Good afternoon.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to appear before you.  My name is Holly Stoerker and I am Executive Director of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA).  The Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin formed the UMRBA in 1981 to coordinate the state agencies’ river-related programs and policies and to work with federal agencies on regional issues.  On behalf of our member states, I am quite pleased to offer the following comments regarding the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4013).

Summary Position Statement:  The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) strongly supports the purpose and objectives of the Act, and the important emphasis it places on sediment and nutrient reduction in this basin.  However, revisions to this promising legislative framework are needed if it is to achieve its objectives.  The UMRBA applauds the leadership of Representative Ron Kind and the Upper Mississippi River Congressional Task Force in addressing the challenge of sediment and nutrient reduction.  We would welcome an opportunity to work closely with members of Congress, the Executive Branch, and interested stakeholder groups to enhance the legislation, secure its passage, and implement its provisions.

Strengths of the Legislation

• It brings national attention to the needs of the Basin by addressing the important and long-standing problem of sediment and nutrients.
•  
• It is watershed-based, recognizing the fundamental relationship between land management practices throughout the Basin and the quality of water resources.
•  
• It provides for both monitoring and implementation efforts in a single legislative package, thus recognizing the importance of science-based decision making and the value of targeted management actions.
•  
• It focuses on voluntary approaches, recognizing that this Basin is predominantly agricultural land and that stewardship of private landowners is critical to the success of sediment and nutrient reduction efforts.
•  
• It expands national conservation programs, which in combination with designation of the Basin as a Conservation Priority Area, holds promise for increasing the necessary resources to address the land conservation needs in the Basin.
•  
• It explicitly recognizes the need for a federal, state, and local partnership approach by providing for cooperative agreements.

Concerns with the Legislation 

• Definition of Upper Mississippi River Basin
  Section 3(2) defines the Basin as "the watershed portion of the Mississippi River extending from Lake Itasca downstream to its confluence with the Illinois River and all tributaries upstream of that confluence, including those tributaries of the Illinois River."  However, the Basin is typically understood to include the drainage area of the Mississippi River north of the confluence with the Ohio River, excluding the Missouri River Basin.  The definition used in H.R. 4013 would presumably exclude the Meramec River sub-basin (Missouri) and the Kaskaskia River sub-basin (Illinois) from this traditional definition.

  Properly identifying the geographic scope of the Basin is important if the program, including both monitoring and implementation efforts, is to effectively address the problem of sediment and nutrients in the Mississippi River.  It is important for decision-makers and stakeholders to recognize that many of the benefits of the program will accrue locally in small watersheds within the Basin.  While the stated purpose of the bill is to improve conditions in the Mississippi River itself, smaller streams and watersheds throughout the Basin will see improvements in water quality and habitat conditions long before we see improvements in the Mississippi River.  It is this local benefit that will ultimately be most important in garnering and sustaining public support for the program.

• State and Local Involvement
  As currently drafted, H.R. 4013 fails to adequately recognize existing state and local programs and provide for the coordinated integration of those efforts with new and existing federal programs.  Currently, most of the water quality monitoring, watershed planning, water quality management, nonpoint source pollution, and land conservation programs in the Basin are led by state and local units of government.  By failing to properly account for these efforts, H.R. 4013 has the potential for duplicating them, particularly with regard to data collection, identification of significant nutrient and sediment sources, and prioritizing areas most in need of treatment.  Perhaps even more importantly, the ultimate effectiveness of federal investment in watershed programs lies in locally-led efforts that leverage state and local resources.  Shared goals, responsibility, and accountability result in shared success and commitment.

  States have a wide variety of watershed protection, soil conservation, and land stewardship programs.  For example, for the past 23 years, Minnesota has had a cost-share program that provides $2 million annually for technical services and installation of conservation practices.  In addition, the Local Water Resources Protection and Management Program provides state funding for counties to develop and implement voluntary water plans based on local priorities.  Similarly, the State of Missouri provides about $25 - $30 million per year from a 1/10 of one percent state sales tax to support cost-share programs for soil conservation practices, loan interest refunds for erosion control practices and equipment, and a Special Area Land Treatment (SALT) program for watershed-based projects to reduce agricultural nonpoint source water pollution.  In Wisconsin, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and county governments provide cost-share funding to private landowners for best management practices.  While H.R. 4013 need not explicitly reference these individual state programs, it should establish a framework for working with and through these kinds of long-standing and successful state efforts.

