Mr. Chairman, none of us will disagree with the importance of improving our nation's water resources. In Wyoming, the tourism industry depends upon a pristine environment. We have streams that boast world-class trout fishing, so it is imperative that we protect our water resources. Let me be very clear on this, I support efforts to improve water quality, but I have substantial concerns with the Administration's approach to this problem. As many of you know, I strongly oppose the use of Executive Orders to launch efforts as broad and over-reaching as the Clean Water Action Plan -- it is essentially 111 "key actions" affecting federal agencies and state and local governments. Since the Clean Water Act leaves nonpoint sources largely unregulated, I believe this Committee needs to ensure that the Action Plan does not become a mechanism for agencies to overstep their congressional authority.
In addition, I question if the Clean Water Action Plan truly targets the problem it is intended to solve -- reducing nonpoint source pollution. The justification for the Plan is based upon the EPA's own National Water Quality Inventory, which is a summary of State's 305(b) reports. Scientific assessments by the U.S. Geological Survey have indicated that the National Water Quality Inventory is so severely flawed and scientifically invalid that it could not be used to summarize water quality conditions. The problem with the Inventory is that states use different measures to determine water impairment, but yet, data is compiled into one report. A report that is somehow supposed to summarize the status of our nation's waters. To me, this comparison makes little sense.
Earlier this year the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report that criticized the EPA's assessment of nonpoint source pollution problems. Specifically, the GAO highlighted concerns relating to: 1) how the Agency identifies waters polluted by nonpoint sources, 2) the need for more data to develop cost estimates, 3) and the extent to which the Federal government contributes to water pollution. Further, the GAO cautioned that the methodology used in determining both water impairment levels and impacts from nonpoint sources was underfunded and consequently, results were possibly inaccurate.
These findings greatly trouble me. I understand the challenges Federal entities face in allocating limited financial resources. However, it seems to me that if the goal is to improve water quality, the Clean Water Action Plan should have first accurately identified the causes of the problem. Without using sound, credible science to assess the health of our waters, how can we be sure that this initiative, and the tax payer's dollars to support it, will reduce pollution? We already have programs in place, such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), that successfully reduce pollution problems and in my view, the Administration's proposed budget cut does little to promote clean water. What is the harm in wanting to know the scientific basis for the Action Plan and more importantly, why is this request deemed as somehow being opposed to cleaning up our environment? After collecting scientific data, if nonpoint sources are found to be a significant obstacle to clean water, then I would urge Congress and the Administration to make funding for voluntary and incentive-based programs, a priority, as was done with point sources, to assist landowners with pollution reduction efforts.
My interest in today's hearing will also encompass financial burdens being placed on states, local communities and individual land owners. This issue is not unique to Wyoming and I am concerned that states are now spending their time and resources in attempting to comply with the "key actions" called for in the Plan, instead of on protecting water resources. Again, my belief is that these types of problems are best dealt with at a local or state level, rather than federally mandated. Certainly, we all have a responsibility to improve water quality, the question is how to approach the problem without placing an unfunded mandate on our states and landowners.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.