ECOS is the national, non-profit, non-partisan association of the state and territorial environmental agencies. The States and territories are our members and the people we represent are the leaders of the various state environmental agencies. Our mission is to:
1. Champion the cause of States, and
2. Provide for the exchange of ideas, views and experiences among the States, and
3. Foster cooperation and coordination in environmental management, and
4. Articulate state positions to Congress, federal agencies and the public on environmental issues.
Other details about our association are provided in the attachments to this testimony, which I ask be entered into the record.
I am here to tell you of some of the accomplishments that States have made in environmental protection - accomplishments that are not widely known. I will make four main points: 1) States now implement most of the delegable environmental programs, gather most environmental data, and conduct most enforcement and compliance actions; 2) States are paying for the largest share of environmental protection; 3) States implement many of their own environmental programs, and have become the chief architects of and advocates for innovations; and 4) States are committed to an environmental partnership with the federal government, but have suggestions for how to improve that relationship.
I'd like to now expand on those four points: First, States now implement most of the delegable environmental programs. This is good news, because that is what Congress intended when it enacted laws such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. States now have primary responsibility for carrying out those laws. As of 1999, about 70% of the major programs that could be delegated to States had been delegated. This means States are running most of the clean water programs, clean air programs, drinking water programs, and waste clean up programs that Congress created. As you can see from Chart 1 (on display and attached), much of this growth was in the 1990s, and in particular between 1993 and 1998 a five year period in which state delegations grew by almost 75%. As part of this responsibility, states are also collecting most of the environmental quality data. Brent Bradford, my colleague from the State of Utah will be speaking more about this today. We also conduct most of the environmental enforcement activities. In recent years, States have averaged between 75 and 80% of all enforcement actions taken by EPA and the States combined. We conduct at least 97% of all enforcement inspections. But we also conducted many other enforcement actions and compliance assistance that EPA may not count for one reason or another. Last year, Congress directed ECOS to conduct research on the issue of counting enforcement and compliance activities and report back to Congress. We are working on this project now and expect to report to you early next year. My second point is that States are paying for most of this environmental protection. As you can see in chart 2 (on display and attached), state spending for environmental protection has grown dramatically since 1986. In 1986 States spent about $5.2 billion on environmental protection and natural resources. Congress, through EPA, provided just over $3 billion of that, almost 58 percent. But by fiscal 1996, a very different story had emerged. States spent about $12.5 billion, with the EPA providing about $2.5 billion, or about 20 percent. During the 10-year period from 1986 to 1996, State spending on the environment increased about 140 percent, while total EPA funding to the States decreased about 17 percent. Most of the decline is attributable to reductions in water infrastructure support programs. In 1996 the States spent nearly twice as much ($12.5 billion) on environment/natural resources as the entire EPA budget ($6.5 billion). My third point is that States conduct many other non-delegated programs on their own, and that we are great at innovation. For example, in South Carolina, we have our own laws, rules and practices on the protection of shellfish beds that are not part of the delegated federal system, but are very important to our state. Obviously, these kinds of laws vary state to state, but they show the commitment of the states to the environment. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the States passed into law over 700 environmental bills in 1997 alone. At least half of these dealt with non-delegated environmental programs such as pollution prevention and solid waste management (chart 3 on display and attached). As the chart shows, for example, most of the hazardous waste sites in the country are actually being regulated and cleaned up under State authority. Another study by The Council of State Governments found that 80% of the states had at least one Clean Air Standard that exceeded the federal minimum standards. In South Carolina, for instance, our toxics list includes 258 constituents, compared to 188 on the federal list. States implement most environmental protection programs, so we are often the first to recognize innovative solutions for environmental problems. Each year for the past three years, ECOS has compiled state program and implementation innovations. These cover the complete range of environmental protection, including delegated and non-delegated programs. ECOS has now compiled hundreds of these innovations. Some of these State ideas have been nationally recognized by Innovations Awards programs such as those of The Council of State Governments and Harvard University. States are committed to the state-federal partnership in environmental protection. But we believe that the time for command-and-control, top-down programs has ended. Perhaps it should be replaced by a set of mutually agreed upon national goals and standards, which would be achieved by the states in the manner we deem most appropriate, and supplemented by local goals and standards that meet the specific needs of the states. After all, you are not likely to see the same environmental problems in South Carolina as you would in Utah because the states have such different ecologies. Our final chart shows some of the differences that we think will lead to a more harmonious relationship and better environmental protection (see display chart and attached). Some people still believe that it's 1970 and that the states can't be trusted to protect the environment. We believe the facts presented here today give the real story States are leaders in environmental protection and committed to protecting the health and environment of the citizens we serve. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to take any questions.