146 



Anachment, March 16 Mineta Letter 



HR 3948, WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1994 

 Agricultures Major Concerns 



♦ CWA Water Quality 'Goal Line^. The CWA 'goal line' for water quality is moved to 

 potentially unrealistic and unachievable levels, through (1) the addition of "drinkable" and 

 "ground water" to goals, and (2) increased rigidity and requirements in the cntena and 

 standards process. [Sec. 101(b), p. 4]' 



♦ All Farmers Regulated. Best management practices (BMP's) for agricultural nonpoint sources 

 (NfPS) appear to be mandated in ALL areas, whether waters are impaired or not. Scarce 

 resources and efforts should be directed to the minonty of waters deemed to be impaired 

 [Sec 311(b)(2), pp 50-1] 



♦ ElPA Guidance: The EPA guidance document for NPS pollutants emphasizes control and 

 source reduction, rather than effective management. It appears to default to CZMA 

 management measures already developed by EPA. USDA expertise and input are not 

 provided for. [Sec. 311(h), pp. 60-1] 



♦ Compliance Time Lines. 1) Time lines and associated expectations or requirements as they 

 apply to states and agncuitural producers are unclear. 2) Timing of state assessments appear 

 to be incompatable with regional schedules for BMP's. 3) Agncuitural producers are required 

 to implement additional BMP's every 5 years if water quality standards are not achieved. 



Both states and agncuitural producers need a process which provides sufficient time, 

 flexibility and coordination to enable a successful outcome. It is not possible to evaluate 

 the workability of this bill until time frames and their interrelationships can be bener 

 understood and analyzed. [Sec. 311(b), p.51&54-5] 



♦ Unfunded Mandate Sirfeguards The bill should provide that deadlines for states and 

 agricultural producers be adjusted in the event of appropriations shortfalls, to avoid the 

 imposition of unfunded mandates. While authorization levels for Section 319 and other 

 programs are increased, there are no safeguards in the bill's proposed partnership approach 

 to protect states and agricultural producers if the federal government fails to appropnate 

 sufficient funds. [Sec. 311(b), pp. 50 ff; Sec. 311(f), p.59] 



♦ Wetlands Reform: Wetlands reform should be included to address such issues as the 

 definition of exempt pnor converted croplands and the need for wetland classification. 



♦ Private Property Rights: This bill raises serious private property rights questions that need 

 to be addressed. 



♦ Rural Economic Development: Rigid antidegradation and other provisions may serve to stifle 

 economic development in rural Amenca. Agncuitural producers and rural businesses must 

 be permitted to adapt and change in order to respond to myriad environmental and other 

 challenges and to remain economically viable. [Sec. 302, pp. 9-15] 



' Page references applicable to xerox dated March 3, 1994 (11:41 am) 



