[Senate Hearing 113-639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-639
FARMERS AND FRESH WATER:
VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION TO
PROTECT OUR LAND AND WATERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 3, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-365 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
SHERROD BROWN, OHIO PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, MINNESOTA SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
MICHAEL BENNET, COLORADO JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, NEW YORK JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JOE DONNELLY, INDIANA MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
HEIDI HEITKAMP, NORTH DAKOTA CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., PENNSYLVANIA JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JOHN WALSH, MONTANA
Christopher J. Adamo, Majority Staff Director
Jonathan J. Cordone, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Thomas Allen Hawks, Minority Staff Director
Anne C. Hazlett, Minority Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Farmers and Fresh Water: Voluntary Conservation to Protect Our
Land and Waters................................................ 1
----------
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan,
Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry... 1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 3
Witnesses
Collins, Hon. D. Michael, Mayor, Toledo, Ohio.................... 6
Weeks Duncanson, Kristin, Owner/Partner, Duncanson Growers,
Mapleton, Minnesota............................................ 8
Matlock, Marty D., Ph.D., Executive Director, Office For
Sustainability, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 9
Fisher, Trudy D., Former Executive Director, Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality, Ridgeland, Mississippi.... 11
McMahon, Sean, Executive Director, Iowa Agriculture Water
Alliance, Ankeny, Iowa......................................... 12
Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC................. 20
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Cochran, Hon. Thad........................................... 40
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 42
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J........................................ 44
Collins, Hon. D. Michael..................................... 45
Weeks Duncanson, Kristin..................................... 46
Fisher, Trudy D.............................................. 66
Matlock, Marty D............................................. 92
McMahon, Sean................................................ 96
Weller, Jason................................................ 106
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
National Association of Conservation Districts, prepared
statement.................................................. 118
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, prepared
statement.................................................. 121
Michigan Farm Bureau, prepared statement..................... 139
Boozman, Hon. John:
4R Farmers & The Lake, Sustainable Crop Nutrition for the
Western Lake Erie Basin.................................... 141
4Rs of Nutrient Stewardship, Economically, Environmentally &
Socially Sustainable Crop Nutrition........................ 142
U.S. Corn Production and Nutrient Use on Corn................ 143
The Fertilizer Institute, Nourish, Replenish, Grow........... 144
Matlock, Marty D.:
Resume of Marty D. Matlock, Ph.D., P.E., B.C.E.E............. 147
Field to Market, The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable
Agriculture................................................ 157
Weller, Jason:
Helpful Websites............................................. 336
Chiefs presentation to the Senate Agriculture Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry........................ 337
Question and Answer:
Weeks Duncanson, Kristin:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 348
Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 349
Matlock, Marty D.:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 351
Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 353
McMahon, Sean:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 355
Weller, Jason:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 360
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 384
Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 388
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet....... 389
Written response to questions from Hon. Joe Donnelly......... 392
Written response to questions from Hon. Thad Cochran......... 393
The Fertilizer Institute:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 397
FARMERS AND FRESH WATER:
VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION TO
PROTECT OUR LAND AND WATERS
----------
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
United States Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie
Stabenow, Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet,
Donnelly, Roberts, Boozman, Hoeven, Johanns, and Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION
AND FORESTRY
Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning. Our Committee will come
to order. I apologize in advance that, as our witnesses know,
votes have been called actually for 10 o'clock. I don't know if
they have started. Have we started the votes yet? But we are
going to proceed with opening statements. I know that Senator
Brown wants to say a word of welcome to the mayor of Toledo,
and then if the vote is ongoing, we will have to recess. There
are a series of votes, and so we will then ask our witnesses to
be patient. We have some coffee in the back to keep you awake,
and we'll be back as soon as we can to continue the hearing. So
we are very glad you are here on a very, very important topic.
Among our Earth's natural resources, water is fundamental
to human survival, and we all know that. Right now we have a
water crisis in our country that operates on two fronts. The
one most people tend to talk about, is a crisis in water
quantity, and we certainly see this right now in many places in
the country, certainly in California where the drought is one
of the worst in the history of the State. The second--and the
focus of this hearing--is around water quality.
This has long been an issue for those of us who live around
the Great Lakes. We have water, but we are deeply concerned
about water quality issues. We got a stark wake-up call this
summer when the Greater Toledo area--with a population nearly
as large as Washington, DC--as the mayor will talk about, could
not drink their water, could not use the water to cook, could
not wash their hands or brush their teeth or take a shower
because the water was contaminated with toxins from a serious
algae bloom in Lake Erie. We are very glad the mayor of Toledo
is able to join us today to talk about what happened.
Coming from Michigan, I feel a strong connection, of
course, to the Great Lakes. All of my life I have seen how our
lakes sustained our economy, from manufacturing to agriculture
to tourism. The lakes are where we live, where we play, where
we work. They are part of our identity and, frankly, our
lifestyle and way of life.
Scientists tell us that the lakes were created during an
Ice Age some 15,000 years ago--a thawing that coincided with
the discovery of agriculture. Today the Great Lakes provide 84
percent of North America's surface fresh water. This vital
resource has passed from generation to generation, just as
generations of Americans have relied on the waters of the
Mississippi River, the Chesapeake Bay, and so many other
important waters in our country.
Yet our generation has the most urgent responsibility to
conserve those waters. If we are going to solve this, we have
to take action on climate change. We have to look at the
nutrients going into our lakes, rivers, and streams.
Our farmers want to be a part of the solution, and, in
fact, they are, which is why we made conservation an important
priority in the 2014 farm bill.
While there is no single solution, no silver bullet that
will resolve this crisis, we know that working together and
sharing our knowledge will help us to develop strategies
capable of making a broad impact on the quality of our water.
Our panel of speakers have been assembled with that goal in
mind. Considering that 1.5 million jobs are directly connected
to the Great Lakes, our workers and our economy cannot afford
another disaster on a scale of the one in western Lake Erie.
No group understands the importance of water and soil
quality more than our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and no one
has more at stake than our farmers and ranchers. Agriculture
has played a critical role since the 1935 farm bill, when
Congress created the Soil Conservation Service in response to
the Dust Bowl.
The 2014 farm bill represents the largest investment yet in
the conservation of private working lands critical to
maintaining not just clean water, but clean air, wildlife
habitats, forests, and other natural resources.
We expanded the role of partnerships so that farmers can
team with university researchers, the private sector,
conservation organizations, and all levels of government to
find creative solutions to improving water quality.
We know that farming is one of the riskiest businesses in
the world, and farmers cannot gamble on the future of their
access to clean water and neither can we as consumers.
In 1746, in his version of Poor Richard's Almanac, Benjamin
Franklin said: ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of
water.''
We have two excellent panels today. We look forward to your
testimony as we begin this important discussion.
I would now like to turn this over to Senator Boozman.
Unfortunately, our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator
Cochran, is not able to be with us today, but we are fortunate
to have my good friend Senator Boozman to give opening remarks,
and we also will have him introduce our witnesses from Arkansas
and Mississippi. So, Senator Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and we
really do appreciate you calling this hearing to help us better
understand the issues involving voluntary efforts by farmers
and landowners to promote land and water conservation, with a
focus on water quality and the role of conservation
partnerships.
We appreciate the participation of our witnesses. I am
especially pleased that we have Dr. Marty Matlock from Arkansas
here to offer his insight on the important issue of
conservation and water quality. In Arkansas, individuals across
the spectrum with diverse views on water quality issues and
policies know that Dr. Matlock is a credible voice on
scientific issues relating to water quality. As a distinguished
professor at the University of Arkansas, Dr. Matlock has
extensive experience working in urban, agricultural, and rural
systems with ecologists, engineers, architects, scientists,
economists, and business leaders to solve complex conservation
challenges.
