Segment 1 Of 3     Next Hearing Segment(2)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
66–074 CC
2000
2000
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD REGULATIONS ON AGRICULTURE AND SILVICULTURE

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 22, 2000, WINGATE, NC
JUNE 19, 2000, LONOKE, AR
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
JUNE 29, 2000 [H.R. 4502]

Serial No. 106–53

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture?

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

LARRY COMBEST, Texas, Chairman
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska,
    Vice Chairman
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
NICK SMITH, Michigan
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
KEN CALVERT, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
BOB RILEY, Alabama
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DOUG OSE, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky

CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas,
    Ranking Minority Member
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
MIKE THOMPSON, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
JOE BACA, California
——— ———
Professional Staff

WILLIAM E. O'CONNER, JR., Staff Director
LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Chief Counsel
STEPHEN HATERIUS, Minority Staff Director
KEITH WILLIAMS, Communications Director

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois,
    Vice Chairman
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon

EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina,
    Ranking Minority Member
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MIKE THOMPSON, California
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
JOE BACA, California
——— ———
(ii)
  
C O N T E N T S

MAY 22, 2000, Wingate, NC
    Ewing, Hon. Thomas W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, opening statement
    Hayes, Hon. Robin, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, opening statement

Witnesses
    Braswell, Elton, producer, Monroe, NC
Prepared statement
    Coan, Anne, North Carolina Farm Bureau, Raleigh, NC
Prepared statement
    Cox, Russell F., Cox Brothers Farms, Monroe, NC
Prepared statement
    Delgado, Linda, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
    Fox, J. Charles, Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared statement
    Heath, Donald A., Heath Farms, Dover, NC
Prepared statement
    Martin, J. Andy, assistant vice-president, real estate and special assets, Branch Banking & Trust Co., Wilson, NC
Prepared statement
    McLaurin, Allen, producer, Laurel Hill, NC
Prepared statement
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Osmond, Deanna, associate professor, Soil Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Prepared statement
    Powell, Patrick J., Canton Hardwood Co., Canton, NC
Prepared statement
    Ryan, J. Hugh, State forester, South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, SC
Prepared statement
    Slocum, Robert W., Jr., executive vice-president, North Carolina Forestry Association, Raleigh, NC
Prepared statement
    Talley, Windell L., producer, Stanfield, NC
Prepared statement
    Taylor, H.P. Jr., landowner, Wadesboro, NC
Prepared statement

JUNE 19, 2000, Lonoke, AR
    Berry, Hon. Marion, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, opening statement
    Emerson, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, opening statement
    Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, opening statement
    Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas, opening statement
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening statement

Witnesses
    Christensen, Thomas, Director, Animal Husbandry and Clean Water Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
    Engle, Carol R., director, Aquaculture Fisheries Center, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Prepared statement
    Francis, James H., tree farmer, on behalf of the Arkansas Forestry Association
Prepared statement
    Freeze, Thomas, aquaculture farmer, Keo Fish Farm
Prepared statement
    Good, Bob, commissioner, Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission
Prepared statement
    Hathaway, William B., Director, Water Quality Protection Division Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared statement
    Hillman, David, president, Arkansas Farm Bureau
Prepared statement
    Lamkin, Corbet, chairman, Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Prepared statement
    Loftin, John, poultry producer, El Dorado, AR
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
Prepared statement
    Masters, Jerry, executive vice-president, Arkansas Pork Producers
Prepared statement
    Mathis, Randall, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Little Rock, AR
Prepared statement
    Troutz, Mark, executive vice-president, Arkansas Cattlemen's Association
Prepared statement
JUNE 28, 2000
    H.R. 4502, to improve the implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and for other purposes.
    Barrett, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement
    Berry, Hon. Marion, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, opening statement
    Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho, prepared statement
    Combest, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening statement
Letter of June 28, 2000 to Mr. Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget
    Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, opening statement
    Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement
    Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening statement
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
Witnesses
    Barrett, John, cotton producer
Prepared statement
    Fox, J. Charles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared statement
    Guerrero, Director, Environmental Protection Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
Prepared statement
    Ice, George, on behalf of the Society of American Foresters
Prepared statement
    Lyons, James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
    Moyer, Steve, Trout Unlimited
Prepared statement
    Winstanley, Derek, chief, Illinois State Water Survey
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
    Letter of June 26, 2000 to Chairman Combest from AgriBank, FCB et al.
    Letter of June 8, 2000 to Administrator Browner from Richard T. Kortes, submitted by Mr. Holden
Additional Testimony Submitted by Mr. Goodlatte
    Goodbar, Danny, president, Two Brothers Logging Corporation
    Hosey, Timothy A., co-chairman, Pulp and Paper Resource Council, Covington, VA
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Howe, Paul, executive vice-president, Virginia Forestry Association
    Luebben, Carl G., Rockingham County Farm Bureau Association
    Saufley, Stephen L., cattleman, Rockingham County, VA
    Sherman, Roger, Westvaco Corporation
    Webster, Anita, tree farmer, Bedford County, VA
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD REGULATIONS ON AGRICULTURE AND SILVICULTURE

MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000
House of Representatives,  
Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Wingate, NC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m. at Wingate University, Wingate, NC. Hon. Bob Goodlatte (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representative Ewing.
    Also present: Representative Hayes.
    Staff present: Kevin Kramp, staff director, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry; David Tenny, Hunter Moorhead, and Andy Johnson.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, to review the impact of the proposed total maximum daily load regulation on agriculture and silviculture will now come to order.
    And out of the usual order of business the Chair will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for the purposes of introducing the other two of us.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. Good morning, everybody.
    I appreciate very much you all coming today. It is very, very important to have our people involved in the things that make the most difference in their family and in their professional lives, and certainly we in the farming community are under attack and under stress like never before in history, and I appreciate you all being willing to take the time to come out and provide input, and also listen to what is being proposed for a direction in things that are going to be, if we are not careful, imposed on you from Washington. And we are all a little bit reluctant to accept those kinds of things.
    With me today are two very close friends, also very capable legislators, and two men who have extensive experience in agriculture, all aspects of it.
    On my far right is Tom Ewing who is from Pontiac, IL. He is from the 15th Congressional District of Illinois, he has been in Congress quite a number of years, and is very knowledgeable particularly in specialty crops. But again the two people here with me today are very much concerned with what you are thinking, what you are experiencing, the problems that you face in your daily activities in trying to make a living on the farm. So Tom has become a very dear friend. Unfortunately he is retiring from Congress this year, and I am trying to move him into the eighth district. So far we have had some pretty good luck. You all can help me by moving him in the right direction today.
    And sitting on my immediate right, my good friend Bob Goodlatte from Roanoke, VA, the Ninth Congressional District. Bob is very active in farming, he is the chairman of this subcommittee. And Mr. Ewing is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops. So these are folks that have the knowledge, the experience, and they are the ones that I count on to make sure that the farm community gets a fair shake.
    So without further ado, I am very glad that they are here, and I appreciate each and every one of you being willing to take the time to be here. Thank goodness we got a little bit of rain last night, so maybe farming will pick up at least for half a day.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Congressman Hayes, and I want to, on behalf of Congressman Ewing and myself, thank you for requesting this hearing, inviting us down to your beautiful congressional district. My district includes the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and is a very beautiful congressional district as well, and my farmers and foresters have many of the same concerns and problems that yours do, and so this will be beneficial not only to folks here in North Carolina, but really all over the country to further develop these issues.
    The purpose of this hearing is to review the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed water quality regulation on agriculture and silviculture. This is the second in a series of hearings this subcommittee has held on this issue.
    The hearing is essentially about three things: First, whether the EPA will continue to assert authority that it does not have under the law; second, whether the Agency is willing to take the time necessary to work with States, local government, landowners, and other stakeholders to craft a rule that everyone can support; and, third, whether in the absence of cooperation by the EPA will Congress be required to take action.
    Everyone in this room believes that we have an obligation to keep our Nation's waters fishable and swimmable. This is not the question today. What is in question is how we go about doing that.
    Because there are too many details to summarize in this statement, my remarks will be general. To look at the issues that the subcommittee will review today at an operations level, one might confuse the issue with another of our favorite subjects, the Food Quality Protection Act, the law that governs the use of pesticides. Many of the same concerns, frustrations, and skepticisms this subcommittee has expressed concerning EPA's implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act are present in the subject of today's hearing. I expect the major themes of today's hearing will be to challenge the accuracy of the Environmental Protection Agency's data which is the basis for their new regulatory programs. In the absence of real, accurate data the EPA has made conservative default assumptions. These assumptions lead the EPA to the conclusion that nonpoint sources generally, agriculture and silviculture specifically, are the major sources of water quality impairment. Farmers and private landowners in the opinion of the EPA always seem to be guilty until proven innocent.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    EPA is also insisting on uniform national standards and processes. Instead of trusting the States to develop and enforce their own program, the EPA wants veto authority over the States, and the right to take over the State's program if the EPA believes that it falls short of their mark. This is Washington-knows-best arrogance, plain and simple.
    The single most troubling aspect of the EPA's actions is their blatant disregard for the law passed by Congress to protect your Nation's waters. The EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act is certainly creative thinking, but without basis in law.
    I certainly doubt that the EPA will be able to prove to me that they have the statutory authority to implement the regulations we are reviewing today. Congressional records, past practices, and decades of case law all say that the EPA does not have the authority they assert.
    As with the implementation of other regulations, the EPA is trying stretch their limited authority to execute their extreme agenda through the TMDL rule. Since our first hearing in October 1999, it has become increasingly obvious that the EPA intends to push this regulation through before they leave office at the end of the year. Not only did it take a threat of congressional action to force the Agency to extend the comment period so that interested parties would have an opportunity to comment, but we now understand that the EPA has arranged an expedited approval process for the TMDL rule, and intends to finalize that process by the end of June. It is obvious that Congress must act to slow the EPA down so that we can all take a closer and more thoughtful look at what the EPA is trying to accomplish.
    It is curious to me how the EPA and the USDA seem to now be in lock-step on the content of these proposed rules. Initially, the U.S. Department of Agriculture expressed serious concerns that the EPA was exceeding its authority, was thwarting 27 years of USDA cooperative work with States, local governments, and landowners, and was heaping excessive and undisclosed costs on the States, local communities, and landowners.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Now according to a joint statement issued on May 1, 2000, the USDA is EPA's strongest ally. Most troubling to me is that the USDA's support comes without the EPA changing many parts of the rule that the USDA most strongly opposed only a few months ago. Something is not right here.
    I am sure that it will be the subject of debate today, so I will not drone on about it now, but the May 1, 2000 joint statement from EPA and USDA that its sponsors say tone down the rule does not make me feel any better about the proposed regulation. I am sure many of you feel the same way.
    This is why I am strongly supportive and a lead sponsor of legislation that was introduced last week that prohibits the implementation of this rule pending an 18-month study by the National Academy of Sciences looking at several issues that the EPA has not yet addressed adequately. I am tired of the EPA using outcome-determinative processes in place of scientific analysis at the expense of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. I will not sit by idly and watch while the EPA attempts to assimilate the powers of the States, ignores the will of Congress, and destroys the agriculture and silviculture industries of this Nation.
    If there were a sound scientific foundation for this rule, I would be happy to engage in a rigorous policy debate. There is not. This is all about politics, and I intend to fight the Environmental Protection Agency every step of the way. [Applause.]
    We have assembled a broad spectrum of panelists that will give a unique perspective on the new EPA regulations, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
    I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for any opening remarks he might have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS W. EWING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  

    Mr. EWING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Robin, for hosting us today.
    Your comments are very much to the point. I might just explain to the audience here that the Congress has two functions: No. 1, to pass laws; No. 2, oversight as to how those laws are implemented. The second is probably harder than the first.
    I will just give you an example. Because of the jurisdiction of my subcommittee over a crop which is very important in this State, tobacco, we have been through years of turmoil with the Federal Drug Administration who claimed under legislation passed years ago that they had the right to regulate tobacco. The courts have finally ruled. Wrong, they did not have the right. They cannot regulate it under the drug laws of this Nation.
    But during the current administration we have had more government by edict, by bureaucracy, than any administration in history, and it is because they cannot get what they want passed in legislation.
    Now, you would think the oversight part would be very simple, just stop them. The truth is the bureaucrats are hard to stop, because we have to pass a piece of legislation, and it has to have a veto-proof majority, so it really in essence makes the Congress come up with a two-thirds majority to stop what is not even in the law.
    So it is serious business, it is tough business, and I think it is very important that we are here, and I thank the people for coming out from the EPA. They probably do not feel like they are in friendly country, and they may not be, but it is in my opinion very important that those who we employ to carry out the rules and regulations passed by the Congress understand that we all eventually answer to the people. That is what America is—not answer to the bureaucracy, not answer to the Administrator of the EPA, or to any political agenda, we answer to the people of the country.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    And I look forward to this hearing, this is a very important matter, and hopefully some reason and responsibility can be injected into this before it goes too far, before we have to go to the courts, before we have to pass legislation, because we are all for our environment. We just want a reasonable, sound science basis for what we are going to do. Thank you.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    I would now like to recognize for an opening statement the gentleman from North Carolina who has inspired this hearing, and who I know is very concerned not only about the well-being of his farmers and foresters, but also about the economic and environmental quality of his eighth district of North Carolina. Mr. Hayes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me begin by saying I am extremely proud of the people in this room, and others around the eighth district who are using sound management, sound forestry practices, sound farming practices, that are accomplishing the goals that we all want.
    Now, the EPA, I am very glad as you and Chairman Ewing said are here today, and we want you to feel welcome. I take the position at this point that you all are here to listen very carefully, and to take back the input from these folks which could and should affect the outcome of this debate. So we do appreciate you being here.
    One of the things that the EPA has done in recent history is to adopt our language. They now talk about fishable and swimmable waters instead of some obscure muscle or something that nobody really identifies with, so they are catching on in part of the debate anyway, so we have got to watch them.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Another thing that I want top mention briefly, it is very important for us to be here listening to you, and for you to be here giving us input. Last year Chairman Ewing came down to Scotland County, an eastern part of the district, and listened very carefully to a number of you, and I think you are going to be very pleased with the crop insurance changes that you will see adopted into law very, very shortly.
    Another thing I want to mention is we had a very, very bad tragedy at the Lowes Motor Speedway over the weekend, and a number of people were hurt, and we are certainly very much concerned about them.
    The press that I would like to see here this morning, again making people aware across the State of the very critical nature of these issues is still camped out at the speedway, so hopefully you will take the opportunity in your community to let folks know that we are listening and trying to make sure that again people take the role that they're supposed to have. Congress passes the law, agencies should not through rulemaking take away our responsibility and our authority, so that is part of what is happening in this hearing.
    Again, welcome to Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Ewing. In August 1999 EPA proposed regulations to fundamentally change total maximum daily load under section 303 of the Clean Water Act. We are here today to hear from those who are most affected by these changes, our farmers and foresters.
    Since the act was enacted into law, States have successfully, reduced point source pollutants. We have not been that successful with municipal waste treatment plants as a counter to that.
    In addition, local efforts have been successful in reducing nonpoint source pollutants by working with farmers and foresters in implementing best management practices. It is vitally important that we highlight these efforts in order to emphasize the success of grassroots versus Federal Government. Care for our waterways should be in the hands of those who use them daily. Those who fish and swim know better than anyone we must take care of them in order to keep them safe for our families. I know that very well from my own experience in being in the Wildlife Resources Commission.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Reform should focus on locally-designed, voluntary, cost-sharing programs. North Carolina Cooperative Programs—and I think about the Neuse River, the Kaypeer River—are very successful in developing best management practices. This type of cooperation represents not only a viable, but a very reasonable alternative to further burdensome regulations by the EPA.
    If you were listening on the radio this morning, we enjoyed a 5 1/2 percent increase in the last 2 weeks on our gas prices, again by arbitrary rulemaking that was largely responsible by the EPA.
    Continued grassroots efforts to control nonpoint source pollutants are the key to this battle.
    More importantly, the National Academy of Science must conduct studies using sound science to develop implementation of TMDLs and the costs associated with them, explore alternative programs to address nonpoint sources. Reports should be submitted to Congress no later than 18 months following the enactment. And finally, it requires the EPA to consider the National Academy of Science report prior to final decision on a rule change.
    As Chairman Goodlatte said, our chairman, Larry Combest, ranking member Charlie Stenholm on a bipartisan basis have proposed a common sense solution to dealing with these issues—again, input from the field and sound science.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to hearing from those who will be most affected by the regulations. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the rest of my statement be submitted for the record, and again I thank you all for being here. Everything that you say and bring up will be written down, taken back, and assimilated hopefully in the proper way into this whole process.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Hayes.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    We are now pleased to welcome our first panel. Our first witness is Mr. J. Charles Fox, the Assistant Administrator for Water of the Environmental Protection Agency, and also on this panel is Ms. Linda Delgado who is the Chief of Staff to Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We welcome both of you. You have both had plenty of experience with the Agriculture Committee, and as you know, your written statements will be made a part of the record, and we would be pleased to receive your oral testimony at this time, starting with Mr. Fox.
STATEMENT OF J. CHARLES FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First let me say thank you to Mr. Hayes for this invitation. I have been traveling around the country for the past couple of years doing a lot of listening about this program, and I really do appreciate this opportunity to be here today and further that endeavor.
    I must have to state, though, this Monday morning to the chairman, you, Mr. Goodlatte, that your opening statement said this is all about politics. I am afraid that is not how I have been approaching this, but that certainly seems to be how you are approaching it.
    There was very little in your opening statement that I recognized as being part of our rule. There were many falsehoods that you laid out, there were many mischaracterizations, and, frankly, I think it is a disservice not only to the people of this district, but to the American people as a whole. So I would be happy to stay up here as long as you want to clarify any of the statements that you made, and we can just do that after my testimony if that is what you would like. I am sorry I had to say that this Monday morning, but I have just heard too many outlandish, and frankly, completely inaccurate statements made about this rule, and you seem to be contributing to that this morning here.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    As you recall, I testified to your subcommittee last October, and I described in some detail the key elements of our program. I have described roughly over 20,000 water bodies identified by the States throughout the country as polluted; I have also described our effort begun almost 3 years ago to work with a diverse Federal advisory committee to review the TMDL program, and to identify needed improvements in existing regulations.
    My written testimony describes in some detail the work we have done in recent months to address many of the important issues that were raised by the proposed regulations. As a result of these expected changes, I am confident that we can develop a final regulation that is responsive to the concerns of members of this committee, the States, and many others.
    My colleague from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will describe in more detail some of the expected changes involving agricultural and forestry provisions.
    My written testimony also reviews other recent developments related to TMDL program. For example, a Federal court recently confirmed the EPA's longstanding view that nonpoint sources be accounted for in the development of TMDLs.
    This morning I would like to explain the administration's strong opposition to legislation that you identified was introduced in the House of Representatives on Friday. We are especially concerned with provisions that would delay improvements to the TMDL program for several years.
    One provision of the legislation would expand authorizations for several key State grant programs, including clean water program management grants under section 106, and nonpoint source pollution control grants under section 319 of the act.
    The administration wholeheartedly agrees that adequate State grant funding is critical to effective operation of the Nation's clean water programs. In fact, we have proposed an increase of $150 million over the past 2 years in funding for State nonpoint programs, and an increase of $45 million in fiscal year 2001 for State Water Program grants. Unfortunately, the current Republican budget resolution limits spending such that it would be very difficult to meet the administration's proposed increases, much less the funding levels proposed in the legislation. I would simply state the administration remains ready to work with Congress to substantially increase the funding for important water quality work.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The most serious concern with the legislation is that it will prevent the finalization of improved TMDL regulations for several years until the completion of the study by the National Academy of Sciences. Enactment of this proposal could encourage an effective shutdown of the TMDL program in many States, as they and other parties defer work on TMDLs until the comprehensive studies mandated by Congress are completed. Sadly, Congress would be telling thousands of communities around the country that are eager to get to work restoring over 20,000 polluted waters to stand down, to pack up their clean water plans and put them in a deep freeze for the foreseeable future while a panel of scientists meets in Washington for almost 2 years to write a report.
    Many States have strong public confidence in their TMDL programs, and expect to work cooperatively with the public in listing polluted waters and developing TMDLs. This public confidence could be seriously eroded with passage of this bill.
    Some citizens will likely increase efforts to seek court orders to mandate expedited action on TMDLs. Without final regulations to guide the program, courts could issue detailed judicial guidance that could undermine the flexibility in the locally-driven process described in our program.
    And one must ask what benefits would come from a study by the National Academy of Sciences that could justify years of delay and litigation. I readily acknowledge there are technical issues associated with the development of TMDLs, but the essential scientific bases for developing pollution budgets and restoring polluted waters are already available. We have demonstrated success in this Nation in places like the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound. There is no need for additional review of science by the National Academy.
    In addition, other objectives of the study, such as assessments of total costs and meeting water quality standards are questions that the National Academy frankly is not best suited to answer.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I hope that I can convince members of this committee that we do not need to postpone any longer these important improvements to the program.
    We have a solid legislative foundation in the Clean Water Act, we have a good TMDL program that will be even better with revisions to the program regulations. Most importantly, people all over the country want to get to work restoring polluted rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and they want to start now.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I consistently hear from critics of the TMDL program that it is more of the old top-down command and control, one-size-fits all approach to environmental protection. In fact, the TMDL program offers a vision of a dramatically new approach to clean water programs. This new approach focuses attention on pollution sources in proven problem areas rather than all sources. It is managed by the States, not EPA. It is designed to attain water quality goals that the States set, and to use measures that are tailored to each specific water body rather than imposing a nationally-applicable requirement. And it identifies needed pollution reductions based on input from the grassroots and water body level rather than with a single national answer. In sum, we are on the right track to restoring the Nation's polluted waters.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fox appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
    Ms. Delgado, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LINDA DELGADO, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY SECRETARY RICHARD ROMINGER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Ms. DELGADO. Thank you very much. It is good to be here today. Hello, Congressmen, good morning. Good morning, everybody.
    Chuck started off on a hard note, and it is probably because he has been working on this issue for a long time, and we have our differences of interpretation and opinion, and I am hoping we can all work together, Mr. Chairman, and all of you to try to improve this rule.
    Congressman Goodlatte, you mentioned it is all about politics, and that also got on my radar screen when you said that, and I am hoping that we can work together to get beyond that, again to work together to improve the rule and get something that works.
    Congressman Ewing, you mentioned that what we need to do is inject reason and responsibility into this process, and I think that the Secretary of Agriculture in our discussions with EPA that is precisely what we are attempting to do, and I think we have come a long way.
    And, Congressman Hayes, if I could mention something you said, you said that the program should be structured around cost-sharing and voluntary programs, and locally-led design programs, and that again is something we totally agree with you on, and that is the direction we want to move in. So hopefully we can get somewhere here.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee today with Chuck Fox. I am Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Richard Rominger. Jim Lyons was going to be here today. He is the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment who has worked most closely with Chuck Fox on this issue, but he is in Idaho and Washington today, so he could not make it. I am also here with George Schunk who is sitting here in the front row. He is a special assistant to Jim Lyons, and he led our technical team in our discussions with EPA, so if you have any technical questions he will be the best person to answer those.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    USDA shares this committee's commitment to cleaning the waters of the United States and building on success in reducing water pollution over the past decades. To some degree those accomplishments were the easy part. The remaining pollution concerns as highlighted in the President's Clean Water Action Plan which USDA and EPA helped prepare at nonpoint sources of pollution such as soil erosion, urban runoff, pollutants from animal feeding operations, and other sources that do not come from the end of a pipe. Addressing these nonpoint sources is the great challenge that remains to further improve our waters, to make them fishable and swimmable for all Americans to enjoy.
    To accomplish these next steps in cleaning our waters will take a concerted effort from farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners, as well as urban and suburban residents.
    Notwithstanding the work that remains, farmers, ranchers, and foresters have been working for years to reduce the effects of their operations on water quality. Much has been achieved in this regard using many of the conservation tools that Congress and the Department of Agriculture wrote into the last three farm bills, all of our conservation programs.
    For example, you are aware of the CRP, the Wetlands Preserve Program, EQIP, CRP, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, they are all playing a critical role, CPR for example in protecting the waters of the Chesapeake Bay.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $1.3 billion above currently-authorized levels to bolster agriculture conservation programs. This request is currently before Congress, and we are now in the appropriations process, and hopefully we will get increased funding for these programs that will be critical in helping farmers through voluntary programs designed at the local level achieve what we are trying to achieve here, achieve clean water.
    We are proud of agriculture and forestry's contributions to the Nation's efforts to clean our waters, while recognizing that we can and should do more. As Secretary Glickman noted before a Senate committee in February, it is not a matter of whether farmers and foresters should do more, but how to proceed with our efforts to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution. And at that hearing the Secretary said ''I believe we must proceed carefully and thoughtfully'', particularly given today. As you know, American farmers and ranchers have for the last 3 years suffered from rock-bottom prices, shrinking global demand, record worldwide production, and a slew of natural disasters. They are under extraordinary duress, and more than ever they need clear and understandable information about how any new proposed regulation might affect their operations.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    It is no secret that USDA's relationship with EPA got off to a rocky start last fall. We did issue a letter which as has been explained several times was not cleared in the department. It was basically a letter that got out before all the top policy people could review it, so that letter that has been quoted in many places never did represent the views of the department.
    However, having said this, many of the concerns in the letter have validity, and we quickly realized that in order to obtain the best possible rule we needed to be part of EPA's efforts in refining the proposal. In January, Under Secretary Lyons and Administrator Chuck Fox established a working group of senior policy officials to review the issues. The group worked throughout the winter, and they have made several improvements to the rule which resulted in this May 1 joint statement which I know many of you here have read and still have concerns about, but we feel we made a lot of very positive steps in our negotiations and our discussions with EPA.
    I could go—I do not know how much time I have left.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. We will give you a few more minutes.
    Ms. DELGADO. Basically a brief quick highlight, we agree, we believe that the agreement grants States more flexibility in setting priorities, more time to develop lists of impaired waters, it simplifies listing requirements, it drops the requirement that threatened waters be listed, States will have 15 years to develop TMDLs for their impaired waters, and the final regulation will not set a time limit for attainment of water quality standards.
    If you read the May 1 joint statement you will see that we agree, USDA and EPA agree that voluntary incentives are the best way to achieve reductions, which is a critical issue. Much of our concern was related to the regulation of pollution from forestry operations—harvesting, road building, and other activities. Under the revised regulation no NPDES permits will be required for 5 years from publication of the final TMDL rule. After that period, States are given choices in determining the degree of Federal regulation that will apply, so it is basically in State hands; it is not Federal hands, it is in State hands how this will work.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Forest operations that States will develop, or have developed adequate forest water quality programs based on EPA-approved BMPs will not be subject to NPDES permits. EPA will consult with USDA in determining standards for approving BMPs. Operations on National Forest System lands where operators already follow regulations that require consistency with State water requirements will be exempt from NPDES permits.
    We were also concerned whether operators who are implementing those BMPs required by a State would be subject to penalty for failing to meet water quality standards. We learned that EPA cannot legally mandate States to adopt these requirements, but as an incentive to good faith compliance with forestry BMPs the EPA will encourage State programs to include a good faith exemption from any directly-enforceable State water quality standard. This is kind of like a safe harbor provision.
    If a State fails to gain approval for their forestry BMP program after 5 years, the State or EPA will have the authority to designate discharges of significant storm water pollution as needing an NPDES permit; States do not have to, they just have the option to.
    Any NPDES permits that are issued by EPA will include BMPs as opposed to numerical effluent limitations. EPA will expect that States follow this practice. Finally, dischargers that are allowed to operate without an NPDES permit will not be exposed to citizen suits for failure to have a permit.
    The key thing, and the rest of my testimony will just go into the record if that is OK, Mr. Chairman, but the key thing from our point of view is funding for voluntary incentive-based programs that will help USDA provide technical assistance to farmers an foresters to achieve BMPs as quickly as possible, and that is something that as you know the President's budget requests significant increases in funding, and we are now working with Congress to make sure that we get those funding increases.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Delgado appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Delgado.
    We will now begin our first round of questioning of these witnesses by the members of the subcommittee. First, Ms. Delgado, you mentioned in your written testimony that the USDA's relationship with the EPA got off to a rocky start last fall when USDA Under Secretary Jim Lyons filed comments highly critical of the EPA's proposed rules. You later state that the USDA and the EPA have subsequently come to agreement on the issues identified in Mr. Lyons' letter and that the EPA will reflect this agreement in its final rule. I believe that's a correct statement.
    Ms. DELGADO. Yes.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to focus for a moment on the letter with the highly critical comments that Mr. Lyons sent to the EPA. I am going to read four extracts from those comments, and when I am finished I would like you to confirm for me whether those extracts were in the letter that Mr. Lyons sent to the EPA.
    First Mr. Lyons stated in his letter:

    The proposed regulations will undermine 27 years of the U.S. Department of Agriculture working cooperatively with the Environmental Protection Agency, States, and communities at large in the development of an effective nonpoint source program.

