- [Announcer] Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC, and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.

(upbeat music) (people chattering) (bell rings) - Hello.

All right, everybody, the bell has rung.

Hello and welcome to the City Club of Cleveland's 2022 State of the Great Lakes.

I'm Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells, CEO of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, and we are proud supporters of the City Club.

At the Sewer District, we provide wastewater treatment and storm water management to the city of Cleveland and 61 communities across four counties and 355 square miles of the Lake Erie watershed.

Our 750 employees work around the clock to protect public health and water quality because our work, like the work of clean water utilities across the Great Lakes protects the entire watershed, a watershed with 1/5 of the world's supply of fresh water and an asset shared by communities across Northeast Ohio and seven other states, multiple sovereign tribal nations and Canadian provinces.

Since the City Club began to host the annual State of the Great Lakes in 2013, we have been joined by many wonderful and insightful speakers, but it has always been a goal to have a sitting US EPA administrator join us.

So we are thrilled to welcome, Michael Regan to discuss current restoration efforts and the future of the Great Lakes as well as other environmental priorities he and his colleagues in the Biden-Harris administration are working on.

In 2019, our State of the Great Lakes at the City Club celebrated the 50th anniversary of the last fire on the Cuyahoga River, an event that led to the founding of the US EPA and passage of the Clean Water Act.

Closer to home, the Cuyahoga River fire was part of Cleveland's push for environmental justice, led by then, Mayor Carl Stokes and saw the creation of the Regional Sewer District to address the long standing and serious pollution that had damaged waterways, Lake Erie, and public health for years.

And here we are today marking the Sewer District's 50th year of service to the community by welcoming Michael Regan, the 16th administrator of EPA and the agency's first black male leader.

Mr. Regan began his career with the EPA many years ago and went on to hold, I mean, they wrote.

and went on to to hold environmental posts with a range of nonprofit and public sector agencies, including the Environmental Defense Fund.

And most recently, the state of North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality.

(audience applauding) - Kyle, thank you for that great introduction, and Administrator Michael Regan, welcome to Cleveland.

- Thank you for having me.

I'm excited to be here.

- It's the second week of baseball season and it's snowing.

(Michael laughing) So just to provide a little context, we're here to talk primarily about.

- [Michael] By the way, snow in April is job security for me.

(laughing) - [Dan] It's job security for you.

Okay.

- [Michael] Climate change.

- [Dan] Climate change jokes, they're so funny.

(everyone laughing) So we're here, why don't we wanna start off talking about the State of the Great Lakes?

That was the hope here that we started doing the State of the Great Lakes in 2013 out of a belief that what you pay attention to is what becomes important, and so we've tried to help the community focus attention on our greatest asset, our greatest natural asset.

So what as the EPA sees it, is the State of the Great Lakes today?

- We are optimistic and inspired by the work that's happening at the state and local levels.

$1 billion just passed to contribute to the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.

Listen, it's an important asset.

It's a national treasure, drinking water supply to 40 million people, supporting 1.3 million jobs.

The President has made the Great Lakes a priority and so as EPA.

And so we're excited to invest in the Great Lakes because it's an investment in our ecosystems and our natural resources, but it's also an investment in the economy and it's an investment in people.

So we're optimistic and excited to be a partner with the state.

- [Dan] Do you, you know, the Ashtabula River was delisted as an area of concern over the summer, which is worthy of applause, by the way.

(audience applauding) That's a big deal.

And those of us who engage with the Cuyahoga River on a regular basis are excited that it's scheduled for de-listing in the coming years.

But with this increase in funding, the billion dollars that you just mentioned, that's gonna boost funding by $100 million, $200 million a year for the next few years, do you see that process accelerating at all?

- I do.

I do.

The delisting that occurred from the areas of concern in 2021, a huge victory for you all here locally, but it took 30 years and that's a long time.

And so when I think about the billion dollars shot in the arm from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 22 of the 25 areas of concern, we plan to have delisted by 2030, and we're gonna stretch, push a stretch goal to have all 25 delisted from the list of areas of concern by 2030, so a huge opportunity ahead of us.

- [Dan] Do you feel that, I mean, having the financial resources is one thing, do you feel like you have all the right partners in place at the local levels to do that work?

Because if you wrote me a check for $100 million today to finish the work on the Cuyahoga, I would have no idea where to begin.

(Michael laughs) I know people though.

(audience applauding) - We know that the intellectual capacity does exist on the ground.

What we've lacked has been the resources to bolster that local infrastructure.

The President is wise enough to understand that the answers don't come from Washington DC.

They come from the local partners that have been doing the work for the past 30, 40, 50, 60 years.

So we do believe we have the right partnerships in place.

We believe that we have the resources to strengthen those partnerships.

And again, I believe that the state, local, federal partnerships, the NGOs, the community engagement, it will take all of the above, and we believe that we can thread that needle.