I am also pleased to introduce another distinguished
witness, Trudy Fisher, who has traveled from Mississippi to be
with us today. Most recently, Ms. Fisher served as the
executive director of the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality for 8 years where she managed a staff of
more than 400 people, a budget of over $250 million, and led
the agency through multiple natural and manmade disasters. Ms.
Fisher formed and led the Mississippi Delta Sustainable Water
Task Force, which brings local, State, and Federal partners to
the table to address water quality and water issues. Ms. Fisher
recently returned to private practice.
As the recent farm bill is implemented, we need USDA to
listen carefully to the feedback from producers and work to
make the implementation go smoothly as we go forward. We also
need regular feedback here in Congress of any issues that
arise. We all know that producers are the number one advocates
for common-sense conservation practices because they rely on
the land and water for their livelihood. We also know that the
private sector plays a critical role on this front as well.
For instance, Delta Plastics in Little Rock, Arkansas, has
developed the Water Initiative, the H2O Initiative, which
brings together relevant stakeholders from agriculture,
universities, conservation groups, and many others in an effort
to help farmers in the mid-South reduce water consumption by 20
percent by the year 2020. This is just one of the many examples
of efforts around the country to address the critical issue of
conservation and water quality.
Another major concern is the EPA's proposed Waters of the
U.S. rule. The mandates that will flow from this rule will have
a devastating impact on farm families, which is why people like
the Farm Bureau and so many other organizations consider it one
of the most serious and consequential policy issues under
debate right now. It will not just impact farm families. It
will impact all low-income families who need access to
affordable food. I hope that we can have an open dialogue that
will help us better understand ways to improve upon our efforts
to address these important issues and ensure that we have smart
policies in place to support our agricultural community.
I am encouraged by the panel we have assembled today and
very much look forward to hearing your testimony.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman,
and we are so pleased to have Dr. Matlock and Ms. Fisher here.
I would now like to turn to Senator Brown to introduce the
mayor.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Boozman.
I will be brief because I know we have got to run, and I
apologize also to the panel again for the way that things ended
up being scheduled. Thank you all for coming.
I appreciate so much Chairwoman Stabenow's emphasis on the
Great Lakes. Nothing matters, there is no more important
resource in this country, other than human beings, than the
greatest body of fresh water in the world. We know what
happened, the mayor will explain what happened in Toledo, this
tragedy that we should never allow to happen in a country this
rich. It partly happened in Toledo because Lake Erie's depth
around Toledo and the Western Basin is only about 30 feet. It
is draining an area in Ohio of about 4 million acres, a lot of
farmland, a lot of runoff, a lot of industry, a lot of
commercial activity, a lot of population. Contrast that with
Ms. Weeks' Lake Superior, which has an average depth of about
600 feet, and it mostly drains forests. So you can see
particularly with climate change and the sort of torrential
downpours that happened this year and are happening more and
more as a result of climate change, coupled with the hot summer
and all the things that happened, and the mayor will explain
that more.
For my brief introduction of the mayor, his career has been
all about public service: a Toledo police officer for more than
almost three decades, Toledo City Council, and now the mayor of
Toledo. He is already--I think that police officers are trained
to both anticipate and deal with crises. Mayors are not so
trained to anticipate and deal with crises perhaps, but the
mayor has done marvelously in his time. Early in his term--he
has not been mayor that long, but early in his term he had one
of the worst snow emergencies in Toledo recently or maybe ever
in history, areas that were just--incredible what happened. He
also early in his term had two firefighters who were killed in
the line of duty, and then he had this issue with Lake Erie and
500,000 people in the city and outside the city that lost their
drinking water for 2-1/2 days. So he has already made a
difference for our city and our State, and I am proud that
Mayor Collins has joined us today.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. I
am sure the mayor would just as soon not have had so many
opportunities to show leadership. It has been a challenging
time.
Let me introduce our final two witnesses before we recess
for the votes. We are so pleased to have our next witness, Ms.
Kristin Weeks Duncanson, who is the owner and partner of
Duncanson Growers, a diversified farm family operation located
in Mapleton, Minnesota. I know that Senator Klobuchar hopes to
be with us today so she can greet you as well. She is the
immediate past chair of the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, past
president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, former
director of the American Soybean Association. She is a member
of the Carbon Market Working Group, sits on the board of AGree,
an organization focused on driving positive change in food and
agricultural systems. So we are so pleased that you are with
us.
Then last, but certainly not least, I am pleased to
introduce Sean McMahon again to us--we are so pleased to have
you with us--who is the executive director of the Iowa
Agriculture Water Alliance, a clean water initiative supported
by the Iowa Corn Growers and the Iowa Soybean Association and
the Iowa Pork Producers Association. Mr. McMahon has worked on
natural resources policy for over 20 years in a variety of
roles. Before joining the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance, he
was a North American agriculture program director at the Nature
Conservancy where he worked on strategies to make sure
agriculture was more environmentally sustainable, and through
advocacy in the farm bill played a very important role, and we
appreciate it very much. Before that, he worked for the
National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the
Department of the Interior, and is currently a member of the
Farm Foundation Roundtable and serves on the Advisory Board for
the U.S. Soybean Export Council. So many hats, and we are very
pleased to have you with us at this point.
So we thank our distinguished panel. We appreciate your
patience. Right now the vote is underway, so we will recess for
the votes, and then we will come back and appreciate your
testimony.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. The Committee will reconvene and come
to order. We thank you very, very much for your patience, and
we are now at a point where we can focus on this very important
topic.
As I indicated in the beginning, we today are focused on
water quality issues. We know there are a variety of issues
that are important related to our waters, and today we want to
focus on one of the two pillars, which is water quality.
We know other members are coming, but in the interest of
time, we will proceed at this point. Let me start by asking
Sean McMahon and Dr. Marty Matlock a question. When we are
looking at the fact that we are supporting 1.5 million jobs and
generating $62 billion in wages from the Great Lakes and all of
the efforts that are going on, and looking at the surrounding
States and the country as a whole, we know how critical clean
water is. I have a very straightforward question for both of
you: Can farmers and ranchers make a measurable improvement in
water quality by adopting voluntary conservation practices?
Mr. McMahon. Yes, they certainly can----
Chairwoman Stabenow. Oh, excuse me. Do you know what? I
went right into questions and did not give you a chance to do
opening statements. We had done our opening statements, and so,
well, hold the thought then on the question. Why don't we do
that? Now you know what the question is.
We want to hear from you, so let us start with the mayor of
Toledo, the Honorable Michael Collins. Mayor, we appreciate
very much your coming in. I really was not trying to cut you
off from not hearing your testimony. So, please.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE D. MICHAEL COLLINS, MAYOR, TOLEDO, OHIO
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Chairman Stabenow and esteemed
members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee. It is a privilege and an honor for me to be allowed
to testify before you today.
On the weekend of August 2, 2014, the city of Toledo made
headlines both nationally and, quite honestly, internationally
when we were impacted by harmful algae blooms or algal blooms.
It created a situation for us where we had to execute a ``Do
Not Consume'' order. The order was impacted by over half a
million consumers of our public water system, which includes
northwestern Ohio and parts of southeast Michigan.
We weathered the 72-hour incident because our community
pulled together. There was no violence, and we had no
reportable illness as a result of this experience. Water was
supplied to those who were in need; the stores were restocked;
and on Monday at 9 o'clock in the morning, we were able to
execute and rescind the consumption situation. Toledo has taken
those additional steps to prevent our water supply from being
impacted by the microcystin toxin that is a result of the algal
blooms.
