Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Kit Hart and I am Senior Wildlife Biologist for the Timber Company, which represents the timberland assets of Georgia-Pacific Corporation. I appreciate the opportunity to present my testimony today on behalf of the company and the forestry community on the Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act of 2000 (Senate Bill 2417) and on EPA's August 23 proposed regulations to revise the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program under Section 202(d) and modifications to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Since most of you are already aware of EPA's August 23 proposed regulations, and the unnecessary regulatory burdens which they will impose on 8 million non-industrial private landowners, as well as industry and state agencies, I will not take much time to discuss the proposal. It is worth reiterating, however, that the proposed regulations amount to a reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA has proposed to eliminate silvicultural activities from categorization as nonpoint sources. Instead EPA has proposed to redefine them as point sources. The proposed rule would give EPA and NPDES-authorized States the authority to designate silvicultural activities as point sources requiring NPPES permits. We believe forestry activities are "nonpoint" sources and there is no legal or statutory authority for EPA to revise the regulations by eliminating the nationwide recognition of forestry as a nonpoint source activity merely to address some unidentified last resort situations on an individual basis. Every state with significant forest management activities has developed forestry best management practices or rules and submitted them to the Agency as part of the Section 319 nonpoint source program. EPA's own data reveals these programs are working, silvicultural inputs are declining and that forestry is a relatively minor cause of water quality impairment across the country. The proposed rules will unnecessarily interrupt mutually important progress towards reaching the goals of the CWA and fishable swimmable waters
A Better Way
It is plainly evident from the reaction by the majority of state agencies, state water quality agencies, governors and others that the proposed rules were formulated without the advice and input from those stakeholder groups who will be ultimately responsible for implementing the regulations. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, there is a better way. It requires additional funding of the Section 319 program, greater cooperation among multiple state agencies engaged is nonpoint activities, more partnerships with private landowners and strakeholders and better dialogue between EPA Regional Offices and the states to make improvements to water qualify happen. This is exactly what S. 2417 does. The bill recognizes the state nonpoint source programs are underfunded and increases funding. Specifically, the Bill increases funding of section 106 of the CWA to allow collection of reliable monitoring data, improve state lists, and focus resources where real problems exist so that people can roll up their sleeves and go to work. Even more importantly, Mr. Chairman, S. 2417 increases funding under section 319 and earmarks a portion of these dollars for state grants to private landowners to implement projects that will improve water quality. In addition the bill directs EPA to have the National Academy of Sciences prepare a report on TMDL development, costs of implementation and exploration of alternatives to protect water quality, another important need. Finally, the bill establishes a pilot program for EPA and States to work together to review and compare state programs that implement innovative and cooperative strategies to improve water quality. This is important because there are many good examples of cooperative partnerships that are efficiently addressing and improving water quality that can serve has models for others.
Mr.Chairman, we support S. 2417. This concludes my remarks and I would welcome any questions you or members of the committee may have.