22 



is going to be necessary. But the specific figure, I would like to let 

 them address that for you. 



Mr. GUNDERSON. Sure. 



Mr. Wayland. Mr. Gunderson, that is an estimate of the aggre- 

 gated 20 year costs of implementing a revised nonpoint source con- 

 trol program. The annualized costs for agriculture are in the $400 

 to $600 million range, which is a significant sum. Our current 

 grant program under the Clean Water Act for nonpoint source con- 

 trol is increasing from $80 to $100 million in the coming fiscal 

 year. In addition, of course, there are USDA administered cost- 

 share programs which supplement the resources made available by 

 EPA. 



One thing to note, however, is that in some instances the avail- 

 ability of assistance may not be the principal impediment to imple- 

 menting improved practices. Wisconsin, in fact, has cost-share pro- 

 grams which have been undersubscribed and in which there have 

 been sign-up rates lower than the availability of financial assist- 

 ance. So, it is a combination of the need for flexibility, increased 

 awareness of the nature of the problem and the practical nature of 

 some solutions, technical assistance by Federal and State agencies 

 and the private sector, and financial resources. We appreciate that 

 all of those need to be brought to bear. 



The timeframes in the House bill are, in fact, somewhat longer 

 than those in the Clinton Clean Water Initiative; however, the af- 

 fected operations are much broader. Whereas the administration 

 proposal would be targeted to watersheds of impaired waters, the 

 House bill would require the implementation of improved manage- 

 ment practices in both impaired and unimpaired watersheds. 



Mr. Gunderson. One of the problems we face in this area is that 

 historically these kind of conservation programs have been vol- 

 untary and yet both the House and Senate bills have language 

 which require States to have "enforceable policies within 2 to 3 

 years." This is the paranoia I think that is out there. If we have 

 inadequate time, and then we have inadequate dollar resources, 

 and yet we are going to mandate enforceable policies. Aren't these 

 irreconcilable goals here that can't be met? 



Mr. Hebert. Mr. Gunderson, the one thing that I will say about 

 those mechanisms is in conversations I have had within the agri- 

 cultural community, particularly in those States and localities 

 where they do have water quality problems and the local people 

 want to address the problems, there is real concern with a vol- 

 untary approach, which most everyone will advocate and support, 

 about how to deal with their real problems. How do you deal with 

 the occasional farmer who refuses to participate, refuses to cooper- 

 ate? How do you let everyone know that we are serious about this, 

 that the locality is serious about this, the State is, and that the 

 local population wants to see something happen without some form 

 of backup mechanism to deal with that situation. That is what the 

 administration has supported in their proposal and there seems to 

 be in our minds utility for that as a backup position. 



Mr. Gunderson. My time has expired. But I would suggest that 

 with the limited resources, the limited amount of time, and, as the 

 gentleman from Minnesota said, some of the real concerns about 

 property rights developing in this country and in this Congress, I 



