challenged to create solutions that will be a win for the farmers, environment and the economy. the local food and local project provides walkable neighborhoods to farmers markets, co-ops, community gardens and other local food enterprises. we have 62 companies in the program since it started in 201. the clean water rule protects the streams and wet lands that 1-3 americans rely on for drinking water and farmers and ranchers always need for their crops and livestock.

recent supreme court ruling has caused uncertainty on the clean water act. we are defining the scope of the act more clearly, predictable and fairly so it will meet current statutory exemptions and includes exclusions from the waters of the united states to make it clear the rule doesn't add any additional requirements on farmers and ranchers and promotes their voluntary efforts to protect and enhance clean water. we continue outreach to the agriculture community responding to the concerns of their questions and reinforcing the fact all exemptions continue to apply. the epa finished the standards for 2014-2015, and 2016 and a

bio diesel map for 2017. it provides robust achievable growth of the bio fuel industry. the final rule regards that total renewable standards by grow by 1.8 billion gallons requiring 11% more bio fuel production than the market produced in 2014. our 2016 advance standard is 35% higher than 2014 actually volumes. the standards increase every year to reach two billion gallons by 2017. that is a 23% increase over 2014 actually volumes. the epa took steps to improve the rfs program and continues to approve new agriculture feedstocks increasing the number of pathways bio fuels may use

their fuel under the program. we approve the transparency and efficiency of the policy to approve new bio fuel pathways. the epa remains committed to the renewable fuel program in meeting congress' intent to responsiblely grow renewable fuels over time. i increased protection for agriculture workers and their families. every year thousands of preventable pesticide exposure incidents cause sick days and medical bills. we can do better. we can have the community, industry, and federal and state partners insuring farm workers nationwide receive safety training and prohibit children from handling agricultural pesticides and provide workers with the tools needed to protect themselves and family from

pesticide exposure. thank you. i am happy to answer questions >> members will be recognized in order of their standarding daesh and after that their order in getting to the meeting. - excuse me, with the ruling on the clean power plant, difficult to say for us from west texas, the concern that given both of those involve what we believe is an overreach from the agency going around congressional intent and around the law. can you talk about efforts your agency will make on intervening in 11 or so months you will be there to obey the supreme court and the sixth circuit? will you commit to not going to the court in other ways?

>> the epa is trying to do what congress told us to do with the authority we have. we feel confidant both rules will be seen an as appropriate application of the law. the clean water law was done to try to clarify confusion that the supreme court raised and created in a couple of their decisions since the beginning of the last decade. on the clean power plant, it is a pause in terms of the implementation and the enforcement of the clean power plan but the rule is still in effect and it will add some time to resolve those issues for the court but we feel very confidant it is going to be born out to be a legal, lawful, and necessary law. >> right. not unexpected for you to take that position. we have got some 31 lawsuits and farmers and ranchers who disagree across the country. what i asked is what will you do

now why those rules are stayed from implementation? do we need to restrict your funding in the appropriation bill to say no money will be spent on backdoor implementitation of the clean water or power plant? >> what we trying to do is make sure the guideianance in place issued in 2008 is implemented. we will certainly respect the decisions of the court. but as we have heard, there is a lot of confusion and a lot of differences in those decisions. we are working with the omni core of engineers to make sure we are implementing what is currently in place as best as we can and avoid confusion while we help to bring additional clarity when the clean water comes through the court. on the clean power plant, we will work with states that on a voluntary bases want to move forward and we will continue to

provide tools and outreach but we understand the court will be going through the process and looking at the rule. the issue yesterday meant it will take a little longer for that to happen. we will respect that but continue to address greenhouse glasses under the authority of the clean air act that are available to us today. >> clearly there is a disagreement that the authorities used to issue those rules and were overreach so i am a little troubled by that. can you talk to us the input you take from usda with respect to pesticide and the work you are doing there. are you ignoring usda? can you help us understand you do value the expertise and long standing trust farmers have with

epa. you cannot just separate the issues in a vacuum. they are not siloed up. our farmers and ranchers feel under attack. talk about the usda and their opinion on the pesticide. >> i work closely with secretary bill sack and my staff works closely with usda. we have great respect for that agency and the specific expertise they begin. there are laws we have to consult and we do that. i think we have a close collaborative relationship. there is good discussion and we always try to understand the science together and make the

appropriate decisions. >> i yield back. the ranking member? >> i want to focus on this clean power plant, too. we are kind of caught between a situation up in my district. the rural electric gets their power from rural north dakota. we are in minnesota. minnesota is apparently working with you guys on whatever you are up to. and i think north dakota is one of those that sued you. when you say you are going to work with states does that mean you will work with minnesota and continue to develop a plan with minnesota while this is going on? >> we will continue to work with them on a voluntary bases but nothing is implemented while the stay is in place. so if minnesota wants help and tools we would always work with every state that does that. but in terms of actually

enforcement of anything it is clearly on hold until it resolves itself through the court. >> well, you know, one of our concerns, there was apparently a 2014 proposal and it was finalized and in north dakota you went from 11% to 45%. the biggest increase of any state. you know, our resha-owned north dakota plants, they did updates in 2005 or 2004 and put in some improvements in their firewall and so forth. and the epa determined that was a major overhaul and you forced them to go under some new program to put in scrubbers.

the result of that was they spent $476 million dollars. my real question is does it drop the equitty in the co-op? are you aware of that? >> not specific interests. >> they signed an agreement to get financing for this $426 million you forced them to do. it says they cannot go below 20% equity. if this is implemented, they will be down to 5%. so they will be in violation of the situation with the usda. are you aware of that? >> sir, if you are referring to the application of the clean power plant, is that what we are talking about here? i know you were talking about that. >> no, they gave money to comply with that situation and in order to get the money they had to

agree not to go below 10%. if you implement what the clean power plant says you will force them way below 10%. they don't have the money to do this. you took all of their money and there is no in minnesota they will not let them build a power plant so the only thing we can do is get it from canada. we are stuck in this whole thing. i was going to ask you today to delay this to give time to comply with this so we don't go bankrupt. but with this stay, i don't know where we are. somewhere or another we need more time. >> we are more than happy to work with the state. we have done extensive outreach on this and there was concern in some states about whether or not they would internally in that state be able to make it work. we added huge amounts of

flexibility in this and engaged usda and the rural utility service to work with us and the rural co-ops. we understand they have unique challenges and we are not going to leave them behind. they deal with some of the poorest committees that can not afford to have energy increases. there are a number of programs why bringing to bear, as well as fl flexibili flexibility, that will not require them to make changes >> they think they will not have flexibility and you will not listen to them. i don't know why. i think some of the power from the plants goes to north dakota but the majority goes to minnesota and we are stuck in this whole thing. and you know, i am glad to hear you are willing to work with them. after they spent the $26 million

you went after them on haze and we were able to get that stopped. that would have been another thing to bankrupt them. they feel like they are in the middle and not listened to. >> i am happy to personal engage. >> i will send them over to your office. >> mr. keen for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. mccarthy, i'm over here. i appreciate your testimony and service. a good number of things pop up in our mind and attention. six circuit puts controversial water rule on hold. there is another article addressing the clean air act on hold. and as i am watching this it seems as though the agency has been pushing back against especially our farmer producers and the people that care about their value of their productive real estate. i had a couple phrases here i