  Secondly, H.R. 4013 fails to recognize the states’ water quality responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.  Most directly related to the objectives of H.R. 4013 is the Section 319 nonpoint source pollution program, which the states administer.  In FY 2001, it is anticipated that roughly $36 million will be spent by the five Basin states for this program alone.  In addition, states may use up to 19 percent of their Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants for implementing nonpoint source projects.

  Finally, the monitoring network to be established by USGS under the provisions of H.R. 4013 must be integrated with existing state water quality monitoring efforts.  While language in Sections 103 and 104(a) of the bill recognizes this need by requiring the integration of "existing sediment and nutrient monitoring efforts" and collaboration with "State, tribal, local, and private sediment and nutrient monitoring programs," cost-share requirements in Section 105 raise questions about how this is to be achieved.  If the nonfederal cost-share partners for the Basin-wide monitoring network are expected to be state and/or local units of government, then existing State monitoring efforts should be deemed to satisfy this requirement.  The bill would benefit from enhanced clarity on this point.

  In summary, H.R. 4013 must acknowledge, build upon, and add value to existing state and local soil and water management initiatives rather than create new potentially duplicative processes.  Stronger partnership approaches must be used to ultimately build greater capacity at the state and local level to put "conservation on the ground."

• Relationship to Other Federal Efforts
  The bill’s emphasis on coordination of Federal nutrient and sediment reduction efforts is welcome and could be potentially very helpful.  However, by confining the coordination responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior (USGS), H.R. 4013 fails to fully account for other federal programs and initiatives of direct relevance to the stated purpose of the legislation.  Most notably, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lead responsibility for many water quality efforts related to nutrients and sediment.  While most federal water quality programs are delegated to the states, EPA plays a major leadership role.  In particular, EPA and USDA have joint responsibility for many of the initiatives in the Clean Water Action Plan, including for example, state-led watershed restoration priorities through the Unified Watershed Assessment process.  In addition, EPA is currently in the process of developing nutrient criteria on a regional basis.  States will have until 2003 (or 3 years after criteria are developed) to establish nutrient standards.

  Another example of direct relevance to the goals of H.R. 4013 is the work of the EPA-led interagency Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.  While the states of this Basin have a variety of concerns about this initiative, there is no question that it is seeking to address many of the same issues as does H.R. 4013.  In particular, the Task Force is currently working to develop an "Action Plan" that addresses the Basin’s needs related to nonpoint pollution, land treatment, wetlands and watershed restoration, modeling, and monitoring.  In support of this effort, in 1999, the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources commissioned six scientific reports including evaluations of the flux and sources of nutrients in the Basin, and evaluations of the effects of, methods for, and economic costs and benefits of methods to reduce nutrient loads.  There is no doubt that controversy still surrounds this scientific work and the policy recommendations that are being developed.  However, it is incumbent upon any new proposed basin wide nutrient reduction program to coordinate with these and other past and current federal programs to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

  In addition to the various federal efforts described above, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has on-going responsibilities related to both nutrients and sediment, including sediment transport modeling conducted under the Land Management System research program at the Waterways Experiment Station.

• Technical Assistance
  Technical assistance to private landowners is critical to the success of land and water conservation efforts.  Yet H.R. 4013 does little to address this pressing need.  NRCS has been gradually losing staff and field level capabilities due to budget cutbacks.  This national trend will not be reversed by this single piece of Basin-specific legislation.  However, there are opportunities to enhance existing federal, state, and local technical assistance efforts if additional funding could be directed to this Basin.  As just one example, the State of Missouri has technical assistance programs through its Department of Conservation and Department of Natural Resources designed to help farmers reduce soil erosion and to promote best management practices in timber harvesting.  Any federal-level effort to enhance technical assistance should complement and enhance state programs such as those already in practice in Missouri.

  In addition, the value of the BMP research that Section 202 of H.R. 4013 authorizes could be enhanced by more explicit ties to existing technical assistance delivery mechanisms.  The bill focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs.  In reality, more efforts are needed to get landowners to adopt proven BMPs than to developing new ones.  It is an issue of technology transfer and technical assistance rather than applied research.

