S. Hrg. 113–639 

FARMERS AND FRESH WATER: 

VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION TO 

PROTECT OUR LAND AND WATERS 

HEARING 

øBEFORE THE¿ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

FARMERS AND FRESH WATER: VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION TO PROTECT OUR LAND 

AND WATERS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–365 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–639 

FARMERS AND FRESH WATER: 

VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION TO 

PROTECT OUR LAND AND WATERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

SHERROD BROWN, OHIO 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, MINNESOTA 

MICHAEL BENNET, COLORADO 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, NEW YORK 

JOE DONNELLY, INDIANA 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, NORTH DAKOTA 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., PENNSYLVANIA 

JOHN WALSH, MONTANA 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN J. CORDONE, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS ALLEN HAWKS, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Farmers and Fresh Water: Voluntary Conservation to Protect Our Land 

and Waters ........................................................................................................... 1 

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ............................ 1 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 3 

Witnesses 

Collins, Hon. D. Michael, Mayor, Toledo, Ohio ..................................................... 6 

Weeks Duncanson, Kristin, Owner/Partner, Duncanson Growers, Mapleton, 

Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 8 

Matlock, Marty D., Ph.D., Executive Director, Office For Sustainability, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas ...................................................... 9 

Fisher, Trudy D., Former Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Ridgeland, Mississippi ........................................................ 11 

McMahon, Sean, Executive Director, Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance, 

Ankeny, Iowa ........................................................................................................ 12 

Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ................................................................ 20 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 40 

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 42 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. ..................................................................................... 44 

Collins, Hon. D. Michael .................................................................................. 45 

Weeks Duncanson, Kristin .............................................................................. 46 

Fisher, Trudy D. ............................................................................................... 66 

Matlock, Marty D. ............................................................................................ 92 

McMahon, Sean ................................................................................................ 96 

Weller, Jason .................................................................................................... 106 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

National Association of Conservation Districts, prepared statement .......... 118 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies, prepared statement ........... 121 

Michigan Farm Bureau, prepared statement ................................................. 139 

Boozman, Hon. John: 

4R Farmers & The Lake, Sustainable Crop Nutrition for the Western 

Lake Erie Basin ............................................................................................ 141 

4Rs of Nutrient Stewardship, Economically, Environmentally & Socially 

Sustainable Crop Nutrition .......................................................................... 142 

U.S. Corn Production and Nutrient Use on Corn .......................................... 143 

The Fertilizer Institute, Nourish, Replenish, Grow ....................................... 144 

Page

IV 

Matlock, Marty D.: 

Resume of Marty D. Matlock, Ph.D., P.E., B.C.E.E. ..................................... 147 

Field to Market, The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture .......... 157 

Weller, Jason: 

Helpful Websites ............................................................................................... 336 

Chiefs presentation to the Senate Agriculture Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition and Forestry ................................................................................. 337 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Weeks Duncanson, Kristin: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 348 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 349 

Matlock, Marty D.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 351 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 353 

McMahon, Sean: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 355 

Weller, Jason: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 360 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 384 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 388 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 389 

Written response to questions from Hon. Joe Donnelly ................................ 392 

Written response to questions from Hon. Thad Cochran .............................. 393 

The Fertilizer Institute: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 397 

(1) 

FARMERS AND FRESH WATER: 

VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION TO 

PROTECT OUR LAND AND WATERS 

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, 

Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Donnelly, Roberts, Boozman, Hoeven, Johanns, and Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Good morning. Our Committee will 

come to order. I apologize in advance that, as our witnesses know, 

votes have been called actually for 10 o’clock. I don’t know if they 

have started. Have we started the votes yet? But we are going to 

proceed with opening statements. I know that Senator Brown 

wants to say a word of welcome to the mayor of Toledo, and then 

if the vote is ongoing, we will have to recess. There are a series 

of votes, and so we will then ask our witnesses to be patient. We 

have some coffee in the back to keep you awake, and we’ll be back 

as soon as we can to continue the hearing. So we are very glad you 

are here on a very, very important topic. 

Among our Earth’s natural resources, water is fundamental to 

human survival, and we all know that. Right now we have a water 

crisis in our country that operates on two fronts. The one most people tend to talk about, is a crisis in water quantity, and we certainly see this right now in many places in the country, certainly 

in California where the drought is one of the worst in the history 

of the State. The second—and the focus of this hearing—is around 

water quality. 

This has long been an issue for those of us who live around the 

Great Lakes. We have water, but we are deeply concerned about 

water quality issues. We got a stark wake-up call this summer 

when the Greater Toledo area—with a population nearly as large 

as Washington, DC—as the mayor will talk about, could not drink 

their water, could not use the water to cook, could not wash their 

hands or brush their teeth or take a shower because the water was 

contaminated with toxins from a serious algae bloom in Lake Erie. 

2 

We are very glad the mayor of Toledo is able to join us today to 

talk about what happened. 

Coming from Michigan, I feel a strong connection, of course, to 

the Great Lakes. All of my life I have seen how our lakes sustained 

our economy, from manufacturing to agriculture to tourism. The 

lakes are where we live, where we play, where we work. They are 

part of our identity and, frankly, our lifestyle and way of life. 

Scientists tell us that the lakes were created during an Ice Age 

some 15,000 years ago—a thawing that coincided with the discovery of agriculture. Today the Great Lakes provide 84 percent of 

North America’s surface fresh water. This vital resource has passed 

from generation to generation, just as generations of Americans 

have relied on the waters of the Mississippi River, the Chesapeake 

Bay, and so many other important waters in our country. 

Yet our generation has the most urgent responsibility to conserve 

those waters. If we are going to solve this, we have to take action 

on climate change. We have to look at the nutrients going into our 

lakes, rivers, and streams. 

Our farmers want to be a part of the solution, and, in fact, they 

are, which is why we made conservation an important priority in 

the 2014 farm bill. 

While there is no single solution, no silver bullet that will resolve 

this crisis, we know that working together and sharing our knowledge will help us to develop strategies capable of making a broad 

impact on the quality of our water. 

Our panel of speakers have been assembled with that goal in 

mind. Considering that 1.5 million jobs are directly connected to 

the Great Lakes, our workers and our economy cannot afford another disaster on a scale of the one in western Lake Erie. 

No group understands the importance of water and soil quality 

more than our Nation’s farmers and ranchers, and no one has more 

at stake than our farmers and ranchers. Agriculture has played a 

critical role since the 1935 farm bill, when Congress created the 

Soil Conservation Service in response to the Dust Bowl. 

The 2014 farm bill represents the largest investment yet in the 

conservation of private working lands critical to maintaining not 

just clean water, but clean air, wildlife habitats, forests, and other 

natural resources. 

We expanded the role of partnerships so that farmers can team 

with university researchers, the private sector, conservation organizations, and all levels of government to find creative solutions to 

improving water quality. 

We know that farming is one of the riskiest businesses in the 

world, and farmers cannot gamble on the future of their access to 

clean water and neither can we as consumers. 

In 1746, in his version of Poor Richard’s Almanac, Benjamin 

Franklin said: ‘‘When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.’’ 

We have two excellent panels today. We look forward to your testimony as we begin this important discussion. 

I would now like to turn this over to Senator Boozman. Unfortunately, our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Cochran, is not 

able to be with us today, but we are fortunate to have my good 

friend Senator Boozman to give opening remarks, and we also will 

3 

have him introduce our witnesses from Arkansas and Mississippi. 

So, Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and we really 

do appreciate you calling this hearing to help us better understand 

the issues involving voluntary efforts by farmers and landowners 

to promote land and water conservation, with a focus on water 

quality and the role of conservation partnerships. 

We appreciate the participation of our witnesses. I am especially 

pleased that we have Dr. Marty Matlock from Arkansas here to 

offer his insight on the important issue of conservation and water 

quality. In Arkansas, individuals across the spectrum with diverse 

views on water quality issues and policies know that Dr. Matlock 

is a credible voice on scientific issues relating to water quality. As 

a distinguished professor at the University of Arkansas, Dr. 

Matlock has extensive experience working in urban, agricultural, 

and rural systems with ecologists, engineers, architects, scientists, 

economists, and business leaders to solve complex conservation 

challenges. 

I am also pleased to introduce another distinguished witness, 

Trudy Fisher, who has traveled from Mississippi to be with us 

today. Most recently, Ms. Fisher served as the executive director of 

the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for 8 years 

where she managed a staff of more than 400 people, a budget of 

over $250 million, and led the agency through multiple natural and 

manmade disasters. Ms. Fisher formed and led the Mississippi 

Delta Sustainable Water Task Force, which brings local, State, and 

Federal partners to the table to address water quality and water 

issues. Ms. Fisher recently returned to private practice. 

As the recent farm bill is implemented, we need USDA to listen 

carefully to the feedback from producers and work to make the implementation go smoothly as we go forward. We also need regular 

feedback here in Congress of any issues that arise. We all know 

that producers are the number one advocates for common-sense 

conservation practices because they rely on the land and water for 

their livelihood. We also know that the private sector plays a critical role on this front as well. 

For instance, Delta Plastics in Little Rock, Arkansas, has developed the Water Initiative, the H2O Initiative, which brings together relevant stakeholders from agriculture, universities, conservation groups, and many others in an effort to help farmers in 

the mid-South reduce water consumption by 20 percent by the year 

2020. This is just one of the many examples of efforts around the 

country to address the critical issue of conservation and water 

quality. 

Another major concern is the EPA’s proposed Waters of the U.S. 

rule. The mandates that will flow from this rule will have a devastating impact on farm families, which is why people like the 

Farm Bureau and so many other organizations consider it one of 

the most serious and consequential policy issues under debate right 

now. It will not just impact farm families. It will impact all lowincome families who need access to affordable food. I hope that we 

4 

can have an open dialogue that will help us better understand 

ways to improve upon our efforts to address these important issues 

and ensure that we have smart policies in place to support our agricultural community. 

I am encouraged by the panel we have assembled today and very 

much look forward to hearing your testimony. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman, and we are so pleased to have Dr. Matlock and Ms. Fisher 

here. 

I would now like to turn to Senator Brown to introduce the 

mayor. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Boozman. I will be brief because I know we have got to run, and I apologize also to the panel again for the way that things ended up being 

scheduled. Thank you all for coming. 

I appreciate so much Chairwoman Stabenow’s emphasis on the 

Great Lakes. Nothing matters, there is no more important resource 

in this country, other than human beings, than the greatest body 

of fresh water in the world. We know what happened, the mayor 

will explain what happened in Toledo, this tragedy that we should 

never allow to happen in a country this rich. It partly happened 

in Toledo because Lake Erie’s depth around Toledo and the Western Basin is only about 30 feet. It is draining an area in Ohio of 

about 4 million acres, a lot of farmland, a lot of runoff, a lot of industry, a lot of commercial activity, a lot of population. Contrast 

that with Ms. Weeks’ Lake Superior, which has an average depth 

of about 600 feet, and it mostly drains forests. So you can see particularly with climate change and the sort of torrential downpours 

that happened this year and are happening more and more as a result of climate change, coupled with the hot summer and all the 

things that happened, and the mayor will explain that more. 

For my brief introduction of the mayor, his career has been all 

about public service: a Toledo police officer for more than almost 

three decades, Toledo City Council, and now the mayor of Toledo. 

He is already—I think that police officers are trained to both anticipate and deal with crises. Mayors are not so trained to anticipate and deal with crises perhaps, but the mayor has done marvelously in his time. Early in his term—he has not been mayor 

that long, but early in his term he had one of the worst snow emergencies in Toledo recently or maybe ever in history, areas that 

were just—incredible what happened. He also early in his term had 

two firefighters who were killed in the line of duty, and then he 

had this issue with Lake Erie and 500,000 people in the city and 

outside the city that lost their drinking water for 2–1/2 days. So 

he has already made a difference for our city and our State, and 

I am proud that Mayor Collins has joined us today. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

I am sure the mayor would just as soon not have had so many opportunities to show leadership. It has been a challenging time. 

