Florida Power Corporation is the second largest investor-owned electric utility in Florida, and serves approximately 1.4 million accounts or about 5 million people - in a service area of 20,000 square miles in central and north Florida. This includes the cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater, and much of the area around Orlando. The company has 59 generating units; its fuel mix in 1999 was 35 percent coal, 17 percent oil, 14 percent nuclear, 13 percent natural gas and 21 percent purchased power.
EEI is the association of United States shareholder-owned electric companies, international affiliates and industry associates worldwide. EEI's U.S. members serve 90 percent of all customers served by the shareholder-owned segment of the industry. They generate over 70 percent of all the electricity generated by electric companies in the country and service nearly 70 percent of all ultimate customers in the nation.
CWIC is an ad hoc, multi-industry coalition. The CWIC membership is comprised of more than 250 companies and associations representing the nation's major manufacturing and service industries, including automobile, chemical, food processing, glass, mining, oil, plastic, forest and paper, real estate, steel, surface finishing, textile, electric and water utilities, agribusiness, transportation and associated industries.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend you for holding these hearings on EPA's proposed TMDL rules. To say, as EPA does, that the proposed rulemaking "revises, clarifies, and strengthens" current regulatory requirements is to substantially understate the scope and magnitude of EPA's new direction on TMDLs. The proposed revisions, if adopted, will radically transform the TMDL program and how states implement the entire Clean Water Act. The number and length of the comments submitted to the docket and the testimony provided during the previous five Congressional hearings are a good indication of the depth and breadth of concern about EPA's proposed changes. Comments critical of EPA's proposals were submitted by federal agencies, states, governors, state organizations, local governments, manufacturing interests, land-based industries, landowners, and others. A review of the comments and testimony demonstrates a striking commonality among the expressed views. A large majority of stakeholders raise similar issues. They seek substantial changes in the proposed rules. I am here today to represent a point source perspective on the proposed rules. It is important to note, however, that like the many other point sources I am representing, some of the activities of Florida Power Corporation are categorized as point sources, while others fall into the non-point source category. We are rarely either just one or the other. Furthermore, our electric customers can be point sources, non-point sources, or both. While the identity of interests between point and non-point sources is not perfect, on the most important issues raised by EPA's proposed rules for example, data quality, offsets, implementation plans, and the bases for listing we have significant agreement. We especially agree that we do not favor a framework that is purely regulatory or establishes a confrontational, zero-sum approach, pitting all the sources of pollutants to a waterbody against one another. Instead, we favor a problem-solving approach to water quality that encourages stakeholders to work together towards win-win solutions. During the first hearing held by the House Water Resources Subcommittee, Chairman Boehlert expressed the concern that EPA is missing a great opportunity to move in the direction of a "performance-based approach" to environmental protection and that the Agency's proposed framework will discourage "innovative, stakeholder solutions." We agree, Mr. Chairman. We hope that the Subcommittee hearings will reach the broader policy issues as well as the more technical and practical issues raised by the unilateral decisions the Agency is making in what we would argue is a very hasty fashion. The rulemaking should address the broader policy issues wisely, within statutory authority, and do so effectively and with clarity. I am not the first person to note for this Subcommittee that as a nation we have made substantial progress in cleaning up our waters. The progress has not been easily accomplished, however. It took 25 years and a significant investment of resources by the federal government, certainly by the states and local government, and especially from the private sector. As a company with many activities regulated under the Clean Water Act, Florida Power Corp. is proud of our continuing contributions to improving water quality in the areas where we are located. It is an effort we take seriously. For example, at our Crystal River coal plant we have completed a voluntary initiative to change the method by which we convey coal ash. By changing from a wet to dry conveyance system we have eliminated two ash pond point source discharges. Our commitment to water quality is also why, in 1999, Florida Power Corporation worked hard to help the State of Florida develop a TMDL statute that has been proposed as a model elsewhere in the country.