• Targeting the Basin
  Increasing the national funding and acreage caps for conservation programs is important, but will not likely be a sufficient means of targeting the needs of this Basin.  The increases included in Title III for CRP, WRP, WHIP, and EQIP reflect the Clinton Administration FY 2001 budget proposals, many of which are being rejected by Congressional Appropriators.  While designating the Basin as a Conservation Priority Area may help somewhat, it is generally believed that adding priorities without also adding financial resources will be of limited value.  Again, USDA conservation programs are only one avenue for increasing on-the-ground conservation practices.  Consideration should also be given to providing cost-shared assistance directly to existing state and local programs in this Basin.

• Linkage Between Monitoring/Modeling and Implementation
  Monitoring and modeling activities are most useful when they are designed to address specific management questions and issues.  Title I of H.R. 4013 seeks to establish a monitoring network, including guidelines for the reporting, storage, and release of data and requirements for coordination with other monitoring efforts.  Yet there is comparatively less attention given to the purpose and goals of the monitoring, other than to identify sediment and nutrients as the components to be monitored.  In contrast, the Section 201 modeling provisions are quite specific in prescribing model scales and data sets, but include no references to building upon existing modeling efforts.  How the models are to be used and by whom should inform model development.

  In the case of both the monitoring and monitoring provisions, clearer linkages between those efforts and implementation practices would be helpful.  Enhanced integration of the "science" and "action" elements of the bill would help ensure that conservation assistance is targeted in the most efficient and effective ways and that, conversely, the monitoring and modeling efforts are designed and adapted over time to support what will likely be changing management questions and needs.  In addition, greater clarity regarding the purposes and uses of the monitoring and modeling programs may help to determine the most appropriate kinds of data restrictions, which are addressed elsewhere in the bill.

• Funding
  As currently written, H.R. 4013 does not include authorization of specific appropriations for any of the programs it seeks to establish.  Additional funding will obviously be necessary.  Identifying the specific funding that will be required to establish a monitoring network, develop models, and provide the necessary technical and financial support for conservation practices, will provide the context for scoping these efforts.  In addition, securing the necessary appropriations will likely be challenging under any circumstances, but the likelihood of success will be enhanced if specific sums are authorized.

• Use of Existing Coordination Mechanisms
  Existing coordination mechanisms and decision-making processes should be used to the maximum extent possible.  In particular, whatever Basin-level groups and processes are established by H.R. 4013 must be integrated with the coordination and decision-making processes already in place at the basin, state, and local levels.

(return to top of page)

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and your subcommittee for arranging today’s hearing.  I appreciate this opportunity to share with you my views on what I consider is a very worthy conservation proposal, a measure that will establish as a national priority the challenge of  reducing nutrient and soil sediment losses into the Mississippi River and the many streams and watersheds within the Basin.   Today, the Mississippi River remains a critical thoroughfare for our farmers and a vital habitat for wildlife.  H. R.  4013, Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act is pro-active legislation that will enable federal, state and local entities to develop a sound science -based response to the environmental challenges posed by soil erosion and nutrient losses in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.  By relying on a comprehensive and effective coordination of  agency activities at all levels, H.R. 4013 intends to gather the necessary data and research - and other information we need for determining how and where we can best reduce sediment and nutrients in the Mississippi River and its tributaries.  Without an adequate water quality monitoring network and integrated computer modeling program, I believe it will be extremely difficult to maximize the targeted use of our conservation programs, technical assistance, and other federal agency resources.  As we proceed with the consideration of H.R. 4013, it is equally important that we adopt results-oriented policies that allow for flexibility and foster innovative land management practices.  All too often our federal regulations have required a one size fits all solution that do little to accomplish the objectives of cleaner air and water.  Again, it is imperative that our conservation policies and regulations be guided by sound science-based decision making and the recognition that our financial resources are not unlimited.

