Title: Amending the Clean Water Act: View from the States
Subhead: Heavy-handed control by Washington won't work
by Howard Dean

As the weight of financing and implementing many federal laws has
shifted to the states over the past 15 years, governors have been
pressing for greater participation in the legislative process.  

    When representatives of 25 states, the National Governors
Association, and the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators met in March of this year to
discuss their needs in terms of a Clean Water Act
reauthorization, two words were used repeatedly:  consensus and
constructive.  

    It is obvious that different states have different water
resource problems; compare, say, Vermont to Arizona. 
Nevertheless, taking these differences into account, a clear
state consensus on certain key points is important:   We must
agree on what is required by the people who will implement this
law.  Moreover, despite some charged rhetoric surrounding the
Clean Water Act reauthorization, the message our group sent to
EPA was clear:  Our goals at the federal and state levels are not
far apart.  

    We want to work constructively with the executive and
legislative branches of the federal government.  This implies an
active role, not the marginalized role of naysayer.  Thus, as
strongly as I can, I am encouraging different groups to work
together to help House and Senate committees write a thoughtful
and effective Clean Water Act.

    What do the states want?  In a word: flexibility. Heavy-handed
control by Washington is doomed to fail or, at best, be divisive. 
We need flexibility concerning our regulatory approach, federal
oversight provisions, and use of federal program-support grants. 
We agree with many points of the President's Clean Water
Initiative, but we are strongly united in some desired changes. 
I've summarized some of them below.

*Comprehensive watershed management. This concept is terrific.   
Comprehensive watershed management envisions the states
designating whole watersheds for planning and implementing the
needed facilities or best management practices required to
resolve all watershed pollution problems in a coordinated
fashion.  This approach is meant to resolve all problems, leaving
none neglected.  Functionally equivalent statewide or regional
plans, which integrate both our point- and nonpoint-source
control programs, should be accepted, and funds should be made
available to accomplish the goals of comprehensive watershed
management.

    In Vermont, we have already identified our problem areas and
necessary corrective actions through programs that integrate both
point and nonpoint problems.  For example, we have completed--and
EPA has approved--our statewide Nonpoint-Source Assessment and
Management Plans as well as our State Clean Water Strategy.

*Nonpoint-source management. Everyone acknowledges the need for
aggressive nonpoint-source policies to reduce the amount of
polluted runoff from farmland and urban areas.  However, some
proposals in Congress are much too heavy-handed.  These include
federally prescribed and mandated best management practices,
enforceable within three years, which would undermine existing
state voluntary and cooperative efforts that are being carried
out in concert with Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs.

    Requiring each landowner to develop site-specific management
plans, as proposed in the Senate, would create a bureaucratic
nightmare because it would be impossible for the states to
review, approve, and monitor hundreds of such plans, many of
which are already managed by USDA. 

    States should be able to develop and implement voluntary and 
regulatory approaches in any mix that complements ongoing
efforts. We must be held accountable, of course, for achieving
water-quality standards in a timely fashion.

*Water-quality standards. Current proposals in Congress presume
that EPA-developed criteria would become mandatory in the states
after three years.  This would occur without a public adoption
process regardless of the site-specific characteristics of the
state and waters or the applicability of the criteria to those
waters.  Very few criteria have such universal applicability, and
this proposal would be disruptive to state standards setting.
Reauthorization of this section should focus on better science,
not command and control efforts that would, for example, require
states to develop methodologies to translate water quality into a
specific numerical limit for various pollutants.  

    Individual states must set standards to reflect the unique
quality of their respective waters, after considering federally
developed criteria for toxic or conventional pollutants. Federal
procedures should prevail if states fail to act.

    We strongly support amendments that clarify the scope of state
water-quality-standards certifications for federally licensed
projects.

*State Revolving Fund. We need more money for infrastructure
projects such as wastewater-treatment plants.  The proposed $2.5
billion authorization should be doubled to meet identified state
needs, and states should have more flexibility to provide for
their disadvantaged communities.  For example, states may need to
provide zero-interest loans or construction grants to
disadvantaged communities that cannot bear the normal cost-share
of constructing needed wastewater- or stormwater-treatment
facilities.  Normal cost-sharing or repayment provisions may need
to be waived.

    The challenges are many.  The rewards and benefits are great. 
As with any ambitious endeavor, this reauthorization will take
time and effort.

    The nation's governors look forward to working with Congress,
EPA, and others affected by this law to ensure that our water
supplies are the cleanest and safest possible.#

(Dean, an M.D., is Governor of Vermont.)