176 



Another bill referred to this subcommittee, HR 138, introduced by Representative Combest, 

 seeks to ensure fairness in delineating wetlands across the nation. In particular, this bill would 

 require wetlands delineation criteria to apply uniformly to all areas, including playa lakes, 

 prairie potholes, pocosins and vernal pools. While NACD believes that we must have 

 equitability in our wetlands protection programs, we also believe that states should be 

 permitted flexibility in providing both more stringent criteria where appropriate, and less 

 stringent criteria when evidence can be provided to support their use. 



NACD has gone on record recommending that our national wetlands policies and protection 

 efforts be restructured to provide a clear, concise, and fair approach to the management and 

 protection of the nation's remaining wetlands. A standard and consistent national definition and 

 method for wetland delineation needs to be developed. However, a workable delineation 

 manual also must allow for regional and state-level variations in how wetlands are delineated 

 for federal jurisdictional purposes. 



Although HR 138 has many merits, we believe that HR 3465 is the preferred vehicle for 

 developing a sound and balanced wetlands conservation and management program for the 

 nation. 



The actions to implement the goals of the bills we are discussing today will, in a few years, 

 significantly enhance the quality of the rural environment. I would like to point out another 

 opportunity available to start accomplishing the goals of these proposed bills now. HR 3759 

 provided an emergency supplemental appropriation of $340.5 million to the USDA Soil 

 Conservation Service for "Watershed and flood prevention operations" to repair damages 

 caused by the Midwest floods and California fires of 1993 and "for other purposes." Some of 

 these funds will be used to restore waterways damaged by the fires and earthquake in 

 California, to repair levees in the upper Mississippi basin and to enter land into the 

 "Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program." 



We strongly recommend that the Soil Conservation Service use a substantial portion of the 

 remaining funds to help reduce the effects of future floods in the Mississippi basin; to restore 

 noncropped wetlands and establish vegetated stream buffers. There is a large acreage of 

 noncropped, degraded wetlands and former wetlands throughout the basin that could be 

 efficiently restored to fully functioning wetlands. Many of these areas are now pastured or 

 sitting idle. Numerous studies conducted over the past century have documented that the 

 presence of wetlands, when appropriately situated within a watershed, decreases peak flood 

 flows. In addition, establishment of vegetated buffers along streams and other waterways 

 throughout the watershed, besides benefiting water quality, they will also hold back future 

 flood flows reducing downstream peaks while protecting the stream banks. 



In addition to the wetlands initiatives discussed above, this subcommittee has a substantial 

 interest in nonpoint pollution control, especially relative to agriculture. HR 2543, introduced 

 by Representative Oberstar, directs states to revise their Section 319 nonpoint pollution 

 management programs to identify target watersheds and prioritize them into five priority 

 groups based on the severity of nonpoint pollution. It also requires states to provide notice to 

 landowners in those priority watersheds that they will have to implement site-level water 

 quality plans. The bill gives states only six months (180 days) to accomplish this after EPA 

 issues program rules. We believe this is far too short a time frame. We also believe the 

 approach taken in HR 2543 is too prescriptive in telling states that they must categorize all 

 waters into five priority watershed groups and notify all landowners in those watersheds. 



States must also submit to EPA an implementation program for each target watershed 

 identified above with a schedule to achieve restoration/protection within eight years after 

 program approval. Again, we believe that eight years is an unrealistic time frame to achieve 