Our community was impacted financially, well over $2.5
million from grocery stores where their produce was sprinkled
with water to the restaurant and the hospitality trades. We as
a city experienced--because of the additional chemicals which
were needed, carbons and so forth, we had not expected this
through our budget, but we had experienced millions of dollars
of additional costs in order to continually use the chemicals
necessary to stabilize that water that we so proudly serve a
half a million people with.
I am here today as the mayor of Toledo. I would love the
pictures of the lines of those waiting for water or the images
of that glass of water which made national news being held up,
looking like pea soup. I would like to see that forgotten.
However, the truth of the matter is if we forget what happened
in Toledo, it is destined that we will repeat it.
Toxic algal blooms are not new. We have as a Nation--and I
repeat, we have as a Nation failed in studying the reasons why
they continue and to take the steps to reduce or eliminate
their occurrences. In my humble opinion, the experiences we had
in Toledo is characteristic to the canary in the coal mine.
There are many theories as to why, but we have not identified
all the causes. Phosphorus in Lake Erie has been reduced, but
it remains, though. We have other issues.
The new formulations of fertilizers, Open Lake dredging,
invasive species interfering with the ecology of the lake, mega
cattle and hog and chicken farms, and septic tank failures all
obviously must have some role in this, as well as municipal
sewage treatment plants.
This is not a Toledo problem, and actually it is not an
Ohio problem. It is an international problem. More than 80
percent of the water in Lake Erie comes from the Great Lakes to
the west and north via the Detroit River. Standards developed
by the World Health Organization in 1996 have not been
evaluated nor have they been confirmed by our Federal EPA.
Testing is not standardized or even required as it relates to
all areas of our Nation as to the algae blooms themselves. I
urge Congress to work together with the administration to
recognize that Lake Erie and our Great Lakes are national
treasures and to make our region's water quality issues a
priority by taking the following actions:
First, provide additional research funding to develop what
are the causes and what are the solutions for improving water
quality.
Secondly, the EPA should set a Federal water quality
standard for toxic algae blooms.
Thirdly, the Federal Government must--and I repeat, must--
prioritize and target funding for infrastructure and
conservation funding to those watersheds that most effectively
affect Lake Erie. If we continue to delay, the harm may become
irreparable.
Thank you for allowing me to share this information and to
have been put into your record, and I would be happy to take
any questions which you may have at any point today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins can be found on page
45 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you very much.
As Ms. Kristin Weeks Duncanson is going to be giving her
testimony, I would also like to recognize Senator Klobuchar for
a welcome.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chairwoman
Stabenow. Thank you so much for inviting Kristin Weeks
Duncanson today from the State of Minnesota. She is going to be
talking about some of the new technologies and partnerships
that she is using to improve water quality. You should know
that she and I actually attended high school together. She was
a year older, but I will not say what years we graduated. She
is an owner and partner of Duncanson Growers, a family farm
located in southern Minnesota that raises soybeans, corn,
vegetables, and hogs. She is also the immediate past chair of
the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council and was a member of the
Minnesota Soybean Association for 10 years before being named
the soybean growers president in 2002.
She served as a staff member for former U.S. Senator
Rudolph Boschwitz and is a graduate of the University of
Minnesota Humphrey Institute Public Policy Fellowship Program.
She currently serves as a member of the AGree Advisory
Committee--we need more agreement here--which is a diverse
coalition of ag thought leaders supporting innovation in our
food system, and we are really pleased to invite you to the
Committee today.
Thank you.
Ms. Weeks Duncanson. Great, and thank you very much for
that kind introduction.
Chairwoman Stabenow. I will just add that any information
you have about Senator Klobuchar that we could use on the side
would be helpful.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Weeks Duncanson. Well, we took piano lessons from the
same piano teacher, so we can----
Chairwoman Stabenow. Recitals.
Ms. Weeks Duncanson. Yes, so we will talk later.
STATEMENT OF KRISTIN WEEKS DUNCANSON, OWNER/PARTNER, DUNCANSON
GROWERS, MAPLETON, MINNESOTA
Ms. Weeks Duncanson. Thank you very much. For those of you
in the room, too, I would like to introduce my husband, who is
sitting behind me, who once was my intern in this fine
institution back a long time ago. So thank you, and thank you,
Chairman Stabenow and members, for letting us be here today and
to share the opportunity with you today on a farmer's
perspective on how stewardship of working lands can improve
water quality.
For many years, we in the agricultural community have a
deep and abiding stewardship of our own land, and it runs
through our veins. It is a tradition passed through the
generations, and we are very proud of it.
Farmers and landowners working together to manage our water
resources also goes back many generations. In Minnesota, we use
a ditch system. Our challenge with water is usually too much
and not too little water. Though for many years we focused
entirely on making sure we had infrastructure to move excess
water off our land, we have learned in more recent years that
we need to make sure that we do that in a way that does not
lead to erosion of streambanks or filling up the streams with
eroded soils and excess nutrients.
My farming community lies in both the Blue Earth and Le
Seuer watersheds. They flow into the Minnesota River and on to
the Mississippi, which is about 80 miles away. We have worked
together on Blue Earth County Ditch 57. A few years ago, we
designed a two-tiered ditch system with a holding pond and
planted native grasses that gets the water off our fields but
slows the water down and absorbs the nutrients it carries with
it. This improves water quality downstream.
The process for the new Ditch 57 was neither quick nor
easy. It took several years of negotiating with the owners,
getting a design, funding, and approvals. But the outcomes
achieved were increased productivity for the working lands and
a decrease in flooded areas in both the farm fields and many of
the houses in the nearby town.
We and many of our neighbors are starting to use cover
crops to build the health of our soils, which are the
foundation of our productivity and profitability. Cover crops
also help keep both sediment and nutrients out of the water. By
retaining nutrients in the soil, we use less fertilizer, which
also contributes to our bottom line.
We are learning more and more that we need to do
conservation differently if we are to be sure that we are doing
what is needed to improve water quality while maintaining and
improving our productivity and profitability over the long
term. Forward-looking producers and landowners are ready to
provide that leadership.
We need to focus on water quality outcomes at the watershed
level, not just as individual operators. Producers, with
technical support from universities, agencies, or the private
sector, need to measure baselines regarding both agricultural
practices and environmental outcomes at multiple scales and
measure the change over time.
Producers need to work together to identify what a basic
standard of stewardship should look like in their watersheds,
which performance standards or practices should be expected of
producers regardless of cost share being available.
We need to focus cost share and public dollars on the
structural practices needed to achieve the outcomes and put
them where they can achieve the most cost-effective impact.
Government needs to do things a little differently too:
prioritizing resources to where the natural resource problems
are found; investing in collecting baseline data and monitoring
change over multiple scales; providing regulatory certainty to
those producers who voluntarily demonstrate continuous
improvements to achieve water quality goals; and sharing data
more freely among the agencies within USDA, other agencies,
universities, and the private sector so that we can better
understand the relationship between conservation practices,
yield resilience, and environmental outcomes in specific
agronomic circumstances.
Of course, we must ensure that proprietary data remains
private and that data voluntarily shared cannot be used for
regulatory action. As a member of the Advisory Committee of
AGree, an effort that brings together a variety of producers
with companies along the food and ag supply chain,
environmental organizations, and public health and
international development experts, I have worked with other
producers to develop an approach we believe can successfully
engage farmers and ranchers in achieving improved outcomes in
working landscapes.
What we are calling Working Lands Conservation Partnerships
would be producer-led, watershed-scale, cooperative effort to
enhance both long-term productivity and improve environmental
outcomes in a manner that can be recognized both by the public
and private agencies as well as the supply chain. The
information is summarized in an infographic that is in my
written testimony.
