17 



Mr. Hebert. No, sir, it is not. The administration's position has 

 not changed the responsibilities of the various agencies with regard 

 to implementation of the requirements underneath the programs. 

 For instance, Soil Conservation Service still retains full jurisdiction 

 for the operation of the swampbuster program. The Corps and EPA 

 retain full jurisdiction for the operation of the permitting process 

 under section 404. 



What has occurred is that we have now agreed to use the same 

 delineations process on agricultural lands and the same delinea- 

 tions process on nonagricultural lands and to work consistently and 

 to reduce duplication. But there is no blending or shifting of re- 

 sponsibilities with regard to the basic implementations of the pro- 

 grams. 



Mr. Barrett. We are looking at five or six different plans, as you 

 know, different suggestions. I think Mr. Bunning's bill says that 

 determinations concerning agricultural lands, agricultural wetlands 

 will go to the SCS. How would this fit into the USDA reorganiza- 

 tion plan? Would this fit? Would it fly into the face of the reorga- 

 nization plan? 



Mr. Hebert. No, it fits very well. Under the Secretary's proposal, 

 the Soil Conservation Service is renamed the Natural Resources 

 Conservation Service and would be given broader conservation pro- 

 gram responsibilities within the Department of Agriculture. But 

 the Natural Resources Conservation Service will be perfectly suited 

 to carry out the provisions of the MOA and do these wetland delin- 

 eations. 



Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Johnson. The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy. 



Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Hebert, I read your testimony carefully and 

 noted, approvingly, a couple of statements of goals, "Wetlands regu- 

 latory programs must be efficient, fair, flexible, and predictable to 

 avoid duplication among regulatory agencies while providing effec- 

 tive resource protection." And, I assume, the programs should con- 

 vey a sense of fairness to those subject to the regulations as well. 

 I further note in your testimony that policy decisions were made 

 to address concerns of landowners for "fair, efficient, and timely de- 

 cisionmaking." 



I want you to know an anecdote from North Dakota that, unfor- 

 tunately, is not all that at3rpical from what I hear as a Representa- 

 tive of my State. I hope that it conveys to you the notion that some- 

 how, in implementation, this just isn't quite working out according 

 to those goals. John Nagel farms in Richland County. Richland 

 County is in the southeastern part of North Dakota. It is one of the 

 most fertile counties in North Dakota. In 1990, he received permis- 

 sion from SCS to build a path from a field to a highway drainage 

 ditch. He didn't have enough moisture that year to make construc- 

 tion of that path necessary but we sure did this summer. So, he 

 built it in June of 1993. 



Now on June 23, 1993, the USDA determined that 76,000 acres 

 in Richland County had 100 percent crop loss because of the flood- 

 ing we were receiving and that continued throughout the summer. 

 In July or August of 1993, SCS became aware of this path that he 

 had constructed under these incredibly wet conditions. SCS and 