saw emerge from the epa over the years. water is hydro logically connected, too. you are familiar with that phrase and familiar with the phrase significant nexus. do you have a judgment on which is more ambiguous? >> the ambiguity arose when the epa suggested these to be addressed. >> with the renewable fuel standard you have taken a position in back years, back in 2012-2013, that we had short grain supplies and high grain prices so therefore you ruled back the directive on the rsf and i will focus on corn-based

ethanol here and made the judgment administratively even though the statute require the gallons be more. i notice now we have high volume over supply of grain and low prices that have dropped a little more than half since that period of time. and i don't notice the same logic is applieapplied when it time adjust to current conditions. if it was a good idea to lower the price back then why can't it be a good idea to raise it, at least up to statutory standard, when grain prices are low and supplies are high? >> the renewable fuel standards that we came out with provide us an opportunity to get back on track as well as provide steady growth. the numbers that you are looking at in here is our assessment of what we can achieve attempting full bore to get to the statutory level but recognizing that leaps like this in these

shorter time frames is not possible. so we want to achieve those statuto statuto statuto statutory levels. but there is a growth that impacts that >> you are talking about production capacity? >> no, i am not talking about production capacity >> what are you addressing? >> the ability to get the fuel into the system. >> that is the blend rule? >> that is correct. >> do you believe you have the administrative authority to end the blend wall? >> these numbers push through the blend wall because we understand we need to continue to do that. >> you believe you have the administrative ability to abolish this? >> i think we are doing everything that is legal. you have to think about how

reasonable it is to achieve these. >> what about going to e-15? do you have the authority to do that? >> we approved e-15 for use in specific vehicles >> year around? >> yes. >> we are past the e-15 blend wall year around? there is no vapor pressure requirement that restricts it? >> there is a vapor pressure requirement. yes, there is. but we proved the use in the vehicles and it can be used in certain places. >> i think i should have pr prefaced my question with that. with regard to the testing of fuels my information is epa relied on a chevron consultant to design the test fuel. are you familiar with that? >> no, sir. >> i will pose some of these questions in the written form so you have an opportunity to digest them and answer them in a

way that is not a high test area in the hearing. i have a stack of questions i would ask you respond to with regard to testing requirements and compliance with the rfs. i would ask you one final question. if you were the administrator of the epa at the time that the rfs expires would you believe you have the administrative authority to extend it beyond its sunset? >> i am not aware of the rfs sunset. what are you referring to? >> i will put that in my question. the specific language that is in the statute. that many all come to you and we look forward to working with you. thank you very much. >> mr. costa, five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank the administr e administratiadministrate

for being here this morning. i want to continue the conversation on the renewable fuel standards. there is adversity of opinion as it relates to this committee and members of the congress on how it is applied and implemented. but can you explain the process the db will be taking to ensure the 2017 rules are not delayed the way the 2016 rules are? >> i can, sir. we already proposed a 2017 standard for biodies diesel to on track. since we are on track, we have every interest to stay that way. >> for those that believe in renewable and al turn tv fuels

are the future but can you talk about using food to produce fuel and if that is effective or if it creates more pollution issues? >> i know there have been a number of looks at this issue and investigations. but my job as epa administrator is to implement the law that has been given to me. >> which you said is probably the most difficult law you have to implement. >> it is. but it is very clear that these kinds of fuels have not progressed anywhere near what congress anticipated which is why the statutory levels are so difficult to meet. >> i want to move on to local issues. california is a diversified state with agriculture. the epa issued a statement on a risk report indicating citrus and cotton honey contained higher levels of neo nicktoid

than other honey which is at risk to pollinators. because of the diversification of the crops we are sensitive. we grow lots of almonds in the state. it requires bees and we are sensitive to the bee deaths and colony collapses. these cumrops don't all need be but many do. colonies have profigated and are higher levels it is being reported than before the decline we experienced a few years ago >> congressman, we have been to your area of the country together and i understand how hard the almond growers work,

not just for pesticides, but also in conversation of water. the science is growing and getting robust. >> we need more of your focus. the chairman and i were talking about farmers dealing with citrus greening and they feel they are being singled out. i will provide you more information to follow-up. i want to, before my time expires, go to the larger issue that affects all of american and that is the application of herbicides and pesticides and the epa's registration process. for most of us farmers we live on our farms and the application of pesticides and herbicides is made with very cautious and cost-effective evaluations, we are concerned about the health

impact and the cost and economic impacts. you are required to reevaluate your process on registration every ten years but it seems were the adoption of precautionary principle. do you believe zero risk is possible when using herbicide and pesticide? >> we don't utilize the precautionary principle. our laws are based on risk. >> do you believe fewer risks are possible? >> it is possible with some but that is not the way in which are laws require us to look at this >> there have been court decisions, and my time is about to expire, where various applications of these pesticides and herbicides have been brought to courts and in some cases we believe epa has refused to defend its scientific decisions on the challenges of these

courts. this is very serious. you are supposed to be the clearing house. >> we vigorously defend decisions in court. we do that because we believe we did the right decision based on science and the law. there are times when even a vigorous defense does not carry dh day in court and we have to abide by those decisions. but in no way are we backing off the decisions in the way in which we have always made them which is based on the law that exist and we are continuing to apply that and vigorously defend. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize mr. rodchester from alabama. >> thank you for being here tod today. ... about the

things coming from the epa. do you, are you cognizant that there are concerns by american farmers and is there anything you are planning to do to address that perspective that they have of your agency and its regulations but. >> yes, i am aware. there is a lot of work that we need to do to establish a stronger trust relationship between the agriculture community and epa. i've been working hard for the last three years trying to get out to farms meeting with every farmer and forrester that wants to sit down. i'm trying to work through the issues and listen closely and learn. >> are there any fundamental changes that you think you will be able to make or you plan to make that would remedy or alleviate some of those concerns? >> implement? i will do alleviate some of those concerns? >> as i noted we have a number of voluntary programs that we are initiating back and forth. we have no advisory groups being started. i think the most important thing

we can do is listen to one another and try to identify the path forward, that meets our shared goals because we certainly share the goals of wanting to protect the environment. >> i agree. i think listening is a good first step but we also have to be prepared to act. it may mean acting in a different way but anyway i believe i need to encourage programs that provide farmers with the resources they need to work with the states and not the epa on water quality programs. congress did not give epa regulatory authority of her family farmers. i am concerned the epa is moving away from voluntary programs that have -- do you agree that voluntary programs are important and ineffective way to reduce pollution or is the epa trying to expand its regulatory authority? >> absently agreed that voluntary programs as well as technical support and funding

support from the federal government is an essential way in which we need to move forward and work together and that is the fast majority of our relationship. >> wherein the clean acts did congress give epa authority to regulate sustainability of agriculture nonproduction practices? i don't see that precedent anywhere. >> under the clean air act? is that what you said sarah? i do not know whether the word sustainability is written into any law. they think it was an outcome of understanding that we need to understand the lifecycle and all of the challenges associated with clean air and other requirements that are being placed on our constituencies including farmers, ranches and foresters and it was an open dialogue to understand how our rules can enhance not just their health and our health but their viability as a sector. i think that's what sustainability is intended to make sure that we are thinking

about the senate common sense holistic way not a narrow media by media approach. >> i agree that you didn't give the legal authority to the epa. what i'm looking for is do you see and that act the legal authority to regulate sustainability? >> we do not regulate sustainability. we do regulate pollutants under the clean air act. one of which are greenhouse gases. if that is what you are referring to that's because under the clean air act the supreme court clearly told us that we had to look at greenhouse gases as a potential pollutants and if we found that they were in endangerment and we had to take appropriate action. that is what we are actually doing. >> that is the president i'm looking for. could you ask your staff to give me a copy of that interpretation? i appreciate that and finally gao released a legal decision that the epa was publicity and to lowering -- and alarming

