 |
|
 |
|
TMDL: The Smoke Clears By early June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency extreme was under extreme grassroots pressure from all sides-landowners, forest managers, and even Greens-to withdraw its proposed "Total Maximum Daily Load" rule. The TMDL rule proposes to replace state-run incentive-based programs to control non-point sources of water impairment with a process ultimately based on federal supervision. EPA first announced that it would withdraw the "forestry provisions," which would have raised the threat of a federal permitting process with respect to harvesting and silviculture. Following some pressure from the Greens, EPA reinserted harvesting and silviculture. Then another grassroots push from forestry came-including a July 11 Capitol Hill press conference by 70 members of the Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council-and harvesting and silviculture came back out again. In the midst of all this maneuvering, Congress inserted a rider on an important Appropriations bill to withhold funds for implementing the rule during the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2000. That, however, did not make an end of the matter. During the ten days between the passage of the bill and its signature by the President, EPA hurriedly rushed theTMDL regulation to completion, and EPA Administrator Carol Browner signed it. The final rule still exempts harvesting and silviculture and also withdraws a provision on "blended waters implementation plans," which could have resulted in a zero discharge requirement for manufacturing facilities in watersheds which EPA determined did not meet water quality standards. In addition, the Administration has acknowledged that the terms of the Appropriations rider do not allow it to implement the rule until November 1, 2001-issuing the rule is one thing; implementing it another. Meanwhile, on July 27, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a bill to fund studies to determine whether EPA used "good science" to craft the TMDL rule; whether implementing it is feasible; and to test the rule in a specific watershed. This bill, if it becomes law, would also provide states with significant funding to implement the rule-addressing the "unfunded mandate" nuance in the rule as it stands. Return to Public Policy Archive Forest Resources Association
Inc. (FRA) |
 |