U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–350 PDF 2006

REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE’S WATERSHED

PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,

RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RESEARCH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 6, 2005

Serial No. 109–22

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

agriculture.house.gov

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio,

Vice Chairman

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

MIKE PENCE, Indiana

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama

STEVE KING, Iowa

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,

Ranking Minority Member

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

JOE BACA, California

ED CASE, Hawaii

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JIM COSTA, California

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

RICK LARSEN, Washington

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Staff Director

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel

JOHN HAUGEN, Communications Director

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RESEARCH

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska,

Vice Chairman

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama

STEVE KING, Iowa

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania,

Ranking Minority Member

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

ED CASE, Hawaii

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

RYAN E. WESTON, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 2

Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Minnesota, opening statement ............................................................................ 3

WITNESSES

Albright, Bruce E. administrator, Buffalo-Red River Watershed District,

Barnesville, MN ................................................................................................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Knight, Bruce, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Sykes, Mike, chairman, National Watershed Coalition, Romney, WV ................ 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Wilson, Bill, president, National Association of Conservation Districts, Kinta,

OK ......................................................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Wytovich, Ed, president, Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Mine Reclamation, Ashland, PA ................................................................................................. 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Aust, Erwin, Shenandoah, IA, statement .............................................................. 40

Davis, Lee C., chair, Cape Cod Conservation District, Hyannis, MA, statement ...................................................................................................................... 41

Delahunt, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, letter of December 5 to Mr. Lucas ........................... 41

Graves, Herbert R., Jr., executive director, State Association of Kansas Watersheds, statement .............................................................................................. 61

Lowrance, Dan, president, Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts

past chairman, National Watershed Coalition; chairman, National Association of Conservation Districts Water Resources Committee, statement ......... 75

Maresch, Wayne F., exective vice president, Land Improvement Contractors

of America, Ft. Washington, MD, statement ..................................................... 40

Peterson, John W., International Erosion Control Association, statement ........ 63

Phillips, Timothy S., chief engineer and general manager, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Phoenix, AZ, statement ............................................ 70

Tow, Kenneth, IDALS/Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of

Agriculture and Land Stewardship, statement ................................................. 39

(1)

REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE’S WATERSHED PROGRAMS

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in room

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Moran, King, Schwarz,

Holden, Cuellar, Case, Herseth, Goodlatte [ex officio] and Peterson

[ex officio].

Staff present: Ryan Weston, Tyler Wegmeyer, Callista Gingrich,

clerk; Lindsey Correa, and Anne Simmons.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. LUCAS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation,

Credit, Rural Development and Research to review USDA’s watershed programs will come to order. Today we are here to discuss an

extremely important, yet not widely known programs that provide

safe drinking water, erosion control, wildlife habitat and flood protection to people and towns.

USDA has numerous watershed programs and by the time you

have heard from all of our witnesses, you will realize that even

with many programs, the Federal Government can’t keep up with

the funding requests needed by the public. More than 11,000 flood

control dams have been built across the U.S.A. since 1948 and

many of those are at or exceeding their intended 50-year life span.

The Appropriations Committee provides annual funding for the

Watershed Surveys and Planning Program, the Watershed and

Flood Prevention Operations Program and recently, the Watershed

Rehabilitation Program. However, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill to receive mandatory funding so that the Appropriations Committee would not

have to fund it on a yearly basis.

Many watershed projects have been authorized under Public Law

566 and 534. The P.L. 566 and 534 programs provide the basis for

much of what the Appropriations Committee allows in its yearly allotments.

2

The administration has recently reviewed all watershed programs including agencies outside USDA to determine the

redundancies and worked to develop a more efficient model for delivering funding. While I know that the administration may have

many good intentions, I also know that the current backlog of requests for funding shows that funding requests will not disappear

no matter how efficient the Government becomes.

NRCS has hired many new employees since the 2002 farm bill

was passed and many of those employees are paid with those farm

bill dollars. I also want to know if watershed employees are able

to get the job done at the current levels. It appears that differing

priorities are stretching the staffing levels to a critical point.

And finally, the subject of earmarks in the appropriations process

is going to be discussed by many of our witnesses. It is true that

USDA views the earmarks as troublesome if it is indeed to be allowed to ‘‘manage’’ the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

Program, but USDA and the administration must work with Congress to provide that it has a viable and yes, politically acceptable

alternative to the earmarks and I look forward to hearing from our

witnesses today and at this moment I would like to turn to my

ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden,

for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing this afternoon. I hope it will provide a good review

of the value of watershed programs under the Natural Resources

Conservation Service. It seems to me that these programs are what

I call ‘‘trickle-up’’ efforts; by improving local watersheds, we contribute significantly to the revival of larger watersheds to where

the smaller creeks, streams and rivers flow.

In my district, I have a very important watershed project that

was authorized under Public Law 566, a program that allows the

Natural Resources Conservation Service to assist local sponsors

with watershed restoration. The Tulpehocken Creek Watershed

project is very important because it would enhance fish and wildlife

habitat, reduce cropland damage and improve surface and groundwater quality. The project is not only valuable for the local community, but also the greater mid-Atlantic area, because the

Tulpehocken flows into the Susquehanna River and on to the

Chesapeake Bay. Obviously, improving water quality in a local watershed enhances the condition of the larger region, as a whole.

The Tulpehocken Creek Watershed has a broad and involved

community with strong interest to implement watershed stewardship projects, including the Berks and Lebanon Conservation Districts, and the Berks County Conservancy. But the Natural Resources Conservation Service plays a chief role in a project by providing the financial and technical assistance that ties everything

together.

I believe the most successful, comprehensive watershed projects

have a strong partnership of stakeholders from the local community and receive assistance from those with technical expertise, like

3

the NRCS. Local watershed coalitions and conservation organizations have a vested interest in improving water and environmental

quality in their communities. Such collaboration exists with the

Tulpehocken Creek Watershed project and those projects which my

constituent, Mr. Ed Wytovich, will testify about today.

Ed has started many watershed groups in his community. These

organizations have helped to create restoration plans for waterways that are impaired largely by polluted water draining from

abandoned coal mines in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has been mining coal for over 200 years, which

contributed significantly to the Industrial Revolution and our Nation’s climb to global power. While we have mined the coal that has

played such a critical role in our country’s rise, we are unfortunately left with much of the cleanup from abandoned coal mines

that pose a risk to the health and safety of our community’s residents. Reclaiming our abandoned mine legacy requires multiple

tools to repair the multiple problems presented by polluted water

draining from abandoned mines.

Improving water quality in coal mining areas, which are mostly

rural, is important not only for the environment and surrounding

communities, but also for agriculture that uses the water. Further,

by reducing acid mine drainage, we increase the success of agriculture in helping to improve water quality and providing benefits

for the environment. It also provides direct benefit to agriculture

by providing better habitat for important species, such as those

who help to pollinate agriculture crops.

Coalitions like the one that Ed has formed are the essential ingredient in watershed restoration, in the recipe. The other crucial

ingredients are technical and financial assistance from specialists,

such as the NRCS. With all of these resources mixed together, the

recipe is a grand champion state fair winner.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. LUCAS. The chair thanks the ranking member of the subcommittee and would like to turn to the ranking member of the full

Agriculture Committee and express his appreciation for his participation today, Mr. Peterson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

your leadership and leadership, Mr. Holden, on this subcommittee

and for calling this hearing today.

Having celebrated the 50th anniversary of the creation of the

Small Watershed Program last year, I think today’s hearing, oversight hearing, is very timely.

The Small Watershed Program is a very important tool for the

watershed districts and other local conservation groups across the

United States. I am pleased that Bruce Albright, with the BuffaloRed River Watershed District, located in my district in northwestern Minnesota, is testifying today. This district actually is where

our home farm is, and he does an outstanding job and my dad

works with him some on projects out there yet, but had they been

existence some time ago and done some of the work, I may not

4

have been sitting here today, because 1962, when I graduated from

high school, I was going to farm and I took all of my money and

put it into this, crops, and we ground it out three times and the

Fourth of July was the last time when the water stood for 3 feet

for an entire month and that kind of cured me of farming, but they

have done a lot of good work there to solve a lot of those problems

and they continue to do a lot of good work out there.

As many of the witnesses today will indicate, this program is at

a crossroads and the Agriculture Committees need to make some

decisions about the future of this program as we begin the next

farm bill discussion. Prioritization of funding for this program remains the central question in regard to its future. Is it fair to keep

hundreds of local project sponsors across the country guessing as

to whether or not they will ever receive funding? I think that is one

question we need to answer.

I appreciate what NRCS has attempted to do given the no-win

situation that they have found themselves in, with their hands tied

due to earmarks and facing criticism of the program from elsewhere within the administration.

But this program has been responsible for implementing billions

of dollars worth of conservation practices in this country. We can’t

afford to let these efforts fall victim to our inability to address the

issues surrounding the Federal Government’s role in helping States

and localities address water quality and quantity issues.

Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking

member for your leadership and I look forward to the witnesses’

testimony.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Any other members that have opening

statements? Seeing none, we will now turn to our first witness at

the table, Mr. Bruce Knight, Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, here in the Nation’s capital. Whenever

you are ready, Chief.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the water

resource programs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Our mission, stated most simply, is helping people help the land,

and through our water resource programs, NRCS employees work

in partnership with local leaders to improve the overall function

and health of our Nation’s watersheds. I am pleased to share with

you the accomplishments of these programs, as well as our vision

for the future for these programs. It has been said before, last year

was the 50th anniversary of these programs.

Today, coming off of that, I will discuss the three water resource

accounts aimed towards comprehensive watershed planning and

flood prevention. These programs are Watershed Surveys and Planning, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations and Watershed

Rehabilitation. I will also outline two key emergency recovery programs, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, as well as

Emergency Conservation Program, administered by the Farm Service Agency.

5

Watershed Surveys and Planning is an appropriate beginning

point, since it is the program that works with communities to assess natural resource issues and develop coordinated watershed

plans. These plans then provide the framework for local partners

to take a comprehensive approach to water quality and quantity

and focuses on solutions for the watershed, as a whole. Traditionally, these watershed plans became the basis for future Watershed

and Flood Prevention Operations projects, which is the next account that I will attempt to highlight.

To provide perspective, there are over 2,000 Watershed and

Flood Prevention Operation projects in the U.S., representing nearly $6 billion in infrastructure. These projects provide benefits to

more than 48 million people. The project plans go through rigorous

environmental and cost benefit reviews, which typically take several years to complete. Projects costing less than $5 million to construct in containing small-scale reservoirs, can be directly authorized by the agency. Projects costing more than $5 million with a

reservoir smaller than 4,000 acre feet, must come before this committee, as well as the Senate, for authorization. Projects larger

than this limit are then reviewed and authorized by the House

Transportation Committee and the Senate Environment and Public

Works Committee.

But this process is not the end of the story, Any project successful in getting authorized then goes on a wait list for funding and

this tremendously popular program has an equally large backlog,

currently $1.85 billion. We realize that backlog is staggering, based

on current appropriations trends, so we have initiated a process to

assess and categorize the Watershed Project backlog. This assessment will help us, as an agency, identify resource treatment needs

that cannot be addressed either in the watershed programs or in

other programs. The expected result will be a more realistic backlog of projects that help us to focus our resources on priority needs.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the current budgeting trends for the

program and I want to highlight a major challenge for NRCS in operating this program. In recent years, fully 100 percent of the funding provided for this program has been directed towards earmarked

projects in the appropriations process. In some cases, the amount

of earmarks has, in fact, exceeded the appropriation for the program in total. This has resulted in program management challenges for us and has made meeting national priorities in

prioritizing the work, itself, virtually impossible for the agency.

The situation also makes basic work force planning and positioning of our key engineering expertise challenging, to say the least.

While the backlog for new projects is large, we are now seeing existing projects, some built in the 1940’s and the 1950’s begin to require substantial renovation due to aging, which leads us, then, to

the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.

By 2010, more than 1,800 dams will exceed their 50-year design

line. NRCS is actively helping local communities rehabilitate these

aging dams.Since enactment of the rehabilitation amendments by

Congress, NRCS has 78 dams that have rehabilitation plans authorized and implementation underway. As a matter of fact, today

the Secretary is announcing three additional dams that are being

reauthorized in Augusta County, Virginia. As we move forward

6

with this rehabilitation program, this is, as I have said, an important effort and has a direct impact on the safety of residents across

the Nation, as well as the health and vibrancy of the natural resources.

In fiscal year 2006, the administration proposed cuts in funding

for the water resource programs. However, I want to stress that

zero funding does not mean zero support. This administration is

not abandoning its commitment to the goals of the watershed programs. We are not giving up on the local efforts, but it is time to

rethink our watershed programs. I mentioned our earmarking challenges earlier and there is also some duplication between those programs and farm bill activities. As a result, NRCS has undertaken

an effort to examine the future of our water resource programs.

One of the strategies we are pursuing is the use of rapid watershed assessments. Quite simply, we would go into a watershed,

look at what the needs are that can be addressed by all of the conservation programs in our conservation toolbox and attempt to address those things, not just with the traditional structure programs

we have at our disposal. This is a rapid process, taking only 2 to

3 months, as opposed to the traditional 2 to 3 years, and one that

would involve our stakeholders in these critical resource needs to

quickly tie high-priority areas.

Mr. Chairman, we are proud of the fact that NRCS water resource programs work towards preventative measures to restore

the proper functions of the watersheds, however, when needed,

USDA provides recovery assistance primarily through two programs, the Emergency Conservation Program, administered by the

Farm Service Agency, and the Emergency Watershed Program, administered by NRCS. Both of these programs offer vital recovery

options for local communities after a disaster strikes. Immediately

following the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FSA provided more than $31 million and NRCS provided nearly $23 million

in disaster recovery funds, to the affected areas of the Gulf Coast.

The administration has submitted, in turn, a budget request for an

additional $200 million for the Emergency Watershed Program,

alone.

In sum, I believe we have accomplished much in the water resource programs over the last 50 years. Economic, social and environmental benefits from these programs have been significant in

the communities across the Nation. Through the Department’s watershed programs, we continue to look forward to helping people

help the land.

I thank the subcommittee and would be happy to respond to any

questions at this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight appears at the conclusion

of the hearing.]

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chief. How many staffers are dedicated

to watershed projects in each State and can they work on projects

in other States once a dam or a watershed is finished being rehabilitated in that area? I guess in other words, Chief, do you have

enough staff and do you have the flexibility to get those employees

where they are needed?

Mr. KNIGHT. We have found that it has been very key for us to

start shuffling folks around from State to State, even on a temVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:22 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\109-22 HAGRI PsN: HAGRI
7

porary basis, to be able to address some of those particular needs

and that has helped us bridge some of those gaps. I will submit,

for the record for you, the number of staff we have by program nationwide, Watershed Surveys and Planning, we have 48 staff nationwide; Watershed Rehabilitation, 99 staff; P.L. 566, 263 staff,

but I will submit that for the record, as well as by State. But we

are plagued with not having the right staff with the right expertise

in the right location as earmarks shift to priority around the Nation.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chief, and I look forward to that information. Do you expect future presidential budgets to fund the watershed programs at the current proposed levels?