Let me also the emphasize that H.R. 4013 provides a legislative framework that relies heavily on voluntary participation in existing conservation programs, monitoring, and assessment.   If we are to achieve the objectives of improved water quality in the Basin, it is my view that this kind of voluntary, non-regulatory public-private approach is crucial to generating the greatest level of support.  Reducing sediment and nutrient losses is a win for the health of the Mississippi River, a win for farmers, a win for commercial navigation, and a win for those who enjoy the recreational opportunities offered in the basin.  Clearly, there will be enormous benefits for our environment and the millions of Americans who depend on the proper stewardship of the  Mississippi River.  It is too great a natural resource treasure for Congress and the nation to take for granted.  This legislation will build on the exceptional work that is being accomplished today by a number of agencies and volunteer organizations at the state and local level.  As Co-Chair of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, I look forward to working with you and Congressman Kind in advancing the legislation before you today.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 4013, the "Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act of 2000."  The Administration supports many of the provisions of H.R. 4013; we especially appreciate the emphasis within the bill on the need for reliance on sound science.  The Administration has strong reservations concerning Title IV of H.R. 4013, which we will discuss later.  We also have concerns about the financial resources that would be required for the United States Geological Survey to carry out this bill.  Implementation of this bill would be subject to the availability of resources in the context of overall Administration priorities.  We are continuing to review H.R. 4013 and the Administration will be able to provide views on it at a later date.

The bill directs the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to establish a cooperative effort to reduce sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River.  This would be accomplished through establishing a sediment and nutrient monitoring network; conducting sediment and nutrient modeling; conducting research and demonstration projects regarding best management practices; providing financial and technical assistance; and establishing advisory groups consisting of local, State, and Tribal stakeholders.

USGS has the scientific expertise to address a significant resource-management problem—nutrient and sediment loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.  As you know, nutrients and sediment in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and their relation to the hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico is a very controversial issue.  The USGS as a non-regulatory, non-advocacy, scientific agency collects additional monitoring data, conducts modeling and research, and examines the effectiveness of alternative management measures.  The information and analysis USGS provides, when linked to the fact that we do not serve as advocates, often helps to diffuse controversy that attends issues such as this.

The role identified for USGS in this bill is consistent with the bureau’s leadership role in monitoring, interpretation, research, and assessment of the health and status of the water and biological resources of the Nation.  As the Nation's largest water, earth, and biological science, and civilian mapping agency, USGS conducts the largest single ambient non-regulatory water-quality monitoring activity in the Nation.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB Memo 92-1) established the Department of the Interior, through USGS, as the lead agency of the Water Information Coordination Program.

The overall purpose of the Program is to improve water information for decision making regarding natural resources management and environmental protection.  The Program works with all levels of government, Tribal interests, and the private sector through the Advisory Committee on Water Information, which identifies water information needs, evaluates the effectiveness of water information programs, and recommends improvements.

The USGS is an active member of the Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force representing the DOI, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. This Task Force, which has representation from Federal agencies, and State and Tribal governments in the basin, is charged with fulfilling requirements of The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, by preparing a plan for controlling hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and shares a common goal of improving water-quality conditions in the Mississippi River Basin.  This Task Force has expressed many of the same concerns as addressed in H.R. 4013, and has identified the importance of many of the same science and management activities as proposed in this bill.  Task Force discussions have emphasized the need for a science-based, adaptive management framework for its management action plan.  The USGS has had a lead role in the preparation of a science report that uses available water-quality information to define a recent baseline condition for nutrient sources and loads in the Mississippi River Basin – a baseline from which future water-quality trends and improvements will be measured.  This report identifies parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin as having some of the highest nutrient yields in the basin.

As identified in H.R. 4013, an essential element of an efficient monitoring and interpretation program in support of nutrient and sediment management in the Upper Mississippi River is the incorporation of existing monitoring activities.  The USGS has offices in each of the five Upper Mississippi River Basin States.  These offices have a long history of conducting water-quantity and water-quality monitoring and assessment activities within the basin.  Existing USGS programs, such as our National Water-Quality Assessment Program, our National Stream Quality Accounting Network, and our Federal-State Cooperative Water Program, currently provide information on nutrients and sediment within the basin that would serve as a foundation for the activities proposed by this bill.

H.R. 4013 would also enable existing USGS monitoring and science programs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin to better meet future information needs by filling data gaps between existing programs and accelerating development of models.  These models are tools for defining how water-quality conditions are affected by human activities and natural climatic variations and how management actions may best improve water-quality conditions at a wide range of scales from the farm field to the main stem of the Mississippi River.  Furthermore, the bill will enable improved integration of activities conducted in cooperation with other Federal partners and will emphasize and expand the existing USGS role of coordinating and assisting State monitoring programs.  For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program restores wetland habitat in watersheds across the country, including the Upper Mississippi River Basin.  The Service is available to apply its expertise to the reduction of sediment and nutrient loss in the basin through participation in demonstration projects, technical assistance, and working groups.