- The Great Lakes, you've got this sort of coming together of so many different uses, and as well as agency oversight, can you help us understand where the EPA fits in with the St Lawrence Seaway, with all sorts of other, and I mean, you have oversight over a lot of regulatory issues and items, but then, you've got stuff that involves the other agencies, like non-native species, invasive species and so forth.

Talk about where the EPA fits in, where the EPA can make a difference.

- Our strongest asset obviously is from through the regulatory lens, protecting the Great Lakes, one of the core features, which is providing that drinking water to 40 million people, but that intersectionality with our regulations, the work that the Army Corps of Engineers does, the work that the Department of Interior does, we are poised to be a leader, but also, as the President has articulated time and time again, bring this whole of government approach to protecting our ecosystems, protecting the jobs here, protecting the drinking water, but also blending our resources in a way where we grow the economy, tourism, education, and the like.

So there are so many connections that we can make as a whole of government.

And typically, EPA is thought of as just a regulator, but I see our agency as the ultimate convener in this situation.

- That's awesome.

Well, so what kind of convening do you wanna do then?

(Michael laughs) - It's an opportunity to take that billion dollars and convene multiple agencies across this administration that have a vested interest in education, job growth, tourism, ecosystem protection, environmental protection.

So you have agencies like commerce sitting at the table.

You have the Army Corps of Engineers sitting at the table.

EPA is at the table.

You have the Department of Interior at the table.

And then we have all of our state and local respective relationships that flow up through these multiple agencies.

So you have a web, you have a web of intellectual capacity, a web of interest, and all of these webs have their tentacles reaching into community groups who've been doing this work for so long.

- I know that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill has, is really kind of been a game changer for the EPA, not just for Great Lakes restoration, but also for addressing longstanding problems with lead poisoning.

Can you talk about that a little bit?

- I can.

I was just thanking Congresswoman Shontel Brown for the excellent leadership she's demonstrated.

The President had a vision to take a real approach, comprehensive approach at rebuilding this country's infrastructure.

And there is no infrastructure more vulnerable than our water infrastructure.

And so we have over $50 billion dedicated to bolstering our water infrastructure, blending and rebuilding the physical infrastructure, but also looking at how we protect ourselves from cyber threats and other threats that our communities face.

The $15 billion flagged to help eradicate lead in drinking water is probably one of the most consequential things that EPA could be taken on at this point.

And so we are laser focused in having the right partnerships with the right states, the right local leaders, the right nonprofits to spend time on this very, very sensitive issue.

This morning was a tough morning.

I spent time with some mothers who talked to me directly about their children being lead poisoned.

I talked with Secretary Fudge who's another great partner on this topic who raised to me that this county is poised to lose another 1,000 children to lead poisoning.

So these are some really dire facts that we need to confront.

And the President's leadership is putting us in a position to be successful.

- The lead poisoning that many families face here in Cleveland, in Greater Cleveland.

It's not just inside the City of Cleveland, Many of our inner ring suburbs have older housing that were where the, you know, paint from pre 1978 was, is still there causing dust problems and, and so forth.

A lot of that is not, it's not about the lead, the water service lines.

It's about the dust and the paint.

What is EPA doing to assist communities with those longstanding issues?

- The first thing we're doing is we're really using money from the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to bolster our education and outreach programs.

So many of our community members are just not aware of their exposure to lead, and then they're definitely not aware of what to do once they determine that exposure is there.

We also have certification programs where we work with contractors.

Once the lead paint opportunities are identified and the reconstruction of these homes begins to occur, you need to have the proper handling of these materials, and so many of our contractors and business owners are not either certified or aware of how to dispose of this lead paint, leading to more exposure.

So we've got some programs there.

And of course, we always wear the regulatory hat where we have consultants, contractors, anyone who is retrofitting or reconstructing a home, not handling those materials correctly.

We have an eagle eye on those, and we will enforce the laws that are on the books.

- It's a real challenge for communities.

I mean, part of the challenge is finding people who can do the work of repainting homes to secure the lead in place, the lead paint in place so that it doesn't cause dust or whatever it is.

I mean, the job training, the workforce development around that is also just a huge issue.

- It is, and that's why the President's whole of government approach is so important.

We do have some of the regulatory aspects of how you handle lead paint.

But Secretary Fudge obviously has the majority of the resources dedicated to getting the lead out of these homes.

Many of the housing stock, most of the housing stock here, a lot of the housing stock here designed before 1978 and some of these older homes, the problem is so prevalent and concentrated here, but then that's where the partnership with Secretary Marty Walsh and labor comes in.

Not only is there an opportunity to eradicate this problem, there's a significant opportunity to infuse these dollars into the problem solving and create thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs.

So we need the job force training.

We need the workforce development.

We need to know where and how to create pipelines to get the people to do the work.