Mr. KNIGHT. We are in the midst of the pass back process for the

2007 process. As you know, that is an administratively confidential

scenario at this time and I, too, am waiting to see the net result

of those funds.

Mr. LUCAS. Chief, you and I have discussed this before on various occasions, but several years ago I began my own personal crusade of going down to OMB and visiting with the director, whoever

that might be at any given time, to help you with your project of

enlightening them about the needs for these important matters,

and I think we have come a long way, what, after 2 years of nothing in the budget, we have been funded the last 2; we are making

progress and certainly, any help that you could provide in what is

relevant in enlightening them, I would be pleased to hear, also.

Mr. KNIGHT. The item I would like to stress that I think bears

reemphasis on this matter is what we can do with the rapid assessments, which is entirely within our purview, in that what I have

been struck with in the last several years is that all too often our

watershed programs have been placed on a shelf, not integrated

with the rest of the conservation programs.

As a matter of fact, in some cases we are doing land treatment

today in the watershed programs that is very similar to the kind

of land treatment that can be provided in EQIP or the Wetlands

Reserve Program or the Conservation Reserve Program or Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Program, and we quite frankly don’t have the

luxury to administer those programs with that level of duplication

when you are trying to manage scarce resources. And there are

times when we can even, by moving ahead with some of those other

programs addressing the land treatment, address some of the

needs in the watersheds and so with the rapid assessment process,

I will hope to be able to more fully integrate our conservation tools

so that each complements the other, rather than being treated in

a very stove-type manner.

Mr. LUCAS. It is all very well made, Chief, and I wholeheartedly

agree. If you look at the older structures in my region of the country, had we had that kind of a comprehensive approach, had the

tools been available in the 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, some of the sediment issues would not be present today, I wholeheartedly agree,

but I can’t help but note, if you look at the popularity of these programs, clearly there is a desire among the citizens out there for

these efforts to go forward and part of the process, as you and I

both know in Congress is making the resources available to meet

8

the needs. Some of that has to come from the administration side

of the aisle as we work through this process.

We can’t always, on this side of the chair, be expected to pull by

ourselves and I realize you work for the President and I realize you

are carrying out the policies of this administration that I so strongly support, but we have got to have a little pushing and pulling

here if we are going to get all the needs met and clearly, that has

not been the case for a long, long time. And I realize my time is

about to expire, but before I turn to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member, I would just note it seems that

the priority process, the formula system we created for rehabilitation, which has stayed amazingly secure so far through several appropriations processes, very clearly defines where the needs are

and tries to drive those resources when we can get sufficient resources to meet those.

Perhaps in this next farm bill we need to look at how the construction projects, themselves, have been done, whether it is as you

would suggests, perhaps, clearing the deck and reassessing, but

looking at a way to drive those dollars where the needs are greatest as opposed to where the politics is the most practical on any

given day.

Mr. KNIGHT. The formula for determining priorities in rehabilitation, I believe has functioned well and we have actually used a

similar formula manner for allocation of resources with many of

our other programs; EQIP, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,

several of those, in an attempt to always ensure that we are putting resources to those areas with the greatest environmental need

using the best information that we have, environmentally, scientifically and capacity-wise.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chief. And with that, I will turn to the

ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief, nice to see you again and I want to thank you for your

help and the good work that you do, particularly with the project

that we discussed in my district that I mentioned in my opening

statement. But we are facing serious fiscal problems here in our

watershed restoration, as you mentioned in your statement, and

not your fault, but we have some disagreements with the priorities

of the administration when it comes to this very worthy public policy.

I noticed in your written statement that you said that there are

other options available within NRCS, EQIP was one of them that

you mentioned, but is that realistic? I think the backlog in EQIP

is $2.2 billion nationwide and in Pennsylvania alone $35 million.

Mr. KNIGHT. In the EQIP, we have done a tremendous job over

the last several years of whittling away on those backlogs. Three

years ago, when I first sat in this chair, I was able to accept one

out of every eight contracts in EQIP; this year we rounded out the

year being able to accept one out of every three contracts, each of

them ranked on environmental merit. The item that I find attractive about starting to use a rapid assessment process is we are able

to start looking then, at how to bring all of the programs together,

how to use a little bit of the buffers from the Conservation Reserve

Program, some strategically located wetlands from the Wetlands

9

Reserve Program, properly prioritized contracts accepted in EQIP,

to provide some of the land treatment to be able to assist in a watershed.

I think, most importantly, tap into this tremendous volume of

knowledge we have from our Watershed Surveys and Planning to

be able to address the environmental concerns in an individual, localized watershed and then roll that together to address the much

larger watershed needs. We have a great deal of concern, all of us

in this media market, about the Chesapeake Bay, but the real effort comes down at the local level and so it is the individual watersheds in Pennsylvania that we really need to be able to respond to

those needs proactively, using all of the programs in our toolbox.

Mr. HOLDEN. Chief Knight, speaking of the Chesapeake Bay,

when was the last time the NRCS dedicated staff to the Rural

Abandoned Mine Program?

Mr. KNIGHT. I would have to double check. I believe the last time

we received funding for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program was

1995.

Mr. HOLDEN. Why did we stop funding it?

Mr. KNIGHT. That is the last year that we had received funding.

It has not been a program that I have received funding for in the

last 3 years.

Mr. HOLDEN. Are there any active contracts still out there?

Mr. KNIGHT. I would have to check on that, sir. There could very

well be some active contracts yet and I do know in a few areas in

Pennsylvania where folks seeking assistance that used to be done

with the Rural Abandoned Mine Program are now turning to our

watershed programs to be able to address some of those concerns

and that is a model that has had a reasonable level of success in

some of those locations.

Mr. HOLDEN. And Chief Knight, in your conversations with

OMB, if we are ever, ever going to clean up the Chesapeake Bay

and make significant progress, we have to do something about acid

mine drainage in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is a serious problem. Mr. Wytovich, who will testify in the next panel, will give the

dollar amount to it, so I know that you understand the importance

of it and I appreciate you relaying that to people who are counting

the beans, so to speak.

Mr. KNIGHT. I will certainly relay that, sir, and it is one of those

things that all of us in the natural resource area are cognizant of.

Unfortunately, in the Chesapeake Bay, folks quite often look for a

silver bullet and it is not just one issue, it is development, a portion of it is agriculture; a portion of it are these abandoned mine

lands; it is things like gravel roads. It is going to be a host of small,

incremental solutions that will turn around the vibrancy of the bay

while we turn around the vibrancy of many of those local watersheds.

Mr. HOLDEN. One last question, Mr. Chairman. Chief, getting

back to the earmarks. I am not sure I heard you right. Did you say

sometimes the amount of earmarks exceeds the amount that you

anticipated being appropriated?

Mr. KNIGHT. We have actually had to develop a formula for how

to prorate back earmarks when the number of earmarks are beyond the capacity for us to deliver on and we ratchet back each of

10

the earmarks just enough to be able to operate the program nationwide and move those earmarks forward. It is an awkward cycle to

get trapped in.

Mr. HOLDEN. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but what percentage of the earmarks are authorized?

Mr. KNIGHT. I believe that all of them are fully authorized, unless there has been a general provision that has been added in the

appropriations process, but I believe we have 100 percent of them

authorized.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Holden. The chair now turns to the

chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very

much your holding this hearing. This is an issue that is of great

interest to me, as Chief Knight well knows. He has been in my district twice this year and I very much appreciate the attention that

he has paid to some of the issues that we have. As he knows, in

a mountain and valley type district like I have, watershed issues

are of paramount importance. Tremendous damage is caused by

water coming down out of those mountains after heavy rain and

the NRCS has been helpful in meeting some of the needs in conjunction with issues that are addressed by particularly the Army

Corps of Engineers, but also EPA, and I think you are quite right

to suggest that you have a unique perspective on some of those.

For example, the initiative involving our dairy farmers to try to

reduce the nitrogen levels going into our rivers, to address the

Chesapeake Bay concerns just raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, are very, very important to us because it is one of the better ways that we have to bring ourselves into compliance with what

are increasingly onerous environmental regulations that simply

add tremendously to the cost of doing business for agriculture in

the Shenandoah Valley.

Now, one of the questions that I have is as I look at these

projects, some of the larger ones in my area are handled by the

Corps of Engineers. As you are aware, in Rockbridge County, in the

city of Buena Vista, a major flood control measure was put in place

by the Corps of Engineers a number of years ago that solves a

number of problems for the city, but does not solve the problems

of the incredible damage that we saw just a few years ago coming

down out of those mountains. Those are smaller projects, doesn’t

generally get the attention of the Corps of Engineers, but the

NRCS has paid attention to them and has been working with me

and the local governments and the local soil and water conservation district to prepare some plans on how to control that water,

as well.

Both of those are vitally important to that community and both

deserve a great deal of consideration. My question to you is whether you think—I don’t want to put you too much on the spot here,

but this is a concern of mine and I know the of the Chairman

Lucas’ as well, if you think that in the Office of Management and

Budget’s eyes, the USDA programs are overshadowed by the Corps

of Engineers and the EPA programs?

Mr. KNIGHT. I wouldn’t characterize the programs we administer

as being overshadowed by the larger programs that the Army

11

Corps administers or some of the regulatory tools that EPA brings

to the table. When you start comparing programs based off of the

cost to implement versus the number of people impacted or the

community, the dollars and the efficiency, our program is targeted

specifically at the smaller watersheds with a more rural flavor,

may in fact have a lack of economy of scale that some of the economists may have challenges with and I have noticed that that lack

of an economy of scale may have an impact for us.

When we are doing the kind of work that we have both seen in

Buena Vista where we are well up the watershed, simply trying to

keep the cobble from moving down into the community, fairly low

tech, I think very cost effective, but difficult to develop that economic benefit cost ratio that everybody is striving to measure all

the programs on.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there is an appreciation on the part

of those who are writing the present budget that with the increasing national attention being paid to the Chesapeake Bay, as kind

of a signature watershed in our country, it gets an awful lot of attention and I think deservedly so, that they do not appreciate the

fact that a great deal of the impact on the bay is coming from a

wide variety of sources that are not as easily addressed by some

of the measures that are undertaken by the EPA and by the Army

Corps of Engineers, but rather, programs that work directly with

farmers, that maybe USDA is a little better suited to do, can have

a greater impact and maybe the cost benefit analysis in that area

might work in your favor if more attention and more funding were

made available, not just for the Chesapeake Bay, for other similar

concerns around the country, but that certainly is one where we

ought to use that as a way to get their attention to understand that

this funding is important.

Mr. KNIGHT. The Chesapeake Bay is a good example of that, sir,

where some of the more recent studies have shown that the effectiveness of many of our programs are proving very, very applicable

and I see very strong support for the USDA programs as it comes

to addressing Chesapeake Bay issues, Columbia Basin issues,

CALFED, many of those things, where our voluntary programs

have a high degree of effectiveness and we are able to respond. The

Chesapeake Bay, the frustration we quite often see is that people

all too often are looking for that one item, that silver bullet that

is not out there and all too often there are folks pointing fingers

between development and agriculture and not recognizing that the

long-term solution is going to be a little of both working cooperatively in the watershed.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Chief Knight. Mr. Chairman,

my time has expired, so I won’t go into the issue of dam rehabilitation, which is another serious problem in my district and many

other places around the country. I do appreciate the announcement

just made by the Department that they will be working on three

dams in Augusta County, but again, I will work with other members of this committee and the Appropriations Committee to see

that we beef up the resources that are made available for dam rehabilitation because there is damn little of it. Thank you.

12

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your questions and

your observations. The chair turns to the ranking member of the

full committee from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Given the weather in Minnesota, I wouldn’t probably mind being in Pennsylvania.

Mr. LUCAS. So much for my OP geography. Thank you.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Knight, as I understand it, there are several other watershed programs in the

EPA that haven’t been around as long as the USDA programs

have. Can you explain how these EPA programs are different from

P.L. 566 authority and how their budget compares to yours and if

there is an instance where a local entity can get funding from both

of those sources?

Mr. KNIGHT. I might have to respond to the record on doing the

comparison of several of those programs. Our watershed programs

tend to be much more structure based than some of the EPA programs and the EPA program folks talk about the most is the 319

Program and we would need to lay out the comparisons for these

for your purposes, but we tend to be much more focused on a narrow watershed with a combination of the land treatment and the

structure components with our watershed programs.

Mr. PETERSON. How is their budget? Can you tell us how much

money have they have got?

Mr. KNIGHT. I do not have that off the top of my head, sir.

Mr. PETERSON. You don’t know off-hand whether they can get

from both sources?

Mr. KNIGHT. We try, in the whole effort with cooperative conservation, to be coordinating efforts wherever we can while also

making sure that we are not having Federal dollars augment Federal dollars where that is prohibited and we quite often face that

with our watershed programs. We are expecting a local match and

we cannot utilize another Federal agency’s contribution as part of

that local match.

Mr. PETERSON. According to your testimony, NRCS and the FSA has completed, I guess, $54 million did you say, in the Katrina/Rita

emergency, EWP and ECP, are you right about that?

Mr. KNIGHT. That is correct.

Mr. PETERSON. So you got that much done. How much more? Is

that it or is there going to be more work to be done? Where are

you at with that whole situation?

Mr. KNIGHT. With both ECP and EWP, those are funded on an

ad hoc basis, as I believe everyone is aware of and as we face the

devastation following Katrina and Rita, both Farm Service Agency

and NRCS went through those projects that had been completed

from previous year funding and swept up any of the dollars that

we were able to save from lower cost contracts or work that wasn’t

done and that is what gave us a really sizable amount of money

to respond as quickly as we could with Rita and Katrina.

We have, through the president’s budget, proposed a request for $200 million for EWP and $160 for ECP for the funding for those

two programs, so there is a great deal of work that remains to be

done in the aftermath of both Katrina and Rita.

Mr. PETERSON. And at this point, do you think that is going to

be the amount that is going to address the problems?

13

Mr. KNIGHT. That is the best estimate and was included in the

president’s request for the response to these two events.

Mr. PETERSON. In our part of the world, when we have had

floods, we get a lot of erosion, they actually dig ditches through the

fields and so forth, but down there they lost a lot of fences and that

sort of thing. Do those things qualify?

Mr. KNIGHT. The Emergency Watershed Program is used to restore a watershed to its functioning capabilities and we work with

a community or a community sponsor, so we will go in and help

restore drainage, which we will do in areas following a hurricane,

take trees out of a watershed so that we don’t lose bridges, but that

sort of work. The Farm Service Agency, when it administers ECP,

is administering that on pasture land and farm land to be able to

respond to the individual producer’s needs and I know from visits

in Florida that they have helped following a hurricane in rebuilding fences.

Mr. PETERSON. And that is where the FSA program, that probably would qualify.

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, it would.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. And now the chair now turns to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Chairman, I am on a learning curve today and

I have no questions.