    Second, Mr. Lyons stated:

    The Environmental Protection Agency Administrator certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on many years of planning and implementing watershed protection projects with State and local government entities, we do not believe this to be an accurate statement.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  

    Third, Mr. Lyons further stated that:

    Congress drew a distinction between point sources and nonpoint sources in the Clean Water Act that is not adequately recognized in the proposed regulations.

    And finally Mr. Lyons stated that:

    The proposed regulations generally establish a top-down approach. Such an approach usually alienates the very partners and cooperators with whom working relationships should be fostered.

    First of all, I could go further with these statements, but I would ask if you would agree with me that these are accurate quotes from the letter that Mr. Lyons sent to the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Ms. DELGADO. They sound correct, yes.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Now, Mr. Fox, I appreciate your concern about the politicization of this process, but let me point out to you that when you arrived here this morning you knew virtually nothing about the legislation that had been introduced in Congress last week, and you then proceeded to mischaracterize that legislation, and I would again ask you to look at what we are attempting to do in considerable detail before you would launch such a criticism.
    But with regard to the letter that you received from Mr. Lyons, it is my understanding that shortly after you received that letter you also received a very stern letter from Chairman Bud Shuster of the Public Works Committee, the committee in the House of Representatives that has oversight of your agency. Are you familiar with that letter?
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. FOX. I have received approximately two or three letters that I know of from Mr. Shuster.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. I am referring to a letter dated January 7 of this year, actually addressed to Administrator Browner, but which I assume that you have seen, making very sharp reference to Mr. Lyons' letter in which he says in part:

     It is remarkable that a Cabinet-level department and an independent agency within the same administration hold such very different views on the appropriate way to address the Nation's remaining water quality problems.

     Are you familiar with that?
    Mr. FOX. Yes, I am familiar with that.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. OK. Now, in fact I understand that you faxed a copy of this letter to Mr. Lyons, and to Ms. Delgado with a handwritten note on the fax cover sheet. We have a copy of that cover sheet which I would like to review with you and the rest of the folks in the room. We will put that up on the easel.
    Now, in regard to the point being made here that this issue has been heavily politicized, I would call your attention to the handwritten box on the right and ask you if that is something that you wrote.
    Mr. FOX. Yes, it is, indeed.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. OK. It reads:

     Please see attached. This is getting out of hand. We need to talk ASAP. I am told that your letter will also be used in litigation against us.

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I wonder if you can tell us first of all who you are referring to when you said: I am told that your letter will be used in litigation against us. Who is it that told you that?
    Mr. FOX. I do not recall, but it would most likely have been attorneys representing the Agency, as well as attorneys from the Department of Justice.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. I understand that some time after you sent this note to Mr. Lyons and Ms. Delgado the USDA retracted the statements made in the Lyons letter. I also understand that the EPA and the USDA have recently issued a joint statement which was referred to by Ms. Delgado in her testimony in which the USDA endorses your proposed rules; is that correct?
    Mr. FOX. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And as Ms. Delgado has testified today, and as Secretary Glickman has testified, this letter came I think it was a day or two before the October hearing that I had before your committee last fall. And everybody has testified consistently that this letter did not go through the normal clearance process, and that USDA did not support all of the conclusions that were in this letter, yet here we are today still focusing on this letter that did not represent the Department's views.
    I would also say in regard to your legislation, just to get this on the record, it is true I did review the legislation just coming in this morning, but virtually all of the provisions in it mirror testimony that I gave before the Senate last week on legislation that was introduced virtually identically in the Senate.
    Ms. DELGADO. Mr. Chairman——
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me respond to that first, Ms. Delgado, and then I will be happy to hear from you as well.
    Let me tell you what I see here. I see the EPA proposing a rule that far exceeds its legal authority. I see dedicated and well-intentioned——
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. FOX. Will you just point out where it exceeds my authority? You have said that repeatedly, and I would just like to know where.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. I would like to point out to you that the Clean Water Act of 1972 does not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue regulations related to nonpoint source pollution.
    Mr. FOX. With all due respect, it was the Reagan administration. You can make that claim, but a Federal judge recently affirmed this, these rules in fact were initiated in the Reagan administration first time in 1985 that made that finding. This is nothing new that we are creating, with all due respect.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, with all due respect, there is considerable disagreement about that, and unfortunately we will wind up exactly where you describe it once again in court on this issue, much as the EPA exceeded its authority with regard to the Clean Air Act and was repudiated in the courts on that issue, and I think it makes far more sense that if the Environmental Protection Agency believes that these are appropriate measures to take with regard to addressing the problem of nonpoint source pollution, that the elected representatives of the people should be turned to by the EPA. You should have nothing to fear from addressing this to the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives and asking them to incorporate into law the very controversial provisions that you are attempting to impose upon these folks and people all across the country by bypassing the normal process——
    Mr. FOX. Why do you say I am attempting to incorporate this? As I said, it has been a part of Federal regulations since 1985.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. It will be determined by a court whether or not that is indeed the case, but what I am telling you——
    Mr. FOX. It has already been determined——
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. What I am telling you is you would be far better off in terms of having public support for what you are attempting to do if the elected representatives of the people had the opportunity to address this through the legislative process.
    Mr. FOX. And you well know you have that authority at any time you want. There are many Federal laws that give you the authority to vote down any rule I pass.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. And that is certainly going to happen here, but I have pointed out previously and I will point out again that the administration instead of proposing to stuff down everybody's throats a proposed rule that is going to be issued without even knowing the cost of it, because we understand that you are going to issue your estimates of the cost of it at the same time you issue the final rule——
    Mr. FOX. That is not true, sir. We issued our cost estimates at the time we proposed it in August. We will refine those cost estimates when we issue the final rule, just like we do every single rule we have ever issued since 1970.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, let me just say that it is my understanding that you intend to issue information regarding the cost of these regulations at the same time you issue regulations. You would be far better off at that point in time coming forward with those costs, and then waiting until there is an adequate amount of time to review that.
    But far better than that would be to have the administration come forward with those proposed rules in the form of legislation and ask the Congress to pass them. Short of that, the Congress has come up with, as you have noted, a number other legislative responses, one of which I feel confident will result in resolving this situation. If that fails, then I feel confident that this will be resolved in the courts.
    But be that as it may, I will tell you that I am very concerned that well-intentioned professionals within the Department of Agriculture putting together some candid and honest criticisms of what the EPA was trying to do would receive this kind of a response. I see the Department of Agriculture that initially stood by its people by submitting these comments to the EPA in good faith, and then I see the EPA recognizing that the truth not only hurts, but that it exposes them to lawsuits. What follows is the EPA browbeating the USDA into retreating from its original position, and I might add based on my experience in Washington letters like the one that Under Secretary Lyons sent to the EPA do not just ''fall through the cracks.'' Each is carefully screened at the highest levels before it is sent out.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    What I am getting at, Mr. Fox, is that it appears that the USDA has backed off its original position to protect the EPA from lawsuits. This is Washington-knows-best, inside baseball at its worst, and it is a tragic way to make policy, and it is a very politicized process. So I will stand by the statements I my opening statement.
    Ms. Delgado, I would be happy to have your response to that as well.
    Ms. DELGADO. When you say nobody is responsible, much less the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary in his testimony before the Senate on February 23—and I hope you would take his word for it—said, and I quote, referring to the letter that was released without being cleared by the department, he said: ''I never reviewed it, accordingly it does not represent USDA's official position.'' It has never been USDA's official position, so to imply that it was and then we retracted it, we have been browbeaten, I can understand that it could be perceived that that is the case, but that is just completely wrong. That is just not the way it is.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, Ms. Delgado, I assume that those who testified before this subcommittee last year had the authority to give the testimony that they gave before the subcommittee. Would that be a correct statement? The department surely would not send witnesses to testify before the Congress without the authority to make the representations to the committee?
    Ms. DELGADO. That is correct, but as far as I know nobody has made representations other than with respect to that letter other than denying that it was ever Mr. Hayes' position.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, the letter was written after that testimony, but I would point out that at that time the Department of Agriculture had, and represented to this committee, a very different point of view about the issuance of these regulations than it has today.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Ms. DELGADO. I disagree with you.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I would invite you to review the testimony that we received at that time.
    My time has expired, and I will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. EWING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    What is Mr. Lyons' position at the Department of Agriculture?
    Ms. DELGADO. Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, so he is Chuck Fox's equivalent at USDA.
    Mr. EWING. And he answers directly to the Secretary?
    Ms. DELGADO. That's correct.
    Mr. EWING. He signed the letter?
    Ms. DELGADO. No, he did not.
    Mr. EWING. Did it have a signature on it? The letter was unsigned?
    Ms. DELGADO. The letter was signed by his deputy.
    Mr. EWING. For him?
    Ms. DELGADO. Yes.
    Mr. EWING. And how do you come to this convoluted decision that it was not approved at a very high level? He is at a very high level in USDA; is that not right?
    Ms. DELGADO. He is, but he did not approve the letter.
    Mr. EWING. But is that the normal pattern that you send out letters that are unapproved?
    Ms. DELGADO. No, of course not. These things do not happen very often, and when they happen we have problems, as you can see.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. EWING. How long did it take him to repudiate the letter?
    Ms. DELGADO. I do not know the exact time frame, but I think very quickly.
    Mr. EWING. It was not repudiated immediately until you found out that it was controversial? Is that when it came up?
    Ms. DELGADO. Not publicly, no. As soon as we saw the letter we notified sort of key people on the Hill and otherwise as far as I know. I do not know when the phone calls were make, but we let people know that this was not our official position.
    Mr. EWING. How much time has USDA spent talking with farmers and rangers, foresters? Have they spent as much time doing that as they have negotiating with the EPA?
    Ms. DELGADO. Well, we are constantly in conversations with the forestry community through the——
    Mr. EWING. No, but on this issue. I mean have you spent as much time talking to the people you're trying to regulate as to the EPA?
    Ms. DELGADO. As far as I know, yes.
    Mr. EWING. And this both of this goes right back to the White House, does it not? I mean both secretaries answer directly to the President?
    Ms. DELGADO. Of course, yes.
    Mr. EWING. All right.
    Mr. FOX. Excuse me, sir——
    Ms. DELGADO. I am not sure what you are getting at.
    Mr. EWING. I am not directing anything to you yet, Mr. Fox.
     I am just talking about the public disagreement, and then all of a sudden a few heads are knocked together, and there is now an agreement. Maybe it was done in the Vice President's office.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. FOX. Oh, yeah, may be.
    Ms. DELGADO. No.
    Mr. EWING. I think you are out of line, and I would ask you to sit there, and when I want to direct a question to you, Mr. Fox, I will.
    Mr. FOX. Fine.
    Mr. EWING. Will you remember who you are talking to?
    Mr. FOX. Yes, I will, sir.
    Mr. EWING. OK.
    Ms. DELGADO. Congressman, your comments are—you can say whatever you want to say about how you think this might have happened, and it might be politically convenient or expedient to try to point to the Vice President's office. That is just not the way it happened, I am afraid.
    Mr. EWING. Well, we passed since 1995 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act was to try and put some teeth, or what we did to it, the amendment we did to it provided for judicial review when the bureaucracy, and not just the EPA or USDA, but all the bureaucracy creates rules that citizens, small businesses have to live with, and one of the requirements is that they are supposed to look at the best way to achieve a goal, and the way that is the cheapest and least burdensome. Have we been through that with this rule?
    Ms. DELGADO. Well, actually let me remind you—I know you know this—I mean these rules have been required, TMDLs have been required by law since 1985 as Chuck indicated earlier, and this revision of those rules, this incremental small revision of these rules that have been on the books for a long time, but just have not been implemented or enforced——
    Mr. EWING. Well, is there a reason they were not implemented?
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Ms. DELGADO. I'm sorry. Let me answer your question. This attempt right now is to precisely address what you are raising, which is how to make the rules that are already on the books easier, more cost effective, easier to implement, more workable at the local level. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve.
    Mr. EWING. I believe that in these new rules we—and maybe it is not new—we came up with a permit system. Is that correct?
    Mr. FOX. No, sir.
    Ms. DELGADO. No.
    Mr. EWING. How do we know which nonpoint sources you are going to regulate, then?
    Mr. FOX. There is nothing in this rule, sir, nor is there anything in Federal law that would ever authorize us to regulate nonpoint sources of pollution with any permit or any enforcement action.
    Mr. EWING. I think that is very important that you just made that admission. Thank you.
    Mr. FOX. That admission? We have been saying that, sir, for the better part of 20 years, despite what you have been saying up here at this panel today. Nothing in this rule will regulate any nonpoint sources of pollution, period. Never has been, never was intended to.
    Mr. EWING. But it will in fact, because of the permit system——
    Mr. FOX. There is no permit authority in Federal law or in Federal regulation for nonpoint sources of pollution.
    Mr. EWING. What does your rule require, then?
    Mr. FOX. Our rule requires that States look at all of their polluted waters within the State, identify the primary sources of pollution for that State, and then the State is responsible for coming up with a locally-led cost-effective plan to clean up the polluted water.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. EWING. And that is not going to affect, then, nonpoint sources?
    Mr. FOX. It is the States' decision to make their own decisions about how they want to deal with water pollution in that water body. There is nothing in our Federal law that tells the State how to do it.
    Mr. EWING. But of course they—what happens if the State does not meet your standards? Are there not penalties in there?
    Mr. FOX. No, sir. If the State does not do it, then EPA has an obligation to come up with a plan to restore that water body, but when EPA comes up with a plan in no way will it ever regulate nonpoint, because we do not have the authority to do that.
    Mr. EWING. Well, the word I was looking for was NPDES, National—national, not State—Pollution Discharge Elimination System——
    Mr. FOX. Yes, that is an authority that has been around since 1972.
    Mr. EWING [continuing.] Permits and changes EPA's current interpretation that nonpoint sources are not subject to permitting.
    Mr. FOX. With all due respect, that is inaccurate.
    Mr. EWING. Mr. Fox, I have a list here of some of the most respected agribusiness, agricultural membership organizations in the country. I do not think you have any of them on board.
    Now, you know you cannot force it down their throat. You can try, but you know if you want to work together, and if it is all this voluntary you would think that we would not be so close to a rule in June and have so many people and organizations who are respected, who are interested in environment, opposing it.
    Ms. DELGADO. Congressman, if I could address that.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. EWING. Please do.
    Ms. DELGADO. The public comments that I have seen, that particular letter you are referring to, the testimony, the AFPA testimony, and other pieces of testimony that I have seen, I think they are all indicators of how complex this rule is, because what they lay out—their interpretation of how this rule is going to work is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
    I think what we need to do and our obligation, and I think we have tried to do that, and we need to do a lot more clearly, is to better explain to everybody out there how this is going to work and how it is not going to work and how it is not going to work. I think there is a lot of fear, which I think many of you are reflecting today of all the potential downsides of regulation.
    I think we feel confident that we have structured a rule that is going to be very fair, it is going to be led by States, it is going to be locally led, it is going to emphasize best management practices, it is going to avoid lawsuits. I think what we need to do is work a lot harder between now and August, and hopefully we can work with you on explaining how this thing is going to work to the communities out there who are very concerned about it.
    Mr. EWING. Well, my time is up, but what you say is exactly where we want to go. But there is an inherent fear, and I think with some good reason that all of those comments meant to quiet us will turn out to bite us after they are in place, so that there is no confidence that that is the way it is going to be done.
    Ms. DELGADO. Well, clearly we need to work harder and work together to get there, and hopefully we can sit down, as this rule is written by the EPA we will be working closely with EPA on the exact language, and we would be happy to sit down with you all to make sure that we all understand exactly how this is going and how it is going to work.
    Mr. EWING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Ewing. I will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    How much time do we have left for this panel?
    Mr. GOODLATTE. We are being generous because they have been kind to come down here and answer our questions, and if it takes some additional time we want to take it.
    Mr. HAYES. OK. I want to take just a moment to develop a little bit more backdrop of what is going on here.
    Folks from the different agencies in Washington deal with us on a regular basis when we are working in Washington, and we have very vigorous and sometimes acrimonious debates about a whole host of reasons, but that is a healthy process. So the fact that we are fully engaged in this debate I think simply clearly indicates that these folks feel strongly about their position, and we feel very strongly about our position. We are more closely identified with you, the public, than possibly they are, not to debate that subject, but Mr. Fox and Ms. Delgado, we do want to continue the debate, and I am going to invite you all to my office when we get back to Washington to discuss this in some detail.
    But I would hasten to add that in this particular area where we live the EPA is threatening through rulemaking to remove badly-needed Federal highway money from our district and our State. And I say Federal highway money simply to emphasize there is no Federal highway money, it all came from the people in the audience and others, and when we see agencies, whether it is USDA, EPA, whoever, threatening to control us from Washington on issues that we ourselves are more than capable of controlling, then we get very nervous about it.
    Your administration, the folks that you work for, and I am sure that you are supportive of them as you should be, or you would not be there, are the ones that brought us midnight basketball; they are the ones that have brought us control of the amount of water that you can use in your toilet; they are the ones that have brought us OSHA almost into your home before, again, a public outcry turned that around.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    My point in making all this is there is a significant amount of distrust between the people, not only the administration, but Members of Congress as well—people resent Congress, but hopefully they like their local congressman. [Laughter.]
    But we want to make sure that folks understand we are going to continue this battle in a way that ends up with the result that everybody comes out ahead, because it is very, very crucial, and we do not want to see Federal agencies through nonelected representatives doing things. And the courts are another issue that we can save for another day.
    Ms. DELGADO. Congressman, just to respond to that, I think we agree with you in concept that the perceptions are out there, and that is precisely why this has been structured to make the States take the lead.
    If your State is taking the lead, and clearly the people who live in the State are much closer to their State representatives and their State agencies than they are to the feds who are back in DC that is why it is structured this way to avoid the problems that you are raising.
    Mr. HAYES. And we appreciate that, and as I alluded to earlier you all have learned the language. The administration polls on an hourly basis, they like local control, they like fishable and swimmable, but we want to make sure that you all are on board with a common sense approach to something that is crucial to the outcome of the future, it is crucial to the pocketbook, and it is crucial to the survival of the agribusiness industry, so without further ado, again I hope that makes it a little bit more clear to you all how this debate continues to go on.
    I sit on the Committee on Resources as well, and I have heard a number of times from the folks that brought us the Los Alomos fire as a best management forestry practice, so again that creates some of the apprehension on the part of the public to what is going on. So we look forward to continuing the dialog in however spirited a fashion it need be.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. FOX. If I could just say, Mr. Hayes, I truly appreciate your comments and your remarks. I have appeared before Congress I would say the better part of 20, maybe approaching 30 times in my 18 years of public service. I will readily admit that this is the first time I have ever gotten quite as agitated as I have been this morning, and I apologize if that came off inappropriatly.
    I think we all do have a responsibility for public service. I have been doing my darndest to make this rule responsive to the comments that I have heard, to keep it out of the political environment, and I think respectfully my frustration comes from a responsibility that we all share to communicate to the public accurate information about what is happening and what our proposal is, and what you heard from me this morning perhaps was a little frustration that that communication is not happening in a way that I think best serves the interests of the public.
    Mr. HAYES. Everything is political, all politics is local. Do not forget that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. I have a couple more points I want to make in regard to my concern that we are rushing into this to try to issue these regulations by June 30. That is your target?
    Mr. FOX. We are currently working on a finalization schedule that is approximately the end of June.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Ms. Delgado, I have a memo sent to Keith Luse of Senate Agriculture Committee from George Schunk, he is a Natural Resources and Environment specialist at USDA.
    Ms. DELGADO. Yes. He is here with me today.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Good. This memo is in response to Senator Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, requesting that the USDA perform a cost analysis of the EPA's proposed TMDL rule. He starts off saying:
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Last month Secretary Glickman received a letter from Senator Lugar requesting that the USDA complete a cost analysis of the EPA's proposed TMDL rule upon the private agricultural and silvicultural community.
    I would say well represented in this audience today, and in many other congressional districts around the country. He then has a couple of paragraphs explaining some of the difficulties in meeting that request, and then he concludes by saying:

    For all these reasons, our administration is reluctant to tackle the task Senator Lugar described. While well-intentioned, the job could easily under and/or overestimate true private sector cost. What we can propose is to pursue a role in reviewing the work EPA is currently performing with regard to their rule review. As I described yesterday, we have had a regular dialog recently with both EPA and OMB on the cost analysis that will be performed prior to finalization of the TMDL rule. The USDA is attempting to secure some meaningful role in reviewing the three types of studies that EPA is anticipating completing.

