I am testifying today on behalf of the Data Management Workgroup and the Local Government Forum of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), which is the national, non-profit, non-partisan association representing the state and territorial environmental commissioners. I serve as the Chairman of the Data Management Workgroup. On behalf of ECOS and the State of New Hampshire, I very much appreciate your invitation to join you today.
As requested, I have prepared comments on the four bills you are considering today. I will address them in turn.
S. 2800 The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, introduced by Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Crapo
This bill addresses a very important issue facing government agencies and one that deserves the scrutiny you are providing today. The ECOS Data Management Workgroup endorses many of the principles contained within the bill. In fact, we have been working to implement a number of them over the past three years in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency.
We applaud the concept of a "one-stop" reporting system proposed in the bill, both for those who report directly to EPA and for the far greater numbers who report to the States. We agree strongly with the need to establish and use common data standards. Consolidated reporting, a feature of the bill, is also a worthy objective. We support the bill's aim of allowing participation in the new integrated reporting scheme for those who choose to do so voluntarily. It is imperative that any law affecting environmental data reporting fully recognizes the tremendous investment many States have made in upgrading their data systems, building electronic interfaces, and developing data standards. Any new reporting process must be flexible enough to account for different systems and applications at the State level.
We also feel the bill should more explicitly account for the considerable role that States play in the collection and management of environmental data and should emphasize State investment in the design and development of a new national integrated reporting network. Here are a few specifics to put this issue in perspective. Nationally, States collect 94% of environmental data, conduct 97% of facility inspections, operate about 70% of the federal programs delegable to them, conduct about 80% of the enforcement actions, and contribute about twice as much funding to environmental programs as EPA. Under these circumstances, the bill should promote a partnership in which EPA, the States, Tribes and local agencies work together to design and put in place a much-needed national integrated reporting network.
EPA already recognizes the critical role of States on this issue and, in 1997, EPA and ECOS formulated their collaborative efforts on data management and established the State/EPA Information Management Workgroup. This effort grew out of EPA's highly successful "One Stop" program that was designed to assist States in developing innovative solutions to data management problems. We have developed a joint vision and a set of operating principles to guide the work of our State/EPA information management partnership, and we are already addressing many of the proposals contained in the bill. For example, we have joined with the Tribes and EPA to create an independent Environmental Data Standards Council that will help establish standards as envisioned by the legislation. Environmental and business groups will be an integral part of that process.
The States and EPA are also collaborating on other crucial issues that must be resolved to make the environmental information more effective and efficient. Among these issues are: defining what constitutes a "facility;" solving key data exchange problems; ensuring public access to information; reducing information reporting burdens; and sharing experiences among the States and EPA.
The State/EPA partnership is also tackling the issue of what S. 2800 refers to as a "national environmental reporting system." Together, we are designing a national environmental information exchange network (the Network) that taps into the private sector Internet revolution, adapts it to government needs, and keeps it "off-the-shelf," open and non-proprietary. This Network will depend upon technology-based partnership, with all levels of government leveraging and benefiting from each other. We have been selective in the choice of technology to ensure that the information system is transparent - and thus more accountable - and scalable so that control and responsibility for the information stays as close as possible to its origins, whether at the local, county, state or federal level. No matter where the information resides, it would be easily accessible via the Internet for everything from reports by EPA on national environmental performance to local citizen inquiries about emissions from the industrial plant around the corner. As part of the Network, States would continue to collect the data and would - through uniform data standards, integration and quality assurance - ensure that EPA, as well as the regulated community, elected officials, environmental groups and the general public have access to timely, accurate and useful information.
It is vital that S. 2800 recognize and support this joint effort to develop a national environmental data exchange network.
We also believe that EPA and the States must be provided sufficient resources as soon as possible to make the integrated reporting network a reality. Creating a national information exchange network requires a significant initial investment. Although States have helped lead this effort, many States currently lack the capacity to undertake comprehensive re-engineering of their information management processes. They need financial and technical assistance, and more opportunities to share their experiences. EPA needs additional resources to facilitate development of its Central Data Exchange capacity, to develop the Agency's connection to the exchange network, and to accelerate testing and development of technical and management protocols to ensure data quality, security, authenticity and confidentiality. Together, EPA and the States must integrate databases, create data standards, develop consolidated reporting to ease industry and small business reporting burdens, increase data quality, ensure appropriate information interpretation, and ease accessibility for anyone who wishes to see and use environmental data. The Committee could provide useful direction to appropriators via S. 2800 by authorizing sufficient funding to ensure the success of this national network.