Mr. LUCAS. I am sure the Chief was pleased with that set of

questions. We now turn to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Knight, let me focus

on Watershed Flood Prevention Operations. It seems to me that

whether it is coming out of the USDA or out of the OMB or out

of Congress, these programs are not going anywhere fast in terms

of increases in funding. Although I welcome your comments about

trying to realize some critical mass and efficiencies from the use of

other conservation programs, they are not going anywhere, either,

as a practical matter of my observation.

They are not getting increases in funding. They are under attack

all the time, whether it is within the administration or within Congress and the reality is there are lots of needs out there that are

not being met and I think it is nice to talk about them and nice

to talk about the combination of programs, but I think, realistically, where we are talking about right now is prioritizing projects

that are on the book, much less dealing with projects that are coming at us and I don’t like that conclusion, but nonetheless, I think

that is the reality of the situation.

I am interested in your comments about how you propose to

prioritize within the Watershed Flood Prevention Operations. I am

referring to a sheet here that was not in your testimony, but came

out of one of your handouts, which is called Unfunded Federal

Commitments. It basically lists them all. It obviously interests me

from a personal perspective because Hawaii, as I counted up, has

the 10th largest total amount of unfunded Federal commitments,

all of which are in the P.L. 566 program, so I am obviously concerned about, and I think it should be everybody’s concern, about

how you propose to prioritize these things because I think the practical answer may lie in how we all prioritize. It doesn’t do a whole

14

bunch of good to leave these projects on the books. Some of my

projects have been on the books authorized since 1972. I don’t

know if that is unusual or not, but that is how old some of them

are.

And so the question is can you flesh out a little bit more your

priority funds? You talk about local action, for example, as being

a criteria for prioritization. You talk about some, talk around a little bit in the materials here and what I think you are saying is

some update on the merits of each one of these projects which may

or may not have arisen out of an earmark situation or a specific

authorization that was congressionally driven or USDA driven.

How exactly do you want to go about prioritizing and working with

Congress to do it?

Mr. KNIGHT. With any of our other programs, sir, we would do

a resource-based allocation to a State and then let the local conservation process, working with our partners, make that sort of a

determination at the State level. That is the way we do almost any

other program except this, because we are plagued with the earmarks. We are really plagued with how do you handle an appropriate process that gets us to the level of discussion.

The first step for us is to now go through a program like this.

We show a $1.8 billion backlog. Your project that you mentioned

that was authorized in 1972, I wish it was an anomaly, it is not.

We have programs that have been around that long, authorized

and no action has been taken. We need to start categorizing those,

as whether they are legitimately active project or an inactive

project. That is the first step for any one of us to start being able

to make a rational decision on how to prioritize things.

Mr. CASE. Do you have the authority to do that? Is that a matter

of just asking a State organization is this active or inactive and I

assume you have the authority to do that.

Mr. KNIGHT. I have the authority to do that much at this time

and intend to move forward with that.

Mr. CASE. What is your timing on that?

Mr. KNIGHT. I believe we should be able to have that done this

year.

Mr. CASE. You are going to do that nationally?

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes.

Mr. CASE. With all 500-plus projects?

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes.

Mr. CASE. So you are going to weed out the inactives and then

you are left with some universe of actives in some way, shape or

form?

Mr. KNIGHT. I will have a list that gives me the actives and the

inactives and then we will start looking at is there a process for

weeding out the inactives or a way for folks to look at whether or

not they should be on an active list.

Mr. CASE. Are you saying that you don’t have the statutory authority right now to allow I think what you are describing as a

lump sum kind of a situation and we have got X amount of money

and you guys decide at the State level which way you want this

to go. You can activate something that is inactive, and deactivate

something that is active and still around in some way, shape, or

form. Is that not something you can do right now?

15

Mr. KNIGHT. We work with the partners on this, and so the first

level for us is to really determine, working with our cooperators

and our partners, are they still interested in this project and still

interested in that moving forward? I wouldn’t be about calling

something inactive, if the partnership was still there and still

wanting to move forward. But as we know, a lot of changes have

occurred across the country over the last two decades. The rural/

urban interface is so dramatically different in many areas, that you

really have to look at, is that still a viable project? And that is

what we want to do with this first level of assessment.

Mr. CASE. Now I am out of time myself, but as I go back to my

State and report on the initiative that you are going to go with, in

terms of trying to create a better sense of priorities, which I agree

with, what kind of duck should they be getting? An order I guess.

That is the way to look at it. How should they be prioritizing it,

from your perspective? What are the ingredients to be focused on?

Mr. KNIGHT. We have got to look at: Is the partnership alive? Is

the need alive? Can the need be addressed with other technologies

and capabilities? We have duplication between the programs. It

may not work as well on the islands of Hawaii as it may in where

I farm in South Dakota, but we have some programs where the

right mix of conservation, tillage, and activities in the watershed

can dramatically change the need for some of these watersheds.

Mr. CASE. OK, thank you.

Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now

turns to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing

and, Chief Knight, I appreciate your testimony.

I listen to our discussions that we are having here and I look

back at what years I have involved in, excuse me, watershed

projects and P.L. 566’s in particular. It occurs to me that I have

built a lot of those projects before I actually knew what they were

from a statutory perspective. And during those years, when I was

just learning to shave and we were building those P.L. 566 dams,

I really had a vision that one day we, at least in the rural part of

the country, we would have all the structures built that would

allow us to let almost every rural drop of rainfall go through some

permanent practical structure, whether it be a terrace, a waterway,

or a watershed dam. And particularly, P.L. 566’s were a huge component of that vision and we still work on that today. It does, and

I have been a strong supporter throughout all those years, it does

concern me when we talk about the backlogs that are part of this.

I know it concerns all of us here. And yet, as the backlogs are being

addressed and that statistic of going down to one in three is helpful

to see that progress, I see that there are also requests for new

projects that are piling up pretty quickly. And in my particular

State, I can probably name you at least six large proposals, and

that is a growing number. It may well be 10. It could be more than

that at this point. In fact, it seems as though, in our rural counties,

that that is one of the tools that seems to be on the first part of

the list of the things they want to do for economic development,

build a large reservoir. I better not say large, from the perspective

of the national scale, but a large dam that might be—that have

acres and acres of storage in the hundreds of acres of surface area

16

water. And sometimes the question is, well, is this for flood control?

Is it for economic development? Is it for recreation? Is it to enhance

residential development, rural development, et cetera? And yes, it

is for all of those things. And so I am interested in what we might

be able to do to continue going down that path. But the economic

development incentive that is in place there, and the vision that is

there in each of those counties, seems to be consistent that they

want a place to fish, a place to view on the water, they want to

do flood control, but the business model seems to be a little bit

lacking. And I am going to ask you a question here that may be

a little bit out of school, and I will give you plenty of room to just

slide away, Chief, if you choose to do that. But I know we have had

this discussion, and so you are somewhat prepped, and that is that

the business model that I would see is, I would want to ask your

thoughts, if we would bring a kind of a proposal for P.L. 566 that

for new projects might give a priority to the best business models,

those kind of models that would actually return on the investment,

that instead of having model that says yes, this will work under

these conditions, we would have one that would say here it is.

If we do it under this model, it will return this many property

tax dollars. It will leave a place here for some actual retail, and

it is going to return back into the tax rolls the lost revenue that

comes from the property that is taken off the tax rolls, but a business model that actually is economic development than just a recreational structure to look at. So it has flood control, all the things

we get with P.L. 566 and actually adds, and gives people a reason.

And if we do that, can we do it in a way, you think, that we can

get people living down near the waterline?

Mr. KNIGHT. We had been working on a concept of how to put

market-based incentives into conservation in looking for that right

approach on many of our programs. In the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program, I use that in giving those States that are more

efficient in delivery of EQIP additional dollars, approaching it from

that business model aspect. As it pertains to the Watershed Program, we have an economic benefit cost ratio that is not as robust

as what I would like to see, quite frankly, to do the business model

approach that you are doing, to look at having that fit into the

prioritization for the programs. If we were to have a program that

had room for prioritization, I would be very willing to look at how

to build a business model case into that work, one that puts in agriculture use for the water, municipal use for the water, recreational uses, to more robustly evaluate how to prioritize these

programs.

Mr. KING. And, Chief, would it be your judgment that you have

the discretion to do that now or do you need a statutory change

that might help facilitate that?

Mr. KNIGHT. I would have to get back to you on whether we have

got sufficient latitude or we would need a statutory adjustment.

Mr. KING. I would be interested in that and I would be very

happy to work with you on that. I think we will get a lot better

return on our tax dollars if we can go to a business model on these

projects. Thank you very much, Chief. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you.

17

Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now turns to

the gentle lady from South Dakota for her questions.

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this important hearing. And thank you, Chief Knight, for your service at the

NRCS and your association work as well as your service to the

State of South Dakota and our fellow constituents there.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you.

Ms. HERSETH. I want to just follow up with one brief question,

tagged onto Ranking Member Holden’s question about EQIP, because you have talked in your testimony about some duplication

here and how you are trying to address the backlog with some of

the projects, and working with the local sponsors to see whether

program monies might be available. And you had mentioned that

we have seen from a couple of years ago when you came on board

in your current position, where you accepted one out of eight contracts or applications to one out of every three now, but given the

budget reconciliation bill that passed the House a few weeks ago,

we are seeing billions of dollars cut from agriculture programs, including many conservation programs, the Conservation Security

Program, decrease the number of acres for the Conservation Reserve Program, and for EQIP. So do you have a concern, as you

continue to work on the backlog here and looking at other projects,

that we could very well, within the next year or two, if the reconciliation bill is ultimately enacted, see a trend the other way,

from one out of every three to one out of every five to one out of

every eight, and what impact is that going to have on the programs

that you administer, watershed or otherwise? And we both know

the importance of the EQIP Program, in particular, to our ranchers

and feeders and South Dakota and to the local communities.

Mr. KNIGHT. One of the real challenges as we go through, as you

are all quite aware, as we go through the reconciliation process, is

by nature the handcuffs that you all have as you are making decisions on that, administrative savings, changes and reforms to the

programs, you are not able to tally up as a means of providing direction to folks such as myself in how to administer the programs.

So that leaves you with a very difficult choice as it pertains to adjustments on larger programs. The decisions that face folks administering these programs, I quite honestly have regretted, but yet I

also recognize the larger nature of the deficit and the need to live

within those and make those adjustments so we can administer

those programs within the parameters that you all make as you

move forward on reconciliation.

Ms. HERSETH. But it is possible, given your experience of a few

ago and where we are, not only with EQIP in particular, but that

you may find some restrictions on your flexibility there, given funding levels going forward, if it is enacted, in trying to avoid the duplication, but basically a narrowing of the choices or options available to the local project sponsors.

Mr. KNIGHT. The conservation programs, following the 2002 farm

bill, had nearly an 80 percent increase in overall funding. And so

we have gone through a period of fairly rapid growth, and are really focused now at making sure that we continue to administer the

2002 farm bill. In that context, after several years of rapid growth,

the generosity of both Congress and the administration towards

18

conservation, we have got a very full plate before us, and the adjustments that we are seeing in reconciliation will not impede the

ability to continue to make major progress on the conservation

portfolio for the next several years.

Ms. HERSETH. Well, thank you. I appreciate your responses and

certainly your work in advancing the rapid assessments for these

projects. So I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. The chair now turns to the gentleman

from Kansas.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Chief Knight,

thank you for joining us. Thank you for, several years ago, allowing

our paths to cross in Kansas. Thank you very much for your interest in Kansas conservation issues.

In your comments to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, administering the 2002 farm bill, do you have any thoughts at this

point in time as to what we ought to be looking at in the 2007 farm

bill? Any particular broad guidelines, perhaps, that we ought to be

thinking about, from your perspective?

Mr. KNIGHT. Secretary Johanns has just recently wrapped up the

farm bill listening sessions, some 40 of those. Many of you had opportunities to participate in those. We are evaluating those sessions, and from that we will then be able to move forward as an

administration on next steps for the farm bill.

Mr. MORAN. I take that as an answer, as not at this time. Chief

Knight, one of the issues at home in Kansas, brought to my attention by the State Association of Kansas Watersheds, is an effort

that they clearly recognize that P.L. 566 Program it is the backbone of what we do in flood control. But the question that they

have raised is, what kind of opportunities do landowners, farmers,

have in regards to controlling waters, flood control, absent the dam

structures? Easements. Other kind of nontraditional flood control

efforts. And the point they raise is, it is hard to get a farmer

whose, perhaps, most productive land would be affected by that

easement, to participate in that program. Is there some effort or

theory that we could operate under, in regard to a working lands

program, in regard to flood control?

Mr. KNIGHT. I believe that may be a topic that we should explore

further. How do we utilize those easements and the full range of

working lands tools that we have? In the Watershed Rehabilitation

Program, we are now looking at a need to make very large investments in watershed structures, because we hadn’t had the right

easement, perhaps, or the right management downstream from

that structure over the last 20 years. And so I believe, in the future, we need to look both upstream and downstream from the

structure and look at the total range of conservation tools, perhaps

including easements, for addressing the long-term viability of those

structures and their functions.

Mr. MORAN. But perhaps at the time I had two questions together, Chief. I do think that the next farm bill will be once again

very oriented toward conservation programs, but it does seem important to me that as we develop those programs, that they be oriented in a way that allows a farmer to continue to earn a living

farming, as compared to setting aside land, and emphasize just

how important it is for farmers to continue to practice farming to

19

try to earn a living in that profession. And so I look forward to

working with you and NRCS and others at the time.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. And I share your enthusiasm for the

working lands component. So the 2002 farm bill, I think we will

look back at that as perhaps the hallmark of the conservation provisions of the 2002 farm bill.

Mr. LUCAS. Chief, the subcommittee appreciates your time, your

insights and your responses to our questions, and we would serve

note that we will probably be sending a few more written questions

for you to follow up on. And I would like to personally note that

soon I will make my annual trip down to visit one of our mutual

friends at OMB, as I work, along with my colleagues, hard to make

sure you have the resources you need to implement all of the many

responsibilities that you have. It, once again, no doubt will be another challenging budget year, but remember, you have got to push

while we pull. Thank you, Chief.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. LUCAS. And with that, we would like to invite our next list

of witnesses to the table. And as they are getting prepared, I would

like to note that one of my fellow Oklahomans is on our panel

today, Mr. Bill Wilson, president of the National Association of

Conservation Districts. We also have Mr. Mike Sykes, chairman of

the National Watershed Coalition, from Romney, West Virginia.

And, Ed, I believe Mr. Holden will introduce you in a moment. And

also Mr. Bruce E. Albright, administrator, Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, Barnesville, Minnesota. You may proceed when

you are ready, Mr. Wilson.

STATEMENT OF BILL WILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Holden. And I

am going to go back home, Mr. Chairman, and tell the folks that

your subcommittee hearing, you had the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee here, and I

appreciate both of you guys being here. So thank you very much,

and I appreciate all the members in the subcommittee being here.

