21 



thing you know you are going to have to pay to keep these wet- 

 lands set aside. Maybe that's what we need to do. I just don't un- 

 derstand what you folks are doing. It makes zero sense to me and 

 it makes zero sense to my constituents. I would hope that some- 

 body up above could do something to settle this. 



Mr. Davis. We appreciate your concerns and we have looked into 

 it. We are trying to expedite this EIS preparation. We are giving 

 priority funding to the St. Paul district so he can move this out. 



Mr. Peterson. They haven't even figured out how to start the 

 process yet. Is that still where they are at? 



Mr. Davis. I think they are starting the process. But we would 

 be glad to meet with you or your staff to go into 



Mr. Peterson. I have been to three or four meetings and we 

 seem to go backwards instead of forward. But I guess I will go to 

 one more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Johnson. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson. 



Mr. Gunderson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apolo- 

 gize for being late. But like my colleagues, we are running to a lot 

 of hearings this morning. 



Let me reflect on a few of the experiences we have back home 

 as it relates to the legislation in front of us. My home State of Wis- 

 consin has been actively implementing a priority watershed 

 nonpoint source control program for probably the last 16 years, 

 over $60 million in State funds have already been expended during 

 that time. And yet, despite that kind of a commitment, Wisconsin 

 has not been able to deal with literally more than one-fourth to 

 one-third of the needs as they have determined them. 



Given Wisconsin's experience, do you believe the implementation 

 schedules in H.R. 3948 are even close to realistic? 



Mr. Hebert. The history of the section 319 program in the Clean 

 Water Act has been one of flexibility in terms of working with the 

 States, given the constraints that they have faced, both for funding 

 and timing. My understanding from the administration position is 

 that that type of flexibility would be necessary in order to make the 

 program work, based on the funds that are available to do all the 

 work that is prescribed and the amount of time necessary. The 

 timeframes established in many of the bills may not be adequate. 

 We need to talk about how much time. In the administration's posi- 

 tion on the watershed approach, we have a 10- and 15-year time- 

 frame that we think is quite adequate in most situations. 



Mr. Gunderson. Timing is one issue. Obviously finances is the 

 second. The administration's initiative document identifies the cap- 

 ital cost for nonpoint source controls to be about $8.8 billion, if my 

 numbers are correct; technical assistance program administration 

 costs would raise that even higher. Given the financial condition of 

 most farmers, at least in the Midwest if not in the country today, 

 and recognizing the limits on budgetary resources here at the Fed- 

 eral level, do you think it is realistic that we can meet the compli- 

 ance schedules? If so, where are we going to get the money to do 

 so? 



Mr. Hebert. The $8.8 billion figure that is referred to has been 

 generated through a process within the EPA. I can let them ad- 

 dress that. All I can say is that the flexibility to address the reality 

 of the situation that we find within the States and the local level 



