Leg Hrg on 4 Bills: H.R. 5694 (Rep. Begich)

The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will come to order. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses and our guests in the audience to today's hearing. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 4f, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3o. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to consider four legislative measures: H.R. 5694, Alaska's Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act, or the ARTIST Act, sponsored by Representative Begich of Alaska; H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science, or WATERS Act, sponsored by Representative Scott of Virginia; H.R. 7250, to reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000, sponsored by Representative Downing of Montana; and H.R. 7889, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act of 2025, or the AWRC Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Wittman of Virginia. I now recognize myself for a five-minute opening. Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a legislative hearing on four bills. Last August, several members of our subcommittee had the pleasure of visiting Alaska with Chairman Westerman and Congressman Begich. For Alaska Natives, the harvest of marine mammals is protected under federal law. This harvest is done for subsistence purposes and includes the use of marine mammal parts to make various forms of artwork and handicrafts. We saw this firsthand in our visit to the Alaska Native Heritage Center. Alaska residents and visitors alike purchase these products. However, as some states have enacted ivory bans to prevent trafficking of animals like elephants, these bans have inadvertently banned the possession of products made by Alaska Natives. Congressman Begich's legislation, the ARTIST Act, would prevent these bans from being applied to authentic artwork and articles of handicraft created by Alaska Natives. This bill will protect the right of Alaska Natives to make these products and the right of citizens from around the country to purchase and possess them. I would like to thank Megan Alvanna-Stimpfle, the chief of the King Island Native Community in Nome, Alaska, for traveling to be here today. Our next bill, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science Act, reauthorizes the Chesapeake Bay Office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most important resources for the Mid-Atlantic region. It is a source of recreational boating and fishing activity, generating millions of dollars in revenue each year. It is also important for the seafood sector, generating 500 million pounds of seafood annually. The bill makes changes to the management structure of the Chesapeake Bay Office and expands a number of its functions, which this committee will evaluate thoroughly. I am also concerned that this bill would add climate change programs and activities to the office's statutory charge. We will need to address this language and gain a better understanding of the intent of this bill to move it through the committee process. Our third bill, introduced by our committee's vice chair, Rob Wittman, reauthorizes the Water Resources Research Institutes. This network encompasses universities in every state across the country and advances key research to protect our country's water resources. Organized as the National Institutes for Water Resources, these entities work with universities across the country and collaborate with the United States Geological Survey to advance our understanding of America's water resources. Joining us today is Dr. Kevin McGuire, the director of the Virginia Water Center at Virginia Tech University. Some of their recent work includes assessing how hydrology impacts habitat for species, how soil and landscape impact water flows, and the effectiveness of different ways to treat water resources. Reauthorizing this program will continue this work, and I want to thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership. Our final bill is led by Congressman Troy Downing, the newest member of the Committee on Natural Resources. I join all my colleagues in welcoming Mr. Downing to our dais. Congressman Downing's legislation extends the authorization of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System to 2028. Extending this authorization allows ongoing construction and maintenance of the system to occur. This system, when completed, will deliver drinking water to more than 20 different communities. I appreciate Mr. Downing's work to support a project that will benefit so many people across Montana. With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and I look forward to today's discussion. I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So our hearing today focuses on supporting programs that help communities, the private sector, and government agencies responsibly manage and utilize water resources for the benefit of people and the environment. It is a place where responsible collaborative action has to remain at the core of our work. And we start with a bill from my colleague Bobby Scott from Virginia, H.R. 6893. It is an important piece of legislation that invests in the foundational science and coordination that we need to recover Chesapeake Bay and manage its resources. This bill would reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and authorize the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET program, which enhances educational opportunities through the bay. Chesapeake Bay Watershed, of course, is a very important resource. It is our nation's largest estuary, home to 18 million people across six states and the District of Columbia. And like many major waterways, the bay supports a broad range of industries, including tourism, fishing, shipping, real estate. It contributes billions to the economy each year and also sustains critical habitats for countless plant, animal, and fish species. But declining water quality, driven by agricultural runoff, industrial pollution, sewage discharge, and a loss of coastal habitats and overfishing, have all combined to reduce fish and wildlife populations. So these environmental harms negatively impact both the health of the ecosystem and the economic well-being of the entire Chesapeake Bay region. Mr. Scott's bill will ensure that NOAA remains an active partner in the recovery and the management of this important estuary. H.R. 7889 reauthorizes the Water Resources Research Act to continue support for Water Resources Research Institutes across the country in conducting comprehensive and meaningful research. As water supplies become strained and stressed, we do need to ensure sustained investment in practical long-term solutions that will address water constraints and threats to water supplies. Moving to Montana, H.R. 7250 allows for continued construction of water infrastructure under the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 so that we can provide safe drinking water to the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and surrounding communities in northeastern Montana. Ensuring that tribal communities have reliable access to clean water is critical. It is a shared priority for this subcommittee, so I hope we can continue working with our colleagues to advance not only that, but the large number of tribal water rights settlements that are currently stacked up before this committee. And then finally, we have H.R. 5694 from Mr. Begich, which would amend Section 101b of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This is to allow Natives in Alaska to take marine mammals not just for subsistence purposes, but for the creation and sale of crafts. The MMPA already permits the use of marine mammal ivory in Alaska Native art in cases where the animal was taken for subsistence. Now, I do support clarifying that authority so that we can provide some greater flexibility and certainty to Alaska Native artists. We just have to be careful how we do it. I am concerned that the language as written could make it difficult for other states to enforce their bans on things like elephant ivory. I don't think anybody wants that outcome, but we need to work together to make sure that we get it right as this legislation moves forward. So, Madam Chair, I look forward to a constructive dialogue today on how Congress can support tools, research, collaboration, and deliver sustainable outcomes to help these various communities from Alaska to northeastern Montana and the Chesapeake Bay so that all of them can thrive. And I yield back.

