The quality of life in California is particularly linked to the quality of our water. Water has been likened to gold in my state because it is in such short supply and yet is so critical to recreation, to tourism, to health, to fish and wildlife, to agriculture, and to industry.
For that reason, I have some very serious concerns about S. 2417. This bill would delay the implementation of a new EPA rule designed to clean up the approximately 40% of the nation's waters that still don't meet water quality standards.
As you know, in 1972, Congress wrote the Clean Water Act. In the law, we set out an important goal – restoring the nation's rivers, streams and lakes to make them once again fishable and swimmable.
While we have made great strides towards accomplishing this goal, we are still falling far short. In California, over 25,000 stream, river and coastal miles are not meeting water quality standards.
It was for this reason that I was pleased when the EPA proposed to strengthen the Clean Water Act "Total Maximum Daily Load" program. This rule would help us tackle the single most significant water pollution problem still facing us as a nation -- polluted runoff.
While the rule is not perfect – and in fact could be strengthened in a few key respects – it does represent an important step forward and a step that is long overdue.
It is important to note that EPA's authority to issue the rule – which has been a subject of dispute in this Committee – was recently affirmed by a federal district court in California. That court held that EPA had the authority to regulate the sources of polluted runoff under this program.
S. 2417, however, would stop the EPA from moving forward with this rule. The bill is based on the premise that we need more time to study the cause of the nation's remaining water quality problems.
But we know that our failure to control polluted runoff is the basic cause of our failure to clean up our waters.
Further, EPA's rule gives states 15 years to develop the water pollution limits and plans called for in the Clean Water Act. So even if a state needs more specific information, they have been given an extremely long period of time to obtain it.
While I understand that EPA's proposal has been viewed as controversial, it is important to remember that this program was included in the original 1972 law. Although EPA made several half-hearted efforts to implement it, the agency's new rule reflects a genuine attempt to breathe life into the program.
For the Californians who have waited 28 years to see EPA implement this program, I think the time has come to move forward.
I would also like to note that the State of California has supported EPA's rule. In fact, the State filed a friend of the court brief on the side of EPA in federal litigation over this program. For that reason, I am disappointed that the only witness from my state here today is generally opposed to the rule and supportive of S. 2417.
So, while I welcome that witness, the position of State of California is in support of the rule. My State takes the view that water is critical to all of us, and that all of us need to lend a hand in solving our remaining water quality problems if we are to realize the Clean Water Act's goals.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses that are here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.