And we want all of this work by the way, to be done by local individuals.

We don't wanna ship people from all over the country in to solve a community's problem.

We wanna build the community up while we're solving the problem.

And so HUD, EPA, labor, commerce, we're all looking at this problem holistically, and we feel pretty good about what we have to work with given the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the significant resources that we've been given.

- I have to say, the way you talk about this with agencies collaborating is not what we're used to hearing.

We're used to hearing about like federal government being kind of siloed.

Has that brought a lot of culture change inside the agency?

- It required a shift.

(both men laughing) I mean, most agencies run when the EPA comes.

So it's been really good to be embraced by the other Cabinet secretaries.

The President said from day one that he expected all of us to work together, leverage our intellectual capacity, first and foremost, such that when the bipartisan infrastructure resources comes along, we would have a tight working relationship.

And so we worked really hard at the Cabinet level to ensure that we knew the respective lanes and how to leverage those respective lanes.

Now, we've started to really change the culture within our agencies and our staffs are starting to call one another.

It's really exciting to see EPA engage HUD and labor and commerce and DOD and talk about solutions instead of being called to the White House to iron out differences.

It's a different day.

- That is really different.

That is like, yeah.

(audience applauding) Internally, I mean, it's one thing for you and other members of the Cabinet to get along, but internally, inside the agency that you lead, I have to imagine though, that you've got a lot of folks who've been there a long time and are used to doing it a certain way.

Has that been difficult to bring them along?

- It has not been easy, but one of the things that I refuse to do is sit behind a desk and solve the problems from behind the desk.

And as you travel the country, and when you hear the stories like we hear firsthand about children being lead poisoned, and mothers being concerned and it's shown on the news and you see how big the problem is, staff sees that on television and they wanna be a part of the solution.

And then you recognize, yes, EPA has a role with lead paint for pipes, which is obvious, but we also have a role for lead paint.

And this is where HUD and EPA can leverage one another.

And so if you can get the staff excited about solving the problem and help them understand that we can't solve the problem alone, but that this is a moment in history.

We now have the resources to match the intellectual capacity, and there's the opportunity for a staff member to be a part of making history by eradicating 100% of the lead pipes in this country and saving children's lives, staff get excited about that.

- They should.

They should.

Are you seeing that spirit of collaboration also come between like, a rise up between local municipalities, local agencies and the federal government?

- Absolutely.

- Because a lot of what you wanna do, you can't accomplish without a local partner.

- We can't accomplish it without state partners, local partners, our grassroots communities.

The difference today versus two years ago is Congress and the President recognized that state and localities could not solve these problems alone.

Here comes the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

EPA received 50 billion just to focus on water infrastructure, $5 billion to focus on electrifying yellow school buses all across this country, $5 billion to focus on brownfields and superfund sites.

So EPA has a little bit of walking around money now.

We're not just regulating people.

(Dan laughing) We're not just seen as the regulator.

Now, we're seen as an economic partner.

We can infuse this capital into these states and these cities and provide some oversight, but also partnership.

And now, this partnership is so much richer because there are resources to play around with.

And so, it's really, it's an exciting time to be in government, but it's a really exciting time to be at EPA.

- Can you talk about your own personal journey from kind of state level position, where you were prior to joining the Biden-Harris administration to having this national kind of perspective on things?

- I really enjoyed my time as the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality in North Carolina.

And it's one of 50 state agencies, which sort of makes up the perfect partner for the federal government.

Spending time dealing with issues at the state level as it relates to environmental justice and equity, PFAS in our drinking water, looking at coal ash ponds disproportionately impacting communities.

I had four years of firsthand experience of what it's like to work on these issues on the ground.

And unfortunately, I had four years of experience without a federal partner that believed in environmental protection and public health protection the way I did.

And so that informs my thinking.

And so as EPA administrator, I am laser focused on the partnership required with our state agencies, because the work cannot get done, cannot be completed without those state partners.

So it informs how I think about these actions, but it also, those four years created a sense of urgency for me.

Our communities don't have the time to wait.

Our children don't have the time to wait.

And so the President has said, "Let's go."

And I'm ready to go.

- Can't wait.

Where have I?

Ryan, where have I heard that before?

(audience laughing) Can't, right.

That Cleveland Can't Wait was the mayor's successful slogan.

You took a tour which you and your colleagues called the Journey to Justice Tour.

Talk about that a little bit as part of your kind of orientation to the national environmental kind of realm.

- Well, I wasn't a newbie to environmental justice, but we decided that we needed to get out on the road.

And so we decided to travel through America's Black Belt.

We started in Mississippi.

We went through Louisiana and ended in Houston, Texas.

And I will be honest with you all.

There were some places that I didn't feel like I was in this country.

I visited a school, elementary school in Jackson, Mississippi.

The goal was to engage with some second and third graders and talk about environmental protection.