    Now, this was written just 18 days ago. Given the apparent concern about what role the USDA has in determining these costs, given their inability to give us an estimate on what is probably the most directly important cost impact, and that is the cost to the ultimate private landowners in this process. Given the concern each of you have expressed and that we have expressed regarding the need to communicate whether or not you think this is a good idea, and if indeed it is a good idea as you suggest it is, communicate it with the public more than has been done to this point. Would it not make sense under those circumstances to take up the offer that you have made to continue discussions with the Congress about this?
    And the frustration you have expressed, Mr. Fox, about reaching the general public, and the frustration that all of these people have clearly expressed regarding their concerns about what the cost is going to be to them if this final rule is issued, would it not make sense to continue that dialog and open it up and expand it as we are doing here in this district in North Carolina? I expect we will do a few more between now and June 30, but nowhere near what needs to be done to answer the legitimate questions that the folks here have and the Members of Congress have about what the cost is going to be to them of implementing these regulations.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. FOX. I appreciate the intent with which your question is asked. I would say this, that this formal rulemaking has been 4 years in development. We have held innumerable hearings and discussions throughout the country with a very diverse audience for the better part of 4 years, and it was a number of years before that that we were framing these discussions, so the impression, Mr. Chairman, that we are rushing to judgment somehow, with all due respect I just cannot agree with. And secondly on the economic——
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Fox, let me interrupt for just a second, and then I will allow you to go on.
    Do you not think that after 4 years you ought to be able to answer the most fundamental question of all in this whole process, and that is how much it is going to cost these folks and the American economy to comply with this?
    Mr. FOX. And that is what I was just going to say. We published cost estimates in August when we proposed this of 1999.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Then why could not Mr. Schunk give Chairman Lugar a direct answer to his question?
    Mr. FOX. I cannot answer for Mr. Schunk, sir. All I can tell you is that we have performed an extensive cost analysis on this, we have taken public comment on the cost analysis, and the revisions to this cost analysis will be part of the final rule decision when we make that announcement.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I am concerned that while the EPA and the USDA are clearly beginning a cooperative effort following this fax cover sheet that you have a long way to go to reach where you need to be before you ought to issue these regulations if the USDA does not feel comfortable in answering the most fundamental question about the issuance of regulations, and that is what is it going to cost to do this.
    Mr. FOX. If you have specific questions about our cost analysis, I would be happy to answer them. Please feel free to ask those questions of EPA. We are doing most of the cost estimates, and I think I testified on this very same point before your subcommittee in October, sir.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we will direct those questions to both you and to the USDA, and we hope to get one answer. But we would encourage you to consider the fact that in spite of your efforts for 4 years—and I respect those efforts. But I will tell you that I think the reason why you cannot answer that question is because this is a very, very massive undertaking. Whether you force the States to do it, or whether you do it yourself, either way to determine the impact on 300,000 miles of streams, and millions of acres of lake water by millions of landowners along those streams and come up with a way to apportion responsibility for how much discharge takes place on many of those pieces of land is a massive undertaking that needs further consideration. Especially if you cannot answer the basic question of what it is going to cost private landowners to do this.
    Do either of you gentlemen have any further questions that you would like to ask?
    Mr. EWING. No.
    Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, one thing that I notice sitting here—and let me encourage those of you that need more reading material, any of the things that you have heard today will be available in print fairly shortly. The statements of Ms. Delgado and Mr. Fox are already in print, and I would encourage you to get a copy. They are very well written, but they raise some serious questions.
    Chairman Ewing had a list of people who are vitally interested and involved in agribusiness. They were not consulted in this cost analysis and other part of the whole process. But if you read Mr. Fox's statement on page 3 a couple things jump out: ''Over the past several months, EPA has worked closely with many groups.'' I am concerned that the groups may have a certain bias towards things that they want to accomplish.
    Reading on down the page ''In developing the revisions to TMDL regulation, we worked closely with State officials, ASIWPCA, Interstate Water Pollution Control, ECOS, a number of groups . . .'' I am glad they are working with them, but again in listening to the discussion today I am not at all convinced that we have a broad group representing the whole issue carefully, so I would advise or suggest that you talk to some of our staff folks. Tim Peters is my agriculture person in Washington, he can get it for you; Richard Hudson is here in the district; Hunter is with the Agriculture Committee here in the front. So just give us your name, and we will be happy—a lot of work has gone into these statements, I think it would be helpful to you to get those and review them at your own leisure in the context of what you are looking for.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. FOX. Mr. Hayes, if I could just say for the record, a number of agricultural and forestry organizations were involved in our formal rulemaking and the Federal advisory committee. Since the proposal I have consulted with a number of agricultural and forestry interests on numerous occasions, and I respectfully would disagree with your characterization that they have not had the chance to provide input.
    Ms. DELGADO. If I too could just add to that, we have also had many meetings with not only the forestry community, but the agricultural community. We have given them briefings before we put out our May 1 statement jointly with EPA, we have briefed them on exactly what was in there. Privately they're telling us ''You are making a lot of progress, this is looking much better,'' publicly clearly they still have concerns that they want everything, they want 100 percent of their concerns addressed. So, you know, we are in the usual dynamic that goes into putting a rule together, and hopefully we can work together.
    Mr. HAYES. Well, let me assure you that we have the gavel on this side of the room, we will get the last word if we continue talking.
    I have no intention of mischaracterizing, but recently in Wilson, NC there was a very large hearing, and to sum up my concern as a citizen to what this is leading to, a Mr. Parker Lumpkin who has been in the forestry business for three generations talked about what it would be like if you had to deal with the damage of Hurricane Floyd going through the EPA, through an extended permitting process, and southern pine beetle infestations. These are our concerns day to day given the nature of Federal agencies in Washington, and I see it because I try to get home every weekend. I find myself around Friday getting a little squirrelly having been in Washington all week, so that is the concern that we have, and we want to make sure that common sense goes into all this, and it is not specific to you, but any Federal agency is closely in touch with the people who are paying the bills.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. I believe the gentleman from Illinois does have another question.
    Mr. EWING. Mr. Fox, I guess the bottom line appears to be here that many do not think we are ready, and it does not matter if it has been 15 years or 25 years, if we are not ready for the rule, if there is not an understanding, if there is not some consensus reached in the headquarters of the EPA and USDA it can be a very contentious thing out here.
    What is the opportunity? Are you ready to recommend to your boss that this be delayed until you can sell your program?
    Mr. FOX. No, I am not, sir, and the reason is simply this——
    Mr. EWING. You are going to force it down their throat. I mean that is what it appears, Mr. Fox, and I know this is a——
    Mr. FOX. Those are your words, sir. Those are your words, sir.
    Mr. EWING. They are, but I meant it is going to be forced if there is not delay.
    Mr. FOX. If I could just make one comment: In 1978 when the United States and Canada looked at the Great Lakes and saw that the Great Lakes were dying, there was a concerted public effort to try and restore the Great Lakes. What did they do? They established pollution budgets like a TMDL and saved the Great Lakes.
    In 1985 they did the same with the Chesapeake Bay. What we are faced with today is an opportunity to solve some of these vexing water quality problems that have plagued this Nation for decades, and to say that we need to delay that cleanup I would respectfully say there are communities that do not want to delay any longer.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. EWING. Well, I happen to live in a State that is affected by the Great Lakes, and I know there was not the outcry that we have in this case; there was a consensus.
    I believe that the Clean Water Act has done a lot of good, and we want to continue to do good with it, but good is not done when you have people pulling in very, very different directions. And I had thought I had heard some comments from this panel that you wanted to work with people, you wanted it to be voluntary, you want the States to be on board. It will not work if these people are not on board.
    My suggestion, and you I guess answered it, you are not willing to try and do the PR necessary to make this work when you put it in, and you are going to try and force it, which will go to the courts, go to the Congress, go through all the political system to try and undo what you are doing. You might better—just advice—might better spend that time making the program understood, get the people to understand the program, and then move ahead with some consensus.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. And with that we will thank this panel for their energetic defense of the position that the administration is taking, and I say that with all sincerity. I know you hold your beliefs very sincerely, Mr. Fox, I hope you understand that we are concerned that the timing of this issuance of these regulations is ill advised and will if it is followed through just further, as Mr. Ewing has indicated has further politicized this process, or wind up in the courts as you indicated in your memo.
    We thank you again for your participation, and we will dismiss the panel. You are welcome to stay if you wish to hear the testimony of the other witnesses today.
    We would now like to invite our second panel up to the table. Joining us today are Mr. Robert W. Slocum, Jr., the executive vice-president of the North Carolina Forestry Association, Raleigh, NC; Mr. J. Andy Martin, assistant vice-president, real estate and special assets branch, Banking & Trust Company of Wilson, NC; Mr. H.P. Taylor, a landowner in Wadesboro, NC; Mr. Patrick J. Powell, Canton Hardwood Company of Canton, NC; Dr. Deanna Osmond, associate professor, Soil Science Department, North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC; and Mr. J. Hugh Ryan, the State forester, South Carolina Forestry Commission in Columbia, SC.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I want to thank each of you for taking the time to join us today, and we will start with Mr. Slocum.
    I will remind all the panel members that any prepared statements you have will be made a part of the record, and in order to move things along if you can keep your oral testimony to 5 minutes we would very much appreciate it, although we are trying to be somewhat flexible since we have come a great distance, and you have spent a lot of time on this issue, and we want to give you the full opportunity to air your views. Mr. Slocum, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. SLOCUM, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, NORTH CAROLINA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, RALEIGH, NC

    Mr. SLOCUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, my name is Bob Slocum, I am the executive vice-president of the North Carolina Forestry Association. The NCFA is the State's oldest forest conservation organization representing over 2,500 forest landowners, forest product companies, timber harvesters, foresters, and others involved and dedicated to the sound use and management of our forest resources.
    After listening to the previous panel, I had to read my statement again to remind myself why I was here, because it does not sound like there is a problem. But on behalf of the members of our association I am here today to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the TMDL rules proposed by EPA specifically that would give the Agency the authority to designate forestry activities as point source discharges.
    I would like to present the committee with a petition signed by over 3,000 people opposing adoption of this rule. You referenced the meeting that was held in Wilson last Thursday; over a thousand people attended to hear about this rule and to express their strong opposition to it. In fact, I brought some pictures that maybe they can put up that you can take a look at that will show some of that meeting.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    For almost 30 years forest landowners and timber harvesters have worked closely with State agencies to improve the quality of forestry activities and to protect water quality, and the results have been impressive. In fact, forestry activities are not listed by EPA as a significant contributor of water quality impairment.
    In North Carolina the recent list of impaired waters identified forestry activities as a contributor in less than 1 percent of the impaired streams, and now the Agency wants to engage a rule that the National Association of State Foresters calls a radical departure from the historical interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, EPA starts with the basic assumption that forestry activities are a problem, something their own data does not support.
    Mr. Chairman, if EPA is allowed to assume this authority to designate forestry activities as a point source discharge, it will put millions of forest landowners in immediate legal jeopardy, and potentially subject them to NPDES permits. This could be time consuming, expensive, and they are all open to public comment and third-party legal challenge. The impact would be in our opinion to encourage, and in some cases force landowners to stop managing their lands, and even to convert their lands to some other use.
    As you know, EPA has received substantial opposition to this rule from landowners, the States, and from Congress. The rule also received major criticism from USDA, which you have talked about at some length.
    I have read the joint statement that was issued by the two agencies, and I regret to say that in our opinion nothing has changed. The fundamental issue remains, it gives EPA the authority to designate forestry activities as a point source discharge.
    I would like to address several of the revisions that were proposed and why we think they continue to be a problem. They say that no permits would be required for 5 years while they engage in further work with the States. Well, if they are going to delay this for 5 years, why the rush to change the designation of forestry activities now?
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Since 1975 the Federal courts have consistently told EPA that it does not have the authority to exempt categories of point source pollution from permit requirements. If EPA proposes that silvicultural activities may be designated as point sources, then all silvicultural activities, regardless of whether they are in impaired or unimpaired water bodies, may in fact be considered point sources and required to get a permit.
    The courts have also said that EPA may not choose when and under what circumstances a permit is required for a point source. If the activity is a point source, then a permit is always required, regardless of enforcement authorities. This rule in its current form is a lawsuit on its way to happen.
    They propose now to exempt National Forest System lands from this rule. You know, this is frankly somewhat surprising because now they purport to have the ability to determine a discharge from public lands as somehow different than a discharge from private lands. We do not know how they could do that. Unfortunately, we see this as an example of the Government trying to exempt itself from the laws it expects the rest of us to follow.
    They say that States with EPA-approved forestry programs will not have any permit requirements. We actually see this as a more expansive approach than the original rule. They now claim to want the authority, or have the authority to review and approve entire State forestry programs as opposed to reviewing each individual TMDL submitted by the State. They now appear intent to dictate the development, implementation, and enforcement of virtually every forest management activity conducted on private lands. We think this would also open up the ability of environmental organizations through Federal oversight to dictate what goes on on private lands, and even if it may go on.
    The agency says ''Trust us, will hardly ever have to use this authority, and even then it would be very limited.'' Mr. Chairman, we do not trust the EPA, and we have yet to see a regulatory agency be given authority it did not use. Even if the Agency did not directly use this authority, it is clear that they would use the threat of it to force the States to do their bidding.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    A recent article in the Conservation Fund Newsletter called ''Common Ground'' is worth noting. It cites a report from the environmental working group that says one-fourth of all major water polluters in the U.S. are operating with expired permits to discharge waste. EPA cannot handle major polluters, yet want to enact an incredibly threatening rule for something that is not even a problem.
    We wish that this rule were about clean water; we do not believe it is. We think it is about power. Adoption of this rule would be a disaster for landowners, the economy, and the environment. We see it as a regulatory power grab by a Federal agency, and a slap in the face of Congress.
    It is also clear that at least up to this point EPA has been deaf to the concerns of the forestry community, at least those of us at the grassroots level that actually own and manage land. We commend the Chair, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Ewing, for the introduction of legislation to deal with this problem, and encourage you to pursue it with all vigor.
    Thank you. [Applause.]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Slocum appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Slocum. Mr. Martin.
STATEMENT OF J. ANDY MARTIN, ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT, REAL ESTATE AND SPECIAL ASSETS BRANCH, BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, WILSON, NC.

    Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, and committee members:
    I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to express my views on the most potentially damaging ruling to ever impact forestry in the United States. My name is Andy Martin, I am a registered consulting forester, and am a 1981 graduate of North Carolina State University with a B.S. in forestry. I have over 12 years of procurement and land management experience in the forestry industry, and for the last 5 years I have worked with BB&T in the real estate and special assets department. BB&T is the Nation's 19th-largest bank holding company with over $46 billion in assets, and locations in seven different stats and the District of Columbia. Currently at BB&T I have management responsibilities for approximately 10,000 acres of cropland and 15,000 acres of timberland.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Although small compared to industry standards, as a corporate fiduciary these lands are extremely important to the clients we represent. Many of our clients depend on their land as their only source of income. To subject these people to the economic burden of this EPA regulation would be very damaging to their economic well-being.
    To require a permit for every silvicultural practice that they wish to perform on their land would be a deterrent so great that the majority of private landowners would halt these practices altogether. It has taken years of outreach and education from private forestry, the State forest services, and State extension services to convince private landowners that it is in their best interest to practice sustainable forestry on their lands. A well-managed forest can provide timber for our future needs, as well as much-needed habitat for our wildlife population. It can also provide recreational opportunities for people of all ages. However, the EPA with this ruling is going to bring a screeching halt to the cycle of sustainability. By imposing this mandate on all silvicultural activities, the only process private landowners will pursue is a harvest. This ruling with create such a burden on the private individual that it will not be economically feasible for the majority of the landowners I represent to pursue sustainable forestry practices. When a small landowner's only source of income is the family farm, it can be very difficult for an individual to look ahead to the forest for the next generation. With their Social Security checks and their farm income being their only hope for the future, it will be impossible for elderly landowners facing rising healthcare costs to pursue an expensive and lengthy permit process when it comes to silvicultural matters.
    Forest income has paid for college education, long-term health care, and has kept many family farms from going bankrupt in time of need. To regulate their economic future away from them would be catastrophic.
    On a local level, this rule would be devastating. Having endured a 50 percent reduction in farm income due to losses in tobacco quota in eastern North Carolina, more government regulation and burden could put many farmers completely out of business.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The majority of people envision giant timber companies harvesting acres of trees when they think of forestry, but it is the individual landowner that will provide our future forest needs, and this ruling will be the death sentence for our future. Small acreage will become functionally obsolete, the permit process will make it economically impossible to harvest these small wood lots. Many landowners believe that this is the true intent of this program. If the EPA is truly concerned with clean water, then why are they exempting our national forests? This entire process is a smoke screen to prevent timber harvesting on private land.
    Having given the view of a corporate fiduciary trying to protect the beneficiaries' rights, let me change hats and say as a forester whose job is to protect and enhance the natural life cycle of forests, I am in favor of clean air and water. However, I believe that as an industry the forest community has done an excellent job through education and self regulation of improving water quality in and around our Nation's forests.
    Sustainable forestry practices, pro-logger education courses, and best management practices guidelines have changed the direction and attitude of the forestry profession. From the CEO of a major corporation to a skidder operator working in the woods, I truly believe that each person has become aware of the importance of the multiple resources that our forest lands provide.
    Streamside management zone and riparian buffer strips have become a way of life. I believe that the EPA should not change the designation for silvicultural practices, and let the individual States deal with these concerns on a local level.
    The only way to change people's behaviors toward water quality is to let them take ownership in the regulations by working with the forestry industry, landowners' associations and environmental and government concerns. Local groups can join together to improve water quality for us all. The TMDL program will only create a bureaucratic nightmare that will entangle responsible forestry practices in costly litigation and red tape. Stop this devastating action before it destroys our Nation's only renewable resource, our forests.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    On behalf of BB&T and the landowners we represent, thank for hearing my remarks, and will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
    Mr. Taylor, welcome.
STATEMENT OF H. PATRICK TAYLOR, JR., LANDOWNER, WADESBORO, NC

    Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: My name is Pat Taylor, and I live about 15 miles east of here in Wadesboro, NC. Congressman Hayes knows this, but you gentlemen may not be aware that Anson County, of which Wadesboro is a part, the first soil conservation program district in the United States was started in Anson County. This was because Dr. Hugh Bennett was acknowledged as the father of soil conservation, was appointed by President Roosevelt to head the program in America in the early 1930's. Dr. Bennett was born and raised in Wadesboro.
    I mention this because the heritage of the people of Anson County in the preservation of our environment and our natural resources.
    I am a strong supporter of programs designed to protect the environment, not only of North America, but of the Nation and the world. With the ever-expanding population it becomes more and more difficult to achieve this goal.
    Anson County had a population of 28,000 people in 1910. In 1990, some 80 years later, the population was 24,000—4,000 fewer than 80 years before. At this rate we will be out of business in 2050. This was due to the fact that it was an agricultural county, and its two primary crops were cotton and pine trees. The boll weevil killed the cotton, and today our primary crop is trees. A recent article in the paper said that the importance of the timber industry to Anson County was second in the State of North Carolina.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Anything that is done by the government that would adversely affect of the timber industry would be devastating to the people of Anson County.
    My family owns timber land. Recently we sold several hundred acres of land to a brick company which is clearing the land at this time for the construction of a $32 million brick plant. It is very sad to see bulldozers destroying 12-year-old pine trees on land that has for some 200 years used for agricultural purposes. It was sold because of the increase in the county tax base and of the employment it offers. Environmentally, it would have been better to have left it as it was. It would be even sadder if laws were passed that made it impractical to use land for the growth of timber.
    My family owns a lot of land on U.S. Highway 74 in Wadesboro which was leased by Exxon for some 60 years and used as a filling station. At the expiration of the lease it was necessary to remove the old tanks and put new dirt in the holes where the tanks were, and to dispose of the old dirt. The old dirt looked normal to the eye, but if you smelled hard you could detect an odor of gasoline. The environmental engineer suggested that the old dirt, which was about two truck loads that would fill about the space of this platform, that we put it on an old field on the farm where it could be spread out by a tractor. He said he thought he could get approval in about 10 days to 2 weeks from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to have this done. This was in November of 1999. By letter dated April the 20, 2000, I received nine pages of instructions as to what must be done and what must not be done with this dirt. It referred to both civil and criminal penalties which could apply if the regulations were not met. The odor of gasoline has long since disappeared, the dirt is at least a quarter of a mile from any stream or any other property owner. We would never have put the dirt there if we had thought that it was in danger of contamination, but if we had have planned to farm that land this year we would not have been able to do so.
    I tell this story to illustrate what to me are fundamental truths. In the world in which we live there are conflicts such as the conflicts between idealism and realism, practical versus impractical, reasonable versus unreasonable.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Life would not be the same if it were not for idealists, dreamers, and philosophers. They do not always live or think in the real world. In this search for utopia they forget that somebody has to feed the people of the world, build buildings where people can eat and sleep and work, make clothes to wear, highways and automobiles to travel, and so on.
    Many a time I have heard governmental officials say ''I do not agree with this law or regulation either, but the legislature made it, and I have to enforce it.''
    As to the issue before us today, I would strongly urge you not to enact any law which would have the potential of severely damaging the timber industry. Environmentalists tend to be idealistic, and I believe you should not give them authority which could be used in an impractical or unrealistic manner.
    Some 40 years ago a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States wrote that if the farmers of America have to abide by all of the rules and regulations that have been enacted by Congress, they would never have time to plant a crop.
    I will close my remarks with a somewhat facetious suggestion for you honorable Members of Congress. When I was asked to be on this panel I thought we were going to sit and have a discussion. Then I later found out we were supposed to say something. Then I found out we were supposed to write it down, and last as I received a call from a staff member of the Congress who said that if I wanted to make remarks at this meeting I needed to bring 150 copies of the remarks. He said the rules required it. I would suggest that sometimes Congressmen like environmentalists can make impractical rules and regulations.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Taylor, thank you for your comments. I understand that you are the former Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, so I think you know that of which I speak. [Laughter.]
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    And we do appreciate your admonition. Our intent is to make sure that the folks in the audience can have an opportunity to share those remarks and take them with them and treasure them. But we do thank you for your cogent advice.
    Mr. Powell.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. POWELL, CANTON HARDWOOD COMPANY, CANTON, NC

    Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Agricultural Committee: Thanks for the opportunity to testify.
    My name is Pat Powell, and I am a pretty good fisherman, I am a pretty good turkey hunter, a pretty good deer hunter, and I play golf—I will not call myself a golfer, but I play golf—but I am not a public speaker. You are going to find that out, so please bear with me.
    I am a third-generation sawmill man. We started a sawmill in 1910 on the head of the Pigeon River. On the east fork of the Pigeon River we had a little portable sawmill, and a narrow-gauge railroad that ran back in the mountains that brought the logs out. The logs were brought to the railroad by oxen or horses. Things have changed drastically since then.
    We now have five members of the Powell family that run our sawmill in Kenton, NC. We all have different jobs. My job is to get logs into the sawmill.
    We live in an area that is from 40 to 60 percent federally owned. That is by the National Forest the National Park, and the Parkways System. In the sixties, seventies, and eighties we got anywhere from 75 to 90 percent of our raw material from the National Forest. Now we get about 2 percent from the National Forest of our raw materials due to the Clinton-Gore policies.
    The size of our sales have gone down. When we got our sales off the Forest Service our sales were anywhere from 1 to 5 million feet. Now if we get a sale with 200,000 feet we really think we have got a good one, and that is 2 weeks' sawing.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    So our sales are spread out all over private lands, all over western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, even up into Virginia in certain places, North Georgia.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. We are glad to have you up there.
    Mr. POWELL. Thank you.
    In South Carolina things have changed where we get our raw materials.
    Our family owns about 4,000 acres that we try to manage for timber production, and each year we fill on this what we cannot get from the private. We may get as much as 5 percent, or maybe as much as 15 percent of our timber off of our own land. So you see we get about 90 percent from private land.
    We learned early how to log because we worked so much on the U.S. Forest Service land. They were very strict and did things right, and did a wonderful job in their silvicultural practices.
    But we were not surprised when the State adopted water quality guidelines called Best Management Practices, BMPs. BMPs are designed to keep silt out of the water, period. Whatever you have to do to keep silt out of the water, that is what we have to do, and here are some of the things we do:
    We have strict engineering standards for our haul roads, our skid trails, and our stream crossings. Something we have started doing more and more of is stream-side management zones. We are not allowed within 100-feet of a moving stream with any equipment. That does not mean we cannot cut a tree in that zone, it means we cannot have our equipment inside that zone like a dozer or a skidder, and we have got to leave more trees in that zone than we would other zones.
    Finally, we spend a lot of time sowing grass and mulch in problem areas. We are responsible for these areas until they are totally stabilized. I have had to go back as long as a year to a timber sale where a thunderstorm would blow out a skid road or something, and I will have to go back and take a dozer, fix it back and restabilize it. So it is not something that we just finish one day and we are through with it. We are responsible for it until it is totally stabilized.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    We also have a Pro-Logger Program administered by the North Carolina Forestry Association and the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. This program educates all forestry workers on the benefits of BMPs.
    Our logging costs have doubled in the last 2 years, year or two due to our investments in the BMPs. Despite the picture of our industry painted by the environmentalists, we do not rape and pillage the soil. We bust our tails to take care of our land that we work on; we must take care of it if we continue in the business. We have got to have this land growing new timber at all times.
    We work in hardwoods, and they regenerate themselves, you do not have to plant, but if you work in pine you have to replant. We would like to have three more generations of Powells running our mill, but it is getting harder and harder to do.
    We have found out that the EPA wants to control our private land in our area through this Total Maximum Daily Load rulemaking process. All Federal lands are locked up to logging now, it looks like the private lands are going to be locked up next. Seems like this is what that is pointing to.
    It is our understanding that TMDL water rule will require that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for any forestry practices will be obtained. After reading the EPA's reasons for these rules I was appalled at the lack of science and logic behind them. Somewhere down the line we have gone away from science-based environmental management to emotional-based management, the sky is falling, we are running out of options. There is no more trees in the United States. We have more trees now than we did when Columbus discovered America, believe it or not.
    We see the most serious threat of this rule to the private landowner who wish to manage their lands for timber. Added expenses will turn them off, they cannot afford to keep their land in timber production with more cost rules. Land will be sold for housing developments. The value of the land in western North Carolina is going up, and up and up because of retirement homes and so forth. If the EPA thinks logging causes problems, they should come up and see some or the housing developments in western North Carolina.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    If we allow the EPA to take control of private property management through the foolish TMDL rules, Canton Hardwood is extinct.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Powell appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Powell. I want to commend you for a presentation very well spoken and from the heart.
    Ms. Osmond, we are glad to have you with us. Do I understand correctly that you have just been promoted to associate professor at the North Carolina State and that you have received your tenure?
    Ms. OSMOND. Yes, sir. Last Friday.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. That is great. You can speak with impunity without fear of any repercussions. [Laughter.]
    And we are glad to hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DEANNA OSMOND, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SOIL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC

    Ms. OSMOND. Mr. Chairman and committee members:
    I am delighted to be here today. My name is Deanna Osmond, I am associate professor in the Soil Science Department at North Carolina State University, and for the past 8 1/2 years I have been studying the relationship between agricultural land uses and water quality, and specifically we have been looking at best management practices and how the implementation of them change water quality.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    But what I really want to talk about is my role on the Neuse education team. This 10-person team is part of North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, and it was specifically funded by our legislators to deal with educational issues in a regulated river basin, the Neuse River Basin. Our role on this team is to educate and inform the citizens of North Carolina who live in the Neuse River Basin about what they can do to control nonpoint source pollution.
    The Neuse River Basin was regulated in August 1998. The regulation occurred because of fish kills that occurred in the estuary in 1995. The fish kills were linked to excess algae, low oxygen, and some of the aquatic scientists determined that excess nitrogen was causing the algal blooms, and they suggested that if we reduced nitrogen by 30 percent, a 30-percent loading into the estuary, we could reduce the fish kills.
    So some rules were established by the State rulemaking committee and, as I said, passed in August 1998 which specify a 30 percent reduction from all sources, point sources, nonpoint sources, urban folks, agricultural areas.
    After the rules were passed by State government the TMDL, the U.S. EPA-approved TMDL, was set a 30 percent. Now, want I want to talk about is how the agricultural rules were established in the Neuse River Basin, and what it means to agricultural producers there.
    Initially under the rules all agricultural producers had to use mandated best management practices. There were five practices from which they could choose: 50-foot riparian buffers, nutrient management, and 30-foot vegetative buffers, nutrient management and 20-foot forested riparian buffers, controlled drainage, and nutrient management and controlled drainage and vegetative buffers.
    The agricultural community spoke up, and they asked for more flexibility and, as a result, they were given the opportunity to institute a local area plan.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Now, one of the reasons that the number of best management practices in the Neuse to control nitrogen is so limited you will notice that most of the best management practices that we use to control sediment are not among this list it is because in humid areas most of the nitrogen moves through soil into the shallow groundwater and into the streams. So the BMTs that were established were to reduce nitrogen load in the source into the groundwater and through the streams.
    One of the really unique aspects of this local option was that producers can join into a local plan, and most of them have chosen to do this by county levels. And within the county each county has a local group that is made of agency people, but, more importantly, producers who will determine where best management practices will go on the land, so rather than having to put best management practices on every acre, they can put best management practices on to achieve the 30 percent reduction.
    The other thing about this plan that is extremely unique is that we know that water quality monitoring oftentimes takes a very long time to show changes. Sometimes we are talking about years, sometimes depending on the pollutant we are talking about decades, and when you start talking about a river basin we are talking about a very long time.
    We have developed a tracking tool that will allow producers to show their efforts without having to show water quality changes, and we think that is very significant for the agricultural community; it will give them more flexibility.
    And with that I thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Osmond appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan, we are glad to have you with us from South Carolina. STATEMENT OF J. HUGH RYAN, STATE FORESTER, SOUTH CAROLINA FORESTRY COMMISSION, COLUMBIA, SC
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  

    Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and Congressmen, I just appreciate the comments that you all have made.
    I represent forestry, have been with the South Carolina Forestry Commission for 39 years, but also have a foot, shall we say, in the farm agriculture community. I am a tree farmer, and also a farmer, so I am familiar with both areas there.
    We are particularly concerned in forestry because it seems that forestry is targeted in the United States for one simple reason, and that is a lot of folks do not like the idea of harvesting a tree. I used to use the word cut a tree, but I learned from my wildlife friends that you never kill a deer, you harvest it, so harvesting trees is the new word that we are trying to push at every opportunity.
    We do not see in the forestry community—and I am speaking specifically today from the standpoint of the National Association of State Foresters and the South Carolina Forestry Commission, but we do not see where that forestry is a problem, and I will talk about that a little bit more when I talk about best management practices that have been mentioned several times here.
    But forestry is an operation that takes a long time for the product to mature. In the farming business it is 4 to 6 months from seed to maturity. In the timber business we are talking 15 years or so the first thinning, 35 years or so or longer, particularly if you're talking about in the hardwood species much longer, up to 100 years before you have a mature tree that is ready to harvest, and because of that time span it is very important that some level of assurance is being given that when the person is spending money to plant trees. I think everyone wants to encourage folks to plant trees—but they must have some assurance that they can harvest those trees, that they can get some economic benefit from them.
    Certainly the trees during the time that they are growing can provide all the wonderful things that were mentioned earlier, home for wildlife and all, but they also do something else, and I sometimes wonder if EPA considers this: They also protect the soil. Nothing protects the soil better than tree cover, because not only are the trees there to break the rainfall, but the leaves are there to create a condition where the soil can take up more of the water. So it is a win-win situation.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Forestry has been driven—and I was carefully listening to what Mr. Powell said—out of the Pacific Northwest, not by legislation, but by government regulations, very much what we are talking here today, the TMDLs.
    Forestry is not practiced on Forest Service or Federal lands even in North Carolina, South Carolina, and so forth. I was with a group of Forest Service folks last week, and they were telling me all the good things they were doing in South Carolina for community development. I guess I was a little ugly when I said ''Well, you know what for you to do is harvest a few more trees, then we may not have to worry about why people are moving out of the rural areas and so forth, and why some of the forest industries are having trouble getting wood supplies, what you have had to do is go further to get your wood supplies which means you have to burn more gasoline and do these other things that are adverse to the environment that we are trying to protect.'' We see that kind of thing happening. It is not a good situation.
    Talking about best management practices, we are very concerned that a redesignation of silvicultural activities from nonpoint source to point sources of pollution make all forestry practices potentially subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is a drastic departure from 27 years of precedent that has already been mentioned here. We feel it is unfounded.
    Let me give you an example in South Carolina—and, Mr. Slocum, I noticed a minute ago you used a 1 percent figure—this is data from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control showing suspected nonpoint source contributions. This is older data, they say it is improving at monitoring stations. Now, we are 4 percent in South Carolina. Hopefully the new sheet will say 1 percent like yours.
    Agriculture over here, obviously agriculture has problems that the Forestry Committee does not because they plow the land every year and so forth. No-till farming is helping that a great deal, and obviously when you have a freshly-plowed field wind will move the soil and so forth and so on. Look at this one, urban runoff from the streets and so forth. This is sanitary sewer overflow way down here. I am happy to say that forestry is below sanitary sewer overflow. I think that is putting us in good stead there. You notice we did not make the forestry block there green representative of the crop itself. Then we go right on down to the others. I submit to you that forestry is the solution, it is not the problem. So many people want to turn that on its head, but that is not the case.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Talking about BMPs. In South Carolina we started a BMP program way back, actually back in the seventies, but we have been doing extensive monitoring and so forth since the late eighties and right on into the current year 1999. I have with me two of our BMP folks, one who started the program, Dr. Tim Adams, and Darrel Jones who is following in his footsteps. Started in 1989, we were doing monitoring on logging sites. The first compliance was down in the 84 percent level, the latest surveys are showing it up in the 94, 95 percent.
    We knew we needed to expand beyond logging, though, because there are other impacts than forestry on the environment. One is site preparation where you are getting ready to plant trees. We started off at 84 percent, and that line just shot up right there to about 98 percent in the last monitoring survey. And that shows the you importance of having a monitoring program, and one that you can use to constantly improve your program. What we found, quite frankly, in the site prep one was that the thing that was causing the most soil movement was fire lines plowed around the areas that were using chemicals so that we would not have soil disturbance, but the fire lines, there were not enough water bars down on them, so we had training sessions and so forth, and we think the training really paid off. Matter of fact, we know it did. Look what the chart shows. We wiped out that source of the problem, again by having a program, evaluating the program, making constant changes and so forth. We think that that is the way to go with this.
    The thing that bothers me the most, though, and it has been mentioned by several folks that have talked, but I want to hit it from one other angle, talking about ability to be able to harvest your timber at a time when the timber is mature and when the landowner is in a position so that it would be beneficial to the landowner. But I have got a special concern about the landowner who is in the process of making important decisions about planting trees. If that landowner is not convinced that if they plant those trees that they can eventually utilize them they are not going to plant the forest; sustainable forestry is out the window. It is a terrible psychological ploy there that we are dealing with.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
     These landowners could well be intimidated by the threat of not being able to harvest their crop. Forestry is not like an agricultural crop which I mentioned a little wile ago, a normal farm agricultural crop, in that you are talking decades instead of months. You have got to have a sense of security when you're making these kind of decisions to invest. If not, you are going to sell the land for housing or some other alternative use, you're not going to protect the land. Now, a lot of times I hear that word protect and I shudder, because most of the time when folks talk, the so-called environmentalists, they are usually talking about protecting land, and a lot of times they are talking about protecting it from forestry, so we sort of take a little offense to that, but it is some of their terminology.
    In conclusion, on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters and the South Carolina Forestry Commission, I propose we stay the course with proven, successful forestry nonpoint source programs. Let me just say one thing here. I heard the earlier testimony about that how benign nonpoint source was and so forth and so on. Well, what really bothered me when I heard that is why do they want to change forestry over into point source? Does this mean, hey, we have got to regulate these folks? That is what it sounded like to me, and I am afraid that is what it will sound like to most landowners. These programs should at minimum, at a minimum include State-approved BMP guidelines, a formal BMP educational program, and statistically-sound BMP monitoring programs.
    In conclusion, we the forestry community recommend that the EPA retract the proposed rule revisions, but on the other hand we do see a little bit of a shining light here, that while we disagree with the methods EPA is using to enact these revisions we can agree that the attention the issue is receiving is positive, as long as it results in improvements in nonsource pollution prevention programs.
    With that I thank you very much for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
    Mr. Slocum, the EPA claims that forest operators in States approve the programs and will do what is expected of them, best management practices are effective in reducing pollution and need to be implemented. The agency indicates they are willing to provide credit for voluntary programs. What is the forestry community's response to that?
    Mr. SLOCUM. Well, I guess our response would be do not know what they are talking about, we do not know what credit means, and we do not know what EPA approval means. We have what we think is a very effective program in North Carolina. We still see these comments as more of a top-down ''We will tell you what your program is going to include'' as opposed to ''You design the program to fit your needs.''
    We think we have designed a program in this State that fits our needs very well, and has been very effective. Right now one of the things that concerns us the most is this proposal or this rule throws all of that into question; we have no idea whether our program would survive or meet these so-called guidelines that might be proposed.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Is it your concern that whether or not you receive credit would depend upon their definition of what best management practices are rather than what is commonly accepted in forestry studies at universities, or as proposed by the State of North Carolina or other States?
    Mr. SLOCUM. Without a doubt. The terminology that may be used by the Agency may or may not be similar to what we would use.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Dr. Osmond, what incentives work best to help farmers and foresters adopt best management practices?
    Ms. OSMOND. The USDA ran a 15-year experiment to look at some of the things that helped producers with water quality issues. Cost-share is critical. It is very important that cost-share is available.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    There are other factors that are really important, too. If they live in a mixed watershed where there are other potential pollutant sources, it gets very difficult for them to believe that all of the effort has to be made on their part, they want to see the urban communities doing their part too.
    And last, but not least, the water resource that they are trying to protect has to be of concern, so in those areas where there was a lot of interest in fishing, and there were problems with sediment, and the ranchers and farmers could see that there was a problem with sediment they got very, very interested in implementing best management practices, but I think above all cost-share is critical.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan, I think you just answered this, but I liked your answer so well I am going to ask you to give it again. Is the USDA/EPA policy consistent with almost 30 years of Clean Water Act statutory interpretation, Federal regulation, and court decisions that forest management activities are a nonpoint source category subject to State regulation under section and section 319 of the act?
    Mr. RYAN. That is definitely my feeling and the feeling of the forestry community today in violation of the Clean Water Act in making this assumption.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. The EPA proposes to work with the USDA and the public to develop guidance for States to follow in designing and adopting forestry BMP programs for the protection of water quality. What implications will this likely have?
    Mr. RYAN. Well, I think one problem we have got is that you were talking about politics being local, BMP practices should be local also, and I think Dr. Osmond mentioned here just a little bit ago, I mean they are in a wonderful position to help with the promulgation and the research and all that, and things will be different even, and the people in the city of Piedmont up in North Carolina and the people in South Carolina and the Coastal Plains are totally different, and I think the one-size-fits-all concept that you would get from the Federal regulatory side of things would be very detrimental to having good best management practices locally usable and effective, and I think though it is very important that you have a good monitoring program, because if you just throw out best management practices and say ''Well, this is good,'' you might have to make a few little changes. Like we found out we needed more education in terms of those fire lines on the site preparation, so you have got to couple the science-based promulgation, then you have got to monitor and educate and so forth. So I think the localization is what is so important rather than the shall we say top-down driven.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. EWING. Thank you. This would be a question that any of you on the panel feel free to answer. Is anyone currently affected by the TMDL?
    [No response.]
    Mr. EWING. Could you describe how they might affect you? I mean how long would it take to develop a TMDL?
    Mr. RYAN. Dr. Osmond, could you handle that one? I do not know. It would depend on what it was and so forth, but that is a science question.
    Ms. OSMOND. Well, actually in the Neuse River the folks there are affected by a TMDL, and they used the best science-based information they haven, which is not to say that it is necessarily correct, and I am not an aquatic scientist and I do not know how long it took the aquatic scientists to come up with it, and I am not even convinced that the aquatic scientists are sure that that is the right TMDL. There has been discussions in the basin that they may have to go back and reevaluate.
    The one thing we do know from our water quality work is that it tends to be an iterative process, you try and reach and objective, you look at the water quality and how it is affecting habitat, and if you do not have it right you end up going back to the drawing board. It is not precise.
    Mr. SLOCUM. If I may, the one interesting thing about the Neuse River TMDL and in fact that entire rule was that the State included the discharges from forest land, both disturbed and undisturbed, were at background levels and offered no opportunity for further reductions in discharges.
    Mr. RYAN. One problem with the TMDL, too, is it is plural, you know, a TMDL for sediment, a TMDL for fecal coliform, or one for heavy metals and so forth. It is almost endless.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. EWING. I come from a different agricultural background than trees. The only trees we have are around our houses, but over the years tremendous strides I think have been made in agriculture and dry land farming practices in Illinois to protect the soil and to eliminate the erosion and the sediment in our streams. How would any of you describe the last 20 years of agriculture in the forest industry and the direction in which it is going?
    Mr. SLOCUM. Well, I guess from the forestry standpoint 20 years ago is ancient history to the forest products industry. the practices in place now, the attention to quality, the concerns, the actions that have been taken to improve timber harvesting operations, reforestation work are really astounding, and a lot of this has been led by research that has simply shown better ways of doing business.
    So I think it is fair to say from the forestry standpoint that this industry has never been better, and is going to get better even more so in the future, provided it is given the flexibility and the incentive and the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. POWELL. We have had to buy such things as skyline logging machines to lift the logs up off the ground and bring them down to the landing. That reduces your road building. We have logged with helicopters in unaccessible places.
    Mr. MARTIN. I would also like to say that, believe it or not, the forest industry has been the leader in this. I think by them providing education and promoting pro-logger programs for loggers they have sort of been the driving force behind the education in logging, and the improved BMPs and stream-side management zones. It has not been the private landowner as much as industry.
    Mr. RYAN. The forest industry has had some real advantages over the agricultural side in that we have actually gained—I know in South Carolina I think most of the southern States—we have actually gained in forest land. Over the last half century or so we have gained about 2 million acres of forest land in South Carolina versus, you know, over that time period.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    A lot of the marginal open land that you could not protect well has been put in trees, but the agricultural folks have had great strides particularly with this no-till farming that they are using now. But forestry just because—as was mentioned just a minute ago, it is just good business, because you are talking about, you know, protecting your soil, I mean that is the forest investment right there, the quality of your soil as it well is with your crop agriculture. But only a very, very foolish land manager would do anything that would be detrimental to the land, and that has been realized more and more as the research comes on line showing just how important site index based on soil quality is to tree growth. It is not arithmetic, it is geometric in terms of production.
    Mr. EWING. I want you to know I have a proposal that would make a very lucrative for anybody who wants to take corn and soybean land out of production and put it into trees. We in Illinois would like to see that happen throughout the South. [Laughter.]
    Mr. RYAN. I just signed a contract for repairing buffers the other day to do some of that, but I did not get any of that rain that you all mentioned until last night, I got three-quarters of an inch. I am going back and check my corn when I get home, I hope it has picked up about 6 inches. But I am going to do exactly that because of some economics as well as stewardship.
    Mr. EWING. I knew when I made that last statement a lot of you looked very serious, and I wanted to be sure everybody knows that I am spoofing.
    But how does your forest industry work down here? I know how it works in my part of the world about people that own land, and they participate with a tenant, but are most of your landowners in the forest industry large owners of land? Do you have small owners with tracts of land that are harvested, and do they harvest the whole tract at once, or do they take part of it over a period of years to provide the income to that landowner?
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. RYAN. Just let me give you this as an example, and I will use South Carolina, but I figure it would pretty well hold true for the South—It would be a little bit different for the other States—in South Carolina 70 percent of the land is owned by private landowners. Industrial forestry concerns own 17 or 18 percent, and then Government owns about 10 percent, and the other couple of percent is just miscellaneous. This would be completely the reverse of what you would have say on the west coast and so forth and so on.
    The average forest landowner in the State of South Carolina, about a hundred acres, but it is getting smaller. The fragmentation situation is getting, and it is going to really put a real emphasis on logging techniques to be able to utilize the wood from those small acreages.
    Most of the folks that have enough acreage do a rotation where they can get income periodically. Only the ones with the very smallest holdings would have to go to the boom and bust cycle shall we say.
    Then too you have—it is not a one-time proposition when you manage your timber, you have thinnings for the smaller products, pulp wood and so forth, then you move to the next size logs, and then you go on up to your prime timber logs.
    That would vary a little bit in the hardwoods that Mr. Powell is connected with, but it is a cyclic thing, and most people try and take advantage of that if they have enough acreage to take advantage of that. It is good from a tax standpoint, too.
    Mr. EWING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.
    Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I really appreciate you all coming. Those who are from Washington and other places probably do not realize geographically how far away Canton and some of the other places are. Where do you live, Mr. Ryan? Did I get any rain on my farm down there in the Low Country?
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. RYAN. I live down just east of Columbia.
    Mr. HAYES. OK. Did we get any south of Columbia?
    Mr. RYAN. You got pretty much rain all the way down between here and there.
    Mr. HAYES. But there are a number of interesting points raised here. As you can see, I hope, there is tremendous concern in the eighth district and across North Carolina and across the country about what Government agencies are prepared to impose on them. The fear is genuine; it is based on history, it is not based on speculation, and Mr. Ewing's point about consensus is very important. These 3,000 people who have signed the petition about TMDL indicates that we do not have consensus, so we need to continue to work because this is the public's business, and if they are not on board then I think the public has more common sense than government together.
    And if I can pick on my friend, the gentleman from Wadesboro for just a minute, I know again for the folks in Washington he is not as young as he looks. He is a country counselor with a law degree, he could make Matlock take a second fiddle on TV if he wanted to do that. [Laughter.]
    But having said all that, Mr. Slocum, you said something that really caught my attention, you said government given authority to regulate, has that ever happened and they did not use it. The EPA is not really handling the major polluters that we all know and agree about.
    With those two statements in mind—and, by the way, the reason you had to make so many copies, the timber industry asks us to have these hearings, so with those two statements in mind, and we do not want to get into the creation-evolution argument, but government was created by the people, now it is evolving into something different than what we created. Speak about where you see this going from your 50-plus years of public service, and just address this whole issue of why our concern is there based on your original comment.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I guess we get more population in the country, we get more industrialization, more people living closer together I guess brings about more regulation would be what I would basically say.
    I think also of course people now look to the Government for more things than they used to look for, and they expected to do it themselves, but now they like to get help from the Government.
    Mr. HAYES. That does seem to be an increasing trend, but given the independent nature of the farming community I think they very loudly have said we still have the ability to do the things that we need to do.
    And, Dr. Osmond, help me with my memory, Dr. Burkhalter is the lady at N.C. State who has been instrumental in dealing with a very serious problem, pfeisteria, which has led to fish kills, and initially not very widely respected, but I think folks again through consensus and through sound science have come to see how important this lady is to the future of our estuarian environment in North Carolina and other States. That reinforces what Chairman Ewing was saying about consensus, working together to bring this all to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Powell, you talked about turkey hunting—that is near and dear to my heart—and those of you who may not have understood, a ''dayuh'' is the same thing as a deer. [Laughter.]
    We have got a lot of ''dayuh'' in South Carolina. There are more ''dayuh'' and turkeys now than there were as you said when Columbus came.
    You have expressed a very strong desire, and I sense it everywhere I go, the people involved are the greatest beneficiaries and the greatest protectors of this environment. Talk about that consensus thing. How do we work together? This is a good way to start. How would you like to see this hearing progress leading to a good conclusion?
    Mr. POWELL. Well, what I do for the environment, when I have to sow grass and stuff I do not put down any type of grass, I put down stuff that is good for wildlife, put down clover and other stuff. If we are working together we can come out better with our wildlife, and our timber and everything will blend in together.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. HAYES. Well, again, my time is up, but I really appreciate you all coming from a long distance, and I appreciate—banking, you do not think necessarily of that as being agriculture or forestry related, but that provides the capital to do the things that need to be done.
    Mr. Slocum.
    Mr. SLOCUM. Just on that consensus point, Mr. Hayes, I take the opportunity, we heard this morning that the Agency does not intend in any way to regulate nonpoint source discharges, and that they do not have the authority to do that. We concur with that. I think there is consensus that EPA does not have that authority, and should not be regulating nonpoint source discharges.
    A long way in reaching consensus on this rule would be a very clear statement that under no circumstances would forestry activities be considered point source discharges. That is a long way to reaching consensus.
    Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much. And just to conclude briefly if I may, Mr. Chairman, $1.2 billion is spent on EPA every year, and some of that is important, but there is a lot of it in my opinion needs to be going to public education and Social Security and other things.
    Having said that, back to your statement. If EPA would focus like a rifle shot on municipal and other polluters, and use the money that is now being spread thinly under these proposals into areas that are not creating a problem, using that money to upgrade antiquated sewer systems where infiltration problems are very, very serious, where plants are in flood plains and when you have Hurricane Floyd you have those kind of discharges, let us spend our money on those major sources of identifiable pollution, and lets do not pull folks in that do not belong in this debate and in this argument.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I want to thank the members of this panel for your contribution and traveling in some instances great distances, and others we are pleased to travel to be with you. But in any event, we thank you for your contribution.
    We have one additional panel, and since we have been sitting for about 2 1/2 hours I think maybe we will take about a 5-minute break so everybody can stretch, and we will invite those members of the panel to come on up and we will get started in 5 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. If you can take your seats, we will go ahead and get started again.
    We are going to go ahead with our third panel now, so if folks can take their seats I would at this time like to introduce the panelists. First we have Mr. Elton Braswell, a producer from Monroe, NC; next Mr. Allen McLaurin, a producer from Laurel Hill, NC; third Ms. Anne Coan with the North Carolina Farm Bureau from Raleigh, NC; next Mr. Windell Talley, a producer from Stanfield, NC; next Mr. Russell F. Cox of Cox Brothers Farms from Monroe, NC; and finally Mr. Donald A. Heath of Heath Farms in Dover, NC.
    As indicated earlier, we would ask that each of you keep your remarks to 5 minutes. If you have a written statement, that will be made a part of the record in its entirety, and we will begin with Mr. Braswell. Thank you for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF ELTON BRASWELL, PRODUCER, MONROE, NC

    Mr. BRASWELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed TMDL rule. Good morning.
    I am Elton Braswell from Monroe, NC, the northern part of Union County. My brother and I are partners in the operation of Braswell Brothers Dairy. The dairy operation is centered around a 95- to 99-head milking herd of registered Guernsey cows, plus heifers raised as replacements. We also grow corn for grain and silage, soybeans, barley, wheat and oats for grain and hay, plus manage pastures for grazing and hay.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    As an active leader of Farm Bureau for 30 years locally and at the State level, I am opposed to efforts that place nonpoint sources such as agricultural activities under the TMDL process. I have served as chairman of the North Carolina Farm Bureau's Natural Resources Committee, and participated at the State and national level on discussions and conferences about environmental issues.
    Up front, I would like to say that I feel nonpoint source issues outlined in EPA's TMDL proposal are best addressed through voluntary best management practices, BMPs, implemented by those who own and work with our natural resources on a daily basis, we the farmers.
    I personally have reviewed and commented on North Carolina's basin-wide approach to water quality management in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin that runs through Union County. North Carolina's basin-wide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and protecting the quality of North Carolina's surface waters. The implementation of the seventeen plans prepared by the Division of Water Quality brings local governments, interest groups, landowners, and other stakeholders together to address water quality. This process is in keeping with the intent of the Clean Water Act of 1972 that nonpoint sources such as agriculture be addressed through voluntary incentive-based BMPs, technical assistance and education be provided to landowners, and that landowners be allowed the flexibility to manage their land on a site-specific basis.
    On our dairy operation we work diligently to manage animal waste, to prevent runoff, and use the waste as a part of our crop fertilizer to reduce the amount of commercial fertilizer we have to purchase. We apply the waste to our cropland so that the crop is fertilized at agronomic rates for the specific crop to be grown based on soil sample analysis and yield expectations. The management of animal waste is important, but it also requires that we use care to avoid overapplication of the nutrients. I have attended waste management training classes and have an operator-in-charge designation from the Water Pollution Control Systems Operator Certification Commission. The operator-in-charge designation requires 10 hours of classroom work on operating waste management systems, successfully passing an exam, and paying a yearly fee.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
     Additionally, 10 hours of continuing education training must be completed every 3 years. I have done this even though our herd is less than the 100-cow threshold that requires a designated operator-in-charge plus a certified waste management plan and general permit for cattle operations. Those above the threshold have permits that are renewed each year, and the annual fee is based on size. Inspections on these operations are done two times a year, one by the Division of Soil and Water or the local soil and water district, and one by the Division of Water Quality. Even though we are under the 100-cow confined threshold, we are subject to discharge regulations and complaints that may be filed with the Division of Water Quality. I go into this detail to demonstrate that in North Carolina we already have existing programs the reduce nonpoint sources.
    Sediment is listed as a major pollutant from nonpoint sources such as urban runoff, construction activities, and agricultural activities in general. On our farming operation, we use no-till planting extensively to protect our land from erosion and runoff. Additionally, the use of no-till helps us conserve soil moisture and nutrients for plant utilization. Farm Service Agency crop reporting records in Union County verify that most crops are planted no-till with minimal soil disturbance, leaving crop residues on the surface. Farmers voluntarily have implemented practices to reduce erosion potential on their fields, practices being no-till planting and cover crops as examples.
    If EPA's proposed TMDL rule is adopted, it will ignore everything we have done voluntarily to reduce runoff and protect our water quality over the last several years.
    Lastly, this rule would undermine our State's existing regulatory water quality protection programs through excessive EPA oversight.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important rule.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Braswell appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    Mr. McLaurin, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN McLAURIN, PRODUCER, LAUREL HILL, NC

