In order that you understand our concerns, I need to give you a little background. When Wyoming first developed its Non Point Source Plan in the late 80's, we encountered a lot of concern and opposition from the agricultural community, particularly grazing agriculture. After several false starts, the method we selected to address their concerns was to organize a stakeholder group to address the issues. By incorporating the concerns of the group and other stakeholders, we created the document, resolved disagreements, and found common ground. In fact, this was such a success the stakeholders became advocates for water quality and non-point source pollution. Through the Section 319 funding you provided, we implemented very successful demonstration projects and created enthusiasm about addressing non-point source pollution.
After about 10 years of successful implementation of nonpoint 319 projects, we were one of the states in which EPA was sued over lack of progress on Total Maximum Daily Loads. This litigation once again polarized our stakeholders. After going through a period of anger and blame, we once again gathered all the stakeholders, including some of the litigants, and collaboratively addressed the issue. Through this collaborative process, we were able to craft a plan that addresses the issues surrounding TMDLs and beyond that, implemented a cooperative, local, watershed-based, approach to address these issues. To implement this plan, the state dedicated a significant amount of money and personnel. A number of entities, particularly the state's Conservation Districts dedicated funds and resources to addressing the water quality problems. This plan anticipates an aggressive five year monitoring program aimed at gathering credible scientific data on all potentially impaired streams. We will then develop, in collaboration with the stakeholders, watershed management plans to address all problems. We are very proud of our progress and believe it could be a model for others. However, we would never suggest that it be dictated to others. One of the successes is that it is tailored to Wyoming and its stakeholders.
Enter the Clean Water Action Plan. The publication of the Clean Water Action Plan in the spring of 1998 reignited many of the fears and concerns we were able to work through in developing our TMDL program. Rather than suggest a process for identifying area specific issues and allowing these areas to develop a solution, it was a top down edict that mandated actions whether they were appropriate or not. It was not developed with stakeholder input. Rather, it was developed in a very short period within the beltway. As such it is not sensitive to stakeholder concerns and does not provide the flexibility for states to develop plans tailored to their specific situation.
The first deliverable was the Unified Watershed Assessment. While we have been preparing the Clean Water Act section 305(a) assessments for many years and also prepare the Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired stream lists, we were now directed to develop a new plan called a Unified Watershed Assessment. In Wyoming it took two years of stakeholder input to develop our process for listing impaired streams. As part of that process, we agreed to quit listing streams on emotion and hearsay and to utilize credible scientific data. We then dedicated a significant amount of money and committed to a 5-year program to gather the credible data. This new action plan of EPA/NRCS now asked us to duplicate this 7-year effort in as many months. We refused.
We didn't refuse to develop data comparable to that in the unified watershed assessment. As we pointed out repeatedly, we had already committed to doing that. We refused to duplicate our effort that was worked out with our stakeholders. Had we agreed to the EPA/NRCS demands for an assessment based on eight digit Hydrologic units, in addition to betraying the agreements we made with our stakeholders, the product would be of questionable value. We don't have good data and in Wyoming 8 digit units can extend from alpine to high desert ecosystems.
The second issue is the Clean Water Action Plan, the Confined Animal Feeding Operation/Animal Feeding Operation, or CAFO/AFO strategy. In Wyoming, we have been addressing feeding operations as significant sources of pollution, for many years. We have historically required all those over one thousand animal units or that pose a threat to surface water to be permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Additionally, we have required construction permits from any facility we determined to pose a threat to groundwater. We have worked cooperatively with the Department of Agriculture and the Conservation Districts to reach out and educate and assist producers to properly manage feeding operations. More recently, in an effort to reach more producers and take advantage of the excellent relationship between operators and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRCS whereby, if they help an operator develop a waste handling system consistent with our requirements, that system will be recognized as having a state construction permit.
For some reason, the Clean Water Action Plan has focused on CAFO/AFO's. However, rather than assessing current efforts and the need for more regulations, we are once again emphasizing command, control, and enforcement. I have listened to EPA and NRCS describing the strategy to producers. It is confusing because there is no clear delineation of where a permit is required and producers are left without answers. In both cases, I had to step in and assure producers that in Wyoming we believe that we have all operations over 1000 units permitted, that we have permitted all those we know of that pose a risk to surface water, and that we intend to work with producers in the watershed plans to address remaining problems, if they exist. However, I fear that the federal effort may destroy our good work once again. Believe me, our collective work through the TMDL program on a watershed basis, work that is locally based and incentive driven, will address animal feeding operations where we have real problems.
I also am concerned about the role the NRCS has been assigned. Regulators are not the most popular people on farms. On the other hand, the NRCS has historically been seen as a partner to the producer. Unfortunately, as more regulatory responsibilities have been assigned to NRCS, that acceptance is eroding. As I noted, we have used NRCS as an effective means of delivering water quality information and practices to the producer. I fear that the duties outlined in the Clean Water Action Plan may jeopardize that ability.
In conclusion, I believe the idea of a holistic approach to clean water is imperative. Likewise, better coordination between the federal agencies is sorely needed. I believe the results desired are already identified in the Clean Water Act. If the Clean Water Action Plan only outlined those two needs and emphasized the desired results in the Act, it would be a valuable document. Unfortunately, it is a command and control document that goes far beyond the tenants of the Clean Water Act. It was written without stakeholder input in language that is not sensitive to stakeholder concerns.
My suggested solutions are these:
1. The President should withdraw the Clean Water Action Plan and the EPA and NRCS should withdraw the Unified Watershed Assessment and CAFO/AFO strategy.
2. Each state should be given the opportunity to provide functionally equivalent programs that meet the overall objectives for addressing non-point sources of pollution in a holistic and collaborative manner.
3. New regulatory programs should not be developed or initiated until a state by state assessment has been made to verify the need for new regulations. We might just find there isn't a national need, rather selected states or areas may need support and assistance to strengthen their programs.
The Clean Water Action Plan is another example of focusing on the process rather than the results. Allow us to focus on the results and we can achieve more improvement to water quality with buy-in rather than anger and fear.