And we pull up to the school and we were notified that the children were dispersed to other schools all around the county because the water pressure was low.

And this wasn't the first time that these children had been dispersed.

But when I pulled up to the school, there were porta-potties lined up as far as the eye could see.

And I was looking around for the construction projects and didn't see any construction projects.

And so when I entered the building, I asked the principal, "Why are there porta-potties?"

And she said, "Those are the bathrooms for the children."

Because the water pressure has been so low in the school for so long that the children could not flush the toilets, could not drink from the water fountains, and the cafeteria workers could not prepare their lunches.

Now, mind you, this is happening in the middle of a pandemic.

So it's that kind of exposure that is a constant reminder to me as the administrator and my staff of just how much work we have to do in this country.

I'll share one more story.

I was in Lowndes County, Alabama a couple of weeks ago, and we toured the county.

And this is a county that has about 35 to 40% of their residents exposed to or have hookworm, hookworm disease, something that I didn't think existed in this country.

But when I looked at the sewer systems in this county, the majority of the homes had straight piping from the toilets in their homes to the yards.

The waste was just pooling in the yards where their children play on a daily basis.

For those that had septic tanks, the soil was not conducive to the septic tanks.

So many of the septic tanks were exposed and you saw pools of waste there as well with children's toys lying around in close proximity.

This is in Lowndes County, Alabama in 2022.

So environmental justice and equity is more than a catchphrase for us.

Everything we do at EPA is being done through the lens of environmental justice and equity, whether it's our water infrastructure work, whether it's our air pollution work, whether it's our contracting or procurement, it's our job, and we believe it's our job to provide equal protection under the law for every single person in this country, no matter their race, their age, then their ethnicity, their gender, we want to be as inclusive as possible.

And so we take it very, very seriously.

- What's your philosophical approach or your approach generally to the kind of trade offs that are necessary for the climate goals that Paris Climate Accords call for, for instance, recycling and electrifying the auto fleets around the world and so forth with like, those are important goals, but then there are also kind of environmental costs to some of those goals, right?

You can't buy a Tesla without a lithium battery that was mined in a pretty unpleasant way, right?

You can't recycle old cars, right?

Without a recycling plant, an auto shredder that is gonna, it has to be placed somewhere.

And there are people who don't these things in their backyard.

They don't want, how do you deal with those trade offs as an environmental regulator that both like, needs to prioritize clean air, clean water, and the climate goals all at the same time?

- Right.

Well, first and foremost, I don't subscribe to the notion that environmental protection and economic prosperity are mutually exclusive.

They actually go hand in hand.

I also believe that all of these environmental processes don't have to be concentrated in black, brown, and tribal communities.

And so, as we think about winning the 21st century, as we think about solving the climate crisis, we know that if we put the right policies and regulations in place that protect the least amongst us, it will serve as a rising tide, not only creating solutions for climate change, air quality and water quality, but also creating millions of jobs along the way.

And so technology can lead the way.

I believe that if some of these facilities are placed in some of our more sensitive communities, it's incumbent upon the company to invest in the proper control technologies, so we can figure it out.

And I have worked really hard to partner with many of those who we regulate to come up with some innovative solutions for how we can have healthy thriving communities and remain globally competitive and economically prosperous.

- [Dan] It's a tough balance.

- It requires a shift in vision.

It requires partnerships at all levels of government.

I think when we think about how we go about zoning for certain communities, we have to look at the systemic racism that has been a part of this country in terms of redlining, zoning, housing, the placement of these polluting entities.

And again, I think we have to look at the cumulative impact that many of these communities are facing by having all of these polluting entities concentrated in their communities.

There are ways to spread some of that out so that we can protect human health in a much greater way.

But again, there are technologies and business practices that exist today that many companies choose not to pursue because they perceive them as too costly.

What I found out in the Journey to Justice Tour is when the administrator of a federal agency or a Cabinet member shows up in a community like Lowndes County or Jackson, Mississippi, MSNBC, CNN, they like to come and see what's going on.

And when the local community is telling a story that most people in this nation can't believe exist, if you have that story told between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM, and you have the mothers and the grandmothers and people who really drive a lot of our public health advocacy, see these stories on the news, they take action.

And then all of a sudden, these companies decide that they got a few more dollars that they can spend.

And it's really not about the EPA administrator levying new fines and new penalties, you see this awakening of people who have decided that they have to be good neighbors to the communities that they serve.

- You were talking before about collaboration across agencies, and I know that the EPA is one of, I got at least dozen agencies that are involved in the climate task force.

How are those things going?

Because these are the, ultimately if, that's the problem, right?

If we don't solve that problem in the next generation, we don't get to solve other problems in future generations.

- That's right.

We have a lead role.

We have been supportive of the President's goal in working with Congress to really push our climate objectives.

