178 



NACD strongly supports the concept of holistic natural resource planning and management 

 embodied in HR 1440. We believe the single, site specific plan requirement would help 

 alleviate some of the burdens placed on the land user, as well as the Soil Conservation Service 

 and its cooperating partners. NACD applauds streamlining of the planning process by 

 establishing a single federal agency responsible for working with other federal agencies and 

 land users for the implementation of these integrated resource management plans. In addition 

 to reducing costs, it will probably improve the quality of the plans developed. 



By authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with other federal, state 

 and local government entities, HR 1440 also promotes increased cooperation and coordination 

 among agencies involved in natural resource planning. Improved coordination and cooperation 

 will also save needed dollars by minimizing duplication, redundancy and administrative costs 

 among different government agencies. In order to provide for local checks and balances in 

 carrying out the purposes of HR 1440, NACD would suggest that local conservation districts 

 be given the opportunity to play a role in plan development and approval. 



Of concern to us, however, is the time frame assigned by the bill. The measure provides that, 

 through December 31, 1994, SCS must give priority to developing single comprehensive plans 

 requested by land users, as well as those plans in SCS-designated environmentally critical 

 areas. Although we commend the intent of these provisions, the workload generated by such 

 an effort, combined with Farm Bill conservation compliance deadlines and other program 

 requirements, could easily overwhelm the already overburdened delivery system of SCS and 

 districts. Given the fact that NACD and USDA studies show that substantial increases in 

 technical assistance are needed at the field level, we believe that Congress should approach this 

 new requirement fully aware of the tremendous workload that will be placed on an already 

 overburdened delivery system. 



NACD strongly endorses the concept enumerated in HR 1440 and we hope that it will receive 

 due consideration even in the absence of its principal sponsor. Representative English. 

 However, we are constrained to point out that without significant increases in resources to 

 carry out these requirements, this program simply will fall far short of achieving its potential. 

 As we stated earlier, the presumption sounds good on paper, but we must have the resources to 

 implement it. Despite its good intentions, without additional resources to carry it out, it will 

 probably find little support in the field. 



Finally, in order for any of these initiatives to be successfully implemented we believe there 

 must be a renewed commitment to conservation and natural resource management programs by 

 both land users and the public. And part of that renewed commitment means increasing the 

 public investment in these programs at all levels of government. We believe this increased 

 commitment should be reflected in part in the form of economic incentives for those land users 

 who voluntarily apply and maintain conservation systems and practices on the land. This 

 approach, which we call "environmental credits," is designed to identify those land users who 

 voluntarily install, manage and maintain conservation systems on the land. 



By issuing "environmental credits" to these responsible producers, we would not only provide 

 incentives to apply conservation practices, but would confirm that a producer is meeting the 

 requirements of federal and state programs. Such credits could certify, for example, that a 

 producer is meeting the requirements of the state's nonpoint management program, wetlands 

 conservation program or any number of other program requirements. 



This approach would help to ensure timely application of conservation practices and constant- 

 care management. It also would foster a more active relationship between conservation 

 farmers, the local conservation district and other service providers. It would involve more 

 service to farmers, and more contact from their local field office. 