Thank you. I will now introduce our first panel. As is typical with legislative hearings, the bill sponsors are recognized for five minutes each to discuss their bills. I now recognize Congressman Downing for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I really appreciate you hosting this hearing today and bringing attention to my legislation reauthorizing the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act. I also want to note that this is my first hearing as a member of the Waters, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee, and I am honored to be officially on board and really look forward to working with my colleagues on this subcommittee. The Fort Peck Dry Prairie Regional Water System is critical to rural and tribal communities in northeast Montana. This area of my district is both incredibly rural and incredibly dry. Modernizing efficient water infrastructure is essential for supporting the towns, the farms, and the tribes. In 2000, Congress passed the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act to directly address these needs and to provide federal support. This legislation authorized and funded a major water infrastructure partnership between the Assiniboine and the Sioux Rural Water Supply System of the Fort Peck Reservation and the Dry Prairie Rural Water System of Valley, Roosevelt, Sheridan, and Daniels County. In the ensuing two and a half decades, the water systems have worked together to build over 3,000 miles of water pipeline, pumping stations, a treatment plant to service the area's 18,000 residents. The project is nearly complete, with only two out of Dry Prairie's 23 pipeline phases in need of completion. My legislation, H.R. 7250, would extend the water system project's authorization by two years in order to ensure its completion. Without an authorization to build, which currently expires at the end of this year, the project would go unfinished. Notably, the project does not require any further federal appropriations. Reauthorization would provide the local partners with the resource that they need to complete this work that's already been allocated funds. H.R. 7250 will continue a critical infrastructure project that directly benefits rural and tribal communities. Moreover, passage of this bill will ensure this congressionally directed project will carry through to completion, ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent as they were initially intended. So I once again want to thank the subcommittee for highlighting this legislation today. I look forward to hearing from Chairman Rick Knick, who will share with you all the importance of Dry Prairie's partnership with the Fort Peck Reservation. And on that, I yield. So thank you.

Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Scott for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Huffman, and other members of the committee. I want to thank you for inviting me to join today's hearing and to speak on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science, or WATERS Act. And I want to thank Secretary Curds for testifying today on the importance of NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office and this legislation. The Chesapeake Bay is one of our nation's greatest treasures. The bay provides countless opportunities for communities throughout the watershed for both recreation and the region's local economies. Each year, the Chesapeake Bay provides more than $100 billion in economic value through fishing, commerce, tourism, and recreation. It is critical that we preserve the bay for future generations to continue benefiting from the wide array of resources it provides for the public. For the past 43 years, the federal government has committed, in partnership with the watershed states, to the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program has connected state and local governments and community partners with the expertise of federal agencies. This collaboration has culminated in science-based and effective solutions that have continuously improved the bay. Without these partnerships, we would currently have a Chesapeake Bay much worse off than it is now. NOAA and the Chesapeake Bay Office have served as one of the federal partners under the Chesapeake Bay Program. The scientists at NOAA have provided invaluable insight into the problems and challenges facing the bay. They've also helped develop the solutions to address them, and restoration of native oyster populations throughout the bay has been one of these solutions. Oysters improve water quality by acting as natural filters, and they've also supported local aquaculture by restoring habitats for fish and other oyster populations. NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office maps potential oyster restoration areas and supports the development of restoration blueprints. This guides partners in locating the best locations for oyster reefs to maximize their effectiveness. The office also manages the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System. This system of buoys collects meteorological, oceanographic, and water quality data that helps inform scientists, fishermen, and recreators at near real-time conditions of the Chesapeake Bay. This data has extensive benefits as it work to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay, but also it is a critical resource for our local economies by informing marine industries such as fishing on what to expect each day. NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office also devotes its capabilities towards advancing environmental literacy and recreational opportunities for students throughout the watershed. Chesapeake Bay Education and Training Program or B-WET is a competitive grant program administered by the Chesapeake Bay Office to support experimental learning programs for K through 12 students. This grant program has established environmental education centers, it has trained educators and built recreation infrastructure in line with the objectives of local schools. Especially for many underserved communities in the region, the B-WET has been a lifeline in connecting students with the Chesapeake Bay to bolster educational outcomes and help children understand their role in protecting their environment, particularly sensitive areas like the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay WATERS Act ensures that NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office can continue supporting the bay's restoration goals as well as communities throughout the watershed by reauthorizing the office. This legislation also authorizes the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System and the Chesapeake B-WET program. This act also allows NOAA to establish a coastal and living resources management and habitat program to support the coordinated management and protection of the Chesapeake Bay habitats through research and activities to restore economically and ecologically important species. As the Chesapeake Bay Program evolves to align with the goals of the recently revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, this legislation also reaffirms the role of the Chesapeake Bay Office in fulfilling the program's mission. These goals in the updated agreement cannot be fulfilled without continued support of NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. So I'd like to thank my fellow co-leads of the Chesapeake Bay WATERS Act, Representatives Wittman, Kiggans, Alfreth for their continued advocacy on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay and again I'd like to thank the committee for considering this legislation. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Wittman from Virginia for five minutes.

Madam Chair, thank you so much and I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Scott, for his efforts there with the WATERS Act and then also for joining us in the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act here in 2025 or for 2025 here in 2026. Madam Chair, you know, we are blessed in this nation with an abundance of resources and our responsibility to make sure we properly steward and manage and use them to allow us all to flourish. Conservation is nonpartisan, it's about which doing best what's best for the nation, protecting livelihoods across the nation and making sure we preserve the way of lives of millions of Americans that live out there dependent on our natural resources. The work of the Water Resources Research Act program will build on this critical partnership between states and the federal government, allowing them to plan, to organize and conduct research that's aimed at resolving state and regional water problems. In my former life, that was the center of what I did, so I know how important this is. We have to continue to improve access and conservation efforts and we all know and understand how important that is for our nation. I'm proud to work with Senator Boozman from Arkansas on this critical piece of legislation to ensure programs such as yours continue for the duration of this period of time that the legislation covers. This legislation would reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act from FY 26 through FY 29 to ensure programs continue for years to come. In addition to reauthorizing this program, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act provides for the growing artificial intelligence industries and helping them address the water challenges of this nation. In conclusion, we know that research and scientific data is going to be critical in understanding how we manage these precious resources and I want to thank the chairman, chairwoman for her attention to this and for willingness to bring this up before the committee. I want to give special thanks too to a witness that will be coming before you, Kevin McGuire, who works at Virginia Tech, he's there at the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, a place where I did a number of projects back in the day and I thank you again for the time and attention to this piece of legislation and how important it is for making sure we're doing everything to conserve our water resources. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.

Wonderful. I want to thank all of the members for your testimony today. Very helpful. I will now introduce our second panel, Dr. Timothy Petty, the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at U.S. Department of Commerce and Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington, D.C. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone and we use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn green, when you have one minute remaining the light will turn yellow, and at the end of five minutes the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I now recognize Dr. Petty for five minutes.

