75 



and staff of the Department of Agriojtture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 and the Department of Interior (DOI), to foster communication and coordination of our respective 

 research and education efforts. 



In addition to these discussions with the federal agencies, our state universities have 

 been involved in numerous murti-agency activKies. For example, in the mid-west, five "site- 

 evaluation" areas have been established to monitor agricultural chemical movement in large- 

 scale watersheds. These research efforts have been jointly supported by USDA, EPA, U.S. 

 Geological Survey (USGS), and state funds. The State Extension Services have worked jointly 

 with the Soil Conservation Service to develop "Demonstration Projects" and to develop programs 

 in "Hydrologic Unit Areas". State Extension Services have worked with their State agencies to 

 address nonpoint source programs implemented in response to Sec. 319, of the current Clean 

 Water Act. 



We have all teamed, over the last several years, that no federal or state agency has all of 

 the resources, expertise or staff that will be necessary to address nonpoint source pollution 

 issues. Each agency has a role to play. If the next Clean Water Act is to be successful in 

 addressing nonpoint source pollution, we should build on the successes to date when we 

 recognize the role and harness the resources of USDA, EPA, and DOI. Moreover, the roles and 

 contributions of the States and the universities must be clearly identified. Coordination and 

 integration of our respective efforts is essential. 



Balancing voluntary and regulatory approaches 



There has been, and there will be, considerable debate over the relative role of 

 "voluntary" and "regulatory" approaches to address nonpoint source pollution. While this debate 

 is necessary and appropriate, it is often frustrating because the participants often seem to "talk 

 past each other." The advantage of the voluntary approach includes maximum flexibility for 

 adopting available technologies to local site-specific conditions, while minimizing the costs to 

 those who cannot or do not need to address a specific pollution concem. Supporters of more 

 regulatory approaches argue that in some cases, the nature of the pollution is so severe that 

 more dramatic intervention is necessary, that producers must be required to take hard-actions 

 that they would not othen^se take. 



We would like to introduce into this debate, the possibility of creating a rational framework 

 within which the scale and severity of Clean Water Act requirements are clearty linked to the 

 severity of the nonpoint source pollution problems that exist. In the "Woricing Paper* that I've 

 submitted for the record, we discuss the idea of creating a "Tierred and Targeted" approach to 

 watershed management. In this paper we make the following points: 



O Water quality and nonpoint source pollution issues should be addressed on a watershed 

 basis. 



O Watersheds should be classified at three levels: 



Q Class I Watersheds are those with no known or anticipated water quality problems. 

 Voluntary education programs to prevent contamination should be pursued. 



□ Class II Watersheds are those where measured trend data or knowledge about the 

 local geology and environment suggests high vulnerability to water quality impairment. 

 Current incentive programs should be targeted to these "at-risk" watersheds. 



