To our audience I would say that our only difficulty has been persuading you that these are really mountains around here. Being from Idaho, they have a little different idea of what a mountain is.
We're certainly glad to have you, and we appreciate your willingness to hold this very, very important field hearing on the EPA's TMDL proposal. Congress, as you pointed out, has already held seven hearings on this matter, and I couldn't be more pleased that the State of Arkansas, which has so much at stake in this issue, could host this -- possibly the final hearing before the EPA finalizes its rule as early as next month.
I'm looking forward to hearing from each of our distinguished witnesses as they comment on your bill, Senate Bill 2417, the Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act. And I also would like to welcome those of you who took time out of very busy schedules here on a Monday night to learn more about the TMDL issue, to express yourself and share your concerns about the TMDL proposal. A special thanks to Andrea Whittaker and the Hot Springs Convention Center and their assistance and cooperation in facilitating the hearing. I'm here this evening because of the outcry from Arkansans in response to the EPA's proposal to expand and to control the Total Maximum Daily Load and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this proposal is a conscious effort to circumvent the Clean Water Act and legislate through regulation, directly contradicting Congress's intent when it debated legislation on Non-Point Source Pollution. I remember well participating in that debate when I served on the House Environment and Public Works Committee, and recall specifically that states would be -- reserved the authority to define and enforce the Non-Point Sources of pollution. We debated whether that should change, and we rejected the notion that that should be directed out of Washington with EPA out of Washington. As has always been the case, waters polluted by non-point source runoff are managed by State-run non-point source programs. Under the TMDL proposal, however, the EPA is required to take action if a State failed to meet its -- EPA's -- expectations. For example, farmers near Stuttgart may be asked to use alternative methods in their operations to prevent fertilizers and pesticides from reaching rivers. The City of Hot Springs could be required to control or treat runoff from its own streets. Chicken houses near my hometown of Bentonville or fish farms in Keo could be designated by the EPA as a point source polluter under this proposal.
Therefore those new point source polluters would need to get a permit to stay in business. Since January, three public meetings have been held in Arkansas to discuss the EPA's proposal, with more than 8,000 residents attending these various public meetings. It was clear from what was said at those meetings that farmers, foresters, private land owners and community leaders across Arkansas are deeply worried that requiring States to enforce stricter TMDL standards will stretch State, local and private resources to the breaking point. I have rarely if ever seen an issue promulgated by -- or a rule promulgated by EPA that has drawn this kind of public attention, this kind of public concern. It's clear to me that one of the core issues motivating Arkansans to attend these public meetings by the thousands is trust, that ultimately the people of Arkansas do not have confidence, they don't trust the EPA. The EPA has not earned that trust, in my opinion. Clearly, the agency has done a very poor job of communicating their proposals to those whom it will affect the most. Due to overwhelming public criticism, the EPA recently proposed additional changes to its August 1999 proposal -- first on April 5th, then on May 1st, and again last week, when it was reported that EPA was only exempting forestry operations.
Let me just say that releasing documents and announcements of substantive changes to a non-yet-final regulation constitutes unusual and, I think, not responsible behavior by a Federal agency. It also raises the question as to whether these changes that have been proposed are based upon genuine scientific evidence or whether they're firmly believe that the rules' long-term burden on States and land owners remains unchanged.
If the EPA does exempt forestry -- and that's a big "if," in my opinion -- and the commitment that they have made in writing is that they will repropose a rule later this fall for forestry to be implemented next year under a new Administration. Well, that -- it could well be the same kind of rule would be reproposed. All they have really done is to separate the two issues and to grant a little bit of time. But if, in fact, forestry's exempted, we're only halfway there -- halfway to keeping the EPA out of private land owners' back yards. We still have a lot of work to do. The rule takes aim at the backbone of Arkansas' economy -- agriculture.
In terms of States handling this matter, Arkansas alone has put forth a tremendous effort to implement statewide best-management practices and other water quality regulations. Mr. Chairman, our Poultry Litter Management Plan is a model for other State-level plans. Arkansas' forestry industry has reduced its impact on local watersheds by 85 percent through voluntary best-management practices.
Simply put, the States are getting the job done and must continue to have the freedom to handle this matter on the State level, not from a Washington-knows-best, top-down, one size fits all, unfunded Federal mandates approach. Mr. Chairman, that's why I was glad to co-sponsor your bill, S. 2417. It's responsible, it's timely, it is an important response to EPA's rule.
The funding it authorizes would provide States with greater resources to address their water quality priorities, and it's badly needed. A GAL report released in March of this year noted the financial difficulties that States face when attempting to implement Non- Point Source TMDL Programs. That's money the EPA isn't providing when handing States and localities costly mandates. Your bill also requires the National Academy of Sciences to study this issue. I think that's the proper approach. I think we need to have a good scientific basis for any proposed rule.
To help States with their Watershed Management Programs, your bill also establishes a Joint Watershed Management Pilot Project. Finally, your bill requires the EPA to review the NAS study and take into consideration its recommendations when finalizing a TMDL rule. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for designing this common-sense legislation which assists States in meeting their own water quality needs without excessive intrusion by the EPA. We're very proud in Arkansas to call our state "The Natural State." I think we have very responsible and hard-working property owners, whether it's in poultry, whether it's in beef production, whether it is in forestry -- in this part of the state, that timber production is huge -- or whether it's in row crop agriculture in Eastern Arkansas, they care about the land, they care about their state, and that's why I'm frustrated when the EPA acts as though it's not accountable to either us at times in Congress or the American people.
I think we're making great strides and great progress, and I appreciate your legislation that will enable us to continue to do that, and I'm glad to be co-sponsoring it. Thank you for coming to Arkansas and holding this hearing this evening.