But I've said from day one that the President has a number of tools in his toolbox at EPA, and we're gonna use every single tool that we have, which is why we move very quickly to put a rule in place to phase down 85% of the HFCs produced in this country over the next 15 years.

- [Dan] Hydrofluorocarbons?

- Hydrofluorocarbons, yes.

Very potent greenhouse gas.

And a rule that basically partners with the private sector to eradicate this threat of the climate crisis.

We put forward the most aggressive greenhouse gas standard for cars and trucks that this country's ever seen.

We finalized that.

We proposed the most stringent regulation of our oil and gas industry controlling methane pollution.

And what's historical about that is not only the level of stringency, but we're regulating both new and existing facilities, which is really aggressive.

And then we're continuing to move forward on heavy duty vehicles and all sorts of other rules.

So the President is doing this in the right way, which is you can't regulate your way out.

And so, while we work on some of these legislative solutions, we are demonstrating that you can't completely regulate your way out, but the regulations matter and play a role.

And if we have the complimentary financial tools that could be given to us by Congress, we really can begin to solve this climate crisis.

But just as important, this country can be globally competitive in a way that will pull the rest of the world along with us.

- [Dan] Do you find that, I mean, to do all of that, you need partners in industry, and as you were talking about methane production or reducing methane emissions, I was reminded that Bob Blue, the CEO and Chairman of Dominion just spoke here about a month and a half ago about their goal to get completely carbon neutral by, I wanna say 2050, but I could be misremembering.

Do you find that the conversations you're having with industry are a little bit like, you gotta make me do it.

I can do it but it's gonna cost money, but if you make me do it, I'll spend that money.

(Michael laughs) Is that a little bit of how it works?

- You're forcing my playbook out here.

(Dan laughs) I share this with my Republican colleagues quite often, and it's interesting, API and the US Chamber of Commerce said, we need regulations on methane.

We need the certainty because we have the technologies.

We wanna make the investments, but we don't wanna make the investments without a level playing field and everyone understanding the rules of engagement.

We're having similar conversations with the power sector.

The reality is, is that the technologies exist.

The market is calling for this.

And so now, we have our business community saying, "Mr.

Administrator, help us understand what the next four or five years will look like through some sort of regulatory certainty."

And we're not gonna agree with every single principle in those rules, but we agree that those rules provide us some certainty for investment.

And so the conversations I would say, have been really, really good between EPA and the automobile industry, EPA and the oil and gas sector, EPA and the power sector.

On television and on the news, of course, these conversations seem so violent and we're adamantly opposed, but behind the scenes, we are responsibly trying to work towards a solution that provides that investment certainty for our business community in a way that benefits our communities, especially our environmental justice communities, and we're gonna keep working on it and working on it and working on it.

I'm gonna keep pulling out the political rhetoric and not letting that contribute to the toxicity of how all of our dialogues are going as much as possible.

And we're gonna try to put as many rules in place to protect people, but also provide that regulatory certainty for our communities.

- We've been talking about the State of the Great Lakes and lead service line replacement.

We've talked about some environmental justice issues and the climate work.

I have lots of follow up questions on all of them, but the next follow up questions are coming from the audience.

If we have a first question, it appears that we do.

- [Michael] Oh.

- [Audience Member] I have a question here that was texted to us.

What is your response to the recent announcement from the Biden administration that they will resume oil and gas leasing on public lands?

How are we to move forward?

How are we to move toward a reduction in fossil fuel use if we cannot politically stomach higher oil and gas prices?

- That's a very, that's an excellent question.

And my first reaction to that question is always, we miss some significant opportunities in the past to invest in clean energy.

We are all held hostage to a certain extent to the global markets.

And this war that President Putin has waged unfairly on Ukraine causing the United States to have to spring into action to keep this global coalition together.

If we had invested more in clean energy, not only domestically, but globally, we would not find ourselves in this problem.

And so it's my goal and my hope, by the way, in the last year, 80%, oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, close to 80% of all investments in new energy capacity in this country has been in wind solar and battery storage.

So we are trending in the right direction.

If we had invested more in the past, we would be much further along and we would have more electric vehicles on the road.

We'd have more charging stations on the road.

We would have more solar and wind.

We would not be held hostage to the price volatility that we're seeing from this international market.

So my response is the President rightfully so is doing what he needs to do to keep the global coalition together, to keep the energy prices as low as possible, but he's not taking his eye off the ball and we're gonna continue to invest in clean energy solutions.

- Hi, my question is, is there any way, like youth, like teenagers, young adolescents could help in this endeavor to keep their lake safe, especially when it comes, hit close to home and how our geographies and how far we are away from the lake and how can we help in any way or have us any service in this?

- Absolutely.

I think that you all should be at the table, and at EPA, we try to have as many, as much youth engagement as possible.

I am working on pulling together a youth council.

I know that all over this country that we see our young people really driving the conversations around innovative environmental protection solutions.