Well, good morning. Thank you, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Huffman, and actually Congresswoman Maloy. It's I appreciate you all being here, but I also want to just recognize all the staff on your committee. They do an amazing job in the work and I want to just acknowledge them for the work that they do. My name is Tim Petty. I serve as Assistant Secretary as already stated at Department of Commerce at NOAA. NOAA appreciates the sub sub committee's continued engagement on issues affecting our oceans and coastal sustainable fisheries and science and restoration programs that support coastal communities and the nation's economy. I look forward to a really good discussion on two of the specific bills that I want to highlight here today. The first one is the ARTIST Act, H.R. 5694 that's already been given great communications by members here. The provision of the Marine Mammal Protection Act or MMPA related to Alaska Native handicraft and clothing. While the MMPA prohibits take of marine mammals, the Alaska Natives who reside on the coast of North Pacific or the Arctic Oceans are exempt for subsistence purposes or to create authentic Alaska Native handicraft and clothing provided within the take as long as it's not wasteful. This bill would recognize that existing authority. It would also clarify that Alaska Natives may possess marine mammal ivory and sell qualifying handicraft of clothing outside of Alaska. The bill also emphasizes consideration of indigenous knowledge when making determinations related to the depletion of the marine mammal stocks and regulation governing the take of depleted stocks. Importantly, the legislation does not authorize additional take of maritime of marine mammals under the MMPA. If enacted, it would revise specifically Section 101(b) of the act and would change the text in ways that we can have good discussion here today. The second one that I want to highlight is the Chesapeake Bay WATERS Act. The second bill before the subcommittee would reauthorize and update the statutory authority for NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office and the programs within the fisheries. The Chesapeake Bay Office uses NOAA's science, restoration, and observational capabilities to improve the management and understanding of the Chesapeake Bay. NOAA has been a partner in the Chesapeake Bay since 1984, working with federal, state, and local partners to support restoration and fishery management throughout this watershed. We are very proud of our work on restoration. Through collaboration, NOAA helps achieve the restoration of oysters in no less than 10 Chesapeake Bay tributaries up to this past year of 2025. The office also maintains the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy Systems, which collect real-time environmental data to help improve weather and ecological forecasting and monitor habitat conditions and living marine resources, which has been also already referenced in Congressman Scott's testimony. In addition to the Chesapeake Bay's office support, fisheries science and research that provide information to federal and state fishery management, which is such a critical part of NOAA's responsibilities that has been given by statute. In conclusion, NOAA appreciates the subcommittee's continued support for our mission and look forward to working with you on these bills and future legislation. I look forward to a good dialogue, good conversation, and hopefully a good interaction on questions and answers at this time. So I'll stop there. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Petty. I appreciate your testimony and I'm now going to recognize the members for five minutes each for questioning. I'm going to begin with myself. Dr. Petty, in our conversation earlier this week, you mentioned that since joining NOAA, you've been working on various efforts related to NOAA's scientific and research functions. Two of our bills today address how federal agencies conduct research activities. Could you please share your vision of how NOAA can improve its scientific functions, including ways it can partner with other federal and non-federal partners?

Thank you so much for being able to have time earlier before this committee to get have time to sit down and talk through a lot of the good questions. Specifically on this, I'm excited of what NOAA is continually doing, modernizing their technology. I am a big background in geospatial data, utilizing science and resources. Looking at the aspects of geology and mapping is a a priority within NOAA and the efforts that we're working on there, but then also the importance of like fisheries, the surveys, we hear so much about the assessments that are so critical as we work with the different councils of of eight throughout our regions. And so if we don't give them good data and good science, they do not have the ability to make good decisions that they do with the fisheries. So that's just a highlight of a couple of those questions.

Okay. In your testimony you state that Congressman Begich's ARTIST Act would make changes to section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act that quote, "may lead to differences in how section 101(b) is implemented," end quote. Can you expand on the changes that the ARTIST Act makes to current law?

Yes, I certainly can. And thank you for allowing me to just follow up with my limited time. I want to highlight first of all, some of the definitions on the authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft and clothing as well as the traditional native handicraft in the definition of the marine mammal ivory. So those are those interrelationships. I know our staff will be interacting more with your staff, but these are important parts that you've highlighted in this bill language that we look forward to working with you. Another key part just keeping within your ability to ask questions is we don't believe that we're going to have to have any new regulatory requirements or oversights. So that that aspect will be looking at moving this forward and we look forward to just working on how we then deal with more of your state aspects of law enforcement and different states how they actually engage the marine mammal ivory, which is then also different and highlighting those areas. So those are just a few of the unique aspects that we look forward to continue interacting with your staff and with you on and obviously key members of native community.

Okay and I've got one last question and that is, could you please expand on how H.R. 6893 would modify how the Chesapeake Bay Office operates?

Yes. And so that part of just some of the definitions and the clarity of reauthorization, because this would be then a new component of that statutory review. We look forward to working with your staff on those new aspects of the science, the relationship that we would work with on how we would collect that, huge partnerships with the research institutes that work in those areas will be that next step, how we will engage and utilize the resources that Congress has given authorization as well as appropriations so that we can work with our partners in the state in those in like the University of Maryland who does a lot of work on oyster efforts. I've been to Horn Point already as a staffer on the Hill. And so looking forward to continue that building of those relationships.

All right, thank you. That's all I have. I'm going to yield back my time and now I'm going to call on Congressman Huffman for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you and good morning, Dr. Petty, we appreciate you being here. I'm going to ask you about this March 16 notice from the Department of Interior in the Federal Register, apparently convening what is known as the God Squad under the Endangered Species Act to discuss whether to grant the oil and gas industry a sweeping exemption, an extraordinary exemption under the Endangered Species Act for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Now this this committee as you know is referred to as the God Squad because it has this awesome responsibility. It is meant to be extraordinary, meant to be rarely invoked, but it is the power to decide whether a species lives, whether an action can proceed even if doing so would consign that species to likely extinction. And the committee's exemption authority is very rarely invoked. It's a mechanism in federal environmental law that has only been implemented a few times over hasn't met in 30 years and in the history of the entire Endangered Species Act it's only happened four times. So, Congress clearly intended this to be a tool of last resort. And there's a specific process that has to be followed. You can't just convene the God Squad and consign a species to extinction. It doesn't work that way. Under the ESA the committee can only consider the God Squad, can only consider an exemption after either the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA has concluded through a consultation process that a proposed federal action is one, likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, two, that no reasonable and prudent alternatives would avoid jeopardy and three, that the application to the committee is submitted within 90 days of the conclusion of that consultation. Now a few colleagues and I did send a letter already to the Department of Interior this week asking about whether this process had been followed. We haven't heard back of course, but at the heart of this convening of the God Squad is the consultation with NOAA Fisheries and the biological opinion that your agency is tasked with drafting. So I want to just ask you some very specific questions. This first one is a yes or no. My question is whether NOAA Fisheries has completed a biological opinion finding jeopardy, finding that offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf are likely to jeopardize listed species within the last 90 days. Have you done that?

Within the last 90 days?

Yeah.

That would be I guess no at this point.

