165 



1980's after its enactment, to $80 million dollars in FY 1994. Was it 

 magic? No. Congress made it a higher priority. We can find the 

 money if we are serious about getting the job done. 



Proposed changes to section 319 that we DO NOT support. 



Mr. Chairman, you asked us what proposed changes we could not 

 support. The first is not a change, rather it is the option of 

 maintaining the status quo on polluted runoff. The second point 

 relates directly to a proposal that is likely to surface during your 

 deliberations on this bill. 



• Do not retain the status quo on Section 319. 



Your Committee will likely hear 1,000 reasons for staying the course 

 on Section 319, the most prominent being that Section 319 just needs 

 more time to work. From our perspective, the CWA has seen 20 

 years of voluntary, weak attempts to address polluted runoff. They 

 have not worked. It is time for major reform that includes the 

 changes that I have outlined above. 



'c 



• Do not amend or undercut the CZARA polluted runoff 



program . 



During the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup 

 of the Senate bill. Senator Warner attempted to amend the bill by 

 adding a provision which would have amended the CZARA polluted 

 runoff program for the purpose of allowing states and landowners 

 the additional choices for runoff prevention that are offered in the 

 Senate bill (i.e., site level plans in addition to the EPA management 

 measures). 



Even though we do support the use of site level plans, we are 

 strongly opposed to changing course on the CZARA program after the 

 states are more than three full years into implementing it. Changing 

 course now will only delay, probably for several years, on the ground 

 polluted runoff prevention measures that will begin to go into effect 

 in the near future. Furthermore, depending how Congress crafts site 

 level plan requirements, this added flexibility may weaken existing 

 CZARA requirements, reducing protection of coastal zone aquatic 

 resources. This is unacceptable to us, and we urge this Committee to 

 reject similar proposals. 



