Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jeff Saitas and I am executive director of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Our agency implements a broad range of regulatory and nonregulatory activities that protect the health of Texans and their environment. The agency is led by a three-member commission appointed by the governor. About 3,000 staff members work in Austin and at 16 regional offices around the state. Clean air issues continue to be one of the agency's top priorities and toughest challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about our experiences implementing the Clean Air Act and about our suggestions for improvement. I will highlight a successful planning process and point out where we feel held back, namely by the lack of timely federal action and clear definition of the roles of local, state, and federal government to regulate emissions.
Planning Process Success First, you've asked about what's working in Texas. One successful effort has been the development of a State Implementation Plan to address ozone problems in the Dallas Fort Worth area. Through a partnership between state, local, and federal governments; by working with a wide variety of interested parties; and by seeking public input throughout the process, we've developed a plan that will clean up the air in the Dallas Fort Worth area.
The proposals developed for the Dallas Fort Worth area are based on recommendations from local leaders and the community that target problem areas. They include local government controls, such as changes to building codes and transportation control measures; state controls on industrial point sources, principally power plants, and a more effective vehicle emissions testing program; and federal controls such as automobile emission standards and cleaner fuels. The Dallas Fort Worth portion of our State Implementation Plan was submitted to EPA in April of this year and determined to be administratively complete.
Implementation Process Problems Unfortunately, elements of the Plan have been challenged by those industries that will be affected particularly the electric utilities, cement kilns, diesel engine manufacturers, and the airlines. One of the most significant issues raised by this litigation is the question of federal preemption. Several elements of our Dallas Fort Worth plan have been challenged in court on the grounds that those control strategies are reserved for federal action. In addition, federal actions often occur too late for their full air quality benefits to be taken into account by states to meet Clean Air Act attainment deadlines.
The Clean Air Act SIP process was designed to be a partnership between local, state, and federal government. For instance, the Act requires federal agencies such as EPA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers to take steps to control emissions. On the other hand, if our federal partners fail to control these emissions, or take too long to do so, the sources that the state can control will have to do more than their fair share. The problem here is the extra burden may be more than these sources have the ability to reasonably achieve.
Conclusion
To remedy this problem we need two things. First, we need a true partnership -- one that recognizes that federal, state, and local performance are required for a successful SIP; without any one of these partners, the equity of the solution is compromised. Second, we need very clear guidance on precisely what those roles are and how they will be performed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and all interested parties.