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program in the farm
bill of 2014 is an excellent example of a Federal program that
aligns with our conservation approach.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and welcome
any questions that you would have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weeks Duncanson can be found
on page 46 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Dr. Matlock, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARTY D. MATLOCK, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OFFICE FOR SUSTAINABILITY, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS,
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Mr. Matlock. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member, members
of the Committee, Senator Boozman, thank you for having us
here.
I am anxious to get to the questions and answers, the
discussion point, too, so I just want to say that I have never
been more optimistic about the ability of our landholders
across the United States to make positive improvements on our
water quality and the landscape, not because of a regulatory
framework we are imposing but because of the awareness through
shared information and through a common understanding of our
common impacts on water quality and the benefits we derive from
that ecosystem service at the watershed level. We are seeing
incredible engagement, unprecedented engagement, voluntary
engagement across the landscape.
I would like to differentiate, though, that compliance with
conservation practices with NRCS really are more incentivized
than voluntary. As we know, under the 2014 farm bill, we have
incredible incentives for participation and, in fact, if you do
not engage in conservation practices, you are disqualified from
participating in many of those critical elements of the farm
bill. So it is really not a voluntary program so much as an
incentivized program.
I do want to celebrate one initiative that I think is
particularly exemplary in how our landowners and agricultural
value chains are engaging together to make things better in the
landscape. That is the Field to Market Alliance for Sustainable
Agriculture. You have this in my statement. You also have it in
my contributions to the packet. The Field to Market Alliance
for Sustainable Agriculture's key performance indicators, this
is a multi-stakeholder initiative that engages folks from
producers across soybean, corn, cotton, wheat, and other crops
all the way to biotech companies and retailers--McDonald's,
Walmart, others. It includes conservation organizations--World
Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, the Nature
Conservancy--that is where Sean and I met--as well as many
other organizations, to try to figure out what we have to do to
sustain our prosperity from the land without eroding the
biodiversity and other ecosystem services upon which our
prosperity depends.
This organization is developing key performance indicators
that are voluntarily adopted by producers across the landscape
and developing strategies for targeted implementation. As the
mayor indicated, not all ecosystems are equal. Some are more
sensitive than others. I was in Brazil at the Global Roundtable
for Sustainable Beef 2 weeks ago, and I heard a term that I had
not heard before, but I love it: ``glocal.'' We must think
globally and act locally. We all understand that. We have
global problems, and they require local solutions. Local
solutions means we cannot paint the problems with one brush. We
have to understand the local implications, and we have to have
the freedom to implement solutions, to explore solutions, and,
frankly, to fail occasionally so that we can learn and get
better.
Continuous improvement is the hallmark of sustainability.
We need a process so that we can continuously improve
sustainability across our water quality and our landscape. The
landscape is changing, and it is changing fast, and it is not
just agricultural producers that are changing it. We have to be
able to be responsive to all of those elements.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matlock can be found on page
92 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fisher, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TRUDY D. FISHER, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, RIDGELAND,
MISSISSIPPI
Ms. Fisher. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, if I could be so
bold as to jump right in there and follow your style, I would
like to say yes, not only can farmers voluntarily deal and
address and improve water quality, but they actively are all
across the country.
I want to share with you why this issue is so important to
the State of Mississippi and our producers and our
organizations that we work with. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit
to the Great Lakes Region, but I am going to move our thinking
down South a little bit and focus on the lower Mississippi
River States.
Our State is only one of two States that borders both the
Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River
and the Yazoo River form over 7,000 acres of the very rich,
fertile Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta. It is a huge economic
engine, a driver for not only our State but also the country,
as well as the Gulf of Mexico. We recognized many years ago
that what happens on our land directly impacts what happens on
the Mississippi River and in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have
been very proactive in addressing how do we deal with nutrient
reduction? How do we deal with nitrogen and phosphorous on our
lands and in our runoff water? Also, as a reminder, everything
that we are talking about in a way runs downhill right by our
State.
We learned, just like Dr. Matlock said--and I share his
enthusiasm--there is so much going on where? At the local
level, at the grassroots level. We found early on that it takes
the collaborative nature, a voluntary approach of your
producers, of your Federal organizations, and your local
partners to really address how do you go about reducing
nutrients. What is the strategy?
You know, there are conservation practices that have been
in the NRCS program for years, and so we worked with our
producers, with NRCS, our State Soil and Water Conservation
District. What are the practices that work the best? What is
achievable? What is the cost?
But you cannot just look at the cost. You have to look at
the value of the conservation practices. Then what is the value
to the stakeholder, to the producers? Because you have to have
that buy-in. You have to have the dialogue and the buy-in for
any effort such as this to work.
We have been very pleased with our collaborative efforts
and what we have actually done on the ground in Mississippi.
Some of the practices that I would like to talk about are just
very basic farming practices that make a difference on water
quality and quantity.
Land leveling. Obviously, the Mississippi Delta, it is
flat, it is level. But is it really? You know, and so there are
techniques such as land leveling that improves your irrigation
practices, that reduces your runoff. These are programs that
are supported by NRCS.
The ubiquitous ditch that we all have all across our
farming country, farming land, how do you deal with the
ditches? How do you slow the water down? How do you re-use the
water? How do you get better drainage, whether it is too little
or too much? How do you focus on improving that channel so that
it controls the runoff and lessens the impacts to the river and
to the Gulf of Mexico? Again, these are practices that are
supported by NRCS.
I know that Chief Weller will be talking later in another
panel about all the various practices, but they truly make a
difference. But you have to be able to demonstrate that you are
having measurable results. You know, our State environmental
agencies all across the country, we know it is working, but you
have to have the outcome and the results to show what you are
achieving. So we are very happy in Mississippi that we are at
that point now that we are able to demonstrate the successful
reduction of nutrients into the water, into the Mississippi
River and the Gulf of Mexico. We are working with other States.
Just like the other panelists have said, one size does not
fit all. As all of you know from your own States, each of your
States are regions within regions, and it is the same way in
dealing with hydrogeology. You have to look at your State. You
have to look at your individual watershed and what works. So we
can learn from one another, but let us take a local grassroots
approach to addressing the issues of stormwater runoff.
But, yes, it is--is it working? Yes. The issue is I think
that we have--and I would ask the Committee to look at--we have
in our State, I know probably all across the Mississippi River
Basin States, a higher demand for the NRCS conservation
practices than there is actually funding. I would like at one
point later to talk about what are some opportunities to make
sure that those meaningful conservation practices that are
working continue to have the funding so they can be accessed in
a voluntary way by our producers across the country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fisher can be found on page
66 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Certainly again, last but not least, we are glad to have
Mr. Sean McMahon here. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF SEAN MCMAHON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IOWA AGRICULTURE
WATER ALLIANCE, ANKENY, IOWA
Mr. McMahon. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow and members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony and present my views to the Committee today.
I would like to thank the Committee for its work earlier
this year and dating back to the last two Congresses to pass a
bipartisan farm bill that contained the strongest Conservation
Title in history. This is the first farm bill to ever have more
funding in the Conservation Title than the Commodities Title.
The 2014 farm bill also includes an innovative new program
called the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. This
program codifies the principle of targeting conservation
practices to where they can have maximum impact and ushers in a
new era of public-private partnerships.
The recent farm bill also recouples crop insurance with
conservation compliance for the first time since 1995, which
will ensure more soil conservation on highly erodible lands
while helping to prevent wetlands from being drained and native
prairie from being plowed.
I would like to thank the entire Committee for their
excellent work on the recent farm bill, but in particular I
would like to single out the Chairwoman for her tremendous
persistence and tireless efforts to pass this historic
legislation.
