The letter below was sent to the following Congressmen from the agricultural groups listed at the bottom of the letter, concerning the EPA proposed rules regarding Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL):

The letter below was sent to the following Congressmen from the agricultural groups listed at the bottom of the letter, in regard to EPA proposed rules regarding Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL):

Senator Trent Lott

Senator Tom Daschle

Senator Richard Lugar

Senator Tom Harkin

Senator Robert Smith

Senator Max Baucus

Rep. Dennis Hastert

Rep. Richard Gephardt

Rep. Larry Combest

Rep. Charlie Stenholm

Rep. Bud Shuster

Rep. James Oberstar

Dear Member of Congress:

The undersigned agricultural, forestry, and conservation organizations are writing to express our strong concerns that the Environmental Protection Agency's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) proposed rulemaking goes well beyond EPA's authority in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Furthermore, the TMDL proposed rule would jeopardize successful state and federal voluntary, incentive-based programs currently working to reduce production agriculture's impact on our nation's water quality.

We represent a vast array of agricultural interests, all of which have a concern about our environment and have a long history of being stewards of the land by implementing sound conservation practices. Agriculture has made substantial investments and made significant progress in protecting our natural resources through voluntary, incentive-based programs. These programs have led to many successes and will continue to help the agricultural community build upon the ongoing progress of improving water quality.

We welcome the Administration's January 7th announcement that they will seek

$1.3 billion in the FY2001 budget for additional conservation programs to help family farmers take further steps to protect water quality and the environment. This initiative is the correct approach to solving water quality problems because it recognizes the importance of flexible, incentive-based, and site-specific programs. These initiatives should be fully funded, implemented, and evaluated before additional "command and control" strategies, such as the proposed federal TMDL regulations are promulgated.

The TMDL rulemaking would have a crippling impact on agricultural activities and individual farm, forestry, and ranch operations. The TMDL rule is counterproductive and contradicts ongoing progressive efforts.

Enforcement-based programs, such as the TMDL rule will significantly impact successful, voluntary initiatives, as farmers and other voluntary stewards will justifiably wait to invest limited resources toward regulatory compliance efforts. It does not make good sense or sound public policy for the federal government to promote economic environmental partnerships with farmers on one level, then saddle them with increased regulatory requirements and burdens.

In addition, we would like to clearly state our strong support for the positions expressed in USDA's letter and comments to EPA, and forwarded to Administrator Carol Browner on October 22, 1999, by Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Jim Lyons. USDA's letter and comments are attached for your interest.

We in the production agriculture, agribusiness, forestry, and conservation community echo USDA's strong and accurate concerns regarding the TMDL rulemaking process. According to USDA's comments, the EPA TMDL proposed rulemaking would:

alter the manner in which effective non point source (NPS) control programs have been managed;
change the designation of silvicultural practices from NPS to point source, which is inconsistent with authorities provided in the CWA;
place an added and unnecessary burden on the continuing progress for effectively controlling NPS pollution in waters of the United States;
contradict Congress' provision that there be distinct and separate programs for point and NPS pollution, and that silverculture and agriculture operations would be controlled under the non-regulatory NPS programs;
will undermine 27 years of the USDA working cooperatively with EPA, States and communities in the development of effective NPS control program;
ignore that federal courts have long recognized that Congress specifically drew a distinction between point sources and NPS pollution, and excluded the latter from control under TMDL and NPDES;
propose a redefinition that would differentiate between "pollutant" and "pollution", which would be legally incorrect and is not in keeping with the intent of Congress;
view "riparian habitat" as a pollutant or pollution, which USDA does not agree;
create the expectation that land managers can provide certainty that water quality standards will be met by activities required by EPA or by a NPDES permit, which is neither reasonable nor achievable;
suggest cost analyses for the TMDL and NPDES proposed rules that are inadequate and incomplete, and costs for the private sector are not adequately recognized and accounted for. Furthermore, it is USDA's opinion that the EPA TMDL proposal does not conform to the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
propose regulations focusing NPDES permitting requirements on land use and not on activities that effect water quality;
work to supercede NPS pollution control under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), again bypassing Congress' intent;
generally establish a top-down approach that usually alienates the very partners and cooperators with whom a working relationships should be fostered,
propose a prescriptive approach with short, unrealistic deadlines.

We agree with USDA that by treating NPS pollution like point sources as EPA intends in its TMDL proposed rule, most normal agricultural activities, such as growing crops, grazing activities, animal husbandry, and silvicultural operations could become subject to future, unreasonable regulatory action.

Also attached are joint comments submitted to EPA on behalf of numerous agriculture, agribusiness and conservation groups. We ask that you review these important concerns closely, review EPA's authority in this area and act to stop EPA's TMDL rulemaking process until these critical issues can be debated and addressed in the next Clean Water Act reauthorization. We look forward to working with Congress, USDA and EPA in addressing these and other important concerns regarding the TMDL rule and its impact on U.S. agricultural producers.

Sincerely,

AgriBank, FCB

Agricultural Retailers Association

American Crop Protection Association

American Farm Bureau Federation

American Feed Industry Association

American Forest & Paper Association

American Meat Institute

American Nursery & Landscape Association

American Soybean Association

Cenex Harvest States

CF Industries

CoBank

Dairylea Cooperatives Inc.

Dairy Farmers of America

Equipment Manufacturers Institute

Farmland Industries

IMC Global Inc.

Kansas Cooperative Council

Land O'Lakes

Maine Potato Growers Inc.

National Association of Conservation Districts

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

National Association of State Foresters

National Association of Wheat Growers

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

National Chicken Council

National Conservation Buffer Council

National Corn Growers Association

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

National Livestock Producers Association

National Milk Producers Federation

National Pork Producers Council

National Potato Council

National Turkey Federation

Southern States Cooperative Inc.

Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida

The Fertilizer Institute