Thank you. As you said, I am here representing the 3,000 conservation districts across this country and almost all the watershed

projects under the P.L. 566 and P.L. 534 and the pilot projects, are

sponsored by, at the local level, conservation districts. So my members are excited about having us invited here to testify and we

thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly there are several challenges in this program that we

see from the local sponsor position, so I will just address a few of

those. And you have my written testimony, and if you would include that in the record, I would appreciate it. We hear some critics

about duplication of programs, and we have heard that discussion

here to some extent today. And we certainly don’t think that we

should duplicate the same efforts or to the same work on the same

acres, if you will, from the different programs. But can we figure

out a way to integrate these programs to address these needs on

a comprehensive basis? We don’t think that would be duplication.

We think that would be synergy. And I guess I would refer to what

the chief mentioned, is the Watershed Rapid Assessment that the

20

agency is just now rolling out. And if the result of this is a way

to do that, to prevent duplication, but to integrate these programs,

then we applaud that. If this document is no more than a paper

exercise to delay implementation and results in this program, then

we would caution that we ought to look at that as well.

Let us talk about where we see the real problem in this program,

and that is the funding and the backlog and the earmarking. This

program has been around a long time. It has gotten a lot good conservation work on the ground. It is not all just flood control and

never has been. It has always been a watershed basis, comprehensive planning tool and implementation tool to get conservation

work done on the ground, and still is. It still has those authorities.

Where we see the problem is, for whatever reason, the funding has

dropped to a level that does not respond to the needs and requests

of the local sponsors, and thus it has driven, I think, Members of

Congress toward the earmarking situation. It has driven our local

sponsors to go to their member of Congress and say, we need the

funding for our project, and so that is where the earmarks come

from.

I would caution, though, that even though those projects are

being earmarked for the funding, that they still represent good conservation work out there on the land. They are still being implemented according to the technical guide and the technical expertise

of the agency. So there isn’t anything wrong with the work being

done. The only issue in my mind is the priority on whose job or

whose project gets done and whose doesn’t. So I would certainly insert that the fact that these projects are earmarked, doesn’t mean

they are not good work. And I would say as I say to members and

people as I travel across this country representing my members,

that the American people, the American taxpayer, gets good value

for the dollars they spend on conservation. And that is true even

though some of these programs may be earmarked for reasons beyond perhaps the local sponsor’s control. So I would just insert

that.

I would close by saying that in the Watershed Rehab Program,

we have an opportunity, I think, to be able to maintain the cadre

of staff and the disciplines that the agency needs to actually implement and design and plan all these programs. So I would encourage all of us to encourage the agency to maintain that level of staffing as high as it can be, because those same disciplines can work

either in the Base Program or in the Rehab Program. And with

that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I am going to end my testimony

there and would be happy to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears at the conclusion

of the hearing.]

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Bill. Mr. Sykes, whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. SYKES, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL

WATERSHED COALITION

Mr. SYKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Michael Sykes, chairman of the National Watershed Coalition, and it is a privilege for me to present this testimony. And we thank the chairman for holding this hearing to review the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Watershed Program.

21

My home State of West Virginia has been a leader in the program since its inception. I personally have seen and heard about

the impacts of these projects that have had impacts on many peoples lives in West Virginia. As NWC chairman, I also have the opportunity to talk to many watershed sponsors and to visit watershed projects across the Nation. I have seen the many benefits of

the projects in many States, and I do know the challenges.

The USDA Watershed Program is a proven and successful program. The program is a true partnership between the local communities, State and Federal Government. Watershed projects are

planned and implemented by the local people who serve as project

sponsors and also have the responsibility of the operation and

maintenance after the construction is done with assistance from

USDA/NRCS. The National Watershed Coalition is extremely concerned about the continuing decline in funding for the USDA program. We urge you to examine the administration’s budget proposals for the Watershed Program as compared to the actual appropriation for the program by Congress. While Congress has appropriated above the administration’s requested levels, appropriations

have not kept pace with the documented needs.

I must preface my comments by saying that we do not begrudge

any watershed sponsor funding for their planned and approved

project, be it earmarked or otherwise. However, we believe that the

earmark culture is out of control within the program. In recent

budgets, the aggregate of the individual earmarks has exceeded the

appropriations by 20 to 30 percent. Earmarks carry a negative connotation to the public, and they have become the rule rather than

the exception for project funding. Earmarking in excess of 100 percent of appropriations is also systematic of administrative and a

philosophical disconnect. The fallout from this disconnect makes it

extremely difficult for the heart and soul of the program, which is

the local watershed sponsor, to function. It disrupts their ability to

plan, budget, and secure and obligate funds. We do not naively believe earmarks will go away. We strongly urge representatives of

Congress to open a discussion with the administration, aimed at restoring order to the appropriation process as it relates to the USDA

Watershed Program.

NRCS Chief Bruce Knight, recently issued a challenge to our coalition members to assist in reshaping the Watershed Program for

the coming 50 years. Key to this revitalization coming to pass is

the recognition of the economic and environmental value of the program. Adjustments are needed to address these changing issues

and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Watershed Program. These adjustments will help to maintain the credibility of

the program, while recognizing the reality of today’s Federal, State

and local situations.

As sponsors consider the future of the programs, they face several major issues. There are 457 watershed dams that are already

exceeding their designed life, and that number will grow to 4,410

within the next 10 years. Some dams no longer meet current dam

safety criteria and standards. Elements, such as the metal and the

concrete for the principal spillway, in some dams have deteriorated

over time and need replacement. By 2005, 134 rehabilitation

projects have been funded in 21 States, and that is great. RehabiliVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:22 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\109-22 HAGRI PsN: HAGRI
22

tation of USDA/NRCS-assisted dams is not only ensuring that

dams remain safe and continue to provide multiple benefits to communities, but also extend the dams life for another 100 years. The

need for rehabilitation is increasing and will not go away. Current

funding authorization expires in 2007. The primary challenge for

the future is obligating adequate funding. There is a major concern

of the coalition. The coalition recommends that funding be authorized at least at the 2007 funding level. We also suggest that methods be explored to fund rehabilitation of low-hazard dams that do

not necessarily protect human life but are critical to the protection

of the downstream flood plain that is important to the communities’ economic base. In addition, the Federal cost share should be

raised, and lowered to the sponsors, because that is a hardship for

them on rehabilitation projects.

In closing, we see an excellent program that is not reaching its

potential, as it suffers financially and administratively. Subsequently, we see an agency which has had the most knowledgeable

watershed technicians, many of them my friends and co-workers,

engineers, planners in the world, downsizing their workforce, limiting the ability to provide support to the local watershed project

sponsors, sponsors that, based on a partnership, have a legal longterm commitment to a substantial investment, sponsors who need

support to address their responsibilities for aging projects. We see

a program that has the flexibility to meet many resource needs,

which needs, by ability, restored. We believe there are opportunities at hand to increase the viability of the Watershed Program and

to improve Federal support for the watershed project sponsors to

meet their current and future commitments. We very much appreciate the subcommittee’s invitation to bring our views, concerns,

and suggestions about the Watershed Program to this hearing. I

will try to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, that I could at

this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sykes appears at the conclusion

of the hearing.]

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Sykes. Now the chair would like to

turn to the ranking member, Mr. Holden, for the next introduction.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to introduce my constituent, Mr. Ed Wytovich, who is the president of

Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Mine Reclamation. Mr. Chairman, Ed has a 30-year history of working on watershed restoration,

primarily with acid mine drainage, which is a serious problem in

Pennsylvania and West Virginia. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. You may proceed, Mr. Wytovich.

STATEMENT OF ED WYTOVICH, PRESIDENT, EASTERN

PENNSYLVANIA COALITION FOR MINE RECLAMATION

Mr. WYTOVICH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and

members of the committee. I am pleased to be here and honored

to testify on behalf of watershed restoration efforts in Pennsylvania, and also on behalf of all the volunteers that I represent. See,

I too am a volunteer. I am an eighth grade science teacher at

Upper Dauphin High School, or Middle School in Dauphin County,

Pennsylvania. I have been actively involved in land and water restoration projects in the anthracite region of the northeast PennsylVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:22 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\109-22 HAGRI PsN: HAGRI
23

vania for over 30 years. I consider myself an active environmentalist. I work with several conservation groups, industry representatives, elected officials, and students to help found 10 watershed organizations in the Commonwealth. I am also the charter member

and president of the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned

Mine Reclamation.

Work we have been able to accomplish is proof that building

partnerships is essential to any winning watershed strategy. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation

Service, the Resource Conservation Development Councils and the

conservation districts are all vital components of our team. In 1996

representatives of the conservation districts in eastern Pennsylvania, in the Pocono Northeast Resource Conservation District led

the way for the formation of the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for

Abandoned Mine Reclamation. We formed the coalition to identify

how districts and local cooperating organizations could promote

and contribute to local, State and Federal mine reclamation efforts

in the anthracite region.

Our mission is to encourage redevelopment of mines and water,

serve as a liaison between public and private sectors and conduct

outreach and education on these important issues. Today,

EPCAMR has grown to include three full-time employees and is

funded through an EPA 319 grant. Our membership is comprised

from appointees from the conservation districts in a 14 county area,

watershed associations and industry representatives. EPCAMR is

supportive of reestablishing and funding the Rural Abandoned

Mine Program, RAMP, which has been financed by the Abandoned

Mine Fund and administered by the USDA and RCS. RAMP is authorized for the purpose of reclaiming the soil and water resources

of rural lands adversely impacted by past coal mining practices,

however, the program has not been funded since 1997 and USDA

has not dedicated staff to it since fiscal year 2003.

This program worked through local communities, conservation

districts and other agencies to solve and address many abandoned

mine land problems. NRCS provided most of the technical assistance, natural resource planning, design and construction of reclamation projects. In 1996 I helped form the Catawissa Creek Restoration Association; I am the current president. I like to use the

Catawissa as an example of how the USDA involvement aided a

watershed towards recovery. Very little mining actually took place

in the Catawissa Watershed, but it was a convenient place to drill

five mine drainage tunnels which then drained the Anthracite

mines of the outlying areas. These tunnels were dug to drain by

gravity the coal fields in the headwaters of the Catawissa, especially in the Hazleton area. Although underground mining in this

area ceased many years ago, these tunnels still discharge millions

of gallons of acid mine drainage daily into the Catawissa Creek and

its tributaries, rendering it virtually lifeless throughout most of its

42-mile length.

With the help of the NRCS engineers, we devised a plan in which

manure storage tanks could be used for future projects that will enable us to reduce the footprint of the projects. We calculated what

would be necessary to treat the Audenreid Mine Tunnel Discharge,

the largest abandoned mine drainage discharge in the watershed

24

located near the headwaters of the Catawissa Creek. It is probably

the second largest IMD discharge in the Anthracite region.

In a cooperative venture between the PA, Pennsylvania Conservation Districts and NRCS, a conceptual design was put forth.

The Schuylkill Conservation District, in partnership with

Catawissa Creek Restoration Association applied for a grant

through the PA Growing Greener program to design and build a

passive treatment system for the Audenreid Discharge. This is perhaps the largest passive treatment system in terms of amount of

water to be treated ever built. The system was scheduled to come

on line this past Friday, December 2 and actually, it is coming on

line as I now speak. When completed, the Audenreid discharge

treatment system will effectively restore water quality for 36 miles

of now impaired stream and make it into what we believe will be

a world class trout stream.

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission estimate that this

project will have a benefit cost ratio of two to one due to increased

recreational fishing opportunities. This does not take into consideration the added benefits of increased property values along the

stream corridor, opportunities for other recreational pursuits, such

as birding, camping and guide services. The members of the

Catawissa Creek Restoration Association who have been a part of

this restoration since the beginning feel a greater sense of stewardship towards their watershed. Through participation and reclamation efforts, we develop ownership and from that ownership we develop stewardship. This could not have happened if it were not for

the partnerships that have been developed and nurtured by the

conservation districts, EPCAMR, Catawissa Creek Restoration Association, the NRCS, the Pocono Northeast RC&D, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the EPA, land

owners and many others have come together to restore the

Catawissa.

Pennsylvania’s watershed groups can point to several successes,

but there is much work left to be done. We believe our efforts to

bring all parties to the table may be stifled due to the elimination

of important programs such as RAMP, the lack of Federal funding

for RC&Ds and staff. It is my hope that I have shed light on a

small but equally important program and continue to work together to address our watershed concerns. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wytovich appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Ed. Mr. Albright.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE E. ALBRIGHT, ADMINISTRATOR,

BUFFALO-RED RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee. I am the administrator for the Buffalo-Red River

Watershed District located in Barnesville, Minnesota. Our district

covers 1,380 square miles in parts of four counties in northwestern

Minnesota and I have served as their administrator since 1980. I

thank you for today’s invitation to testify.

We were formed in 1976 as a political subdivision of the State

of Minnesota and to date have developed 60 projects to address

water quality and quantity issues. We are similar to other areas

25

in the Red River Valley, located in Minnesota, North Dakota, South

Dakota and Canada. We work with a variety of agencies to address

flood damage reduction and natural resource enhancement. Many

times we need your help to solve these problems. What happens on

a watershed basis has local, regional and sometimes international

impact. Minnesota has a unique distinction of being the headwaters of three major watershed systems. This distinction also entails the obligation to manage these waters responsibly. This obligation cannot be borne solely by Minnesota, but should be shared

through partnerships with landowners, Government and USDA watershed programs.

NRCS has been a partner in conservation since 1935. The work

of local watersheds can be greatly enhanced through partnering

with them. With watershed planning and in particular, P.L. 566,

USDA has embarked on a major effort called locally led conservation. Local people, generally, with the leadership of a conservation

district or in our particular case, a watershed district, along with

NRCS technical assistance, can assess natural resource conditions

and needs, set goals, identify ways to solve resource problems and

utilize a broad array of programs to implement solutions and measure their success.

The desire for assistance is clearly expressed through the growth

of a nationwide watershed movement. Landowners have long

sought USDA expertise. We continue to seek the best available

science and planning skills to assess natural resource problems.

Limited funding at local, State and Federal levels highlight the importance of continuing those programs that provide the most benefit to society in general. Watershed programs, as administered by

the USDA are proven methods to protect, enhance or restore our

vital natural resources, which are critical to our very survival.

In my written testimony, I have detailed several Minnesota

projects that are currently being developed using watershed programs. USDA has a long history of successful projects in Minnesota. For those projects underway or completed, we thank you.

For those that have been terminated or currently unfunded, we

need your future involvement. The USDA has many good programs

to protect our resources, but many times protection is not enough

to address problems that have developed over a long period of time.

We first need watershed programs to analyze, plan and restore our

resources. Federal water quality mandates and lack of resources to

complete studies continue to put urban and rural communities at

great economic risk.

In the 1950’s, we had several P.L. 566 projects where planning

was terminated due to lack of funding. The problems identified at

that time have not gone away. One particular project, Comstock

Coulee, has a drainage area of 105 square miles with 95 percent

of this area private, cultivated land. The Coulee is a direct tributary to the Red River of the North, where agencies have identified

impaired reaches for turbidity, low oxygen and fecal coliform. The

downstream cities of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota have intakes for their water supply downstream of the Coulee outlet. These communities rely on the Red River to furnish good

water to a growing population.

