Our State Motto, "The Natural State," reflects our dedication to preserving the unique natural landscape that is Arkansas. We have towering mountains, rolling foothills, an expansive delta, countless pristine rivers and lakes, and a multitude of timber varieties across our state. From expansive evergreen forests in the South, to the nation's largest bottomland hardwood forest in the East, as well as one of this nation's largest remaining hardwood forests across the Northern one-half of the state, Arkansas has one of the most diverse forest systems in the United States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or run through these timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime recreation, and countless other uses.
In Arkansas, we enjoy a healthy and sustainable private forestry industry. Private forestry is an important part of the economy and infrastructure of Arkansas and this nation. My home state of Arkansas has a total land area of 33.3 million acres. Over 50% of this land area, 18.4 million acres, is forested. Today, 98% of the forest land is classified as timberland that can produce a harvestable crop of timber, and some type of harvesting activity is conducted on 530,000 acres of private timberland annually in Arkansas. This represents approximately 3% of the state's private timberland.
Key to our private forestry industry is preserving our forests, lands, and streams to ensure that forestry can continue in Arkansas. We have instituted Best Management Practices (BMP) and Sustainable Forestry Initiatives (SFI) to ensure that proper techniques are used to protect our water quality. These plans are voluntarily adhered to by over 85% of our private timberland owners. In fact, Arkansas has been recognized nationally for having some of the most successful BMP plans in the nation. Whether it's in our forestry industry or our poultry and pork industries, all of our agriculture and livestock industries are already doing what's right to ensure that Arkansas' rivers, lakes, and streams remain clean and safe for many generations to come.
On August 23, 1999, the EPA issued new regulations to extend the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) point-source regulations over some traditional non-point sources. This new regulation seeks to require normal forestry, animal feeding, and aquatic animal operations to obtain a point-source permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES).
While the EPA maintains, and we all agree, that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate non-point sources of water pollution, this regulation seeks to change the definitions of point and non-point sources with regards to a few traditional non-point sources. Notably for forestry activities, the traditional definition of non-point source associated with the actions of harvesting, thinning, reforestation, and the like have been changed to that of a point source. So while this regulation does not seek to regulate non-point sources, it does seek to redefine some non-point sources as point sources.
Mr. Chairman, in passing the Clean Water Act amendments of 1977 and 1987, Congress sought statutory clarification for the traditional non-point sources of agriculture storm water and agriculture irrigation return flows.
None of us here seek to inhibit the goal of cleaning up and maintaining this nation's clean water supply. But merely requiring a point source permit for traditional non-point sources of water pollution is not the best answer to the problem of cleaning up our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. In other words, these new regulations would require permits on the very things we want to promote in forestry - responsible harvesting and thinning operations, best management practices, and reforestation.
We in Congress have already realized the potential impact of these new regulations. In November, 1999, we passed legislation that was signed into law to extend the required comment period on the new TMDL regulations until January 20, 2000. We did this knowing of the potential massive impact of this new extension of TMDL regulations.
As stated in the announcement of the new rule, this extension of the TMDL regulations could have an economic effect of over $100 million on the silvicultural industry. While the EPA does not expect the rules to affect small businesses, I would assert that the majority of Arkansas' and the nation's private timber industry is considered to be small business. Many of Arkansas' private timberland owners consider themselves "tree farmers." In addition, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality of finials have said they do not have the manpower or the resources to comply with the proposed rule.
In addition to the extended comment period, now closed, we have held three public meetings in Arkansas where thousands of concerned foresters and farmers have voiced their opinions on how the new Total Maximum Daily Load regulations could affect them. In El Dorado over 1,500 farmers and foresters came out to learn about potential impacts of this regulation and over 3,000 came out in Texarkana, and over 2,000 in Fayetteville.
Responding to the concerns raised by my constituents, on February 7, 2000, I introduced S. 2041 to statutorily classify silviculture sources of water pollution as non-point sources. This legislation will allow states like Arkansas to continue to use their successful voluntary Best Management Practices, Sustainable Forestry Initiatives, and current state regulations and law programs to reduce pollution from forestry-related activities while not adding unnecessary regulations. This legislation is not intended to undermine the EPA's ability to ensure that our nation maintains a clean water supply; in fact, it accomplishes quite the opposite. It is an effort to enforce the fact that many forestry related activities are already adequately policed at the state level to ensure that water supplies do not become impaired. Many silviculture activities that benefit the environment, such as conducting responsible harvesting and thinning, voluntarily following best management practices, and promoting reforestation will actually be discouraged by the proposed regulation.
My bill, very simply, follows the lead from the 1977 and 1987 Clean Water Act amendments and statutorily exempts forestry non-point sources of water pollution from being covered by the TMDL point source permitting regulations. My bill will statutorily designate the forestry activities of site preparation, reforestation, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, road construction and maintenance, and nursery operations as non-point sources.
We must ensure that the original Congressional intent remains with regard to the authority of the EPA over point and non-point sources of water pollution. Congress has always intended rainwater runoff from agriculture, forestry, and small animal feeding operations to be considered as non-point sources of water pollution. It was not in 1972 when the Clean Water Act was passed, nor is it currently, congressional intent or law for the EPA to regulate non-point sources of water pollution. However, this regulation seeks to change that. This regulation takes certain traditional non-point sources and moves them into the point source category.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we can find ways to ensure that Congress, the EPA, the States, and our private property owners can continue to improve clean water throughout the nation. We should be promoting what works - voluntary best management practices, responsible care of our land, and each State's current ability to enforce non-point source pollution controls through the appropriate measures.
Mr. Chairman, merely extending a point source permitting program over non-point source activities will only cause more problems with implementation and enforcement rather than getting at the problems of maintaining clean water.
Mr. Chairman, my bill will merely keep the EPA from extending point source regulations over normal forestry non-point activities.
I am committed to working with this Committee, the Administration, and the Senate to find the right approach to assisting the states in their efforts to address diverse sources of pollution. I want to do so in a way that will enhance the work done in the states to date, and not simply overburden them with a federal regulatory approach that does nothing to help achieve the objectives that we all have -- clean water.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.