on the authorizing committee; I don't know. But I would just say to the chairman, maybe not during this budget cycle, but maybe after we get through this bill, to have that kind of informational session for our members I think would be extremely interesting. If you are able to do it-I didn't know whether you were, and whether your program officers even talked to one another over there at USDA. With the number of programs we get thrown at us, sometimes we wonder. But I would make that request, and just ask if maybe the committee might not be willing to consider it at some point this year? Members like to learn. I ask myself, as I look at page 17-25, which deals with your conservation operations, and I look at Mississippi— and I don't mean just to pick on Mississippi, but, my goodness, why does Mississippi have 298 staff-years? Why doesn't Mississippiwhat does it have compared to California Mr. SKEEN. Probably a chairman. [Laughter.] Ms. KAPTUR [continuing]. 173 years? I am thinking, well, maybe it's the river drains down there, you know; we have got watershed problems. But I do ask myself. So you look at the way in which we spend our dollars. My goodness, I have served in the Congress-this is the beginning of my 17th year, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes I don't necessarily understand the relationship of these numbers. I look at the watershed and flood prevention operations on page 17-38, and I look at Ohio. I mean, gee, why does Ohio I am glad we get all that, but why? And here my district is flooded. So what is going on there? Why don't we qualify for a couple of the watershed operation program up in our corner of the State? I think if we could have that kind of briefing down the road, it could be very, very helpful. So I just wanted to put that on the record. So that is not so much in the way of a question, but a request. Mr. LYONS. We welcome that request, Ms. Kaptur, and we would love to do it before you finish this bill, as opposed to after you finish the bill. Ms. KAPTUR. I will leave that to the discretion of the Chairman. We have a lot of new members on our side of the aisle, and I just think it would be awfully interesting. Mr. SKEEN. Well, we will take Mr. Farr? I agree with you. I agree; I think with the technology that you have today, that you are capable of doing this thing, and we can discuss that. Mr. Farr, if he would like to ask another question. Mr. FARR. Well, I am sorry I missed part of it. I really enjoy this discussion. Perhaps I have been a little philosophical in wanting to but I think you ought to take the look at how you can work yourselves out of a job. If, indeed, you are going to teach land use management practices, then you ought to get them incorporated. That idea, the concept of a building code I think is absolutely essential. You know what the best management practices are. When I talk to farmers who say, "You know, the problem with dealing with government is that there are too many of them out there"-it is not that there is too much government; there are too many governments, too many governmental organizations. We can't just go to one and say, okay, we are going to do all of these things you suggest, and that is all we have to deal with, because along comes the State and says, well, we knew nothing about that; we are not working in conjunction with that, and we have our own other issues. Then along comes the county-in California, counties are very powerful, and they are sophisticated. They have money, and they will hire the professionals who may even work for you. They come along with their thing. So these poor farmers are saying, "Which government do we have to work with, because we get a different message from each one of them?" What we have tried to do in our area-and I applaud you for it; it has been some of your staff, and they ought to get the highest award in America for it. Because I went to my farmers on this watershed issue, wetlands issue. They had a roomful of people like this, and the farmers, essentially, said-and there was probably as many people working for government as there is in this room, working for all these different agencies-and the farmers said, "Okay, which one of the people in this room do I deal with?" I asked the question, "Which one is it?" And about five of them raised their hands, and they were all from different levels government. They said, "Well, we can't deal with that. We can't make any commitment." So we said, "Okay, Governmental Folk, you get on the same page." I thought they would take a month. It took them two-anda-half years. We got a single-stop, thanks to an employee of yours, one-stop shopping. The Coastal Commission buys it-all of the regulatory and planning, county planning departments, all of them. And do you know what they do? They go out with the farmer right now and they work with each farmer and they say, "This is what we think you ought to do," and the farmer says, "Fine. I'll do it with my own money, my own time. That is all I wanted to know. Thank you very much. I appreciate all your professional help. Come back in, monitor me, and tell me what I am doing right." And it is working. I don't know why we can't start doing that. We spend all of this money and all of this time, and, yet, we haven't gotten it infused. I mean, if this were your children, they would still be in the first grade, and you would wonder, at 16, they would look a little awkward there. So I want to see if we can start moving all of these programs. I have been working on a watershed survey for five-and-a-half years here. I have been talking to the wrong people. I didn't know you did that. I thought the Corps of Engineers did it. So there are things here that you really do, and I would like to try to get some more of one-stop, one-page. I think if we do that, government is better served. The criticisms that you get from people who think that the best way to solve the problem is just sort of put a meat axe to it, just cut government-if you cut it, it ought to get better, because there is too much of it. I don't think that is the way to do it. I think you finetune it and make it work better. You are in a position where so much of the land in this country is dependent upon whether we in the next couple of years learn how to make that land maximize its production ability and mini mize the adverse impacts of that production, through minimizing pesticide use, runoff, erosion, and so on. I can't think of an agency in America that will have more impact on the future of our country, and how it will look and how it will produce, than the people sitting at this hearing and your successors. So I am very excited about working with you. I would urge that you think about ways to get the best management practices together with local and State government, get to the one-step, and then get the local governments to buy it in. The people will push them to do it, because they will be so glad that they only have to work with one government. And I will support you. I just encourage you to think that way, think outside the Federal box. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SKEEN. Thank you. Folks, I think it is about time to wrap it up, but I want to tell you this: how much we appreciate you, what you do. As one who practiced in this field at one time and understands why, some of the reasons why, you do the way you do today--because for a long time it was a matter of bringing technology into the fields, but the persons who either graduated from the universities, or whatever, in those particular fields today that technology has gone way beyond that. We relied on it a great deal, and it is not as person-oriented as it is a technological orientation. You folks, I think, are responding to that. I think Ms. Kaptur has an excellent idea. I think, with the technology we do have today, that you can make comparisons. I think that we ought to educate this group, because those of us who come from the soil production area, making a living with it, into this place that we call the country's legislative body, we spend a lot of our time explaining what we do. And they ask, "Have you ever been a farmer or a ranch operator?" Very few of those folks come to Washington. The East doesn't know what the West is doing, and the West doesn't know what the East is doing. I think that we have an opportunity to educate at least this group of folks over here. Sometimes I think we are uneducatable, but we will try. I think it is a good request, Marcy. I think it makes a lot of good sense. You folks who would know how to put it together, we would like to get some response from you. We want to thank you for what you do, how well you do it, and those people who back you up in the back there. We have spent two-and-a-half or three hours on this stuff today. There is an avid interest in what you are doing, and we know we are supposed to put the dollars to it, but that is not the end of the game. What kind of results do you get? Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. SKEEN. Well, thank you for all that you do. If we have any other questions, we will submit them. Mr. SKEEN. We are adjourned. [The following questions were submitted to be answered for the Record:] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SKEEN WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM Mr. Skeen: Update the table that appears on page 573 of last year's hearing record showing, by fiscal year, how many bids were received, how many were accepted, and how many easements have been filed to reflect actual. 1/ Includes 18,118 acres enrolled in cost-share agreements. Mr. Skeen: Update the second table that appears on page 573 of last year's hearing record for the WRP program funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Include in the table for the new CCC funded program a breakout of the number of acres enrolled in permanent easements, the number enrolled in 30-year easements, and the number enrolled as restoration cost-shared agreements to include fiscal year 1998. 1. Commodity Credit Corporation apportionment is based an enrollment of 130,000 acres utilizing three enrollment options, permanent easements, 30year easements, and restoration cost-share agreements. The activity in each enrollment option represents the level of landowner interest. 2. $9,800,000 is for agency technical assistance. $98,070,000 is for easement acquisition and restoration cost-share. 3. A continuous sign-up process is underway. The total acres offered and number of landowner applications shown reflects activity during the first 5 months of the fiscal year. These amounts are expected to more than double by the end of the fiscal year. MITIGATION BANKING Mr. Skeen: Please update the committee on how NRCS is working with the Corps, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA to utilize mitigation banking? Has mitigation banking been used to fulfill mitigation requirements? Please provide specific examples of its use. Respondent: NRCS continues to work with Federal agencies, as well as other agencies, groups, and organizations, to fully utilize mitigation banking. However, there are no present examples of their use. Wetland mitigation banks are just beginning to be used by USDA program participants to mitigate for wetland conversions. Barriers to mitigation banks implementation have included cost of participation and lack of availability. Currently, a nonprofit group is in the process of getting an agricultural mitigation bank certified for operation in Missouri. Groups in several other states, including Minnesota and South Dakota, are investigating formation of agricultural mitigation banks. In addition to assisting these groups, NRCS is working with other agencies and organizations to sponsor the Second Annual Mitigation Banking Conference in June in Atlanta. Mr. Skeen: The 1996 farm bill gave the Secretary the authority to utilize appropriate measures to compensate for wetlands losses and to use CRP funds for mitigation banking pilots. Last year you reported you were in the process of determining the next stage for implementation. What is the current status of this issue? Respondent: No funding was available to initiate the pilot program for mitigation banking. WETLAND DELINEATIONS Mr. Skeen: Is the wetland delineations moratorium that Secretary Glickman put in place in the spring of 1995 still in place? Respondent: Secretary Glickman's 1995 moratorium to re-evaluate NRCS wetland determinations as identified in the 1994 interagency memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding wetland determinations is still in effect. Landowners may still rely upon those determinations conducted prior to the MOA for Swampbuster purposes only. Landowners who plan to conduct maintenance to drainage systems or install new drainage systems, fill or remove woody vegetation on their farm or ranch should contact their local NRCS field office to request a certified wetland determination. FY 1998 WRP STAFF YEARS AND COSTS Mr. Skeen: How many staff years did you use and at what cost to carryout the WRP program in fiscal year 1998? Respondent: The actual number of staff years used to implement WRP in fiscal year 1998 was 238. The total costs to carryout this program was $229,434,242. Approximately $211,777,151 of this amount was funded through CCC. Of the total cost to carry out this program, an additional $17,657,091, for technical assistance, was funded by appropriated balances. Appropriated balances also funded WRP easement payments in the amount of $1,053,430. Total funding enabled the agency to enroll an additional 211,917 acres into the WRP resulting in total WRP enrollment of 658,489 acres. WRP-SALARY AND TOTAL COSTS Mr. Skeen: What are the total salary costs needed to administer WRP in fiscal years 1999 and 2000? What are the total costs other than salary costs needed in both years? Respondent: For FY 1999, the total salary cost to administer WRP is estimated at $11.8 million. This cost is necessary to support the enrollment of 120,000 new acres. Of this amount, an estimated $2 million is funded from unobligated balances from WRP appropriations and $9.8 million is funded from transfers under the CCC Charter Act, section 11 authority. Additionally, $2 million in carryover funds will be obligated in FY 1999 to fund salaries associated with the recording of prior year easements and other rehabilitation activities (i.e., overhead cost) associated with prior year WRP activities. |