26

Landowners recognize the need to address these problems at a

watershed level. In 2005 we held two meetings to discuss the same

concerns that were raised over 40 years ago. Many of the family

names are the same; we are just dealing with the next generation.

By working together, we can address the types of problems identified for Comstock Coulee, as well as other areas within our particular district, the State of Minnesota and our Nation. Landowners

are ready, willing and able to participate in a solution to these

problems, but we need your assistance. Their role will be to provide

the long-term stewardship needed to protect our valuable resources

and your role will be to fund programs that restore and enhance

these resources for this and future generations. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Albright appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Bruce. I appreciate your comments. First,

we would like to note that Mr. Wilson is exactly right. I think Mr.

Holden and I are very pleased to have both the chairman and the

ranking member of the committee here with us today. That says

something about the focus of this body on these issues and we are

very appreciative of their attendance. And I also think it is worth

noting, too, that we have come a long ways, gentlemen, in spite of

the agony that the earmarking process has brought on, some might

say the corruption of a very wonderful concept dating back to the

1940’s, conceptually back to the 1930’s, even. But there is not a

problem that can’t be overcome.

You are all living examples, with the effort of, on your part, and

with this subcommittee and full committee to create the rehabilitation program and to come to a common agreement on a formula to

allocate that money that has worked amazingly well. Now, we

might all disagree on how many dollars should have been available

in the last 4 years, but the formula has worked amazingly well and

various people, a tendency more, perhaps, on the other side of this

Government complex than this side, have shown some restraint in

rehab that they have not in the new projects. I think that is one

of the things that we have to focus on, personally, not just my annual trip down to the OMB director to remind him that these programs exist and that they are important to the future of the country and popular across the countryside, but also an acknowledgement that as we work towards the 2007 farm bill, just as we came

together to address and create an answer to the rehab program,

that we need to look at these other issues, too, in anticipation of

2007.

I guess I have a direct question I would like to ask and whoever

on the panel would care to answer that, when it comes to the workload that is presently being handled in rehab, what percentage of

that is done by Federal staff and what percentage is done by State

or local conservation entities? Just a rough guesstimate, guys, and

I know from region to region, State to State, that that number will

vary.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know exactly what those percentages are. The program-wide project, it is pretty difficult to,

when you look at the dollars that are spent at the local and the

State portion of that is much greater than the Federal contribution,

although the law requires that 100 percent of the construction be

27

federally funded, that is just for the flood damage reduction portion. If a city or a community is going to add a few feet for water

storage, they have to pay for that totally themselves, and then the

land rights and a lot of the design work is paid for by the local or

State government, so I don’t know the staff question, I don’t have

a good answer for that, but the projects, themselves, are certainly

cost shared and always have been and in most cases, many cases

these days, there is a bigger portion of that comes from the State

or local, a lot of that being land rights, as we understand the value

of land is going up. Maybe one of the other panel members has a

better number on the percentage of staff.

Mr. SYKES. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an actual percentage for

you, but I can tell you that in West Virginia the NRCS employees

work back with the local sponsors. They work back through the

State Government and we sit down and analyze each and every—

we pretty well work as a unit, as a team. I would say that most

of the planning, the actual technical work, the planning work, the

design work, those kind of things are done by NRCS, but the local

folks have input into which structure gets the rehab. They also

have input because they have to do their O and M work in order

for it to qualify for rehab, so it is a partnership and it works very

well. Very pleased with that.

Mr. LUCAS. One last question and we will turn to my colleagues

for their observations. Of course, in particular, in the rehab program, in the 2002 farm bill, we authorized hope that $600 million

would be spent over that period on rehabilitation and I think, probably, if you throw in this year’s $31 million that has been signed

into law by the president, it probably brings us in, approximately

$30 million number on what has been spent. Looking at what you

see across the country from your perspectives, is it fair to say that

if that $600 million had been available or would be available by the

end of this farm bill, which is just a few days away, so to speak,

that it would have been all fully utilized, Bill?

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. No question about it. I talked to a district manager from North Carolina last evening. He told me that

they are one of the pilot watersheds. They have 11 structures in

their district; it is a county. And seven of those structures are

needing fairly major repair, primarily, it is in principal spillway

leakage. Three of those they have been able to fund with local

funds and sleeve those and help solve the problem. They still have

four that are real urgent and as of today, he has not been able to

get any money through the rehab program to assist him; it has all

been locally funded, but they don’t have enough money to do those

other four now and they need to be done before failure happens,

so those are some of the issues, that the need is out there. There

is no question in my mind that the number that we worked on, you

and I and all of us together, was a real number that really just

started to address the problem, but it would have been utilized, no

doubt in my mind.

Mr. LUCAS. Fair enough. Thank you, Bill. Mr. Holden.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for

their testimony. The message I think that we received from all of

you is that you are our local partner and you have been doing a

wonderful job, but you cannot continue to make the progress that

28

you have been able to make if the Federal Government does not

step up to the plate, whether that be in the 566 Program or in the

RAMP Program. And that is not in the form of a question because

I know what your answer will be and we will continue to work on

that.

Mr. Wilson, I guess you would be the person I would want to ask

this question to, and if anyone else wants to chime in from the

panel, I would be glad to let them do that. As we get prepared to

do the 2007 farm bill and we look at Watershed Programs and

USDA, the different functions of USDA, several of them have the

watershed components, and we all believe that it is better to have

more money and fewer programs and to consolidate them than less

money in more programs. I was just wondering if you had any specific recommendations as we get ready for the 2007 farm bill before

we consolidate.

Mr. WILSON. Well, Mr. Holden, as you know, and I know that all

of us know, the watershed, the base program we call it, P.L. 534

and 566, is not a farm bill program. It is a discretionary program.

It has its own legislation. So I think it is worth noting that. But

certainly the other farm bill program, and the chief talked about

that a little bit, is the EQIP Program and some of those other land

treatment programs that are available for us to utilize are certainly

very important. Our argument is, from my members’ standpoint, is

that we should maintain those programs, but we should make sure

that they are integrated so that they work together to compliment

each other.

And so the opportunity, I guess, from a local sponsor’s standpoint, when you really get down to it, it just like a farmer walks

into a field office and it is a conservation district and field office

co-located. We don’t really care which staff, whether it is local

funded or State funded or Federal funded staff, helps us as long

as we get the answers we need or the assistance we need, and that

is kind of the way we see these programs. We think that we could

put these programs together, create synergy around the Watershed

Program on a watershed basis. And certainly the watershed, the

P.L. 566 and 534, the unique thing about those programs is, they

do provide flood damage reduction, or some people call it flood protection, and the other programs don’t do that. So there is certainly

a way to integrate these programs within a watershed and take advantage of all the programs and so that they compliment each

other.

Mr. HOLDEN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wytovich, we have primarily, so far in this panel, have been

talking about the 566 projects, but I wonder if you could expand

on your testimony about the scope of the problem we face with

abandoned mining reclamation problems, acid mine drainage. And

what you have been able to accomplish has been great, but without

the help of the Federal Government you could not have done that,

and also how important it is in the future with the RAMP Program

needing to be funded and what you will be able to accomplish in

the watershed, not only of the Chesapeake, but the Delaware Bay.

Mr. WYTOVICH. OK. The NRCS and the RC and Ds have been a

major help to us. The Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition was formed

really at the behest of the Pocono and Northeast RC and D with

29

the help of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

in the conservation districts. With that we were able to go out and

help to form watershed associations to help identify local problems.

This, in turn, we go back to our watershed specialists at our conservation districts. One thing that is important to note here, I

think, is that watersheds don’t know where geopolitical boundaries

are, and so we have had great cooperation between conservation

districts and adjoining counties and municipalities in Pennsylvania, and it has helped to build this web or partners that we have.

The RAMP is, was a great program. I would love to see it reinstated. It helped us with our Oneida No. 1 project, which, in that

particular project, it laid down the foundations and demonstrated

the usefulness of the technology that we used for the Audenreid

project that I spoke about. It was at the dedication ceremony for

that Audenreid project, at the Oneida project, when I spoke to the

engineer from NRCS, he said, if I had to do it over again, he said,

I would use manure storage tanks for this, a unique way of applying a different technology. We went ahead and calculated what we

would need and was able to put down the cost to treat the

Audenreid project, one that most people thought was undoable up

to that point in time, to the point where an engineer called me yesterday and said that she thought this was the most cost-effective

AMD project she has ever seen anywhere. For $2.2 million, we are

going to treat 36 miles of stream and have a benefit cost ratio of

2 to 1. That is just incredible. So all of these programs help us to

identify the problems and then to treat them.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. My time has expired.

Mr. LUCAS. The chair turns to the ranking member of the full

committee, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During his testimony,

Chief Knight indicated that his agency has undertaken efforts to

sweep or clean up, whatever he said, the list of pending 566

projects. What is your view of, from your side of the table, of what

is going on with that. Do you think they are going to get cleaned

up?

Mr. WILSON. OK, I will start. The backlog, a big question. I

thought Chief Knight did a pretty good job of answering how to approach that. And the concern is, with my organization and all the

local sponsors, is that these projects are really local projects. They

are assisted by USDA, by the Federal Government, through these

USDA programs, with financial and technical assistance. But in

the end, they still belong to the local communities. They are their

projects. In my particular watershed where I live, I can remember

going to meetings when I was still just a kid with my dad, where

there were USDA officials there, there were local people there,

State and local leaders there, talking about the watershed project.

And there were commitments made to those people. There was

State money already spent on surveys. Land rights in many cases

were already acquired.

And there has been a lot of local money. In other words, the local

sponsors have done their share. All they lack is the Federal share

to complete the project. And I thought the chief said it very well.

He said partners. I would have said local sponsors, but it doesn’t

matter. I don’t see any way that we can go through and unilaterVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:22 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\109-22 HAGRI PsN: HAGRI
30

ally, at any level, zero out or eliminate any of these projects without contacting those local sponsors and living up to the commitments that were made whenever they were made. We are willing

to work, and our members would work with NRCS, with State

agencies, with whoever, and we would welcome the opportunity, as

long as we are included in that discussion.

Mr. PETERSON. Other heads nodding. Does anybody else have

anything?

Mr. ALBRIGHT. The Buffalo-Red River Watershed District would

share and agree with Mr. Wilson’s comments, and we would look

forward to working with both local, State and Federal NRCS staff

to review that long list of projects that are out there because, clearly, things have changed. Some of our projects are 30, 40 years old,

and some of those projects have been resolved. They could sit down

with the local partners in determining which of those projects

should be eliminated and which ones may——

Mr. PETERSON. Do you think it is going to get cleaned up? Can

you give a percentage estimate?

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I would like for it to be cleaned up. Certainly

things have changed. There are some projects out there that

haven’t been visited in a number of years. The local sponsors, for

whatever reason, may have changed. The land use may have

changed. There are opportunities to clean projects off the table, and

we are willing to work with NRCS to get that done. I don’t have

any idea of what the percentage would be. And I am not trying to

dodge the question. I don’t think we can know that until we go

through the exercise.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I know in my area there are projects on the

list that maybe should have never been on there in the first place.

And so you got all kinds of different situations. Mr. Albright, I

think I understood, in your testimony, that you said that we should

first look to the watershed programs, like P.L. 566, to address resource concerns, and then we should kind of look to EQIP and

these other programs as kind of secondary. Can you explain to me

maybe in more depth where you are coming from there? Why do

you think the 566s are important?

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Well, in the one particular project that I cited in

my oral testimony, the Comstock Coulee, 40 years ago the needs

were identified to address soil erosion, wind erosion, a destabilizing

channel. And as we look at that project again, we had two meetings

just last year with landowners out there, those needs have not gone

away, they have only gotten worse. The downstream end of that

channel is cutting and needs grade stabilization. The upstream end

of that particular watercourse is aggrading or is filled in with sediments so that it no longer has any carrying capacity, and new

channels are being cut along the outside, which carry additional

sediment downstream. And I feel that a lot of the programs that

NRCS has are the tools to put the protection in place once a program like P.L. 566 can come in and address those initial concerns

up front. And that is why I believe we need programs like P.L. 566,

so that we can go in, do the work, and then we can apply other

USDA programs to protect the resource.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. One quick explanation, Ed, for a

flatlander from western Oklahoma. You referred to these shafts. Is

31

it shaft mining and they drilled into the side to let the water pressure off?

Mr. WYTOVICH. The shaft is vertical. The tunnels were dug in at

water level so that they didn’t have to pump, whether with electric

or steam pumps, up the shaft. The water would go out by gravity.

So it was an up-front expense. With long-term, it would cost a lot

less money to just drain the water. But now, even though the

mines are closed for 50 years, we still have the water.

Mr. LUCAS. Fair enough. Thank you for that concise explanation.

And thank you, gentlemen, for your insights and your responses to

the questions, and you are exactly right with the ranking member;

any group that worked diligently to go through all the hoops to put

their list on the project fairly and squarely. While there may be a

few instances where areas are now suburban and the world has

changed, the overwhelming majority of those good folks are still

going to expect the obligations to be met. That is why I addressed

my earlier comments about coming up with a better way to

prioritize and to fund existing efforts.

With that, thank you for your participation today. Without objection, the record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 days to

receive additional material and supplemental written responses

from witnesses to any question posed by a member of the panel.

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural

Development and Research is adjourned.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

STATEMENT OF BRUCE E. ALBRIGHT

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Bruce E.

Albright, administrator for the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, headquartered

in Barnesville, Minnesota. Our District covers 1,380 square miles, located in parts

of four counties in northwestern Minnesota. I’ve served as the District’s Administrator since 1980. In 1995, I was the recipient of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Certificate of Merit for Outstanding Conservation Cooperation and Application Assistance from State Conservationist William Hunt. I hope my credentials demonstrate the types of relationships that can be developed between Watershed Districts and the USDA.

The Buffalo-Red River Watershed District was formed in 1976 as a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota to address flooding problems. Our District is the

drainage authority for 69 legal drainage systems, totaling over 400 miles in length,

and to date has developed 60 projects to address drainage, flooding, natural resource

enhancement, and water quality concerns. Our District is similar to other areas in

the Red River Valley, located in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Canada. Since 1993,

our area has been in an extremely wet hydrologic cycle, and most of you probably

have heard about our 1997 devastating spring flood. We work closely with agencies

that make up our Mediation Project Team, including, but not limited to, the Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Minnesota

Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), and local landowners and interest groups to implement Watershed

Programs made available by the USDA. Sometimes, these projects have international impacts. We are very appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you

today.

WATERSHEDS DEFINED

The National Watershed Coalition has defined watersheds across the Nation as

the ‘‘land that water flows across or under on its way to a stream, river, or lake.’’

Our landscapes are made up of numerous interconnected basins, or watersheds.

32

Within each watershed, all water runs to the lowest point-a stream, river, or lake.

Large watersheds, like the ones for the Mississippi River, Columbia River, and Red

River of the North, are made up of many smaller watersheds that can cross several

states. Watersheds come in various shapes and sizes, and have many different features. Everyone lives in and belongs to a watershed community. Natural resource

activities, whether good or bad, can have an effect on the soil, water, air, plants,

and animals in a watershed. Minnesota has the unique distinction of being the

headwaters of three major watershed systems: the Mississippi River, the Great

Lakes, and the Red-Rainy River. This distinction also entails the obligation to manage these waters responsibly, acknowledging downstream interests. This obligation

cannot be borne solely by Minnesota, but is a responsibility that can be shared

through a partnership with local governments, landowners, and the Federal Government, particularly USDA.