Have you completed any biological opinion finding jeopardy for oil and gas activities in the Gulf?

We have not gotten to that summation yet.

Thank you. I'm certainly unaware of any jeopardy opinion issued in the last few months or within even the last year. Even if your agency did publish one then there are some additional requirements for the God Squad to do its work. There has to be no reasonable and prudent alternatives that would avoid jeopardy for an exemption to be appropriate. Are you aware of any situation in which this is the case where NOAA Fisheries has concluded there are no reasonable or prudent alternatives?

I would defer that question actually to the Department of Interior since that was part of their Federal Register notice. So that I don't know.

All right, but your agency, NOAA Fisheries, has not reached such a determination.

We have specifically received the same notice that was in the Federal Register of this and so the within the statute of the 1978 committee, the species committee, the Department of Interior, they call and request the meeting.

I understand they call and request it, but there has to be a consultation with your agency. Has that consultation occurred between you and Fish and Wildlife Service about these matters, about a jeopardy finding and the fact that there's no reasonable or prudent alternatives?

That I don't have any answers at this point until we get to the meeting and find out what the meeting request is asking about, then we'll have a better understanding of what the questions will be.

Right, but I think you would know if there had been a consultation in advance of this God Squad convening. And I'm hearing you say you're not aware of one.

I am not aware. I do sit on that panel and so that would be I'm the assistant secretary, I'm not the NOAA administrator.

Understood, thank you. Now central to all of this is a court directive to NOAA Fisheries to assess and estimate the harms of oil spills and to avoid and to come up with measures to avoid harm to the Rice's whales. That's from a 2024 court decision. You haven't completed that court directive, right? You have not issued that new biological opinion?

That is correct. That will not be until a set date later for a final process.

All right, lastly, you agree that the ESA is very clear in requiring that any convening of the God Squad has to be open to the public, right?

That 1978 is very clear that it will be an my understanding is that it'll be an open hearing.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Petty.

The chair now recognizes Ms. Maloy from Utah for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you. Hi, Dr. Petty, I only have one question. My friend from Alaska introduced the ARTIST Act to protect Alaska Natives' autonomy in their traditional practices. You indicated in your testimony that the ARTIST Act may alter how the Marine Mammal Protection Act is implemented. What can NOAA do to make sure that if this act passes it's implemented in the spirit in which it's intended, which is protecting Native Alaskan traditional practices?

Yes, that's a really good question and it's important that first of all, it's clear that within the MMPA that there's no modification or change to the secretary's ability to make sure that we're protecting any species that is threatened or endangered. And so it allows though the subsistence for the Native Americans to have Native Alaskans to have that ability to as long as they carry out the full responsibility of using every part of any of the species that might have come into their possession and that they can use that for clothing and material.

Okay. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you.

Dr. Petty, I want to thank you for your testimony today and the members for their questions. The members of this committee may have some additional questions for the witness and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. And while the clerk is resetting the table, I will introduce the witnesses to our third panel. Thank you for being here. Dr. Kevin McGuire, director of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center from Blacksburg, Virginia. Mr. Rick Nick, chairman of the board of directors of Tri-Prairie Rural Water from Culbertson, Montana. Mr. Joshua Kurtz, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources from Annapolis, Maryland and Ms. Megan Anders, chief of the King Island Native Community from Nome, Alaska. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone and we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green, when you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow and at the end of the five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. I now recognize Dr. McGuire for five minutes.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Kevin McGuire, director of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center at Virginia Tech. I appear today on behalf of the National Institutes for Water Resources, NIWR, the network of 54 water research institutes established by the Water Resources Research Act. I strongly support H.R. 7889 and urge this subcommittee to report it favorably. When President Johnson signed the Water Resources Research Act into law in 1964, he framed its purpose clearly: to ensure abundant high-quality water for a growing nation by enlisting the intellectual power of universities and research institutes in a nationwide effort to conserve and utilize water resources for the common benefit. More than six decades later, this vision remains as urgent and relevant as ever. The act established three enduring objectives that continue to guide the program today: one, advancing new technologies and solutions through water research; two, training the next generation of water scientists and engineers; and three, fostering coordination and information sharing, translating research discoveries into practical benefits for communities, managers and decision makers. The Water Resources Research Act program supports 54 institutes, one in each state plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam. In fiscal year 2025, the program provided 14.3 million in federal funding, matched dollar for dollar by state and local sources, effectively doubling federal investment. In Virginia, that match has been exceeded several times over through private and sponsored research. When scaled across 54 universities, this leveraging effect represents an enormous return on investment. For example, supporting more than 388 students, mostly graduate students and 245 research projects in our last reporting year. Three priorities deserve particular attention. First, PFAS contamination. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, forever chemicals, are among the most urgent water challenges the nation faces. Institutes in Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Oregon and Virginia, among others, are leading multi-year research on these forever chemicals, understanding their transport, health effects and cost-effective remediation. Second, water-energy nexus and artificial intelligence. The growth of AI data centers is creating new substantial demands on water supplies. NIWR has established a water and AI committee to address these needs and H.R. 7889's additional language in the statute codifies that work as a recognized national research priority. Third, workforce development. The 388 students we supported last year are future water scientists, engineers and managers who will ensure that water systems remain safe, reliable and adaptable. This pipeline requires the sustained university-based program provided by the Water Resources Research Act. I commend Congressman Wittman and Congresswoman Brownley for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. It makes three necessary changes. First, it reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2029. Authorization lapsed at the end of fiscal year 2025, creating real uncertainty for hiring, graduate student commitments, multi-year research planning, and a four-year window provides the stability the network needs. Second, it updates the appropriation ceiling from $15 million to $16 million. This is not new spending. Congress has already appropriated $15.5 million in fiscal year 2024 and $16 million in fiscal year 2026. This simply aligns the statute with reality. With the one-to-one match, that $16 million means at least $32 million annually directed toward state water research. Third, AI language is an addition that's modest in text but significant in signal, legitimizing collaboration with technology industry partners and directing competitive grant investments toward one of the most consequential water challenges of the coming decade. Water challenges of the next decade will not wait. Clean water for drinking, agriculture, industry, and communities depend on the kind of sustained university-based, federally partnered research that the Water Resources Research Act has supported for more than 60 years. Thank you, Chair Hageman, members of the subcommittee, for your time. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr. Knick for five minutes. Just one moment, please. I'm actually going to recognize Mr. Downing, who is going to introduce Mr. Knick for us today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And sorry for my tardiness here. And I'm honored to introduce one of our witnesses this morning, Rick Knick. Rick serves as the chairman of Dry Prairie Rural Water System's board of directors, helping to provide clean drinking water to four counties in my district. Rick has been involved with the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System since its inception in 1997 and was instrumental in establishing the partnership between the Assiniboine and Sioux and Dry Prairie Rural Water Systems. Rick brings decades of experience managing critical utilities in rural Montana and a deep understanding of the importance of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act. Rick, thank you for traveling to be with us today, and I really look forward to hearing from you.