With 40% of the nation's waters still experiencing some form of impairment, we believe further progress is necessary. The nation's remaining water quality problems should be evaluated, addressed, and resolved. The present water quality challenges, however, are technically more challenging, complex and varied than their predecessors were. Their resolution depends heavily on better analysis, which in turn depends on valid and accurate data collection, an area of serious programmatic weakness under the Clean Water Act. Their resolution also requires time, an unprecedented commitment of resources from all stakeholders, and a flexible iterative approach that can accommodate changes in our understanding of aquatic ecosystems and the tremendous variations that occur from one waterbody to the next even from one stream segment to the next. Their resolution further requires finding the right bridge across the gap between the improvement that we have gained to date and the remaining improvement that is necessary to meet water quality standards when those water quality standards have been appropriately set. EPA has crafted proposed rules that make the TMDL provisions of the Clean Water Act the tool of choice to bridge the gap in every instance of water quality impairment, including cases where impairment does not yet exist but might at some point in the future. We understand why the Agency has chosen to do this. It is not only under pressure from numerous lawsuits for a general failure to implement the TMDL provisions of the Clean Water Act, but from those who are frustrated that from their perspective progress seems so slow. Yet, we would argue that state and local governments in partnership with the private sector are making important progress on complex water quality problems. They have been and are developing successful watershed strategies, which build a profound base of knowledge about a given watershed and rely on bottom-up, stakeholder driven processes to establish targets and milestones for achieving success. Education and voluntary measures play an important role in these watershed strategies. The most promising advances have come in the last five to six years, despite a decline in federal funding. For example, in Florida, the Tampa Bay estuary program is a voluntary program involving point and non-point sources to reduce nitrogen loadings in the Bay. Also, Florida's water management districts have developed Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans, which are a comprehensive watershed planning tool to resolve Florida water quality problems. These programs are in addition to existing regulatory tools such as individual permits, best management practices, antidegradation policies, and other traditional pollutant reduction measures. Successful voluntary programs, like the Chesapeake Bay program, are being conducted elsewhere in the country. We think successful watershed strategies will continue to emerge at the local level. They will do so not because of any particular federal hammer but because of a slow but steady alignment between public values, better knowledge and evolving stakeholder commitment.
The total maximum daily load provisions have been part of the Clean Water Act since it was enacted in 1972, when the view of water quality problems was quite different from today. The few stakeholder groups who generally support the thrust of EPA's rulemaking have argued the proposed rules are necessary because the states have fallen down on the job. Until recently, however, the states rightly focused their attention on primary or first tier issues of concern. They are now moving forward to fulfill their TMDL obligations. Consent decrees and court orders that impose unrealistic deadlines are making the challenge next to impossible at least to do right. Furthermore, EPA is not helping when, at the very moment the states are moving forward, it proposes a sweeping rewrite of the program, including many new interpretations of the existing requirements. We believe that TMDLs can be a useful tool to improve water quality. For one thing, they can establish a clear, quantitative water quality target by defining the total amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water and still have that water meet water quality standards. In doing so, they can be helpful to states in the exercise of other programmatic authorities under the Act, such as Section 319 for agriculture and Section 303(e), which defines the states' continuing planning process. We don't believe, however, that Congress intended the TMDL provisions to be the central mechanism for coordinating and resolving all water quality problems or for implementing watershed management. We worry that, as configured, the EPA proposals will be an impediment to further development of successful watershed strategies. The most successful watershed strategies are largely though not exclusively non-regulatory in nature. They use education, funding, flexibility on timing, and consensus-building stakeholder processes to win voluntary reductions to achieve water quality objectives. Even though they may take more time than regulatory approaches to initiate, the strategies are successful because not only do they gain the needed pollutant reductions, they win the hearts and minds of the stakeholders brought to the table during the process. More importantly, they are successful because they allow a state to move forward on difficult water quality problems in the face of uncertainty. This is because costs on stakeholders are not imposed from the top, but are undertaken voluntarily often at the stakeholder's own initiative to solve a problem perceived collectively, even though the problem and its causes may not yet be fully understood. Successful watershed strategies require both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, and it makes a lot of difference how these two approaches are combined. EPA's proposed rules, with their mandated load allocations, implementation plans as a formal part of the TMDL, and approval processes open to lawsuit, establish a heavily regulatory watershed approach. Even if the Agency grafts into this structure an accommodation for voluntary initiatives, as it talks about doing, it will still be imposing a regulatory approach that loses the best features of today's on-the-ground successful watershed strategies. As significant, the scope and mandates of the program defined by EPA and the extraordinary workload it will impose on the states have the potential to crush any voluntary watershed strategies and may make it impossible for them to co-exist along side the newly configured TMDL program. While the Clean Water Act's TMDL provisions were developed in a different era, EPA's all-inclusive and prescriptive interpretation of them makes them particularly ill-fitting, unworkable, and anachronistic.