appropriations bills and your agency according to them has been using social media for covert propaganda. what is your side of back? >> as you might guess we don't agree. we do not believe that we have violated any provision. gao look at thousands of social media that we actually do every day because that's how we do our outreach and education. that's all that they were. they found two instances they raise questions for them. we disagree with the decision but we certainly are working with omb to make sure we have followed every one of their procedures and we do everything we need to do. >> thank you maam. i yield back. >> the chairman's time has expired. mr. walton plays. >> think you'd minister for being with us today and i appreciate the work you have

done and i appreciate the work you have done with farm country and i'm curious what you are hearing out there but i remain an optimist but i do think it's possible to produce food and to continue to feed and clothe the world at the same time addressing world issues a clearing of water clean air and vital sustainability and that's what we are all trying to get at. a statement that comes up often with my producers out there and these are folks that are committed. they don't deny the science is regulatory humility. i think -- regulatory humility. just a sense of kind of -- i have used the term a bit of a bunker mentality about all these things coming down without asking us and i think mr. rogers was getting at it and i agree. i'm very proud of the work of this committee did in many of our folks working on the last farm bill on the conservation piece in a conservation piece was lauded by many as being the strongest across the spectrum.

and you hinted at it but are those making a difference because my attitude on this as we are far better ahead if we can prevent a problem in dealing with it afterwards and getting into the courts and everything that comes with that. are some of those working in if you could pick out one that you think is the way to go? >> yeah i think the conservation efforts are absolutely working and you can see that in many locations. do we need to do more? absolutely but that is the approach in which the epa certainly prefers it takes and so i think if i wanted to highlight any, i think that it would be in the great lakes area , areas in which we are actively supporting conservation efforts and doing out in a way that will help us prevent pollution into the great lakes which are causing these algae blooms. there is a collaborative spirit. there is funding and there are

technical resources provided to this. these are the kinds of programs we need to have two move forward and epa is working every day with usda and an rcs to see how we can advance their mission as a way to advance our own. i do not mean to duplicate it. i need to respect what they do and help support that and identify ways of appropriately expanding that in areas where we find there are challenges. >> i agree this is about helping us reach a common goal and i think this attitude whether it's perceived reality is reality and a lot of people feel that way and if i could as a statement this is the one that is confusing. two statements were made. you stated three to five approximately% more jurisdictional waters but we were also told the red line for me was if you didn't need a permit before you won't need one now. you can't both have both of those statements can you?

>> you actually can and let me just try to explain it. the increase in jurisdictional water determinations is because the rule is much more specific about what is jurisdictional and what is not so there is not significant amount of time wasted asking in areas where there is no jurisdiction. we well know that from our history there is a direct hydrologic connection that is significant enough to warrant protection but in terms of the agriculture community there is no added permanent burden. >> unequivocally everyone in my producers say the way you are doing things now if you are up to standards nothing changes. >> that is correct. we have expanded clarity on some of the exemptions and exclusions so that we can make that clear and clear as time goes on. >> thank you and i'm going to segue little bit agreement and the collaboration with usda. what conversations happened if

you could in dealing with. >> with usda? oh lots and at every level. >> extensive all the way through the program? >> it is and how we look at lifecycle impacts in the numbers we put into what can be produced, what can be consumed, what can usda do in advancing a blender pump. what does epa need to do to make sure those blenders can go out there and are those plans utilize? we were constantly on rss together. >> i appreciate then i think you do to the best of your ability to show that collaboration and again coming to that regulatory humility that we are in this together and we have a common goal. >> that is a term i will take to heart the site leap year. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. thompson for five minutes. >> i understand regulatory water humility.

administrator thank you for being here. appreciate you coming and taking tough questions and your responses. i have a follow-up on mr. rogers question in the response to the last question on this side. regarding the use of social media. i found it interesting since the epa disagrees with what the regulations that they are confronted with basically they disagree with the regulators that are responsible for that were wrong in your interpretation so you are not changing practices; and if might farmers do the same thing? do they disagree with the epa where there is a question of authority as a basis of legislative language in the basis of a now growing trend in serious numbers of supreme court rulings? do they get the same past? it seems like your agency is

choosing when your feet are held to the fire in regulations. >> we are not doing anything that would skirt the decision the gao made. their interpretation of the law. our office of general counsel police that they are incorrect in their interpretations. nevertheless. >> so what you are saying, okay. >> so they do have their opinion. we will respond appropriately to it that we still have a right to say that legally. >> numbers would be better off if they had an army of paid attorneys. that's not my question. it does happen to come out. many believe the chesapeake bay tmdl represents a massive power buried your agency and serves as a blueprint for the nation prepared. print standard controls and rigid roles agencies have taken over many if not all land-use decisions nationally.

really a private property grab. in effect becoming a national zoning board. the tmdl is having devastating impacts on farmers and defending the tmdl. your agency has defended its thing the states are developing their own standards. that may reach you at one stage in the chesapeake watershed delaware road of this voluntary procedure and its water improvement plan. if the program fails to meet standards acceptable to the agency and the epa has identified a set of potential consequences to impose these consequences range from the epa taking over responsibility for developing the plans in the over over -- regulatory authority to additional sources of pollution. in short this articulated each watershed improvement plan doesn't meet epa standards the epa can force its own plan on the state along with punitive

actions. my question is with all this authority in what sense was there anything voluntary about this process? your agency directly and indirectly told states that it, what it wanted made it clear that it would be consequences to not delivering what it wanted the standards and plans expected. how is that voluntary? >> well sir let me try to answer that question. a chesapeake bay tmdl was an opportunity for a number of states who share a common environmental and economic interest in having a healthy chesapeake bay. the program allowed them the opportunity to actually meet compliance with reducing the standards necessary to get that in their own way. >> i love the chesapeake but we are, i'm talking about the overreach here. >> we have never had to intervene. there is great progress being made through the efforts that

each state has been taking. they do care about the chesapeake and they are making progress. the question was asked what if people don't do anything? there is no question that tmdl's are regulatory requirements so there are things that we could do if they are using continued progress as they anticipated. we have never had to use that. >> i would refer you to the transcripts of one our subcommittee on energy watersheds met and your individual in philadelphia office clearly said this was not a regulation because it was voluntary. i mean it was some of the most confusing testimony we have ever heard because it's being aggressively implemented as a regulatory action, yet clearly the way, it's just overreach to the and degree and i appreciate your response but the uncertainty is still there.

>> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you very much administrator mccarthy for being here today. i live on the banks of lake erie in ohio. lake erie provides drinking water to millions and supports thousands of jobs in contribute contributes over $1 billion toward local economy. the algae blooms are only intensified each year and we are consistently faced with the threat of open dumping that we believe to be harmful sediments into lake erie and we believe it is an adverse decision by the army corps. despite the great progress made in reversing past environmental damage they find yourself locked in an ongoing battle over the seemingly noncontroversial issue. the epa plays a critical role in protecting drinking water and the health of our lakes. what are you and your administration doing to ensure continued growth in the recovery

of lake erie? >> i am familiar with the issue you raised with the army corps and i'm hoping my understanding is correct that the corps is working with the state and all the constituents to identify ways to stop dredge disposal and western lake erie but as you also know we are working very hard through our great lakes initiative to actually understand the science in western lake erie, understand where the sources of the nutrients that are contributing to those algae blooms are and actually supporting it with $11 million from epa's funds to try to help those upstream farms and agriculture to find ways of doing, taking conservation efforts and other voluntary actions that will begin to make a real dent in the challenge we are facing and lake erie. >> thank you but i certainly hope you a a check for that because it's my understanding that even though a court has decided that it's not

appropriate for them to dump the sediments into the open like the army corps has decided they are not going to comply with a court order so i think it's important that we move expeditiously to determine why and why they have not requested the resources that are necessary to contain the settlement. i would ask that you would check that further. >> i'm happy to do that. >> thank you. the growth of urban agriculture is vital to solving the issue of food deserts. in post-industrial cities such as cleveland historical contaminants in the soil stall the growth of these programs. what role is epa planning and ensuring urban land safety requirements? >> one of the efforts i mentioned early in my oral testimony with the local food local places which i think at enormous opportunities for urban communities that are literally food deserts and to open up into

planning and to bring federal resources to the table that is really focused on food first. instead of as an afterthought. there is a great change that's happening in our print areas understanding the need for locally grown food and the value that i can bring not only for the health and vitality of the community. i would really encourage anybody's active participation in the local food local places initiative because i can bring resources brownfield redevelopment resources to the table that would address the soil contamination issues you are identifying. many of those turn into vital places for communities to gather and grow food so do not give up in an urban area on the ability to grow food and to make that part of the community revitalization effort that everybody's looking for. >> thank you and lastly seasonal agricultural runoff is a factor to the growing problem of algae

blooms on the lake. what steps is epa taking to address the lingering pollutants contaminating rivers and streams with sediment? >> a couple of things. we mentioned the great lakes initiative but i think most importantly that is our collaboration with the usda as well as looking at areas of concern in the great lakes where we know we have significant sediment and water contamination so it has to be a combination of all of those efforts. it's not just about stopping what's my continued to come in but looking at those hotspots if you will so we can continue to make progress which we have made tremendous progress on but that's one of the three areas that the great lakes initiative is focusing on in the coming years. >> you very much mr. chairman i yield back. >> the chairlady yields back create. >> thank you chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. administrator mccarthy in my area the purpose of --.

>> i'm sorry, i can't see you. oh thank you. in my area of the prevalence of herbicide resistant big weight has become the major problem that producers are having trouble combating them with everything else that's going on finding this weed problem is the last thing we need and one of the greatest cause -- usda has approved two 4-d for use on herbicide tolerant traits. epa is now the sole holdup in getting this new and severely needed technology out to our producers begin you give the committee any update on where things stand with epa and what is the continue to hold up by the epa? >> is this it ziacam though? in early 2016 we proposed for public comment of regulatory decision for the exact reasons

you are talking about. we know that there is a significant interest in this. there has been tremendous work on the science side. after the comment. matt we will review those comments and continue how the agency can move to a final so we can get this done and over the finish line. >> can you give me some encouraging timeline here so folks can look forward to its? >> sir we are working as hard as we can and we will get it done as soon as we can. if you would like to reach out to you after the hearing that can get more details on where we might be. >> that would be helpful. endless duo ran into trouble last fall with epa's decision to request back to epa for further review. this is the first time ever epa has attempted to vacated pesticide registration through court action. currently under epa is required to comply with a number of

procedural safeguards before pesticide registration can be canceled which it is built to do. what was the agency's rationale for taking such an unusual step of asking the court to require epa to review the registration of products a recently approved for use in twice the agency now trying to use the courts as a means of regulation? >> actually we weren't trying to do that. the two 4-d decision we have made on endless duo was second second -- controversial one but we follow the signs into law. the awkward situation we found ourselves in is after the decision was made while it was being challenged in court by those that disagreed with her registration we identified information that they manufactured had put out and other public venues that raise concern that we did not have the full science data to make the decision in the most solid way we could and actually address

what might be synergistic effects. so instead awaiting for the court to tell us that we had failed in our science decision we wanted an ability to take that back, to work with doubt to get additional information to address the issue and to move it forward again which is exactly what we are doing. we are working with dow, what data do they have and what data might we need to actually redo this decision in a way we think will be legally solid and respectful of the whole range of science? >> some of the questions you have followed below procedurally do you believe you have? >> we think we actually did it in a way that will get to a decision much more quickly. the challenge is that dow did not give us the full range of data and we founded in another venue that was publicly available so when we found that

out we worked with dow and we have a system to move forward to respect the full range of science that we are required to look at. >> i am always interested in timelines and you said quickly and i have learned quickly in west texas and quickly in washington didn't see -- d.c. don't have the same meaning. >> actually i will doublecheck when i go back but i'm pretty sure that we have already seethed a lot of information that we have vast dow to do on 20 4-d so we don't think there'll be a delay in the reconsideration of this. >> on those two issues, administrator if you could maybe have your folks give me a timeline so that i can report back to the folks. >> i'm more than happy to do that. >> the chairman yields back.

mr. aguilar for five minutes. >> thank you the ministry differ being here. i too will ask a local question if you don't mind. i represent the community of san bernardino and its benemann is recently obviously for some terrible acts. while climate change affects us all this is incredibly personal for me and the community that i represent. i can recall days growing up where we weren't allowed outside because of the air quality levels and this is particularly important because our community sits at the base of the not in range that captures smog and air quality issues that mostly generate from out of the area with the trade wins. and did air quality standards are great benchmark for communities to strive for two at improve pollution levels however san bernardino has been in the unique predicament due to the fact that the smog from los angeles contributes to the pollution in our region.

were their resources and tools to epa can offer san san bernardino county as it continues to work toward a management plan to improve air quality and if not as the epa plan to provide any sort of regulatory relief or as mr. walz coined regulatory humility for areas that are not in compliance? >> let me begin by expressing my sympathies to you and those in your community. the national ambient air quality standards rightfully established by law health standards that we all strive for we will recognize that california is challenged in meeting those and there has been some unique tools developed that we have the authority to manage that it provided direct assistance for new technologies and other efforts to support the state's aggressive effort at looking at these areas. there are also tools built into the law itself so if you have a

difficult challenge that provides additional time and opportunity to get that done and part of the value of estate planning process and really the aggressive and maybe aggressive isn't the word that the collaborative process, the outreach to its communities to try to work with them hand-in-hand to address these challenges is of great value. i'm more than happy to make sure that folks come and sit down and see if there are particular issues that support that your community may need to build into a state plan that would help you achieve the standards closely and quickly but i want to just reinforce the fact that the law does not, nor does epa ever require more than can be done. we know that there are challenges and there are unique geographic challenges that california faces so well we hope to continue to make progress we

understand that will take time and it will take a collaboration and it will take new technologies to advance this. whatever is coming in from other communities is going to have to be a collaborative community effort. >> we just want to make sure that that's part of the discussion and there has been a discussion and some flexibility in the past. >> we just want to make the standards are still in place and if we could follow up with your staff to have a little bit of a deeper dive that would be very helpful to my office. with that i yield that mr. chairman. >> the chairman yields back. >> administrator first thank you for being here and i both start out with a clarification. my colleague from ohio on the lake erie issue, the algae bloom issue in the west lake they did dredge and dispose of in the lake. the issue i was unclear on is the cleef port issue.