I now recognize Mr. Knick for five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the committee. As Mr. Downing mentioned, my name is Rick Knick, and I'm chair of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Authority. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the need to extend the authorization for the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System from December 2026 to December 2028. I am here on behalf of the Dry Prairie Rural Water System and our friends and neighbors, the Assiniboine Sioux Rural Water Supply System. I would also like to thank the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes for providing the great leadership they have over the years, the many years that we've worked on this project. Our project was authorized by Congress in 2000 to deliver safe, reliable drinking water to the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the surrounding communities in rural northeast Montana. I'd also like to thank Congressman Downing for recognizing the issue that faced us with the contract extension and introducing H.R. 7250 to solve that issue. This, I might note that this does not increase any appropriations or need any appropriations to finish the project on time. The project also includes intake facilities located on the Fort Peck Reservation, those treatment facilities and intake and common systems serve water to the Dry Prairie service areas. There's 3,200 miles of pipeline included in this system that serves 9,100 square miles of ground. Our project has made tremendous progress, but it has required prior extensions to get to the completion, one in 2015 and one in 2020, primarily because annual appropriations were not sufficient to complete our project along with the other four rural water systems in the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects. About a decade ago, Congress recognized this issue and created the rural water program within the Bureau of Reclamation and increased the budget to fund these important projects. This accelerated the construction significantly and allows them to be completed in a timely manner. We were scheduled to finish by the end of this 2026 construction season until COVID-19 hit. The pandemic dramatically increased the costs of materials used in this project. In fact, it was a $60 million hit to our particular project. It also created some supply chain issues and pushed our completion date back, and for most of the reason why I'm here today. Despite these challenges, I want to emphasize a key point: we still expect to complete construction $56 million under the authorized ceiling. We've been very vigilant about spending federal dollars. Both the tribes and the Dry Prairie systems have been very good at seeing ways to save money. We have been issued the final allocations to complete the project, and with an extension, that would allow us to do that. I should also mention a project that is threatening our timeline. We recently had a note from the Bureau of Land Management that addresses a sage grouse, a greater sage grouse habitat area that we cross with our very last piece of construction. We've crossed these habitats in the past and had worked out interagency cooperation to address any construction issues and habitat issues, but for some reason, Reclamation has indicated that they're going to need another year for a permit to finish their permit. So that pushes us back into the late 2027 to start construction, which means we won't be able to finish until 2028. So that's a real concern for us, and it's just a recent development. With this extension, it would allow Dry Prairie and the tribes to finish a long-awaited project that Congress recognized years ago to bring clean and safe water to the people of northeastern Montana. And we're looking forward to answering any questions you might have on the issues that we're facing. Thank you. to bring clean and safe water to the people of Northeastern Montana, and we're looking forward to answering any questions you might have on the issues that we're facing. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize Mr. Kurtz for his five minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Min, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Josh Kurtz, Maryland Secretary of Natural Resources and head of the Department of Natural Resources, or DNR as we like to call it. Among the resources DNR manages are Maryland's fisheries, wildlife, boating, waters, and public lands, and we're proud to lead the state's work in restoring, protecting, and conserving the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. I'm here to speak in support of the bipartisan H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science (WATERS) Act. The text of this bill passed out of House Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent in the last Congress. It was under a different name, and we appreciate the committee's ongoing support for the help in restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay, strengthening our regional fisheries management, and expanding our environmental education programs for residents across the watershed. Specifically, this bill would reauthorize NOAA's well-established Chesapeake Bay Office and authorize the agency's already successful monitoring and research activities, as well as its Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, grant program. The Chesapeake Bay is our nation's largest estuary, and because its watershed spans 64,000 square miles and includes more than 18 million residents, it's often referred to as our region's biggest economic engine. The bay is core to the surrounding states' tourism, outdoor recreation, and seafood industries. As an example, according to the National Marine Fisheries report, the seafood industries in Maryland and Virginia alone contributed almost $8 billion in sales, 60,000 jobs, and nearly $2 billion in income to the regional economy. The long-standing efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake require coordination among the seven watershed jurisdictions and the federal government. For more than 40 years, NOAA has served in this partnership as a key provider of bay science, monitoring, and education. NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office is the main coordinating body for research and restoration efforts within the bay's waters and coastal areas. The agency provides vital scientific research and data for these efforts while also supporting habitat restoration projects and training the next generation of stewards. The WATERS Act would reauthorize this critical office, providing certainty and stability so that it can better serve as the agency's primary representative in the bay watershed. First, reauthorizing the office would ensure that it remains the hub of all NOAA's Chesapeake programs and support collaboration across the bay partnership. Second, the bill would bolster the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System that monitors meteorological, oceanographic, and water quality data in real time. Key part of this is that it makes it accessible in real time to researchers, boaters, and the public, provides really important information for safety. Third, the bill would statutorily authorize the B-WET program and centralize its administration within the bay office. For decades, B-WET has provided teacher training and hands-on environmental education experiences, known as Meaningful Watershed Education Experiences, to teach young people how they and their actions impact the Chesapeake. I myself was actually the recipient of a Meaningful Watershed Experience when I was in school, and while not everyone who participates in the program becomes a Secretary of Natural Resources, they do develop a more comprehensive, real-world understanding of how they can steward the environment around them. Finally, the bill would also expand NOAA's aquaculture and technical assistance programs. Aquaculture is a significant growing source of revenue for our economy, and it will help in the restoration and management of living resources and their habitats, including oysters and blue crabs. These programs could also help us address invasive species such as blue catfish, which is currently decimating our natural resources in Maryland and Virginia. The Chesapeake Bay has long received bipartisan support because its economic treasure and natural beauty have enshrined it as a national treasure. I want to thank you for considering H.R. 6893 today to better enable NOAA's critical role of providing important insights into the bay's ecosystem, improving our understanding, management, and stewardship of the entire Chesapeake Bay region. Thank you very much for the time.

