March 3, 2000

A Texas cotton and grain producer told the U.S. House water resources subcommitttee that the Environmental Protection Agency’s current effort to expand water quality regulations goes far beyond congressional intent.

"Over the decades, farm and ranch families have achieved extraordinary conservation gains through voluntary, incentive-based programs to conserve fragile soils and wetlands, and to protect water quality and wildlife habitats," said John Barrett, a fifth generation farmer from Edroy.

"The proposed regulations empower EPA to regulate non-point sources of pollution through the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) program," Barrett said. "Congress did not intend for EPA to possess such power. Congress made a conscious decision to treat point and non-point sources differently and separately in the Clean Water Act."

Farm Bureau contends EPA’s proposed regulations are unlawful because they go well beyound the authority of the Clean Water Act.

"Point sources are directly regulated by EPA through effluent limitations and a permitting system," Barrett said. "By contrast, non-point sources are managed by the states through federal grant programs that encourage states to develop non-point source management plans."

The proposed regulations permit EPA to list non-point source-impaired waters, develop TMDLs for non-point source-impaired waters, and establish implementation plans for non-point source-impaired waters.

"In other words," Barrett said, "the proposal provides for federal land use regulation. EPA—without the benefit of law—will be telling farmers and ranchers how and when they can harvest their crops and use their land."

Barrett explained: "Cities can regulate land use, some counties can regulate land use, states can do it within limits, but the federal government needs unambiguous statutory authority to regulate land use. By this I mean Congress passing a law, not the EPA administrator passing a regulation.