Senator Smith, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I introduced S. 2417 last month in response to both concerns with the current existing TMDL program and the proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate rules regarding the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs under the Clean Water Act.
Since the draft rule was published last August, this is the eighth congressional hearing that has been conducted on the TMDL issue. It is an exceedingly large and complex rule, and its impacts, if implemented, are extremely far reaching. This regulation would affect every region of the country, it would affect both rural and urban areas, public and private entities, and it would affect public and private lands. Furthermore, there are major economic consequences associated with this regulation.
One would think that a rulemaking effort of this magnitude, with these types of serious and widespread impacts, would be, for example, based on science. As a matter of fact, we have learned through the series of hearings conducted by both the Environment and Public Works Committee and this Subcommittee, that what EPA is asking States to do is not based on science. There is little scientific basis that justifies the elements contained in the proposed rule and the General Accounting Office has testified before this Subcommittee that the vast majority of States do not currently possess the reliable data necessary to even develop TMDLs.
With significant concern regarding the cost of implementing the proposed rules, it would be a logical step for EPA to have completed a comprehensive economic analysis. Although EPA asserts that the cost of implementing the rules would be minimal because the rulemaking is a clarification of existing regulations, the costs of the proposed rule have never been adequately examine. This seems like a particularly important undertaking in view of the overwhelming concerns with respect to costs, and some of the exorbitant estimates that have been provided by organizations outside the federal government.
It also seems as though EPA might have engaged the organizations that will be left to implement these regulations before rushing to finalize them. After having been the EPA's partners in implementing the Clean Water Act for nearly the last 30 years, EPA did not engage the States in a collaborative manner in developing these regulations.
Although EPA failed to accomplish these very important and common sense tasks, they cannot be left undone. S. 2417, the Crapo-Smith bill addresses many of the inadequacies of the proposed rules.
S. 2417 would: Provide nearly a half a billion dollar increase in funding for sections 106 and 319 activities under the Clean Water Act, such as acquiring reliable data through site-specific monitoring and implementing watershed management strategies aimed at improving water quality. Direct the EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to obtain better science with respect to the TMDL program and in-depth analyses of the true cost of implementing the TMDL program. Create a watershed management pilot program in order to evaluate State programs that have been successful in improving water quality through incentives and innovative technologies. Finally, the bill would provide an 18-month time out while the National Academy of Sciences is conducting its study before EPA could finalize the rules.
I think it's important to note that since the rules were published, EPA has proposed some modifications to the regulations in response to the public comments received and congressional oversight. At this point, I lack the details to draw any conclusions about these modifications, and am, frankly, skeptical about whether the modifications address the concerns that have been raised. But I look forward to hearing more of the details about EPA's proposed changes and the thoughts of our witnesses on those proposed changes.