Volume 146, No. 67 covering the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE WATER POLLUTION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000 (H.R. 4502)” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E872-E873 on May 25, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up