Let me introduce our final two witnesses before we recess for the 

votes. We are so pleased to have our next witness, Ms. Kristin 

Weeks Duncanson, who is the owner and partner of Duncanson 

Growers, a diversified farm family operation located in Mapleton, 

5 

Minnesota. I know that Senator Klobuchar hopes to be with us 

today so she can greet you as well. She is the immediate past chair 

of the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, past president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, former director of the American Soybean Association. She is a member of the Carbon Market 

Working Group, sits on the board of AGree, an organization focused 

on driving positive change in food and agricultural systems. So we 

are so pleased that you are with us. 

Then last, but certainly not least, I am pleased to introduce Sean 

McMahon again to us—we are so pleased to have you with us—who 

is the executive director of the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance, a 

clean water initiative supported by the Iowa Corn Growers and the 

Iowa Soybean Association and the Iowa Pork Producers Association. Mr. McMahon has worked on natural resources policy for over 

20 years in a variety of roles. Before joining the Iowa Agriculture 

Water Alliance, he was a North American agriculture program director at the Nature Conservancy where he worked on strategies 

to make sure agriculture was more environmentally sustainable, 

and through advocacy in the farm bill played a very important role, 

and we appreciate it very much. Before that, he worked for the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Department of the Interior, and is currently a member of the Farm 

Foundation Roundtable and serves on the Advisory Board for the 

U.S. Soybean Export Council. So many hats, and we are very 

pleased to have you with us at this point. 

So we thank our distinguished panel. We appreciate your patience. Right now the vote is underway, so we will recess for the 

votes, and then we will come back and appreciate your testimony. 

[Recess.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. The Committee will reconvene and 

come to order. We thank you very, very much for your patience, 

and we are now at a point where we can focus on this very important topic. 

As I indicated in the beginning, we today are focused on water 

quality issues. We know there are a variety of issues that are important related to our waters, and today we want to focus on one 

of the two pillars, which is water quality. 

We know other members are coming, but in the interest of time, 

we will proceed at this point. Let me start by asking Sean McMahon and Dr. Marty Matlock a question. When we are looking at the 

fact that we are supporting 1.5 million jobs and generating $62 billion in wages from the Great Lakes and all of the efforts that are 

going on, and looking at the surrounding States and the country 

as a whole, we know how critical clean water is. I have a very 

straightforward question for both of you: Can farmers and ranchers 

make a measurable improvement in water quality by adopting voluntary conservation practices? 

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, they certainly can—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Oh, excuse me. Do you know what? I 

went right into questions and did not give you a chance to do opening statements. We had done our opening statements, and so, well, 

hold the thought then on the question. Why don’t we do that? Now 

you know what the question is. 

6 

We want to hear from you, so let us start with the mayor of Toledo, the Honorable Michael Collins. Mayor, we appreciate very 

much your coming in. I really was not trying to cut you off from 

not hearing your testimony. So, please. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE D. MICHAEL COLLINS, MAYOR, 

TOLEDO, OHIO 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Chairman Stabenow and esteemed 

members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. It is a privilege and an honor for me to be allowed to testify 

before you today. 

On the weekend of August 2, 2014, the city of Toledo made headlines both nationally and, quite honestly, internationally when we 

were impacted by harmful algae blooms or algal blooms. It created 

a situation for us where we had to execute a ‘‘Do Not Consume’’ 

order. The order was impacted by over half a million consumers of 

our public water system, which includes northwestern Ohio and 

parts of southeast Michigan. 

We weathered the 72-hour incident because our community 

pulled together. There was no violence, and we had no reportable 

illness as a result of this experience. Water was supplied to those 

who were in need; the stores were restocked; and on Monday at 9 

o’clock in the morning, we were able to execute and rescind the 

consumption situation. Toledo has taken those additional steps to 

prevent our water supply from being impacted by the microcystin 

toxin that is a result of the algal blooms. 

Our community was impacted financially, well over $2.5 million 

from grocery stores where their produce was sprinkled with water 

to the restaurant and the hospitality trades. We as a city experienced—because of the additional chemicals which were needed, carbons and so forth, we had not expected this through our budget, 

but we had experienced millions of dollars of additional costs in 

order to continually use the chemicals necessary to stabilize that 

water that we so proudly serve a half a million people with. 

I am here today as the mayor of Toledo. I would love the pictures 

of the lines of those waiting for water or the images of that glass 

of water which made national news being held up, looking like pea 

soup. I would like to see that forgotten. However, the truth of the 

matter is if we forget what happened in Toledo, it is destined that 

we will repeat it. 

Toxic algal blooms are not new. We have as a Nation—and I repeat, we have as a Nation failed in studying the reasons why they 

continue and to take the steps to reduce or eliminate their occurrences. In my humble opinion, the experiences we had in Toledo is 

characteristic to the canary in the coal mine. There are many theories as to why, but we have not identified all the causes. Phosphorus in Lake Erie has been reduced, but it remains, though. We 

have other issues. 

The new formulations of fertilizers, Open Lake dredging, 

invasive species interfering with the ecology of the lake, mega cattle and hog and chicken farms, and septic tank failures all obviously must have some role in this, as well as municipal sewage 

treatment plants. 

7 

This is not a Toledo problem, and actually it is not an Ohio problem. It is an international problem. More than 80 percent of the 

water in Lake Erie comes from the Great Lakes to the west and 

north via the Detroit River. Standards developed by the World 

Health Organization in 1996 have not been evaluated nor have 

they been confirmed by our Federal EPA. Testing is not standardized or even required as it relates to all areas of our Nation as to 

the algae blooms themselves. I urge Congress to work together 

with the administration to recognize that Lake Erie and our Great 

Lakes are national treasures and to make our region’s water quality issues a priority by taking the following actions: 

First, provide additional research funding to develop what are 

the causes and what are the solutions for improving water quality. 

Secondly, the EPA should set a Federal water quality standard 

for toxic algae blooms. 

Thirdly, the Federal Government must—and I repeat, must— 

prioritize and target funding for infrastructure and conservation 

funding to those watersheds that most effectively affect Lake Erie. 

If we continue to delay, the harm may become irreparable. 

Thank you for allowing me to share this information and to have 

been put into your record, and I would be happy to take any questions which you may have at any point today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins can be found on page 45 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. 

As Ms. Kristin Weeks Duncanson is going to be giving her testimony, I would also like to recognize Senator Klobuchar for a welcome. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much for inviting Kristin Weeks 

Duncanson today from the State of Minnesota. She is going to be 

talking about some of the new technologies and partnerships that 

she is using to improve water quality. You should know that she 

and I actually attended high school together. She was a year older, 

but I will not say what years we graduated. She is an owner and 

partner of Duncanson Growers, a family farm located in southern 

Minnesota that raises soybeans, corn, vegetables, and hogs. She is 

also the immediate past chair of the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council and was a member of the Minnesota Soybean Association for 10 

years before being named the soybean growers president in 2002. 

She served as a staff member for former U.S. Senator Rudolph 

Boschwitz and is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute Public Policy Fellowship Program. She currently 

serves as a member of the AGree Advisory Committee—we need 

more agreement here—which is a diverse coalition of ag thought 

leaders supporting innovation in our food system, and we are really 

pleased to invite you to the Committee today. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WEEKS DUNCANSON. Great, and thank you very much for 

that kind introduction. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I will just add that any information you 

have about Senator Klobuchar that we could use on the side would 

be helpful. 

[Laughter.] 

8 

Ms. WEEKS DUNCANSON. Well, we took piano lessons from the 

same piano teacher, so we can—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Recitals. 

Ms. WEEKS DUNCANSON. Yes, so we will talk later. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTIN WEEKS DUNCANSON, OWNER/ 

PARTNER, DUNCANSON GROWERS, MAPLETON, MINNESOTA 

Ms. WEEKS DUNCANSON. Thank you very much. For those of you 

in the room, too, I would like to introduce my husband, who is sitting behind me, who once was my intern in this fine institution 

back a long time ago. So thank you, and thank you, Chairman Stabenow and members, for letting us be here today and to share the 

opportunity with you today on a farmer’s perspective on how stewardship of working lands can improve water quality. 

For many years, we in the agricultural community have a deep 

and abiding stewardship of our own land, and it runs through our 

veins. It is a tradition passed through the generations, and we are 

very proud of it. 

Farmers and landowners working together to manage our water 

resources also goes back many generations. In Minnesota, we use 

a ditch system. Our challenge with water is usually too much and 

not too little water. Though for many years we focused entirely on 

making sure we had infrastructure to move excess water off our 

land, we have learned in more recent years that we need to make 

sure that we do that in a way that does not lead to erosion of 

streambanks or filling up the streams with eroded soils and excess 

nutrients. 

My farming community lies in both the Blue Earth and Le Seuer 

watersheds. They flow into the Minnesota River and on to the Mississippi, which is about 80 miles away. We have worked together 

on Blue Earth County Ditch 57. A few years ago, we designed a 

two-tiered ditch system with a holding pond and planted native 

grasses that gets the water off our fields but slows the water down 

and absorbs the nutrients it carries with it. This improves water 

quality downstream. 

The process for the new Ditch 57 was neither quick nor easy. It 

took several years of negotiating with the owners, getting a design, 

funding, and approvals. But the outcomes achieved were increased 

productivity for the working lands and a decrease in flooded areas 

in both the farm fields and many of the houses in the nearby town. 

We and many of our neighbors are starting to use cover crops to 

build the health of our soils, which are the foundation of our productivity and profitability. Cover crops also help keep both sediment and nutrients out of the water. By retaining nutrients in the 

soil, we use less fertilizer, which also contributes to our bottom 

line. 

We are learning more and more that we need to do conservation 

differently if we are to be sure that we are doing what is needed 

to improve water quality while maintaining and improving our productivity and profitability over the long term. Forward-looking producers and landowners are ready to provide that leadership. 

We need to focus on water quality outcomes at the watershed 

level, not just as individual operators. Producers, with technical 

support from universities, agencies, or the private sector, need to 

9 

measure baselines regarding both agricultural practices and environmental outcomes at multiple scales and measure the change 

over time. 

Producers need to work together to identify what a basic standard of stewardship should look like in their watersheds, which performance standards or practices should be expected of producers regardless of cost share being available. 

We need to focus cost share and public dollars on the structural 

practices needed to achieve the outcomes and put them where they 

can achieve the most cost-effective impact. 

Government needs to do things a little differently too: prioritizing 

resources to where the natural resource problems are found; investing in collecting baseline data and monitoring change over multiple 

scales; providing regulatory certainty to those producers who voluntarily demonstrate continuous improvements to achieve water quality goals; and sharing data more freely among the agencies within 

USDA, other agencies, universities, and the private sector so that 

we can better understand the relationship between conservation 

practices, yield resilience, and environmental outcomes in specific 

agronomic circumstances. 

Of course, we must ensure that proprietary data remains private 

and that data voluntarily shared cannot be used for regulatory action. As a member of the Advisory Committee of AGree, an effort 

that brings together a variety of producers with companies along 

the food and ag supply chain, environmental organizations, and 

public health and international development experts, I have 

worked with other producers to develop an approach we believe can 

successfully engage farmers and ranchers in achieving improved 

outcomes in working landscapes. 

What we are calling Working Lands Conservation Partnerships 

would be producer-led, watershed-scale, cooperative effort to enhance both long-term productivity and improve environmental outcomes in a manner that can be recognized both by the public and 

private agencies as well as the supply chain. The information is 

summarized in an infographic that is in my written testimony. 

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program in the farm bill 

of 2014 is an excellent example of a Federal program that aligns 

with our conservation approach. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and welcome any 

questions that you would have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weeks Duncanson can be found 

on page 46 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Matlock, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARTY D. MATLOCK, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR SUSTAINABILITY, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 

Mr. MATLOCK. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member, members of the Committee, Senator Boozman, thank you for having us 

here. 

I am anxious to get to the questions and answers, the discussion 

point, too, so I just want to say that I have never been more optimistic about the ability of our landholders across the United States 

10 

to make positive improvements on our water quality and the landscape, not because of a regulatory framework we are imposing but 

because of the awareness through shared information and through 

a common understanding of our common impacts on water quality 

and the benefits we derive from that ecosystem service at the watershed level. We are seeing incredible engagement, unprecedented 

engagement, voluntary engagement across the landscape. 

