March 3, 2000

Over 1,000 East Texas timber owners and operators joined with agricultural producers in Lufkin to deliver a clear message to the Environmental Protection Agency: no more regulation wanted, no more regulation needed.

At issue are proposed rules by EPA to regulate non-point sources of pollution. Point sources, according to District 2 U.S. Rep. Jim Turner, who sponsored the meeting, are well-defined sources of pollution such as industrial plants that discharge out of pipes into rivers and streams. Point sources are heavily regulated by EPA. Non-point sources are less readily identifiable and are not federally regulated.

EPA’s proposed regulations permit the agency to list non-point source-impaired waters, develop Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs) for non-point source-impaired waters, and establish implementation plans for non-point-impaired waters. In short, interpreting silviculture and agriculture as point sources would mean expensive, unnecessary regulation, Turner said.

"Land management activities have always been considered non-point sources," the congressman said. "I think that’s what the law is. That’s what the law says."

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Commissioner John Baker agreed.

"They (EPA) probably think they have that authority, and if they go ahead and adopt those rules as proposed, it will probably be finally resolved in some court or by proposed legislation," he said.

Besides, Baker said the proposed rules are unnecessary. Texas has successfully used a voluntary approach in working with non-point sources of pollution.

Problems detected due to silviculture or agricultural operations are referred to the State Soil and Water Board, who then works with the landowner to correct the problem.

"They will work with landowners to voluntarily implement a Water Quality Management Plan," the commissioner said. "They even in some cases will have cost sharing on some of the practices... What we are talking about are BMPs—best management practices."

State Forester Jim Hull said these types of voluntary practices are far more effective and efficient than any kind of government regulation.

Hull said Texas has developed one of the "most outstanding" BMP programs in the nation. Through that program, over 1,475 loggers, that are responsible for "90 percent of every log harvested in the state," have been trained.

"This has resulted in 88.4 percent of every logging job in Texas being within the voluntary BMP standard," he said. "I’d be very, very surprised if there has ever been, in the history of this nation, a government regulated program of any kind that can equal that kind of success rating."

Further, Hull commented that some 250,000 forest landowners in Texas own over 11 million acres of commercial forest. Silviculture operations are conducted on around 650,000 Texas acres every year.

"Even with all this activity, less than 3 percent of all water pollution problems in the state of Texas can even be remotely attributed to forestry operations," Hull said. "I’m absolutely certain that government regulations could not improve on that success."

Even the EPA director of the Water Quality Protection Division for Region 6, Bill Hathaway, said these best management practices are working. No stream or river segments in Texas are listed as threatened or endangered, he said. So the proposed regulations wouldn’t apply.

That’s not good enough for Ron Hufford, executive vice president of the Texas Forestry Association.

The proposed rules would "open the door" to all kinds of potential problems.

One of Hufford’s concerns is that the federal approach would fail to achieve the clean water goal. Timber producers will less likely plant trees or address potential problems if they have to get a permit or get a federal official’s okay.

"The problem is not going to be addressed," he said. "And it could do more to dirty the water than to clean the water."

Another potential problem is lawsuits.

"Once these doors are open, then citizen lawsuits become the norm," the forestry official said. "Private landowners don’t need that hassle. It’s not going to encourage people to plant trees. And that’s our number one goal."

One thing EPA did not consider was the cost of the proposed rules, said Ned Meister, director of Commodity and Regulatory Activities for the Texas Farm Bureau.

"When EPA put this rule together, they didn’t really look at what the economic impact would be," Meister said. "In fact, they in effect said that it would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."

Meister questioned EPA’s approach, citing a case where TMDLs were implemented on the Garcia River Watershed on farming and silviculture activities.

"There were three farmers in an impacted area," he said. "The impact for them to comply with the implementation of BMPs in the TMDL is going to cost them a total of $12,322,000."

In Texas, costs would arise for the state as they developed TMDLs on potentially impacted streams or rivers.

"The cost of implementing those TMDL management strategies will be significant and it’s going to be borne by the farming and ranching community, small business, the forestry industry, the poultry industry—anyone who uses the land for a purpose other than point source operators."

David Alders, who represented the poultry industry at the meeting, said the proposed regulations would be expensive, unnecessary and would impair East Texas producers’ ability to compete in a tough global marketplace.