it's a dredging issue and about pcbs and the state of ohio. it's interesting your agency has been silent on this issue so i want to bring that to your attention. those are two separate issues on lake erie. i do want to talk about in your testimony talk about largely the united states and i agree with one aspect on it farmers do want clean water and drinking water so we agree on that is my concern is and it's evident by what's happened within 24 hours when you file the final rule on the register nearly 30 states filed a lawsuit, now it's around 32 states have filed a lawsuit in numerous organizations are against this. so it's clear that there is concern about this and obviously the state erodes their states rights so it needs to be made clear when the clean water air act was passed the congress was

supposed to have a partnership on the guidance of the epa. he made a statement to one of the questions and you insinuated that if the rule had to be extended to include more water those waters are regulated you insinuating the states aren't regulating? i is a farmer can't -- i'd be breaking the law. so i want to make it clear the public the waters that aren't under the authority of the government are being regulated in the partnership agreement and you agree with that? >> it wasn't intended. >> i also have concern that what is going to happen this is going to require more permits. and inefficiencies but i think we risk the ability to go backwards and protecting the

marmot of this country could you add on so much more red tape and track was a pupil at had their hands up and say i'm going to do just enough to get by. it's just a bunch of nonsense and red tape in the pier cretz go crazy on them and so i wanted to be aware of that fact. this world will make us go backwards. that agreement was set up in 1972 with the states and obviously 30 states have sued you over this youth ought to pay attention to that and i want to get to the part about the gao inspector general report that came out and said the epa used covert tropicana to bias and skew the common. i know some of the people who think this is not a big deal. i think this goes to the integrity of the whole process. the process is there are so the stakeholders can put in and of

regulators to use their due diligence to figure out the best rule that works and protects the environment in this case. here you have the inspector general saying u.k. mother broke the law and so my question is what is the epa done to initiate the violation under the anti-deficiency act copied to the contra were general and the congress and the president as required as you reported to us. what resources were expended in these illegal activities in fuel time equivalents? what internal actions have been taken in your office to make sure this doesn't happen again and as any internal action been taken to punish the people that broke the law in this case? >> you know i don't think the folks in the agency broke the law but let me answer your question directly. we are working with omb.

as a draft letter at all and be to make sure that we are following our obligations under the law to respond appropriately to gao. i think the word propaganda is always construed as something horrible. the propaganda that they were referring to us not that we lobbied congress. it was not. >> you were lopping us. you were trying to educate them that this is what you guys want. you were proponents of this and now you have the states suing you over it. wake up. >> the propaganda issue is basically a general message saying i really care about clean water and gao was worried that when other people. >> did you use a system named thunderclap that could be traced back? that can be traced back to the people putting it out?

is that true? >> now, what happened is we put it out and other people re-tweeted and when they re-tweeted it gao thought it wasn't their message can't it was epa's message and we didn't properly identified as such. it was a general message i like clean water. the other was a blog that had a hyperlink or re-referenced a really cool program. >> the gao said. >> i don't want to minimize it. we will pay attention to what gao certainly do have the letter in the process to meet all obligations. we just disagree that it was a problem. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you mr. chair. madam administrator thank you so much for being here. while many are concerned about federal overreach and environmental management actions by the state of north carolina resulted in tens of thousands of

tons of coal ash spill lang into the river in 2013 in the state refuse use its own authority to enforce proper maintenance and relocation of coal ash ponds at high-risk of spilling into the drinking water. administrator mccarthy it's important that we defend and uphold the epa's final world in the disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. epa's final rule on coal ash disposal can only be enforced by states or the citizen is sued the company or a state that violates the regulation. it is for this reason that i'm drafting legislation to strengthen protection and enforcement of rural water sources which would provide a rural community across the nation with the same requirement the citizens of north carolina now enjoy. specific to the bill would require coal ash pond owners and

operators to be transparent in their surveying and monitoring of the quality of water in our community. the bill marriage laws that are hard and passed by the north carolina general assembly. my question is given the continued threat of coal ash disposal what is epa doing to invest in treating water contamination and the risk of catastrophic collapse? >> as you know we take this issue very seriously as well. certainly there have been disasters that we need to make sure don't get repeated. as you know which is recently finalized the coal ash roulan that look said two things. one is the structural stability of those units so that we can make sure that they are stable and they are being properly inspected and if necessary prepared. the second is to make sure ground waters protected and cleaned up. that rule has requirements for both of those efforts and we

have information on the web so that people can see what is being done and what we have identified in terms of our assessment of those structural integrity so information can be available to the surrounding communities. >> yankee. willet epa provide technical assistance to go into some of the minority community so they are aware of and understand information about coal ash dumps that utilities are beginning to disclose? >> congresswoman this is the first time i'm aware that you are contemplating this type of legislation. we are happy to work with you on language around that to support this effort in advance of this legislation moving forward. >> all right thank you. the center for public integrity found that her civil rights -- have dismissed nine out of every 10 claims about committees alleging environmental

discrimination have never issued a formal finding of a violation of a title of violations. given his poor performance record do you have any thoughts about why epa hasn't ever made a finding of discrimination? >> i think it's easy from that record to understand that the agency has faced challenges in dealing with our title vi complaints. one of the things i have done since coming here is to try to aggressively tackle that issue. we are really committed to building a model civil rights program particularly how we handle these. in the last two years we have new leadership in our office. we have developed a strategy to manage that docket of complaints more effectively. we just this fall and released our external strategic plan a new civil rights toolkit so we are doing what we need to do to get up to speed but that doesn't mean we don't have the history

that we need to acknowledge and use that history to inform how we can be a model agency moving forward and we are trying very hard to make sure that we do that. >> i certainly hope it improves. it's not very impressive now but thank you very much for your comment and i yield back. >> the representative yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman. maam thank you for being here. i want to go back to what mr. neugebauer was talking about there have been several things approved by the usda for months and farmers start planting cotton in his stated margin in my state it's more an april but it takes time to get the chemicals produced and through the distribution to the farm and if you take much longer quite

honestly they are not going to be available for us this year. i appreciate your commitment to helping the farmer and i hope people see you act on the spending registration sooner rather than later. i think that's one of the breakdowns that we have is when government and the public and the farmer. seems the people and agencies have no idea when farmers plant their crops. and what the agencies are doing to the cost of those crops. can you tell me what cotton is trading for? >> i can't sir. >> it's below the cost of production right now and so are a lot of the other commodities so when you take an area like mine that produces a tremendous amount of cotton every year and cotton is below the cost of production you would typically look to another commodity but they are also below the cost of

production and i appreciate your comment that you are trying to help the farmer but the government is getting in the play of the farm being able to survive through these tough economic times and things like approving these chemicals sooner rather than later would at least help us determine what crop we can plant. i want to go to the issue right and i certainly understand the value of pollinators. without these you boost the majority of the food in the world that there are, there are situations with a pollinator and the preliminary risk assessment and specifically cotton which i was talking about earlier this self pollinating crop and it doesn't require bees so did the epa take that into account as part of its assessment of pollinators that cotton does not require bees for pollination?

