43 



STATEME^^^ of GERALD TALBERT, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND 

 PROGRAMS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION 

 DISTRICTS, ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIA- 

 TION OF STATE CONSERVATION AGENCIES 



Mr. Talbert. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am 

 Gerald Talbert, director of policy and programs with the National 

 Association of Conservation Districts. I am also representing today 

 the National Association of State Conservation Agencies. The 3,000 

 conservation districts in America and the 54 State and territorial 

 conservation agencies have worked together for over 50 years with 

 SCS and ASCS to provide technical and financial assistance, on the 

 Federal level and also through State and local programs, available 

 to private landowners to implement conservation plans and im- 

 prove their properties. We have operated all that time on a vol- 

 untary incentive-driven approach and we still feel that is the best 

 way to go. 



I am going to briefly describe some of the items that impress us 

 in the various bills that had been specified for this testimony. In 

 general, we support H.R. 3465, the Studds-de la Garza bill, because 

 it provides an enhanced and flexible role for States, and because 

 it gives a balanced approach that allows for regional variations. We 

 think it is very important that there is a training and educational 

 outreach component to that bill. We support the process that would 

 streamline the section 404 permit process; we think that is badly 

 needed. Arid we certainly support the SCS role in wetlands deter- 

 mination in agriculture. 



We also feel it is appropriate to mention H.R. 3759. We support 

 the emergency appropriation of $340.5 million to address the dam- 

 age caused by the floods and the fire last year. The money is to be 

 used to restore waterways, to repair levees, and for wetlands. The 

 effect is not only to correct the damage that exists today, but also 

 to reduce future floods by restoring wetlands and buffers especially 

 on those noncropped degraded wetland areas. 



H.R. 2543, the Oberstar bill. We support the fact that it is taking 

 a watershed approach, but we feel that the timeframes for the com- 

 pletion of the tasks that are outlined are too short. And also, in 

 general, we think it is too prescriptive. The penalties for State non- 

 compliance would be counterproductive we think to working rela- 

 tionships between point, nonpoint, and wetlands interests. And also 

 the citizens monitoring programs we feel would be inappropriate if 

 they would become an enforcement tool for the State. 



H.R. 3948, the Mineta bill. Again, we feel that the deadlines that 

 have been set for implementation are too short and not realistic for 

 what it would actually take to implement those tasks. And it would 

 require EPA to develop a new set of best management practices 

 when they already have an adequate set that was developed as the 

 requirements of section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

 reauthorization amendments and the SCS technical field guides. 



H.R. 1440. We strongly support that concept. Not the least bene- 

 fit of which would be the opportunity, as Dr. Nipp alluded to re- 

 garding multiagency cooperation, that the conflicts and duplication 

 among the different requirements of different agencies could be 

 worked out before that product is presented to the customer. It 

 would result in a clear and coordinated plan and those things 