In addition, for the past 20 years, the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) has provided research support in the Upper Mississippi River Basin to Department of the Interior agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address complex issues of navigation, contaminants, and other natural resource concerns.  More recently, this Center, which is based in La Crosse, Wisconsin, has developed an active partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service on sediment and nutrient concerns of the agencies.  For 15 years, the UMESC has provided the scientific and management leadership for the Long-term Resource Monitoring Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Environmental Management Program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin main stem rivers.  This monitoring program of water quality, fisheries, vegetation, land use, and other critical indicators of river health is the largest main stem river assessment program in the Nation.  The USGS leadership of this program documents the agency’s ability to conduct large-scale data collection and scientifically-based analyses, as well as to manage and serve extensive data files to resource managers and the public.

With regard to State efforts, the USGS also conducts monitoring activities in cooperation with many States and local governments in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Coordination and enhancement of these cooperating activities and ensuring that State data collection efforts adhere to standard practices would provide the needed scientific basis for implementation of sound, science-based management strategies in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.  We also recognize the need to ensure that future monitoring activities complement and do not duplicate State monitoring activities.

With regard to Title IV, it would generally prohibit the release or disclosure of information and data, collected pursuant to Federal conservation programs, to the public or any governmental agency outside the Department of Agriculture.  Passage of Title IV would make coordinated implementation of the wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Swampbuster provisions of the Food and Security Act extremely difficult.  For example, under Title IV, USDA would no longer be allowed to share its wetland delineations on agricultural lands with EPA or the Corps of Engineers, ending the coordinated implementation of these statutes and implementation of administrative reforms that provide a single point of contact for farmers.  In addition, Title IV would undercut Federal and State programs designed to control the discharge of pollutants and the degradation of wetlands by routinely depriving government agencies and the public of critical information concerning wetlands delineations, cropping histories, and prior converted crop land.

In summary, the bill contains provisions that the Administration supports and are well within the scope and expertise of USGS.  However, it also contains a very problematic provision restricting the use of data.

Finally, funding for the activities in H.R. 4013 is not included in the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget proposal, or the current versions of the House and Senate Interior appropriations bills.  Financial support for these activities would have to be redirected from ongoing USGS monitoring and data collection activities at a time when the USGS already faces significant budget constraints.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony.  I will be pleased to answer any questions you and other members of the Subcommittee might have

            Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address the General Farm Commodities, Resource Conservation, and Credit Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee about H.R. 4013, The Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act.  The purpose of this legislation is to reduce sediment and nutrient losses into the Upper Mississippi River from the surrounding landscape.  Over the last year I have worked with farmers, the navigation industry, sporting groups, conservation organizations, and government agencies throughout the region to come up with an effective, basin-wide, and non-regulatory approach to dealing with this increasingly serious problem.

            The Upper Mississippi River system--whose tributaries and basin encompass much of the landmass of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri--is one of our nation’s great multi-use natural resources.  In 1995, shippers transported 126 million tons of cargo on the system’s 1300 commercially navigable miles.  This system remains vitally important for moving the region’s agricultural commodities to markets across the globe.  Twenty-two million Americans rely on the river and its tributaries for drinking water.   Forty percent of North America’s waterfowl use the wetlands and backwaters of the river as a migratory flyway.  The Upper Mississippi River basin provides $1.2 billion annually in recreation income and $6.6 billion to the area’s tourism industries.  A healthy Upper Mississippi River increases benefits for all users of the system.

            Unfortunately, soil erosion and nutrient loading threaten the health of the river system and the vast agricultural, industrial, and recreational activities it supports.  Sediment fills the main shipping channel of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, costing over $100 million each year to dredge.  Soil erosion reduces the long-term sustainability and income of the family farms, with farmers losing more than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen.  This affects farm income at a time when we have a crisis in rural America.

