Members of the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee used yesterday's hearing with U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to air specific home state concerns, leaving battles over high-profile regulations for another day.

The hearing was the first time the administrator has testified before a committee since EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz resigned in late April after comparing his enforcement philosophy to ancient Romans crucifying villagers in towns they'd newly conquered.

The controversy surfaced briefly at the top of the hearing, when ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Armendariz's remarks reinforced how her constituents already view EPA and the way it uses its authorities.

"It can sometimes be arrogant, use arbitrary enforcement or permitting requirements that then in turn discourage investing in critical projects that are necessary to get folks back to work, invigorate our economy," she said.

The overall tone of the hearing was civil, however, and Jackson -- who was recovering from laryngitis -- fielded questions on issues from agency scrutiny of hydraulic fracturing to the way farm fuel would be regulated and the plight of private plane owners in Alaska.

The hearing was called to allow appropriators to vet EPA's $8.3 billion budget request for fiscal 2013, which constitutes a 1.2 percent decrease compared with current levels.

Jackson said the budget "focuses on fulfilling EPA's core mission of protecting public health and the environment, while making the sacrifices and indeed tough decisions that Americans across the country are making every day."

One of those "tough choices" was a decision to ask for $2 billion for the popular Drinking Water and Clean Water state revolving funds, $38 million less than last year. The programs help states pay for sewage and drinking water projects and improvements.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who chairs the subpanel, said the cuts would affect projects in his state. He noted that the revolving funds would bear the brunt of the cuts the White House proposed for EPA in its annual budget request released in February.

"I know you had to make tough choices," he said. "Does it make sense to cut this program this much?"

Reed said the cuts would prevent the creation of construction jobs in states. But Jackson said that although it is "absolutely true that clean water is the basis of economic growth and development," the two revolving funds have received large allocations in recent years that would help them weather a fiscal 2013 spending cut. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund received $4 billion and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund received $2 billion as part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill.

Murkowski asked Jackson about EPA's review of large-scale development in Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed. The agency is in the process of assessing the development there, spurred for the most part by Pebble Limited Partnership's proposal for a large-scale gold and copper mine.

Murkowski told Jackson that she wanted to establish that the assessment "can be and will be limited to large-scale mining" and will not be used by opponents of other development.

Several members also raised questions about EPA's plans to collaborate with other agencies on a broad study of the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing.

Congress in 2010 authorized a more narrow study of the impact the unconventional gas production method has on groundwater quality, but the White House has initiated its own interagency study to look at the effect of fracking on ecosystems, air quality and other resources. The White House requested a total of $12 million for the study, shared across the budgets of EPA, the Energy Department and other agencies.

But Murkowski said the agencies appeared to have expanded the scope of the study beyond what Congress asked for.

"It seems to me the language in the legislation was pretty clear, in terms of assessing the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and contamination in water," Murkowski said.

But Jackson said the White House had decided to do additional studies, partially because the American public would only accept hydraulic fracturing if it is confident the government is monitoring any environmental and public health consequences.

"The idea is to ask the questions so that the American people know their government is doing the research to stay in front of any issues before they develop," she said.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) asked whether producers in his state and elsewhere would be asked to wait to develop gas until the agencies had completed their assessment. But Jackson said the study was a scientific rather than a regulatory exercise.

Murkowski also asked Jackson about EPA's upcoming lower-sulfur fuel standards for oceangoing ships within a 200-mile zone of the U.S. coast. The ranking member said Alaska receives most of its goods by barge, and any increase in cost to shippers would be passed on to consumers.

"We recognize that this is going to increase the cost of living in Alaska at a time when we just can't handle it," she said.

The cruise ship industry is lobbying hard to weaken the standards. It is floating what Murkowski euphemistically called "an alternative compliance mechanism" that EPA says would lead to more emissions and more health damage.

Jackson said EPA would consider "innovative equivalent methods" but only if they achieve the same results as the EPA standard they would replace.

Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell said in a blog post that he did not expect Jackson's response to satisfy allies of the cruise industry, including Murkowski.

"We expect the cruise ship industry to continue pressing its case in Congress," he wrote, wondering whether Murkowski would use her senior position on the panel to attach a policy rider to the spending bill.