And we need to pull from you all that intellectual capacity out of your heads and match it with the resources that we now have.

Every movement that has been beneficial to advancing society has been led by young people.

And we know that environmental protection and climate change is no different.

So we want you to have a seat at the table and we expect you all to stay at the table.

- [Dan] Go ahead.

- Are there any programs that youth, like teenagers, young kids can get involved with to try to help out and keep our lakes safe?

- What I'll do is I'll connect you with our education and outreach group, and they have lots of ideas for energetic, young people.

(everyone laughing) - [Dan] Next question.

- Hi, good afternoon.

First, I wanna thank you for being here today and having this discussion with us.

And I want to thank the administration and our members of Congress, especially Ohio's senators, Senator Portman and Senator Brown on their, on the political will it took to get a generational infrastructure bill like this across the finish line.

So with that said, my question is now that we have the bill pass and everything in line, when can the local communities expect to start seeing some of this money come down so they can start planning for putting together projects and getting things out the door so we can get the ball rolling here on the local level.

Thank you.

- Thank you for that question.

And so I'll try to break it up a little bit.

The $5 billion that we receive from bill to focus on superfund and brownfield sites, that money's already flowing, that money is out the door.

The $5 billion for our electrifying the yellow school buses all across the country, we're poised to have that money flowing starting in the spring.

So we're really excited about that.

We've taken over $50 million of current EPA funding to push that out in the states to provide technical assistance so that communities can be prepared for the $50 billion that will come to the states via the form of water infrastructure.

I believe Ohio, just this year alone, will get about $240 million to focus on water infrastructure, 70 million to focus on lead pipe removal.

And so we're already priming the pump with technical assistance so that communities can be prepared to compete for those resources.

And I'm also having conversations with the governors of every state to take a look at the traditional criteria we've used, update that criteria to be sure that those who have been disproportionately impacted are now gonna have a seat at the table.

And we're hopeful that the states will begin to receive those monies for water infrastructure in the upcoming fall.

So we're gonna use the spring and the summer to get communities prepared to compete for those dollars.

- [Audience Member] Thank you very much.

- Thanks.

Next question.

- Administrator Regan, my name is Steve Joseph, and I'm the CEO of Reserve Management Group.

My company built an 80 million metal recycling plant in Chicago that received state and city permits after rigorous review processes.

Before our final permit had been issued, you stepped in and recommended a health impact assessment.

That assessment concluded that the facility meets all regulatory standards and would not negatively affect the health of area residents, yet the final city permit was denied.

When that happened, you tweeted, quote, "This is what environmental justice looks like," unquote.

I wanna invite you to come and tour the most environmentally conscious recycling facility that's been built in the United States at our facility in Chicago.

That facility uses the exact pollution control technology recommended by US EPA in an enforcement alert last July and metals recycling plays a key role in stated infrastructure and circular economy goals of this administration.

How is environmental justice served when the plant sits idle while others in the area that were never subject to the same extensive reviews continue to operate without any opposition from the EPA?

- I think that metal recycling is obviously an important part of the economy.

What I did was I stepped in and had a conversation with the mayor of Chicago to really do a comprehensive assessment of a facility moving from the northern side of the city to the southeast side where we already have, or we're seeing a concentration of disproportionate pollution on a certain population of people.

And so what we did was we stepped in and we told the city, "If you don't have the resources, we can provide you the resources and the technical capacity to do a thorough evaluation of the specific impacts that this community is facing because of facilities like the metal recycling facility."

And that permitting decision was the mayor's decision.

And the mayor and her team made that decision based on the health assessment that multiple agencies did to help support her decision, that being health and human services, EPA, I think HUD was involved as well.

So it was a complicated issue, but I think at the end of the day, I think the mayor made the right decision.

- Still having a hard time obviously with that, given that all of the zoning was done, the city knew what the site was long before that happened.

And the health impact assessment came out and very clearly stated that there was no impact at all to human health.

So I understand there have been impacts in that neighborhood for years and years.

We're just not adding to the burden, sir.

- I think the city's determination by not giving the permit was that there was an added burden to the disproportionate impacts that that community was already facing.

And so, again, the city, the mayor, they made the decision.

And I did what I planned to do all over this country, which is for cities who are facing complicated and complex decision making, EPA will stand in support to provide the resources dedicated to properly analyzing many of our communities that have been disproportionately impacted for decades.

- [Dan] We're gonna go on to the next question now.

Thank you.

- Hi, thank you, Administrator Regan.

My name's Gabriella Celeste and I'm with the Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case, but I'm wearing my Ohio Lead Free Kids Coalition hat today.

I really appreciate your comments earlier and your commitment to certainly, our Great Lakes, but I do wanna ask you about lead prevention, primary prevention.

In particular, we have a policy in place as you well know, that's been around now for, I think it's a dozen years this month, the Renovation, Repair, Paint Rule.

