075infrastructure will grow as AI tools become more critical to the U.S.6076in a competitive world marketplace. This gap will continue to impact6077reliability and affordability and harm American consumers.6078    It generally takes our industry about nine months to build a large6079natural gas pipeline safely and in a way that has little environmental6080footprint, but it can take years to get a project approved by6081government agencies. America's permitting system is labyrinthian by any6082reasonable measure, requiring projects to receive duplicative approvals6083from dozens of federal and state agencies.6084    Beyond the permitting process, there are also significant6085litigation risks from groups weaponizing regulatory loopholes and6086misusing environmental statutes to delay and cancel projects. Virtually6087every pipeline project encounters these costly and time-consuming6088delays. It has become a feature of the system.6089    There are three key steps to streamlining the regulatory process6090that Congress can take to help ensure that we have the infrastructure6091needed to meet growing energy demands:6092    1.  Policymakers need to empower the Federal Energy Regulatory6093Commission (FERC). Currently, a single activist state can block a6094proposed interstate natural gas project, regardless of the benefits it6095would bring, through an abuse of the Clean Water Act's section 4016096review process. FERC already considers water quality issues as a part6097of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, so bringing6098the section 401 review process under FERC would create efficiencies and6099prevent any one state from obstructing interstate commerce.61006101    2.  Congress needs to reform judicial review, providing for the6102courts to fairly review the actions and decisions of govemment6103agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the6104Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FERC, to cut back on lawfare6105that leaves good projects languishing for months, if not years. The6106best way to accomplish this reform is to alter the evidentiary standard6107to provide greater durability for federal authorizations and principled6108guard rails to ensure challenges of the authorization are based on6109evidence, not harmless gaps in the administrative process. A challenge6110should only be successful if its proponent is able to present evidence6111that establishes clearly and convincingly that a permit authorization6112was improper. Otherwise, the authorization should stand.61136114    3.  Lastly, but equally as important, is fixing the remedy allowed6115under the NEPA, the procedural statute that is wrongly being used to6116delay, deny, and cancel energy infrastructure. NEPA litigation should6117be limited to the purpose of the statute--to inform the public, Defects6118in a NEPA analysis should only result in further disclosures, not in6119unduly delaying or cancelling a project.61206121    These reforms would allow interstate natural gas pipelines, as well6122as other energy infrastructure, to be built to meet demand. We must6123come together to ensure the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and judicial review6124of agency decisions are working for the American people--not preventing6125progress and competitiveness in the name of politics.61266127              Weaponization of Clean Water Act Section 40161286129    Section 401 of the Clean Water Act applies to all energy and6130infrastructure projects that require a federal permit and which may6131cause a discharge to a water of the United States. Pursuant to section6132401, states and tribes are required to either certify that a project is6133protective of water quality or waive the certification requirement.6134Section 401 allows state and tribal participation in federal permitting6135procedures that may otherwise exclude or preempt such input. The6136certification process must be completed before a federal permit may be6137issued.6138    Each year, thousands of federal permit applications are submitted6139for projects that will require section 401 certifications, including6140traditional energy projects and new critical infrastructure that will6141drive the deployment of lower carbon emission energy sources. For6142example, an energy infrastructure project that impacts a federal6143wetland or water requires authorization from the Army Corps of6144Engineers under CWA section 404 or the Rivers and Harbors Act section 96145or 10. Annually, the Army Corps issues nearly 3,500 individual permits6146and authorizes more than 50,000 projects under general permits. Every6147single Army Corps individual permit, and many general permits, require6148a section 401 certification. Army Corps-permitted projects include6149large wind and solar generation, new transmission lines to bring remote6150renewable generation to load centers, and critical minerals exploration6151and mining that is essential to support the burgeoning battery storage6152and electric vehicle economies.6153    Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues 446154federal licenses, and EPA issues 125 federal discharge permits6155annually. Most, if not all, of these permits also require a section 4016156certification.6157    Ambiguous language in the statute, along with a lack of federal6158oversight, has led to confusion over the scope, timing, and procedures6159that are applicable to section 401 certifications. These circumstances6160have also led some states to interpret the section 401 authority very6161broadly and to delay certification decisions for years or even decades.6162While most states focus their section 401 review on potential water6163quality impacts, as the Clean Water Act requires, some states have used6164the section 401 program to veto projects that do not align