I believe that the TMDL program is a critical component of cleaning up those streams. The EPA has called it "the technical backbone of watershed planning." It gives us the information to make long-range planning decisions, and my concern with your bill is that I'm afraid it might delay implementation of the TMDL program that has already seen too much delay.
I see your bill is part of a general opposition to the TMDL program, so I'd like tonight, with the short time I have, to step back and look at the big picture and the way that we view the TMDL program and see where we have common ground. From my perspective, there are at least two big misunderstandings and certainly within the general public on the TMDL program, and I've heard it expressed in the media and seen it at some of the earlier public meetings in Arkansas. One is that the TMDL program will affect all forestry and agriculture operations throughout the State, when in truth the program's only going to impact a small minority. It will only affect those operations that are discharging into a polluted stream -- a stream not meeting water quality standards and that are contributing to that pollution problem. So if a timber company, for example, is following Best Management Practices and is protecting that stream, the TMDL program will not affect that company.
Secondly, there's this concern that the program will require every timber company to get a permit. I've heard it said that for any type of activity, a permit will be required. In general, the TMDL program is not about permits. It's about information, as I see it. I understand that one portion of the proposed regulations, including the part of silviculture, now has been proposed to be withdrawn. That did have something to do with permits in isolated situations, but other than that, the TMDL program is about a process for gaining solid scientific knowledge about what is polluting a water body and a framework for allocating the responsibility to restore it.
Other than that one small portion that I now see being -- as I understand, it's going to be withdrawn, so I'm basically ignoring it. I mean the ground's shifting beneath our feet, but for the purpose of what I'm saying today, I'm ignoring the part that you were referring to happened last Friday, with Mr. Fox's letter. In general, the TMDL program doesn't provide any additional regulatory tools to ensure that once you have this information, people follow through. The State, which will be the primary responsible entity, will have to rely on the existing NPDES regulatory program and the voluntary BMPs.
The TMDL program will give us is a better understanding of which streams are polluted, why are they polluted, and a blueprint or a framework for all the stake holders in the watershed to come together and use that information, to use a combination of NPDES permits for those types of facilities for which there is regulatory power, and Best Management Practices for the Non-Point Sources, and come up with an implementation plan to restore the health of that watershed.
I know there's a lot of concern about the economic burden of the TMDL program. From my perspective, it's not the TMDL program that causes the burden, it's the pollution that causes the burden. I believe that if we buy into a TMDL program and we run it well and if folks cooperate, in the long run it can save the State money. It will give us a better understanding of what's happening to our watersheds so that we can use the limited resources wisely to address what are the true problems that we have in the watershed. Arkansans are very proud of their state. I also think they believe in taking responsibility for their actions. I think that's why most -- as I understand the statistics, in the timber industry, for example, most folks are following Best Management Practices. I think that we can move forward with a TMDL program that relies on a combination of the Best Management Practices with the current NPDES regulatory system. I think as we move forward in that and we get a better understanding of the watershed, I think people will take responsibility for their actions and we can distribute the burden fairly among all the contributors to the pollution problem.
That's what my vision, my hope for what the TMDL program could be.