In Florida, we are committed to using TMDLs as effectively as possible. Florida has over 700 waters listed under Section 303(d). The data used for listing these waters was highly variable and in many cases of questionable quality and accuracy. Furthermore, existing federal TMDL regulations provide little guidance to states on how to move through the TMDL process. As a consequence, in 1999, Florida legislators, legislative staff, agency officials, regulated interests, and environmental groups dedicated enormous amounts of time and energy to the development and enactment of legislation intended to facilitate compliance with the TMDL requirements of Section 303(d). Together, we set out to develop a statute that would be good law and guidance for implementing Section 303(d), consistent with principles of due process and good science. We sought to incorporate stakeholder safeguards into the process for listing and TMDL development. We sought a more equitable basis for delisting waters and an approach that would not lead to an inequitable burden on any one category of sources. We also tried to ensure the program would be scientifically-based, use data that are valid and credible, and set priorities based on state, regional and local factors. The Florida statute lays out the process to be used in making both listing decisions and for setting priorities. The State Department of Environmental Protection sets the priorities and schedules based on basin assessments and using data that have been assembled according to a specific set of criteria. This process involves broad stakeholder input, which allows for priorities to be set in consideration of a variety of factors, many of which are site specific. These decisions are best made at the State or regional level, not by the EPA. In developing the statute, EPA Region IV was consulted and their comments addressed through amendments to the proposed legislation. Based on EPA's comments, it was understood that Florida's new TMDL law met federal requirements. EPA, however, later entered into a consent decree that had the effect of undermining key features of Florida's 1999 legislation. In particular, the Agency committed to a federal usurpation of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's activities in the event that the state fails to comply with overly ambitious deadlines. The problem is the deadlines, which are unattainable under Florida's Administrative Procedures Act. Unrealistic deadlines are setting up Florida to fail, with the result that the EPA will be responsible for developing the TMDLs on Florida's listed waters. Florida nevertheless is proceeding in a good faith effort to develop the necessary implementing regulations for the program. Now, at a critical juncture, EPA's proposed regulations threaten to change the essential features of the federal program. If the proposed regulations are finalized in their current form, much of Florida's 1999 legislation will be rendered obsolete. From a Florida perspective, EPA's initiative to transform the TMDL program, at the exact moment when Florida and other states are intensifying their efforts to implement the existing program, is unjustified by any deficiencies in the existing program or environmental policy considerations. Governor Racicot of Montana raised the same issue in his testimony a few weeks ago before this Subcommittee. David Struhs, Secretary of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, also made these same points in a letter to Administrator Browner on January 19, 2000. He further stated that the State of Florida opposes the proposed rules as: "needlessly bureaucratic, trapped in an archaic regulatory framework, loaded with unrealistic demands and completely unfunded. EPA needs to reconsider the entire proposal and initiate renewed efforts to work with the states to create a viable approach, especially to address non-point source pollution."