I would like to differentiate, though, that compliance with conservation practices with NRCS really are more incentivized than 

voluntary. As we know, under the 2014 farm bill, we have incredible incentives for participation and, in fact, if you do not engage 

in conservation practices, you are disqualified from participating in 

many of those critical elements of the farm bill. So it is really not 

a voluntary program so much as an incentivized program. 

I do want to celebrate one initiative that I think is particularly 

exemplary in how our landowners and agricultural value chains 

are engaging together to make things better in the landscape. That 

is the Field to Market Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture. You 

have this in my statement. You also have it in my contributions to 

the packet. The Field to Market Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture’s key performance indicators, this is a multi-stakeholder 

initiative that engages folks from producers across soybean, corn, 

cotton, wheat, and other crops all the way to biotech companies 

and retailers—McDonald’s, Walmart, others. It includes conservation organizations—World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy—that is where Sean and I met— 

as well as many other organizations, to try to figure out what we 

have to do to sustain our prosperity from the land without eroding 

the biodiversity and other ecosystem services upon which our prosperity depends. 

This organization is developing key performance indicators that 

are voluntarily adopted by producers across the landscape and developing strategies for targeted implementation. As the mayor indicated, not all ecosystems are equal. Some are more sensitive than 

others. I was in Brazil at the Global Roundtable for Sustainable 

Beef 2 weeks ago, and I heard a term that I had not heard before, 

but I love it: ‘‘glocal.’’ We must think globally and act locally. We 

all understand that. We have global problems, and they require 

local solutions. Local solutions means we cannot paint the problems 

with one brush. We have to understand the local implications, and 

we have to have the freedom to implement solutions, to explore solutions, and, frankly, to fail occasionally so that we can learn and 

get better. 

Continuous improvement is the hallmark of sustainability. We 

need a process so that we can continuously improve sustainability 

across our water quality and our landscape. The landscape is 

changing, and it is changing fast, and it is not just agricultural producers that are changing it. We have to be able to be responsive 

to all of those elements. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matlock can be found on page 92 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Fisher, welcome. 

11 

STATEMENT OF TRUDY D. FISHER, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI 

Ms. FISHER. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, if I could be so 

bold as to jump right in there and follow your style, I would like 

to say yes, not only can farmers voluntarily deal and address and 

improve water quality, but they actively are all across the country. 

I want to share with you why this issue is so important to the 

State of Mississippi and our producers and our organizations that 

we work with. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Great Lakes Region, but I am going to move our thinking down South a little bit 

and focus on the lower Mississippi River States. 

Our State is only one of two States that borders both the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River and 

the Yazoo River form over 7,000 acres of the very rich, fertile 

Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta. It is a huge economic engine, a driver for not only our State but also the country, as well as the Gulf 

of Mexico. We recognized many years ago that what happens on 

our land directly impacts what happens on the Mississippi River 

and in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have been very proactive in addressing how do we deal with nutrient reduction? How do we deal 

with nitrogen and phosphorous on our lands and in our runoff 

water? Also, as a reminder, everything that we are talking about 

in a way runs downhill right by our State. 

We learned, just like Dr. Matlock said—and I share his enthusiasm—there is so much going on where? At the local level, at the 

grassroots level. We found early on that it takes the collaborative 

nature, a voluntary approach of your producers, of your Federal organizations, and your local partners to really address how do you 

go about reducing nutrients. What is the strategy? 

You know, there are conservation practices that have been in the 

NRCS program for years, and so we worked with our producers, 

with NRCS, our State Soil and Water Conservation District. What 

are the practices that work the best? What is achievable? What is 

the cost? 

But you cannot just look at the cost. You have to look at the 

value of the conservation practices. Then what is the value to the 

stakeholder, to the producers? Because you have to have that buyin. You have to have the dialogue and the buy-in for any effort 

such as this to work. 

We have been very pleased with our collaborative efforts and 

what we have actually done on the ground in Mississippi. Some of 

the practices that I would like to talk about are just very basic 

farming practices that make a difference on water quality and 

quantity. 

Land leveling. Obviously, the Mississippi Delta, it is flat, it is 

level. But is it really? You know, and so there are techniques such 

as land leveling that improves your irrigation practices, that reduces your runoff. These are programs that are supported by 

NRCS. 

The ubiquitous ditch that we all have all across our farming 

country, farming land, how do you deal with the ditches? How do 

you slow the water down? How do you re-use the water? How do 

you get better drainage, whether it is too little or too much? How 

12 

do you focus on improving that channel so that it controls the runoff and lessens the impacts to the river and to the Gulf of Mexico? 

Again, these are practices that are supported by NRCS. 

I know that Chief Weller will be talking later in another panel 

about all the various practices, but they truly make a difference. 

But you have to be able to demonstrate that you are having measurable results. You know, our State environmental agencies all 

across the country, we know it is working, but you have to have 

the outcome and the results to show what you are achieving. So we 

are very happy in Mississippi that we are at that point now that 

we are able to demonstrate the successful reduction of nutrients 

into the water, into the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. 

We are working with other States. 

Just like the other panelists have said, one size does not fit all. 

As all of you know from your own States, each of your States are 

regions within regions, and it is the same way in dealing with 

hydrogeology. You have to look at your State. You have to look at 

your individual watershed and what works. So we can learn from 

one another, but let us take a local grassroots approach to addressing the issues of stormwater runoff. 

But, yes, it is—is it working? Yes. The issue is I think that we 

have—and I would ask the Committee to look at—we have in our 

State, I know probably all across the Mississippi River Basin 

States, a higher demand for the NRCS conservation practices than 

there is actually funding. I would like at one point later to talk 

about what are some opportunities to make sure that those meaningful conservation practices that are working continue to have the 

funding so they can be accessed in a voluntary way by our producers across the country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fisher can be found on page 66 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Certainly again, last but not least, we are glad to have Mr. Sean 

McMahon here. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN MCMAHON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

IOWA AGRICULTURE WATER ALLIANCE, ANKENY, IOWA 

Mr. MCMAHON. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

testimony and present my views to the Committee today. 

I would like to thank the Committee for its work earlier this year 

and dating back to the last two Congresses to pass a bipartisan 

farm bill that contained the strongest Conservation Title in history. 

This is the first farm bill to ever have more funding in the Conservation Title than the Commodities Title. 

The 2014 farm bill also includes an innovative new program 

called the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. This program codifies the principle of targeting conservation practices to 

where they can have maximum impact and ushers in a new era of 

public-private partnerships. 

The recent farm bill also recouples crop insurance with conservation compliance for the first time since 1995, which will ensure 

more soil conservation on highly erodible lands while helping to 

13 

prevent wetlands from being drained and native prairie from being 

plowed. 

I would like to thank the entire Committee for their excellent 

work on the recent farm bill, but in particular I would like to single 

out the Chairwoman for her tremendous persistence and tireless efforts to pass this historic legislation. 

As executive director of the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance, I 

am partnering with many organizations, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to help to implement the farm bill 

and deliver conservation more effectively in Iowa. The Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance was launched in August of this year, and 

it was created by three leading Iowa agricultural associations: the 

Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean Association, and 

Iowa Pork Producers. 

The purpose of the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance is to increase 

the pace and scale of implementation of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Iowa Strategy, which was released in May 2013, 

is a science-based framework to assess nutrient loading and reduce 

the impacts of excessive nitrogen and phosphorous to Iowa waters 

and the Gulf of Mexico. The Iowa Strategy directs efforts to cost 

effectively reduce surface water nutrients from both point sources, 

such as wastewater treatment and industrial facilities, and 

nonpoint sources, such as farm fields. This coordinated approach 

between the point source and nonpoint source strategies allows for 

collaboration among agricultural, municipal, and industrial interests to meet the overall goals of the strategy in a cost-effective 

manner. 

The strategy calls for overall reductions of nitrogen and phosphorous loads to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico by at least 

45 percent, a 41-percent decrease in nitrogen and a 29-percent decrease in phosphorus from nonpoint sources, primarily from reducing nutrient loss in agricultural runoff. 

The strategy also calls for a 4-percent reduction of nitrogen and 

a 16-percent reduction in phosphorous from point sources. The 

strategy continues reliance on voluntary conservation activities for 

nonpoint runoff. 

There have recently been increasing calls to regulate agriculture 

under the Clean Water Act. Our current voluntary approach to private lands conservation is under increasing pressure and criticism. 

I personally believe that regulating nonpoint agricultural runoff in 

Iowa would be a very expensive and ineffective experiment due to 

both the scale and variability of agriculture in Iowa. 

The Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance is collaborating with many 

committed partners to pursue voluntary approaches to implementing the Iowa Strategy and reducing nutrient loss. 

Advancing the goals of the Iowa Strategy is a daunting challenge. It will take many committed partners and many years to realize 45-percent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorous in our waterways. It is important to remember that we have had a century 

and a half of impacts of agriculture on our water quality, and there 

is a great deal of ‘‘legacy’’ nutrients and sediment in our waterways. Yet Iowa farmers are committed to helping lead an effort 

based on sound science that will fulfill the goals of the strategy and 

14 

help to improve water quality both in Iowa and downstream to the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

It will take new revenue streams and partnerships with the private sector and municipalities to fully fund and implement the 

strategy. Public sector funding from NRCS and IDALS is important, but that alone is not adequate. We are engaging with additional private sector and public-private partnerships around nutrient stewardship, soil health, and sustainability to help promote 

conservation practices that improve water quality. 

As more producers understand that there is a strong value proposition inherent in conservation practices that improve productivity 

and profitability over time, adoption rates for those practices will 

increase dramatically. At the same time, additional funding is 

needed to incentivize structural practices that take land out of production. It will require a combination of in-field, edge-of-field, and 

in-stream practices to achieve the goals of the strategy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views before the 

Committee. I sincerely appreciate this Committee’s invaluable work 

to promote conservation on our Nation’s private lands and help 

America’s farmers to meet the growing domestic and international 

demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel in an increasingly sustainable 

manner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMahon can be found on page 

96 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much to each of you, 

and I think actually you have answered my first question, so I am 

going to go on from there and ask Ms. Duncanson, in the past you 

said that farmers need to step up and take the lead to address 

nonpoint water pollution, and I am wondering, as we look at ways 

to do that and encourage and support farmers and ranchers, can 

you describe the best ways to actually increase that participation? 

Ms. WEEKS DUNCANSON. It is an interesting question that you 

ask, and we are going to refer to something old in its practice 

called ‘‘peer pressure.’’ You know, farmers and ranchers across the 

country, our neighbors are our neighbors, and we oftentimes work 

together, but our neighbors are also our competitors. So we need 

to instill this culture of leadership amongst ourselves, and we have 

seen that done across the country. We just maybe have not celebrated it as much as we should and use that as a model as we 

work throughout our Nation in partnership with public and private 

sectors to move ahead with conservation as well as using resources 

for data collection and management at USDA while still keeping it 

private. 

So it can be done, and we are seeing it done, as my fellow witnesses today have talked about their areas of the country, but good 

old peer pressure does a lot. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. When you look at long-term financial 

benefits to implementing conservation practices, what do you see? 

You are running a farm in Minnesota. What are the impacts? Do 

you think that other producers understand the financial benefits? 

Ms. WEEKS DUNCANSON. You know, it is a story that needs to be 

told over and over again. Some do. Some have not gotten that far 

yet. But if we can build better organic matter in the soil, if our soil 

has better resilience against the changes in weather patterns, we 

15 

are more productive, therefore more profitable. Someone mentioned 

earlier it is the value versus the cost of conservation, always instilling that amongst producers that there really is an opportunity 

there. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mayor Collins, you are at the other end, so we are talking about 

practices that are important, involvement of farmers and ranchers 

in conservation practices and so on. You are at the other end 

where, in fact, there was a huge problem. I wonder if you could 

speak to the economic impacts of the drinking water ban on Toledo 

businesses, and what you saw. Hopefully this is not going to happen again and we are bringing resources to bear, but this was a 

huge issue for your city, your businesses, your residents. Talk 

about the economic impact. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. The economic im- pact was probably somewhere in the area of $2.2 to $2.5 million 

over that weekend. Now, one would say, ‘‘Well, how could that possibly be?’’ Well, basically, all of the products that were in supermarkets, grocery stores, and so forth, that required the water being 

put on, they were all destroyed as a result of—because of the residual impact. 

