28 



First, clearly water quality and wetlands issues must be ad- 

 dressed in the context of watersheds, as has been proposed by the 

 earlier panelists. Second, within watersheds, it is possible to deter- 

 mine whether or not a watershed is at a low level of risk, if it is 

 at a moderate level of risk, or if there is data indicating that there 

 is a tendency toward risk, and then last, if, in fact, there is known 

 contamination and problems that have to be addressed. It seems to 

 our community to make imminent sense that the level of the pro- 

 grams, the severity of the regulations, and the intensity of the re- 

 sources that are directed be linked to some sort of determination 

 of the extensiveness of the problems that exist in those watersheds. 

 To reach that end, of course there must be some partnership be- 

 tween the Federal Government and the States in defining a base 

 set of criteria while allowing maximum flexibility at the State and 

 watershed level to determine the nature of the contamination that 

 might exist in that watershed. 



We think that this approach will provide a mechanism for mov- 

 ing past the current sometimes intractable discussions about 

 whether we should go with a purely voluntary or a purely regu- 

 latory approach and move into a discussion of integrating and bal- 

 ancing our voluntary programs, our incentive programs, and our 

 regulatory programs, with a heavy emphasis on our voluntary pro- 

 grams. 



The third issue that I would like to touch on lightly is the rel- 

 ative roles of research and extension. State research and extension 

 programs are making a dramatic and measurable impact on water 

 quality. This impact is not hypothetical. We can cite specific exam- 

 ples where nutrient and pesticide loading of ground and surface 

 waters have been significantly reduced. With your permission, I 

 would like to submit for the record descriptions of some State re- 

 search and extension programs and some specific examples of the 

 impact of these programs. The board on natural resources of 

 NASULGC will also be providing separate written testimony de- 

 scribing activities of the State Federal water resources research in- 

 stitutes. 



For years, the State agriculture experiment stations, the State 

 extension services, and the water resources research institutes 

 have pursued research and education programs in water quality, in 

 integrated pest management, and in sustainable agriculture. Often 

 the States have spent four to five times the amount invested by the 

 Federal Gk)vernment in addressing these critical issue areas. Our 

 current programs can be strengthened and improved, but there is 

 a clear and immediate need for increased support and participation 

 by the Federal partner. As well, stronger and more direct linkages 

 between the universities, EPA, and the Department of Interior 

 need to be established in the areas of developing the research base, 

 the knowledge needs, and the education programs necessary to ad- 

 dress nonpoint source pollution. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Nipp appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Nipp. And your supplemental pa- 

 pers are received for the record and file of this committee. 



Next, Mr. Berg. 