>> i will have to go back. are we talking about -- which chemical are we talking about? >> the neo-knicks as a whole. >> we are not making broadbrush decisions. we are looking at each of them in about the decisions that we have been proposing have been very specific to look at being specific to the crop as well as the time of year and will begin to protect the bee colonies as well as to make sure that these are available. >> i will take that as a commitment. and i appreciate that. are you familiar with the agency's proposed rule on greece -- greenhouse gas emissions for heavy-duty vehicles? would you agree also that congress has excluded non-road

vehicles used solely for competition from epa regulatory reach? >> i believe that is the case but i'm not as familiar with that sim my standard rulemaking process. >> fair enough. according to the epa web site congress did its one of the things --. >> i believe so. >> we talk about the things we told you about but there were things that we thought you did not have the authority to do in one of those i agree with what you said that you don't have the authority to regulate competition vehicles. i'm concerned about the fact that the end this 629 some odd page rule that is supposed to deal with greenhouse gas emissions for medium and heavy-duty engines that in the catchall provision, that the

rule has attempted to bring back and to regulation competition vehicles, and i agree with you 100% that you don't have the authority to do that. i appreciate you telling me that >> let me get back to you. i'm sure if that was part of the proposal we have received a lot of comments on it. i'm happy to close the loop with you on it. we certainly have not finalized that roe was considering all the comments but if you think there was a disconnect i'm happy to connect with you on it individually if you would like. >> i agree that congress specifically said that you don't have the authority to regulate competition vehicles and maam i appreciate your time and is it's just very disconcerting as an american to see 40,000 pages of rules and regulations that we have an agency that would put something in the heavy-duty

vehicle rolled that deals with with. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you mr. chair. good morning administrator mccarthy. i wanted to talk with you about the virgin islands is very much, has a relationship with epa because of our complete surrounding bywater and our land and rce, our greatest resources both for our farmers as well as all of the industries that we take up. several years ago the virgin islands were devastated by the closure of our oil refinery and our oil refinery meant that we lost millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of millions more in loss of economic activity. recently however the facility was in a bankruptcy sale and a private equity firm has elected to purchase it.

that may lead to the restoration of more activity on the island. however there is a concern that we have with regards to the epa and the potential of the epa asking that the government of the virgin islands be a co-permittee on its resource conservation and recovery act permit. these permits were originally put out against -- in 1999 and at no time during the renewal at the virgin islands government government been included in it. the virgin islands government owns, doesn't even make up 5% of the land in this area. we were by an act of congress entitled to the submerged land to be entrusted by the citizens held at no time as the virgin islands ever elected to operate a refinery use the facilities but is holding those submerged lands. i understand that it's no longer

the owner but there is real concern that we have with reach into taking the position that the virgin islands government must be included as a co-permittee. our belief that reach into his paste on an overly expansive interpretation of brick row and is an unjustified agency policy. i'm sure my colleagues here would see that this could be a problem that takes precedence in that you have your state and local governments which they might epa be forced to become it company perman t. on hazardous waste areas back home in their own regions. so we have really been reaching out to epa and particularly reach into to see how we can resolve this and i'm not sure if you are aware of this. i wanted to bring this to your attention. are you aware of any instance the epa is forced the territory to become a rikra permit beyond

a rikra owning a small portion of the land that they facility has? >> i do not know all the uniqueness of this situation but it is certainly my understanding that the region has taken a legal position that because part of the land in which the facility is located is u.s. island land, that they are is a connection and that they should have been on the permit. having just learned this i can't tell you whether we have done this before whether there is unique trust responsibilities that we are not looking at so i'm more than willing to go back and look at the region but it's very clear that rcra has brought in communities, municipalities and states into the rcra

responsibility system even though they are innocent landholders and that's respect respected the process but they become part of the permit process moving forward a. >> it seems to me to be unclear why you would have an original permit in 1999. renewals of that same permit one another owner was operating facility. our ownership is not expanded at any point in us this. we have always had the same 5% of submerged lands but this body congress put on the government of the virgin islands to hold in trust trust for its his citizens are now seemingly when there's no titleholder anymore and it's gone into bankruptcy the epa region two has decided that the virgin islands government must take on responsibility for hazardous waste and activities at the facility owners were operating. what more can a territory take

on? what more can a government that started bankrupt take on its back? now you have the owner purchasing by another entity and the federal government, the agency is forcing us to take responsibility possibly liability for hazardous activities that a private owner had a 95% of that land. it just means an expansion because there is no private owner anymore to hold the responsibility to put on the backs of the local government that can do nothing but say please don't do this to us. >> this seems like a very unique circumstance that i would suggest that we follow-up our conversation and it is not a decision for an interpretation that i've been engaged in so why don't we do that? >> i would appreciate that very much. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. spina the gentlelady's time has expired. the chairman recognizes

representative crawford for five minutes. >> i know this has been addressed to some extent but i think we can take a deeper dive on this issue with the grassroots campaign effort that took place in your agency. specifically prohibited by title xviii of the u.s. criminal code and i don't think we have gotten a satisfactory answer. have you or your legal department made efforts before the grassroots campaign was undertaken to ensure the a key piece -- epa staff staffers might effectively is prohibited prohibited under the anti-lobbying act? >> we actually were following omb guidelines. >> prior to? >> yes. >> if they are perceived training and engaged in lobbying? >> we believe we follow those guidelines, yes. the jal disagres with that and whether or not there is-- there can be intense proven, the sup surf you and

optics of what took place there are certainly worth considering and i think there is valuable lessons here in the jao findings , which the administration in your agency is willing to go so far to break kremlin crowed to push an agenda and we arty know you were willing to go to great lengths to push an agenda, but this is completely different links. you basically, buys the integrity of the rulemaking process-- a. >> sir, date-- >> i am on my time right now, administrator. in the age of electronic communication it is troubling agencies are willing to use these tools to subvert the concerns of the public and drawnout opposition and it is obvious that you were trumpeting your own views and not taking consideration the public view when this is a public rulemaking, period, so i don't

know how after all those revelations were made that you expect us to believe that during the rulemaking that epa took in account all the views by stakeholders or were you just concern about the views of your political allies? it appears to me that was the case. >> sir, the gal never indicated that we referenced a particular rulemaking. they never indicated we said anything incorrect. they had one concern relative to anti- lobbying, which was a hyperlink to a program that we were touting as being really good, one block from one individual in the agency out of thousands was done and referenced a hyperlink and they could not the back and prove or disprove whether or not that ngo may have had an ability for people to contact congress on other related issues or this one. so, we are certainly sensitive to the fact that that hyperlink

referenced an outside of epa website. there are other agencies that flagged that and we are considering working with them on what we can do, but if you look at this there was no intent and there was no lobbying on the part of the agency or a reference. >> okay come i think we can take this as an example and validation in the fact that the rulemaking process is deeply flawed and it needs to be addressed because this kind of stuff to me is not reflective of the opportunity that should be granted to that affected stakeholders. let me switch gears. i was just told yesterday that the epa took action against the farmer who did not comply with sec rules on farm fuel storage by failing to have a plan for his oil storage tank that was a 5000-gallon tank, but the 2014 word specifically says epa can only require compliance for oil storage tanks of 6000 gallons. until such time the epa completes a study in a new

rulemaking process is undertaken. my understanding is the study is complete that recommend a lower threshold, but the rulemaking is not finished, so my question is wise epa taking enforcement action against individuals who are not out of compliance and isn't that a violation of the law? >> sir, i am happy to look into it and get back into it. it just happen yesterday and i'm not familiar with that. >> is that kind of thing a regular practice? >> i think we have actually been doing a very good job on the rules and many of them because there are changes in threshold like 96% of them are no longer impacted by this rule-- a. >> let me-- >> we are doing pretty good. >> to epa agents take compliance action because they know farmers are not willing to fight conformists action because it cost the more legal costs than to go ahead and two sir come to the epa court pressure? >> i don't know why you are suggesting it, sir, but if that

is your point of view-- >> it is my point of view and lots of people in my district to farm and are subject to epa regulation. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all, ms. mccarthy, i think you and epa have drastically manhandled and violated the rights of our farmers. especially dealing with this water issue. you did break the law. you did break the law. now, let me tell you, ms. mccarthy, in section 15 of the financial services and general government appropriations act, it expressly prohibits you from lobbying in the support or in opposition to pending legislation or rule. further, not only their did you

break the law, but in section 401 of the department of the interior's environment and related agencies appropriations act. that's applicable right now. prohibited the use of the epa's appropriations for lobbying. you broke the law. it needs to be admitted. it needs to be recognized and furthermore, you spent pack-- taxpayer money in the lobbying. and the gal reports 64600 and $10 that you spent in lobbying from february 2014, to 2015. now, let's come clean with this. so, we can correct this.