As executive director of the Iowa Agriculture Water
Alliance, I am partnering with many organizations, including
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to help to
implement the farm bill and deliver conservation more
effectively in Iowa. The Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance was
launched in August of this year, and it was created by three
leading Iowa agricultural associations: the Iowa Corn Growers
Association, Iowa Soybean Association, and Iowa Pork Producers.
The purpose of the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance is to
increase the pace and scale of implementation of the Iowa
Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Iowa Strategy, which was
released in May 2013, is a science-based framework to assess
nutrient loading and reduce the impacts of excessive nitrogen
and phosphorous to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico. The Iowa
Strategy directs efforts to cost effectively reduce surface
water nutrients from both point sources, such as wastewater
treatment and industrial facilities, and nonpoint sources, such
as farm fields. This coordinated approach between the point
source and nonpoint source strategies allows for collaboration
among agricultural, municipal, and industrial interests to meet
the overall goals of the strategy in a cost-effective manner.
The strategy calls for overall reductions of nitrogen and
phosphorous loads to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico by at
least 45 percent, a 41-percent decrease in nitrogen and a 29-
percent decrease in phosphorus from nonpoint sources, primarily
from reducing nutrient loss in agricultural runoff.
The strategy also calls for a 4-percent reduction of
nitrogen and a 16-percent reduction in phosphorous from point
sources. The strategy continues reliance on voluntary
conservation activities for nonpoint runoff.
There have recently been increasing calls to regulate
agriculture under the Clean Water Act. Our current voluntary
approach to private lands conservation is under increasing
pressure and criticism. I personally believe that regulating
nonpoint agricultural runoff in Iowa would be a very expensive
and ineffective experiment due to both the scale and
variability of agriculture in Iowa.
The Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance is collaborating with
many committed partners to pursue voluntary approaches to
implementing the Iowa Strategy and reducing nutrient loss.
Advancing the goals of the Iowa Strategy is a daunting
challenge. It will take many committed partners and many years
to realize 45-percent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorous in
our waterways. It is important to remember that we have had a
century and a half of impacts of agriculture on our water
quality, and there is a great deal of ``legacy'' nutrients and
sediment in our waterways. Yet Iowa farmers are committed to
helping lead an effort based on sound science that will fulfill
the goals of the strategy and help to improve water quality
both in Iowa and downstream to the Gulf of Mexico.
It will take new revenue streams and partnerships with the
private sector and municipalities to fully fund and implement
the strategy. Public sector funding from NRCS and IDALS is
important, but that alone is not adequate. We are engaging with
additional private sector and public-private partnerships
around nutrient stewardship, soil health, and sustainability to
help promote conservation practices that improve water quality.
As more producers understand that there is a strong value
proposition inherent in conservation practices that improve
productivity and profitability over time, adoption rates for
those practices will increase dramatically. At the same time,
additional funding is needed to incentivize structural
practices that take land out of production. It will require a
combination of in-field, edge-of-field, and in-stream practices
to achieve the goals of the strategy.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views before
the Committee. I sincerely appreciate this Committee's
invaluable work to promote conservation on our Nation's private
lands and help America's farmers to meet the growing domestic
and international demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel in an
increasingly sustainable manner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McMahon can be found on page
96 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much to each of you,
and I think actually you have answered my first question, so I
am going to go on from there and ask Ms. Duncanson, in the past
you said that farmers need to step up and take the lead to
address nonpoint water pollution, and I am wondering, as we
look at ways to do that and encourage and support farmers and
ranchers, can you describe the best ways to actually increase
that participation?
Ms. Weeks Duncanson. It is an interesting question that you
ask, and we are going to refer to something old in its practice
called ``peer pressure.'' You know, farmers and ranchers across
the country, our neighbors are our neighbors, and we oftentimes
work together, but our neighbors are also our competitors. So
we need to instill this culture of leadership amongst
ourselves, and we have seen that done across the country. We
just maybe have not celebrated it as much as we should and use
that as a model as we work throughout our Nation in partnership
with public and private sectors to move ahead with conservation
as well as using resources for data collection and management
at USDA while still keeping it private.
So it can be done, and we are seeing it done, as my fellow
witnesses today have talked about their areas of the country,
but good old peer pressure does a lot.
Chairwoman Stabenow. When you look at long-term financial
benefits to implementing conservation practices, what do you
see? You are running a farm in Minnesota. What are the impacts?
Do you think that other producers understand the financial
benefits?
Ms. Weeks Duncanson. You know, it is a story that needs to
be told over and over again. Some do. Some have not gotten that
far yet. But if we can build better organic matter in the soil,
if our soil has better resilience against the changes in
weather patterns, we are more productive, therefore more
profitable. Someone mentioned earlier it is the value versus
the cost of conservation, always instilling that amongst
producers that there really is an opportunity there.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Mayor Collins, you are at the other end, so we are talking
about practices that are important, involvement of farmers and
ranchers in conservation practices and so on. You are at the
other end where, in fact, there was a huge problem. I wonder if
you could speak to the economic impacts of the drinking water
ban on Toledo businesses, and what you saw. Hopefully this is
not going to happen again and we are bringing resources to
bear, but this was a huge issue for your city, your businesses,
your residents. Talk about the economic impact.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. The economic
impact was probably somewhere in the area of $2.2 to $2.5
million over that weekend. Now, one would say, ``Well, how
could that possibly be?'' Well, basically, all of the products
that were in supermarkets, grocery stores, and so forth, that
required the water being put on, they were all destroyed as a
result of--because of the residual impact.
The restaurant/hospitality industry was totally compromised
because they could not--in this situation, you could not boil
the water, because if you boiled the water, the only thing you
would do is you would enhance the microcystin, and that would
just basically create another problem for you. So you could not
do that.
Now, honestly, what happened is, in Toledo, our Lucas
County Emergency Management Program, they came out and said
that you could not bathe, you could not--I mean, the
prohibitions were totally off the wall, and they were not true.
You could not consume, but for bathing purposes and for other
purposes--you could not use the water to cook with. So
basically that was where we were at.
But in listening to the testimony--and I sincerely respect
all of the testimony that was given--I am hearing just we need
more time. I mean, when half a million people are subjected to
the circumstances we were subjected to, when there was no
consistency in terms of what test protocols were used, when we
called for the Ohio EPA and we called for the U.S. EPA, and we
called basically Homeland Security, we got no support from
them. Homeland Security told us, ``Oh, you have got to wait
maybe 72 hours and call us back.'' I mean, that was the type of
response.
Fortunately, in Toledo, we had a resilient community, and I
had a great team, and we were able to get through it. But I
honestly and truthfully believe that if we give this the debate
and it stops there, what are we going to say to the next
community that goes through this?
I am asking realistically for an Executive order, and I
understand in Washington, DC, right now Executive orders are
sort of--it is considered by some a placebo, and it is
considered by others a poison. But I really and truly believe
that it is going to take the full force of our Government and
Canada to evaluate this very important set of circumstances.
We in Toledo, we process 26 billion gallons of water a year
from this body of water that I am talking about that was
compromised. So imagine the impact it has on this Nation. I am
not suggesting that it is an agricultural issue singularly. I
would not suggest that. But I really think that the full force
of our Government should be looked upon to participate with
Canada and participate with the States that are there and the
communities.
Really and truly, do not give this lip service. When I made
the statement it is the canary in the coal mine, I am very
sincere with that statement. If you have not lived through it--
and I would pray that no one ever does--you will not have a
true appreciation of what it is like when you are in a position
of leadership and you have half a million people asking you for
explanations.