We agree, the goal should be to strengthen, rather than compromise, state programs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that Secretary Struh's letter be included in the record of this hearing. We have serious concerns with the proposed rules. I would like to outline our specific concerns now. Timing:
I understand that in testimony before this Subcommittee, Mr. Chuck Fox, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water, has indicated that the Agency intends to finalize the proposed rules by June 30, 2000. Mr. Chairman, we hope the Agency can be prevailed upon to take the time to get this most important rulemaking right. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) TMDL Committee looked at the issue for several years to produce their recommendations. EPA then considered the FACA Committee's report for over a year. In many key and significant areas, the Agency's proposed rules depart from the FACA recommendations. Yet, the public has had little time to evaluate these proposals, which are complex and changes dramatically the approach for implementing the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, a quick review of the 30,000 comments reveals areas of the proposed rules that need a lot more work. For example, the proposals do not begin to address how the revised TMDL program will integrate with decisions made under other environmental statutes such as Superfund or the Endangered Species Act. If the June 30 or even a late summer deadline is to be met, we do not believe that EPA can credibly address these and the other serious concerns raised by the thousands of comments. The Agency is under no obligation to propose rules, nor is it under any obligation to so by a certain date. This is a discretionary rulemaking, which we believe will take more time to do well if it is to achieve the Agency's stated goals of bringing more consistency, clarity, and effectiveness to the TMDL program. We hope the Subcommittee, by whatever means necessary, can prevail on the Agency to take the time to do the rulemaking right. A hastily prepared rule will invite litigation and retard water quality progress. Listing:
While we approve of EPA's effort to require that states develop through a transparent process the methodologies they will use to identify and list streams under Section 303(d), we think the Agency should be required to provide feedback to the states on their proposed methodologies. Instead, EPA proposes to reserve its option to object to a state's list based on EPA objections to the listing metholodoloy. A state's methodology should not then be used later as a basis for EPA disapproval of a state list if the Agency's concerns with the methodology were addressed. We also strongly believe that EPA has set a threshold for listing of waters under Section 303(d) that is too low. The quality and type of data that EPA would have the states rely on cannot ensure the credible and accurate identification of water impairments, let alone the development of sound TMDLs. For example, EPA encourages the use of "evaluated data," which can be something as simple as a drive-by windshield inspection or looking upstream and seeing two farms and a plant and concluding there must therefore be impairment. EPA also requires the listing of waters based on fish advisories. We consider these to be wholly inappropriate, inasmuch as fish advisories are developed for a totally different purpose and through varied state processes, which most often are not adequate to support regulatory actions. In their current form, we do not think fish advisories are an appropriate surrogate for state water quality standards when listing a stream for impairment. From here on out, the listing of a water under Section 303(d) will have major regulatory and economic consequences. It will be analagous to designating an area as "non-attainment" under the Clean Air Act. Growth is likely to be curtailed, if not halted, on or upstream of a listed water. If growth is not curtailed directly, it definitely will be affected indirectly when lenders hesitate to provide capital for business, commercial or other development on or upstream of a listed water. I'd like to point out that since a good many listed waters are in urban areas, redevelopment efforts will be most adversely affected. It may not be too much of a stretch to think of the impact of listings under the Superfund National Priorities List when thinking about the impact of Section 303(d) listings. Consequently, the Agency has the obligation to insist on the use of high quality, monitored data for listing and TMDL development. These data should be collected pursuant to a state's quality assurance, quality control protocols. Before incurring the direct and indirect adverse consequences of a listing, EPA and the states should be sure that waters proposed for listing are truly impaired. EPA should also not convert the 303(d) list into the comprehensive inventory of all water quality problems, as the Agency has proposed. The statute gives that role to the Section 305(b) reports. So-called "threatened" waters, waters impaired by pollution (as opposed to pollutants), and waters impaired by unknown causes can and should be managed under Section 303(e). Legal issues aside, other problems, such as impairment from air deposition or flow characteristics are not suitable for TMDL development. The science for air deposition is at such an early stage that there is simply no way to identify the specific impacts that particular air sources have on particular waterbodies, nor to attribute an impairment problem back to a specific emissions source. Furthermore, air deposition cannot jurisdictionally be reached by a state developing a TMDL. Where a valid impairment by a pollutant comes from sources that include air deposition, the impairment needs to be addressed through non-traditional methods. We are not far enough along to know what the appropriate and effective legal, technical, and policy elements of such a non-traditonal method would be. I understand that this is not a satisfying answer for the Subcommittee, but it underscores our concern about EPA's approach to this rulemaking, which prematurely seeks to craft a framework