So we have policy.

The problem is enforcement.

And in fact, we had more industries that were certified to do lead safe work practices five or six years ago than we do now because it's actually not being enforced.

It's not, when you got just a couple people for a whole region, five trying to do this, it's really not effective.

And yet, it is such an important part of actually preventing kids from being lead poisoned.

Can you talk a little bit about how we can actually improve that and protect our kids from lead and dusted paint?

Thank you.

- Thank you, and I absolutely agree with you 100%, Unfortunately, my predecessors over the past four years prior to the Biden administration, not only did not ask for budget increases from a programmatic standpoint, personnel standpoint, but turned away resources that would help around education and enforcement.

I've made enforcement a centerpiece of this administration's goals because there's no benefit to having laws on the books that you can't enforce.

So we are wrapping up the resources for enforcement with the monies that we already had.

And while I did not receive the amount of resources that the President requested for the budget for 2022, we're going back and we're asking for those resources again in 2023.

I made the case to the Senate a couple of weeks ago during my budget hearing, and I'll make the case again to the House in the coming weeks.

We have to have these resources in place if we're gonna protect our children and do our job.

So I agree with you 100%.

- [Audience Member] Thanks.

- Hi, Administrator Regan.

Thank you so much for all you do.

It's apparent that you truly care and I really appreciate that.

My question is, at this point, it seems like taxpayers are paying for a lot of the cleanup when we know the sources to a lot of our environmental issues.

I'm wondering if there's any move to potentially have the companies that are making compounds that we know are toxic to pay for the cleanup of those compounds, specifically PFAs, lead, plastics?

Thank you.

- Thank you.

I could not agree with you more and I wish we could convince Congress of that as well.

What I can say is with the powers that we have at EPA, when we move on an enforcement case, whether it be civil or criminal, we're pursuing that in a way where we wanna hold polluters accountable in all the ways that we legally can.

We're having very constructive conversations with the Department of Justice on how we could do a better job of that.

And hopefully, we'll have an announcement soon about what DOJ and EPA can do to hold polluters accountable in a more effective way than we currently are.

- [Audience Member] Thank you.

- Administrator Regan, thank you so much for coming to Cleveland.

Summer along Lake Erie means it must be harmful algal blooms season coming soon and we're all waiting with bated breath to see the size of the bloom and how bad it will be in our lake this year.

As I'm sure you know, a few years ago, the city of Toledo actually had to close the water intakes in the lake and use bottled water because it was not safe for their people to drink.

You talked a lot about interagency collaboration in your remarks, but one agency I didn't hear you mention is the US Department of Agriculture.

We all know that the Maumee River is the second largest tributary in the Lake Erie.

It largely serves an agricultural floodplain that includes the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.

And that land is moving from small private farms to industrial agriculture very quickly.

When Clean Water Act came into play years ago, we thought about regulating industry along our river banks and we have those pictures of the Cuyahogan fire.

But now, we're talking about industry that is CAFOs and feedlots with thousands and thousands of animals along the banks of the Maumee and we know that's a growing part of business there.

How is EPA working with USDA to both regulate and control pesticide and fertilizer and animal waste runoff in the Maumee?

- That's a great question, and.

(audience applauding) I think if you were to ask Secretary Tom Vilsack of USDA what his thoughts are around the partnership that USDA and EPA have, he would say it's at a historic level in terms of partnership, and that's because Secretary Vilsack understands exactly what needs to happen and needs to occur to better protect our water quality and our water issues and our workers, our farm workers.

And so as we look at replacing these pesticides, these dangerous pesticides and looking at new market entrance, we're working very closely with USDA on how we can leverage their resources to get some of this done in a much quicker way.

USDA has a lot more, a lot more resources than EPA, but I think what you'll find in our partnership with USDA now is they understand that we have a job that needs to get done.

Farmers wanna provide food and clothing for Americans, but they don't want to be considered polluters.

So they need to have the right products on the markets, and they need to understand the rules of the road.

That's why I'm working so closely with USDA where it be waters of the US, pesticide replacement or nitrogen and nutrient runoff, we're looking at it holistically and we're trying to do it in a way where we can have an effective economy, but also protect our communities.

I think we're doing a fairly good job, and we're gonna keep at it.

- [Dan] Another question from a student from Campus International High School.

I just wanted to mention Campus International.

- Hi, as far as talked about earlier, protecting watersheds, or just protecting water up among to maybe indigenous people or like tribal committees, what is the EPA's opinions as well as your personal opinions on pipelines, like the Enbridge pipeline, like pipeline 3, or even the Keystone pipeline, and what can you guys kind of do against them to keep them from polluting watershed or crossing treaty lines?

- Yeah, this is where the President and I believe has really captured the attention of all of us in the Cabinet by starting with the most basic fact, which is we should reengage and have serious tribal consultation with these sovereign governments, and the tribes should have a seat at the table, not when the decision is being made, not when decisions are final, but from the very beginning.

