177 



restoration. Even if all states were prepared to immediately begin implementation of such an 

 ambitious program, it is unlikely that full restoration could be attained within eight years. 

 Experience with nonpoint programs has shown that full restoration of an impaired waterbody 

 could take considerably longer than this time frame. We also believe that the requirement for 

 additional management measures after the eight-year implementation period would be 

 premature — more time should be allotted to see improvements in water quality before requiring 

 additional management measure implementation. 



HR 2543 also contains a great deal of detail which, we believe, would be more appropriate for 

 guidance documents and rules that should be issued by EPA. Further, requiring states to 

 prioritize all watersheds and requiring implementation of management measures or site-specific 

 plans for all sources, regardless of their contribution to water quality problems, would place an 

 unreasonable burden on many states. 



We are also concerned that the penalties for state noncompliance ouUined in HR 2543 would 

 be counterproductive to the working relationships between point sources, nonpoint sources and 

 weUands interests. Further, denial of new Section 401 and Section 404 permits would tend to 

 fragment those interests rather tiian enhancing cooperation among these related program 

 elements. 



With respect to Uie citizens' monitoring program that would be established under HR 2543, 

 NACD recognizes the valuable role the public could play in helping to collect monitoring data. 

 However, we feel that it would be inappropriate for such monitoring programs to become an 

 enforcement tool of the state. 



The subcommittee has also requested input on HR 3948, introduced by Representative Mineta. 

 NACD's primary interest in this bill is Section 311, "Nonpoint Source Management 

 Programs." NACD is concerned with the ambitious schedule in Section 311. The bill would 

 require that state's address 20 percent of the watersheds within Uie state during each year of 

 the five-year program period. We believe that many states will have considerable difficulty in 

 achieving this schedule. 



NACD is also concerned that the bill would require EPA to develop a new set of "best 

 management practices" for this program. EPA has already developed the management 

 measures guidance for Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 

 1990. These measures, along with those identified in the Field Office Technical Guides of the 

 USDA Soil Conservation Service should be utilized rather than specifying the development of 

 a new guidance book. In addition, many states have developed nonpoint source best 

 management practice handbooks that could be utilized. 



This subcommittee has also requested input on HR 1440, introduced last year by 

 Representative English. For a number of years, conservation districts have been concerned 

 with the increasing number of single-purpose plans required of farmers under federal and state 

 conservation and environmental laws and regulations. In fact, within the Department of 

 Agriculture alone there are as many as fifteen programs requiring different plans, and one 

 single operator may have up to six different conservation or environmental plans to implement. 



Even with the best attempts at planning and coordination, there remain times when different 

 program requirements are contradictory and send mixed messages due to the number of plans 

 involved. Further, future legislation such as the reauthorization of the Clean Water and 

 Endangered Species Acts, Safe Drinking Water Act and the 1995 Farm Bill will likely 

 complicate the problem. 



