22 



My experience, especially since being here and understanding 

 the pressure that the SRFs are under particularly with respect to 

 waste water treatment funding, do you anticipate that there will 

 be more money available to the revolving loan funds that are going 

 to make them able to deal with wetlands issues? 



Mr. Wayland. There is a high degree of variability State to 

 State between the amount of capitalized State revolving funds and 

 the traditional waste water treatment needs which have consumed 

 most of the SRF uses around the country. 



In fact, the waste water treatment needs in some States are 

 largely met and there are opportunities under the current eligibil- 

 ities in SRF to use those funds for nonpoint source control meas- 

 ures for wetlands mitigation banks, et cetera. So while there are 

 States in which a mitigation bank might not reach the point on the 

 priority list where it could be funded, there are other States where 

 I think the prospects are more likely. 



Mr. Hamburg. I guess I am unfortunate to be from one of those 

 States whose SRF is under tremendous pressure. 



Mr. Wayland. One additional point, the ability of wetlands to 

 remove nutrients and other pollutants from waste water is some- 

 thing which is a significant contribution to water quality improve- 

 ment and in fact, in some instances, may be more cost-effective in 

 terms of per pound nitrogen reduction removal than the construc- 

 tion of a waste water treatment plant. 



Mr. Hamburg. Thank you. 



Mr. Studds. Mitigation banking is not numbers one through ten 

 on the list in my State for SRF funds, as you might know. 



The gentleman from South Carolina. 



Mr. Ravenel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will address my ques- 

 tion to Mr. Davison. 



I represent coastal South Carolina. As you probably know, wet- 

 lands preservation down there enjoys broad active public support. 



You said something that I found interesting. You said that under 

 the President's policy, you get into the upland wetlands and where 

 you get 30 or 40 miles inland, you run into those Carolina bays 

 which are natural wetlands that have been there for years. 



Currently, they can be drained. Of course, they cannot be filled, 

 but certainly that changes the nature of the wetland. Under the 

 President's policy, that would no longer be permitted. Is that cor- 

 rect? 



Mr. Davison. Yes. I will let Dr. Dickey and Mr. Wayland address 

 that. Under the President's plan, many activities, such as drainage, 

 which involve discharges of fill material, even de minimis dis- 

 charges of fill material in the course of drainage, would be regulat- 

 ed. 



Mr. Ravenel. An additional question is: Under the Coastal Zone 

 Management Act, as you know, we established a coastal council 

 down there many years ago which worked very successfully. We 

 worked well with the Federal agencies. I know the Charleston 

 Corps traditionally just signs off on permits issued by the coastal 

 council. We don't have any problem. 



I think the lesson we could all learn there is that State agencies 

 or local agencies dedicated to wetland preservation is a good and 

 helpful thing in working with Federal agencies. 