there is no way you are going to correct this if you don't realize that you'd drastically overstepped here. and let's get back cleaned up. now, the other part that really gets in my craw is is that i was born on a farm and grew up on a farm and there is a reason why farmers go and develop ditches and ponds and wells and they are man-made because that's an insurance policy for the drought. our animals still have to be fed. they have to drink. there are many times when it won't-- won't rain for four or five or six weeks and that's why we have that. the other point is, this is the farmer's private property. and it is not navigable waters. it is there for the purpose of being able to give us protection

when that rain won't come. my little farm was a tobacco farm and when you go to that tobacco then shoe have to put the plant in and you got to have the water right there to go in with the plant. suppose it doesn't rain. now, that's on the farmer's property and he shouldn't be permitted for his own property. and then he should not be signed so you have to pay-- the farmer got to pay for a permit on his own property for water. or a ditch or a pond or a well that they made themselves, so that they could be able to have that insurance for a rainy day. then, to violate all of that, the law is self to go in lobby and spend taxpayers money on it. that is a damnable thing to do

to our farmers. our farmers who are faced with so many other challenges. the epa needs to reject this rule, recognize and admit that it broke the law and then moved to correct and say this will never happen again. now, finally in my last seconds, i don't want to go over time, but i want to raise this issue for our cops and folks. on the-- i guess a better way of saying this is the lord span-- the lord span, anyway we need this for cotton producers and a pecan producers. has been said before with the chairman and others are cotton people are going through a very serious time economically and they don't need a doubt of whether or not they can use this pesticide, so will you please

make sure we use that and hopefully, put this business aside for the water rule and let's move forward and let these farmers have some peace of mind. >> thank you for your passion, sir. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. mccarthy, thank you for being here today and one follow-up on mr. scott's question. he pointed out that the gao but determined you violated federal law. who is in charge of the kober propaganda? >> it is actually just part of our outreach and education, serve your there was no covert propaganda. >> so, there is no one over that to together outreach or known in charge? >> we have communication folks. >> who was the head of that? who is responsible for that? >> i would have to go back and look at the exact time, but we actually have a large education outreach group, but none of

that-- >> no one was punished for it though, right? >> we don't believe-- >> we understand that the person was promoted and now working for the white house come about in your opening statement you made it sound like congress was deploring you to move forward with this. where did the idea for this come from and who was in charge of drafting this package? >> actually, what is or the clean water rule came because the supreme court told us that we needed to make improvements in the law based on science and that we needed to prove a connection and do a better job. >> that was in congress clec it actually was followed up by congress passed us to take action to address concerns, individual stakeholders, members of the community, absolutely

people were looking for us to do a better job than the 2008 guidance and to respond to the concerns and criticisms that-- >> you went around congress and use the rulemaking process. >> no, sir we were actually asked to do a rulemaking for clarification and whether you disagree without rule or not is fine-- >> what is the cost of this? >> it is actually a net benefit of something in order of 184 million. >> a benefit not a cost because i have heard it cost anywhere from 180 million up to 500 million, and that would change the rulemaking process; correct? >> if the cost is over hundred million you can't go around congress the way you did. >> the 100 million threshold means would go to the interagency process, which we did. >> do you know howard's landscape and mac do. >> have you worked with him on this? >> yes, i did. >> do you know he won't-- why he won't give the required documents which we have been asking for cents march 15? >> i'm not familiar with what

you are asking about. >> we had a hearing and this was a major rule and we have been asking and had to announce a subpoena these documents were over a year. you don't have any idea why they are ignoring our request? >> i don't know. >> you have not had conversations with him? >> no, sir. >> is this directive from the white house? >> what directive is-- what directive are you referring to? >> the wotus itself. this is certainly not from call-- congress and the courts have blocked this; correct? the implementation. >> it is being litigated in one district court and it is now with the sixth circuit where they are looking at whether or not the district court has jurisdiction, but you are absolutely right, we are now stayed in terms of its implementation and tell those issues are resolved. >> you act like you are doing us a favor, but yet we have 31 states and many our cultural organizations filing lawsuits

against you, so you don't think that maybe there should be a reason for pause and maybe we ought to scrap this thing ago back to the drawing board? >> the legal test in terms of its merits. >> so, why did the epa decided was necessary to do this? >> because of the lack of clarity and the inconsistency and the unfairness of the current process. >> but, under the clean water act you are restricted to navigable waters that mr. scott talked about farm ponds that cattle drink out of. is that a navigable water? >> the actual navigable water the supreme court has told us that that goes well beyond what we would traditionally think of it navigable and we have to then protect waters that have the ability to significantly impact the biological physical and chemical integrity of navigable waters. >> you understand-- >> we have done a really, i

think, good job if you look at the clean water rule to make sure we are clarifying the word ditch that is in the clean water rule, not-- as. >> it would make another 10 minutes for you to describe what is a ditch of what is not a ditch, but i will in with the fact that americans are frustrated with big governments and that is the number-one issue with big government, so i would hope you with withdraw bit, take your time and get this right. >> the gentleman's time has expired. five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. director, as you are aware on august 5, 2015, the epa team that was investigating the contamination of the gold king mine in colorado, accidentally released a 3 million gallons of wastewater into the ms river, which then flowed into the san juan river, which is in new mexico, part of it and lake .. a result of the

release. now, while that initial plume dissipated within several days, i went to alert you and i think you may already be aware that there remains very serious concerns about the long-term impacts in both environmentally and for public health and i am aware that both the state of new mexico through primarily their environment department, but certainly in my communications with the governor and the navajo nation and its president that they have real concerns over a proposed one-year epa monitoring plan, which doesn't do anything about monitoring groundwater, plants, crops, wildlife and certainly does not take into consideration continued runoff-- i hope we don't have a too soon, but a spring runoff, which means all of that sediment gets moved

again and so i would agree that the state is correct in assessing that there needs to be a long-term monitoring impacts and that there ought to be a plan that involves their independent review, they are there, they are familiar and aware, which i realize is difficult, 20/20 hindsight and we all wish we had that, but you want that expertise, so you don't have these issues and you don't have these accidents and you don't have information that may not be accurate or relevant to the area in which you are testing. can you talk to me about your conversations with the state of new mexico in the navajo nation and whether you are entertaining to support them and funded them and give the resources to assure the public health of the citizens of that state are protected? >> we are certainly go to do just that. in a couple of different ways. we know a lot of those states in the tribes that were impacted by

this bill have been discussing with us reimbursement of their expenses, particularly your state did a great job at responding to that. we are sitting down with them looking at both a short-term monitoring program in a long-term one that doesn't just look at the area of this bill, but does a much broader look at the watershed in general and how we cannot just do that with epa scientists, but they could be engaged because of their scientific expertise. in the universities in your area have great scientific expertise. epa has identified funding for that and we're going to work with them to make sure that we do the monitoring that is necessary-- >> great, because i think that brbust partnership brings-- w >> >> that robust partnership brings about credibility. that leads me to the second question.

