34 



valuable and ought to be preserved for a number of reasons. The 

 disconnect though seems to be that those who are defining wet- 

 lands are not consistent with what the public perception of wet- 

 lands is. They are defining wetlands part way up the upland side 

 of the hill. There are perhaps some ecologists and biologists who 

 are attempting to make social policy through their science. I think 

 we need to get the public involved as to their perception of what 

 a wetland is. To them, a wetland looks something like the cover of 

 this report, with cattails and turtles and ducks; whereas the 1987 

 definition includes lands where water doesn't even get to the sur- 

 face. 



So we ought not to wait until we have the perfect definition, but 

 we ought to clarify what we are talking about now. 



Mr. Johnson. Very good. I share that frustration of standing in 

 the middle of a field that few lay people would ever identify as a 

 wetland. I think most of the public think in terms of cattails and 

 swampy ground. But it points to a dual problem. One is perhaps 

 better definition; the second is also better public education about 

 the nature of wetlands. They both go hand-in-hand, definitional 

 and public education, and there is room for fault in both regards 

 I suspect. 



Mr. Berg, I appreciate your observations from the Soil and Water 

 Conservation Society's point of view. I think the principles that you 

 lay out are excellent and will contribute to our debate here as we 

 work our way through what is a very difficult balancing act that 

 necessarily has to go on. We clearly want this subcommittee to, on 

 the one hand, represent the interests of production agriculture, but 

 we want to do so in a responsible, credible fashion. That sometimes 

 is not easy to do given the rhetoric that sometimes clouds the na- 

 ture of the issues we have to deal with here. But I very much ap- 

 preciate your points. 



I want to thank the members of this panel. Your entire state- 

 ments and supplemental records attached thereto are received for 

 the record of the subcommittee. 



Excuse me. It is called to my attention that two members have 

 joined us. I would just ask if Mr. Barrett or Mr. Ewing have ques- 

 tions. 



Mr. Barrett. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Ewing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing at this time. 



Mr. Johnson. All right. No further questions here then from Mr. 

 Barrett or Mr. Ewing. 



We will proceed then to the last panel. 



I would invite the third, and final, panel for this hearing to come 

 forward. This panel consists of Mr. John Tarburton, who is sec- 

 retary of the Delaware Department of Agriculture, on behalf of the 

 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; Mrs. 

 Judy Olson, who is president of the National Association of Wheat 

 Growers, and Mr. Bob Stallman, president of the Texas Farm Bu- 

 reau, on behalf of the Clean Water Working Group; Mr. Steve 

 Moyer, Washington representative of Trout Unlimited, on behalf of 

 the Clean Water Network; Mr. Gerald Talbert, director of policy 

 and programs of the National Association of Conservation Districts; 

 and Mr. James Garner, State forester of Virginia and president of 

 the National Association of State Foresters. 