Most of the explanations you have to offer them are not
available because there is no availability to even scientific
research to advance. So you are just asking them to have faith
and to hope that they will indeed--and why it turned out the
way it did I cannot explain. Our crimes of violence went down.
Our crimes against property went down. The community came out,
and I saw high school kids and college kids standing the way we
designed our distribution centers.
I will end by saying this: When I walked into that command
center that morning at 1 o'clock on that Saturday, there was
not one document--not one document from anywhere--that would
give us a recipe as to how to handle this. We did this strictly
off the seat of our pants, quite honestly. That should never
happen again either. With all the money that is spent on
Homeland Security, to have a complete water system compromised
and not have any investment in that, in my opinion, is--it just
does not make good sense.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I know this was a
horrendous situation to be in, and so we appreciate your being
here and really in stark terms talking about the reality of
what happens if we do not get this right in terms of water
quality initiatives and so on. So thank you very much.
My time is past. I am going to turn now to Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous
consent to include a letter and materials from the Fertilizer
Institute in the hearing record today.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Without objection.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
[The following information can be found on page 144 in the
appendix.]
Senator Boozman. I would second what the Chairman said, Mr.
Collins, in regard to what you all went through. The good news
is I am excited that, despite that, we really are hearing a lot
of positive things that people in agriculture, people in
development across the board really are starting to get this,
and we really are seeing significant improvement.
Dr. Matlock, can you explain the value of technology and
innovation in making conservation efforts more effective? Maybe
you could give us some examples of technology and some of the
innovative things that you have seen.
Mr. Matlock. Absolutely, Senator, and I absolutely agree
with the mayor's assertion that we need to understand our
ecosystems that we depend on more effectively, and I absolutely
agree with the assertion that we are too fragmented in our
ability to understand and then manage those ecosystems.
The technologies that we are seeing emerge at this very
moment allow us to know better what is happening around us.
These are sentinel technologies associated with remote sensing,
either from aerial platforms or even low-altitude
microsatellite platforms. Our ability to actually track what is
happening on the landscape has improved over the last year. It
is happening that fast, and it was transformed the way we
understand the landscape because we will be able to see the
landscape real time in very short order. That means anywhere on
the landscape, not just in very targeted areas. That means our
ability to understand sources and causality will improve. The
technology for tracking impacts in water quality, our sensors
technology, are improving, so we can measure--we do not have
to--we are getting to the point where we do not have to go into
the river and collect a sample, take it back to the lab, and
analyze it and wait for 3 to 5 days before we understand what
is happening. We can track that and record those processes
real-time, which means we can intervene when there is an
emerging problem earlier.
Algal blooms are ripe for detection with remotely sensed
technologies, and then the problem is we do not know how to
interdict them. We do not know what to do to prevent them. As
the mayor said, we have much to learn, but our ability to
understand is really limited by our ability to know what is
happening. Our ability to know what is happening has expanded
because it is so much cheaper now to deploy technologies,
sentinel technologies. It is happening on the landscape.
Farmers have soil moisture sensors that were unimaginable in
their sensitivity 10 years ago that they are using every day,
and they are almost throwaway. They almost plow them over
because they are that cheap. So that is sort of--and the
telemetry of those technologies is increasing, too, so they are
Blue-Tooth connected to a data logger. So that is the sort of
opportunity we have for continued improvement.
Senator Boozman. I know I was really amazed this past
summer, when we were on lots of farms, at the use of drones
that could--low flying, that could gauge whether or not one
area was not getting irrigation versus another or too much
irrigating just making all that very, very effective, pesticide
use, the whole bit. So that is great.
Ms. Fisher, how does uncertainty impact the participation
of producers in long-term programs like EQIP?
Ms. Fisher. Certainty is needed because what we want to
make sure that we always have in place is, as best we can, what
is a known playing field on the conservation practices and
programs that are available, because these take--just like you
heard us all say, these take time to implement and to get into
place and then to demonstrate the success.
What we have been explaining to you today, and as a former
farmer herself, I would share with you we are talking about
saving fuel costs, we are talking about saving fertilizer
costs, we are talking about saving labor costs, just the
improved technology of the irrigation system itself, which is
another one of the NRCS practices.
So you have this wonderful paradigm where you have
conservation and saving money and efficiency on the farm, and
in Mississippi, we have been able to demonstrate those cost
savings multiple times over, and then now taking that and
replicating that across our State and showing and demonstrating
how it does make a difference on the bottom line, which was
recognized it is such a risky industry that when you can have
any cost savings, and in the name of conservation, it is a
wonderful opportunity.
But certainty is--anything that we can do through our
programs to add that certainty and have those programs stay in
place is of great value.
Senator Boozman. Can I ask one more thing?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely.
Senator Boozman. Dr. Matlock, and then anybody else that
would like to jump in on this after he gets through, tell me
about your views on nutrient trading and why it has not become
more widely used.
Mr. Matlock. I am absolutely happy to share my views on
nutrient trading. I am on record with this in many cases.
I think nutrient trading offers the best opportunity--
nutrient trading gives the ability for regulated point sources
who are permitted under MPDS programs, under the Clean Water
Act, to engage in a collaboration with other members in the
watershed who have effects on water quality to collaboratively
improve water quality through shared costs and other practices
that could reduce overall loads of nitrogen, phosphorous,
organic matter, sediment to a system and do it in a more cost-
effective and, frankly, more sustained manner.
Right now, the challenge is that the uncertainty about who
actually is regulated under those frameworks prohibits
engagement. Landowners are reluctant to engaged in a process
where they do not understand the regulatory risks they are
engaging in. If it is a simple contractual relationship,
landowners are engaging in contracts every day. Contracts are
enforceable and have remedies if there is a violation.
Regulations are a new world for most farmers in that Clean
Water Act framework, and I can tell you they do not want any
part of it, and that is the biggest limitation, that fear that
they become a regulated body under the Clean Water Act through
EPA, an organization which they have no historic relationship
with.
Senator Boozman. Anybody else?
Mr. McMahon. Yes, if I may attempt to answer that as well,
in Iowa we are seeing a number of cities, such as Dubuque,
Storm Lake, Charles City, and Cedar Rapids, express interest in
having a framework that EPA and the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources would approve, which would allow those cities to get
credit for paying for conservation practices that farmers and
other private landowners could implement.
It would not necessarily have to be a trading framework,
but it is essentially that same thing. You have cities where,
if they are going to have additional permit requirements to
reduce their nitrogen and phosphorous, those cities are
realizing that they can do so more cost effectively by
partnering with private landowners on green infrastructure than
if they were entirely to pay for gray infrastructure, very
expensive capital investments.
However, there is uncertainty right now, as Marty just
said, regarding the regulatory framework, and it is not clear
that those cities would actually get credit for making those
investments. So we do need to provide more clarity to enable,
in particular, those wastewater utilities and municipal
ratepayers to be able to get credit for making investments for
upstream or downstream conservation practices throughout those
same watersheds.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you very much.
I just have one final question. Then we need to move on to
our second panel. Mr. McMahon, when you were talking about the
programs and what you are doing through the alliance, which is
really terrific, I am wondering how you plan to measure results
in terms of successful strategies so that they can be
replicated and used in other areas.
Mr. McMahon. Well, thank you for the question. So there are
a number of indicators we will be looking at right up front,
and one of the most important ones is adoption of conservation
practices. We need to measure increased adoption of
conservation practices in terms of acres.
For the in-field practices where we believe there is a
strong value proposition for producers, for practices like
improved nutrient management, no-till, strip-till, and cover
crops, we are looking to really increase those practices
throughout the entire State, essentially taking a blanket
approach for those practices.
