#2 Stormwater EPA's November 1990 stormwater regulations will require an estimated 10,000 or more industries as well as six municipalities in Washington to apply to our agency for NPDES stormwater permits. The state would be overwhelmed by the resulting workload. To date, EPA has not allocated funding to assist states in implementing these regulations. These requirements, added to new requirements for biomonitoring, toxic pollutant controls, and increased enforcement, will result in a continued backlog in issuance of industrial and municipal permits. We also foresee a strong potential for litigation due to the uncertainty about the new requirements and the shortage of time and resources to implement them adequately. We want to implement a comprehensive stormwater program but the requirements are beyond any state's capability with no funding. Serious restructuring and reprioritizing of the EPA stormwater permit program will be required to make an effective stormwater permit program feasible for states. #3 Pollution Prevention As you most likely know, the states have been involved in protracted debate over the development of water quality standards for many toxic compounds. In Washington, the dioxin controversy has consumed enormous amounts of our time, primarily revolving around the definition of appropriate risk levels. I believe that the Clean Water Act should be revised to focus on source reduction of specific persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances. Priority for reductions should be directed at substances which currently exceed state or federal contamination levels in fish flesh. This reduction should be an integral part of a national pollution prevention strategy. The Act should also require development of a list of toxic substances for which the discharge, emission, and release shall be minimized in all programs (air, water, waste management, etc.). #4 Wetland protection Washington's Governor Booth Gardner was vice chair of the National Wetlands Policy forum. Since its completion, Washington has taken several steps at the state level to protect and retain our wetlands. In these efforts, we have worked closely with EPA and the corps of engineers. we have concerns with the direction of federal policy with regard to wetlands. We see apparent erosion with respect to: * changes in the federal delineation manual However, proposed changes to the Clean Water Act itself to reduce, rather than expand, the federal area of jurisdiction, which is a retreat from achieving the goal of no net wetlands loss. Provisions must be made to strengthen federal wetlands policy. #5 Funding Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act with funding levels commensurate with current and future needs is critical to the continued success of water quality programs in Washington. Washington State, EPA, and local governments have established a strong partnership in funding capital improvements for vater pollution control since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. EPA has provided approximately $829 million in federal construction grants to Washington State to enable local governments and Indian tribes to make considerable progress in complying with clean water laws. The 1987 amendments to the CWA provided for a phase out of the construction grants program in favor of the state revolving loan fund (SRF). The authorized amount in the act for implementing the SRF was $8.4 billion over six years beginning in 1987. Unfortunately, Congress has yet to fully fund the SRF program. These funds are essential for Washington (and other states) to address existing and future water pollution control needs. In order to successfully establish and manage the SRF program in perpetuity, Congress must provide funding at the original $8.4 billion level within the original timeframe set forth in the Act. In order for the states to effectively manage the SRF, it is critical that adequate administrative support and flexibility be provided. Administrative costs should be based on a percentage of the authorized level rather than the appropriated capitalization grant amount. Furthermore, other money deposited into the SRF account, such as loan fees, should not be subject to this limitation. Flexibility to exempt projects from Title II and federal Clean Water Act cross-cutter requirements should also be given to the states. Small communities with economic hardships should have special assistance opportunities, such as loan repayment periods up to 40 years. State. Funding for the Clean Lakes Program is also a concern in Washington Added emphasis should be given to the Clean Lakes Program, including the assurance of funding. It is also essential to be able to depend on stable and consistent funding sources. Over the last two years funds provided under Sections 319, 205(1), and 106 have been fragmented into separate pots of money made available to states on a competitive basis. A core funding program must be made available, and it should be managed with both more flexibility for the states and assurance of consistent funding levels. High Washington State is strongly committed to a quality environment. quality waters surface and ground, fresh and marine are critical elements in that environment. We recognize that state government has a responsibility to provide financial and technical assistance to help communities comply with environmental laws. Since 1972, Washington State citizens, through bond sales and the centennial Clean Water Fund (based on a combination of tobacco taxes and state general funds) have provided $623 million for water quality initiatives. However, new priorities continue to emerge and many communities are still unable to meet water quality standards. The magnitude of the existing needs dwarfs the resources available. We also recognize that it is imperative that state and federal government work in partnership toward achieving stronger environmental policy and funding. We are certain our efforts will fall short without full funding of SRF, 319 NPS implementation, CZM, and other forms of financial assistance. Funding for these programs must be commensurate with the magnitude of the problem. #6 Puget Sound We would like to recognize the important contribution that Congress made by assisting Washington in funding development of the comprehensive conservation management plan for Puget Sound. The PSWQMP reflects many of the water quality themes that we are discussing today. Control of nonpoint sources of pollution is a large part of solving the problems in Puget Sound. Some specific nonpoint issues addressed in the CCMP for Puget Sound are shellfish protection and watershed planning. The CCMP is a good model for blending nonpoint source protection and coastal issues. The CCMP for Puget Sound also addresses stormwater and combined sewer overflow issues. Working with local governments in the Puget Sound basin, we are making great strides towards control of these sources of pollution. Wetlands and habitat protection are also key elements in the Puget Sound plan. The plan provides for inventorying wetlands, preserving key areas, and assisting local governments in developing programs to protect wetlands. Federal funding will be required to fully implement the Puget Sound plan. Closing I greatly appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have regarding my testimony or our Clean Water Act concerns. Needs v. Funds Available "Dollars shown are funds estimated to be available for wastewater treatment facilities, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater. The total amounts available from the Centennial Clean Water Fund and the State Revolving Fund will actually be greater, but they are also used for other water quality projects, such as nonpoint projects. *Dollars shown for 1991-2010 are funds estimated to be available for wastewater treatment facilities, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater. The total amounts available from the Centennial Clean Water Fund and the State Revolving Fund will actually be greater, but they are also used for other water quality projects, such as |