The restaurant/hospitality industry was totally compromised because they could not—in this situation, you could not boil the 

water, because if you boiled the water, the only thing you would 

do is you would enhance the microcystin, and that would just basically create another problem for you. So you could not do that. 

Now, honestly, what happened is, in Toledo, our Lucas County 

Emergency Management Program, they came out and said that you 

could not bathe, you could not—I mean, the prohibitions were totally off the wall, and they were not true. You could not consume, 

but for bathing purposes and for other purposes—you could not use 

the water to cook with. So basically that was where we were at. 

But in listening to the testimony—and I sincerely respect all of 

the testimony that was given—I am hearing just we need more 

time. I mean, when half a million people are subjected to the circumstances we were subjected to, when there was no consistency 

in terms of what test protocols were used, when we called for the 

Ohio EPA and we called for the U.S. EPA, and we called basically 

Homeland Security, we got no support from them. Homeland Security told us, ‘‘Oh, you have got to wait maybe 72 hours and call us 

back.’’ I mean, that was the type of response. 

Fortunately, in Toledo, we had a resilient community, and I had 

a great team, and we were able to get through it. But I honestly 

and truthfully believe that if we give this the debate and it stops 

there, what are we going to say to the next community that goes 

through this? 

I am asking realistically for an Executive order, and I understand in Washington, DC, right now Executive orders are sort of— 

it is considered by some a placebo, and it is considered by others 

a poison. But I really and truly believe that it is going to take the 

full force of our Government and Canada to evaluate this very important set of circumstances. 

We in Toledo, we process 26 billion gallons of water a year from 

this body of water that I am talking about that was compromised. 

16 

So imagine the impact it has on this Nation. I am not suggesting 

that it is an agricultural issue singularly. I would not suggest that. 

But I really think that the full force of our Government should be 

looked upon to participate with Canada and participate with the 

States that are there and the communities. 

Really and truly, do not give this lip service. When I made the 

statement it is the canary in the coal mine, I am very sincere with 

that statement. If you have not lived through it—and I would pray 

that no one ever does—you will not have a true appreciation of 

what it is like when you are in a position of leadership and you 

have half a million people asking you for explanations. 

Most of the explanations you have to offer them are not available 

because there is no availability to even scientific research to advance. So you are just asking them to have faith and to hope that 

they will indeed—and why it turned out the way it did I cannot 

explain. Our crimes of violence went down. Our crimes against 

property went down. The community came out, and I saw high 

school kids and college kids standing the way we designed our distribution centers. 

I will end by saying this: When I walked into that command center that morning at 1 o’clock on that Saturday, there was not one 

document—not one document from anywhere—that would give us 

a recipe as to how to handle this. We did this strictly off the seat 

of our pants, quite honestly. That should never happen again either. With all the money that is spent on Homeland Security, to 

have a complete water system compromised and not have any investment in that, in my opinion, is—it just does not make good 

sense. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. I know this was 

a horrendous situation to be in, and so we appreciate your being 

here and really in stark terms talking about the reality of what 

happens if we do not get this right in terms of water quality initiatives and so on. So thank you very much. 

My time is past. I am going to turn now to Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous 

consent to include a letter and materials from the Fertilizer Institute in the hearing record today. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

[The following information can be found on page 144 in the appendix.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. I would second what the Chairman said, Mr. 

Collins, in regard to what you all went through. The good news is 

I am excited that, despite that, we really are hearing a lot of positive things that people in agriculture, people in development across 

the board really are starting to get this, and we really are seeing 

significant improvement. 

Dr. Matlock, can you explain the value of technology and innovation in making conservation efforts more effective? Maybe you 

could give us some examples of technology and some of the innovative things that you have seen. 

Mr. MATLOCK. Absolutely, Senator, and I absolutely agree with 

the mayor’s assertion that we need to understand our ecosystems 

that we depend on more effectively, and I absolutely agree with the 

17 

assertion that we are too fragmented in our ability to understand 

and then manage those ecosystems. 

The technologies that we are seeing emerge at this very moment 

allow us to know better what is happening around us. These are 

sentinel technologies associated with remote sensing, either from 

aerial platforms or even low-altitude microsatellite platforms. Our 

ability to actually track what is happening on the landscape has 

improved over the last year. It is happening that fast, and it was 

transformed the way we understand the landscape because we will 

be able to see the landscape real time in very short order. That 

means anywhere on the landscape, not just in very targeted areas. 

That means our ability to understand sources and causality will 

improve. The technology for tracking impacts in water quality, our 

sensors technology, are improving, so we can measure—we do not 

have to—we are getting to the point where we do not have to go 

into the river and collect a sample, take it back to the lab, and analyze it and wait for 3 to 5 days before we understand what is happening. We can track that and record those processes real-time, 

which means we can intervene when there is an emerging problem 

earlier. 

Algal blooms are ripe for detection with remotely sensed technologies, and then the problem is we do not know how to interdict 

them. We do not know what to do to prevent them. As the mayor 

said, we have much to learn, but our ability to understand is really 

limited by our ability to know what is happening. Our ability to 

know what is happening has expanded because it is so much 

cheaper now to deploy technologies, sentinel technologies. It is happening on the landscape. Farmers have soil moisture sensors that 

were unimaginable in their sensitivity 10 years ago that they are 

using every day, and they are almost throwaway. They almost plow 

them over because they are that cheap. So that is sort of—and the 

telemetry of those technologies is increasing, too, so they are BlueTooth connected to a data logger. So that is the sort of opportunity 

we have for continued improvement. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I know I was really amazed this past summer, 

when we were on lots of farms, at the use of drones that could— 

low flying, that could gauge whether or not one area was not getting irrigation versus another or too much irrigating just making 

all that very, very effective, pesticide use, the whole bit. So that is 

great. 

Ms. Fisher, how does uncertainty impact the participation of producers in long-term programs like EQIP? 

Ms. FISHER. Certainty is needed because what we want to make 

sure that we always have in place is, as best we can, what is a 

known playing field on the conservation practices and programs 

that are available, because these take—just like you heard us all 

say, these take time to implement and to get into place and then 

to demonstrate the success. 

What we have been explaining to you today, and as a former 

farmer herself, I would share with you we are talking about saving 

fuel costs, we are talking about saving fertilizer costs, we are talking about saving labor costs, just the improved technology of the 

irrigation system itself, which is another one of the NRCS practices. 

18 

So you have this wonderful paradigm where you have conservation and saving money and efficiency on the farm, and in Mississippi, we have been able to demonstrate those cost savings multiple times over, and then now taking that and replicating that 

across our State and showing and demonstrating how it does make 

a difference on the bottom line, which was recognized it is such a 

risky industry that when you can have any cost savings, and in the 

name of conservation, it is a wonderful opportunity. 

But certainty is—anything that we can do through our programs 

to add that certainty and have those programs stay in place is of 

great value. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Can I ask one more thing? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Dr. Matlock, and then anybody else that 

would like to jump in on this after he gets through, tell me about 

your views on nutrient trading and why it has not become more 

widely used. 

Mr. MATLOCK. I am absolutely happy to share my views on nutrient trading. I am on record with this in many cases. 

I think nutrient trading offers the best opportunity—nutrient 

trading gives the ability for regulated point sources who are permitted under MPDS programs, under the Clean Water Act, to engage in a collaboration with other members in the watershed who 

have effects on water quality to collaboratively improve water quality through shared costs and other practices that could reduce overall loads of nitrogen, phosphorous, organic matter, sediment to a 

system and do it in a more cost-effective and, frankly, more sustained manner. 

Right now, the challenge is that the uncertainty about who actually is regulated under those frameworks prohibits engagement. 

Landowners are reluctant to engaged in a process where they do 

not understand the regulatory risks they are engaging in. If it is 

a simple contractual relationship, landowners are engaging in contracts every day. Contracts are enforceable and have remedies if 

there is a violation. Regulations are a new world for most farmers 

in that Clean Water Act framework, and I can tell you they do not 

want any part of it, and that is the biggest limitation, that fear 

that they become a regulated body under the Clean Water Act 

through EPA, an organization which they have no historic relationship with. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Anybody else? 

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, if I may attempt to answer that as well, in 

Iowa we are seeing a number of cities, such as Dubuque, Storm 

Lake, Charles City, and Cedar Rapids, express interest in having 

a framework that EPA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources would approve, which would allow those cities to get credit 

for paying for conservation practices that farmers and other private 

landowners could implement. 

It would not necessarily have to be a trading framework, but it 

is essentially that same thing. You have cities where, if they are 

going to have additional permit requirements to reduce their nitrogen and phosphorous, those cities are realizing that they can do so 

more cost effectively by partnering with private landowners on 

19 

green infrastructure than if they were entirely to pay for gray infrastructure, very expensive capital investments. 

However, there is uncertainty right now, as Marty just said, regarding the regulatory framework, and it is not clear that those cities would actually get credit for making those investments. So we 

do need to provide more clarity to enable, in particular, those 

wastewater utilities and municipal ratepayers to be able to get 

credit for making investments for upstream or downstream conservation practices throughout those same watersheds. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. 

I just have one final question. Then we need to move on to our 

second panel. Mr. McMahon, when you were talking about the programs and what you are doing through the alliance, which is really 

terrific, I am wondering how you plan to measure results in terms 

of successful strategies so that they can be replicated and used in 

other areas. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Well, thank you for the question. So there are a 

number of indicators we will be looking at right up front, and one 

of the most important ones is adoption of conservation practices. 

We need to measure increased adoption of conservation practices in 

terms of acres. 

For the in-field practices where we believe there is a strong value 

proposition for producers, for practices like improved nutrient management, no-till, strip-till, and cover crops, we are looking to really 

increase those practices throughout the entire State, essentially 

taking a blanket approach for those practices. 

For the practices that are more expensive and take agricultural 

land out of production, we are going to need to be more targeted 

about that, so we will not have the same amount of acreage increases for those practices. Some of those practices are the most effective at improving water quality, in particular, edge-of-field practices like nutrient treatment wetlands, bioreactors, saturated buffers, and stabilizing stream banks. For those practices, it will take 

additional incentives for farmers to want to adopt those, but those 

are some of the best practices for removing nitrogen and phosphorous. 

Another measure is going to be the investment for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. We can already measure what is going 

on through the NRCS and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and 

Land Stewardship cost-share programs. We don’t have a good handle on the private sector investment—how many acres are producers putting practices in place with no cost share whatsoever. 

We are seeing increasing amounts of that in terms of cover crops 

and nutrient management and conservation tillage, for instance. 

Then ultimately the biggest and most important indicator is 

going to be water quality. We want to see more than just the modeled load reductions. We want to actually see the needle move in 

terms of improved water quality and not just at the edge of field 

scale, but at the watershed scale. 

Now, it is going to take years to do that, so we have to be patient, but ultimately, improving water quality is what this strategy 

and the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance are all about. 

20 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, and thanks to all 

of you very much for the work that you are doing. Again, we see 

strategies happening. We have increased those tools and strategies 

in the farm bill. We know that there is a sense of urgency, as the 

mayor can say, as we look at what needs to be done in a number 

of ways to address this. But we do know that long term, as well 

as short term, that our farmers and ranchers have a very important role to play in this and that each of you are involved in helping to make that happen. 

So thank you very much, and thank you for your patience today, 

and we look forward to working more with you. 

We will ask Mr. Jason Weller to come forward. Good morning. 

Well, it is actually not morning anymore. Good afternoon. 

Mr. WELLER. Good afternoon. 

[Pause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, good afternoon. We appreciate 

your patience as well today, and we want very much to hear from 

you, in your position as Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. You have been there since July 2013. We very much 

appreciate the work that you are doing. 

