233 



recreational or ecological significance, and those waters just 

 upstrecun from the protected areas. 



Problem: These provisions have the potential to significantly limit 

 the growth of agriculture and agribusiness, especially those 

 upstream of ONRW areas. In many instances, development in these 

 areas will be prevented or will be required to implement more 

 stringent controls than elsewhere. 



■ Enforcement provisions of HR 3948 extend significantly EPA 

 authority, and border on punishment rather thaui compliance. These 

 primarily affect point sources, although citizens suits for past 

 violations (6 month statute of limitations) and field citations for 

 wetlands violations could affect ag and non-ag pesticide users. 



Problems: Major increases in administrative penalties, civil and 

 criminal penalties. The bill broadens injunctive relief authority 

 to include an order to require remedial measures or an 

 environmental audit . 



■ HR 3948 authorizes EPA to issue regulations prohibiting or 

 limiting the use of mixing zones for chemicals that are placed on 

 a list of persistent, acutely toxic, or bioaccumulative chemicals. 



Problem: Mixing zones are a valuable tool for irrigated agriculture 

 to discharge return flow waters. These waters may contain soil 

 sediment and traces of salts, nutrients and pesticides picked up as 

 the irrigation water moved across the fields. Mixing zones allow 

 producers to meet water quality needs by allowing mixing of the 

 irrigation return waters with in-stream waters within a carefully- 

 delineated area. The traces of contaminants in these zones do not 

 present an environmental risk. States must retain their authority 

 to decide the appropriateness of using mixing zones, since this 

 issue is highly site-specific and essential to irrigated 

 agriculture . 



■ Non-point source pollution of surface and gro\indwater must be 

 addressed in enforceable state NPS management plans. 



Problems: (a) the NPS provisions are applied too broadly, invoking 

 mandates beyond impaired waters to include all farmers nationwide 

 in 7 years, even if adjacent surface or groundwater is not 

 impaired. Phases in NPS protection for 20% of waters per year, each 

 cycle lasting 5 years; (b) enforceable policies and mechanisms are 

 components of state NPS programs, with injunctive relief as a 

 minimum enforcement; (c) landowners must use BMPMs (CZMA) or 

 approved site-specific plans; (d) All waters must meet water 

 quality standards by 2010; (e) 10-year exemption for those in CRP 

 etc. but not to those in Conservation Compliance Program; (f) there 

 is no obvious role for USDA in the bill, (g) wetlands reform is not 

 considered; (h) rural economic development could be stifled by 

 antidegradation; (i) the default to CZMA is unwarranted since this 

 is not a proven program and it was designed only for protection of 



