Since 1972, when the Clean Water Act became law, we've made a lot of progress in cleaning up our water, especially with respect to so-called "point sources" like sewage treatment and industrial plants.
But we still are far from reaching our goal of clean rivers, lakes, streams, and coastlines. That's where TMDLs come in. They provide a targeted, flexible approach to the pollution problems of an individual watershed, much like state implementation plans under the Clean Air Act.
EPA's proposed rule makes some important improvements. At the heart of it, the rule clarifies the TMDL program and requires implementation plans. At the same time it gives states more time to complete their lists, allocations, and plans. That's a pretty good trade off.
But there still are problems. I've been concerned, in particular, about the silviculture provisions. They seem to take a long and winding path that may not get us to the right destination.
Furthermore, others have criticized the proposed rule for different reasons. In fact, it seems to be under attack from practically all sides.
That brings me to your bill, Mr. Chairman.
We should give states more money to complete their TMDLs. I think we all can agree on that.
I'm less certain about the pilot projects and the NAS study. As I understand it, EPA convened a group of stakeholders who worked on TMDLs for more than two years, submitting detailed conclusions. I'm not sure what another study really adds.
Then there's section 6, which effectively delays any new TMDL rule for 18 months.
Mark me down as skeptical. Even if the NAS study provides useful information, it's unlikely to make our decisions much easier. It just puts them off.
Before falling back to delay, I'd like to know whether it's possible to fix the problems with the proposed rule. Whether we can work, with EPA or here in this committee, to make the changes necessary in order to have a strong TMDL program that has broad support.
I hope our witnesses will address this question.