I appear before you this afternoon on behalf of the Commission, which supports the intent of the TMDL process which is before you today. As interstate agencies like ours are set up to manage on a watershed basis, we believe the EPA should encourage states to use interstate commissions to maintain consistency across the state lines in the development of TMDLs.
I also speak on behalf of other interstate commissions and the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP), and the role they have played or can play in forwarding the goal of clean water under the Clears Water Act, specifically through the TMDL process.
1. I see the following as key interstate roles on shared waterbodies:
-- Monitoring and assessing water quality
-- Establishing uniform or consistent uses and criteria to protect them
-- Establishing wastewater control requirements
-- Reviewing and approving projects
-- Developing the 305(b) water quality assessment reports
2. In accomplishing these roles, it should be noted Mat the interstate commissions:
-- Are well established and have developed strong working relationships and trust among federal, state, and local entities. Our Commission was established in 1947 and has a long established relationship, not only with the state but EPA as well. We work with the states in protecting all surface and ground water and have direct responsibility for coordination on interstate basins In our area of jurisdiction.
-- Provide consistency and equity among two or more states, and in some basins between EPA Regions
-- Can establish a process to define appropriate goals and program elements of TMDL development programs
-- Develop and adopt water quality standards Worked (and continues to work) with the states and dischargers in implementing the TMDL program
3. The role of EPA on interstate waters.
-- Section 130.36 of the proposed rule lists circumstances in which EPA may establish TMDLs for interstate waters
On waters having interstate basin commissions, EPA should encourage the states to work through the interstate commissions in the establishment of TMDLs because:
-- The commissions can help secure agreement on management approaches and maintain consistency across state lines
-- We are the member states and federal government
-- We have a working relationship, trust and operational plans
Flexibility and the State Role In Implementing the Program Must be Strengthened
In order for the TMDL program to be effective, flexibility and consistency with existing statutory authority is critical and must be provided in the final TMDL regulations. The final rulemaking needs to adequately reflect the partnership established with the states under the 1972 Clean Water Act. It is important to note that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (section 1O1(b) gave states "the primary responsibility and rights . . . to prevent, eliminate, and reduce pollution ") As proposed, the regulations do not reflect this leadership role for states outlined by Congress. States and interstate organizations must be afforded greater flexibility and resources to support their important role in implementing this critical program.
If the TMDL program, in fact, utilizes a watershed approach to reduce pollution, then state and interstate organizations need to have primary role in implementing this program. Since those entities are better suited to Hat role than the federal government, it is critical that sufficient flexibility be granted to states and interstate organizations, in order to account for and address local site-specific factors which deviate from the national perspective.
Content Funding Is Inadequate to Carry Out the Program
NEIWPCC is very concerned about the lack of sufficient funding to support the far-reaching efforts required in the proposed rule. Resources are already strained at the state, interstate and local levels by the onset of new water quality regulations, with the most recent being the NPDES Phase 2 stormwater program.
NEIWPCC supports the conclusions reached by other state organizations that funding for Section 106 and 319 program assistance must triple to carry out the proposed TMDL effort. If this program is to be a national priority, then adequate funding must be provided at the federal level for its implementation. There also needs to be a strong recognition of the important role that interstate river basin organizations will assume In this program and EPA should direct adequate funding to such organizations so they may carry out this role.
Mr. Chairman and members - here is my bottom line message. Don't forget the benefits of interstate basin commissions. Most major rivers have them. We have the support of our member states because we make their jobs easier. In fact, it was one of my member states who told me about this hearing and recommended I testify. We support the TMDL process, it promotes a watershed approach. The concerns are related to how it should be administered. Interstate Basin Commissions have the organizational structure and technical capabilities to be a big help in process. Don't forget us.