42 



that potential we think has been unrealized to date. A good exam- 

 ple being the water quality incentive program having received very 

 little funding throughout its history since 1990. That program 

 needs to be energized and funded and made a real working part of 

 the solution to this problem. 



Another issue in trying to make the two laws work together is 

 giving credit for landowners who are achieving polluted runoff con- 

 trol through farm bill programs the credit they are due. In other 

 words, farmers who are complying with and involved with the con- 

 servation compliance program for reducing sediment control should 

 be given credit for those reductions and for participating in those 

 programs. Yet, they shouldn't be given a blanket exemption for any 

 of the new section 319 requirements that the bills envision. This 

 is because there are other sources of polluted runoff that are not 

 controlled by the conservation compliance program that need to be 

 addressed. So the key in meshing the two bills I think is giving 

 credit where credit is due but not giving blanket exemptions for 

 participation in some of the farm bill programs. 



Another item that I will mention which I think makes a lot of 

 common sense, I know common sense is a term that has been used 

 a lot and has a lot of weight with this committee and with Con- 

 gress, and that is controlling new sources of polluted runoff, such 

 as new housing development, new timber areas where there is sig- 

 nificant roads used to get the timber out. That is to make sure that 

 those types of activities have management measures in place to 

 keep this problem from getting worse. To us, that is a common 

 sense approach and something that is in the Senate bill and in the 

 administration's position, and we strongly support it. 



A little bit about wetlands. First, I would like to say that it is 

 scientifically possible to define wetlands. We agree firmly that the 

 best science should be used to identify and delineate wetlands, and 

 that is why we strongly supported the wetlands definition being 

 put into swampbuster. It is right in the farm bill legislation. We 

 strongly support the National Academy of Sciences' study which we 

 are hopeful will produce new and better ways to identify and delin- 

 eate wetlands. And generally we support any and all mechanisms 

 to better educate the public about what wetlands are and where 

 they are and to map them to let people know, especially land- 

 owners, where they are. We think these are the more reasonable 

 solutions rather than trying to arbitrarily define wetlands so that 

 we leave a lot of wetlands out from the section 404 program which 

 will be destroyed eventually. 



Just one more word about the Studds-de la Garza bill. We think 

 there are lots of good provisions in that bill. One problem we have 

 with it is that it gives SCS authority to delineate rangelands. We 

 agree with Mr. Hebert who said this morning that the agency 

 doesn't have the resources nor the expertise to do a good job of 

 that, so we oppose that provision in the de la Garza bill but sup- 

 port many of the other provisions of that bill. 



I will end there and would be happy to answer any questions. 



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

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. 



We will now go to Mr. Talbert. 