    Mr. MCLAURIN. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, committee members: My name is Allen McLaurin, and I am from Scotland County, NC. I am employed by Z.V. Pate, Inc., where I have been managing their farming operations since 1983. This operation consists of timber, cotton, soybeans, and tobacco production. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed rule on total maximum daily load.
    I am opposed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule that would subject nonpoint sources such as agricultural activities to potential land use restrictions under the total maximum daily load process. If adopted, this rule would place severe restrictions on our ability to manage our farmlands according to research-based best management practices, and would jeopardize our existing State regulatory programs.
    We are constantly revising our land management practices to reflect the latest advancements in environmental stewardship and efficient crop production management to protect water quality. For example, we have implemented several best management practices that significantly reduce erosion and off-site runoff, thus allowing nutrient residue to remain in the fields to which they were applied, leading to better crop utilization. Such practices as we have mentioned earlier are no-till production, various grain crops such as soybeans and grains, and strip tilling of cotton.
    Proper applications of nutrients are essential to obtain optimal yields, as well as for the protection of our environment. To ensure that our crops are not receiving excessive rates of nutrients, we sample our fields annually to determine the optimum levels of nutrients and apply accordingly. Restrictions on nutrient applications, as could occur if EPA's proposed rule is adopted, could drop commodity yields significantly even further below the profitable levels as we are using today.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Farmers who apply animal waste as nutrients also follow agronomic recommendation rates. If EPA's proposed TMDL rule is adopted, farmers could be required to use more land to apply the same amount of nutrients. Agricultural land use in North Carolina is decreasing while urban use is on the rise. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult for a farmer to acquire the additional land necessary in order to comply with EPA's proposed requirement.
    In addition to the many voluntary best management practices that we are implementing on our operations, the State has adopted additional water quality regulations that require certain land use restrictions by nonpoint sources such as agricultural activities. Furthermore, land use ordinances are best handled at the State and local levels. The proposed EPA rule on TMDLs could undermine these State and local land use management efforts. This rule could mean the voluntary best management practices that we have implemented to protect water quality would not be considered in EPA's rush to regulate nonpoint sources.
    Farmers have made great strides in conserving and protecting our national resources through voluntary programs. We are conserving our soils through erosion-control programs, protecting our wetlands through voluntary buffers, and protecting our wildlife through the establishment of habitat areas. For example, in our own operation we have converted over 1,500 acres of farmland to timber production through participating in the conservation reserve programs.
    We ask that you work to ensure that we have the necessary funding and technical assistance in order to continue implementing voluntary conservation measures in the future. Farmers take great pride in working the land and being good stewards of our natural resources, but we need the necessary tools in order to remain viable and continue with voluntary environmental protection initiatives.
    Leave land management decisions to private landowners, States, and local governments. We do not need EPA telling us how to manage our own land, and do not need this proposed TMDL rule.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EPA issue.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McLaurin appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, and thank you for bringing your remarks in with the green light still on.
    Ms. Coan, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ANNE COAN, NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU, RALEIGH, NC
    Ms. COAN. I am afraid that I might not be as successful. I submitted a great deal of testimony, and will try with the committee's indulgence to summarize it.
    Mr. Chairman and members the committee: My name is Anne Coan, and I am the natural resources director for the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation which is our State's largest farm organization, and we appreciate the opportunity to appear today to express our concerns about EPA's total maximum daily load regulations.
    I was a bit disturbed earlier today to hear that maybe we are uneducated and do not understand what we are talking about. I would commend to you the testimony of John Barrett who appeared before you in October who is a member of EPA's own technical advisory committee on TMDLs. He was the agricultural representative, and he too has severe concerns about what this rule will do. I believe that Mr. Barrett, or Dr. Barrett is very well qualified to bring to your attention problems that have arisen in this rule and, frankly, I was very disturbed to hear that we just do not know what we are talking about.
    The Farm Bureau is opposed to EPA taking control of the nonpoint source pollution management program through the use of land use controls out of the hands of State and local governments, and out of the hands of private landowners. We feel that this proposed regulation is a clear regulatory overreach by EPA. It will jeopardize our farmers who are participating in highly successful BMP programs in North Carolina.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    We also are number one in forest farm income in our State. We produce more farm income from forestry products than any other State, so the same concerns that you heard on the earlier panel are going to be real concerns to our farmers. They are small landowners, they do not have lawyers to hire to come in and fight these proposals, so it is important to remember that they also share the forestry concerns.
    North Carolina has one of the premier State programs for voluntary best management practice installation on farms. Our North Carolina Agriculture Cost-Share Program for nonpoint source pollution control is a model program that is envied throughout the country, and it is described in detail in my testimony. As with most programs that address nonpoint sources, the program is underfunded, and in North Carolina about three applicants are left at the door for every one that receives funding each year. This shows that our farmers are committed to best management practices, but we just do not have the funding to implement them in North Carolina.
    This program has had the added benefit that the Federal funds that are provided through the Conservation Reserve. Our State's CREP, and the Environmental Improvement Program are all leveraged to increase the cost share amount, and therefore we have great utilization of these programs. Usually in rounds we receive additional funds, and we spend them.
    In addition to this, North Carolina Farm Bureau has worked very hard under 319 to see that agricultural projects are funded under the State's 319 effort. But here in North Carolina we have had some particular challenges in recent years that have led to specific and comprehensive State water quality regulations being adopted for some sections of agriculture, or for the agricultural operations that are in certain designated areas of our State.
    Primarily in response to the growth of the swine industry a comprehensive set of State regulations and laws, including nondischarge permitting, has been implemented for confined animal operations that have more than a hundred cattle, more than 250 pigs, and for operations with 30,000 birds with a wet waste management system, predominately egg operations. We can provide more information on the requirements if you wish.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    In response to the fish kills in the Neuse River Basin, a comprehensive set of State regulations has been adopted for the Neuse River Basin. These regulations are described in my testimony, and you will hear more from Mr. Heath who is a farmer that is actually covered under this TMDL.
    These State agriculture regulations for the Neuse River Basin were submitted to EPA as a part of its TMDL as the State's TMDL implementation plan. Farm Bureau successfully worked on that plan to have a local flexible option for farmers, and you heard a little about that earlier.
    Under the local option, farmers work collectively in each county to reach the 30 percent nitrogen reduction goal. The local advisory committee develops the best management practices for the individual farmers that they must install. The farmers that exercise this local option have until August 2003 to install their practices. This is a comprehensive but brief overview of some of the things that we are doing in North Carolina to sort of let you know why we are concerned.
    Nonpoint source has always been handled by a process that is predominately with the States, and we believe that is where it should be. This proposed regulation could undermine this traditional system by injecting Federal authority into individual land use decisions. The TMDL process as proposed by EPA requires their review and approval, or disapproval of a State's list of impaired waters, and the TMDLs have to be approved within 30 days of submittal. If the EPA disapproves a list or the TMDL, EPA must write the list, EPA must establish the TMDL. The power to do this, which is to dictate load limits for nonpoint sources is really the power to dictate land use changes that EPA feels are needed to achieve those goals.
    By regulatory fiat EPA will be allowed to list nonpoint source impaired waters, develop TMDLs, and establish the implementation plans to achieve the loads. In other words, the proposal provides for Federal land use regulation through EPA's ability to require the TMDL through their ability to disapprove State submissions, and therefore their ability to develop the TMDL and the implementation plan, not at the State level but at the Federal level.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The TMDL advisory committee that I spoke of earlier reached a consensus that best management practices that are implemented to achieve TMDLs have to pass the test of practicability. In other words, they must be economically achievable. EPA has failed to introduce this concept into either the preamble or the proposed rule.
    Another serious problem is that they can designate nonpoint sources a point sources, and you heard discussion of that earlier.
    This proposed rule needs serious revision, but ultimately the real fix may need to be Congress passing legislation to restate its clear intent of 1972 that nonpoint sources are to be treated as such, and were never intended to be treated in the same way as point sources. Congress may need to stop EPA from changing activities that have always been considered nonpoint sources into point sources in clear conflict with the intent of Congress.
    The nonpoint source issues that have been outlined in EPA's TMDL proposal are best addressed through incentive programs such as ours in North Carolina, and where needed through carefully crafted regulations that are developed by the State with adequate farmer involvement, with flexibility and with buy-in by the regulated farmers.
    EPA's ability to disapprove these programs, to disapprove these State regulations under these TMDL rules is the wrong approach. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Coan appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank you.
    Mr. Talley, we are pleased to have your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WINDELL L. TALLEY, PRODUCER, STANFIELD, NC

    Mr. TALLEY. Thank you. I am Windell Talley from Stanfield, NC, and I would like to welcome you to Wingate University where some 40 years ago I was a student. I later attended and graduated from North Carolina State University in poultry science. For some 36 years I have been involved in food production. Our operation consists of turkey meat birds, turkey hatching eggs, beef cattle, and crops consisting of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Over the years as capital became available our operation has evolved into a sizeable enterprise along with the involvement of my three sons and their families.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Our food production facilities require the use of several thousand acres of land, some leased and some owned. It has always been of utmost concern to me that these properties are passed on to the next generation in better condition than it was acquired. We have always sought to prevent excessive runoff which might have a detrimental effect on the water supplies. For the past 10 years we have no-tilled all of our crops, and utilized buffer strips. As a farmer and a food producer, we operate in a challenging environment due to the weather, economics, and the biological nature of the production of our products. With all these variables we face every day in food production, our ultimate goal is to produce an abundance of good quality food at a low cost to consumers, with as little adverse effect on our environment as possible.
    At present in poultry production we have a dry litter management system in place. Some of the practices involved are dry litter storage under roof lessen runoff and soil and litter testing, to attempt to apply the proper nutrients to our croplands and our grasslands. This voluntary management system was developed by the poultry industry of North Carolina, and has been a model for other States. Goals have been to utilize these nutrients, and at the same time protect the environment.
    Because of the seasonal nature of food production and to provide the consumer with a stable supply of food, the farmer needs the flexibility to make common sense decisions on a day-to-day basis. He neither has the time nor needs to be regulated by the Federal Government on these issues.
    In the last 10 or 15 years new laws and regulations have come down faster than the average farmer has time to digest. Maybe at this point in time in history we should call on the Federal Government to back off for a period of time and research the needs of our environment prior to creating any additional laws and regulations to put upon the farmers.
    Every year we are losing family farms, the foundation of our economy, due to the lack of profitability. Increased regulations create an undue burden on these family farms which do not have the volume of sales to justify employing full-time specialists to deal with so many regulations. If at some point there seems to be a need for regulations on nonpoint pollutants, then these regulations should come under State jurisdiction. Whatever costs might be involved in implementing these regulations should be borne by someone other than the producer who is unable to pass costs on with his products.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to appear before this committee. I hope you will attempt in your deliberations on these matters to lessen the impact of on the individual producer.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Talley appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Talley.
    Mr. Cox.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL F. COX, COX BROTHERS FARMS, MONROE, NC

    Mr. COX. I am Rusty Cox, swine manager and crop manager with Cox Brothers Farms located south of Monroe. May father Marion Cox is one of the principal founders of Cox Brothers Farms. The major enterprises on the farm are swine farrow-to-finish, poultry, and field crops. The farm also has grain storage and feed mill facilities to handle crop production and feed manufacturing for the animals.
    I come before you today to express the opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new proposed rule to impose total maximum daily load regulations on nonpoint sources of pollution. How would this regulation potentially affect Cox Brothers Farm? Swine production? Turkey production? Field crop production? Economic viability? As a young person engaged in agriculture for the long haul, I feel good sound answers to these questions are needed.
    As swine manager, I have assumed responsibility for records and operation of the swine facilities to meet our certified animal waste management plan. We work efficiently to utilize the animal waste nutrients on crop production areas. The swine waste is applied through irrigation systems at agronomic rates for crops to be grown. Possible restrictions on application rates of nutrients to our crop acreage could require more in acreage for land application, or reduction in swine numbers. Either option will increase expenses and seriously impact our bottom line.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    We at Cox Brothers Farms work closely with the Cooperative Extension Service and Union County Soil and Water Conservation District to develop plans for our total animal and crop production systems, from birth, to market, to seeding, to waste utilizations, to crop harvest residue management. We are computerizing our plans and records on animal waste and nutrient applications to cropland. In addition, we maintain pesticide and sludge application records. Through our efficient use of nutrients, pesticides, and other inputs we are able to reduce the potential for runoff and other environmental effects from our farming operation by utilizing no-till planting.
    Cox Brothers Farms provides acreage for three surrounding cities to apply municipal waste, and for the Wampler Foods chicken processing plant located in Marshville to apply its lagoon waste. As you can see, surrounding cities and industries depend on the survival of farms like ours to operate their enterprises. Under the TMDL proposed new rule, our ability to utilize municipal sludge and industrial byproducts could be reduced, even though we are applying at approved rates to cropland. What would municipalities do if all farms are limited or prohibited from accepting sludge?
    Assessing nonpoint source pollution is difficult because of the variety and number of potential sources. Due to this difficulty, the efforts to control and regulate nonpoint sources of pollution, including agricultural sources, have been historically left to the States and private landowners, the people closest to the source. We feel strongly that this trend should continue, and that EPA should leave land use decisions up to the States and private landowners.
    EPA's proposed TMDL rule would bring nonpoint source activities such as agriculture and forestry under regulations that could prevent young farmers like me from continuing to operate our family business in the future.
    Thank you for allowing me to be present and give you these comments.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Cox.
    Mr. Heath, we are pleased to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF DONALD A. HEATH, HEATH FARMS, DOVER, NC

    Mr. HEATH. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
    My name is Donald Heath, I have been farming 27 years in Craven County. My wife and I raise 1,400 acres of cotton and 70 acres of tobacco. My son is a senior at N.C. State University studying agriculture, and plans to return to our farming operation in December.
    We are committed to good stewardship on our farm. We started conservation tillage in 1994 with strip tillage and cover crops on all cotton acres. We have around 1,350 acres of strip-till, and 50 acres of no-till cotton. We have seen benefits from these practices because less soil is eroded from our fields. We know this because we have been able to double the time between the times we have to clean the soil out of our ditches.
    Additionally, we have installed 16 water control structures on our farm for water management to slow the release of water from rainfall from our ditches into the streams and rivers. These best management practices were all installed before the State rules I will discuss today went into effect.
    Our farm is located in the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse experienced significant environmental problems, including fish kills in 1995. This focused increased attention on the water quality problems in the Neuse. Our State began to address the problems of the Neuse by initiating and eventually adopting State regulations to establish a nitrogen reduction goal. These regulations cover the land in over twenty counties in our State.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The 30 percent nitrogen reduction goal established in our State regulations applies to several sources of nitrogen, including agriculture. The nitrogen measurements for determining the success of the reduction goal are taken at the water quality monitoring station at Fort Barnwell, NC, in my home town. My farm is located very close to this monitoring station, with 60 percent of my operation being upstream from the monitoring station.
    These State regulations were submitted to the EPA as North Carolina's strategy to a achieve a total maximum daily load for the entire Neuse River Basin, and this was approved by EPA. In order for you to understand my concerns about EPA's TMDL regulations I need to explain the State regulations.
    My farm is covered under these State regulations. In the State regulations farmers were given two options to meet the 30 percent reduction goal requirements.
    The standard option requires either buffers or water control structures with nutrient management. This means that in my county under the standard option farmers will have to take land out of production to install forested riparian buffers. Or, if their land is suitable, they can install water control structures in their ditches, canals, and in natural streams on their property along with implementing a nutrient management plan on their farm.
    The standard option does not give adequate flexibility to most farmers in my county to allow them to continue with economical viable farms if they have to take significant land out of production. The water control structures would be expensive and not practical in many situations due to the size of structures needed. Also, water control structures cannot be used on land with much slope, which means this part of the standard option is not available to most farmers in the river basin.
    Farmers fought long and hard during the rulemaking process for additional ways besides the standard option to meet the regulations. In addition to the standard option, a local option was added. Under the local option farmers work collectively in each county to reach the reduction goal. A county committee of farm agencies and farmers called the local advisory committee will develop the best management practices for each farmer. There is a basin oversight committee that oversees the work of the local advisory committees, and the BOC is answerable to the State Environmental Management Commission that adopted the regulations.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Farmers had to sign up to exercise the local option. I signed up. I am also a member of the local advisory committee in my county. All farmers who signed up for the local option have until August 2003 to have their best management practices in place. Farmers who are following the standard option must have the buffers or water control structures in by August 2002.
    This has been a difficult and frustrating task, but I am committed to meeting the requirements of these State regulations. The local advisory committee is committed to working with the farmers in my county to meet the State-established reduction goal.
    My concern about the TMDL regulation is that I fear how EPA will have control of the Neuse River Basin agricultural regulations we developed through much hard work here in North Carolina. Farmers will have a difficult time complying with these State regulations, but they are working to comply. As the farmers spend tremendous amounts of effort and money complying with the Neuse regulations written by our State, will the Federal EPA be able to come to North Carolina and decide that we did not do enough? Will they say we did the wrong things and have to do something additional or completely different? Will EPA be able to raise the bar from the State-adopted 30 percent nitrogen reduction goal to a higher percentage reduction meeting even more requirements? And because I must work with nine different landowners on my farm, how do I go back to them and tell them that somebody from Washington has said what we have done just is not enough?
    The EPA's proper role in agriculture water quality is through the 319 nonpoint source program under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The EPA should be providing significantly more funding for implementing best management practices on farms through section 319. The EPA should be working to increase the technical assistance and cost-sharing budgets of USDA. EPA should not be threatening to force its heavy hand on the farmers of the Neuse River Basin who are working so hard to be good stewards and to meet the State-established water quality goals.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    In the fast-developing coastal area where I live, farming is the answer, not the problem. Forcing farmers off the land with too many regulations will only mean more development, more people, and more pollution.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Heath appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Heath.
    Based upon what I have heard from you and the previous panel let me say that in the face of the intense opposition that agricultural interests, forest landowners, local governments, waste water treatment associations, soil and water conservation districts, forest products associations, the EPA and the USDA have offered to make several changes to the proposed rule. Would you support another opportunity to offer comments on a rule that has the ability to have this large an impact on your businesses? Let us start with you, Mr. Braswell.
    Mr. BRASWELL. Well, the farmer is going to do his share. In other words, they are all environmentalists. They live and breathe the air and so forth. We want to make sure we preserve the land, so if there is anything that needs to be corrected we are willing to, we need to do it on a voluntary basis, not just shoved down our throats.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Are you concerned about the accelerated time line for this rule?
    Mr. BRASWELL. Yes.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. McLaurin.
    Mr. MCLAURIN. Yes, I definitely agree, and I think Mr. Braswell summed it up in saying I think the farmers are some of your best stewards of the land, and forestry owners, because if we are not going to take care of our land I do not know of we need it regulated and pushed down our throat.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    But, yes, I would be willing to get together and discuss anything that is necessary.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Ms. Coan?
    Ms. COAN. We would very much appreciate that opportunity. I have reviewed the document, the May 1 document. I have several questions about what some of the things mean. They are not going to have certain types of impaired waters, they do not tell us which ones.
    I spoke to an EPA official just last week regarding North Carolina's Neuse River Program, which many people believe is a potential national model, and explained to him that our local option program says some farmers do not have to do anything, some farmers have to do this much, and some farmers have to this much. He described the program back to me as being ''Oh, well, this means that this is similar to a bad actor program, which means every farmer will have to put in some BMPs.'' I said ''That is not the way our program works.''
     We have a program with a lot of farmer buy-in that has been accepted by EPA, and now we are looking at possibly another way to describe this program, that somebody will come back later? I am very concerned about this, and, yes, I would very much like to see in print these changes that EPA and USDA have discussed, because we will need to comment on them.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Talley.
    Mr. TALLEY. Yes. We probably need to discuss this a lot before any new regulations are put into force, or attempted to put into force, because most farmers are like me, they get up early every morning and they work until dark, and their goal is to take care of this land and pass it on to that next generation in better condition than we found it, and maybe some of the people who are in the EPA just do not understand the life of a farmer out there.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. They are supposed to.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. Cox.
    Mr. COX. I agree that there needs to be a lot more discussion on it. I think somebody made the comment that this rule was put together with help from a lot of different agencies, and as one of the largest farmers in this county and State in fact, a member of the board of directors for the North Carolina Pork Council, nobody has come to the North Carolina Pork Council with any discussion over this rule, to put something together that is economically feasible for us as farmers, pork producers. Just to come up with a rule that seems to fit for them I think is totally unfair, and it needs a lot of discussion with all agencies, not just the EPA come up with a rule that they think is viable when it is not even close to being something that we can live with.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Heath.
    Mr. HAYES. I think that farmers are good stewards. I think that they will cooperate if you have a few things in place. I think the first one that has been left out as far as the farmer, but it has been mentioned this morning, is the trust in EPA and the Government agencies.
    Agriculture in eastern North Carolina, I am saying the growers, do not trust what EPA says. We do not feel that they are here for anything but as was mentioned earlier power. We are at our limits right now working under Neuse River Basin regulations, and we already see that we cannot afford to implement other things, or be restricted and find out that what we are spending money on right now will not work.
    We have put in water control structures that cost over $3,000 each, we are doing cover crop management, we are spending the extra $20 per acre on this, and there is a lot of farmers in the area that are doing these things, and we are going to be some kind of upset and definitely not trust anyone if this thing goes down.
    Cost-sharing is a big plus in what is making it work, but until we trust EPA they are going to have a hard time selling their situation.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. EWING. Thank you. Ms. Coan, and to the rest of the panel too, but do you find at the Farm Bureau level that there is quite a bit of cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources as you work on environmental plans here in your State?
    Ms. COAN. I will tell you that in some instances it is somewhat adversarial, but reasonable people have to sit down and work together, and in North Carolina it took about 2 1/2 years to develop our final Neuse regulation, and I was one of the primary architects of that regulation.
    Frankly, the public demanded some kind of regulation, we knew we were going to have to have one. What we had to have, though, was farmer flexibility; we had to have locally-designed programs. Those type things take time to develop. It is very important that time is given to those people who have to work on it.
    The fact that the EPA could hold the sword of Damocles over local and State efforts is seriously detrimental to that type of negotiation in terms of, you know, if you work in good faith to negotiate a compromise knowing full well that the Federal agency can in 30 days pop in and say ''Well, that is just not good enough,'' it really seriously hampers those types of efforts. So, yes, we do work cooperatively with the Agency, and sometimes in an adversarial State, but we do eventually try to reach reasonable compromises.
    We are working on the Tar-Pamlico rule right now which will be similar to the Neuse. It has some outstanding issues, but we are working on it.
    Mr. EWING. Do the rest of you that are producers feel that you get pretty good cooperation, thoughtful attitude from your State agency? Mr. Heath.
    Mr. HAYES. I think we have had excellent cooperation with our State, and in aspects of North Carolina State University extension; Natural Resources are doing all they can, and this concerns me about EPA rules, our natural resources folks are doing all they can. How can they handle another job? Who is going to implement these things and make sure that they work? Does the budget—as you were talking earlier, take care of it? Where would the persons that trained personnel come from that understand how to make this thing work?
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    We can do a lot as a local committee, but if they come in here how are they going to know if what the local committee did is right or wrong?
    Mr. BRASWELL. I was just going to make a comment that we do not know what the cost is going to be to us, things like that, so that is a lot of ifs.
    Mr. EWING. And that is the point I was going to try and make. Your agency has submitted for the record testimony which you might find interesting in three points, they said ''Furthermore, the EPA's proposal seriously underestimates the cost to private landowners and State governments to meet the demands associated with the proposed TMDL regulations.'' That is your State agency, a fairly thoughtful agency I think from your comments.
    They said ''Also in its analysis the EPA fails to account for costs to implement TMDLs, including costs to State programs, costs to agricultural landowners and small business.''
    And finally in their comments they say ''In fact, EPA's proposal could undermine and disrupt existing State efforts. There is good reason to believe that this EPA action might divert resources that will limit States' capability and potential refocusing State efforts into activities with unproven results.''
    Do you think your agency is looking after maybe some of your concerns here?
    Ms. COAN. I would like to say that I think they are. They had to develop some cost analysis, for example recently in the Tar-Pamlico, and the cost to farmers alone in that river basin was estimated to be $35 million in the first 5 years in one river basin in North Carolina. So I believe that their comments about seriously underestimating the costs are right to the mark.
    Mr. EWING. Well, one final question. In my exposure with agriculture around the country, and being from an agricultural district, I find that agricultural producers are under severe financial strain at this time around the country, regardless almost of what your product is, or what field of agriculture you are in, and to take on this additional burden without knowing what the costs are going to be, or following what time of the estimated costs are going to be to the farmers could really be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as the profitability of agriculture. Would you agree?
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. BRASWELL. Yes, sir. You know, just from my standpoint being a dairy operator, even back in 1978 we got more per hundred pounds of milk than we do now, and you go adding extra costs on our backs, you know, and I live in the vicinity of Charlotte, a bedroom city, land values are getting mighty high, if you are not making a profit farming you can sell the land.
    Mr. EWING. Thank you.
    Mr. TALLEY. One thing that should be kept in mind, with enough regulations we could wait on that 747 to bring the food from South America every day, and so they would be lined up at the airport wondering when it is going to land, because we could force food production, force it offshore, so this is something to keep in mind when you are creating all this bureaucracy is do we want a source of food to continue to be produced in the United States, or do we want it to be produced in some other country and shipped to the United States.
    Mr. EWING. Good point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.
    Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me first thank the staff. We have not talked about them much today, but you all have worked very, very hard to put the pieces together and to arrange this meeting and have the witnesses here, and we thank you for your hard work.
    Mr. Heath, you provide, along with others, a very valuable service. When we have a debate on the floor of the House, typically there is a closer for the argument. I think you provided the perfect close for the argument of Mr. Fox and Ms. Delgado. What did say? He said we do not trust the EPA, and that is not based on fear of the future, that is based on experience in the past, so going forward to make a productive session of this meeting I think it is very imperative for all of us, but also for you, to help create—if this is a worthwhile agency that ought to live create an atmosphere of trust in which we are on the same side working for the same goal. We are not there yet.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    There is intense, intense opposition in the room, on paper, out there in rural America to what you all are doing. So to say that we do not need to take some time and to bring that consensus that Mr. Ewing has discussed I think is a serious oversight. I think we do need to work to build the trust that will translate into an ongoing—you know, America is the most inexpensive, value-laden producer of food and fiber in the world, we do not want that to go overseas, we want to maintain an economy that will grow.
    Two percent is what the economists plug in every year to the inflation factor for agriculture. They take us for granted. If somewhere were to happen, and we have described a number of scenarios that could cause that to happen, that 2 percent figure goes out the door, inflation goes through the roof, and the economy goes in the tank. And I cannot emphasize the seriousness of the implications of what you all, possibly well-intended—I will not say about that—are talking about doing.
    So let us make sure that we are doing what is right, that it makes sense for America, and that we do trust each other to move forward.
    I again thank all of you for being here and being a part of this. This is a very valuable and a very crucial debate, and a lot of our future rests on what comes out of this debate.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Congressman Hayes, and I want to thank you also for your initiative in having this hearing in your district.
    I want to thank these panelists for their very heartfelt comments regarding a situation that is I understand of great concern to each and every one of you.
    I want to thank the representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency for coming down here and for staying the entire hearing to listen to the comments of the foresters and the farmers who have testified on these other two panels.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I do hope that you will take back with you that concern, and I hope you will again review the request that you hear from us, and from States, and from agricultural producers, and silviculturalists and others to not rush to judgement on this, to not issue these regulations on the fast timetable that you seem to be on now.
    I know you feel like you have spent a lot of time on this, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what this is going to cost and what impact it is going to have on the competitiveness of American agriculture with regard to foreign competition.
    We have made great strides in cleaning up our water in this country, and we want to continue to make strides in that direction. This is not about whether or not we need to do it; the issue is about how we go about doing it, what impact it has on our ability to compete with folks who do not face the kind of stringent regulations that these folks already face in attempting to farm responsibly and yet still do so in a way that allows them to remain in business. If they go out of business, we will I think face some significant economic consequences as a result.
    I want to thank Congressman Ewing for coming all the way down here as well, and I want to thank Wingate University and its staff for allowing us to have this hearing on this beautiful campus in this beautiful facility, and I particularly want to thank Barbara Williamson and Jeremiah Skanga for their remarkable hospitality. The staff of the committee arrived here very late last night, and they nonetheless were here to welcome them and help them set up the facility, and took care of a number of administrative tasks that we have had this morning.
    And I want to particularly thank all of you who have taken the time out of a busy day to come and give half of that day to express your concern about a very serious matter that impacts you in a number of different ways.
    And I will ask Mr. Ewing if he has any closing comments.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. EWING. I have none.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. And Mr. Hayes?
    Mr. HAYES. One last thing. Part of the mistrust, Mr. Fox, is this administration, the Clinton-Gore administration has cut back severely on FSA agents. These are the people that have to help administer cost-sharing programs, and they have focused resources in other areas. These folks I think are the solution, not the problem. Farmers, ranchers, forestry folks are out here trying to help be a part that, so they are asking you to help spend valuable resources on improving the water and sewer plants in Union County, Scotland County, Stanley County, places like that. Do not spend money overreaching the regulatory umbrella to get folks that are your friends who want to be a part of the solution.
    And, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
    With that, the Chair would seek unanimous consent to allow the record of today's hearing to remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to any questions posed by the members of the panel, and without objection it is so ordered.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon at 12:33 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of Deanna Osmond
    My name is Dr. Deanna Osmond and I am an associate professor in the Soil Science Department at North Carolina State University. For the past 8 1/2 years, I have studied the relationships between agricultural activities and water quality. We have been looking at the affects that agricultural best management practices have in controlling nonpoint source pollutants. Currently, I am working with the Neuse Education Team. All members are part of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. The goal of the Neuse Education Team is to educate and inform citizens, agencies, officials, and industries about controlling nonpoint source pollution in the Neuse River Basin.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Specifically, I would like to describe the work that my colleagues and I do in the Neuse River Basin to help reduce nitrogen losses from agricultural sources. In 1995 due to excessive algal production and low oxygen conditions, large fish kills occurred in the Neuse Estuary, which is part of the Albermarle-Pamlico Sound. The fish kills promoted rule making at the State level. The intent of the rules is to reduce total nitrogen loading into the Neuse River—from all sources of pollution. Based on preliminary studies, the nitrogen load reduction necessary to protect the estuary was 30 percent. By 2003, the State rules require that nitrogen loading from all pollutant sources be reduced by 30 percent. After the State rules for the Neuse became effective, an EPA-approved TMDL was established for the Neuse River. The TMDL is a 30 percent reduction of the current 8,000,000 pounds of nitrogen delivered to the Neuse Estuary annually.
    There are rules specific to agricultural activities in the Neuse River Basin. Producers must use a mandatory set of best management practices on all acres or join a local group.
    The options for mandatory best management practices are:
     50 foot riparian buffer
     Nitrogen management and 30 foot vegetative buffer
     Nitrogen management and 20 foot forest buffer
     Nitrogen management and controlled drainage
     Controlled drainage and vegetative buffer
    Nitrogen moves differently than either sediment or phosphorus. In humid areas, most nitrogen is lost through subsurface rather than surface processes. Nitrogen in the soil water not used by plants is moved through the soil, past the roots, and into the shallow groundwater. As the shallow groundwater flows toward streams, the nitrogen contained in the water also moves toward the streams. Most of the nitrogen in the Neuse comes from the groundwater that feeds the thousands of miles of streams and ditches that eventually make-up the Neuse River. Many best management practices that are used to control erosion and runoff are not effective for controlling nitrogen loading in streams. The mandatory best management practices selected were chosen to reduce nitrogen at the source (nitrogen management) or to transform nitrogen as it moves through the soil and shallow ground water. Both controlled drainage and riparian buffers change nitrate-nitrogen (the form that nitrogen moves in) into gaseous nitrogen (same gases that are naturally abundant in the atmosphere) .
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The local option was designed to give producers more flexibility. Most local groups have been formed along county lines. The local committee, which is composed of agency people and area farmers, will determine where the approved best management practices will be implemented to achieve the pollution reduction goal that each local group has been assigned. Progress towards meeting the assigned nitrogen reduction will be based on a tracking and accounting tool, rather than water quality monitoring results. The development and use of an accounting tool was mandated in the rules and is both significant and unique.
    Demonstrating water quality changes is often a long-term endeavor, taking years if not decades. The agricultural community will be allowed to demonstrate progress in meeting its reductions through the use of a tracking and accounting tool. This is very important since the timeframe to show a 30 percent reduction in the Neuse River is only 5 years.
    Questions
    Do you know of any examples of agricultural watershed projects that have successfully reduced pollution and met water quality goals?
    What characteristics did these projects have in common? What were the differences
    What incentives work best to help farmers adopt best management practices?
    Should all farms in the Neuse River Basin be treated the same way in terms of BMP requirements?
    How does farm size affect a producer's ability to meet water quality regulations?
     What other sources of nitrogen besides agriculture are contributing to nitrogen loading in the Neuse? What is being done to reduce these nitrogen sources?
     
