This is an important hearing. The new Clean Water Act "TMDL" regulations cut right to the heart of the matter.
That is, how do we keep making progress towards the goal, established in 1972, of "restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters" so that, wherever possible, those waters are fishable and swimmable (section 101 of the Act).
As we all know, we've made a lot of progress. But we're not there yet, by a long shot. More than 25 years after the original Clean Water Act was enacted, almost 40 percent of our waters still do not meet water quality goals.
TMDLs can be an important part of the solution. But establishing a good TMDL program won't be easy. It's like it is with other pollution control laws. Imposing technology standards is the easy part, at least relatively speaking. Achieving ambient standards, in this case clean water, is the hard part.
I think of a TMDL as a pollution budget for a watershed. Kind of like the Clean Water Act version of a Clean Air Act state implementation plan.
Like with a SIP, establishing a pollution budget for a watershed is complex. What's the target? Who bears the burden? How do you monitor, and measure progress? How much authority rests with the states, rather than EPA?
I think that, with some prodding from the courts, EPA is basically on the right track with these proposed new rules.
But I have two general concerns.
The first is with the proposal to repeal the regulation that treats most silviculture practices as nonpoint sources rather than point sources. I've written Administrator Browner about this, and Assistant Administrator Fox has made a partial reply, which I ask be included in the hearing record.
I appreciate the progress that this exchange of letters represents. But I'm still not convinced that, as a matter of law or policy, EPA's silviculture proposal makes sense.
My second concern is with the level of prescription in the new rules. Governor Racicot and others will address this.
We need to make sure that, as the courts have insisted, EPA and states get on with the job of developing TMDLs.
But we need to do so in a way that enhances, rather than detracts from, the operation of good state programs.
I look forward to continuing to work with EPA, the states, and others to help strike the right balance.