for this unique problem. Just as important, it is imperative that a workable procedure for delisting waters that are not truly impaired be incorporated into the proposed regulations. Within the next 15 years, states are required to develop upwards of 40,000 TMDLs for the 20,000 waters currently on the states' lists. It is common knowledge that many of those waters do not belong on the lists. They were placed there based on inadequate or no data, or old and poor quality data; or they simply were put on the Section 303(d) lists because they were on another Clean Water Act list, such as the Section 319 list. Setting aside for the moment the resource implications of these statistics, there should be a straightforward procedure for taking waters off the list and for addressing, in a prioritized fashion as determined by the states, only those waters that are clearly impaired. In light of the potentially crippling regulatory consequences for permittees and the impacts on growth that will flow from a listing, which I will discuss in a moment, 4 or 5 years is simply too long to wait to get a water off of a Section 303(d) list if it should not have been listed. The Florida statute provides for immediate delisting of waters when data comparable to the data required for listing a water demonstrates that the water quality standards are being met. Redefinition of TMDL: The proposed rules expand the elements of a TMDL. Under the proposals, a TMDL is more than a number defining the total amount of a pollutant that can go into a water and still have it meet water quality standards. It is even more than the "pollution budget" discussed by the Agency. Under the proposed regulations, a TMDL will now include an implementation plan that lays out the most basic on-the-ground, local decisions about who will do what, when, where, and how to implement the TMDL. As a consequence, the proposed changes will dramatically expand EPA's regulatory reach, since the EPA will approve the implementation plans. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations with the federal wildlife agencies on all these detailed decisions may also be triggered if an endangered species might possibly be affected. EPA"s "implementation plan" proposal cannot be supported bya ny language in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. A reading of the proposed rules and statements by Agency officials, including those of Mr. Fox in hearing testimony, indicates that the Agency believes it has laid out a TMDL framework that makes the program an effective watershed management tool, preferred over the Section 303(e) continuing planning process presently used by the states. Yet, in prescriptively redefining the elements of a TMDL, EPA has devised a program that is a more rigid, inflexible framework not at all like the state watershed initiatives that are proving so successful on the ground. Once approved, because of all the required federal agency approvals, a TMDL will be very difficult to modify even if a change is needed to improve water quality or correct misdiagnosis of a problem or the solutions used to solve a problem. We also worry that the framework sets up a confrontational, zero-sum approach to water quality that is antithetical to the current consensus-based watershed approaches. The Superfund statute has often been regarded as a failure because, among other reasons, it has imposed extraordinarily high transaction costs on all parties to the clean up decisions. Recent TMDL consent agreements and the TMDL framework established by the proposed rules have the potential to also impose extraordinarily high transaction costs. Interim Restrictions/Offsets: During his testimony before the House Water Resources Committee on February 10, Mr. Fox articulated a policy objective that we whole-heartedly support. We agree with Mr. Fox that an effective TMDL program should be structured to encourage and allow for the most cost effective pollutant reductions to be achieved. In most instances, these reductions will come from the sources whose contribution of loadings will be less expensive to reduce. We do not agree with Mr. Fox when he asserts that the proposed rules further that policy objective. Our concern becomes even more pronounced when we evaluate some of the decisions being made on the ground today or in unrelated policy statements by EPA. Under the proposed rules, new or significantly increased dischargers to impaired waters face offset requirements as a prerequisite to obtaining NPDES permit approvals. These provisions, we believe, are likely to be unworkable. On many stream segments, an offset may not be available. On others where it might be available, EPA has structured the offset in a way that becomes a powerful disincentive for the NPDES permittee to enter into an offset arrangement with another party. If the other party fails to perform, not only does the NPDES permittee have its permit reopened, the permittee becomes liable for civil and criminal penalties for violation of its permit. The likely result will be to drive new business or commercial and residential development to pristine areas, rather than encourage redevelopment along waters that are now listed as impaired. Does this mean that we believe that unfettered new and significant increases of discharges should occur on impaired waters? Of course not. Instead, we think that states are in the best position to make decisions about how to manage an impaired water for growth. EPA should not prescribe rules that prejudge the outcome of a TMDL. We are concerned that such prejudgments are taking place on the ground right now. In unrelated policy statements, EPA has advocated an outright ban on the use of mixing zones on impaired waters. Some EPA regional offices are pushing point source dischargers to zero for certain substances on an impaired water prior to TMDL development. These decisions are being imposed regardless of whether the action will make any significant contribution to meeting water quality standards and also regardless of the sometime exorbitant costs. The Clean Water Act's anti-backsliding provisions are not likely to allow for a relaxation of the interim measures when a TMDL is later completed.
