[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E872-E873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THE WATER POLLUTION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000 (H.R. 4502)

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. LARRY COMBEST

                                of texas

                        HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 25, 2000

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman and Ranking member of the House 
Committee on Agriculture, we are pleased to introduce the Water 
Pollution Program Improvement Act of 2000 on behalf of farmers, 
ranchers, woodland owners, local governments and states throughout 
America.
  In August of 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 
two changes to the regulations governing the implementation of the 
Clean Water Act which, if finalized, would fundamentally alter the 
agency's role in the management of nonpoint sources of pollution. While 
we agree with the EPA's stated intent of improving the quality of our 
nation's waters, we strongly oppose both the substance of these rules 
and the accelerated process employed by the EPA to bring them to 
finality. Our bill is designed to address these two concerns directly.
  Our criticisms of EPA's proposed rules generally fall into two 
categories: (1) lack of authority and (2) lack of information.


                           Lack of Authority

  Congress has clearly identified the responsibilities of the federal 
government and the states for maintaining the quality of our nation's 
waters. When Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972, the primary 
emphasis of that legislation was to address point source pollution 
discharges. Congress at that time established a clear role for the 
Federal Government in the regulation of point source pollution through 
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) program.
  Congress was also careful to define the point sources of pollution 
that would be subject to the NPDES program. This definition 
specifically excluded agricultural storm water discharge from the point 
source designation, thereby placing discharges from farming, ranching 
and silviculture operations outside of the reach of the federal 
permitting program.
  In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act to establish a framework 
within which states could carry out their responsibility to manage 
nonpoint sources of pollution. It was the intent of Congress at that 
time to preserve the distinctions between point and nonpoint sources of 
pollution established in the 1972 Act so that there would be no 
ambiguity with regard to the role of the state in relation to the 
federal government.
  At no time has Congress granted the federal government an affirmative 
regulatory role in the management of nonpoint sources of pollution. 
Neither has Congress granted the EPA the authority to unilaterally 
change the clear distinctions between point and nonpoint sources of 
pollution currently established in law.
  Upon review of the draft rules proposed by the EPA, it is our view 
that the agency's proposal exceeds the authority provided by the 1972 
Act and the 1987 amendments both in terms of the new regulatory role 
assumed by the EPA and the designation of silvicultural activities as 
point sources of pollution. We further believe that while the joint 
statement issued by the EPA and USDA on May 1, 2000 partially addresses 
concerns raised by Congress and affected stakeholders regarding the 
EPA's authority, it does little to overcome this fundamental problem.


                          Lack of Information

  Over the last 28 years, the Federal government and the states have 
placed great emphasis on reducing pollution levels from point sources. 
Both have made significant investments in technologies and scientific 
methods to measure and control pollution discharges. These investments 
have paid off as we have seen dramatic decreases in point source 
pollution over the last two decades.
  Recently, both the Federal government and the states have begun to 
place increasing emphasis on the improvement of programs to reduce 
pollution from nonpoint sources. Understandably, because of the 
priority emphasis placed on point sources over the years, the 
technology and data needed to achieve measurable large-scale reductions 
on nonpoint source pollution are not yet fully developed.
  States, local governments, businesses and landowners are currently 
poised to voluntarily spend billions of dollars over the next 20 years 
in an earnest attempt to acquire this technology and data. In order to 
realize the optimum return on these investments, however, states, local 
governments and other affected stakeholders must be allowed to operate 
within the flexible framework established by the 1987 Clean Water Act 
amendments. This will preserve the ability of the states to develop 
innovated methods to gather the information upon which sound management 
objectives can be based and thereafter design programs carefully 
tailored to meet those objectives.
  Unfortunately, EPA's proposed rules move in exactly the opposite 
direction. By establishing arbitrary deadlines for completing TMDLs, 
threatening to unilaterally establish TMDLs and load allocations, and 
imposing mandatory guidelines for best management practices, EPA will 
force states to act before they have the data needed to act 
intelligently. In fact, the General Accounting Office has found that 
few states have the majority of the data needed to comply with the 
onerous requirements outlined in the EPA's proposed rules. Forcing 
states to comply with the new regulatory framework required by the EPA 
at this stage of the process will waste time and money and result in 
confusion rather than better water quality.


                         Purpose of Legislation

  The purpose of the bill we are introducing today is to address the 
two concerns raised previously, namely, that the EPA lacks both the 
authority and the information to proceed with the agency's proposed 
rules.
  Our legislation commissions an independent study of the scientific 
methodologies, programs, and costs associated with the development and 
implementation of TMDLs. We intend this independent review to provide 
the EPA, the Secretary of Agriculture and the states a valuable tool 
with which to develop sound policies for the management of nonpoint 
sources of pollution. This approach will help remedy the current 
problems associated with identifying impaired water bodies and 
establishing TMDL allocations based on anecdotal and otherwise 
unverifiable data. It

[[Page E873]]

will also require EPA to take a more deliberate and thoughtful look at 
how the agency might better cooperate with states and landowners to 
improve water quality rather than impose arbitrary standards and 
guidelines that will achieve uncertain outcomes.
  We are also concerned about the workload impact on the conservation 
agencies that serve private landowners, such as the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) and local conservation and resource 
conservation and development districts. Nor do we believe that EPA has 
adequately reviewed the technical and financial assistance that will be 
needed to assist landowners under the proposed rules.
  Our bill will also underscore both the language and the intent of the 
Clean Water Act relative to the role of the EPA in managing nonpoint 
sources of pollution. We believe the law is clear that the EPA has no 
regulatory role in the management of nonpoint source pollutions. We 
also maintain the EPA has no authority to unilaterally change the 
definition of point source pollution to encompass nonpoint sources. The 
language of our legislation reemphasizes these points and restricts the 
EPA from pursuing these unauthorized objectives in a regulatory 
proceeding.
  To summarize, we support the objective of improving the quality of 
our nation's waters. However, we insist on achieving these objectives 
within the parameters of the law and using the best available 
information. The Water Pollution Program Improvement Act of 2000 is 
designed to help ensure that outcome. We urge our colleagues to support 
this important legislation.

                          ____________________