S. 2417, the "Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000" addresses what I consider an unjustified attack on our nation's landowners and communities. The Administration's proposed rule regarding Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), as part of the broader Clean Water Action Plan, is an initiative I have followed closely over the last two years.
In Wyoming, our Conservation Districts, landowners and Department of Environmental Quality have long questioned the availability of data and resources necessary in order to implement the various actions called for under the Clean Water Action Plan. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office validated their concerns. The GAO found that states, overwhelmingly, lack the data to both identify non-point sources and develop non-point source TMDL's. Furthermore, the GAO report indicates that almost all states cited a need for additional funding and staff. "Most states also cited the need for additional analytical methods and technical assistance to analyze complex pollution problems and develop TMDLs."
Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed that the EPA, despite the thousands of comments submitted on the proposed rule and the inadequacies found by the GAO, remains adamant that the TMDL rule will be final by June 30th. It is clearly a rushed proposal -- and unfortunate that this Administration continues to push its environmental adgenda, no matter the cost.
I cosponsored S. 2417 because it provides a much needed balance to the EPA's approach:
-- First, it requires the National Academy of Sciences to report on the quality of science used to develop and implement TMDLs; the costs associated with implementing TMDLs; and the availability of alternative mechanisms to reduce pollutants from both point and non-point sources.
It seems to me that prior to implementing a rule of such magnitude, we should already have this information.
-- Second, the bill authorizes increased appropriations for states to address data quality problems and to enhance non-point pollution reduction efforts.
Since passage of the Clean Water Act, the federal government has directed $80 billion toward point source reduction efforts -- non-point sources have received only $2 billion.
Lastly, while I support increasing federal assistance to the states for non-point source programs, I strongly believe that Congress must be explicit in how those funds are to be made available to the states. I know each of our states can provide examples of where they were required, by the EPA, not Congress, to undertake or meet additional requirements before receiving funds. It is time to stop the EPA's attempts to bypass Congressional intent.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your leadership on this issue.