Much of this area has historical significance, such as the Connecticut River, were "white-water men" risked their lives to convey lumber logs from the northern region to the manufacturing centers. The 2,155-mile long Appalachian trail, which stretches along the Appalachian Mountain chain from Georgia to Maine, winds through the heart of the White Mountains and traverses many of New Hampshire's highest mountains. As a Senator of New Hampshire and Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is my privilege to protect these resources not only for us here today but for generations to come.
The residents of New Hampshire can be proud of what our timber companies, tree farmers, and farmers are doing today to preserve our natural resources for future generations. They are good stewards of the land.
I could go on forever about the vast resources and people of New Hampshire, but that's not what all of you are here today to hear. The purpose of this hearing is to further examine the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
Since EPA released this proposed rule last August, I have spent considerable time talking with New Hampshire stakeholders, Senators, and State and local officials across the country, as well as many of you who attended the recent University of New Hampshire environmental symposium, about the impacts this rule would have if it were finalized. A common question is always asked of me: Why is EPA pushing this very controversial rule through the process so quickly? Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to that question; and that makes my job very difficult. I hope that Assistant Administrator Chuck Fox, who will be testifying this afternoon, will be able to provide an answer.
EPA's obvious desire to rush to judgement on this rule is especially frustrating when you consider that Administrator Browner has admitted that EPA failed in drafting a clear rule; Mr. Fox himself has suggested that substantial changes to the rule will be necessary in a letter to me; and almost every industry has expressed strong concerns about this rule. Notwithstanding all of that, EPA is rushing to finalize this rule. It is clear to me that it would be far more appropriate for EPA to slow the process down and perhaps reissue a newly drafted proposed rule so to provide all stakeholders an opportunity to comment, not just those that are represented by lobbyists in Washington, D.C. EPA should listen to all of those concerns and take a "time out."
While I may not understand the thought process at EPA, I do know that the silviculture industry of this State should be commended for their stewardship and work to protect the environment. Even the EPA acknowledges this: Mr. Manfredonia of Region 1 EPA stated that "silviculture and forestry operations are not, to the best of his knowledge and data, an issue for water quality."
Yet we are faced with a proposed rulemaking that could have a dramatic impact on the people who depend on the land and water for their livelihoods, regulating them for the first time under the federal permit program of the Clean Water Act. This rule would not only impact large industries, but it could also have a dramatic impact on small family forestry and agriculture operations, where the margins are so thin, the survival of these businesses could be in jeopardy. It would impact people like Tom Thomson, a small family tree farmer that was named the 1997 Outstanding Northeastern tree farmer of the year. Tom has fought through the adversity of the ice storm to continue a family business. We should be proud of his stewardship and conservation of open space and not allow federal permitting of his land. What have people like Tom Thomson done to their land that would lead EPA to believe they ought to have a permit to cut down a tree?
The EPA claims the States will be implementing this program. But in New Hampshire we do not have delegated authority to issue permits. So we fall into that category EPA claims is a "rare" situation, with EPA responsible for issuing the permits in New Hampshire.
In order to address the many concerns I have heard on the implementation of the existing regulations and the concerns with the proposed rule, I have introduced along with Senator Crapo and 16 other co-sponsors, S. 2417 the "Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act of 2000."
The purpose of this legislation is to take care of three concerns that have been outlined in the hearings we have held over the last two months, as well as comments made at the New Hampshire environmental symposium a few weeks ago.
First, the States are in great need of increased funding to implement nonpoint source programs, conduct monitoring to develop scientifically-based water quality programs, issue permits and list waters under existing requirements.
Second, there are a lot of unanswered questions about the costs and scientific basis underlying the implementation of TMDLS, as well as a host of alternative programs or mechanisms that exist at the State level that may be more effective to accomplish the same goals of the TMDL program. These questions need to be answered before we mandate more requirements on the states and private sector. This legislation directs the National Academy of Science (NAS) to answer these questions.
Third, we need to take a time out, analyze these unanswered questions, continue to learn from the existing TMDL regulatory program, and then reissue the proposed TMDL rulemaking taking into account the NAS study.
The environment of this great State and the Country is very important to me, but so is sound science. I look forward to listening and learning from all of you today who have to work within this regulatory program for years to come. Thank you.