AGENCY COOPERATION

NRCS has been ‘‘a partner in conservation since 1935’’. That’s seven decades of

helping people help the land. The work of local watersheds can be greatly enhanced

by forming partnerships with USDA, but we need your help to make Watershed

Programs available. These partnerships extend beyond individual landowners to the

state and local governments, as well as private organizations. In line with President

Bush’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative, we all look for opportunities to work

with others to avoid duplication, leverage resources, and accomplish mutual environmental goals.

With Watershed Planning (PL–566), NRCS has embarked on a major effort, called

‘‘locally-led conservation’’, which is an extension of the agency’s traditional assistance to individual farmers and ranchers for planning and installing conservation

practices for soil erosion, water management, and other purposes. It means that

local people, generally with the leadership of a conservation district, or in our particular case, a watershed district, along with NRCS technical assistance, will assess

natural resource conditions and needs; set goals; identify ways to solve resource

problems; and utilize a broad array of projects/programs to implement solutions; and

measure their success.

The desire for assistance is clearly expressed through the growth of a nationwide

‘‘watershed movement.’’ Local people want to protect and be stewards of their land

and water resources. They recognize the need to work together to plan and implement solutions to their resource problems. People now understand that what they

do on their land can affect others, and they need to ‘‘think globally and act locally’’,

or as we like to say in Minnesota, ‘‘think globally, act watershed.’’

Farmers and ranchers have sought NRCS technology and planning expertise for

the past 60 plus years. Watershed associations, conservation districts, irrigation districts, watershed improvement districts, and other groups will continue to seek the

best available science and planning skills to assist them to assess their natural resource conditions and help identify local solutions to problems. USDA can assist in

this regard through Watershed Programs.

The Buffalo-Red River Watershed District recognizes that we all need to use our

tax dollars wisely. This fact makes the work of this Subcommittee very important.

It also highlights the importance of continuing those Federal programs that provide

the most benefit to society in general. Watershed Programs, as administered by the

USDA and NRCS, are proven methods to protect, enhance, or restore our Nation’s

vital natural resources, which are critical to our very survival. The ‘‘watershed concept’’ offers a complete management approach to these issues. This approach not

only provides cost effective solutions through PL–566, but by combining this effort

with watershed planning, we can make more effective use of all programs by finding

reasonable solutions to specific watershed level problems.NRCS Watershed Programs are more important now than ever for Minnesota and the other States in our

Nation. The flooding and water quality issues today are watershed oriented and can

only be addressed in a watershed context.

MINNESOTA STATE ISSUES

Minnesota currently has four active PL–566 projects, which include:

(1) The Snake River flood prevention project, which was authorized in 2000, and

should be completed in 2006, will provide flood protection for the City of Warren

and productive agricultural lands. The long-term economic benefits, both urban and

rural, would not have been realized without the partnership afforded by the PL–

566 program. Project sponsors include the city of Warren and the Middle RiverSnake River Watershed District. The project area covers 166,400 acres. The total

estimated project costs are $12,283,700.

33

(2) The Kanaranzi-Little Rock water quality project, authorized in 1988, has made limited progress due to an unfunded Federal commitment of $780,000. This area has

an immediate need for $293,000 in financial and technical assistance to make real

progress in addressing the water quality needs of this watershed. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to push for assessment and designation

of impaired waters, local landowners are put at an increased risk of water quality

degradation because of funding shortfalls. Landowners, state, and local governments

are willing to hold up their end of the commitment. It’s time for the Federal Government to accelerate funding to meet at least the immediate needs of this project.

(3) The Whitewater River water quality project was authorized in 1998. The un- funded Federal commitment is $1,127,400. This area has an immediate financial

and technical assistance need of $750,000. Local landowners, with state and local

governments are ready and willing to proceed. Realizing progress however requires

increased financial and technical assistance to meet the USDA’s commitments to

this project. In the end, the losers are not only the landowners, but society in general, who are put at greater risk due to water quality impairments; diminished fish

and wildlife resources, diminished public recreational resources, and local community water supplies that continue to be threatened as source water protection areas

go unprotected. It will take full participation and commitment from all partners to

fulfill commitments for this project.

(4) The Bear Creek water quality project, which covers 34,990 acres in southeast

Minnesota and northeast Iowa, was authorized for planning in 1995, and approved

for operations in 1998. The project has an unfunded commitment in Minnesota of

$240,000 and an immediate need of $30,000.

Minnesota also has two PL–566 projects in the planning stage:

The Campbell/Rice Lake project focuses on assessing and developing plans to address water quality issues in the City of Detroit Lakes, located in Becker County.

This plan addresses a complex problem of soil chemistry and phosphorous mineralization not solvable at the farm or individual level.

The Two River Watershed District-Spring Brook Township project focuses on agricultural flooding and stream restoration. This project will provide flood protection

of cropland and also offers significant ecological restoration of a riparian area.Both

of these planning projects are the outgrowths of the Red River Mediation process

that has brought Federal, state, local government, landowners, and conservation

groups together to solve problems. Balancing natural resource enhancements, flood

prevention, and water quality improvement is a win-win situation for everyone.

USDA Watershed Programs are unique tools to help address these types of issues

and needs in both a small and large watershed context. Meeting Federal water quality mandates and reducing Federal expenditures in response to flood disasters, cannot be realized without a renewed commitment to USDA’s Watershed Program funding. There is a great need for short-term funding to address the immediate needs

of these projects and planning efforts; and for long-term funding to restore and revitalize the Federal financial and technical assistance commitment to the watershed

model for water quality and quantity management.

Budget trends at the Federal level for the last three years for these types of programs are below what’s needed, with significant reductions proposed for the future.

In the Whitewater Watershed in southeastern Minnesota, they have six applicants

who are waiting for funding to do projects such as rotational grazing and terraces;

erosion control; grassed waterways, sediment basins; and grade stabilization structures. Likewise in the Kanaranzi Little-Rock watershed, they have twelve pending

applications in need of $300,000 of Federal cost sharing. If there is this kind of interest for a program with very little or no funding, just think of what we could do

if we had more financial support from the Federal Government.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The USDA has many good programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive

Program (EQIP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), and the Wetland

Reserve Program (WRP), to name a few. But many times, protection programs are

not enough to address problems that have developed over an extended period of

time. Local agencies and landowners need USDA Watershed Programs to first analyze, plan, and restore our resources, and then we can apply the aforementioned

programs to protect and enhance these resources. The aggressiveness of the Federal

water quality mandates and lack of resources to complete TMDL studies that will

direct water quality restorations continue to put urban and rural communities and

production agriculture at great economic risk. Current litigation in Minnesota has

stopped expansion of public infrastructure to enhance waste treatment facilities for

the City of Annandale, with implications that could impact the entire Mississippi

34

watershed, or 68 percent of the State. In addition, impaired waters designations

have stopped maintenance and repair of a county ditch system in Aitkin County.

Solving the Nation’s water quality and quantity problems requires a real commitment to a Federal, state, local governments and landowner partnership. The USDA’s

Watershed Programs can play a vital partnership role if there is a renewed goal to

fund current Federal obligations and commitments and by accelerating resources to

future watershed planning and implementation.

In the 1950’s, the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District had several PL–566 areas

where planning was terminated, including the Deerhorn-Buffalo, the South of

Hawley-South Buffalo, and Comstock Coulee projects. The problems identified at

that time, have not gone away. The Comstock Coulee watershed has a drainage area

of approximately 105 square miles in Clay and Wilkin Counties. The Coulee is a

direct tributary to the Red River of the North, where the MPCA and the EPA have

identified impaired reaches in Minnesota for turbidity, low oxygen, and fecal coliform. The Cities of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, both have raw

water intakes for their public water supplies located immediately downstream of the

Coulee outlet. These communities rely on the Red River of the North to furnish

water to growing communities, whose population base is currently in excess of

200,000 people. Private cultivated land comprises 95 percent of this watershed. The

NRCS, formerly called the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), first became involved

in this area as a potential PL–566 project in 1963. The initial analysis was for assistance in addressing problems associated with flooding, grade stabilization, soil

erosion, and protecting a farm crossing. Landowners recognized the need to address

these problems at a watershed level rather than as individuals. An application for

USDA assistance though the PL–566 program was made on April 26, 1966. On April

18, 1984, the application was withdrawn, partially because the USDA had no funding for this type of project, even though earlier opinions were that a watershed plan

for this area would be beneficial and would yield benefits in excess of the costs. In

2005, the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District has held two meetings with landowners in this area to discuss the same concerns that were raised 40 years ago.

Committee members, the problems identified in 1963 for the Comstock Coulee

area have not gone away, but have only worsened. With a growing population base

downstream who demands high-quality water, the issues are more pertinent now,

then ever.

I’m here today from northwest Minnesota to hopefully show you that that by

working together, at the Federal, state, and local level with our farmers and ranchers, we can address the types of conservation problems and issues identified for

Comstock Coulee, as well as other areas within the Buffalo-Red River Watershed

District, the State of Minnesota, and our great Nation. Partnerships can be formed

that will not only identify, but also solve our natural resource problems. The Federal Government needs to be a part of that solution by funding Watershed Programs

though the USDA. I can personally assure this Committee that most landowners are

ready, willing, and able to participate in the solution to these problems, but they

need your assistance to make these individual projects a reality. The landowners’

role will be to provide the long term stewardship needed for these valuable resources, and the USDA’s role is to make it possible for them to realize their goals

by funding projects that will protect, restore, and enhance our natural resources for

this and future generations.

Again, we appreciate the subcommittee’s invitation to bring our views, concerns,

and suggestions about Watershed Programs to this hearing.

STATEMENT OF BILL WILSON

Chairman Lucas and members of the subcommittee, I am Bill Wilson, president

of the National Association of Conservation Districts. I have served as a district official for the Haskell County Conservation District since 1980 and have served in various positions with NACD since 1994. I am also a founding member and past chair

of the National Watershed Coalition, of which NACD is an active member.

I am also a registered land surveyor in Oklahoma and Arkansas and own and operate a 650-acre cow/calf, horse and mule ranch in East Central Oklahoma. I have

worked for many years to restore Dust Bowl era farm fields into productive pasture

land and am familiar with and employ many conservation practices on my operation.

NACD is the nongovernment organization that represents the Nation’s 3,000 conservation districts and the more than 16,000 men and women—district officials—

who serve on their governing boards. Conservation districts are local units of government established under state laws to carry out natural resource management

35

programs at the local level. Conservation districts, with their 7,800 employees, work

closely with USDA and other Federal and state agencies, as well as private sector

organizations, to provide technical and other assistance to millions of landowners

and operators to help them manage and protect the Nation’s land, water and related

resources. Conservation districts provide the linkage for delivering many Federal,

state and other local natural resource programs at the local level.

As the subcommittee undertakes this review of USDA’s watershed programs, I

want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and share

with you the conservation district perspective on the successes of these programs,

the need for streamlining and modernizing them, and better integrating them with

other USDA conservation programs.

BACKGROUND

Since the enactment of Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act in August

1954, conservation districts have actively worked with NRCS (formerly SCS) in carrying out the program. In fact, conservation districts are local sponsors of almost

all of the more than 1,500 active or completed projects nationwide.

Through the authorities in the P.L. 534 and P.L. 566, NRCS has assisted local

and state watershed project sponsors in constructing 11,000 flood control dams in

2,000 watersheds in 47 states since 1948. The Small Watersheds Program, as it is

commonly known, was the first program of its kind to address natural resource conservation on a watershed-wide basis—tackling issues such as flood prevention and

protection, water quality, erosion control, water supply, recreation, irrigation management, fish and wildlife habitat and wetlands protection and restoration.

IMPROVED INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION

Since the Small Watersheds Program was created more than half century ago,

many new USDA conservation programs have been created, especially since the enactment of the 1985 Food Security Act—the Conservation Reserve Program, the

Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program and the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, Grasslands Reserve Program and the Conservation Security Program. However, all of these programs are focused primarily on individual farm and ranch operations. Some critics say there is duplication among these many efforts. Let us say

strongly that we do not support duplicating conservation programs on the same

acres. We support coordinating and integrating the available conservation tools to

solve natural resource concerns thus keeping American farm and ranch land productive and providing many public benefits, including water, soil, and air quality, open

spaces, fish and wildlife habitat and other benefits.

We could accomplish more and do it more efficiently if we had improved integration and coordination of the planning and implementation of all of these programs.

What is wrong with using all of the tools in our toolbox in a watershed-based approach to natural resources conservation? That wouldn’t be duplication, it would be

synergy. In the case of the watershed program the synergy would produce substantial benefits by treating the entire watershed natural resource concerns with the

conservation programs that could protect all or most of the resources in the watershed.

And one way to promote that synergy would be through what NRCS is now calling Rapid Basin Assessments, in which watershed planning teams meet with landowners and conservation groups, inventory agricultural areas and identify conservation opportunities. The process is intended to increase speed and efficiency in guiding implementation of conservation practices and programs. It’s also intended to put

more decision-making into the hands of local leaders. This approach can also lead

to getting more conservation on the ground sooner as it shortens the planning period leading up to implementation.

Providing better program integration also would help people understand the program and recognize its environmental accomplishments. As it stands right now,

most people who are not directly involved in the Small Watersheds Program know

little about it. The Small Watersheds Program has an excellent cost-benefit return.

According to the report, Watershed Rehabilitation-A Progress Report 2005, ‘‘These

projects provide an estimated $1.5 billion in annual benefits in reduced flooding and

erosion damages, recreation, water supplies and wildlife habitat.’’

In another criticism concerning duplication, I must also point out that some critics

have asked that since the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Bureau of

Reclamation carry out extensive ‘‘watershed’’ programs, why does USDA need to duplicate those efforts? That criticism demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the

purposes of these programs. USACE and Reclamation carry out large Federal

36

projects, including some large watershed ones. Both their purposes and their scales

are fundamentally different. The operational agreements among the three organizations have positioned the 566 program to address the smaller watersheds, typically

including those less than 250,000 acres, leaving the larger projects to the other organizations.

FUNDING ISSUES

Funding is a serious issue facing the Small Watersheds Program. Over the past

decade funding for the program has been in constant decline, while funding needs

have increased. While we are pleased that Congress chose to fund the program at

a level higher than that requested by the Administration, we can still document

funding needs nearly $175 million higher than the fiscal year 2006 appropriated

level.

While fully funding the program to meet the documented needs remains our highest priority, we also raise some issues on how allocations are made. In several fiscal

years since 1993, earmarks for watershed appropriations have actually exceeded the

funding levels themselves. In fact, over past several years, earmarks have exceeded

the appropriation by up to 30 percent. This earmarking ends up creating a larger

waiting list for funding of other projects, adding to the already enormous backlog.

