34 



Secretary Lyons, first off, I want to thank you so much for being 

 here to testify on this bill. In your opinion, if H.R. 4289 had been 

 enacted before the President developed the budget for fiscal year 

 1995, how might that have affected the Administration's decision 

 about the future of Public Law 566? 



Mr. Lyons. Well, my hope is, Congresswoman, that the proposed 

 changes in the Public Law 566 Program that would be provided by 

 this legislation would encourage certain elements within the Ad- 

 ministration to support funding. Unfortunately, I think we live 

 with the legacy of the past, which Don has more than adequately 

 laid out for us. 



I would point out that we have undergone a significant shift in 

 focus and one of the things I have learned in my position as Assist- 

 ant Secretary is you inherit a lot of baggage and its takes a while 

 to get these things turned around. 



Nevertheless, I would point out we are currently placing a great 

 deal more emphasis on water quality projects and the use of non- 

 structural approaches to address watershed concerns. In fact, we 

 have 183 watershed protection-only projects currently on the books 

 at a value of about a $100 million. In addition, we are moving 

 quickly to eliminate the backlog of watershed projects that would 

 involve structural work. We have begun a review of all the projects 

 that are on the books and we have eliminated projects that would 

 have called for up to 1,800 miles of channels through the review 

 we have conducted over the last six months. 



In short, the kinds of changes you propose in your legislation 

 would help us to move toward the nonstructural approaches which 

 are consistent with our current philosophy and I think are reflected 

 by the Administration's recent report on floodplain management, 

 which places focus on the use of nonstructural approaches and on 

 natural wetlands to address floodplain management issues. I would 

 point out that Secretary Espy is a cochair of the Floodplain Man- 

 agement Task Force. 



Ms. FURSE. Thank you. Mr. Houck, some argue that expanding 

 what is currently a rural program to include urban areas is simply 

 stealing money from rural agriculture areas. How do you respond 

 to that claim? 



Mr. HOUCK. Well, I do not know about the rest of the country, 

 but in Oregon, unfortunately, there has developed a fairly signifi- 

 cant schism between the urban folk and the folks out there in the 

 rural communities. And, in fact, I think one of the greatest 

 strengths of this program is that it provides not only for restoration 

 in both urban and rural watersheds, but encourages the formula- 

 tion of watershed councils. 



I guess I would respond to your question by pointing out a local 

 example, the Tualatin River, which you referred to earlier, which 

 is a major water quality issue; limited streams in the metropolitan 

 region. And I agree, one of the major reasons for pursuing these 

 restoration projects is not only to improve all the other beneficial 

 uses of those waterways, but to improve water quality. 



The Tualatin River flows through rural, agricultural forests, sub- 

 urban and urban situations, and I think the hallmark of this legis- 

 lation, the thing that excites me the most, is it encourages rural 

 folks to get together on these councils and actually talk through 