            As lawmakers, we must move beyond our current, after-the-fact damage repair efforts and develop cost-effective measures to reduce sediment and nutrients from entering the river in the first place.  We need to recognize that these water quality and land conservation problems cross traditional state and administrative boundaries.  Solving them requires a coordinated approach between the federal, state, and local agencies working throughout the five-state basin.

            H.R. 4013--which currently has 40 cosponsors from 20 states and territories---proposes a comprehensive approach to reducing nutrient and soil sediment losses in the Upper Mississippi River basin.  In order to make cost-effective conservation decisions, it is imperative that we develop sound scientific information about the problem of polluted runoff.  H.R. 4013 authorizes the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)–a science-based, non-regulatory agency--to work with other agencies and non-governmental groups to develop a basin-wide sediment and nutrient monitoring network.  USGS would expand their own monitoring activities, coordinate and integrate existing monitoring efforts, develop guidelines for data collection and storage, and establish an electronic database system to store and disseminate information.  To put this information to work, H.R. 4013 directs the USGS to collaborate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other pertinent federal, state, and local agencies to establish a state-of-the-art computer modeling program to identify runoff "hot spots" in the basin.

            H.R. 4013 seeks an alternative to the traditional regulatory approach to environmental protection. Information obtained through the USGS’s monitoring and modeling program will be used to implement four highly successful U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).  These USDA programs, which are voluntary and incentive-based, have multiple benefits: direct rental payments to farmers, reductions in commodity surplus production, retirement of marginally productive land, expansion of wildlife habitat, and improved water quality.  There is a pressing need for higher authorization levels for these programs, which have many more applicants than the USDA can accommodate under current enrollment limits.  H.R. 4013 includes strong protections for the privacy of personal data collected and used in connection with monitoring, modeling, and technical and financial assessment activities.

            H.R. 4013 also recognizes the need for continued research into methods of controlling erosion and runoff.  The legislation establishes a grant program to support "model farms" and innovative practices designed to reduce sediment and nutrient loss.  In more general terms, it enables the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements that would advance the goals of reducing farm field runoff.  This component of the legislation will advance the efforts of many states, including my home state of Wisconsin, to develop new technologies and farming practices aimed at improving both productivity and environmental quality.

            Basin-scale conservation work requires extensive communication and cooperation between citizens, government officials, and other stakeholders.  To facilitate this work, H.R. 4013 creates a fifteen-person citizens advisory council and an interagency working group.  The citizens advisory council will seek input from farmers and local conservation districts about methods and priorities for reducing sediment and nutrient losses and formulate recommendations for the implementing agencies.  The interagency working group will coordinate efforts between USDA, USGS, and other participating agencies.

            In summary, H.R. 4013 calls for a comprehensive and incentive-driven approach to reducing sediment and nutrient losses in order to prevent damage from occurring to the river system and to improve the economic and environmental health of the basin as a whole.  The benefits of the programs authorized in this bill would extend far beyond the five state region, both because it calls for nation-wide increases in USDA land conservation programs and because nutrients and sediments from the Upper Midwest have impacts all the way down the Mississippi and throughout the Gulf of Mexico.  I see this legislation as a pilot for future watershed and basin programs in other parts of the nation.

      Far too often, our nation’s farmers and landowners seek to do the right thing but are overwhelmed by the proliferation of agencies and programs that address agricultural conservation issues.  This legislation seeks a comprehensive and coordinated approach to nutrient and sediment reduction efforts.  Such an approach, I believe, is long overdue and will have the greatest positive benefits for our farmers and the environment and will do so without creating any new federal regulations.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and discuss the "Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act of 2000."   I am Tom Weber, Deputy Chief for Programs, of the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). NRCS shares concerns with the health of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.  The Basin is not only a defining geographic feature for much of the Midwest region, but also has vast natural resource impacts for much of the North American continent.  The Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries provide direct water supplies to more than 24 million people and is a vital part of our nation's transportation infrastructure, facilitating the shipment of agricultural products and other goods.  The loss of nutrients and sediment in the basin has an enormous cost to the region.  I want to commend Congressman Ron Kind for elevating this important legislation, and taking leadership on the issues.

