20 



is for this. As I understand it, the people across the river in North 

 Dakota don't beUeve this is necessary. The Red River flows north 

 and the ice melts later in the north than it does in the south so 

 we always have this problem and this has been exacerbated. 



I don't know if you are aware of all of this, but you ought to be. 

 This is one of the things that is frustrating people. We hear this 

 rhetoric and it all sounds good, but when it gets out there it does 

 not work the way people talk about it. People are very frustrated. 



Mr. Hebert. I'll defer to the Corps to answer the specifics of the 

 issue that you raise. But I would just say that the wetlands MOA 

 and the process that we went through, we recognize there are prob- 

 lems, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies, and the process 

 established in the MOA is designed to begin to change that. We 

 think we can make substantial progress in that way and would 

 share with you that goal of making sure that there is consistency 

 and fairness and that people in the same situation in different 

 parts of the country would feel like they are being treated exactly 

 the same. 



But I will let Mike Davis from the Corps answer specifics. 



Mr. Davis. I'll take a shot at it. I think one of the problems is 

 that the projects that you are talking about are older projects and 

 we haven't had quite the opportunity to let some of the administra- 

 tion's policies take place and be implemented yet, which we are 

 working on now. I think you will see some improvements in the fu- 

 ture. 



One of the concerns we have with the specific case you mention 

 is that we were faced with numerous permit applications and a de- 

 cision was made by the district, which we supported, that an envi- 

 ronmental impact statement was necessary. 



Mr. Peterson. But why? Why didn't you think it was necessary 

 on the other side of the river? They have the same situation as we 

 do. I don't understand that. 



Mr. Davis. It is my understanding that the number of projects 

 across the river were not nearly 



Mr. Peterson. Well they don't have watershed districts, which 

 is what we're saying as a national policy is that we want to cooper- 

 ate with these local people. Just because we're doing a better job, 

 you are going to penalize us? That is basically what you are saying. 



Mr. Davis. That is not our objective. One of the cornerstones of 

 the administration's wetlands policy was comprehensive planning. 

 I think that is one of the things we're trying to do here is put all 

 these things into proper context. 



Mr. Peterson. I can show you the plan. The plan has been done 

 for 10 years. Your people refuse to look at it. I don't understand. 

 They claim they are going to be sued by somebody. I guess by the 

 environmental community, because I don't know if there is some 

 underlying project they want to stop or what it is. I have not been 

 able to get to the bottom of this. But I am telling you that as one 

 person who has cooperated and tried to work with this in the past 

 and has been supportive, if this kind of stuff is going to go on, I 

 am not going to be supportive. 



One of the reasons I signed on to the private property bill of 

 rights bills was because of this situation. There was a case that 

 was won last week on takings. People better watch out, the next 



