I am here today concerning S. 2417, the Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000. I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you on behalf of the State of Louisiana.
The list of comprehensive findings outlined in S. 2417 addresses many of the same issues and concerns raised by the State of Louisiana long before the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drafted the proposed new Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations and the companion regulation pertaining to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
In particular, Louisiana wholeheartedly agrees with the statement in the bill that "any Federal regulatory or nonregulatory water quality management program must be based on sound science, must be effectively and efficiently implemented, and must have the strong support of affected stakeholders, including State and local governments, landowners, businesses, environmental organizations, and the general public".
The concept of focusing public and private resources first on those waters where reliable monitoring data has demonstrated actual impairment by pollutants as opposed to listing waterbodies as impaired based on anecdotal information unsupported by reliable monitoring or other analytical data should be fundamental to an efficient water quality management program. Unfortunately, states have often not been allowed to do so due to requirements and "guidance" provided by EPA.
Page 2
Oral Testimony
May 18, 2000
I am pleased to see that this bill considers adequate funding for these water quality issues to be a high priority and as such proposes to increase funding to both Sections 106 and 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act while at the same time providing for a reasonable match requirement for the Sec. 319 program. The current 40% match requirement has been a significant impediment to getting nonpoint source control projects on the ground. Similar language should be added to the bill concerning Sec. 106 as EPA is now proposing increases in the match for this program as well. These proposed amendments recognize not only the need for additional funds but also the need to be able to use those funds in support of both traditional and new and innovative corrective mechanisms envisioned for nonpoint sources.
S. 2417 appropriately focuses on key funding gaps that impede the states in the successful execution of water quality management programs. Specifically, this proposed bill targets additional funding for the collection of reliable monitoring data. I am extremely pleased with the focus of attention on the need for comprehensive, reliable monitoring data that accurately represents true water quality conditions. How else can a reliable and defensible assessment of the quality of our waters be prepared?
S. 2417 proposes a study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences to address key elements of a credible and successful water quality management program. In particular, the study proposes to investigate scientific methodologies used to identify impaired waters and develop and implement TMDLs, and how much those methodologies cost. The study will investigate total costs associated with a water quality management program that would be responsible for not only appropriately identifying impaired waterbodies but also implementing whatever traditional and non-traditional mechanisms are available to support the management program's success.
Page 3
Oral Testimony
May 18, 2000
Such a study is long overdue. States and others have commented to EPA that they believe the original costs estimates concerning the implementation of the proposed rules were grossly underestimated and that credible tools and methodologies were lacking in key areas.
I agree that EPA should be required to review and consider the completed National Academy of Sciences Study before finalizing their proposed changes and additions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal Antidegradation Policy (published August 23, 1999) and the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning Total Maximum Daily Loads (published August 23, 1999).
While many argue that the development of TMDLs has been delayed far too long, and that argument is a key part of many of the 34 lawsuits that I am aware of concerning the States and EPA's failure to timely develop TMDLs, there is no national emergency that would justify rushing to implement quick solutions that may not result in successful outcomes for these complicated issues. These "quick fixes" may actually be responsible for the expenditure of great sums of money without an attendant improvement in water quality. This bill would allow additional time to investigate some of the major issues that states are facing in trying to promote a credible program to improve impaired waters. It is sometimes very difficult to fairly and accurately determine what valid and documentable connections exist between individual sources and any impacts that are occurring in the waters. As this bill has so succinctly declared, there is a very real need to obtain and sustain scientific, financial, and public support necessary to develop sound TMDLs. This is particularly true in light of the difficult and
Page 4
Oral Testimony
May 18,2000
expensive implementation decisions that will undoubtedly have to be made as a result of the TMDLs developed.
S. 2417 provides for the needed additional time for the nation's water quality management authorities - and EPA, to make a deliberate and critical review of the many diverse uses of water resources and to determine what are the best tools and methods to be used to address those waters that need improvement.
Louisiana remains committed to developing high quality TMDLs that can actually help to improve water quality and restore impaired waterbodies so that they may fully support their designated uses. In fact, Louisiana was one of the first states to make a substantial commitment towards this end by successfully implementing a 15% fee increase that provides for funding ($1.7 million per year) and 36 additional employees to work in the TMDL program.
However, I believe that all states should be afforded the opportunity to utilize comparable timeframes and methodologies in order to develop and implement scientifically credible and practical TMDLs that will successfully address the pollutants of concern. The current situation where the courts are ordering drastically compressed time frames in which the TMDLs must be developed and implemented (5 to 7 years) - while EPA is proposing up to 18 years in states not involved in the lawsuits, is both unfair and impractical if not impossible to accomplish. The only way to correct this gross injustice is for Congress to provide for this standard schedule by surgically amending the Clean Water Act to accomplish this end.
Page 5
Oral Testimony
May 18, 2000
In addition, the new TMDL regulations should ultimately provide all states with the flexibility to establish their own priorities and associated schedules in developing successful TMDLs that are in concert with the water quality needs of each state while embracing national perspectives and goals.
While I am aware that EPA has indicated to the Congress, states and others that it intends to modify the proposed regulations in partial response to concerns raised, it is my opinion that such modifications do not go far enough and that the regulations should be delayed until the conditions set forth in S. 2417 have been met and additional opportunity for review by the Congress and the states has been provided.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I believe that you are aware that the states and their citizens support the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's goal to restore and maintain the nation's water quality. The State of Louisiana has always been an active and successful advocate for the protection of water resources. It is important to ensure that all of our management resources are utilized productively and that we focus our first efforts on those waters that are actually impaired and need priority attention. This bill proposes the needed additional time to identify credible tools and methodologies while providing essential additional funding with which to implement those tools.
In closing, I would like to offer my support to the Committee and EPA in further developing effective regulations that will assist the states in improving and maintaining water quality in this country.
J. Dale Givens
Secretary