For the practices that are more expensive and take
agricultural land out of production, we are going to need to be
more targeted about that, so we will not have the same amount
of acreage increases for those practices. Some of those
practices are the most effective at improving water quality, in
particular, edge-of-field practices like nutrient treatment
wetlands, bioreactors, saturated buffers, and stabilizing
stream banks. For those practices, it will take additional
incentives for farmers to want to adopt those, but those are
some of the best practices for removing nitrogen and
phosphorous.
Another measure is going to be the investment for the Iowa
Nutrient Reduction Strategy. We can already measure what is
going on through the NRCS and the Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship cost-share programs. We don't
have a good handle on the private sector investment--how many
acres are producers putting practices in place with no cost
share whatsoever. We are seeing increasing amounts of that in
terms of cover crops and nutrient management and conservation
tillage, for instance.
Then ultimately the biggest and most important indicator is
going to be water quality. We want to see more than just the
modeled load reductions. We want to actually see the needle
move in terms of improved water quality and not just at the
edge of field scale, but at the watershed scale.
Now, it is going to take years to do that, so we have to be
patient, but ultimately, improving water quality is what this
strategy and the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance are all about.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, and thanks to all
of you very much for the work that you are doing. Again, we see
strategies happening. We have increased those tools and
strategies in the farm bill. We know that there is a sense of
urgency, as the mayor can say, as we look at what needs to be
done in a number of ways to address this. But we do know that
long term, as well as short term, that our farmers and ranchers
have a very important role to play in this and that each of you
are involved in helping to make that happen.
So thank you very much, and thank you for your patience
today, and we look forward to working more with you.
We will ask Mr. Jason Weller to come forward. Good morning.
Well, it is actually not morning anymore. Good afternoon.
Mr. Weller. Good afternoon.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, good afternoon. We appreciate
your patience as well today, and we want very much to hear from
you, in your position as Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service. You have been there since July 2013. We
very much appreciate the work that you are doing.
Chief Weller oversees a staff of more than 10,000 employees
across the country who work to protect the environment,
preserve our natural resources, and improve agricultural
sustainability through voluntary private lands conservation.
Chief Weller has also done an outstanding job over the last
several months implementing the Conservation Title of the farm
bill, and we appreciate our great working relationship.
He is a native Californian who worked for the California
Legislature prior to moving to Washington, DC, where he worked
on conservation policy in a number of roles at the White House
Office of Management and Budget, the House Budget Committee,
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. Prior to
being appointed Chief of NRCS, he served as chief of staff to
the former Chief, Dave White.
So thank you very much for being here, and we would like
very much to hear from you and have a couple questions.
STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Weller. Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman Stabenow and
members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the
invitation to be here today.
If I may--and hopefully you have a little presentation
packet in front of you--instead of just talking to you, I would
rather actually talk with you and talk a little bit about who
we are, the type of practices, and use some visuals to actually
hopefully articulate what it is that we do with farmers and
ranchers. But first let me just say how proud I am to serve
NRCS and represent the 10,500 men and women who work across the
landscape to work collaboratively with farmers and ranchers.
Let me also say how appreciative we are at NRCS for the
authorities, the tools, and the resources, Chairwoman Stabenow,
you and the Committee have provided us. We are doing a lot of
great work, and we are very excited about what we are also
going to be able to deliver for farmers and ranchers with the
additional resources you have given us through this new farm
bill.
Also, let me just state right up front, kind of a
definition of what is sustainable agriculture. The bottom-line
definition for me is NRCS is only successful if the farmer is
successful. That means we are helping them be economically
successful. That for me is the ultimate litmus test. We want
these family operations, these family businesses, to be in
business not just this year or next year. We want them to be in
business generations from now.
So the conservation practices we offer to them have to work
economically, have to help their bottom line, and, of course,
also address the sustainable use of their resources, their soil
and their water resources, so they can grow the feed and fiber
that is part of their business, that we as society rely upon.
So we are very focused on sustainable agriculture,
sustaining those families, sustaining those businesses, because
the best use of those lands are actually working lands. You
talk to our colleagues in the Environmental Protection Agency,
and they will say for the Chesapeake Bay the best land use for
the bay, if you care about the bay health, is actually
agriculture. They want those lands in working agriculture,
because when those lands are lost, converted to other uses, per
acre the urban use of those lands is way more polluting per
acre than a pasture or crop field or a forest ever will be.
So with that, let me just kind of quickly go through, and I
will try and keep it under 38 minutes or so. I will be really
quick here.
First, the second slide here is really an overview. EPA
produced a report last year that talked about the economic--
actually the biologic condition of the rivers and streams in
the United States. It turns out, according to EPA, 55 percent
of rivers and streams in the U.S. are actually in poor
condition, really highlighting the real challenge we face
addressing not just the quality but also the quantity of the
waters upon which we all rely, whether for recreation, for
municipal water supply, for ag production, for industrial use.
Turning the page, the central focus, though, for us at NRCS
is, across the Lower 48, 70 percent of the land is privately
owned; 88 percent of the waters of the U.S. come off of private
lands. So if you care about the condition of the environment,
the availability of water, for whatever purpose, you really
have to then think about working with those millions of
landowners and the decisions they make on a daily basis which
will affect the ultimate quality of our waters and the
availability of our waters. We at NRCS believe that ultimately
a collaborative, voluntary, incentive-based approach is the
most effective.
So turning the slide, in terms of planning, if we rewind
the tape a little bit about 80 years, when our agency was
created by President Roosevelt in 1935, at the height of the
Dust Bowl, one of the worst ecological disasters in the Nation
we ever faced, what we were created to do was to provide
technical assistance, to provide planning advice to a farmer or
rancher.
So we worked through a nine-step planning process where we
helped convey our expertise in agronomy, in nutrient
management, in engineering expertise, and provided options to a
landowner to then make changes in the management of their land
to ultimately benefit their economic bottom line, but also to
protect their soil and water resources. So it is a three-phase
approach where we first assess the operation. We work
collaboratively with that farmer or rancher. What are their
business objectives? What do they really want to achieve in
their operation? We create options, and then with the producer
we arrive at the solution we want to pursue, and then we
implement and evaluate.
Turning the page, Slide 5, in terms of conservation
practices, we have over 160 practice standards at NRCS. We
believe they are some of the best standards for conservation
anywhere in the world. They are peer reviewed. They are
constantly updated. These are examples--you see some visuals
from the top left there of no-till operations, to grassed
waterways, to prescribed grazing practices, to the injection of
manure, to strip-cropping, to even helping producers manage
their manure for economic benefit, in this case putting roofing
structures and the heavy use pads for manure management
purposes.
Slide 6, what we have also learned is that there is no one
silver bullet. There is no one practice that will deliver the
results for a farmer. It is really a suite of practices, a
system working together, and that system for water quality
purposes we called ``ACT,'' A-C-T, avoid, control, trap. So you
really want to avoid risk, the loss of those valuable nutrients
and sediments from the farm field. To the extent then where you
are applying the fertilizers, you are managing your soils, you
also want to control the movement of water so you are hopefully
not transporting the sediments and those inputs off the farm.
Then you also have the last line of defense, you have practices
that trap the waters, the sediments, and the nutrients before
they leave the farm field, whether that is surface flow or
subsurface flow.
Slide 7 are a couple of shots, examples of these ACT
practices. For example, it is the precision application of
fertilizer when the crops need it, so you are optimizing your
use of fertilizer. It is also then farming on the contour using
tillage practices, the strip-cropping like you see on the
bottom left, and ultimately the trapping practices like buffers
you see there protecting waterways.
