This is a critical issue and one close to my heart, not just because I am either a sponsor or co-sponsor of all the bills before us today. Each of these measures attempts to fix an overlooked problem within the EPA and each does takes a unique approach to problem-solving. Although I am a strong supporter of each bill, I would like to take few moments here to specifically address S. 2296 and S. 1763.
As many here today know, I have been working with the EPA National Ombudsman in his investigation of allegations of long-term agency wrong-doing in North Idaho. Each effort made by the Ombudsman in this case to date has turned up further evidence of questionable behavior by agency officials. The North Idaho community has welcomed the Ombudsman's interest and has willingly provided much information critical to the Ombudsman's investigation.
I am sure that all of us here today recognize the importance of accountability and responsibility by federal agency officials. Without public confidence in the agencies charged with protecting the environment and allocating scarce taxpayer resources properly, it will be difficult for any community to support federal policies. In North Idaho, a long history of EPA intransigence and lack of cooperation with the community has all but eroded the confidence of the public in the conduct of agency officials. It is my understanding that this chasm of trust exists in many other communities where the EPA has used the Superfund program.
The activities of the National Ombudsman provide a real opportunity to restore the confidence of the public. If the Ombudsman can correct agency mistakes and highlight inappropriate behavior that is ultimately corrected, communities will have a greater confidence that agency officials are acting with their best interests at heart. If the Ombudsman discovers that the EPA is acting appropriately, the public will also breathe easier.
Now, however, we have reports that the EPA is attempting to restrict the autonomy of the Ombudsman and this has raised alarm in many communities across the country. If the so-called watchdog of the Superfund program is not allowed to fully and freely investigate allegations of wrong-doing, the public will be the ultimate loser. We cannot allow the Ombudsman to be silenced in the proper conduct of his responsibilities.
For this and other reasons, S. 1763 would provide the assurances we all need to know that the Ombudsman is working to protect communities and taxpayer dollars. I call on this committee to demonstrate the importance of this measure by quickly enacting this much-needed reform of the EPA.
*********************
S. 2296 would authorize a national environmental grants program for small communities called Project SEARCH. The national Project SEARCH (Special Environmental Assistance for the Regulation of Communities and Habitat) concept is based on a demonstration program that has been operating with great success in Idaho in 1999 and 2000. In short, the bill establishes a simplified application process for communities of under 2,500 individuals to receive assistance in meeting a broad array of federal, state, or local environmental regulations. Grants would be available for initial feasibility studies, to address unanticipated costs arising during the course of a project, or when a community has been turned down or underfunded by traditional sources. The grant program would require no match from the recipients.
Some of the major highlights of the program are: A simplified application process -- no special grants coordinators required; No unsolicited bureaucratic intrusions into the decision-making process; Communities must first have attempted to receive funds from traditional sources; It is open to studies or projects involving any environmental regulation; Applications are reviewed and approved by citizens panel of volunteers; The panel chooses number of recipients and size of grants; The panel consists of volunteers representing all regions of the state; and No local match is required to receive the SEARCH funds.
Over the past several years, it has become increasing apparent that small communities are having problems complying with environmental rules and regulations due primarily to lack of funding, not a willingness to do so. They, like all of us, want clean water and air and a healthy natural environment. Sometimes, they simply cannot shoulder the financial burden with their limited resources.
In addition, small communities wishing to pursue unique collaborative efforts might be discouraged by grant administrators who prefer conformity. Some run into unexpected costs during a project and have borrowed and bonded to the maximum. Others are in critical habitat locations and any affected project may have additional costs, which may not be recognized by traditional financial sources. Still others just need help for the initial environmental feasibility study so they can identify the most effective path forward.
In 1999, a $1.3 million EPA demonstration grant program for Idaho's small communities with populations of 2,500 or less was created. Idaho's program does not replace other funding sources, but serves as a final resort when all other means have been exhausted.
The application process was simplified so that any small town mayor, county commissioner, sewer district chairman, or community leader could manage it without hiring a professional grant writer. An independent citizens committee with statewide representation was established to make the selections and get the funds on the ground as quickly as possible. No uninvited bureaucratic or political intrusions were permitted.
Although the EPA subsequently insisted that grants be limited to water and wastewater projects, 44 communities in Idaho ultimately applied, not including 2 that failed to meet the eligibility requirements. Ultimately, 21 communities were awarded grants in several categories, and ranged in size from $9,000 to $319,000. Communities serving a number of Native Americans and a migrant groups and several innovative collaborative efforts were included in the successful applicants. The communities that were not selected are being given assistance in exploring other funding sources and other advice.
The response and feedback from all participants has been overwhelming positive. Environmental officials from the state and EPA who witnessed the process have stated that the process worked well and was able to accomplish much on a volunteer basis. There was even extraordinary appreciation from other funding agencies because some communities they were not able to reach were provided funds for feasibility studies. The only negative comments were from those who wished that the EPA had not limited the program to water and wastewater projects.
The conclusion of all participants was that Project SEARCH is a program worthy of being expanded nationally. So many small communities in so many states can benefit from a program that assists underserved and often overlooked communities.
I would like now to take a moment to welcome Roy Prescott, a Jerome County, Idaho, county Commissioner, who will be testifying on the third panel. Roy has had extensive experience with Idaho's Project SEARCH program and will be sharing many of the highlights of the program. He has been instrumental in proving that a volunteer-based grant program can function effectively and respond to real-world problems. I appreciate his participation in the process and know that many small communities in Idaho are in his debt.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.