Water Quality Standards:
Mr. Chairman, we have two primary concerns in this area. First, as you pointed out during your first TMDL hearing, in some cases, water quality standards have been set that, for very good reason, cannot always be met. The use attainability analysis that must be completed to change a state water quality standard for a particular water is exceedingly difficult to complete. Obtaining EPA approval is also extremely difficult. EPA makes no accommodation for this in its rulemaking. Nor does EPA's proposal accommodate the moderating provisions such as mixing zones and variances. Second, EPA aggravates the first problem by allowing for the listing of streams based on noncompliance with narrative standards for which there is no numeric translator. In other words, there is no objective measure for the state or a regulated entity to use for deciding when the standard is not being met. We believe that measures of impairment should be objective and quantifiable. Current regulations and past court decisions support that view. We fear that by encouraging the use of narrative standards as a basis for listing, the proposed rules will lead to more subjective, ad hoc decision-making under the Clean Water Act. Resources:
Mr. Chairman, Florida has over 700 listed streams for which it must complete TMDLs. With 20,000 waters currently listed nationwide, requiring 40,000 TMDLs, the states will have to develop one TMDL a week for the next 15 years to get the job done, all of which EPA must approve. The proposed rules will increase the workload by expanding the basis for listing waters under 303(d) and redefining the TMDL to include an implementation plan. The rulemaking is also likely to increase the need for individual permits by making general permits much more difficult to obtain on an impaired water. EPA already admits to a substantial backlog in NPDES permit reissuance, which they expect will increase over the next two years. Yet, Congress and the Subcommittee have no good idea about how much this will cost the federal government, state and local governments, or the private sector. EPA has decided that either their proposals do not require these analyses, an interpretation that has been disputed by the states and various stakeholders, or has performed an analysis of cost impacts to the states that cannot bear scrutiny. The proposed revisions are substantial enough to warrant a detailed analysis of the costs of the entire program and the revisions, an analysis that should be peer-reviewed and available for public comment prior to the rules being finalized. Under any scenario, increased federal funding will be needed for states and local governments. We believe, however, that it is possible to craft a rule that improves the TMDL program and does so cost-effectively. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our lawyers strongly believe that EPA lacks the statutory authority to do much of what they are proposing. Beyond the legal arguments, we hope the Subcommittee will consider whether EPA's proposal really makes good policy and whether it can work in practice. Part of working in practice is whether it will achieve real and genuine environmental benefits. The other part of "in practice" is will it achieve those benefits in a way that allows the continuing power of our economy to be harnessed and used to support the education, employment, and welfare of all Americans. We value the environmental progress that we've made and want to protect it. We think the way to go about that is a through a flexible, stakeholder-based, watershed approach, which is not achieved by these proposed rules. We believe the proposals fail to achieve the twin elements above. We thank you for your oversight efforts and hope the Subcommittee will take the following important steps. First, we hope the Subcommittee will undertake to prevail upon EPA to take the time to get the rule done well and right, and to not let political exigencies drive the timetable. Getting it done right means taking a more focused approach to the listing of waters under Section 303(d) and ensuring that high quality, monitored data is used for both listing and TMDL development. That begins with establishing objective, numeric water quality standards. It means ensuring that flexible, bottom-up watershed approaches continue to develop by not using the TMDL process to override the Section 303(e) continuous planning provisions of the Clean Water Act. It means assuring that due process is accorded stakeholders, that states retain full authority to equitably apportion responsibility for pollutant reductions, and that EPA does not prescriptively prejudge the outcome of a TMDL. Second, we would encourage the Subcommittee to consider stepping in to ensure adequate funding for monitoring and data collection by the states and to require that the data used for listing and TMDL development be high quality monitored data. A serious improvement in our knowledge in this area can go a long way to improve on the ground decision-making. This effort should not be left entirely in the hands of the Agency, but should be developed jointly with the states or, better yet, with states in the lead, after input by stakeholders.
Third, I believe it was Senator Wyden during the last hearing that raised the issue of state flexibility and one-stop shopping. We believe it would be helpful if the Subcommittee would clarify that states have the authority to evaluate and conclude that current watershed strategies, habitat conservation plans, and environmental decisions made under other environmental statutes are adequate to meet water quality standards and therefore do not have to be reopened under the TMDL program.
Fourth, we would encourage the Subcommittee to seriously review the resouce needs of state and local governments and the costs likely to be imposed as a result of the TMDL program on them and on the private sector. You will then be better able to evaluate the merits of the Agency's proposals and appropriately address funding needs.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.