Chief Weller oversees a staff of more than 10,000 employees 

across the country who work to protect the environment, preserve 

our natural resources, and improve agricultural sustainability 

through voluntary private lands conservation. Chief Weller has 

also done an outstanding job over the last several months implementing the Conservation Title of the farm bill, and we appreciate 

our great working relationship. 

He is a native Californian who worked for the California Legislature prior to moving to Washington, DC, where he worked on conservation policy in a number of roles at the White House Office of 

Management and Budget, the House Budget Committee, the House 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. Prior to being appointed Chief of NRCS, he served as chief of staff to the former 

Chief, Dave White. 

So thank you very much for being here, and we would like very 

much to hear from you and have a couple questions. 

STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman Stabenow and 

members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. 

If I may—and hopefully you have a little presentation packet in 

front of you—instead of just talking to you, I would rather actually 

talk with you and talk a little bit about who we are, the type of 

practices, and use some visuals to actually hopefully articulate 

what it is that we do with farmers and ranchers. But first let me 

just say how proud I am to serve NRCS and represent the 10,500 

men and women who work across the landscape to work collaboratively with farmers and ranchers. Let me also say how appreciative we are at NRCS for the authorities, the tools, and the resources, Chairwoman Stabenow, you and the Committee have provided us. We are doing a lot of great work, and we are very excited 

21 

about what we are also going to be able to deliver for farmers and 

ranchers with the additional resources you have given us through 

this new farm bill. 

Also, let me just state right up front, kind of a definition of what 

is sustainable agriculture. The bottom-line definition for me is 

NRCS is only successful if the farmer is successful. That means we 

are helping them be economically successful. That for me is the ultimate litmus test. We want these family operations, these family 

businesses, to be in business not just this year or next year. We 

want them to be in business generations from now. 

So the conservation practices we offer to them have to work economically, have to help their bottom line, and, of course, also address the sustainable use of their resources, their soil and their 

water resources, so they can grow the feed and fiber that is part 

of their business, that we as society rely upon. 

So we are very focused on sustainable agriculture, sustaining 

those families, sustaining those businesses, because the best use of 

those lands are actually working lands. You talk to our colleagues 

in the Environmental Protection Agency, and they will say for the 

Chesapeake Bay the best land use for the bay, if you care about 

the bay health, is actually agriculture. They want those lands in 

working agriculture, because when those lands are lost, converted 

to other uses, per acre the urban use of those lands is way more 

polluting per acre than a pasture or crop field or a forest ever will 

be. 

So with that, let me just kind of quickly go through, and I will 

try and keep it under 38 minutes or so. I will be really quick here. 

First, the second slide here is really an overview. EPA produced 

a report last year that talked about the economic—actually the biologic condition of the rivers and streams in the United States. It 

turns out, according to EPA, 55 percent of rivers and streams in 

the U.S. are actually in poor condition, really highlighting the real 

challenge we face addressing not just the quality but also the quantity of the waters upon which we all rely, whether for recreation, 

for municipal water supply, for ag production, for industrial use. 

Turning the page, the central focus, though, for us at NRCS is, 

across the Lower 48, 70 percent of the land is privately owned; 88 

percent of the waters of the U.S. come off of private lands. So if 

you care about the condition of the environment, the availability of 

water, for whatever purpose, you really have to then think about 

working with those millions of landowners and the decisions they 

make on a daily basis which will affect the ultimate quality of our 

waters and the availability of our waters. We at NRCS believe that 

ultimately a collaborative, voluntary, incentive-based approach is 

the most effective. 

So turning the slide, in terms of planning, if we rewind the tape 

a little bit about 80 years, when our agency was created by President Roosevelt in 1935, at the height of the Dust Bowl, one of the 

worst ecological disasters in the Nation we ever faced, what we 

were created to do was to provide technical assistance, to provide 

planning advice to a farmer or rancher. 

So we worked through a nine-step planning process where we 

helped convey our expertise in agronomy, in nutrient management, 

in engineering expertise, and provided options to a landowner to 

22 

then make changes in the management of their land to ultimately 

benefit their economic bottom line, but also to protect their soil and 

water resources. So it is a three-phase approach where we first assess the operation. We work collaboratively with that farmer or 

rancher. What are their business objectives? What do they really 

want to achieve in their operation? We create options, and then 

with the producer we arrive at the solution we want to pursue, and 

then we implement and evaluate. 

Turning the page, Slide 5, in terms of conservation practices, we 

have over 160 practice standards at NRCS. We believe they are 

some of the best standards for conservation anywhere in the world. 

They are peer reviewed. They are constantly updated. These are 

examples—you see some visuals from the top left there of no-till 

operations, to grassed waterways, to prescribed grazing practices, 

to the injection of manure, to strip-cropping, to even helping producers manage their manure for economic benefit, in this case putting roofing structures and the heavy use pads for manure management purposes. 

Slide 6, what we have also learned is that there is no one silver 

bullet. There is no one practice that will deliver the results for a 

farmer. It is really a suite of practices, a system working together, 

and that system for water quality purposes we called ‘‘ACT,’’ A–CT, avoid, control, trap. So you really want to avoid risk, the loss 

of those valuable nutrients and sediments from the farm field. To 

the extent then where you are applying the fertilizers, you are 

managing your soils, you also want to control the movement of 

water so you are hopefully not transporting the sediments and 

those inputs off the farm. Then you also have the last line of defense, you have practices that trap the waters, the sediments, and 

the nutrients before they leave the farm field, whether that is surface flow or subsurface flow. 

Slide 7 are a couple of shots, examples of these ACT practices. 

For example, it is the precision application of fertilizer when the 

crops need it, so you are optimizing your use of fertilizer. It is also 

then farming on the contour using tillage practices, the strip-cropping like you see on the bottom left, and ultimately the trapping 

practices like buffers you see there protecting waterways. 

Slide 8, in terms of the overall investment that this Committee 

has provided us from the last farm bill through 2014, over 6 years, 

in just water quality alone we helped put in place 727,000 practices 

across the United States, total investment from the Federal side of 

$3.4 billion that then leveraged—because these are cost-share practices, that leveraged upwards of an additional $3.4 billion from 

landowners themselves, total investment close to $7 billion in conservation action across the United States just in 6 years focused on 

water quality. 

What do those practices look like? Slide 9, these are the top practices that we have put in place in terms of acreage, so the top practices being, for example, prescribed grazing, nutrient management, 

integrated pest management, and cover crops. 

Slide 10, in terms of the overall investment in terms of dollar, 

really focusing very heavily on irrigation water management to 

help producers be hyper-efficient with their use of water. That is 

really good for them optimizing their yield, but also reducing the 

23 

risk of loss of that water off the farm field, as well as brush management and cover crops. 

Slide 11, so what do all these practices mean? So we have a really sophisticated, among the world’s most sophisticated model to actually estimate what happens when you put all these practices in 

place. It is great to talk dollars and acres. What does that translate 

into? 

So, for example, in the Chesapeake Bay, what we learned over 

a period of 5 years, through a voluntary, collaborative approach, 

through the investments of NRCS and our partners at the State 

level, through the NGO and philanthropic communities, and farmers themselves made, they helped produce tremendous reductions 

in losses of sediment and nutrients off their farm fields just in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

So, for example, between 2006 and 2011, because of conservation 

systems farmers put in place, they reduced losses of sediment by 

an additional 62 percent. That translates into 15.1 million metric 

tons of sediment that are now no longer flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. If you were to put that on a train, you would fill a train 

150,000 rail cars long that would stretch from Washington, DC, to 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, that are now no longer flowing into the 

Chesapeake Bay. That is the power of voluntary, collaborative, incentive-based conservation. 

Slide 12, we think, what the science is telling us, the targeted 

approach works really well, particularly on a regional approach. 

These are some examples of these landscape initiatives we have 

launched in the last 5 to 6 years. They are focusing on large watersheds. We will never have enough money, for example, to treat 

every acre in the Mississippi River Basin. But through a collaborative approach, we work with farmers, commodity associations, 

State Departments of Environmental Quality, State Departments 

of Agriculture, Soil and Water Conservation Districts. We identify 

key priority areas where we can focus, leverage together resources, 

and co-invest together to deliver results for farmers. 

In the Mississippi River Basin, we identified around 50 high-priority watersheds across the whole basin, and NRCS, we invested 

about $327 million over 5 years. That leveraged an additional $20 

million from non-Federal sources. It brought in 600 partners, and 

they then contributed upwards of 500 additional staff years to help 

get voluntary conservation implemented and on the ground just in 

the Mississippi River Basin. 

Slide 13, sometimes the best conservation is actually the most 

beautiful conservation, so I want to just show some examples of before and after—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I am going to ask, just in the interest 

of time, so we can get questions in—because these are great pictures, but if we could move through the pictures quickly, and then 

I will ask you to wrap up. 

Mr. WELLER. Absolutely. So I will let them speak for themselves. 

You see examples from Iowa, from Michigan, from Mississippi, and 

from Vermont as well. We also have success stories. Just for the 

sake of time here, I will end with this one success story here from 

Arkansas. This is the St. Francis River, so beyond modeling results, we actually can monitor and actually demonstrate actual inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:20 May 27, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\94365.TXT MICAH
24 

stream results. So a lot of States are investing very mightily in the 

in-stream water quality monitoring that the previous panel talked 

about. In this case, streams like the St. Francis River were listed 

under the Clean Water Act as being impaired, so it was a collaborative, voluntary approach where producers co-invested their resources with our resources and partners, and because of the investments we made, we were able to de-list streams like the St. 

Francis River, reaches of this river, in Arkansas. We have examples of this across the country, from South Dakota to Oklahoma to 

Washington State and Arkansas itself. 

So, with that, Madam Chair, I will cease and desist, and I am 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller can be found on page 106 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. That was excellent. You covered a lot of ground in a few minutes, and it was very, 

very important. I do think the very last slide, let me just underscore that the new Regional Conservation Partnership that we 

have put into place, are very excited about, the sign-up resulted in 

600 different proposals around the country, requests for $2.8 billion 

in funding, and we have about $400 million that will be available. 

So, clearly, this is something people want, local approaches, strategies, and so we look forward to working with you. 

I want to ask you something that follows the first panel because 

the mayor of Toledo, who is at the other end of this where they actually had to ban the use of the water, and the algae blooms, and 

it was just really a horrendous situation that occurred this summer. We know that dissolved phosphorous is the primary culprit in 

creating toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie and in water bodies 

around the Nation. We know that conservation practices, some 

work better than others as it relates to this. I wondered if you 

could talk about the farm bill conservation programs, how they 

could tackle this specific issue, and talk about the combination of 

practices that NRCS has to specifically target phosphorous reduction and how it is different from nitrogen and other issues. But 

when we look at this particular thing, what do you think are the 

best available tools that we have to help in this situation? 

Mr. WELLER. So it starts with sort of where I began a little bit 

and with what the previous panel talked about as well. There is 

no one single silver bullet that will solve this. Also you have to 

take into account there is no one approach that works. You really 

have to start locally. Each river basin, each watershed has its own 

unique characteristics—its own climate, its own cropping systems, 

its own soils, its own topography. 

So what we are learning about the Western Lake Erie Basin is 

it is obviously very unique from some other basins in the country, 

the types of soils, the types of practices, the topography. Ultimately, yes, phosphorous is one of the main contributors to the 

algal problems in Lake Erie itself. 

So in terms of what are the best practices, it comes back to that 

suite of practices working together. Producers, what we have 

learned from our studies and what other studies have shown, they 

have done a really admirable job of reducing risk of loss from surface flows. So they have done a great job. There is an expanse of 

25 

no-till and conservation tilled systems. Increasingly we are promoting cover crops and other practices. They have done a great job 

of buffering their fields and protecting stream surface flows. 

But what we as an agency—this is not just in Western Lake Erie 

Basin. Nationally, what we have also learned is that as an agency 

we very much have been focused on surface loss. Increasingly we 

realized we really also have to account for subsurface loss. 

So what really then is going to be a suite of practices working 

together, starting with nutrient management, and this is something the industry is very much focused on and working collaboratively with us, with land grant universities, and with ag retailers 

in the basin itself, is really promoting the four R’s of good nutrient 

management, helping producers optimize their use of fertilizers 

and applying fertilizers at the right rate, the right source, the right 

time, the right method. That is one. 

