32 



water have responded by developing rural water systems. Even if 

 wetlands recharge ground water in these areas, there is little or no 

 value for that function since the ground water has no value. 



Social value requires both an ability and a willingness to pay for 

 something. Having ecological or hydrological function only makes 

 something physically available. That's not enough for economic 

 value. 



Third, and I think most important, is that knowing the value of 

 only one option, in this case wetlands, does not help to make effi- 

 cient choices. I won't argue that some wetlands have high values, 

 but some have modest values and some have low values. Without 

 knowing and comparing the values of wetlands to the values of al- 

 ternative uses of wetlands or of other landscapes sacrificed to save 

 wetlands, we cannot make the socially correct choices except by 

 chance. 



Almost everything can be shown to have value. But we trade off 

 valuable resources every day so we can have outputs that are more 

 valuable to society. Until we know the opportunity costs of using 

 wetlands to reduce nonpoint pollution, it is only a gamble to say 

 that wetlands should be protected because they are valuable pollu- 

 tion fighters. Some wetlands, in fact, may contribute to water pol- 

 lution. 



The three messages I want to leave this morning in summary, 

 Mr. Chairman, are one, we need to agree what wetlands are before 

 laws are written to regulate their use; two, wetlands are not all 

 equally valuable to society, either because they don't all perform 

 useful functions, or because there is no demand for the function; 

 and three, the correct choices about resources cannot be made with- 

 out knowing the full opportunity costs and all the choices. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



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

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Leitch. 



Mr. Jones, I wonder if you would comment just briefly on the 

 proposal that the Texas Institute has put together to facilitate en- 

 vironmental compliance by agricultural producers, how that com- 

 pares with legislative proposals which have already been intro- 

 duced? Is what Texas is doing radically different from other propos- 

 als or does it utilize some of the principles being talked about? 



Mr. Jones. In our proposals we see the notion of combining vol- 

 untary and regulatory programs. We have spelled it out a little bit 

 more. What we do is on the front-end of the process, we ask the 

 regulatory agency to do an assessment, to set criteria for success, 

 and then establish a timeframe for implementation of best manage- 

 ment practices, and a timeframe for those best management prac- 

 tices to do their job. During that time, we turn that part of the pro- 

 gram over to the State conservation agencies which basically super- 

 vise the local conservation districts who have a local presence. We 

 really believe these problems are going to be solved at very local 

 levels. The local conservation districts are all across the country, 

 they have fairly uniform enabling legislation at the State level, and 

 they work very closely with Federal USDA agencies. In fact, the 

 SCS has contracts with every one of these local conservation dis- 

 tricts. 