Finally, we hope that S. 2800, as adopted by Congress, would permit and support the continuation of this healthy and productive effort. We are concerned it may not. We are particularly worried that the legislation would create a burdensome and unnecessary bias toward feeding one or more national databases. The States' experience with existing EPA data systems has been unsatisfactory. That is one reason the States are enthusiastically partnering with EPA to develop a new Internet-based, integrated information exchange network that in large measure builds on existing State data systems. We hope the language in §3(b) can be clarified to demonstrate that there is no bias against the Network approach favoring the traditional, huge, unwieldy national database or data systems.
Further, we want to ensure that enactment of S. 2800 will not produce the unintended consequence of slowing progress towards better information management while EPA creates rules and guidance to implement it. We trust that the intent of Congress is not to force a change from our current efforts, but rather to clearly authorize and support the work that EPA and the States have underway.
Our last specific concern is the National Environmental Data Model referred to in §3(b)(9). As written, this section may be more expansive than simply a description of EPA's own data management architecture. It should be made clear that this section refers only to the way EPA would configure its systems, not a potential mandate for States and others to follow.
The State environmental commissioners are encouraged by the spirit and progress of the State/EPA information management partnership. It is now time to invest in its success. We hope you will support our progress by incorporating these principles into S. 2800 or any other legislation you might consider to improve the reporting and quality of environmental information.
S. 1915, the Small Community Assistance Act of 1999, Introduced by Sen. Jeffords and others S. 2296, the Project SEARCH Act of 2000, Introduced by Sen. Crapo
With the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak to S. 1915 and S. 2296 together because of their common focus on improving the ability of small communities to manage their environments.
Our small communities need this help. The Local Government Forum of ECOS supports the fundamental principles embodied in these bills: greater involvement by small communities in environmental regulatory processes and more funding to meet regulatory demands.
Much of the work of the State environmental agencies involves communities - whether related to wastewater treatment, cleaning up the town dump, or figuring out where the asphalt plant should be located. The ECOS Local Government Forum was among our earliest established committees and remains a critical part of ECOS's outreach, not only to our communities, but also to EPA, which has a profound influence over the environmental and financial health of our towns.
While villages conjure powerful emotional, social and sometimes political appeal, those strong feelings have not adequately translated into power to affect federal policy decisions or the flow of financial and technical resources. Challenged by their environmental problems, these communities are frequently overwhelmed by the federal process that aims to solve them.
Perhaps the best recent example of the need for greater small community involvement in the EPA rulemaking process, and hence the need for bills like S. 1915, is the proposed rule dealing with arsenic in drinking water. The Small Community Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) - an EPA FACA - reviewed the arsenic drinking water standard and expressed great concern for the impacts of the proposed rule on small systems. SCAS has requested that EPA review the specific impacts on particular communities rather than gauging impacts based on national income levels and all drinking water systems. The extraordinary impact of EPA's proposed arsenic rule clearly demonstrates the need for and fairness of including small communities constructively in the regulatory development process.
ECOS members can readily relate to the plight of small communities who desire an effective partnership with EPA. We have been struggling toward that goal ourselves. If you look in the right places, you can see the appropriate guidance -- the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 and Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well as relevant Executive Orders such as E.O. 13132 on Federalism. EPA's own guidelines mandate consultation and outreach. And more than ever, it is working, as Ms. Thompson's testimony for EPA demonstrates. Fritz Schwindt, Chief of the North Dakota Environmental Health Section, Co-Chair of the ECOS Local Government Forum, and a member of the SCAS agrees that EPA is making efforts to involve small communities. S. 1915 will help ensure that these good works continue and that EPA remains accountable to Congress for its continued sensitivity to the needs of these communities.
Small communities, close to the land and water and at home with the concept of environmental stewardship, are particularly hard pressed to meet the financial demands of that commitment. They simply cannot make up for the lack of a tax base. Whether a community of 200,000 or 2,500, the same suite of services must be provided -- safe drinking water, wastewater treatment, storm water control, landfills - all in addition to the other amenities of community living. Few communities of 2,500 or less have the financial or human resources necessary to adequately meet health and environmental goals - even with the existence of State Revolving Funds to help finance costly infrastructure - hence the need for the targeted financial assistance envisioned by S. 2296. The grants proposed in this legislation are even more important for the poorest communities that are unable to provide the relatively small matching funds required for expensive water treatment facilities and other projects. It is critical, especially in light of the huge gap between environmental expenditures and identified water, wastewater, air quality and other needs, that the funding envisioned in S. 2296 not be at the expense of resources for other environmental programs.
S. 1763, the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 1999, Introduced by Sen. Allard
I have little to say about S. 1763 except that ECOS members seldom use Ombudsman services, relying on other lines of communication with EPA. I guess that is a good sign. For that reason, ECOS does not have a position on this legislation.
Conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to comment on these bills. Please feel free to call on me or ECOS if you have any additional questions.
Testimony of George Dana Bisbee Page 5