There is the surface soil loss practices I have talked about—cover 

crops, good tillage practices, good residue management practices, 

buffering practices. 

But also then looking at the subsurface drainage, and so 87 percent of the cropland acres in Western Lake Erie Basin are tile 

drained. So it is looking at the management and helping producers 

become really effective at managing their surface flow, subsurface 

flows, for example, putting in drainage water management practices like control structures, bioreactors, and saturated buffers, 

other different tools that they can then utilize, for the subsurface 

flow, the water they have in their tile lines, for hopefully retaining 

the valuable nutrients that are in those waters, holding those 

waters in place when crops need them, getting the water out of the 

fields when they need to get in their fields for planting or for harvest purposes, but really trying to ensure that the crops gets access 

to those valuable nutrients when the crops need it to grow grain, 

ultimately then reducing the risk of loss from both surface and subsurface flow into surface waters. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chief Weller, as I said earlier, I am really excited about the testimony of the first panel and then your testimony also. I was on the 

Water Resources panel in the House and now Ranking on Water 

here in the Senate on EPW, and it is exciting. You know, it seems 

like all aspects of industry farming, mining, the whole bit, really 

are understanding the impact and understanding that they are 

going to have to get serious, and so that is a great thing. 

I guess my concern is, you have all of these positive voluntary 

things. My concern is when you do something like Waters of the 

United States, which is so controversial, and there is going to be 

significant costs involved, what is that going to do to the voluntary 

programs? What is that going to do to the progress that we have 

made so far? 

Mr. WELLER. So we have heard at USDA absolutely concerns 

from many stakeholders about the proposed rule. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I guess over a million. 

Mr. WELLER. A million comments it is my understanding that 

EPA has received and the Army Corps have received on the proVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:20 May 27, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\94365.TXT MICAH
26 

posed rule, yes. I know that the comment period may have 

closed—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Most of them negative. 

Mr. WELLER. Yes, I will defer to EPA and the Corps to characterize—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. You have been around for a while. 

Mr. WELLER. Yes, I know from farming, particularly also they 

are concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed rule, and 

we are as well concerned about the potential disincentives for folks 

to want to participate in programs. We really feel, though, from our 

agency standpoint that the voluntary, collaborative approach is 

very much effective, and our intent is to be there working with producers since actually one of the purposes of EQIP itself is to help 

producers either address or obviate the need for regulation, whether that is the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, or the 

Clean Air Act. 

So we really view ourselves as the shield arm if not the sword 

arm in many cases for producers to help them address the regulatory pressures they either are experiencing or may experience. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, I would agree, we need to really concentrate on the voluntary programs, which, again, it seems like 

from the testimony today and what we are seeing out in the field 

with increased technology that was testified also, that we really are 

making tremendous headway. You mentioned the analogy, which I 

will use, with the boxcars is great. You know, we really ought to 

get some things done. 

Again—and I will my close with this—my concern is—and I am 

very much opposed to the Waters of the U.S. because—for a number of different reasons, but also, after hearing today’s testimony, 

I think that is something that really would be very detrimental to 

these types of programs also. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Now the Chair of our Conservation Subcommittee, Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. Thank you very much for holding 

this hearing, Madam Chair, and the opportunity to ask questions. 

Chief Weller, thank you for your service and your testimony. You 

talked about voluntary, collaborative incentive-based conservation 

in your testimony, and I wholeheartedly agree that is where we 

ought to head. It was the reason I was so excited to work with 

members of this Committee in a bipartisan fashion to craft the 

farm bill’s Conservation Title. Notwithstanding the spirit in which 

that piece of legislation was drafted, we have heard very severe 

concerns from Colorado about NRCS’ implementation of the new 

Agricultural Land Easement Program. Farmers and ranchers in 

Colorado, rightly believe that they had a huge hand in writing 

these provisions to begin with, because they did. They literally 

helped write many of the provisions in the title. Now they have the 

sense that their will and the will of this Committee is being diluted 

by legal interpretations and bureaucracy at USDA. 

One quick example. I visited the Yust Ranch outside Kremlin, 

Colorado, this summer, a beautiful property, the confluence of the 

Blue River and the Colorado River, that the Colorado Cattlemen’s 

27 

Agricultural Land Trust worked hard to cover with an easement. 

At the 11th hour, before the deal was finalized, NRCS came in and 

told the Land Trust they needed to secure a right-of-way over adjacent BLM land, despite the fact that a new right-of-way could not 

be established because BLM is the owner. The ranch felt that this 

NRCS requirement was a solution in search of a problem. I would 

say that is polite. 

In the end, NRCS did grant a waiver at the very end, which I 

appreciate, the requirement for the Yust deal, but what I want to 

convey to you is that the legal interpretation made no sense to anybody that had anything to do with drafting the legislation, including the Cattlemen’s Land Trust. Beyond these right-of-way concerns, we are also concerned about the new rules to govern the 

easement program and the decreases in funding that Congress allotted for this program, a concern that a lot of that is being spent 

on overhead and on NRCS’ own programs and not to help farmers 

and ranchers, producers, stay on their land and put their land into 

voluntary easements. 

So with all that in mind, could you talk to us a little bit about 

what NRCS is doing to ensure that the Conservation Title actually 

works as intended and efficiently for our farmers and ranchers on 

the ground? Will you please pledge to work with me and other 

members of the Committee to rectify some of the deficiencies that 

we are hearing about? This is happening in real time in our States, 

and I would really appreciate a response. 

Mr. WELLER. So let me start with the affirmative. Absolutely I 

would be willing to work with you and your staff and stakeholders 

in Colorado, but also in any State that has concerns about our delivery of the program. It is very concerning to me that there is a 

perception or a real experience about additional bureaucracy. If 

there is anything, we need to reduce that and get out of the way. 

In the example you provided, having a provider secure access over 

public lands, we are taking a hard look at that and trying to apply 

a little bit of country common sense, and so we are going to be updating that and fixing that. 

Senator BENNET. I would say just on that point that, at least to 

my mind, the interpretation in that case or the requirement— 

which was not a requirement that any Federal agency, any other 

Federal agency has ever required of any landowner that I am 

aware of in our State, because it would be impossible to do it—is 

exactly a piece with the legal interpretation that your general 

counsel office is promoting with respect to these provisions. So I 

just want to make sure you are not left with the impression that 

this was a one-time problem. 

Mr. WELLER. Absolutely. I am aware of this not just in this one 

example. Particularly with the checkerboard pattern of landownership throughout the West, this is a problem that we need to fix, 

and we are going to fix it. 

Senator BENNET. I would say thank you for appreciating that. A 

lot of what we were trying to do with this legislation, at least in 

my mind, was have a Western perspective actually inform the farm 

bill when it came to conservation. You mentioned in your opening 

testimony the importance not just of water quality but of water 

quantity. That is a huge issue for us as well. 

28 

So I just want to volunteer to be at your disposal as you look at 

this to make sure that we are getting to the outcome that our farmers and ranchers really expected us to achieve. 

Mr. WELLER. So we also have been—we have not been idle over 

the last several months. With the farm bill passing in February, we 

had to get the Agricultural Land Easement Program up and running in a matter of months. But in the interim, we have been working with land trusts, different conservancy groups, State agencies 

to try and understand—in part what we know was a little bit of 

a shotgun marriage coming out this summer, the new Agricultural 

Land Easement Program. Right now we are finalizing our regulations, and I would be happy to visit with you or your staff as we 

are finalizing those regulations just to update you as to kind of 

where we are. 

Senator BENNET. That would be great, and I would also volunteer to give you the names of some people in Colorado that I think 

you ought to talk to. 

Mr. WELLER. I would welcome that. 

Senator BENNET. Good. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Roberts, our soon-to-be Chairman, if I give him the 

gavel. We may wrestle for that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Things will not change much. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding the hearing on this 

important topic, and, Chief Weller, welcome. I have noted with interest your background in the House on the Appropriations Committee, then the White House on the budget, and that obviously 

gave you a good background for all of this. Some of this gets pretty 

specific, to say the least. 

My statement says voluntary conservation programs are talked 

about in shops all across Kansas not only as a way to protect viable 

land and water resources, but also for the ability of farmers and 

ranchers to continue operating. That is why you mentioned that 

you are the shield to protect producers from regulations that exceed the cost-benefit yardstick. 

There is, however, a palpable fear, particularly in the western 

part of my State, that the Federal Government is already too close 

to mandating how cattlemen raise livestock, how and where farmers can plant crops, whether or not they will be allowed to pass 

their family businesses to the next generation. 

One of the perceived threats is the listing of the lesser prairie 

chicken as a threatened species, which you, I think, mentioned. 

Many Kansans, including myself, believe that the listing decision 

was unwarranted, especially during a tough drought, when voluntary conservation efforts were already underway to increase population of the species. That drought lasted 3 years. We are still 

short on rain. 

In February, Congress required the Department to conduct a 90- 

day review and an analysis on all efforts that pertain to the conservation of the bird, including the Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative, CRP, and EQIP. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

29 

the Department of Interior I know oversees and enforces the Endangered Species Act, the Department and the NRCS have many 

of the tools and the voluntary programs that could and should have 

prevented a listing. 

Now, earlier this year, the Department publicly stated that the 

report on the effectiveness of the Lesser Prairie Chicken Conservation Programs would be submitted to Congress the week of May 

the 5th. I know you are busy down there, but that was nearly 7 

months ago. The absence of the report has caused additional frustration with a lack of transparency between the public and the 

Federal Government. 

So my question is: Why has the report not been submitted to the 

Congress? Who or what is holding it back? When will the USDA 

finally release it? 

Mr. WELLER. So the lesser prairie chicken has been a focus of our 

agency now for many years. We have created a landscape initiative 

just very much focused on the lesser prairie chicken, and we have 

tried to target our resources to help—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, where is the report? 

Mr. WELLER. The report is still in departmental clearance, I am 

afraid to say, and it should be released imminently. It has been finalized by our agency, and it—— 

Senator ROBERTS. What is ‘‘imminently’’? A couple of weeks? 

Mr. WELLER. Hopefully within the next week to 2 weeks. 

Senator ROBERTS. Within the next week, good. Well, that is good 

news. 

In a similar vein, do you have any update on the effectiveness 

of the NRCS-run Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative, i.e., are populations of the bird increasing? We hear they are. 

Mr. WELLER. We hear anecdotally that, yes, they are, so we have, as I said, this initiative where we focused close to $30 million to 

work with ranchers and farmers to put in place practices. Those 

practices have treated over a million acres in the core area for the 

lesser prairie chicken, and we think it is having a very beneficial 

impact on the populations in these core areas where we have targeted the resources. So we think it is working. 

Senator ROBERTS. Let me move to the waters of the United 

States that Senator Boozman mentioned. Nine Senators met with 

the Administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, on the final day of 

the Congress before we adjourned—well, we did not adjourn, we 

are back. But at any rate, we really basically just asked her why 

we cannot roll back these regulations. While voluntary conservation measures are popular in Kansas to preserve and improve our 

water quality and availability, the EPA’s proposed Waters of the 

United States is a major concern. I just attended the annual Farm 

Bureau dinner, about 1,000 farmers out in Kansas. That was the 

number one issue, lesser prairie chicken number two. You would 

think it would be a lot of other things, but that is just the way it 

was. I was disappointed that the Department and the NRCS were 

involved with the EPA’s efforts through this additional interpretive 

rule. I want you to cooperate, and I want you to communicate, 

more especially with lesser prairie chicken, and that is good. But 

the interpretive rule has created confusion among the countryside, 

singling out 56 NRCS technical standards as qualifying for exempVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:20 May 27, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\94365.TXT MICAH
30 

tions. Now, I would defy any farmer, their CPA, or any farm organization to try to wade through those 56 and make sense out of it 

to the degree that they feel that they are doing things the right 

way according to the NRCS. 

The Clean Water Act already exempts normal farming and 

ranching activities from many of the permitting requirements, so 

basically why did the NRCS spell out 56 exemptions when the law 

already has one? 

