193 



good; is that because we have a different administration and we 

 trust them more? 



Dr. DOPPELT. We would trust that it is part of a piece of legisla- 

 tion that sets a new, clear direction. That is the missing link. To 

 be candid, Mr. DeFazio, there were other issues that got cumu- 

 lated. 



Mr. DeFazio. That was one thing I heard. I heard that. 



Dr. DopPELT. We also need interagency planning, consistent 

 planning and assessments within the same watershed. That is 

 going to require legislation, I think, to create. We are going to have 

 to establish some very clear priorities for the agencies to determine 

 whether they put their dollars in the resources. If we allow each 

 district ranger to make changes, we will not get the best protection 

 to the remaining areas. We need budget structure to provide fund- 

 ing for this process that is going to require an act of Congress, 



And fina%, we are going to need a restructure and a new infra- 

 structure within the agency to create the planning and the treat- 

 ments necessary. At this point in time, if we gave the agencies 

 $165 million, and say go down and storm proof it, they wouldn't 

 know what to do with that. 



They need a new direction. We are extremely dubious that this 

 will ever happen effectively administratively. 



Mr. DeFazio. I understand your concerns. But somehow there is 

 a line to be walked between the Congress attempting to do the day- 

 by-day management and putting some faith and trust, and giving 

 a charge to the agencies to come up with some measurable results. 

 And perhaps it comes through monitoring or something along those 

 lines. 



One other point, if you will address this, and then I will allow 

 other panelists to speak. You put emphasis on the interagency 

 part, and I agree with that. But how do we begin. I am not as san- 

 guine as Dr. Ice on the private land practices because I think that 

 part of what is reflected in all the testimony I have heard on this 

 issue over time, is a very conservative viewpoint on the part of the 

 people representing your viewpoint on these issues. But part of the 

 conservatism is based not necessarily on an assumption quite as 

 radical as the one Mr. Higgins offered — that we assume basically 

 clear-cutting everything on the private lands — but the point that 

 we are going further on Federal lands because of concern about 

 downstream impacts and further losses. I have struggled with this. 

 You are recommending Clean Water Act enhancement. The admin- 

 istration seems very interested in market-based incentives to deal 

 with some environmental issues. And if you have any thoughts, 

 now or at a future date, of incentives that could be offered to adja- 

 cent downstream or critical private landowners from the Federal 

 Government in order to get those sorts of enhanced management 

 activities, or to compensate them for losses that they would incur 

 over and above what is required by existing State laws to practice 

 on those lands. Mr. Higgins? 



Dr. DopPELT. I would like to respond to that. 



I would agree that we must first realize that private landowners 

 are acting rationally, at this point in time, in the way that they 

 treat their lands, in that all the direction that they are getting 

 from their government at the Federal, State and local level is to 



