Since EPA released the proposed rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads last August:
-- 30,000 comments have been filed;
-- town hall meetings across the U.S. have drawn thousands of people concerned about the rule;
-- seven Congressional hearings have taken place (3 in this committee);
-- bipartisan legislation on this issue has been introduced in both legislative bodies;
-- the Environmental Protection Agency has admitted failure in drafting a clear rule; and
-- GAO released a report outlining a substantial lack of water quality data due to insufficient economic and personnel resources; and
And yet, in spite of all of this, EPA apparently remains committed to finalizing this rule on June 30th.
Organizations representing a broad range of perspectives, including the environmental community have asked for a "time out."
Senator Crapo and I not only agree that a time out is needed but also that many other concerns need to be addressed. We introduced this legislation along with 22 other co-sponsors.
S. 2417 addresses three major issues that have been clearly outlined in Congressional hearings before this committee.
First, the States are in great need of increased funding so they can implement nonpoint source programs, conduct monitoring to develop scientifically-based water quality programs, issue permits, and list waters under existing requirements.
Second, there are a lot of unanswered questions about the costs and scientific basis underlying the implementation of TMDLS. We also need a better understanding of alternative programs or mechanisms that exist at the State level that may be more effective to accomplish the same goals of the TMDL program. These questions need to be answered before we mandate more requirements on the states and private sector. This legislation asks the National Academy of Science (NAS) to answer these questions.
Third, we need to take a time out. Before we significantly expand the existing TMDL regulatory program we should have answers to questions like:
-- Do States have the data they need to implement the proposed rule?
-- What will the rule cost?
-- Is this rule the best, most effective way of targeting resources to meet our state water quality goals.
To proceed without these answers is irresponsible.
As the Chairman of the authorizing committee for the Clean Water Act I will do everything I can to move this legislation through the committee quickly in hopes of having it signed into law. Over 200 organizations have written to me in support of this legislation, ranging from state and national agriculture and forestry associations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Conservation Districts to name just a few. I received a letter earlier this week from the Governors of Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, Nevada and Arizona supporting this legislation.
In closing, I'd like to emphasize one point. I know there are critics of our bill who will claim that we aren't serious about cleaning up our nation's rivers, streams and lakes. They are wrong. I strongly support the goals of the Clean Water Act and, as Chairman of this committee, I am committed to seeking the best programs to achieve fishable and swimmable waters. I don't believe, however, that EPA's proposed rule is the answer.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this very important issue. Thank you.