We find this troubling for more than one reason. First, it makes both the agency’s

and sponsors’ planning process very difficult. Both know that even if they successfully navigate all the procedures and requirements to get a project approved, they’ll

still need an earmark to get a project funded. It also gives the technical staff at

NRCS no discretion to use sound science to determine the priorities and best and

most conservation-effective use of program funds. We do not mean to imply that the

work being done, even using ‘‘earmarked’’ funding, is not good, high priority work.

The projects are still being planned and implemented using sound science and tested technology.

Project Backlog

To address the backlog created in part by earmarking, some have suggested that

NRCS review and perhaps sunset some of the backlog. Part of the problem in doing

that is the projects are locally supported with the potential of partial Federal funding. In many cases, states, conservation districts, local communities and other sponsors have invested significant funds, acquired land rights and made promises to citizens, with the only remaining need being the Federal commitment. In my local watershed, the state has already made surveys, held many public meetings promoting

the project, plans have been drawn and planning commitments made. At the very

least, state and local sponsors should be part of the review process in determining

whether or not a project should be sunsetted to establish a balance of authorized

and implemented projects.

We believe the proper course of action in the long-term is for the Administration

and Congress to support funding for projects as they are planned, thus eliminating

the existing back-log over time and avoiding the creation of a backlog in the future.

SMALL WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Another issue I would like to address is the Small Watershed Rehabilitation component of the program. Under your leadership Congress adopted the Watershed Rehabilitation Act of 2000. The act recognized that most watershed infrastructure, facilities or structures, including dams, were designed with a 50-year lifespan and

that many have reached or exceeded that; and that many more will in upcoming

years. The statute stated it was ‘‘to provide cost share assistance for the rehabilitation of structural measures constructed as part of water resource projects previously

funded by the Secretary under such Act or related laws.’’

The law, targeted to address structures built under the P.L. 534 and P.L. 566 pro- grams, authorized $90 million over five years (2001 to 2005) for USDA to provide

financial and technical assistance to cover a portion of the costs to review, re-assess,

re-plan or update the watershed plan and to rehabilitate aging structures. The local

sponsors were required to provide 35 percent of the costs.

The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act increased the funding author- ization and extended the program through 2007. Although $31.5 million was appropriated this year for the Rehabilitation Program, that is a little more than half the

authorized amount. None of the $240 million authorized in mandatory funding has

been used.

According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, there are more than

1,000 community-sponsored, USDA-assisted dams throughout the United States

that are over 40 years old. USDA’s own figures support this fact and have been well

documented.

37

In those same 40-plus years, many of the communities have changed and downstream developments have sprung up in the shadow of many of these aging structures. Getting a handle on repairing, upgrading, or in some cases de-commissioning

them isn’t just a matter of money. It’s a matter of public health and safety.

Work carried out under the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program will likely

carry forward a number of years into the future. As we go forward in reviewing,

re-assessing, re-planning and updating theses watershed plans, we should take advantage of the tremendous opportunities available to integrate those planning efforts with the planning activities for CRP, EQIP, WRP, WHIP, FRLPP, GRP and

the CSP.

EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM

Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 established the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). The program’s purpose is to undertake emergency

measures to prevent soil erosion and runoff and undertake measures to safeguard

lives and property from floods, drought and erosion on any watershed whenever fire,

flood or any other natural occurrence.

While it is not necessary for a national emergency to be declared for an area to

be eligible for assistance, the EWP has been instrumental in implementing emergency measures to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by natural

disasters. It provides financial and technical assistance for debris removal, protecting destabilized streambanks, establishing cover on critically eroding lands and repairing conservation practices. NRCS also has authority to purchase floodplain easements to take people and property out ofharm’s way.

The EWP is generally funded through emergency appropriations in response to

natural disasters. Currently, USDA estimates the backlog for assistance requests

under EWP is about $800 million. Conservation districts support creating a separate, stand-alone account that would be a revolving or base account funded during

the annual appropriations process to expedite emergency response to disasters.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I again thank you for the opportunity to present NACD’s views on USDA’s watershed programs. As always, we

in the conservation community are ready and willing to work with you to find solutions to the issues discussed here today.

STATEMENT OF ED WYTOVICH

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased to be

here and honored to testify on behalf of the watershed restoration efforts in Pennsylvania. This is a critical issue to all of us, and I welcome the opportunity to highlight the work we have done in our region and report to the Committee some remaining challenges.

I am an 8th grade science teacher at Upper Dauphin Area School District in Dauphin County Pennsylvania. I have been actively involved in land and water restoration projects in the Anthracite Region of Northeast Pennsylvania for over 30 years.

I have worked with several conservation groups, industry representatives, elected

officials, and students to help found ten watershed organizations in the Commonwealth. The work we have been able to accomplish is proof that building partnerships is essential to any winning watershed strategy, and the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Resource Conservation Development Councils, and the Conservation Districts are a vital component of our team.

As for background for the Committee members, the Anthracite coal region lies in

Northeastern Pennsylvania. The Anthracite Coal Industry declined during the

1900’s, coal companies went bankrupt, and the impacts have since devastated our

region. The abandoned mines leak acidic, alkaline, and metal-contaminated water,

polluting water supplies, destroying fish and wildlife habitat, depressing local economies, and threatening our human health and safety. It is estimated that of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, 44 are directly affected by abandoned mines that encompass

over 220,000 acres. Abandoned mine drainage (AMD) is the largest water pollution

problem in the state with over 3,000 miles of stream contaminated. The Schuylkill,

Susquehanna, and Lackawanna Rivers all contain enormous amounts of contamination from acid run-off and sedimentation from abandoned mine sites. The cost of

cleaning up Pennsylvania’s mine legacy is estimated to be as high as $15B. Currently, the state receives some money from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund;

however, the Fund is not structured to adequately address our issues and it will

take more than one program and one agency to complete the job. Our ability to form

38

coalitions and raise awareness has brought some success, but the largest obstacle

remains Federal assistance. It is my hope we can build upon our organization and

work to reestablish, enlarge, and enhance USDA watershed programs.

An innovative partnership has emerged across Pennsylvania in order to address

our water quality concerns. In 1996, representatives of the Conservation Districts

in eastern Pennsylvania and the Pocono Northeast Resource Conservation District

(RC&D) led the way for the formation of the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for

Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR). I am a charter member of EPCAMR and

the current President. We formed the coalition to identify how districts and local

cooperating organizations could promote and contribute to local, state, and Federal

mine reclamation efforts in the Anthracite Region. Our mission is to encourage redevelopment of mines and waters, serve as a liaison between public and private sectors, and conduct outreach and education on these important issues. Today,

EPCAMR has grown to include three full time employees and is funded through an

EPA 319 grant. Our membership is comprised of appointees from the Conservation

Districts in the 14 county area, watershed associations, and industry representatives.

EPCAMR is supportive of reestablishing and funding the rural abandoned mine

program (RAMP), which has been financed by the Abandoned Mine Fund and administered by the USDA/NRCS. RAMP is authorized for the purpose of reclaiming

the soil and water resources of rural lands adversely impacted by past coal mining

practices; however, the program has not been funded since 1997 and USDA has not

dedicated staff to it since fiscal year 2003. This program worked through local communities (conservation districts and other agencies) to solve and address many AML

problems. NRCS provided most of the technical assistance, natural resource planning, design, and construction of reclamation projects. Today, there are very few

people available who have time or financial resources to fill the role NRCS has

played.

In order for a project to be successful, local community support on all fronts must

be in place. Local involvement has the potential to turn in to a comprehensive watershed project with the potential of attracting more financial resources. My first

project involving a conservation district started in 1992 when, through the efforts

of my students at Williams Valley High School, we developed a community partnership to treat an Acid Mine Drainage discharge on the Wiconisco Creek. This partnership through the help of me and my students has now become the Wiconisco

Creek Restoration Association. The Wiconisco creek flows through part of the campus of Williams Valley School District and it was a natural way to have my students

get involved with their local environment. The Wiconisco Creek is heavily impacted

and degraded by past mining practices, especially Acid Mine Drainage, which has

made many miles of the stream uninhabitable for aquatic species. This was a

chance for my students to not only learn about the environment but also to become

active participants in its restoration. Student projects started by monitoring the

stream to learn about the water chemistry and why there weren’t any fish in the

stream. From there the students did research to find the sources of pollution and

what could be done about them. Their research led to an innovative project proposal

for the stream called a diversion well. My students, through community connections,

formed a coalition to address the problem and with community support the well was

constructed. This project has, in part, led to many partnerships for me in the restoration community. My students, as part of another project, helped me form the

Wiconisco Creek restoration Association which continues to do many projects that

are helping to restore the Wiconisco Creek.

In 1996 I helped form the Catawissa Creek Restoration Association and am the

current president. I would like to use the Catawissa as an example of how USDA

supports a watershed towards recovery.

Very little Anthracite mining actually took place in the Catawissa Watershed

(which encompasses approximately 150 square miles), but it has been greatly impacted by the construction of five [5] mine drainage tunnels that were dug during

the heyday of Anthracite mining. These tunnels were dug to drain by gravity the

coal fields in the headwaters of the Catawissa. Although underground mining in

this area ceased many years ago, these tunnels still discharge millions of gallons

of acid mine drainage daily into the Catawissa Creek and its tributaries, rendering

it virtually lifeless throughout most of its 42 mile length.

The first project undertaken in the Catawissa Watershed was treatment of the

Oneida No. 1 discharge located in Eagle Rock, a gated community located near Hazleton, Pa. This discharge is the primary source of water to Lake Choctaw and contaminates the Tomhicken Creek, a tributary to Catawissa Creek and the Susquehanna River. Through joint efforts of the Columbia and Schuylkill Conservation Districts and EPCAMR, a project to treat the discharge was proposed and we received

39

a conservation technical assistance grant. NRCS was in charge of the design and

some funding [$60,000] for construction was provided by the Rural Abandoned Mine

Program (RAMP). The project cost approximately $350,000 and was completed in

2001. Oneida No. 1 treats an estimated 1,500 gallons per minute of acid mine drainage and the immediate effects of the system include a change of pH in Lake Choctaw from 5 to 7 and a corresponding increase in pH of 15 miles of the Tomhicken

Creek.

With the help of NRCS engineers, we devised a plan in which manure storage

tanks could be used for future projects that would enable us to reduce the footprint

of the projects. We calculated what would be necessary to treat the Audenreid Mine

Tunnel Discharge; the largest abandoned mine drainage discharge in the watershed

and located near the headwaters of the Catawissa Creek. After review of my conceptual ideas and calculations by United States Geological Survey, Hedin Environmental, and engineers from the PA Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, it was

decided that this was a viable idea. In a cooperative venture between PA Conservation Districts and NRCS a conceptual design was put forth. The Schuylkill Conservation District, in partnership with the Catawissa Creek Restoration Association,

applied for a grant through the PA Growing Greener Program to design and build

a treatment system for the Audenreid discharge. Governor Rendell awarded a Growing Greener grant for the project and some monies were provided by an EPA 319

grant. This is perhaps the largest passive treatment system, in terms of amount of

water to be treated, ever built. The system is scheduled to come on line Friday, December 2, 2005.

When completed, the Audenreid Discharge Treatment System will effectively restore water quality for 36 miles of now impaired stream and make it into what we

believe will be a world class trout stream. The PA Fish and Boat Commission estimated that this project will have a benefit/cost ratio of 2 to, due to increased recreational fishing opportunities. This does not take into consideration the added benefits of increased property values along the stream corridor, opportunities for other

recreational pursuits such as birding, camping, and guide services. With this in

mind I have written a proposal to help increase access for the public to the stream

corridor which, I feel, will lead to increased opportunities for landowners to benefit

financially from our project.

Other benefits, though harder to quantify, include not only quality of life issues

for the residents of the Catawissa Watershed but also an increase in diversity of

species that require clean water. The members of the Catawissa Creek Restoration

Association who have been a part of this restoration since the beginning feel a

greater sense of stewardship towards their watershed. Through participation in reclamation efforts we develop ownership and from that ownership we develop stewardship. This could not have happened if it were not for the partnerships that have

developed and nurtured by the conservation districts, EPCAMR, CCRA, NRCS, the

Pocono Northeast RC&D, Pa. Department of Environmental Protection, the EPA,

landowners and many others who have come together to restore the Catawissa

Creek Watershed.

Pennsylvania’s watershed groups can point to several successes, but there is much

work left to be done. We believe our efforts to bring all parties to the table may

be stifled due to the elimination of important programs such as RAMP and lack of

Federal funding for RC&D’s and staff. It is my hope I’ve shed light on a small ,

but equally important program and that we can continue to work together to address our watershed concerns.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH TOW

The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS)/Division of

Soil Conservation has been a strong supporter of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Small Watersheds Program over the past 50 years. During that

time 2,500 structures have been constructed within the state as well as thousands

of acres of land treatment have been implemented through the program. The strong

utilization of this program has allowed Iowa to rank among the top three states nationally. The installation of these practices has provided immeasurable benefits for

the state in the form of:

• Flood Control

• Erosion Control

• Water Quality Benefits

• Water Supply Development

• Recreational Development

40

• Wildlife Enhancement

• Protection of Infrastructure

• Economic Benefits

The Division of Soil Conservation has cooperated with NRCS’s Small Watersheds

Program by providing funding for additional upland treatment through Iowa’s watershed and water quality programs. The combination of these programs has allowed this state to make great strides in protecting our fragile resources. Additionally, this partnership has served and will continue to serve as a catalyst for the rehabilitation of structures that have exceeded their design life expectancy.

The Division of Soil Conservation believes it is of the utmost importance that the

use of earmarks to special projects be discontinued and funding is restored to the

Small Watersheds Program and Watershed Rehabilitation Program at the authorized level. These actions will help restore the original intent of these programs allowing them to continue to provide the many benefits described above.

STATMENT OF ERWIN AUST

The Small Watershed Program has been very effective and is vital to conservation

and rural development in Iowa and the Nation. The program has provided assistance primarily for conservation and flood control, but many projects have included

multi-purpose sites for water supply and water-based recreation. These projects are

important for local economic development by making good quality water available

for livestock, agriculture, industry and rural people. The associated recreation developments of these projects improve the quality of life as well as diversifying local

economies in rural areas.

The completed projects have proven their economic worth through the years and

especially during the storm events in the 1990’s. The five Iowa multi-purpose reservoir/lake projects [Walters Creek-Lake Icaria, Adams County; Twelve Mile Lake,

Union County; Little River Lake, Decatur County; Indian Creek-Van Buren-Lake

Sugema, Van Buren County; and Three Mile Lake, Union County] in southern Iowa

have meant survival to agriculture and the communities in at least 11 counties. The

need for increased water supply has been identified and is being planned in at least

six more projects which are in all phases of the program from early stages of organizing sponsors through active planning to active construction.

The West Tarkio Watershed project is to include a multi-purpose reservoir in Page

County for water supply and recreation development. The P.L. 566 technical and financial assistance is critical to provide better quality and quantity water supply for

the area and growth of an ethanol plant directly benefiting the local agriculture

economy, while reducing the Nation’s dependence on imported oil.