So what we've done over the past year is we've reevaluated, strengthened, and partnered with the tribes to develop a consultation process that would strengthen the communication between EPA and our tribes, but that's not just EPA, all of the Cabinet agencies are working on that.

I believe that that's what's required to have that strong consultation process in place with the government, the government conversations to think about how those decisions should be made moving forward.

- Just trying to get instruction on which one of these.

We have a lot of questions coming in virtually.

So I think this one here is the one.

With constantly changing administration, how can the EPA make real immediate progress on the climate crisis, do what is needed by 2030?

I'm scared we're not bold enough for the changes needed for true environmental justice progress and a sustainable planet.

- That's an excellent question.

I can talk about what we're doing and what I think the strategy is currently and that is on the regulatory side, We are engaging with again, industry who recognizes that many of these technologies exist.

And if we design our regulations in a way that are innovative and don't constrict the amount of innovation to reduce pollution, if we can do that, I believe we can be successful.

If you have a regulation that allows for innovation and entrepreneurship and is not overly burdened some in terms of administration of, or execution of that, and then you couple that with the President's Build Back Better Agenda, which is infusing financial tools into the market, what you'll have are regulations and market momentum that will make money and make sense and protect the planet and protect people.

And then if you have a change in administration, it's politically difficult to tell companies to stop saving the planet and making money at the same time.

And so what wanna do is we wanna lock in these long-term investments.

We really wanna lock in these long term investments and have public-private partnerships infused in a way where it's really driven by the markets and technology and transparent rules of engagement and not ideology and philosophies.

And so that's the goal to try to lock it in over the next four years.

- [Dan] Wonderful.

Go ahead.

- Hi, welcome to Cleveland.

So as a reporter that's covered lead poisoning here in Cleveland for a while, and a mother whose children were exposed to lead in the old house, it's exciting to hear about the historic levels of investment that you and a lot of the other Cabinet members are talking about, but when I follow up on these investments, the picture, it just gets more complicated.

For instance, the EPA's WIIN Program, which the federal government is looking to grow, had a goal of testing 530 Ohio childcare facilities in Ohio by the end of last year and 42 got tested.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development selected Cleveland in 2019 for a special grant to remediate lead in Glenville, which had some of the highest rates of lead poisoning for decades in Cleveland.

As of September 2021, less than a quarter of a percent of the goal had been reached in terms of houses remediated.

And I know there's probably a lot of reasons for this, the pandemic, issues with construction pipelines, educating the public, but when I talk to families and when I talk to to property owners, what I hear about is barriers related to bureaucracy.

It's paperwork, it's getting applications in, it's not having to fill out the same things over and over again, and getting help with that.

So what do you think that your agency and others that you're working with can do to make sure that these investments of public dollars are not numbers on a page or large numbers on a check, but that they have the results that have been promised to folks?

- Thank you for that question and I'll be direct with you.

I think bureaucracy is a convenient excuse for an action.

This goes back to the question Dan post earlier, which is as with my experience as a state secretary, I understand that when you don't have a productive relationship with the state agency and the state agency doesn't have a productive relationship with the county commissioner or mayor, things don't get done.

And so EPA can set goals, but without a strong partnership with the state and local elected officials, things don't get done on time.

What I'm laser focused on is ensuring that I, and all of my regional administrators are engaging with every governor, every elected official, so that we ensure these projects get done on time and on budget.

I spent time this morning talking with the mayor of Cleveland, letting him know that this is a partnership, and this is what I wanna do.

and I wanted to hear from him directly what he thought he could do.

Together, we could work with the counties and the governors, and we should be able to make a lot of progress on these very tough issues, but it requires partnership.

And so I don't want to allow for the notion that bureaucracy is acceptable in a convenient area to point a finger.

We have to work together.

The government has to work for its people.

- [Dan] We have time for just one more question.

- All right.

I have your final virtual question here.

What is the biggest threat to the safety of Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes currently?

- Hmm.

I would say probably if we don't spend this money correctly.

(audience laughing) And I say that because, in this day and time, Congress doesn't push $1 billion into a Great Lakes program lightly.

This is a huge opportunity, but I think the accountability that we're facing in terms of demonstrating that we can spend the taxpayers dollars in the way that we envision in a timely fashion and grow the economy and protect the environment and protect public health.

If we don't take advantage of this moment in time, we may not see this opportunity again.

And I think that's the biggest, that's the biggest threat.

- Michael Regan, he's the 16th Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

- Thank you.

(audience applauding) - Thank you.

(audience applause drowns out speaker) That's the end of our forum, friends.

Thank you so much for being a part of this today.

Our form is adjourned.

(audience applauding) (bell rings) - [Announcer] For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club, go to cityclub.org.

Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC, and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.