Thank you for being here. I now recognize Representative Begich to introduce Chief Onders.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my honor to introduce Chief Megan Onders. Chief Onders serves as Chief of the King Island Native Community, Chair of the Bering Strait Development Council, her regional economic development organization, and as the Bering Strait region's village representative on the Alaska Federation of Natives Board of Directors. She also serves on the Kawerak Board of Directors, the regional self-governance nonprofit serving the Bering Strait. Chief Onders represents communities where the ARTIST Act impacts a core source of income. She has traveled here from Alaska to share how bans on traditional Native art have disrupted the lives, livelihoods, and cultural traditions of her constituents and communities like Diomede, Gambell, Savoonga, and Shishmaref. I'm grateful for her presence and her advocacy, and I look forward to her testimony. And with that, I yield back.

I now recognize Chief Onders for five minutes.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Van Hoyle, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join you here again today. My name is Megan Onders, and I'm here as a member of the Kawerak Board of Directors, our regional self-governance nonprofit, and I'm here representing the families and the communities of our hunters and our carvers. It's truly an honor to share with you why this bill is so important for Alaska. Thank you, Congressman Begich, for being our advocate in Congress and working to advance this bill. This bill is about our Native way of life with walrus, which involves proper respect and care to marine mammals and the environment. This is an intimate and absolutely dependent relationship between Alaska Native communities where I come from and the marine environment. We view this as a gift from our Creator and one that we must work to conserve and to ensure that future populations are healthy. This bill is about the cultural and traditional art passed from generation to generation. Ivory carvers carry with them the cultural knowledge of the environment. I want to quote a testimony on the record that she received from Vera Metcalf, the executive director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission, and she identified that 68 percent of the artists in our region, which is a huge population of our communities, that 70 percent of them are artists, meaning if you're a hunter, you're also a carver, and it's something that you were taught by your uncles, your grandparents, and your relatives. So within that, our art, which I have some on me, is the knowledge system of our generations. She also quotes that the per capita income or the residents in Savoonga earn less than $24,398 a year. And this is in the context where gasoline is well above $6. So if you are a carver, you are paying for your heating fuel, you're paying for groceries, you're paying for basic life necessities. And I heard during the discussion the distinction between handicrafts and our subsistence way of life, but I want to address that because it's one of the same. It's in the same way of life. Within our subsistence way of life is our arts and the ability to sell our ivory carvings really supports our subsistence way of life. So as you heard from the NOAA representative, Alaska Native marine mammal hunting is regulated, and it's regulated through cooperative agreements with the federal government. Section 119 enacted in the 1994 amendments of the Marine Mammal Protection Act established the authority for the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations for the purpose of conservation and subsistence use by Native people. And I want to reiterate that our art is part of our subsistence economy. The Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission are two of such ANOs that co-manage the species within the context of national and international law. Our tribes, in addition, have enacted tribal codes with regard to subsistence hunting. The exemption for Alaska Natives in the MMPA allows for the taking of marine mammals for subsistence purposes as well as for the purpose of selling handicraft and clothing. However, that is a distinction, but in our worldview, it is part of the same economic system. Alaska Native organizations function for the co-management of subsistence species, include the collection and analysis of data on marine mammal populations, monitoring the harvest for subsistence, participating in marine mammal research by federal, academic, and private organizations. I mention all this because this is a regulated way of life. It's regulated to ensure the conservation of the species and the health of our environment. Our Alaska Native walrus ivory carvers are the central driver of village economies. This bill specifically amends the MMPA to prohibit any state from banning the importation, sale, barter, or possession of authentic Alaska Native art, such as made from ivory or baleen. I really want to thank the members of this committee, especially those of you who have visited Alaska and appreciate and help protect our way of life. Thank you.

Thank you. I was able to join the trip in August of this past year, and I purchased a couple of pieces of the beautiful ivory from the artists there, and they are really spectacular. So thank you. I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here and providing your testimony today. I will now recognize the members for five minutes each for questioning, and I'm going to begin with myself. Mr. Knick, your testimony indicates that the project was originally scheduled for completion in 2026 but has experienced delays due primarily to permitting and supply chain challenges. Which components of the project are still outstanding, and what measures are in place to ensure that it will be completed by 2028?

Thank you, Madam Chairman. The map here shows some, it's actually the entirety of the project. The areas in white were completed last year, and the two areas in green are the two projects that are left to finish. Now, the top one, those contracts have been let. So we're waiting to start construction any day now on that project, so that one is safe. The one in the lower left, that's the one where we're waiting for the permit. The engineering documents are all done, the bid packages are all ready to go out to bid, but we can't do that until we get the permit from the Bureau of Land Management. So once that permit's issued, that project will take about one year to complete, but when I say one year, that actually means two fiscal years because we can't start construction until after the nesting season of the greater sage-grouse. So that would stretch us into 2028 to finish that.

So do you know what the delay is with the BLM in terms of providing you with a permit for the sage-grouse situation?

No, I don't actually. It was a recent development, so it took us by surprise. We've had these permits in the past, we've worked out interagency agreements and provided the construction methods that were acceptable to everybody involved, and so we assumed that this was just another boilerplate construction sector. But the Bureau of Land Management for some reason has some reservations about this particular project. So we have meetings scheduled with them in the coming weeks, and we hope we can work those issues out so we don't get pushed out even later.

So with the BLM, is this a known area for sage-grouse?

Yes, that entire western seaboard is sage-grouse habitat. So we've crossed through these areas a number of times, these habitat areas.

When was the BLM letter sent to you?

I don't know the exact date, but I'm guessing it was just about two weeks ago, maybe two and a half weeks ago.

Okay, so very recent. Yes. The project currently supplies safe drinking water to over 18,000 people in northeastern Montana, including the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. What other benefits are expected once this project is complete?

Well, one of the great benefits is the health aspects of the system. The water in this entire area was not very good. In fact, there were some really terrible water on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. There's an area in the middle that's kind of a long finger of red, that was saltwater contamination from the oil industry. There's some areas, a number of areas in this system that you had to boil the water to drink it. So the health benefits are the number one.

Well, Dr. McGuire, I'm going to turn to you next. In the West, water is not just a resource, it's essential for survival. And informed decision-making regarding our water resources, both in the West and across the country, begins with comprehensive and rigorous research. How is the Water Resources Research Act program uniquely poised to tackle both state-specific and nationwide water issues?

Thank you for the question, Chair. There's a long-standing saying in water management that all water issues are local. So even within a single state, the water challenges vary widely depending on geography, climate, land use, infrastructure, and community needs. So the topics, the research topics are sort of as varied as the states' landscapes and communities. And one of the things that we do that's unique is that each of the states runs a grant program to fund the research, and a lot of us, a lot of the states, we have advisory boards that advise us on those topics. So the topics are very specific to even regions within states, and they vary quite a bit. So the western states may prioritize very different things than some of the eastern states. And in some cases, the priorities are very similar. PFAS issue is one that sort of crosses. Harmful algal blooms is another one that we see in states like Wyoming, and we have issues with that in Virginia, and our center in Virginia has worked on that issue as well. Virginia and our center in Virginia has worked on that issue as well.

Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate your testimony again. I am now going to call on the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Maloy, for five minutes of questioning. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate your testimony again. I am now going to call on the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Maloy, for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief Onders, I'd like to start with you. You talked about how carving helps these families in areas where they have a hard time affording groceries and heating fuel. Can you talk about what the income would look like in those communities if carving or selling carvings is further restricted?

That's a very depressing thought to imagine that we wouldn't be able to feed our families or pay for the heat, the heating bills. That's how essential it is in our communities. Ivory carving is culturally informed employment, meaning you have the knowledge system from our ancestors of our way of life on the ocean, and it's a job. This is a job that our young people can do in our communities, in our environment, and it's just that important. I hate to deduce that, but it's a jobs bill. The ARTIST Act is a jobs bill. Thank you.

So I have a follow-up question to that. How important are those jobs, how dependent are those jobs, I guess is what I'm trying to ask, on business with the lower 48?

We have increasingly amount of tourists that come to our region. Tourism is a huge, cruise, people on cruises that are going through the Northwest Passage that come through Nome, and we set up arts and crafts booths for tourists to purchase. However, they come to the artists and they say, I'm not allowed to buy this, this is a banned product, which we know is not the case. However, this scenario has created misinformed consumers. So this would go a long way in ensuring that those who come to our region, those that come to Alaska, understand that this is something they can participate in, purchase, and frankly, honor our way of life and our culture. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Last question for you, I promise. Are you worried about any specific ways that NOAA or another federal agency might implement this act that could create additional burdens for tribal members?

I'm not worried. You know, we have through our co-management structures, we have created really strong partnerships, partnerships with scientists, partnerships with managers. And I will say that has not always been the case. It has been, you know, a relationship in the making. And I feel strong enough in that relationship through our co-management agreements, there's respect and there's a foundation of respect that I have no fear. I do fear if this bill doesn't pass Congress. So thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Knick, I have a couple of questions for you. Listening to your story, it's frustrating how hard it is for local projects to get built when there's a federal nexus and how much permitting has to be done. It's been 26 years, right, since your project was first authorized?

Yes.

And so given that long process, what's your perspective today on the effectiveness of federal-local partnerships in building infrastructure in rural areas?

Well, I think the important part is to realize that regional water systems such as this one, there was small water districts since the beginning of time practically, but regional systems are relatively new to Congress. And I think it's taken a while for Congress to recognize some of these big infrastructure projects. It takes a tremendous amount of cooperation between communities, tribes, entities, and any local farmers and community members to get these projects done. And it's a real commitment because they're not build the whole thing next year. There's 3,200 miles of pipeline in this particular project. You can't do that in one or two construction seasons. It takes multi-years, so it takes a real commitment by communities to tackle this. And I think Congress has stepped up to the plate now with their funding of the Reclamation's rural water system.

Would you say the commitment of the federal agencies you have to work with is working well?

For the most part, yes. Reclamation's been a fantastic partner over the years, and Corps of Engineers has been real good to us, and Bureau of Land Management's been great to work with until this one surprise. But I think we can work through these. I think we just have to figure out what their concern is.

Great, that's great to hear. I see that I'm out of time, so I will yield back.

I now call on the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Downing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Really appreciate this. I'm going to start with Mr. Knick here. In your testimony, you outlined the vast scope of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System project, which you noted covers an area one-fifth the size of the state of Arkansas. Could you provide a bit more context on the state of northeast Montana's drinking water access before the initiation of this project?

Well, before this project, I guess if you would allow, give you some examples. One example was I had a high school friend, got out of college, moved home to the family farm, started the process of raising a family and figuring out how to make money on the farm. One of the things he did was bought some hogs to start raising hogs, sell them at market and make some money that way. Well, a few weeks into that, the hogs started to die. And he along with the local, lost the word now, but anyways, they figured out that the problem was the drinking water. The drinking water was high in nitrates. And after he sent the sample in and they realized that's what was killing hogs, they started looking in the rest of the system. That problem existed in a large portion of the service area. Another issue was the amount of iron in the system. Many of those systems in the northern tiers, the iron was so high that you couldn't hardly use it for domestic purposes. You couldn't wash clothes with it. So another issue was the dryness of the area. Dry Prairie Rural Water was named that for a reason. That's an arid area with a lot of cattle. Well, the cattle are a lot healthier now than they were. We do serve water to livestock taps. That's made a big difference. And there's also a number of fire hydrants in that service territory, so that's helped us with wildfire fighting.

Thank you for that. Moving on, I'm going to expand a little bit on what Representative Maloy was talking about with federal agencies. And I'm just going to ask how has the Bureau of Reclamation supported Dry Prairie's efforts to develop this project across such a huge area?

Well, the Reclamation provides oversight and engineering help. And Reclamation to me is a premier administration to do water work like that. They're interested in water infrastructure. They've been at it for many, many years. And they provide great leadership to us through tough times. A good example would be the COVID-19 pandemic. We saw inflation rates go from 2 percent to 18 percent. Reclamation was forced to go back to the drawing board and cost-indexed those issues in order for us to complete the project under the Congress's ceiling.

Well, thank you. Moving on to the tribal partnership, but how have you fostered effective cooperation with the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribal Water Systems to carry out this project?

Well, early on, the Fort Peck Tribes recognized the need to include the off-reservation systems, the communities off the reservation. And to start out with, the Dry Prairie system dealt directly with the Tribal Executive Board. Well, the Tribal Executive Board realized early on that there was too many politics between the off-reservation and the on-reservation. So in a great move, the Tribal Executive Board developed a water commission that administers the water system on the reservation. And that commission serves as a buffer between the off-reservation and the on-reservation systems, and it's worked fantastically. It was a great idea by the Tribal Executive Board and it's solved a lot of issues.

And do you have any advice on how to best structure these infrastructure projects between tribal and non-tribal entities?

My advice would be to have, like I mentioned, commissions to work together on and off the reservation, not directly with, for example, a community. The Tribal Executive Board wouldn't want to work directly with a community that's getting water from the system, so the commission works with a commission developed from the off-reservation systems. And I think that system works, it's a model I think that other systems could benefit from.

Great. Well, thank you very much for these answers. And I really appreciate you traveling here to DC this week and bringing attention to northeast Montana's water needs and infrastructure development. Really appreciate it. And on that, Madam Chair, I yield.

Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Maryland, Ms. Elfreth.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Folks, I'm so sorry we had a dueling markup this morning at the same time as this, and so my remarks are a little bit off. I'm going to just kind of wing it, Madam Chair. I was supposed to introduce my constituent, my good friend, Secretary of Natural Resources for the state of Maryland, Secretary Kurtz, who I am told did a wonderful job. So thank you for being here, making the long commute all the way from Annapolis for this. I greatly, greatly appreciate it. And I just want to echo his sentiments on H.R. 6893, the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which is not new for this committee. We're in our 43rd year, 43rd year of this work. But I think what makes it truly different and magical is this effort started 43 years ago with the simple notion that we need to all work together. It's not just the state governments alone or the national or federal government or local government. It's everybody pulling in the same direction to protect and preserve our greatest natural resource in Maryland, Virginia, which is the Chesapeake Bay. And so I know this is every two years we reauthorize this bill, but it's a moment I hope I can use to highlight the bipartisan nature of this work. And I want to thank the lead sponsor, Representative Scott from Virginia, as well as Representatives Wittman and Kiggans for their work on this. Secretary Kurtz has led the way in some really innovative stuff. It's hard to be innovative after 43 years of restoration work. But what I love about his approach to leadership and our work together back when I was in the State House and now that I'm in Congress is taking all the good and the bad and the ugly of what we've learned, what we've done well, and most importantly, I think you'll appreciate this, Madam Chair, what we haven't done well in 43 years. And what are we going to do about it? And in making sure that we are bringing back this work to the things and people that matter most, which is how are we making this living resource swimmable and fishable again. Yes, we're going to talk about pollutants and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, really important stuff. But if our ultimate goal isn't how do we bring more people to its greatest natural resource, their greatest natural resource, we are failing at this job. And so I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for leading the role in that with innovative solutions like the whole watershed movement, like thinking about how to bring yes, the state governments together, but local governments, nonprofits, private companies together to solve this solution. So I'll end it there. You can say isn't that so, Mr. Secretary, but I really appreciate your leadership, appreciate this innovative approach. There's so much work to do. The Chesapeake Bay has been the leader in watershed restoration for this whole country starting 43 years ago. There's still so much work ahead, but I think the lessons we can pull from Maryland and Virginia primarily are lessons this whole nation can learn. And so I'm so grateful to be a part of that work and I appreciate the time and I yield back.

Thank you for joining us today. And I'm going to call on Mr. McDowell for his five minutes of questioning.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you all for joining us today. Dr. McGuire, I think it's fair to say that when people turn on their faucets that they expect clean water. Can you explain how the research supported in Representative Wittman's bill, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act, would help improve water quality?

Sure, thank you for that question. Our research is specifically aimed at questions like that, both on the education side, helping people understand where their water comes from when they turn on their faucets. In some parts of this country, that's coming from forests. In other parts of this country, it's groundwater. So there is some education that we do, information transfer. But on the research side, it's really targeted to where our problems and challenges are. And those sort of come from some of our local communities or our agencies and our partners. And our funding cycle is annually, so the projects vary quite a bit year to year. In some cases, they're very much related to drinking water. You may know a lot of the work that was done at Virginia Tech in Flint, Michigan, specifically tied to that water faucet issue. We have funded that researcher a number of times on issues like lead in in in drinking water.

the strategy of for I guess addressing water quality issues. Is it is which one is more effective? Targeted research and policy solutions or just broad regulatory mandates? So some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they tend to treat not just every water issue, but really every issue in this committee kind of the same way where they use it as a reason to justify sweeping new environmental mandates. And so in your opinion, is the strategy of for I guess addressing water quality issues, is it which one is more effective: targeted research and policy solutions or just broad regulatory mandates?

I think where there are questions and we need more information, the research is important so that we can develop the right policies. And and I think that's that's really what our program focuses on is trying to bring data to some of the problems so that we can make informed decisions. And we're not policy makers, but we try to provide that information. I always make it very clear when I visit congressional offices that we're we're here for you. So if there are questions, we hope to tackle them and help you get the information you need to make decisions.

So in your view, does this program that's created in this bill avoid crowding out state and local leadership and and instead support solutions that are driven by the American people?

If I understand the question correctly, yes. The the solutions are for our communities. One of the things that we do quite a bit is partner with our cooperative extension colleagues. So we're engaging with communities directly. We do that on our own, but in many cases, cooperative extension, they're much more connected. And since the water institutes are almost all co-located at the land-grant universities, many of us partner with cooperative extension in doing that.

So why why should taxpayers in in rural North Carolina trust that that funding research institutes and universities will actually benefit them and not just expand administrative overhead? I mean I'm genuinely asking because I want to be able to explain this to folks back home but you know in a way that makes sense to them.

Yeah so Western North Carolina is a great example of how we mobilize really related to events and specific issues. Tropical Storm Helene caused a variety of water-related issues. We provided information real time our centers and institutes when communities had questions. We have now been helping on sort of resilience building in in the communities. So that's I I think that those issues that your constituents may have questions about that's exactly what we want to help with. And I think that having a state institutes program where we're sort of boots on the ground in the region in the states we can more directly connect with with those folks.

So you kind of touched on this already but speaking from your own experience what is a a concrete example of a scenario where research funding proved to be a very good return on investment?

So there are a variety of these. One of the things that on the return on investment that I would say is that you know we have the one-to-one match. And the existence of the institutes program because of the establishment of the Water Resources Research Act sort of provides infrastructure for research expertise on a variety of issues. So we're we're sort of a a place where people can go and we can we can leverage that federal money to do more. So I I put it in my written testimony that in Virginia we're we almost increase those funds by four times just in our institute. So there's a lot of leverage that we do. Specific projects I mean I could speak mostly to Virginia so I'm not sure if that'll be helpful and I'm happy to to give you examples from other country or other states but I'd have to kind of connect with some of my colleagues that know that work better. But I'll give you an example from Virginia. Harmful algal blooms were first reported on one of our major reservoirs a recreational reservoir high property values around the reservoir and there was a swim advisory. The General Assembly set aside funding to investigate this harmful algal bloom and understand the sources but understand really you know how might they deal with this in the future. How can we maybe prevent swim advisories for instance. And they contracted with us to do that work because we have the connections in our academic community and the expertise to to address that problem. But we partnered with the state agencies and a local lake association in doing that work. So we were engaging with both the the the regulatory agencies and Department of Health too and our our citizen group the lake association. And we we gave them information that I think they can use going forward to sort of help with with that challenge. So that's a specific example in Virginia.

Gotcha. Great. Well thank you Madam Chairwoman I yield back.

Yes. I want to thank all of the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the members for your questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three members of the committee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5:00 PM Eastern on Tuesday March 31st. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. And if there is no further business without objection the subcommittee stands adjourned.