Mr. WELLER. So the intent was, I think, a good one. Unfortunately, I know there have been a lot of concerns raised by stakeholders here in Congress as well as among our farming and ranching stakeholders. It was a process that NRCS, sitting down with 

the Army Corps and EPA, identified practices, activities that occur, 

may occur in the Waters of the U.S. These are not upland practices. In these cases, they could be like stream crossings, actual 

wetland restorations themselves, where, when producers have had 

to get permits, in some cases it has taken months or years to get 

a permit; or as an agency, we have had to invest hundreds of hours 

of staff time trying to get a permit to do a 0.8 acre wetland restoration. 

So the intent was to streamline those activities that actually 

occur in the Waters of the U.S., to not have to go through a permitting process. But that said, as has been pointed out previously, a 

lot of stakeholders were very much concerned about both the proposed rule as well as the interpretive rule that EPA and the Army 

Corps promulgated and produced. I understand that EPA and the 

Army Corps are very carefully considering options on how to address concerns on the interpretive rule. 

Senator ROBERTS. So that has still not been finalized with regards to the 56 as opposed to one. My question I think has already 

been answered, and I am over time, and I apologize to my colleagues. Who wanted the clarification of the exemptions? Before 

this rule, the farmers in my State certainly were not asking for it. 

Mr. WELLER. I think we have heard from our customers themselves, and a lot of this then is, I think, variability between Corps 

districts. There are some Corps districts that have a very strict interpretation, and there are other Corps districts that do not. 

Senator ROBERTS. Will you consider withdrawing the interpretive 

rule and any guidance already issued until the full Waters of the 

United States rule is finalized? 

Mr. WELLER. I defer to EPA and Army Corps on what they ultimately want to do, but, yes, that is one of the options that are 

being considered. 

Senator ROBERTS. What do you think about that? 

Mr. WELLER. I think we need to take very close heed and pay attention to the concerns from farmers in this confusion that the interpretive rule unfortunately has created, and if anything, it needs 

to be simplified so that it’s a little more clear as to what the intent 

was and what the benefits are. 

Senator ROBERTS. Are changes to the interpretive rule or guidance, are you considering all the comments you have received? Because you have received a bunch, I know. 

31 

Mr. WELLER. Yes. I know, absolutely, EPA and the Army Corps 

are considering the comments they have received, over a million 

comments on the proposal. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Donnelly? 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chief Weller, thank you for being here. I am from Indiana. I am 

a huge supporter of cover crops, our State is, a huge supporter of 

clean waterways, good agricultural management by our farm and 

agriculture community. In my time, I have never seen our waters 

cleaner in our State. Yet, no one wants cleaner waters than the 

farmers who live right there on the farm with their own children, 

their own family there. There is a real feeling, I think, in our ag 

community of what has become an us-against-them situation in regards to the Waters of the United States, that our farmers feel we 

work nonstop every single day to voluntarily comply to make our 

waters cleaner, to make things better. All we hear is more Government regulation. 

I think what has happened is those actions have lost the confidence of our ag community, that they sit and work every single 

day to make our waters cleaner and say all we do is get more hassles every day. So where is the connection between the voluntary 

actions we are taking, the reality of what is going on in our State 

and I am sure other States, and where Government regulations 

have gone? 

Specifically, I also want to ask you about one of the things that 

has struck me the most were concerns from conservation supporters that the interpretive rule may actually have a negative impact on producers’ implementing conservation practices. Many Hoosier farmers have said they were unaware conservation practices 

trigger Clean Water Act permitting requirements, and by creating 

specific exemptions, an assumption has been created without a 

State exemption other practices requiring a CWA permit before 

being implemented. Did you think about this consequence and 

about what would happen? 

Mr. WELLER. I know there was a lot of careful consideration put 

into the interpretive rule, and there are experiences in other States 

where producers want to put in place practices, and they have had 

to go through a permitting process that has been in some cases 

pretty difficult. So I think the intent was, again, to help streamline, but we are also aware of the unintended consequences of, if 

nothing else, confusion but also perceptions about the need for permitting or disincentivizing actions. It was something that—I will 

just say it was at least personally to me a surprise. 

Senator DONNELLY. You know, as was said, there are over a million comments, and they are from folks who love the land, who love 

what they are doing, who have no desire to see our waters become 

in lesser condition at any point. Do you understand the frustration 

and the feeling that our farmers have when they look up and they 

go, ‘‘Our Government is supposed to be my partner and instead 

they seem like my adversary’’? 

Mr. WELLER. I definitely appreciate the frustration. In my home 

State of California, farmers there, I think more than anywhere, are 

32 

actually very heavily regulated, whether it is for air, for wildlife, 

and for water. When I visit producers in the Central Valley or 

along the coast, I understand both the palpable frustration but also 

the bottom-line business costs that regulation creates. So it is a 

perception elsewhere in the country. 

Senator DONNELLY. These are smart business people who understand that dirty water does not increase their bottom line; it makes 

it more difficult; that the ability to run their operations with effective clean water and good situations makes them more profitable, 

but not only makes them more profitable, but at the end of the day 

they are—they are the conservationists and the environmentalists 

who are on the front line, who are there dealing with it every single day. I guess I would just urge you and the EPA as we look at 

this to have more confidence and more faith in our farmers, our ag 

community, and others that they want to solve the problem without 

having to get another layer of regulation put on top of them. 

Additionally, I also wanted to ask you about when we are 

incentivizing a large group of farmers to implement voluntary conservation practices, we have limited financial resources. One of the 

things we are looking at is whether we can demonstrate that a 

number of these practices make direct financial sense for farmers 

through increased yields, reduced input costs. We might see these 

practices take off. What are your keys for us to continue to increase 

the number of folks planting cover crops and implementing other 

voluntary conservation practices? Because as I said, I am a huge 

believer in cover crops, of what it has done to hold the nutrients 

in the ground, to help reduce runoff, to help keep our rivers and 

streams cleaner. What are the things you think of that we can do 

to help increase voluntary conservation practices? 

Mr. WELLER. So I think there are two things that are critical. 

Number one is to find more farm advocates, and this is increasingly—it is less a problem in Indiana. Indiana in many cases is the 

hotbed of the soil health movement. But to have actual—and the 

former panel talked about this, to have farmers—the best form of, 

I guess, salesmanship is a farmer-to-farmer conversation, peer 

pressure. So where farmers see how cover crops can be incorporated, how they work, can actually help their bottom line, that 

is the best kind of, I think, pioneer or piloting approach to demonstrate the power and effectiveness of cover crops. So we are 

working with partners to help identify those pioneers, those leading-edge conservationists to show the power of cover crops. 

The second thing is then to just get the economics down, to really 

show the bottom line is saving money. It is saving money through 

optimizing inputs, but also by helping them improve the overall resiliency of their soils. It is helping them be productive whether it 

is through wet or through dry periods as well. 

Senator DONNELLY. I know how busy you are. I would ask you, 

though, to stay in close touch not only with everybody else’s ag 

communities, but especially, as you said, in Indiana. We are strong 

believers in cover crops, of what it can do on a voluntary basis for 

our water condition, for our water cleanliness, for nutrient maintenance. I think the closer you stay towards being in contact on a 

constant basis not only with my ag community but everybody 

33 

else’s, I think you will find there are a lot more solutions there 

than you could ever imagine. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hoeven? 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Chief Weller, good to have you here. The first thing, I would like 

you to come out to my State and meet with my farmers. Would you 

be willing to do that? 

Mr. WELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. I would appreciate it, and I think 

it is obviously very good for them to have you out there, but I think 

it is beneficial to have you out there as well in terms of your job 

and what you do. 

Waters of the U.S. is a big problem for our farmers and ranchers. 

What are you doing to solve the problem? What do you feel can be 

done to solve the problem of Waters of the U.S.? 

Mr. WELLER. So as USDA generally, NRCS specifically, we are 

not regulatory, and the Waters of the U.S. rule is an EPA and 

Army Corps regulation. While we did provide technical advice on 

the interpretive rule, which is a tangential effort, the overall proposed rule on the Waters of the U.S., I would defer to EPA and 

Army Corps on taking into account the million-plus comments they 

have received from the public and from stakeholders. 

Senator HOEVEN. But you are hearing from farmers on what a 

big problem it is? 

Mr. WELLER. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. It is my strong belief it needs to be rescinded. 

Our farmers and ranchers are looking at 56 different practices they 

are supposed to try to understand, track, and follow. I mean, this 

thing is just absolutely unworkable. 

Senator Roberts asked you what you can do to help. I guess I 

would just ask for your assistance. This is a big problem, and I 

think you are hearing that very directly from farmers and ranchers. 

Mr. WELLER. Yes, we are, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. On the conservation compliance issue, I want 

to ask you about what you are calling an ‘‘obvious wetland.’’ So in 

terms of conservation compliance, one of the things that NRCS is 

using is they are talking—they are using a criteria in approaching 

or managing wetlands, calling certain areas ‘‘obvious wetlands’’ as 

a part of their conservation compliance measurement. Can you define what an ‘‘obvious wetland’’ is? 

Mr. WELLER. So under the 1985 Food Security Act, we have sort 

of a three-step approach to identifying what a wetland is: Number 

one, does it have hydric soils? Number two, is it inundated with 

water sufficient so that site would support hydrophytic vegetation? 

Three, under normal conditions, would it actually grow hydrophytic 

vegetation? 

So those three characteristics, those are the three tests we use 

for identifying a wetland, and that is what we would use to identify 

an obvious wetland. 

Senator HOEVEN. What response have you had from the farmers 

using that approach? What is their reaction? Is this something 

34 

that—look, the problem they have is the uncertainty. When they 

are out on their farm, those wetlands change all the time, as based 

on conditions. They need to have some kind of certainty in terms 

of understanding what they are allowed to do and how you are 

going to approach it. How do you give them more certainty in that 

process? 

Mr. WELLER. So what the farm bill, the Farm Security Act, provides then is that certainty where you get a certified wetland determination from NRCS. We then stand behind that certification. We 

will then identify for a producer whether there are or are not these 

wetland conditions on the farm and whether or not they were prior 

converted or not prior to the 1985 act itself. So it is that certification that is what provides that certainty to a producer. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, I think that is part of the problem is 

when they go through that certification process, they always feel 

like they are kind of guessing as to where you are going to come 

down on it. How do you make that a more certain process? 

Mr. WELLER. So we are trying to do a lot of different things, both 

within North Dakota but I think across the Nation, is bring more 

of that certainty. So one of the things we are going through right 

now is the methods we use for—first, starting with the off-site 

method for determining wetlands. We are trying to bring state-ofthe-art science using LiDAR technology, aerial photography, remote 

sensing technology so that we can efficiently and quickly provide 

those determinations, those preliminary determinations to a producer. They can always request an on-site determination, though. 

If they want to have a field service person come out and actually 

walk the field with them and do the soil tests and the site determinations, that is always available. They have an appeals process 

to go through. There are a lot of protections in there to assure that 

a good, credible, transparent, science-based process has been used 

to really—because we take it very seriously. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, and that is where interaction with the 

farmers, by you as well as your people, I think is helpful so that 

there is some understanding in terms of what your approach is 

going to be, so that, they can—they know what they can and cannot do. 

What about use of conservation groups, NRCS’ use of conservation groups? That obviously creates some concerns with the farm 

groups. Have you talked to the farm groups and met with them on 

that? Give me your thinking on that and what your approach is 

going to be in terms of—I think with any of these practices, you 

need to be communicating with the farm groups so they know what 

you are doing, why you are doing it, it is transparent, and they are 

comfortable with it. 

Mr. WELLER. Absolutely. We are not going to partner with an organization that does not have a good relationship with farming. We 

often partner with organizations across the country to help amplify 

our field workforce, and we are really trying to stretch the public 

tax dollar as far as possible. But to be clear, we do not hire conservation organizations to do wetland determinations. That is a 

Federal role. That is the determinations we do. We may hire consultants, engineering operations, folks who have agronomy degrees, 

that they provide us determinations, and at the end of the day it 

35 

is NRCS that is still making that determination itself. But we do 

not hire conservation organizations or advocacy organizations to do 

wetland determinations. 