Statement of Robert W. Slocum, Jr.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Robert W. Slocum, Jr. I am the executive vice-president of the North Carolina Forestry Association (NCFA). The NCFA is the State's oldest forest conservation organization representing approximately 2,500 forest landowners, forest product companies, timber harvesters, foresters and others involved in and dedicated to the sound use and management of the State's forest resources. I am also a registered professional forester with more than 25 years experience in forest management and forest policy.
    On behalf of the members of the North Carolina Forestry Association, I am hear today to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the TMDL rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would give the Agency the authority to designate forestry activities as point source discharges.
    On May 18, a landowner meeting was held in Wilson, NC where approximately 1,000 landowners, farmers and others concerned about this rule met and expressed their serious concern with it. I want to present to the committee a petition opposing this rule signed by more than 1,500 people. There is a very high level of concern and opposition to this rule.
    In the EPA rulemaking, the Agency proposed certain measures to achieve ''reasonable assurances'' that the State would implement a plan to achieve an established TMDL for an impaired water. This included explicit language describing the authority of both EPA and States with approved NPDES programs to designate certain unregulated sources as point sources which require an NPDES permit. One of these ''unregulated sources'' is silviculture (or forestry) activity, which EPA has defined in its regulations as a non-point source since 1976.
    We believe this rulemaking is a regulatory power grab and clear attempt to circumvent Congress and rewrite the Clean Water Act. Contrary to EPA's statement that silvicultural activity is ''unregulated,'' Congress assigned to the States the responsibility for regulating non-point source discharges in both the original 1972 statute and the 1987 amendments which added the best management practices program in Section 319. In various committee reports from 1972 and 1987 as well as intervening years, Congress has repeatedly recognized silviculture as a non-point source activity.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    As intended by Congress, the State's have in fact taken positive steps with regards to forestry. All southern States have defined forestry best management practices (BMP's) and the National Association of State Foresters reports that compliance with these BMP's is extremely high—often exceeding 90 percent. In North Carolina, forestry activities have been regulated under the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act since 1990. There are mandatory performance standards in place that all land-disturbing forestry activities must meet. Compliance with these standards currently exceeds 95 percent.
    Mr. Chairman, if EPA is allowed to assume the authority to designate forestry activity as a point source discharge, forest landowners would potentially have to obtain a Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any forestry activity, including planting a tree. It has been estimated that such permits could take months to obtain, cost thousands of dollars and then would be subject to public comment and third party legal challenge. The impact of this would be to encourage, and in some cases force, forest landowners to stop managing their forests. The economic and environmental impacts of this would be significant and long-term. Independent economic analyses has estimated this rule could cost forest landowners and State agencies more than $100 million a year.
    As you know, EPA has received substantial opposition to this rule from landowners, the States and from Congress. The rule also received major criticism and opposition from the Department of Agriculture. In response to this and to make it appear that they were revising the rule in response to public concern, the Agency issued on May 1 a Joint Statement with the USDA on addressing agricultural and silvicultural issues. Mr. Chairman, I have read this statement and the comments made concerning forestry activities. I regret to say that the statement does nothing to change the fundamental problem—giving EPA the authority to designate, virtually at the Agency's whim, forestry activities as point source discharges of pollution. I do want to address several of the ''revisions'' proposed by the Agency.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
NO PERMITS REQUIRED FOR 5 YEARS
    The agency proposes to delay requirements for NPDES permits for forestry activities 5 years after publication of the final rule. If the Agency is going to delay this for 5 years, why remove the non-point source designation now and expose millions of forest landowners to citizen lawsuits? Since 1975, the Federal courts has consistently told EPA that it does not have the authority to exempt categories of point source pollution from permit requirements. If EPA proposes that silvicultural activities may be designated as point sources when there is insufficient State enforcement authority, then all silvicultural activities, regardless of whether they are located in impaired or unimpaired water bodies, may in fact be considered point sources and thus require a NPDES permit. Federal courts have consistently said that EPA may not choose when and under what circumstances a permit is required for a point source. If the activity is a point source, then a permit is always required regardless of enforcement authorities.
    Exempt National Forest System Lands from the Rule. This is a pure political move with absolutely no technical, legal, statutory or regulatory basis. EPA now asserts the ability to distinguish what constitutes a point source discharge subject to an NPDES permit based on whether its occurring on public or private lands. This is another example of the government trying to exempt itself from the laws it expects private citizens to follow.
    States with EPA-Approved Forestry Programs Will Not Have Permit Requirements. This ''revised'' approach is more expansive than the original rule! EPA now claims the authority to review and approve entire State forestry programs as opposed to reviewing each individual TMDL submitted by the State. EPA now appears intent to dictate the development, implementation and enforcement of virtually every forest management activity conducted on all private lands. Through Federal oversight, EPA would for the first time, provide environmental organizations the ability to dictate how forest management operations should be conducted on private lands. This could include what species of tree to plant, when and if a forest management operation could be conducted and even if a landowner should be allowed to harvest their timber.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Mr. Chairman, adoption of this proposed rule by EPA would be a disaster for private landowners, the economy and the environment. It would be an unprecedented power grab by a Federal regulatory agency and a slap in the face to Congress. It is also clear that EPA is deaf to the concerns and needs of private landowners and the forestry community. We urge Congress to immediately pass legislation to block adoption of the flawed rule by EPA.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment and will be happy to try and answer any questions.
     
Testimony of J. Charles Fox
    Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to testifiscal year before this subcommittee on the work we are doing—in cooperation with other Federal agencies, States, and local communities—to identifiscal year polluted waters around the country and restore their health.
    My testimony to your Subcommittee last October described in some detail the key elements of the Clean Water Act program for restoring polluted waters—generally known as the ''Total Maximum Daily Load'' or TMDL program. It described the over 20,000 waterbodies identified by States as polluted in 1998. It also described our effort, begun almost three years ago, to work with a diverse Federal Advisory Committee to review the TMDL program and identifiscal year needed improvements in existing regulations. And, my earlier testimony described the changes to the current TMDL regulations that EPA proposed in August of last year.
    Rather than review these topics again today, I would like to focus on work we have done recently with a range of interested parties to discuss the important issues raised in the proposed regulations.
    As a result of these discussions, I am confident that we can develop a final regulation that addresses many of the suggestions we have heard while still providing for a strong, common-sense program—led by the States and local communities—to identifiscal year and restore the Nation's polluted waters.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I will also review some recent developments related to the TMDL program. For example, a Federal court in California recently confirmed the EPA's long-standing view that the Clean Water Act calls for polluted runoff from nonpoint sources to be accounted for in the identification of polluted waters and in the development of TMDLs.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, as in testimony for my previous appearances before a Senate Committee, I will describe the administration's strong opposition to a Senate bill, S. 2417, calling for a delay of several years in finalizing revisions to the TMDL program regulations. It is my understanding that a bill similar to S. 2417 is being introduced in the House of Representatives. Because the House bill had not yet been available to me at the time that this written statement was produced, my remarks today regarding legislation focus on S. 2417. Nevertheless, the concerns that I raise in my discussion of S. 2417 are equally applicable to any comparable House legislation.
CONSULTATION WITH PARTIES INTERESTED IN TMDLS
    Over the past several months, EPA has worked closely with many groups and organizations interested in the TMDL program and in the proposed revisions to the current TMDL regulations. We have also made a special effort to review the many public comments we received on the proposed regulations.
    Consultation with States. As I indicated in my testimony in October, the Clean Water Act provides that States have the lead in the identifiscal yearing polluted waters and developing TMDLs.
    It is critical that States stay in this leadership role and that they are partners in developing and implementing the program for restoring polluted waters described in our final regulations.
    In developing the proposed revisions to the TMDL regulations, we worked closely with State officials, including a group set up by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). In addition, four senior State officials were members of the Federal Advisory Committee on the TMDL program.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For the past several years, EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have worked in close cooperation to design and implement programs to protect water quality.
    EPA and USDA worked together in developing the Clean Water Action Plan several years ago, developed the EPA/USDA Animal Feeding Operation Strategy issued last year, and worked with other agencies to draft the Unified Federal Policy for management of water quality on a watershed basis proposed earlier this year.
    When the proposed TMDL rule was published last August, concerns were raised in comments by the USDA. In response to these concerns, I met with Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, James Lyons, and we established a joint EPA/USDA workgroup to review concerns of USDA with the TMDL proposal.
    The USDA/EPA workgroup has been meeting on a regular basis over the past three months and these meetings have involved several dozen staff from different parts of both agencies. These intensive discussions have helped both agencies think through how our programs can best be coordinated.
    EPA and USDA recently released a joint statement describing areas of agreement on the TMDL rule. Mr. Chairman, I ask that a copy of the joint statement be included in the record.
    Some of the key elements of this joint statement describe changes EPA expects to include in the final TMDL rule on topics of interest to the USDA. For example, the Joint Statement outlines how EPA and USDA propose to address the problem of restoring polluted waters that are impaired as a result of forestry operations. The USDA/EPA forestry proposal is discussed in more detail later in my testimony.
    In addition, the Joint Statement addresses the treatment of diffuse runoff in our August TMDL proposal. EPA remains committed to voluntary and financial incentive approaches to reduce runoff from diffuse sources of pollution where there is reasonable assurance that these controls will be implemented. The proposed rule would not require Clean Water Act permits for runoff from these sources.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The President's fiscal year 2001 budget backs up this commitment to voluntary and incentive-based programs with proposals that State grants for polluted runoff programs be increased from $200 to $250 million and that funding for conservation assistance programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture be increased by $1.3 billion. The benefits that result from these and other assistance programs will be given due credit in the TMDL process.
    Since the majority of polluted waters are polluted in whole or in part by runoff from diffuse sources, a management framework that does not address them cannot succeed in meeting our clean water goals. As I discuss in more detail later in this testimony, this view was recently endorsed by a Federal court in California.
    Review of Comments on the Proposed Regulations. I want to assure the Subcommittee that EPA is fully, and carefully, reviewing the public comments on the proposed regulations.
    The Agency received over 34,000 comments on the proposed TMDL regulation. The comments fall into three general groups:
    We received some 30,546 postcards addressing control of water pollution from forestry operations. Many of these comments are virtually identical.
    We received 2,747comments from diverse individuals and organizations expressing a view on one or two elements of the proposal.
    We received 781 comments from groups or individuals expressing comments on multiple parts of the proposal.
    The Administrator and I view each and every comment as important. In anticipation of extensive comment, EPA began working to organize and evaluate comments received even before the close of the comment period. Since the comment period closed, we have reassigned staff as needed to review and summarize comments.
    This is an important effort begun over three years ago with the convening of a Federal Advisory Committee. EPA has made every effort to assure a full and careful review of public comments. If anything, the high level of interest in the regulation has given us an extra measure of determination to assure that the final TMDL rule is based on a careful consideration of the record.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Expected changes to proposed TMDL regulations. I want to outline our current thoughts on how to change the proposed revisions to the TMDL regulations and proceed with the important work of restoring America's polluted waters.
    Delivering the Promise of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The final rule will provide a common-sense, cost-effective framework for making decisions on how to restore polluted waters. EPA expects that the final rule will:
    Tell the Full Story—provide for a comprehensive listing of all the Nation's polluted waters;
     Meet Clean Water Goals—identifiscal year pollution reduction needed to meet the clean water goals established by States in water quality standards;
    Encourage Cost-Effective Clean-Up—assure that all sources of pollution to a waterbody are considered in the development of plans to restore the waterbody;
    Rely on Local Communities—foster local level, community involvement in making decisions about how best to meet clean water goals;
    Foster On-the-Ground Action—call for an implementation plan that identifies specific pollution controls for the waterbody that will attain clean water goals;
    Commit to Environmental Results—require a ''reasonable assurance'' that the needed pollution reductions will be implemented; and
    Assure a Strong Program Nationwide—EPA will establish lists of polluted waters and TMDLs where a State fails to do so.
    Enhancing State Flexibility in Managing Polluted Waters
    States will have the lead to identifiscal year and clean up polluted waters through the TMDL program. The final regulation will expand the flexibility that States have to tailor programs to the specific needs and conditions that they face. EPA expects that the final rule will:
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Give States More Time—allow States 4 years to develop lists of polluted waters, rather than 2 years as under current regulations;
    Give States More Time—allow States to develop TMDLs over a period of up to 15 years, rather the 8–13 year timeframe of the current program;
    Tailor to Local Conditions —tailor implementation plan requirements and add flexibility to account for different types of sources causing the water quality problem; and
    Endorse Voluntary Programs—give full credit to voluntary or incentive-based programs for reducing polluted runoff through diverse control measures, including best management practices (BMPs).
    Streamlining the Regulatory Framework
    In response to comments from many interested parties, the final rule will be streamlined and focused on what is needed for effective TMDL programs. EPA expects that the final rule will:
    Drop Threatened Waters—drop the requirement that polluted water lists include ''threatened'' waters expected to become polluted in the future;
    Allow More Flexibility in Setting Priorities—drop the proposed requirement that States give top priority to addressing polluted waters that are a source of drinking water or that support endangered species;
    Drop Petition Process—drop the proposal to provide a public petition process for review of lists of impaired waters or TMDL program implementation;
    Drop Requirements for Offsets of New Pollution—drop proposals to require offsets before new pollution can be discharged to polluted waters prior to the development of a TMDL; and
    Phase-In Implementation—new requirements for polluted waters lists become effective in 2002 and new requirements for TMDLs will be phased in over an 18 month period.
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
USDA/EPA FORESTRY APPROACH
    In finding a common view of the best approach to reducing forestry impacts on water quality, EPA and USDA agreed that a number of States are doing an outstanding job of managing forest operations and preventing water pollution. We want to recognize and rely on these strong State programs to both prevent water pollution and to fix those pollution problems that do occur.
    Not all States, however, currently have strong forest management programs. Many of these States are working hard to upgrade programs over the next several years. These efforts need to be encouraged and supported.
    Finally, some State forestry programs may not be adequate to prevent water pollution problems for the foreseeable future. In situations where States choose not to develop approvable programs within five years, EPA and USDA recognize the need to have a ''safety net'' for water quality. The safety net that we envision is to empower State environmental agencies to issue Clean Water Act permits for discharges of stormwater from forestry operations, in very limited circumstances.
    Let me be clear that, under our approach, no Clean Water Act permits would be issued for at least five years from the date of the final TMDL rule. And, no permits would be issued in States that now have, or that develop, adequate forest water quality programs. The final rule will describe basic criteria of adequate programs, including appropriate best management practices identified in consultation with USDA.
    Where a State has not developed a strong forest water quality program after five years, forestry operations might be asked to have a permit, but only if:
    The forestry operation resulted in a ''discharge'' from a point source (diffuse runoff from a silviculture operation will not be subject to a permit under any circumstances); the operation contributes to a violation of a State water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters; and the State Clean Water Act permit authority determined that a permit, as opposed to a voluntary or incentive-based program, was needed to assure that pollution controls would be implemented.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    EPA may also designate forestry operations as needing a permit, but our ability to do so is even more limited than that of the State. In addition to meeting the conditions mentioned above, the EPA would need to be establishing a TMDL where a State did not do so.
    EPA agrees that, where a State finds that a permit is needed, best management practices, rather than numeric effluent limits, are appropriate as permit conditions.
    In addition, because States have the discretion to issue permits, forest operators that have not been told by the permit authority that they need a permit will not be subject to government or citizen enforcement for failure to have a permit.
IMPORTANT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO TMDLS
    I want to briefly review some recent, important developments related to the TMDL program.
    Reducing Workload and Assuring Adequate Resources . State officials have expressed concern over the workload and costs of the TMDL program. EPA is making every effort to respond to this concern. Last month, EPA issued a regulation eliminating the requirement that States submit lists of polluted waters this year; new lists will not be due until 2002. The decision to eliminate the 2000 listing process has saved States and others hours of work and has allowed us all to concentrate on the important job of developing TMDLs for the over 20,000 waterbodies already identified as polluted.
     States are also concerned about the costs of administering the TMDL program. The annual appropriation available to States to administer and directly implement TMDLs and the clean water program has steadily increased from $131 million in 1993 to a proposed $410 million in the administration's proposed 2001 budget.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 budget increases State grant funding for TMDLs by $45 million in fiscal year 2001 alone. When States match this new funding, about $70 million in new funding will be available for implementing the TMDL program.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    In addition, EPA has provided States with the discretion to use up to 20 percent of funding under section 319 to develop TMDLs and for related work. The President's request for 319 funding in fiscal year 2001 is $250 million and thus provides up to $50 million in additional TMDL funding.
    And, EPA expects that the final rule will support more cost-effective development of TMDLs by specifically encouraging States to develop TMDLs for groups of polluted waterbodies on a watershed scale.
    EPA has worked with States to develop detailed assessments of the costs of key elements of the clean water program. Based on this analysis, and in consultation with the Office of Management and budget, EPA projects that the funding proposed in the President's budget would be sufficient for States to administer the TMDL program in 2001 under the final TMDL regulations expected to be promulgated this summer.
    Garcia River Decision. A Federal court in California, reviewing a challenge to a TMDL developed for the Garcia River, concluded last month that the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to establish TMDLs for waters ''polluted only by logging and agricultural runoff and/or other nonpoint sources rather than by any municipal sewer and/or industrial point sources.''
    The court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently referred to the Clean Water Act as establishing a ''comprehensive and all-compassing'' program of water pollution regulation. The court found that the logic of section 303(d) required that listing and TMDLs were required for all impaired waters, and concluded that excluding nonpoint source impaired waters would have left a ''chasm'' in the statute. And, the judge found that Congress' passage of section 319 in 1987 was consistent with the view that section 303(d) covered nonpoint sources of pollution because TMDLs were needed for the planning required under Section 319.
    This decision confirms EPA's long-standing interpretation of the Act. It also makes clear that the requirement to list waters polluted by diffuse or nonpoint sources, and develop TMDLs for these waters, is based on the Clean Water Act rather than the existing or proposed TMDL regulation.
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    GAO Report on Water Quality Monitoring. Also in March, the General Accounting Office released a report critical of data used by States and EPA to make water quality decisions.
    EPA has responded to the report in detail, agreeing with some conclusions and disagreeing with others.
    EPA agrees with the GAO conclusion that some States lack the data that they need to fully assess the water pollution problems in their State. In many States, the lack of an extensive, and expensive, monitoring network prevents the State from evaluating all waters on a regular basis. Given limited resources, however, knowledgeable State managers focus monitoring resources on the most likely problem areas. The GAO report recognizes this approach and reports ''State officials we interviewed said they feel confident that they have identified most of their serious water quality problems.''
    The GAO report suggests that the polluted waters identified from this monitoring may not be all of the polluted waters in the State. It does not indicate that the polluted waters that are identified as polluted are improperly identified as polluted. In other words, the TMDL program may not be focused on enough waters, but it is not focused on the wrong waters. In addition, if a waterbody is listed as polluted by mistake, it can be removed from the list.
    Some observers have incorrectly concluded that the report found that States do not have the data that they need to develop TMDLs. There are several problems with this conclusion.
    First, GAO generally found that States do have the data they need to develop TMDLs for point sources.
    Second, while most States now lack detailed data to develop a TMDL for waters polluted by nonpoint sources, the development of these site-specific data has not been a priority of State monitoring programs. EPA and States recognize and expect that, once the process of developing a TMDL is begun, sometimes, several years later, States will need to supplement the initial screening data used to identifiscal year the problem with more detailed assessments needed to develop a TMDL. The lack of these data today is not a reason to delay a TMDL.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Third, GAO concludes that the lack of detailed nonpoint source related data makes it ''difficult to directly measure pollutant contributions from individual nonpoint sources and, therefore, assign specific loadings to sources in order to develop TMDLs.'' This would be a concern if EPA's existing or proposed TMDL regulations required that States have data to assign specific loadings to individual sources, but they do not. Rather, EPA's proposed regulation specifically provided that allocations to nonpoint sources may include ''gross allotments'' to ''categories or subcategories of sources'' where more detailed allocations are not possible.
    Atlas of America's Polluted Waters. States submitted lists of polluted waters in 1998. Over 20,000 waterbodies across the country are identified as not meeting water quality standards. These waterbodies include over 300,000 river and shore miles and 5 million lake acres. The overwhelming majority of Americans—218 million—live within 10 miles of a polluted waterbody
    A key feature of the 1998 lists of polluted waters is that, for the first time, all States provided computer-based ''geo-referencing'' data that allow consistent mapping of these polluted waters. In order to better illustrate the extent and seriousness of water pollution problems around the country, EPA prepared, in April of this year, an atlas of State maps that identifiscal year the polluted waters in each State. The maps are color coded to indicate the type of pollutant causing the pollution problem. And, bar charts show the types of pollutants impairing stream/river/coastal miles and lake/ estuary/wetland acres.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask that a copy of the Atlas of America's Polluted Waters be included in the hearing record.
    Economic Analysis. Several Members of Congress have suggested that EPA did not conduct an adequate assessment of the cost of the TMDL regulation. As you know, Mr. Chairman, cost assessments of proposed regulations are strictly governed by statute and by Executive Order.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    In compliance with these requirements, EPA described the incremental costs of the proposed regulation. We did this work carefully and fully, in compliance with applicable guidelines. EPA is working with States and others to define the overall costs of administering the TMDL program, including both the base program costs and the incremental costs of the new regulations. EPA is committed to providing an estimate of these costs prior to promulgation of the final TMDL regulations.
    Many commenters on the proposed revisions to the TMDL regulations indicated an interest in EPA's estimate of the overall costs of implementing the TMDL program and restoring the Nation's polluted waters.
    It is important to note that several provisions of the Clean Water Act call for attainment of water quality standards adopted by States. Notably, section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act requires that all discharge permits include limits as necessary to meet water quality standards. The TMDL process does not drive the commitment to meet water quality standards. Rather, it provides a comprehensive framework for identifiscal yearing problem areas and allocating pollution reductions necessary to fix problem among a wider range of pollution sources (i.e. not just point sources).
    EPA recognizes that the TMDL process imposes some administrative costs for States, communities and pollution sources. We believe, however, that these administrative costs could be largely offset by the significant savings to be achieved over the next decade as a result of the TMDL process. By bringing all sources of pollution in a watershed together, the local community and the State can work together to evaluate various approaches to achieving needed pollution reductions. For example, the cost to remove a pound of a given pollutant may be high for some sources and low for others.
    The TMDL process lays out these considerations and lets the local community decide how to meet its clean water goals. EPA expects many communities to opt for cost-effective approaches, many of which rely on low cost controls over nonpoint sources.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Under the final revisions to the TMDL rules to be published this summer, opportunities for shifting pollution control responsibility from high cost point source controls to lower cost controls over nonpoint sources will be greatly enhanced. Under the new rules, States and EPA will be able to defend point source permits that alone will not result in attainment of water quality standards because the TMDL must provide a ''reasonable assurance'' of implementation of other needed pollution reductions.
    Under the TMDL rules in effect today, ''reasonable assurance'' is not a necessary element of a TMDL and cost effective sharing of pollution reductions is much less likely. As I have testified, ''reasonable assurance'' of implementation can be established based on voluntary and incentive-based programs.
    EPA is developing rough estimates of the costs of attaining clean water goals using the TMDL model and not using the TMDL model (i.e. relying on point source controls only to meet water quality standards) and will make this estimate available in conjunction with promulgation of the TMDL regulation.
    Opposition to S. 2417. Mr. Chairman, S. 2417 does include some important provisions expanding authorizations for State clean water grants. But the administration must strongly oppose the bill because it would delay final TMDL regulations by at least three years, and perhaps much longer.
    The bill would expand authorizations for several key State grant programs, including the clean water program management grants under section 106 of the Clean Water Act and the nonpoint pollution control grants under section 319 of the Act. The administration believes that adequate State grant funding for clean water programs is critical to effective operation of the Nation's clean water program. We have proposed an increase of $150 million over the past 2 years in funding for State nonpoint control programs and an increase of $45 million in fiscal year 2001 for State water program grants. However, the Congressional budget Resolution limits domestic discretionary spending such that it will be very difficult to meet the administrations's proposed increases. Given the Congressional budget Resolution, the funding levels proposed in the bill are unrealistic. One of the unintended consequences could be to divert funding from other valuable water quality efforts. The administration stands ready to work with Congress to achieve our ambitious goals of substantially increased funding for important water quality work.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The bill would increase the section 106 grant authorization to $250 million with $50 million of this amount reserved for implementation of TMDLs. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget provides an increase of $45 million in the section 106 grant that is reserved for TMDL development with an appropriate State match. This $45 million increase would bring the total amount of the section 106 grant to $160.5 million in fiscal year 2001.
    The bill would authorize $500 million for the section 319 grant program, which is double the President's fiscal year 2001 request. Some $200 million of this amount would be reserved for grants to implement nonpoint pollution control projects. Further, the bill would significantly lower the current non-Federal matching requirement. The administration recommends maintaining the current non-Federal match, which is a more appropriate rate of 60 percent Federal funds with the remaining project costs provided by non-Federal funds. For any given level of available Federal funding, the bill's proposal of a 90 percent Federal matching requirement would result in fewer projects funded, and fewer areas and people being served.
    Provisions of S. 2147 call for a study of the scientific basis for the TMDL program. While there are technical issues associated with the development of TMDLs, many of the essential scientific bases for developing TMDLs and restoring polluted waters are already available. There is no need for a review of this science by the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, other objectives of the study, such as assessments of total costs of meeting water quality standards, are questions that the National Academy of Sciences is not best suited to answer.
    Section 5 of the bill provides for the funding of five watershed management pilot projects. States and EPA already have extensive experience in the development and implementation of watershed management projects at several geographic scales. For example, the National Estuary Program has invested tens of millions of dollars in watershed management projects on over 28 estuaries around the country. Numerous other watershed management projects have been completed or are underway. It would be a mistake to divert $2 million to these five projects when this funding is badly needed to support broader State efforts to develop TMDLs.
 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Finally, section 6 of S. 2147 would prevent the finalization of TMDL regulations until the completion of the study by the National Academy of Sciences. The administration is strongly opposed to this provision of the bill.
    Enactment of this proposal could result in the effective shut-down of the TMDL program in many States as they and other parties defer work on TMDLs until the comprehensive studies mandated by Congress are completed. Sadly, Congress would be telling thousands of communities across the country that are eager to get to work restoring the over 20,000 polluted waters to stand down—to pack up their clean water plans and put them into the deep-freeze for the foreseeable future while a panel of scientists meets here in Washington, behind closed doors, for almost two years, to write a report.
    Many States have strong public confidence in their TMDL programs and expect to work cooperatively with the public in listing polluted waters and developing TMDLs. State efforts to meet commitments to the public to run effective TMDL programs would be hampered because many affected pollution sources could cite the Congressionally-mandated national study as a reason to delay any action on TMDLs before release of the study and subsequent revision of the rules. Public confidence in the TMDL process could be seriously eroded.
    Citizens may step-up efforts to seek court orders to complete lists of polluted waters and TMDLs. Without final regulations to guide EPA and State efforts to implement the TMDL program, courts could issue detailed judicial guidance for the TMDL program.
    I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I can convince you and other Members of Congress that we do not need to postpone any longer these important improvements to the TMDL program. We have a solid legislative foundation in the Clean Water Act. We have a good TMDL program that will be even better with the revisions to the program regulations that we will finalize this summer. Most importantly, people all over the country want to get to work restoring polluted rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and they want to start now.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The 1972 Clean Water Act set the ambitious—some thought impossible—national goal of ''fishable and swimmable'' waters for all Americans. At the turn of the new millennium, we are closer than ever to that goal. Today, we are able to list, and put on a map, each of the 20,000 polluted waters in the country. And, we have a process in place to define the specific steps to restore the health of these polluted waters and to meet our clean water goals within the foreseeable future.
    It is critical that we, as a Nation, rededicate ourselves to attaining the Clean Water Act goals that have inspired us for the past 25 years. The final revisions to the TMDL regulations will draw on the core authorities of the Clean Water Act, and refine and strengthen the existing program for identifiscal yearing and restoring polluted waters.
    Mr. Chairman, I consistently hear from critics of the TMDL program that it is more of the old, top-down, command-and-control, one-size-fits-all approach to environmental protection. In fact, the TMDL program offers a vision of a dramatically new approach to clean water programs.
    This new approach focuses attention on pollution sources in proven problem areas, rather than all sources. It is managed by the States rather than EPA. It is designed to attain the water quality goals that the States set, and to use measures that are tailored to fit each specific waterbody, rather than imposing a nationally-applicable requirement. And, it identifies needed pollution reductions based on input from the grassroots, waterbody level, rather than with a single, national, regulatory answer. In sum, we think we are on the right track to restoring the Nation's polluted waters.
    The final revisions to the existing TMDL regulations will support and improve the existing TMDL program and they will be responsive to many of the comments we have heard from interested parties.
    Thank you, for this opportunity to testifiscal year on EPA's efforts, in cooperation with States and other Federal agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, to restore the Nation's polluted waters. I will be happy to answer any questions.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
     
