Why does Alaska need a separate region? Part of the answer lies in the uniqueness of our ecosystems and the extent of our real estate.
Alaska is comprised of 365 million acres or 586,000 square miles. That's two and a half times larger than Texas--or a little more than 63 New Hampshires, Mr. Chairman. Alaska stretches 2,400 miles from east to west, and 1,420 miles from north to south.
Alaska has 170 million acres of wetlands--that's 65 million acres more than the combined total of wetlands in the other 49 states.
We have more coastline than the rest of the nation combined--some 47,300 miles of shoreline.
We have 3 million lakes larger than 20 acres.
We have ecosystems ranging from arctic desert to temperate rainforests, including ecosystems that are found nowhere else in the United States. In addition, Alaska is more ecologically diverse than any other state.
That's why virtually every other Federal Agency with environmental or conservation responsibilities has a regional office in Alaska. These include:
Congress has already recognized the merits of an Alaska region for the EPA. In the fiscal year 1992 VA-HUD appropriations bill, Congress authorized the President to establish an eleventh region of the EPA consisting solely of the State of Alaska. An Administrative Order to that effect was signed by EPA Administrator William K. Reilly on January 20, 1993. Unfortunately, the order was not carried through. I ask that a copy of the signed order be included in the hearing record.
Mr. Chairman, as I know from my service on this Committee when I first came to the Senate, and as you know from your leadership in environmental issues, environmental protection is a complex undertaking. "One size fits all" approaches cannot be written in Washington or Seattle and applied in Alaska. Bringing the regulator closer to the problem yields better decisions and more effective, thoughtful regulation.
Moreover, because 65% of Alaska is owned and controlled by the Federal Government, most EPA activities directed at Alaska require coordination with the Federal land managers who are headquartered in Alaska.
Other benefits we expect from this legislation include:
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave you with just a few examples of what happens when good intentions in the EPA Seattle office go awry in Alaska.
In the regulation of mining operations, EPA sought to require operators to reduce arsenic discharges to a level below the naturally occurring ambient levels. They were apparently unaware that the high level of mineralization in areas of Alaska cause some streams to have high levels of naturally occurring contaminants.
Here is another example: When EPA insisted that Fairbanks, my home town, use MTBE as a oxygenate for motor fuels, nobody understood what happened when MTBE volatilized in an extreme cold air inversion, exposing humans directly to the chemical. Let me tell you what happened--people started getting sick--complaining of headaches, nausea, and dizziness.
For far too long, EPA's distant Seattle office regarded the health complaints of Fairbanks residents as little more than the "rumblings of crackpots, and refused to grant a waiver. Many months later, after being confronted with hard evidence of sickness, EPA granted a waiver.
How much quickly might that waiver had come, and how many fewer Alaskans would have gotten sick, if EPA had a regional office in Alaska?
Today, Fairbanks is a non-attainment area for Carbon Monoxide by virtue of the Arctic air inversions that occur several times a year. Seattle has never experienced a true Arctic air inversion, so it doesn't surprise me that the EPA regional office hasn't come to terms with the best way to help Fairbanks solve its problem. Instead of considering the unique situation that Fairbanks is in, the EPA started the sanctions clock.
In Nome, where I visited this past weekend, the EPA wants the smokestack on the powerplant be raised to better dissipate emissions. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, doing so would interfere with the landing pattern and require a costly realignment of the runway at Nome's airport, which would largely be undertaken at federal expense. Is this a sensible, cost-effective solution? Of course not. But it's easy to see how this can happen if EPA is sitting in Seattle calling the shots without coordinating with the FAA, which has its regional headquarters in Anchorage.
These are just some examples. Commissioner Brown will talk about the Anchorage Wastewater Treatment Plant permit where a great deal of time, effort and money has been expended for no improvement in water quality.
Let me stress that it is not my intent to question the dedication and good intentions of the EPA people in Seattle--but if they are closer to the action, they will do a better job.
In conclusion, I ask that this Committee move our legislation that directs the establishment of an Alaska region.
In the interim, you might ask the EPA why they haven't done so already.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.