Senator HOEVEN. Have you communicated that to the farm 

groups? Do they understand that? 

Mr. WELLER. I have communicated that, yes, but I know there 

is still a concern about the relationship the NRCS has with conservation organizations in North Dakota. To be clear, those contractual arrangements are really about providing the technical assistance, planning, and farm bill program delivery. It is not wetland determinations that we are doing with those groups. 

Senator HOEVEN. One final piece that I want to ask is in the 

farm bill, we included the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, and you are obviously well familiar with it. In North Dakota, 

in the Red River Valley, which affects North Dakota and Minnesota—to a lesser degree our good friends in South Dakota—but 

primarily North Dakota and Minnesota, we have tremendous flooding. We have it every year almost. We need a holistic solution that 

addresses it not only for the urban areas—Fargo and Moorhead— 

but also for the rural areas and addresses it for the small towns 

and for our farmers as well. 

That Regional Conservation Partnership Program is very, very 

important to us. It is a big area of focus. We need it in that area 

as part of a total flood protection plan that protects the rural areas 

as well as the communities. I ask for your strong participation and 

help in that multi-State effort. You are an important part of the 

solution. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you, sir. We really appreciate the tools 

that this Committee and you have provided us through the new 

program to help provide those locally driven solutions, so thank 

you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thanks, Chief. 

Senator DONNELLY. [Presiding.] Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, first of all, 

I know it has been talked about already, but just make clear, from 

my State and the people I represent, that one of the biggest issues 

and concerns in the State of South Dakota and its number one industry, agriculture, is this proposed rule concerning Waters of the 

United States, which was published earlier this year by EPA. 

There is not anything that I have been familiar with initiated by 

EPA, or any other Federal department, for that matter, that has 

resulted in so much concern and fear in my home State. 

Since you are here today, Chief Weller, I wanted to reiterate to 

you and remind you of your obligation and responsibility as well as 

that of Secretary Vilsack and others at USDA to make absolutely 

certain that you guard the welfare and well-being of production agriculture and our farmers and ranchers as EPA appears to be moving forward with this rule in spite of broad bipartisan opposition 

from across the country. I just wanted to put that on the record. 

I do want to ask a question with regard to an issue that we have 

had in eastern South Dakota. As eastern South Dakota is ground 

zero when it comes to the prairie pothole region, and farmers particularly in northeastern South Dakota have been challenged by 

flooding on and off now for the past several years. Many of these 

36 

farmers, in order to comply with the conservation compliance provisions in the 2014 farm bill have requested wetland determinations 

from the NRCS. It is an issue I have been deeply involved with and 

appreciate your agency sending personnel from Washington, DC, at 

my request, this past summer to a wetlands meeting that we had 

in Aberdeen, South Dakota, where we had more than 300 farmers 

and ranchers attend. As a follow-up to that meeting, I am wondering perhaps if you can provide me with an update on the wetlands determinations backlog in South Dakota and what progress 

has been made since that meeting that we had last July. 

Mr. WELLER. Absolutely. So since that meeting in July, we have 

reduced the backlog in South Dakota by an additional 10 percent, 

so now it is down to less than 2,600 requests for determinations to 

be made. We are making good progress. I am optimistic. Our State 

conservationist there, Jeff Zimprich, is absolutely totally focused on 

this, and he has a lot of responsibilities, but he gets the importance 

of this. While we have made progress, that is not sufficient. He has 

18 staff dedicated full-time just doing wetland determinations. He 

is going to bring an additional four people on full-time, so over 20 

people dedicated full-time doing nothing but wetland determinations. He has another eight people working half-time on this. 

I recently just sent an additional million and a half dollars, the 

majority of which is going to South Dakota, to hire additional staff, 

additional resources to get more determinations done quickly. We 

have a 3-year plan to get all the backlog completely wiped out 

across all four prairie pothole States, and I am holding the State 

conservationists accountable for getting that backlog cleared out. 

So while we have made progress, it is not sufficient, it is not acceptable, and so we are going to get those determinations made as 

quickly as possible. 

In terms of that Aberdeen meeting, I understand that Jeff left 

that with a 45-step action plan. He has already started implementing it. He is well on his way to getting that rolled out. In January, he is going to be sending out letters to customers, updating 

them where they are at, basically acknowledging that we have received your request, we are on top of it, here is our estimated 

timeline to get to you. So we really are going to do a much better 

job with the customer service that I think you expect of us. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. I appreciate that, and like I said, I 

appreciate your folks coming out for the meeting in July, and I 

know it was a very spirited meeting, because it is something that 

we hear a lot from our farmers and ranchers up in that area of 

South Dakota. I appreciate the sort of singular focus you have put 

on that, and I look forward to your continued responsiveness. It 

sounds like you have got a plan in place. We are delighted to hear 

that. We hope that it will work that backlog down because it is 

something that has been a lingering problem that has created great 

consternation for a lot of our producers in that region of South Dakota. So I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chief, thank you very much. I want to thank all the witnesses 

for being here today. Any additional questions for the record should 

37 

be submitted to the Committee clerk 5 business days from today, 

so that is by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10th. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

40 


94365.001
41 


94365.002
42 


94365.003
43 


94365.004
44 


94365.005
45 


94365.006
46 


94365.007
47 


94365.008
48 


94365.009
49 


94365.010
50 


94365.011
51 


94365.012
52 


94365.013
53 


94365.014
54 


94365.015
55 


94365.016
56 


94365.017
57 


94365.018
58 


94365.019
59 


94365.020
60 


94365.021
61 


94365.022
62 


94365.023
63 


94365.024
64 


94365.025
65 


94365.026
66 


94365.027
67 


94365.028
68 


94365.029
69 


94365.030
70 


94365.031
71 


94365.032
72 


94365.033
73 


94365.034
74 


94365.035
75 


94365.036
76 


94365.037
77 


94365.038
78 


94365.039
79 


94365.040
80 


94365.041
81 


94365.042
82 


94365.043
83 


94365.044
84 


94365.045
85 


94365.046
86 


94365.047
87 


94365.048
88 


94365.049
89 


94365.050
90 


94365.051
91 


94365.052
92 


94365.053
93 


94365.054
94 


94365.055
95 


94365.056
96 


94365.057
97 


94365.058
98 


94365.059
99 


94365.060
100 


94365.061
101 


94365.062
102 


94365.063
103 


94365.064
104 


94365.065
105 


94365.066
106 


94365.067
107 


94365.068
108 


94365.069
109 


94365.070
110 


94365.071
111 


94365.072
112 


94365.073
113 


94365.074
114 


94365.075
115 


94365.076
116 


94365.077
(117) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

118 


94365.078
119 


94365.079
120 


94365.080
121 


94365.081
122 


94365.082
123 


94365.083
124 


94365.084
125 


94365.085
126 


94365.086
127 


94365.087
128 


94365.088
129 


94365.089
130 


94365.090
131 


94365.091
132 


94365.092
133 


94365.093
134 


94365.094
135 


94365.095
136 


94365.096
137 


94365.097
138 


94365.098
139 


94365.099
140 


94365.100
141 


94365.101
142 


94365.102
143 


94365.103
144 


94365.104
145 


94365.105
146 


94365.106
147 


94365.107
148 


94365.108
149 


94365.109
150 


94365.110
151 


94365.111
152 


94365.112
153 


94365.113
154 


94365.114
155 


94365.115
156 


94365.116
157 


94365.117
158 


94365.118
159 


94365.119
160 


94365.120
161 


94365.121
162 


94365.122
163 


94365.123
164 


94365.124
165 


94365.125
166 


94365.126
167 


94365.127
168 


94365.128
169 


94365.129
170 


94365.130
171 


94365.131
172 


94365.132
173 


94365.133
174 


94365.134
175 


94365.135
176 


94365.136
177 


94365.137
178 


94365.138
179 


94365.139
180 


94365.140
181 


94365.141
182 


94365.142
183 


94365.143
184 


94365.144
185 


94365.145
186 


94365.146
187 


94365.147
188 


94365.148
189 


94365.149
190 


94365.150
191 


94365.151
192 


94365.152
193 


94365.153
194 


94365.154
195 


94365.155
196 


94365.156
197 


94365.157
198 


94365.158
199 


94365.159
200 


94365.160
201 


94365.161
202 


94365.162
203 


94365.163
204 


94365.164
205 


94365.165
206 


94365.166
207 


94365.167
208 


94365.168
209 


94365.169
210 


94365.170
211 


94365.171
212 


94365.172
213 


94365.173
214 


94365.174
215 


94365.175
216 


94365.176
217 


94365.177
218 


94365.178
219 


94365.179
220 


94365.180
221 


94365.181
222 


94365.182
223 


94365.183
224 


94365.184
225 


94365.185
226 


94365.186
227 


94365.187
228 


94365.188
229 


94365.189
230 


94365.190
231 


94365.191
232 


94365.192
233 


94365.193
234 


94365.194
235 


94365.195
236 


94365.196
237 


94365.197
238 


94365.198
239 


94365.199
240 


94365.200
241 


94365.201
242 


94365.202
243 


94365.203
244 


94365.204
245 


94365.205
246 


94365.206
247 


94365.207
248 


94365.208
249 


94365.209
250 


94365.210
251 


94365.211
252 


94365.212
253 


94365.213
254 


94365.214
255 


94365.215
256 


94365.216
257 


94365.217
258 


94365.218
259 


94365.219
260 


94365.220
261 


94365.221
262 


94365.222
263 


94365.223
264 


94365.224
265 


94365.225
266 


94365.226
267 


94365.227
268 


94365.228
269 


94365.229
270 


94365.230
271 


94365.231
272 


94365.232
273 


94365.233
274 


94365.234
275 


94365.235
276 


94365.236
277 


94365.237
278 


94365.238
279 


94365.239
280 


94365.240
281 


94365.241
282 


94365.242
283 


94365.243
284 


94365.244
285 


94365.245
286 


94365.246
287 


94365.247
288 


94365.248
289 


94365.249
290 


94365.250
291 


94365.251
292 


94365.252
293 


94365.253
294 


94365.254
295 


94365.255
296 


94365.256
297 


94365.257
298 


94365.258
299 


94365.259
300 


94365.260
301 


94365.261
302 


94365.262
303 


94365.263
304 


94365.264
305 


94365.265
306 


94365.266
307 


94365.267
308 


94365.268
309 


94365.269
310 


94365.270
311 


94365.271
312 


94365.272
313 


94365.273
314 


94365.274
315 


94365.275
316 


94365.276
317 


94365.277
318 


94365.278
319 


94365.279
320 


94365.280
321 


94365.281
322 


94365.282
323 


94365.283
324 


94365.284
325 


94365.285
326 


94365.286
327 


94365.287
328 


94365.288
329 


94365.289
330 


94365.290
331 


94365.291
332 


94365.292
333 


94365.293
334 


94365.294
335 


94365.295
336 


94365.296
337 


94365.297
338 


94365.298
339 


94365.299
340 


94365.300
341 


94365.301
342 


94365.302
343 


94365.303
344 


94365.304
345 


94365.305
346 


94365.306
(347) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

348 


94365.307
349 


94365.308
350 


94365.309
351 


94365.310
352 


94365.311
353 


94365.312
354 


94365.313
355 


94365.314
356 


94365.315
357 


94365.316
358 


94365.317
359 


94365.318
360 


94365.319
361 


94365.320
362 


94365.321
363 


94365.322
364 


94365.323
365 


94365.324
366 


94365.325
367 


94365.326
368 


94365.327
369 


94365.328
370 


94365.329
371 


94365.330
372 


94365.331
373 


94365.332
374 


94365.333
375 


94365.334
376 


94365.335
377 


94365.336
378 


94365.337
379 


94365.338
380 


94365.339
381 


94365.340
382 


94365.341
383 


94365.342
384 


94365.343
385 


94365.344
386 


94365.345
387 


94365.346
388 


94365.347
389 


94365.348
390 


94365.349
391 


94365.350
392 


94365.351
393 


94365.352
394 


94365.353
395 


94365.354
396 


94365.355
397 


94365.356
398 


94365.357