I write to encourage you to consider the importance of this program especially for

future rural water supply development. Adequate sources of high quality drinking

water have become an ever increasing need throughout the country in recent years.

The PL-566 program has had funding cut a disproportional amount since 1993 while

the need for assistance has grown in a more critical area of need, water supply.

The West Tarkio Watershed Project along with many others needs P.L. 566 assistance.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE F. MARESCH

The Land Improvement Contractors of America has been involved with the Small

Watershed Program for more than 50 years. We have seen the benefits it brings to

rural America in terms of flood prevention, irrigation and municipal water supply,

recreation, fish and wildlife, etc. In a number of cases it has created jobs in rural

America We have also witnessed the havoc wreaked on homes, crops and roads

where floodwaters are not controlled. Support for the program has grown exponentially over the years, as witnessed by the backlog of requested work in the Federal

programs.

Back in 1954, when the Congress recognized the pressing need for the Small Watershed Program by passing the act, the response was immediate and rural communities saw a way out of the periodic devastation they were experiencing from floods

that were not the result of large river. Since then the network of small watershed

structures has become a significant part of our Nation’s infrastructure. While it does

not guarantee 100 percent protection from floods it eliminates the majority of damages that would otherwise result.

Recognizing that we are in a budget cutting era, and that every program must

be looked at carefully to be sure funding is needed, we urge the Congress to fund

41

this vital program to the extent possible, sending a message to rural America that

their problems are important to the Congress

STATEMENT OF LEE C. DAVIS

Our Cape Cod Conservation District in cooperation with our Barnstable County

Commissioners has developed a Small Watershed Program to restore marine resources in Barnstable County in Massachusetts. This program has been established

under the USDA’s Public Law 566 and with the full technical support of our State

and Federal partners in the Natural Resources Conservation Service

The co-sponsors along with our NRCS partners propose important locally targeted

marine resources. The conservation, transportation, local and State resource departments have spent over 2 years assessing the priority sites for saltmarsh restoration,

stormwater runoff sites impacting shellfish growing areas and anadromous fishway

obstructions for river herring.

The 566 Watershed Program for Cape Cod (Barnstable County) is enthusiastically

supported by congressional, state and local officials. This program addresses critical

regional needs while having significant national implications for other coastal communities

Thank you for giving Cape Cod watershed program sponsors the opportunity to

present our program for your consideration.

December 5, 2005

CONGRESSMAN FRANK LUCAS, CHAIRMAN

Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,

Rural Development, and Research

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Lucas,

Our Cape Cod Conservation District in cooperation with our Barnstable County

Commissioners has developed a Small Watershed Program to restore marine resources in Barnstable County in Massachusetts. This program has been established

under the USDA’s Public Law 566 and with the full technical support of our state

and Federal partners in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). I am

writing to seek your assistance with this project.

Support of this project would address three priority resource issues on Cape Cod.

First, it will support storm water remediation from more than 200 run-off sites in

the area. These present health and environmental risks and affect commercial fisheries and shellfisheries, undermine struggling aquatic, bird and mammal species.

Second, it will help with salt marsh restoration of more than 180 tidally restricted

sites. Finally, it will facilitate anadromous fish passage restoration for more than

20 sites.

The 566 Watershed Program for Cape Cod is enthusiastically supported by Federal, State and local officials. Partners include the Barnstable County Commissioners, the Cape Cod Conservation District and all 15 Cape towns, as well as appropriate state agencies and numerous local organizations. This program addresses

critical regional needs while having significant national implications for other coastal communities.

Thank you for giving Cape Cod watershed program sponsors the opportunity to

present our program for your consideration.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

Member of Congress

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

1 ASCE 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, www.asce.org/reportcard In each successive report the number of unsafe and deficient dams as well as the needed infrastructure

investment increased. The dam rehabilitation funding through the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act of 2000 is the only national program which provides financial assistance for non-Federal

dams. While there is a huge national need, ASCE applauds and supports your steadfast work

toward repairing these watershed dams and preventing a potential deadly dam failure.

2 Association of State Dam Safety Officials, The Cost of Rehabilitating Our Nation’s Dams,

2002. www.damsafety.org

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

The American Society of Civil Engineers is pleased to submit this statement in

support of the USDA’s Watershed Programs administered by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS).

Mr. Chairman, we thank you, on behalf of the millions of Americans that live

below the Nation’s watershed dams, for your tremendous efforts that resulted in

passage of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act of 2000 (PL 106–472) and your

steadfast support for full funding of this critical public safety program.

ASCE, founded in 1852, is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more than 139,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science

and profession of civil engineering.

Dams provide tremendous benefits, including water supply for drinking, irrigation

and industrial uses; flood control; hydroelectric power; recreation; and navigation.

However, dams also represent one of the greatest risks to public safety, local and

regional economies and the environment. Historically, some of the largest disasters

in the United States have resulted from dam failures. In 1889, 2,209 lives were lost

when the South Fork Dam failed above Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The 1928 St.

Francis Dam failure killed 450. During the 1970’s, the failures of the Buffalo Creek

Dam in West Virginia, Teton Dam in Idaho and the Toccoa Falls Dam in Georgia

collectively cost 175 lives and more than $1 billion in losses. Such dam failures as

Silver Lake Dam in Michigan in 2003 ($100 million in damages and economic losses

of $1 million per day) and the Big Bay Lake Dam in Mississippi in March 2004 (100

homes destroyed) are current reminders of the potential consequences of unsafe

dams.

CURRENT STATE OF THE NATION’S DAMS

The ASCE 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure graded the Nation’s

dams a ‘‘D’’.1

Since 1998, the number of unsafe dams has risen by 33 percent to more than

3,500. While federally owned dams are in good condition, and there have been modest gains in repair, the number of dams identified as unsafe is increasing at a faster

rate than those being repaired.

In the past two years, more than 67 dam incidents, including 29 dam failures,

were reported to the National Performance of Dams program, which collects and archives information on dam performance as reported by state and Federal regulatory

agencies and dam owners. Dam incidents are such events as large floods, earthquakes or inspections that alert dam safety engineers to deficiencies that threaten

the safety of a dam. Due to limited state staff, many incidents are not reported;

therefore, the actual number of incidents is likely to be much greater.

There is an enormous need for funding to rehabilitate the Nation’s dam. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) completed a study in 2002 estimating that $36 billion is needed to repair the Nation’s aging dams.2

The study identified a $10.1 billion demand for the Nation’s critical dams, those

dams whose failure will cause loss of life.

SMALL WATERSHED DAMS

The Watershed Program has provided enormous benefits through construction of

dams throughout the United States that provide for flood control, irrigation, water

supply, recreation, wildlife habitat and protection of our valuable water resources.

Watershed projects are planned and implemented by local community groups who

serve as project sponsors, with assistance from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The projects are authorized and funded through the Watershed

Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83–566) and the Flood

Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78–534).

There are over 11,000 dams constructed in 47 states through the very successful

Watershed Program since the 1940’s. However, these dams are exceeding their inVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:22 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\109-22 HAGRI PsN: HAGRI
75

tended design life (typically 50 years) with 457 currently beyond their design life

and over 4,400 expected to exceed the design life in ten years. These structures,

which have provided vital benefits for so many years, now threaten the lives, farmland and public infrastructure they were intended to protect.

Many watershed dams do not meet current dam safety standard practices, or

state dam safety regulations—at times as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the local sponsors. Downstream development below watershed dams often occurs long after construction, dramatically changing the consequences of a dam failure to include loss of life and therefore the dam must meet more stringent safety

criteria commensurate with the new predicted results of a failure. Dams constructed

as ‘‘low hazard potential’’ (failure will not cause loss of life) which experience uncontrolled development downstream within the dam failure flood zone become ‘‘high

hazard potential’’ (failure will cause loss of life), requiring significant rehabilitation.

In addition, advances in engineering and scientific knowledge of flooding, earthquakes and dam failures have changed the dam safety criteria, often requiring dams

to withstand larger events such as floods or earthquakes which were not incorporated into the design standards 50 years ago. Therefore, many diligent, responsible and well-intentioned local watershed sponsors have watershed dams that do

not meet safety criteria and are faced with the burden of necessary repairs which

are far beyond their ability to fund.

When the national watershed program started in the 1940’s, there were essentially no future funding mechanisms that would provide for major repair and rehabilitation as the dams reached the end of their design life or did not meet dam safety criteria. Many watershed dams were constructed before the tragic dam failures

in the 1970’s that caused Congress, Federal agencies and states to establish dam

safety programs and design criteria. The recent dam failures in Michigan, Mississippi and the horrific levee failures in New Orleans are frightening reminders of

the consequences of dam failures.

An alarming and growing number of watershed program dams, constructed with

the technical and financial assistance of the Federal Government through USDA,

do not meet dam safety regulations and are potential failures and ‘‘unfunded liabilities.’’ In many cases the dams no longer provide the flood protection that the local

communities rely on and assume still exists. Therefore, ASCE respectfully urges

Congress to recognize the Federal Government’s long standing history with this program as well as the Federal obligation, and accelerate the rehabilitation of the

USDA watershed program dams.

The expectation of people who live below these dams and rely on flood protection

benefits is that the dam is safe and that the benefits will continue. Mr. Chairman,

ASCE asks you and your fellow committee members to continue your efforts on behalf of dam rehabilitation and fulfill your constituents expectations of safety.

Mr. Chairman, ASCE respectfully urges this Subcommittee to consider these recommendations which address dam safety needs of the USDA watershed program:

1. Increase the appropriation for rehabilitating the watershed dams up to the full

authorization levels to accelerate needed dam rehabilitation;

2. Authorize funding to assist local communities with preparation of Emergency

Action Plans;

3. Streamline the design, review and construction processes within USDA NRCS;

and

4. Provide for future authorization to continue the watershed rehabilitation program beyond fiscal year 2007.

ASCE looks forward to working with the subcommittee staff in support of the watershed rehabilitation program.

STATEMENT OF DAN LOWRANCE

I am Dan Lowrance, president of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts (OACD) and the Past Chairman of the National Watershed Coalition. I also

am currently serving as the Chairman of the National Association of Conservation

Districts (NACD) Water Resources Committee. On behalf of OACD, our local Conservation Districts, our directors, employees, associate members and the thousands

of Oklahoma land-owner cooperators, I want to take this opportunity to submit testimony in support of the USDA’s Watershed Programs managed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). We at OACD believe that the Flood Prevention Operations Program (P.L. 78–534) and the Small Watershed Program (P.L. 83–

566) have been extremely successful and that they continue to be beneficial to our

State.

76

One need only look at the history of Oklahoma to see the ravages caused to our

State by the flooding that occurred prior to the watershed program. Before the construction of the 2,102 flood control structures in our State, Oklahoma was annually

inundated with flash flooding. Newspaper accounts from 1900 forward are full of accounts of the cost to human life and the destruction of property caused annually by

these cataclysms. However, with the passage of Public Law 78–534 the Flood Control Act of 1944, this situation began to change. Local Conservation Districts in

Oklahoma agreed to sponsor flood control projects and began to request feasibility

studies for watershed plans. Soon ground was broken and projects were underway

throughout our State, including the first flood control dam built in the Nation,

Cloud Creek Watershed Dam No. 1 near Cordell in Washita County. Oklahoma is

proud to be the home of the first fully completed Watershed Project in the United

States, the Sandstone Creek Watershed Project located in the Home County of

Chairman Lucas, Roger Mills County. Today, Oklahoma has more flood control

structures than any other State in the Union. These ‘‘Silent Sentinels’’ continue to

stand guard in our countryside, protecting our citizens from the devastation of life

and property that results from flooding. Every year these structures provide a savings of $71 million to our State in saved property and continued land use. Clearly

this infrastructure has been and continues to be a blessing for the citizens of Oklahoma.

Unfortunately, like any other piece of man-made infrastructure, these flood control dams must be maintained and in time rehabilitated. As you are well aware, the

vast majority of the flood control dams built in the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s were

constructed with a life expectancy of 50 years. It takes very simple math to deduce

that the time has come for a major effort to be made in rehabilitating these structures. Currently, Oklahoma has 132 dams past their 50 year design life. Over the

course of the next 10 years, we will see 1,100 more structures reach this dangerous

road mark. Oklahoma has today rehabilitated over 28 structures, more than any

other State in the country, but clearly more must be done. We have all recently witnessed what happened in New Orleans when infrastructure dedicated to water impoundment was allowed to fall into disrepair. Clearly we want to ensure that these

‘‘Silent Sentinels’’ remain on watch and remain silent because we are all too well

aware of the noise they could make. We want to applauded Chairman Lucas and

the other members of the subcommittee for their foresight in passing language in

the year 2000 to provide matching funds from the Federal Government to help

States begin the process of rehabilitating these aging dams. We also want to convey

our appreciation for the continued funding of this program and for the increase this

program received for 2006. Clearly we have a long way to go on this issue.

That being said, however, we would remind the subcommittee that the watershed

program faces other severe challenges. Foremost among these is the concern of the

current back log of new construction projects. Today in Oklahoma 329 dams have

been planned but not constructed. For this reason, many watershed projects are not

achieving the full benefits originally planned since they are only partially completed. Many communities still suffer the affects of flooding in our State due to the

lack of dollars to get these projects off the drawing board. In fact, many if not most

local project sponsors have completed their responsibilities by obtaining land rights,

permits or taking other actions necessary to begin these projects but due to the

shortage of funds and the continued practice of earmarking structures they have yet

to receive the dollars necessary to begin construction. This practice of earmarking

these limited dollars for new construction has resulted in countless millions of dollars in preventable flood damage due simply to the fact that funds are not spent

in the manner of ‘‘worst first’’ but are instead placed in locations based on arbitrary

political considerations. We would ask that this practice change and that these dollars be spent more equitably on a needs evaluation and planning basis.

Next we would ask for continued assistance for operation and maintenance of

these structures. The Conservation Districts of Oklahoma have taken on the responsibility of maintaining this $2 billion-plus infrastructure. With the help of our State

partner, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission we maintain and operate these facilities on very limited budgets. Our districts have no taxing authority so are therefore highly dependant on State and Federal funds. The technical assistance provided

to us from NRCS to help maintain, repair and operate these 2 thousand plus dams

is absolutely essential. We would ask that the Sub-committee keep this fact in mind

while they consider not only the Watershed program, but all NRCS operations.

Finally we would ask that you consider the loss of technical capacity and its affect

on rehabilitation projects. Currently NRCS is losing experience and institutional

knowledge as their senior watershed employees retire. Current budget levels have

not taken into consideration the cost of replacing these employees. We are not aware

of a contingency plan in place for the training of new employees by these more expeVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:22 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\109-22 HAGRI PsN: HAGRI
77

rienced individuals before they leave government service. We would ask that some

mechanism be provided to allow a stable funding base for NRCS to assure a experienced and well trained staff.

Thank you for allowing me to express these concerns to you on behalf of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts. I want to again thank you for your service to the country and applaud your attention to this matter. By holding this and

other hearings on this important issue I am sure we can address the challenges facing the watershed program in a manner that will ensure its continued success well

into the future.

Thank you again for allowing myself and OACD this opportunity.

Æ