with, for6165example, state energy policy. Similarly, while most states act on a6166certification request within the statutory one-year period, some states6167have adopted practices, like withdraw-and-resubmit procedures, and6168denials without prejudice, that result in a years-long or decades-long6169certification process. These ambiguities create opportunities for bad6170faith project delay and veto of interstate projects.6171    As The Wall Street Journal reported, ``pipeline projects have been6172blocked that would deliver gas from prolific shale-gas fields in6173Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.'' Williams has some specific6174examples of how CWA section 401 has been weaponized against pipeline6175projects.61766177 Constitution and NESE Pipeline Delays Resulted in Higher Costs, Lost6178                    Economic Output in the Northeast61796180    The Cuomo administration's denial of the water quality permits6181needed for the Constitution pipeline project blocked jobs, decreased6182tax revenue, and increased emissions in economically challenged areas.6183In addition, this denial has placed the region's grid reliability at6184risk.6185    The $683 million Constitution project was to bring natural gas from6186the Marcellus Shale in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, to Schoharie6187County, New York, where it would have connected to two existing6188interstate natural gas pipelines (Iroquois Gas Transmission and6189Tennessee Gas Pipeline) that directly serve New York and New England.6190The U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the delay of the Constitution6191Pipeline had resulted in $3.9 billion in loss economic output and over619223,000 job-years of work for the region.6193    Water quality permits are to be granted or denied within one year,6194but the Constitution Pipeline endured New York's repeated delays of its6195Clean Water Act Section 401 certificate application based on meritless6196claims related to the ``completeness of the application.'' These delays6197were compounded by New York's efforts to restart the one-year shot6198clock every time a new submission was made.6199    Specifically, in 2014, New York requested that Constitution6200rescind, update, and resubmit its application. In 2015, the New York6201State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) requested the6202company do so again. In 2016, two years after its initial receipt, New6203York denied the application claiming it lacked ``sufficient information6204to enable the Department to determine if the Application demonstrates6205compliance'' with New York water quality standards. In the wake of6206Hoopa Valley and associated precedents around Millennium Pipeline, on6207August 28, 2019 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)6208confirmed that New York had waived its CWA section 401 authorities6209through its dilatory requests for more information. Unfortunately,6210eight years of arbitrary regulatory and litigation delays, along with6211changing market conditions, prompted the project sponsors to pull the6212plug on the project on February 21, 2020.6213    Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE), another project killed by New6214York based on meritless water quality grounds, serves as another6215example. New York first denied NESE's water quality permit on May 15,62162019, and then did so again on May 16, 2020, after a resubmittal. New6217Jersey followed suit. Though the Cuomo Administration previously6218expressed concerns over climate impacts, Governor Andrew Cuomo sent a6219letter to National Grid saying that it should pursue more emissions-6220intensive and less safe means of delivering natural gas like trucks,6221barges, and ships, rather than pipelines. Despite his administration6222blocking a pipeline meant to expand service to New York customers and6223reduce reliance on higher emitting energy sources, he demanded that6224National Grid find alternatives or lose its franchise in the New York6225City metropolitan area. Without pipelines, New York state and local6226officials need to ``grapple with the potential need for new trucked gas6227supplies and associated infrastructure, as well as the risk for supply6228disruptions and moratoriums in coming years.''--Politico, 2020xiii6229    Without changes to section 401 that provide greater clarity and6230regulatory certainty, the literally thousands of energy infrastructure6231projects subject to section 401 each year could also be subject to the6232weaponization of section 401.62336234 Conclusion: Congress can Provide Much-Needed Certainty for Permitting6235                                Projects62366237    Congress can instill certainty and spur increased investment of6238capital in American energy infrastructure, unleashing a renaissance in6239American manufacturing and an advancement of national security, all6240with American energy resources.6241    Pipelines power America, and our country and its citizens have6242received the benefits of this large-scale infrastructure for years. We6243should not take this historical benefit for granted and let competing6244countries rapidly build out their own infrastructure, while our6245permitting system continues to stifle ours. The timing is perfect for6246meaningful permitting reform that includes pipelines.6247    Real permitting reform will put the U.S. on a path to meet the6248ever-growing need for energy and a path to achieve human flourishing.6249The changes will cost taxpayers nothing while paying a world of6250dividends.6251            Sincerely,6252                                            T. Lane Wilson,6253   Sr. Vice President and General Counsel, The Williams Companies,6254                                                               Inc.62556256                                 [all]