NRCS shares the commitment to the conservation and protection of our Nation’s natural resources, especially our soil and water resources.  Reducing sediment and nutrients, along with other pollutants, that may originate as non-point source pollution on agricultural lands and woodlands is a primary goal of NRCS.  For nearly seven decades, NRCS has served as the lead USDA agency for natural resource conservation activities on private working lands, working hand-in-hand with America’s farmers and ranchers in addressing their natural resource concerns. Improving our soil resources and cleaning our surface and ground water resources has been a long and challenging, but sustained, effort since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930’s.  Through NRCS conservation programs we have made tremendous improvements in the health of our soil and the quality of our water.   However, there is still more that must be done.

The Administration supports many of the provisions of H.R. 4013; we especially appreciate the emphasis within the bill on expanding several of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation programs. The conservation of our nation’s natural resources is of great importance to USDA.  H.R. 4013 would expand and increase funding for several USDA conservation programs.  As you know, the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 also requests similar increases in USDA conservation program areas in support of the Administration’s Farm Safety Net Initiative.

For example, the bill proposes that the Environmental Quality Incentives program (EQIP), which provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns, receive an increase from a fiscal year (FY) 2000 funding level of $174 million to $300 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.  The legislation proposes a funding increase for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) of $25 million.  In addition, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), which are acreage, not dollar driven programs, would receive acreage cap increases.

Although the increases proposed in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act of 2000 are substantial and would help the overall conservation effort, it is important to note that many of these increases do not meet those in the President’s 2001 budget proposal.  For example, H.R. 4013 proposes an increase in the WRP acreage cap of 100,000 acres, increasing the cap from 975,000 acres to 1,075,000 acres.  The President’s request increases the program enrollment capabilities to 250,000 acres per year from FY 2001 to FY 2010.  The President’s budget also proposes to increase EQIP by $25 million more per year than the H.R. 4013 proposal and provides $50 million annually for WHIP.  Finally, the President’s FY 2001 budget proposes a new $600 million Conservation Security Program to provide annual payments to farmers and ranchers have who voluntarily implemented various conservation practices, many of which will benefit water quality.

H.R. 4013 calls for the creation of an advisory body established by the Secretary of Agriculture.  The Advisory Council on the Upper Mississippi River Stewardship Initiative would consist of 15 members appointed by the Governors of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri.  These appointees would represent State, local, and private interests.  This council would be responsible for information sharing and coordinating the efforts of the involved Federal, State, local, and private interests.

USDA’s involvement in similar partnerships has proven to be successful and we believe that such an advisory body would assist in resource conservation efforts in the basin as well as in providing long-term economic sustainability for the region.  Through a locally led process we have found that the best solutions to natural resource problems truly are those that are developed locally by the landowners and land users themselves.

The Department has two areas of concern with the legislation.  First, the legislation requires the Secretary to establish a grant program, in conjunction with non-Federal efforts, to demonstrate new best management practices.

Second, no new funding has been requested for this activity, any financial support for them might have to be redirected from ongoing Natural Resources Conservation Service programs at a time when the agency is already experiencing significant budgetary and workload pressures.  Achieving the objectives of H.R. 4013 should not come at the expense of other ongoing activities.  An alternative solution would be to authorize EQIP spending at $325 million, the level requested in the President’s Budget, which would allow NRCS to provide additional educational assistance through activities such as demonstration projects.

The Administration opposes Title IV, which would prohibit the release or disclosure of information and data, collected pursuant to Federal conservation programs, to the public or any governmental agency outside the Department of Agriculture.  Passage of Title IV would make coordinated implementation of the wetlands provision of the Clean Water Act and the Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act extremely difficult.  For example, under Title IV, USDA would no longer be allowed to share its wetland delineations on agricultural lands with EPA or the Corps of Engineers, ending the coordinated implementation of these statues and implementation of administrative reforms that provide a single point of contact to farmers.  In addition, Title IV would undercut Federal and State programs designed to control the discharge of pollutants and the degradation of wetlands by routinely depriving government agencies and the public of critical information concerning wetlands delineations, land use, cropping histories, and prior crop land.

In summary, the bill contains concepts that the Administration supports and could significantly benefit the economic and environmental health of the region. We look forward to working with members of this subcommittee to address some of the concerns we have raised as well as working toward implementation of the Administration’s FY 2001 budget target for the programs that would assist the Upper Mississippi River Basin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony.  I will be pleased to answer any questions you and other members of the Subcommittee might have.

(return to top of page)