relating to the watershed because that is a completely separate issue but it includes 15 individual entities rand jurisdictions. that region is one of three in the country and the only region to participate as a lookout all love the of water issues related activities there are requirements for the eastern climate's and i will tell you that everyone in those jurisdictions is struggling with their relationship because of the aspects do not make sense and quite frankly conflict with the state water law even the compact.

so they need to have that flexibility sell local managers can suggest alternatives that makes sense. are you aware we have these complex -- a conflict but we can you do that correctly. >> is a partnership between the epa and the state i did not know there were concerns raised and they have to be resolved in the way that makes sense for those communities did you are right and it is the key to do that. >> we will work with you to get resolved. >> i represent parts of

upstate new york end among those is we have a village is a very proud area with hard-working good folks. these are challenging times due to run chemical detected to not have applaudable water and food is at fault over six weeks. we have carbon filtration and process we do think we will have conable bader but at the same time monetary up blood levels of the comprehensive health steady and we will begin that process to identify the officer offered the lead for word.

we contacted the epa and the response than was the unregulated chemical did not pose a health risk. at the end of the year specifically on the 15th and -- of december the epa can now with the statement that said the water is not possible and -- potable and it is a risk to health. so how do you make that determination and? and what changed between march and december? before you answer that, in my research i have come to find out there are many unregulated chemicals we need a bath said to go through all these chemicals to have of the hallway with analytics rand automation to

go through the health data my people are hurting and they are very disappointed. >> i share your concerns the way we can effectively address these new chemicals entering into these water systems across the country. i believe the region is pretty aggressive and for how they have reacted to this situation to get a new carbon system and the epa is trying very hard and there is a systematic process.

to go through a listing process to work with communities to adopt those regulations. >> that is not the user to read question but that is why i agree with you we're looking at automation and and the syrians with this blessed if congress would continued the polish of the toxic substance control act of regulating the products going into the system to find out where they are in what they're doing is said justin l. leniency? this is what i am not clear

on. >>. >> i am not sure i can is specifically answer your question. but that testing provided to the region is in the system that wasn't currently in use. but when we found out there were existing supply wells used part of the challenge was one of the recommended levels was fairly high and currently being reconsidered. to get the best information we had based on the science we do. that is why there was a continued debate back and forth for what was safe and what was in. but the science is changing and what we knew to be the case with what people were drinking was changing as well. >> will have to submit for the record the second question in with that i

yield back. >> they give it to the administrator to be here with us today. i will be quick the first one relates to the waters of the united states ruling but in conjunction with the epa regulation of pesticides end regarding bell long years of combat but far mersey and landowners in new hampshire is how will your agency coordinate with usda in and fish man and wildlife tiv minimize confusion of the interplay between edie's three? >> that is the very good question and i am not sure that i can answer.

i will have to get back to you because you have baffled me. >> we will get some guidance because it is the big timber area. i have landowners' working on and conservation and as these come together able the limit -- limit the way to use the property because i just wander in there is coordination. >> i have not been a part of that i have to figure that out. >> apparently it is the important that -- back and also relates to the power plant with the co-chair of

the biomass cop is a understand the supreme court but my question talks about the biomass energy world whether or not it is treated as the carbon neutral form of energy that i am just curious if the determination has been made in death that biomass albi treated under the clean power plant. >> that is a question i understand. it is important part of many states complete strategy's.

so we go there are? issues raised that we take his car been neutral that is a grisly helpful but there are other things so we have notified those that are pulling together a work group and what we are urged to leave already to get people up to speed to develop the right answers to have biomass pian affected part of the strategy. is there are question is what the epa might approve. >> i would like to issue an invitation to set up with your team to educate members

of congress from all over the country and many have prompted this to happen to have a sense of where they are. >>. >> with time to use there. >> we appreciate your attendance here today. just to talk about the racing community the you have a regulation in the coming down that has been converted for racing and wanting the television show

the entertainment agency so please check into that. i will follow-up from a couple of months ago and it is above the sacramento river and many hundreds of thousands of acres it wouldn't be that much different than the animas river situation and. so that we know the situation is stable on that. on the issue of section in for with the exemptions under the clean water act

including calling or seeing or cultivating with conservation and practices there are no additional requirements and those are included some the to have continuous cropping to lose that ability with an exemption as it is carried out in my district with the epa over the associates sometimes referred to as henchman so do you agree that section 404 does make no additional requirements

as we see it when? >> i am not aware but i will have to get back to you. >> i don't know what actions you are refering to a. >> it comes down hard to seek a permit for what they have spent doing. lusby neck that is what people do. you shouldn't have to have a new permit. sometimes those are afraid they will end up with a three year waiting process to get the permit issued to them. with the land payments and the tax payments. croswell have to go fast i apologize. but such than 110 of the appropriations act

specifically prohibits funds from the act to be used as was alluded to. are you aware of that exemption as well under the appropriation? there is an amendment that specified no funds are to be used. >> under section anyone than of the appropriation act that no funds are to be used under section 404 requiring these permits. >> this is the director lot in place. the army corps of engineers in he mentioned several times following though lot.

that with these activities we have done we believe we are the ones that set the course so as long as we have exceptions to the exemption is that is problematic. with the rulemaking that we're not though lawmakers anymore. that the clean water exams. >> i said hello earlier and again want to invite you to

my district because a couple of reasons to use it here two hours and in here is the issue where i represent we have and largest effect jurying districts in the country in the southern part of the state we have had he agriculture as well so i look at this but indiana is a good role model for the economy and i can show you in the district doing things that are incredibly creative. warda in the family farmer because it depends on taking care of that area.

end to do some clean water things but i milanov to remember when the epa was really considered a partner, a partner with industry, a partner with farmers especially in our state. to keep people from getting in trouble that today's epa is set punitive revenue judgment -- generator for big government and that bothers me. i know there is a lot of well intentions i am understand why the frustration is so high hillsides.

with americans and farmers and we are in a target of heavy manufacturing because of the issue of heavy-handed government. sanders to use your intention that we can have great gains in this country with a partner of the epa. there is the gigantic told problem. with people say it is the putative regulating system can here comes implementation and.

and to bring shareholders. duet balanced. i believe there is a balance between the stewards and intend to regulate but with that implementation the is that automatically given for those who believe they are exempt or did they have to prove that? >> the way the law works if there is the question and what might be water. >> the individual landowner concerted the activity would do that. >> of their private land? >> or elsewhere then to that

is acquired by the landowner but we are not cheney the dynamics but a farmer is not compliant as we talk about this exemption could a farmer faces action if he was strongly aeon the side he was not compliant and face legal action in to defend himself?

>> there are enforcement cases compared to how they answer these questions to get permits done. i will honestly tell you in to make that clarity indeed and he knows the answer. >> thank you for herb being here. they are their own best stewards it will not do anything to harm their livelihood to last the price

with cotton or cord or soybeans but answer to drive the car does not know how to start it. of a when you apply pesticides to maintain agriculture than it takes the question who should know these? you should know. we talk about pesticides. does examine the health and safety under the federal act?

. . times? >> my understanding is that we have had a great deal of success in eliminating extensions of time for all of our program. we are mostly keeping to those windows. are there additional challenges with genetically engineered products? if they are then that is where the science comes in and we ask for it. they are not treated differently than looking at how we always look at pesticides, which is by the science try to stick with the legal timelines and window that we had to make-- >> i will follow-up on a question on the science issue