Statement of Senator Wyden

At the last hearing I suggested that we step back from EPA's proposed rules and look at the big picture - what we can do now to solve water pollution problems within the limits of our scientific understanding and without imposing unfair burdens on landowners.

I suggested a 3-part approach, which I'd like to talk about more with our witnesses today. My suggestions are:

--a watershed management approach, allowing landowners to meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act using a single land management plan

-- increased funding for Best Management Practices to control pollution; and

-- a flexible approach to pollution budgets, so that as plans can be revised as more scientific data becomes available.

Today we are going to hear from Senators Lincoln and Hutchinson on what these rules might mean for the forestry community in Arkansas. We have certainly heard a lot of concerns from the forestry folks in Oregon. We've also heard some success stories of approaches that are working to reduce water pollution and protect fish habitat. I hope the Senators and I can work together to increase funding for these kinds of Best Management Practices and to make it easier for landowners to develop land management plans.

We are also going to hear from the GAO about the lack of water quality data which would be needed under EPA's proposed rules. Given this, I suggest we build on Oregon's "phased TMDL" approach, which allows the state to go to work to reduce water pollution while waiting for more data to become available.

In addition, I think we need a truly watershed management approach, in which EPA coordinates with other agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture to collect water quality data.

We should also make sure that EPA uses the expertise of other Federal agencies which have developed watershed models that allow pollution budgets to be planned in a way that takes account of local conditions.