Statement of Linda Delgado
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting the U.S Department of Agriculture to present testimony and respond to your questions regarding proposed rules of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding Total Maximum Daily Loads of pollutants. USDA shares this committee's commitment to cleaning the waters of the United States and building on successes reducing water pollution over the past several decades. To some degree, those accomplishments were the easy part. The remaining pollution concerns, as highlighted in the President's Clean Water Action Plan which EPA and USDA helped prepare, are nonpoint sources of pollution such as soil erosion, urban runoff, pollutants from animal feeding operations and other sources that do not come from the end of a pipe. Addressing these nonpoint sources is the great challenge that remains to further improve our waters to make them fishable and swimmable for all Americans to enjoy.
    To accomplish these next steps in cleaning our waters will take a concerted effort from farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners, as well as urban and suburban residents. Notwithstanding the work that remains, farmers, ranchers, and foresters have been working for years to reduce the effects of their operations on water quality. Much has been achieved in this regard using many of the conservation tools that the Congress and Department wrote into the 1985, 1990, and 1996 farm bills.
    For example, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been an extremely effective tool in reducing erosion on highly erodible lands. Continuous sign-up of buffer practices under CRP has become an important part of water quality protection. The Wetlands Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have benefited thousands of farmers and ranchers and helped them improve the productivity of their operations through improved conservation. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is playing an important role in protecting the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, salmon habitat in Oregon and Washington, and drinking water supplies for New York City. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $1.3 billion above currently authorized levels to bolster our agriculture conservation programs.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I am proud of agriculture's and forestry's contributions to the Nation's efforts to clean our waters, while recognizing that we can and should do more. As Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman noted before a Senate Committee in February it is not a matter of whether farmers should do more, but how to proceed with our efforts to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution.
    It is no secret that USDA's relationship with EPA got off to a rocky start last fall when Under Secretary Jim Lyons filed comments highly critical of their proposed rules. However, as we have pointed out before, these comments were not cleared through the Office of the Secretary and do not represent USDA's official position. Having said this, many of those concerns have validity and we realized to obtain the best rule possible, we needed to be part of EPA's efforts in refining their initial proposal. So in January USDA Under Secretary Lyons and Assistant Administrator Fox established an interagency workgroup of our senior staff to review key issues. That group worked through the winter and came to the agreement that has been outlined by Mr. Fox on the issues of interest to USDA. As you have heard, EPA has agreed to reflect these agreements in its final TMDL rule.
    I want to briefly highlight the aspects of our agreement pertinent to agriculture and forestry. Both agencies decided that giving local citizens and State governments the most say in how pollution budgets are established for impaired waterways would have the greatest measure of success. The agreement grants States more flexibility in setting priorities, more time to develop lists of impaired waters, and simplifies listing requirements, dropping a requirement that threatened waters be listed. States will have 15 years to develop TMDLs for their impaired waters and the final regulation will not set a time limit for attainment of Water Quality Standards.
    Most importantly from the standpoint of agriculture, EPA and USDA agree that voluntary and incentive-based approaches, such as the water quality improvements that farmers make through Federal conservation programs or on their own initiative, will be given due credit in the development of TMDLs.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Much of our concern was related to the regulation of pollution from forest operations—harvesting, road building and other activities. Under the revised regulation no NPDES permits will be required for five years from publication of the final rule. After that period States are given choices in determining the degree of Federal regulation that will apply. Forest operations in States that develop adequate forest water quality programs based on EPA-approved BMPs will not be subject to NPDES permits. EPA will consult the USDA in determining the standards for approving BMPs. Operations on National Forest System lands, where operators already follow regulations that require consistency with State water requirements, will be exempt from NPDES permit requirements.
    We were concerned whether operators who are implementing those BMPs required by a State would be subject to penalty for failing to meet water quality standards. We learned that the EPA cannot legally mandate States to adopt these requirements, but as an incentive to good faith compliance with forestry BMPs, the EPA will encourage State programs to include a good faith exemption from any directly enforceable State water quality standard. If a State fails to gain approval for their forestry BMP program after five years, the State or EPA will have the authority to designate discharges of significant stormwater pollution as needing a NPDES permit. Any NPDES permits that are issued by EPA will include BMPs, as opposed to numerical effluent limitations. EPA expects that States will follow this practice. Finally, dischargers that are allowed to operate without a NPDES permit will not be exposed to citizen suits for failure to have a permit.
    Adequate funding of the programs that will help landowners address TMDLs is key to their success. The EPA is currently developing estimates of the overall cost of the TMDL program and the analysis will be available when the final rule is published. USDA agricultural conservation programs are dramatically enhanced by the Farm Safety Net proposal in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program would be increased from $200 million to $325 million. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be expanded to 40 million acres. Under our current authority, we are increasing CRP continuous sign up incentives by $100 million in fiscal year 2000 and $125 million in each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), which will reach its statutory 975,000 acre cumulative cap in fiscal year 2001, will enroll 250,000 acres annually. Finally, under the President's budget, a new $600 million Conservation Security Program would be funded and will provide annual payments to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily implement various conservation practices, many of which will benefit water quality.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    However, in both House and Senate appropriation bills, a provision has been inserted limiting fiscal year 2001 EQIP funding to $174 million, $151 million less than the President's budget and $26 million below its authorized level. Congress also has not authorized additional funding for WRP, CRP, or the new Conservation Security Program, as requested by the President. I strongly urge Congress to drop the objectionable EQIP provision and fully fund these important programs that can provide State and local partners the tools to successfully build their TMDL programs.
    USDA believes education and outreach to the affected communities will play decisive roles in these efforts to improve water quality. We and the EPA believe the final TMDL rules must be fair, clear, and provide farmers with greater certainty. With this in mind, we are working diligently with the EPA to achieve these goals.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before your committee. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues and respond to your questions.
     
Statement of Anne Coan
    My name is Anne Coan and I am employed as natural resources director for the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, our State's largest farm organization. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to express our concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations.
    Farm Bureau is opposed to EPA taking control of nonpoint source pollution management and land use out of the hands of state and local authorities and out of the hands of private landowners. We feel that this proposed regulation is a clear regulatory overreach on the part of EPA and will jeopardize the farmers who are participating in the highly successful efforts in place in North Carolina to clean up waters impacted by agricultural nonpoint sources.
    With almost 22 years experience working on agricultural water quality issues, I am confident in telling you that North Carolina has one of the premier state programs for voluntary best management practice installation on farms. Our NC Agriculture Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control is a model program that is envied throughout the country.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    This Program got its start as a result of recommendations from an Agricultural Task Force which worked to develop a comprehensive water quality management plan for agriculture under the old 208 program (named for Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act.) Under that plan, the methods for dealing with agricultural nonpoint source pollution are education of farmers about the need for practice installation, technical assistance with design and installation of practices, and cost-share to pay part of the cost.
    Because this Ag Cost Share Program was first conceived as a response to the call for nonpoint source management plans, the best management practices eligible for funding under the Program must be water quality management practices-and cannot be practices solely to enhance agricultural production. Because the North Carolina Ag Cost Share Program is designed to enhance water quality, it enjoys broad-based support from both the agricultural and environmental community.
    The Program's state administration is housed in the Division of Soil and Water Conservation of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Program delivery is accomplished through the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, with Federal, state, and county staff working with volunteer leaders to implement the Program. As with most programs to address nonpoint sources, the Program is underfunded, with about three applicants unfunded for each one that receives cost-share every year.
    This Program has had an added benefit in that Federal funds can be combined with the Program funds to enhance the cost-share percentage, and therefore increase the utilization of USDA programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and the Environmental Quality Improvement Program, to name a few.
    In addition to the Program to implement Section 208 for agriculture in North Carolina, Farm Bureau has worked hard under the Clean Water Act's Section 319 program to see that agricultural projects were funded. Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau volunteer leaders also serve on several of the River Basin Nonpoint Teams that identify and fund projects to tackle nonpoint source pollution problems. Agricultural projects compete with the wide range of other nonpoint sources for these woefully inadequate funds, but agriculture has had several high quality projects completed under the 319 program.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Here in North Carolina, we have had some particular challenges in recent years that have lead to specific and comprehensive state water quality regulations being adopted for some sectors of agriculture or for agricultural operations in certain designated areas of our State.
    Primarily in response to the growth in the swine industry, a comprehensive set of rules and laws, including nondischarge permitting, has been implemented for confined animal operations with greater than 100 cattle, greater than 250 swine, and for operations with 30,000 birds with wet-waste management systems. (More information on these requirements can be provided to the Committee if you wish.)
    In response to fish kills in the Neuse River estuary, a comprehensive set of state regulations has been adopted for the Neuse River Basin. This river basin constitutes all of the land area that flows into the Neuse River from the upper Piedmont to the coast and is totally contained in North Carolina. These regulations cover more than 20 counties in North Carolina. These regulations are in effect now. Currently under consideration are similar agriculture rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, a basin nearly comparable in size to the Neuse Basin.
    All agricultural operations in the Neuse River Basin are covered by these rules. In these state regulations farmers were given two options to meet a mandated 30 percent reduction of nitrogen being delivered to the Neuse River estuary from the levels existing in 1995.
    The ''standard'' option requires either buffers or water control structures with nutrient management. Farmers have to install forested riparian buffers. Or, if their land is suitable, they can install water control structures in their ditches, canals and in any natural streams on their property, in combination with implementing a nitrogen management plan on their farm.
    North Carolina Farm Bureau felt that the ''standard'' option did not give farmers adequate flexibility to allow them to continue farming economically. The concern was having to take productive cropland out of production to meet the regulations. For the farmer who could meet the ''standard'' option through water control structures with nutrient management, the water control structures would be expensive and not practical in many situations because very large structures would be needed, or because they could not be installed in waters that are not under the direct control of the farmer, such as roadway ditches. Also, water control structures cannot be used on land with greater than about a one percent slope due to their design. This means this part of the ''standard'' option is only available to farmers in the lower coastal area of the Basin.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Farm Bureau successfully worked to have a ''local'' option in addition to the ''standard'' option. Under the ''local'' option, farmers work collectively in each county to reach the 30 percent nitrogen reduction goal. A county committee, called the Local Advisory Committee, has farm agencies and farmers as members. The Local Advisory Committee develops the best management practice plans for individual farmers that must install water quality management practices. There is a Basin Oversight Committee that oversees the work of the Local Advisory Committees. In addition to state agencies there is an agricultural representative, an environmental group representative, and a representative of the scientific community on the Basin Oversight Committee. I serve as the agricultural representative on the Basin Oversight Committee. The Basin Oversight Committee's actions are reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, the Commission that adopted the rules.
    Farmers exercising the ''local'' option have until August 2003 to have their best management practices plan fully implemented on their farms. The farmers exercising the ''standard'' option must have the buffers or water control structures with nutrient management installed by August 2002.
    This brief, and certainly not comprehensive, overview of existing water quality programs and regulations affecting agriculture in North Carolina is provided to you as a basis for explaining our fear that states that have developed comprehensive voluntary programs, and even comprehensive state regulations, to address nonpoint source pollution from agriculture will be undermined by these new TMDL regulations.
    The Clean Water Act had its origin in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This lengthy and complicated Act represented the first serious attempt to address the nation's water pollution problems by focusing on ''point source'' pollution. Point source pollution problems were addressed through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program which applied effluent limitations through a federally mandated and supervised permit system. ''Nonpoint source'' pollution on the other hand was addressed through a process that placed primary responsibility on the states. The magnitude of nonpoint source pollution problems, in terms of the number and variety of sources, the site specific nature of such sources, the lack of known control technologies for many sources, and the perception that may nonpoint problems could be addressed only through land use controls - a traditional state role - required an approach different from the approach to address point sources.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    On August 23, 1999, EPA proposed sweeping changes to the current regulatory requirements for establishing TMDLs under the Clean Water Act. The proposed regulation has the potential to allow EPA to take over state land use and economic growth decisions under the guise of reducing nonpoint pollution. Thus far, land use control has resided with the states, local governments, and individual landowners. This proposed regulation could undermine this traditional system by injecting the Federal EPA into individual land use decisions on farms and forestland across the country.
    How would this happen? EPA's TMDL proposal enables EPA to override existing state law and regulatory processes by mandating TMDL's that states must achieve. This removes the authority of the state to decide the best approach for dealing with water quality. This new power would even extend to waters that are impaired only by nonpoint sources.
    The TMDL ''process'' proposed by EPA requires their review and approval and/or disapproval of a State's list of impaired waters and TMDLs within 30 days of the date of submittal. If EPA disapproves of a list or of a TMDL, EPA must establish the list or the TMDL for the state. The power to do this, to dictate load limits for nonpoint sources, is the power to dictate the land use changes EPA feels are needed to achieve those loads.
    Having reviewed EPA's proposed regulation, current law, and the final FACA Committee recommendations, we have serious concerns over many of EPA's proposals. We feel strongly that Congress designed the TMDL program in Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act to focus on waters impaired by point sources, as a means to calculate acceptable pollutant loads to assist state's efforts to effectively regulate traditional point source activities, and to provide states with the flexibility to achieve water quality goals. Congress enacted Section 319 to reduce the effects of nonpoint source (NPS) runoff from agricultural, silvicultural and other land use activities.
    Many of the proposed provisions generate additional controversy and confusion, and, we feel, will have the effect of undermining our successful Federal and state NPS water quality programs. EPA also has
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
misjudged key factors, such as the likely costs to state and Federal agencies, costs to the private sector, and the likely impacts of the proposed changes.
    The proposed regulations would allow EPA, by regulatory fiat, to list nonpoint source impaired waters, to develop TMDLs for these waters, and to establish implementation plans for achieving the loads in these waters. In other words, the proposal provides for Federal land use regulation through EPA's ability to require a TMDL, their ability to disapprove state submissions, and therefore their ability to develop the TMDL and the implementation plan at the Federal level. Compliance with Section 303(d) is not achieved until water quality standards are attained. This raises the not-so-hypothetical possibility that the Federal Government will be allowed through this regulation to eliminate a land-based source, such as a farming operation from a watershed in the event that best management practices are judged by EPA to be inadequate to achieve the water quality standards.
    A serious concern on our part is that the TMDL Federal Advisory Committee reached a consensus agreement that best management practices implemented to achieve TMDLs would have to pass the test of practicability (be economically achievable) as established in Section 319. EPA has failed to introduce the concept of practicability in either the preamble or the proposed TMDL rule.
    Another serious problem with the proposed regulations is that they appear to allow EPA to designate nonpoint sources as point sources. They propose to regulate nonpoint sources, private forestry and livestock activities by controlling such normal farming and forestry practices as harvesting, site-preparation, road construction, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, and land application of organic nutrients, by requiring landowners to obtain point source discharge permits for these land use activities. This is an unjustifiable expansion of EPA's authority and constitutes significant Federal intrusion into private activities. Further, requirements for Federal permits undermine state authority in this area to determine the type and scope of its state water quality program and permit requirements.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Farmers and the agricultural community in North Carolina have shown that they are willing to be part of developing and complying with reasonable rules and regulations on the state level where warranted, and they are strong supporters and users of incentive-based programs. Developing strong and effective nonpoint source water quality programs takes time and commitment. It takes education, adequate technical assistance and cost-share money. It takes funding and staffing at all levels. And it takes farmer involvement and trust in the process, which this proposed regulation has seriously undermined.
    This proposed rule needs serious revision. But ultimately the real fix may need to be Congress passing legislation to restate its clear intent of 1972 - that nonpoint sources are to be treated as such, and were never intended to be treated in the same way as point sources. Congress may need to stop EPA from changing activities that have always been considered nonpoint sources into point sources through guidance documents and regulations in conflict with the intent of Congress.
    The nonpoint source issues outlined in EPA's TMDL proposal are best addressed through incentive-driven programs, and, where needed, carefully crafted regulations developed by the state with adequate farmer involvement, flexibility, and buy-in by the regulated farmers. EPA's ability to disapprove these programs and state regulations under these TMDL rules is the wrong approach.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.
     
Statement of Russell Cox
        I am Russell ''Rusty'' Cox, swine manager and crop manager with Cox Brothers Farm located south of Monroe. My father, Marion Cox is one of the principle founders of Cox Brothers Farm. The major enterprises on the farm are swine farrow-to-finish, turkey and field crops. The farm also has grain storage and feed mill facilities to handle crop production and feed manufacturing for animals.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I come before you today to express opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new proposed rule to impose total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations on nonpoint sources of pollution. How would this regulation potentially affect Cox Brothers Farm? Swine production? Turkey Production? Field crop production? Economic viability? As a young person engaged in agriculture for the long haul, I feel good sound answers to these questions are needed.
    As swine manager, I have assumed responsibility for records and operation of the swine facilities to meet our Certified Animal Waste Management Plan. We work efficiently to utilize animal waste nutrients on crop production acres. The swine waste is applied through irrigation systems at agronomic rates for crops to be grown. Possible restrictions on application rates of nutrients to our crop acreage could require more in acreage for land application or a reduction in swine numbers. Either option will increase expenses and seriously impact our bottom line.
    We at the Cox Brothers Farm work closely with the Cooperative Extension Service and Union County Soil and Water Conservation District to develop plans for our total animal and crop production systems; from birth to market to seeding to waste utilization (nutrient management) to crop harvest residue management. We are computerizing our plans and records on animal waste and nutrient applications to cropland. In addition, we maintain pesticide and sludge application records. Through our efficient use of nutrients, pesticides and other inputs, we are able to reduce the potential for runoff and other environmental effects from our farming operation by utilizing no-til planting.
    Cox Brothers Farm provides acreage for three surrounding cities to apply municipal waste and for Wampler Foods chicken processing plant located in Marshville to apply its lagoon waste. As you can see, surrounding cities and industries depend on the survival of farms like ours to operate their enterprises. Under the TMDL proposed new rule, our ability to utilize municipal sludge and industrial byproducts could be reduced even though we are applying at approved rates to cropland. What would municipalities do if all farms are limited or prohibited from accepting sludge?
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Assessing nonpoint source pollution is difficult because of the variety and number of potential sources. Due to this difficulty, the efforts to control and regulate nonpoint sources of pollution, including agricultural sources, have been historically left to the states and private landowners, the people closest to the source. We feel strongly that this trend should continue and that EPA should leave land use decisions up to the states and private landowners.
    EPA's proposed TMDL rule would bring nonpoint source activities such as agriculture and forestry under regulations that could prevent young farmers like me from continuing to operate our family business in the future. Thank you for allowing me to present these comments to you.
     
Statement of Elton Braswell
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed TMDL Rule. Good morning! I am Elton Braswell from Monroe, North Carolina; northern Union County. My brother and I are partners in the operation of Braswell Brothers Dairy. The dairy operation is centered around a 95–99 head milking herd of Registered Guernsey Cows plus heifers raised as replacements. We also grow corn for grain and silage, soybeans, barley, wheat and oats for grain and hay, plus manage pastures for grazing and hay.
    As an active leader of Farm Bureau for 30 years, locally and at the state level, I am opposed to efforts that place nonpoint sources such as agricultural activities under the TMDL process. I have served as Chairman of the N.C. Farm Bureau Natural Resources Committee and participated at the state and national level on discussions and conferences about environmental issues.
    Up front, I would like to say that I feel nonpoint source issues outlined in EPA's TMDL proposal are best addressed through voluntary best management practices (BMP)'s implemented by those who own and work with our natural resources on a daily basis—we the farmers. I personally have reviewed and commented on North Carolina's basinwide approach to water quality management in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (that runs through Union County). North Carolina's basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and protecting the quality of North Carolina's surface waters. The implementation of the seventeen plans prepared by the Division of Water Quality brings local governments, interest groups, landowners and other stakeholders together to address water quality. This process is in keeping with the intent of the Clean Water Act of 1972, that nonpoint sources such as agriculture be addressed through voluntary incentive based BMP's, technical assistance and education be provided to landowners , and that landowners be allowed the flexibility to manage their land on a site specific basis.
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    On our dairy operation we work diligently to manage animal waste to prevent runoff and use the waste as a part of our crop fertilizer to reduce the amount of commercial fertilizer we have to purchase. We apply the waste to our cropland so that the crop is fertilized at agronomic rates for the specific crop to be grown, based on soil sample analysis and yield expectations. The management of animal waste is important, but it also requires that we use care to avoid over application of the nutrients. I have attended waste management training classes and have an ''operator in charge'' designation from the Water Pollution Control Systems Operator Certification Commission. The operator in charge designation requires 10 hours of classroom work on operating waste management systems, successfully passing an exam, and paying a yearly fee. Additionally, 10 hours of continuing educational training must be completed every 3 years. I have done this even though our herd is less than the 100 cow threshold that requires a designated operator in charge plus a Certified Waste Management Plan and General Permit for Cattle Operation. Those above the threshold have permits that are renewed each year and the annual fee is based on size. Inspections on those operations are done two times a year, one by the Division of Soil and Water or the local soil and water district and one by the Division of Water Quality. Even though we are under the 100 confined cow threshold, we are subject to discharge regulations and complaints that may be filed with the Division of Water Quality. I go into this detail to demonstrate that in North Carolina we already have existing programs to reduce nonpoint sources.
    Sediment is listed as a major pollutant from nonpoint sources such as urban runoff, construction activities and agricultural activities in general. On our farming operation, we use no-til planting extensively to protect our land from erosion and runoff. Additionally, the use of no-til helps us conserve soil moisture and nutrients for plant utilization. Farm Service Agency crop reporting records in Union County verify that most crops are planted no-til with minimal soil disturbance , leaving crop residues on the surface. Farmers voluntarily have implemented practices to reduce erosion potential on their fields; practices being no-til planting and cover crops as examples.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    If EPA's proposed TMDL rule is adopted, it will ignore everything we have done voluntarily to reduce runoff and protect our water quality over the last several years. Lastly, this rule would undermine our state's existing regulatory water quality protection programs through excessive EPA oversight.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
     
Statement of Donald Heath
    My name is Donald Heath and I am a farmer in Craven County, N.C. I have been farming 27 years and my family has been farming where our farm is located since 1947. My wife and I raise 1,400 acres of cotton and 70 acres of tobacco on our farm. We own about 550 acres of cropland and woodland and manage an additional 1,700 acres for other landowners. My son is a senior at NC State University studying agriculture business management. He plans to return to our farming operation in December.
    We are committed to good stewardship on our farm. We started conservation tillage in 1994, with strip tillage and cover crops on all cotton acres. We have around 1350 acres of strip till cotton and 50 acres of no-till cotton. We have seen benefits from these practices because less soil is eroding from our fields. We know this because we have been able to double the time between times we have to clean the soil out of our ditches.
    Additionally, we have installed 16 water control structures on our farm for water management to slow the release of water from rainfall from our ditches into the streams and rivers. These best management practices were all installed before the state rules I will discuss today went into effect.
    Our farm is located in the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse experienced significant environmental problems, including fish kills, in 1995. This focused increased attention on the water quality problems in the Neuse. Our State began to address the problems of the Neuse by initiating and eventually adopting state regulations to establish a nitrogen reduction goal. These regulations cover the land area in over 20 counties in our state.
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    The 30 percent nitrogen reduction goal established in our state regulations applies to several sources of nitrogen, including agriculture. The nitrogen measurements for determining the success of the reduction goal are taken at the water quality monitoring station at Fort Barnwell, North Carolina, in my home county. My farm is located very close to this monitoring station with 60 percent of my operation being upstream from the monitoring station.
    These state regulations were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency as North Carolina's strategy to achieve a Total Maximum Daily Load for the entire Neuse River Basin, and this was approved by EPA. In order for you to understand my concerns about EPA's TMDL regulations, I need to explain the state regulations.
    My farm is covered under these state regulations. In the state regulations farmers were given two options to meet the 30 percent reduction goal requirement.
    The ''standard'' option requires either buffers or water control structures with nutrient management. This means that, in my county, under the standard option, farmers will have to take land out of production to install forested riparian buffers. Or, if their land is suitable, they can install water control structures (small dams) in their ditches, canals and in any natural streams on their property, along with implementing a nutrient management plan on their farm.
    The ''standard'' option does not give adequate flexibility to most farmers in my county to allow them to continue with economically viable farms if they have to take significant land out of production. The water control structures would be expensive and not practical in many situations due to the sizes of structures needed. Also, water control structures cannot be used on land with much slope, which means this part of the standard option is not available to most farmers in the Basin.
    Farmers fought long and hard during the rulemaking process for additional ways besides the ''standard'' option to meet the regulations. In addition to the ''standard'' option, a ''local'' option was added. Under the ''local'' option, farmers work collectively in each county to reach the reduction goal. A county committee of farm agencies and farmers, called the Local Advisory Committee, will develop the best management practices plan for each farmer. There is a Basin Oversight Committee that oversees the work of the Local Advisory Committees and the BOC is answerable to the State's Environmental Management Commission that adopted the regulations.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Farmers had to sign up to exercise the local option. I signed up. I am also a member of the Local Advisory Committee in my county. All farmers who signed up for the ''local'' option have until August 2003 to have their best management practices in place. Farmers who are following the standard option must have the buffers or water control structures in by August 2002.
    This has been a difficult and frustrating task, but I am committed to meeting the requirements of these state regulations. The Local Advisory Committee is committed to working with the farmers in my county to meet the state-established reduction goal.
    My concern about the TMDL regulation is that I fear how EPA will have control over the Neuse River Basin agricultural regulations we developed through much hard work here in North Carolina. Farmers will have a difficult time complying with these state regulations. But they are working to comply.
    After farmers spend tremendous amounts of effort and money complying with the Neuse regulations written by our state, will the Federal EPA be able to come to North Carolina and decide that we did not do enough? Will they say we did the wrong things and have to do something additional or completely different? Will EPA be able to raise the bar from the state-adopted 30 percent nitrogen reduction goal to a higher percentage reduction, meaning even more requirements? And because I must work with nine different landowners on my farm, how do I go back to them and tell them that somebody from Washington has said what we've done just isn't good enough?
    The EPA's proper role in agricultural water quality is through the 319 nonpoint source program under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The EPA should be providing significantly more funding for implementing best management practices on farms through Section 319. EPA should be working to increase the technical assistance and cost-share budgets of USDA.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
EPA should not be threatening to force its heavy hand on the farmers of the Neuse River Basin who are working so hard to be good stewards and to meet the state established water quality goals.
In the fast developing coastal area where I live, farming is the answer, not the problem. Forcing farmers off the land with too many regulations will only mean more development, more people, and more pollution. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
     
Statement of Pat Powell
    Mr. Chairman and members of the House Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on a subject that I have very strong feelings about—the future of my industry and our family business. My name is Pat Powell and I am a third generation hardwood sawmill owner from the mountains of western North Carolina. Our mill has been producing hardwood lumber since 1910 in the same area where I grew up. Being a third generation family owned business, we have several family members involved in the operation of our mill and we all have our responsibilities to ensure that our business can survive in today's fast changing economy. My primary responsibility is the procurement of raw materials for our sawmill. This means that I am out there every day searching for available timber to make sure our mill can provide our customers with the supply of lumber they need to keep their businesses going.
    We live in an area where the Federal Government owns 40 to 60 percent of the timberland. In the seventies and eighties we procured between 75 to 90 percent of our timber from National Forest timber sales in our area through the competitive bidding process on these lands. We currently receive only about 2 percent of our log inventory from US Forest Service lands as a result of the policies of the current Administration. But this is another sad story and not the focus of today's testimony. However, it is important to point this fact out as it has caused us to focus our timber procurement efforts on private lands. And, that has all to do with today's discussion.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Between our family and company lands we own approximately 4000 acres that we manage for timber to feed our mill. We receive about 5 percent of our company's timber from these lands and the rest we acquire from private landowners across western North Carolina.
Since most of our logging operations at one time were on US Forest Service, we learned a long time ago that using proper road construction, skid trail development, stream crossing, and disturbed area seeding techniques will mitigate any environmental problems that may arise as the result of timber harvesting and regeneration operations. We weren't surprised at all, and supported, our state's adoption of the performance standards in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality, which includes the Forestry Best Management Practices, or as we call them BMP's. These practices are designed to assist landowners, loggers and managers when planning and conducting forestry operations. We have managed all our operations under these guidelines since they were developed. We followed these guidelines voluntarily at first and now we are required too by law and adopted rules. As I mentioned before, we fully support the intent of these mandatory performance standards.
While the standards are numerous and quite explicit I'll mention just a few examples of the BMP's we follow:
     Designing and constructing haul roads, logging deck sites, skid trails, stream crossings, and bridges according to proven engineering standards for all slopes and aspects.
     Leaving vegetation buffers along intermittent and perennial streams as well as any other permanent water body. We call these streamside management zones or SMZ's.
     Keeping any construction, harvesting, mill site residue, and site preparation debris out of streams.
     Taking many precautions to prevent equipment servicing waste, petroleum, fertilizers or other chemical waste from entering any water systems on site.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Finally, we spend considerable effort to rehabilitate the project sites to avoid the potential for accelerated erosion within 30 days after our operations cease. This includes preparing and seeding all disturbed areas. We make regular checks on the progress of the rehab applications until the sites are permanently stabilized.
    Obviously, these activities require much advance planning and we spend an enormous amount of time planning and coordinating with landowners and consultants before any activities begin.
    Our company, as well as most other companies in this state, has made sure that all the loggers under contract on our operations have attended the Pro Logger program administered cooperatively with the North Carolina Forestry Association and North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. This program has been most helpful in educating all forest workers on the benefits of using BMP's. This program has made the use of BMP's a daily consideration and helped our efficiency in meeting these standards.
    Of all the operations the state monitors across the state, our industry has the highest compliance rate at 95 percent. We are doing a great job of protecting our environment.
    Over the past few years, our logging costs have doubled. Much of this cost is an investment in BMP's on private lands. While we are cost conscious, as any successful business must be, we gladly accept our environmental responsibility to the land that gives us our renewable raw material. You see, despite the picture of our industry that some environmental zealots have painted, the forest products industries are not the ''rape and pillagers'' of the land. Why would we want to degrade the land that provides the source of our raw materials that has kept our business going for three generations? I can assure you we want to pass Canton Hardwood along to several more generations if possible.
    That brings me to the point. It is bad enough that we can no longer rely on any timber coming from the 40 to 60 percent of our region's timber owned by the US Forest Service. Now we find out that the Environmental Protection Agency wants control over the remainder of the timberland in our region through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rule making process. It's enough to make you throw your hands up and say ''Stop the Insanity''.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    It is our understanding that the TMDL water rules will require that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any forestry practice on watersheds deemed by EPA to exceed TMDL standards. After reading EPA's justification for proposing these rules, I was appalled at the lack of any credible science and logic behind them. Somewhere along the line we have strayed away from science based environmental management toward an emotional ''one size fits all'' based analysis.
    We see the most serious threat of this rule making to private landowners who wish to manage their lands for timber production. With the threat of additional costs and uncertainty regarding the harvesting and regeneration of their timber, they will most assuredly look to other uses for their land. In our region, with the favorable climate and environment, that means summer home development. If EPA thinks forestry practices are a problem, we need to bring them to western North Carolina and inspect some of the developments going on there. We have already lost considerable timberlands to this land use. On occasion we have had to liquidate some of our own timberlands because of its much higher value as summer home development potential.
    If we allow the EPA to take control of private property forest management operations through this foolish TMDL rule, the additional hardships and uncertainty regarding the procurement of our mill's raw material will most certainly put us out of business. That's the bottom line.
    Thanks again, Mr. Chairman and Committee members for allowing me to testify before you today on these important dangers of government over regulation.
     
Statement of Windell Talley
    I am Windell Talley of Stanfield, NC and I would like to welcome you to Wingate University where some forty years ago I was a student. I later attended and graduated from N.C. State University in Poultry Science. For some thirty-six years I have been involved in food production. Our operation consists of turkey meat birds, turkey hatching eggs, beef cattle and crops consisting of corn, soybeans and wheat. Over the years, as capital became available, our operation has evolved into a sizable enterprise along with the involvement of my three sons and their families.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Our food production facilities require the use of several thousand acres of land, some leased and some owned. It has always been of utmost concern to me that these properties are passed on to the next generation in better condition than when it was acquired. We have always sought to prevent excessive runoff, which might have a detrimental effect on the water supply. For the past ten years we have no-tilled all our crops and utilized buffer strips. As farmers and food producers we operate in a changing environment due to weather, economics, and the biological nature of the products we produce. With all these variables we face every day in food production, our ultimate goal is to produce an abundance of quality food, at a low cost to consumers, with as little adverse effect on our surroundings as possible.
    At present in poultry production, we have a dry litter management system in place. Some of the practices involved are dry litter storage under roof to lessen runoff and soil and litter testing, to attempt to apply proper nutrients to our cropland and grassland. This volunteer management system was developed by the poultry industry of North Carolina and has been a model for other states. Goals have been to utilize these nutrients and at the same time protect the environment.
    Because of the seasonal nature of food production and to provide the consumer with a stable supply of food, the farmer needs to have flexibility to make common sense decisions on a day-to-day basis. He neither has the time or the need to be regulated by the Federal Government on these issues. In the last ten to fifteen years, new laws and regulations have been coming down faster than the average farmer has time to digest. Maybe at this point in time we should call on the Federal Government to back off for a period of time and research the needs of our environment prior to creating any additional laws and regulations to be put upon the farmer. Every year we are losing family farms, the foundation of our economy, due to lack of profitability. Increased regulations create an undue burden on these family farms, which do not have the volume of sales to justify employing full-time specialists to deal with so many regulations. If at some point there seems to be a need for regulations on non-point pollutants, then these regulations should come under state jurisdiction. Whatever costs might be involved in implementing these regulations should be borne by someone other than the producer who is unable to pass costs on with his products.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you and address these concerns that we as food producers have in these areas. I hope that you will attempt, in your deliberations on these matters, to lessen the impact on the individual producer.
     
Statement of Allen McLaurin
    My name is Allen McLaurin and I am from Scotland County, NC. I am employed by Z.V. Pate Inc. where I have been managing their farming operations since 1983. This operation consisting of timber, cotton, soybeans, and tobacco. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads.
    I am opposed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule that would subject nonpoint sources such as agricultural activities to potential land use restrictions under the total maximum daily load process. If adopted, this rule would place server restrictions on our ability to manage our farmland according to research-based best management practices and would jeopardize our existing state regulatory programs.
    We are constantly revising our land management practices to reflect the latest advancements in environmental stewardship and efficient crop production management to protect water quality. For example we have implemented several best management practices that significantly reduces erosion and off site runoff, thus allowing nutrient residue to remain in the fields, which they were applied, leading to better crop utilization.

    Proper application of nutrients is essential to obtain optimum yields as well as for the protection of our environment. To ensure that our crops are not receiving excessive rates of nutrients we sample our fields annually to determine the optimum levels of nutrient and apply accordingly. Restrictions on nutrient applications, as could occur if EPA's proposed rule is adopted, could drop commodity yields even further below the profitable levels.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Farmers who apply animal waste and nutrients also follow agronomic rates. If EPA's proposed TMDL rule is adopted, farmers could be required to use more land to apply the same amount of nutrients. Agricultural land use in North Carolina is decreasing while urban land use is on the rise. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult for a farmer to acquire the additional land necessary in order to comply with EPA's proposed requirement.
    In addition to the many voluntary Best Management Practices that we are implementing on our farms, the state has adopted additional water quality regulations that require certain land use restrictions by nonpoint sources such as agricultural activities. Furthermore, land use ordinances are best handled at the state and local levels. The proposed EPA's rule on TMDL could undermine these state and local land use management efforts. This rule could mean the voluntary best Management Practices that we have implemented to protect water quality would not be considered in EPA's rush to regulate nonpoint sources.
    Farmers have made great strides in conserving and protection our natural resources through voluntary programs. We are conserving our soils through erosion control programs, protecting our wetlands through voluntary buffers and protection our wildlife through the establishment of habitat areas. For example:
     On our farming operation we have converted over 1,500 acres of farmland to timber production by participating the Federal Conservation Reserve Program.
    We ask that you work to ensure that we have the necessary funding and technical assistance in order to continue implementing voluntary conservation measures in the future. Farmers take great pride in working the land and being good stewards of our natural resources. But, we need the necessary tools in order to remain viable and continue with voluntary environmental protection initiatives.
    Leave land management decisions to private landowner, states and local governments. We do not need EPA telling us how to manage our own land and do not need this proposed TMDL rule.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EPA proposal
     
Statement of J. Andy Martin
    I would like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to express my views on the most potentially damaging ruling ever to impact forestry in the United States. My name is Andy Martin. I am a registered consulting forester and a 1981 graduate of North Carolina State University with a B.S. in forestry. I have over twelve years of procurement and land management experience in the forestry industry, and for the last 5 years I have worked with BB&T in the Real Estate &Special Assets Department. BB&T is the nations 19&largest bank holding company with over 46 billion dollars in assets and locations in seven different states and the District of Columbia. Currently at BB&T I have management responsibilities for approximately 10,000 acres of cropland and 15,000 acres of timberland.
    Although small compared to industry standards, as a corporate fiduciary these lands are extremely important to the clients we represent. Many of our clients depend on their land as their only source of income. To subject these people to the economic burden of this EPA regulation would be very damaging to their economic well being. To require a permit for every silvicultural practice that they wish to perform on their land would be a deterrent so great that the majority of private landowners would halt these practices altogether. It has taken years of outreach and education from private industry, state forest services, and state extension services to convince private landowners that it is in their best interest to practice sustainable forestry on their lands. A well-managed forest can provide timber for our future needs as well as much-needed habitat for our wildlife populations. It also can provide recreational opportunities for people of all ages.
    However, the EPA with this ruling is going to bring a screeching halt to cycle of sustainability. By imposing this mandate on all silvicultural activities the only process private landowners will pursue is a harvest. This ruling will create such a burden on the private individual that it will not be economically feasible for the majority of the landowners I represent to pursue sustainable forestry practices. When a small landowners only source of income is the family farm, it can be very difficult for an individual to look ahead to the forest for the next generation. With their Social Security checks and their farm income being their only hope for the future, it will be impossible for landowners facing rising health care costs to pursue an expensive an lengthy permit process when it comes to silvicultural matters. Many of these landowners plan for their
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    forest to be their lifeline in times of need. Forest income has paid for college education, long term health care, and has kept many family farms from going bankrupt in time of need. To regulate their economic future away from them would be catastrophic. On a local level this ruling would be devastating. Having endured a fifty-percent reduction in farm income due to losses of tobacco quota in eastern North Carolina, more government regulation and burden could put many farmers completely out of business. The majority of people envision giant timber companies harvesting acres of trees when they think of forestry, but it is the individual landowner that will provide our future forest needs and this ruling will be the death sentence for our future. Small acreage will become functionally obsolete. The permit process will make it economically impossible to harvest these small wood lots. Many landowners believe that this is the true intent of this program. If the EPA was truly concerned with clean water, then why are they exempting our national forest? This entire process is a smoke screen to prevent timber harvesting on private land.
    Having given the view of a corporate fiduciary trying to protect a beneficiary's rights, let me change hats and say as a forester whose job is to protect and enhance the natural life cycle of a forest, I am in favor of clean air and water. However, I believe that as an industry the forest community has done an excellent job through education and self regulation of improving water quality in and around our Nation's forest. Sustainable forestry practices, Pro-logger education courses, and Best Management Practice (BMP) guidelines have changed the direction an attitude of the forestry profession. From the C.E.O. of a major corporation to a skidder operator working in the woods I truly believe that each person has become aware of the importance and multiple resources that our forestlands provide. Streamside Management Zones and Riparian Buffer Strips have become a way of life. I believe that the EPA should not change the designation for silvicultural practices and let the individual states deal with these concerns on a local level. The only way to change peoples behaviors toward water quality is to let them take ownership in the regulations by working with forest industry, landowners associations and environmental and government concerns. Local groups can join together to improve water quality for us all. The TMDL Program will only create a bureaucratic nightmare that will entangle responsible forestry practices in costly litigation and red tape. Stop this devastating action before it destroys our Nation's only renewable resource, our forest.
 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    On behalf of BB&T and the landowner we represent, thank you for hearing my remarks. I will gladly try to answer any questions you may have.
     
Statement of Pat Taylor
    My name is Pat Taylor and I live in Wadesboro, NC. The western boundary of Anson County, of which Wadesboro is a part, is located about 10 miles from where we are now sitting. The first soil conservation program district in the United States was started in Anson County. This was because Dr. Hugh Bennett, who is acknowledged as the Father of Soil Conservation, was appointed by President Roosevelt to head the program in America. Dr. Bennett was born and raised in Wadesboro.
    I mention this because of the heritage the people of Anson County have in the preservation of our environment and of our natural resources.
    I am a strong supporter of the program designed to protect the environment, not only of North America, but of the Nation and the world. With the ever expanding population it becomes more and more difficult to achieve this goal.
    Anson County had a population of 28,000 in 1910. In 1990, the population was 24,000; 4,000 fewer than 80 years before. This was due to the fact that it is an agricultural county and its two primary crops were cotton and pine trees. The boll weevil killed the cotton and today our primary crop is our trees. In the last week or so I saw an article that indicated that Anson County ranked second in the State in the production of forest products.
    Anything that is done by the Government that would adversely affect the timber industry would be devastating to our citizens.
    My family owns timberland. Recently we sold several hundred acres to a brick company, which is clearing the land at this time for the construction of a $32,000,000 brick plant. It is very sad to see bulldozers destroying 12 year old pine trees on land that for some 200 years has been used for agricultural purpose. It was sold because of the increase in the county tax base and of the employment it offers. Environmentally it would have been better left as it was. It would be even sadder if laws were passed that made it impractical to use land for the growth of timber.
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    My family also owns a lot of land on U.S. Highway 74, which was leased by Exxon and for 60 years used as a filling station. At the expiration of the lease it was necessary to remove the old tanks and put new dirt in the holes where the tanks were and to dispose of the old dirt. The old dirt looked normal to the eye but if you smelled hard you could detect an odor of gasoline. The environmental engineer suggested that the old dirt, which was about two truckloads, be put on an old field on the family farm where it could be spread out by a tractor. He said he thought the could get approval in about 10 days to 2 weeks from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This was in November, 1999. By letter dated April 20, 2000 I received nine pages of instructions as to what must be done and what must not be done. It referred to both civil and criminal penalties which could apply if the regulations are not met. The odor of gasoline has long since disappeared. The dirt is at least a quarter of a mile from any stream or any other property owner. We would never have put the dirt where it is if we had thought there was any danger of contamination.
    I tell this story to illustrate some fundamental truths. In the world in which we live there are conflicts such as:
     Idealism vs. Realism
     Practical vs. Impractical
     Reasonable vs. Unreasonable
    Life would not be the same if it were not for idealists, dreamers and philosophers. They do not always live or think in the real world. In this search for utopia they forget that somebody has to feed the people of the world, build buildings where people can eat and sleep and work, make clothes to wear, highways and automobiles to travel and so on.
    Many a time I have heard governmental officials say, ''I don't agree with this law or regulation but the legislature made it and I have to enforce it.''
    As to the issue before us today, I would strongly urge you not to enact any law, which could have the potential of severely damaging the timber industry. Environmentalists tend to be idealistic and I believe you should not give them authority, which could be used in an impractical or unrealistic manner.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 3  
    I will close my remarks with a suggestion for the honorable members of congress. Last Wednesday I received a call from a staff member of the Congress who said that if I wanted to make remarks at this meeting, I needed to send him 150 copies of the remarks. He said the rules required it. I would suggest that sometimes Congressmen, like environmentalists, can make impractical rules and regulations.
     
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Next Hearing Segment(2)