Slide 8, in terms of the overall investment that this
Committee has provided us from the last farm bill through 2014,
over 6 years, in just water quality alone we helped put in
place 727,000 practices across the United States, total
investment from the Federal side of $3.4 billion that then
leveraged--because these are cost-share practices, that
leveraged upwards of an additional $3.4 billion from landowners
themselves, total investment close to $7 billion in
conservation action across the United States just in 6 years
focused on water quality.
What do those practices look like? Slide 9, these are the
top practices that we have put in place in terms of acreage, so
the top practices being, for example, prescribed grazing,
nutrient management, integrated pest management, and cover
crops.
Slide 10, in terms of the overall investment in terms of
dollar, really focusing very heavily on irrigation water
management to help producers be hyper-efficient with their use
of water. That is really good for them optimizing their yield,
but also reducing the risk of loss of that water off the farm
field, as well as brush management and cover crops.
Slide 11, so what do all these practices mean? So we have a
really sophisticated, among the world's most sophisticated
model to actually estimate what happens when you put all these
practices in place. It is great to talk dollars and acres. What
does that translate into?
So, for example, in the Chesapeake Bay, what we learned
over a period of 5 years, through a voluntary, collaborative
approach, through the investments of NRCS and our partners at
the State level, through the NGO and philanthropic communities,
and farmers themselves made, they helped produce tremendous
reductions in losses of sediment and nutrients off their farm
fields just in the Chesapeake Bay.
So, for example, between 2006 and 2011, because of
conservation systems farmers put in place, they reduced losses
of sediment by an additional 62 percent. That translates into
15.1 million metric tons of sediment that are now no longer
flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. If you were to put that on a
train, you would fill a train 150,000 rail cars long that would
stretch from Washington, DC, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, that
are now no longer flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. That is the
power of voluntary, collaborative, incentive-based
conservation.
Slide 12, we think, what the science is telling us, the
targeted approach works really well, particularly on a regional
approach. These are some examples of these landscape
initiatives we have launched in the last 5 to 6 years. They are
focusing on large watersheds. We will never have enough money,
for example, to treat every acre in the Mississippi River
Basin. But through a collaborative approach, we work with
farmers, commodity associations, State Departments of
Environmental Quality, State Departments of Agriculture, Soil
and Water Conservation Districts. We identify key priority
areas where we can focus, leverage together resources, and co-
invest together to deliver results for farmers.
In the Mississippi River Basin, we identified around 50
high-priority watersheds across the whole basin, and NRCS, we
invested about $327 million over 5 years. That leveraged an
additional $20 million from non-Federal sources. It brought in
600 partners, and they then contributed upwards of 500
additional staff years to help get voluntary conservation
implemented and on the ground just in the Mississippi River
Basin.
Slide 13, sometimes the best conservation is actually the
most beautiful conservation, so I want to just show some
examples of before and after----
Chairwoman Stabenow. I am going to ask, just in the
interest of time, so we can get questions in--because these are
great pictures, but if we could move through the pictures
quickly, and then I will ask you to wrap up.
Mr. Weller. Absolutely. So I will let them speak for
themselves. You see examples from Iowa, from Michigan, from
Mississippi, and from Vermont as well. We also have success
stories. Just for the sake of time here, I will end with this
one success story here from Arkansas. This is the St. Francis
River, so beyond modeling results, we actually can monitor and
actually demonstrate actual in-stream results. So a lot of
States are investing very mightily in the in-stream water
quality monitoring that the previous panel talked about. In
this case, streams like the St. Francis River were listed under
the Clean Water Act as being impaired, so it was a
collaborative, voluntary approach where producers co-invested
their resources with our resources and partners, and because of
the investments we made, we were able to de-list streams like
the St. Francis River, reaches of this river, in Arkansas. We
have examples of this across the country, from South Dakota to
Oklahoma to Washington State and Arkansas itself.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I will cease and desist, and I
am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller can be found on page
106 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. That was
excellent. You covered a lot of ground in a few minutes, and it
was very, very important. I do think the very last slide, let
me just underscore that the new Regional Conservation
Partnership that we have put into place, are very excited
about, the sign-up resulted in 600 different proposals around
the country, requests for $2.8 billion in funding, and we have
about $400 million that will be available. So, clearly, this is
something people want, local approaches, strategies, and so we
look forward to working with you.
I want to ask you something that follows the first panel
because the mayor of Toledo, who is at the other end of this
where they actually had to ban the use of the water, and the
algae blooms, and it was just really a horrendous situation
that occurred this summer. We know that dissolved phosphorous
is the primary culprit in creating toxic algae blooms in Lake
Erie and in water bodies around the Nation. We know that
conservation practices, some work better than others as it
relates to this. I wondered if you could talk about the farm
bill conservation programs, how they could tackle this specific
issue, and talk about the combination of practices that NRCS
has to specifically target phosphorous reduction and how it is
different from nitrogen and other issues. But when we look at
this particular thing, what do you think are the best available
tools that we have to help in this situation?
Mr. Weller. So it starts with sort of where I began a
little bit and with what the previous panel talked about as
well. There is no one single silver bullet that will solve
this. Also you have to take into account there is no one
approach that works. You really have to start locally. Each
river basin, each watershed has its own unique
characteristics--its own climate, its own cropping systems, its
own soils, its own topography.
So what we are learning about the Western Lake Erie Basin
is it is obviously very unique from some other basins in the
country, the types of soils, the types of practices, the
topography. Ultimately, yes, phosphorous is one of the main
contributors to the algal problems in Lake Erie itself.
So in terms of what are the best practices, it comes back
to that suite of practices working together. Producers, what we
have learned from our studies and what other studies have
shown, they have done a really admirable job of reducing risk
of loss from surface flows. So they have done a great job.
There is an expanse of no-till and conservation tilled systems.
Increasingly we are promoting cover crops and other practices.
They have done a great job of buffering their fields and
protecting stream surface flows.
But what we as an agency--this is not just in Western Lake
Erie Basin. Nationally, what we have also learned is that as an
agency we very much have been focused on surface loss.
Increasingly we realized we really also have to account for
subsurface loss.
So what really then is going to be a suite of practices
working together, starting with nutrient management, and this
is something the industry is very much focused on and working
collaboratively with us, with land grant universities, and with
ag retailers in the basin itself, is really promoting the four
R's of good nutrient management, helping producers optimize
their use of fertilizers and applying fertilizers at the right
rate, the right source, the right time, the right method. That
is one.
There is the surface soil loss practices I have talked
about--cover crops, good tillage practices, good residue
management practices, buffering practices.
But also then looking at the subsurface drainage, and so 87
percent of the cropland acres in Western Lake Erie Basin are
tile drained. So it is looking at the management and helping
producers become really effective at managing their surface
flow, subsurface flows, for example, putting in drainage water
management practices like control structures, bioreactors, and
saturated buffers, other different tools that they can then
utilize, for the subsurface flow, the water they have in their
tile lines, for hopefully retaining the valuable nutrients that
are in those waters, holding those waters in place when crops
need them, getting the water out of the fields when they need
to get in their fields for planting or for harvest purposes,
but really trying to ensure that the crops gets access to those
valuable nutrients when the crops need it to grow grain,
ultimately then reducing the risk of loss from both surface and
subsurface flow into surface waters.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Weller, as I said earlier, I am really excited about
the testimony of the first panel and then your testimony also.
I was on the Water Resources panel in the House and now Ranking
on Water here in the Senate on EPW, and it is exciting. You
know, it seems like all aspects of industry farming, mining,
the whole bit, really are understanding the impact and
understanding that they are going to have to get serious, and
so that is a great thing.
I guess my concern is, you have all of these positive
voluntary things. My concern is when you do something like
Waters of the United States, which is so controversial, and
there is going to be significant costs involved, what is that
going to do to the voluntary programs? What is that going to do
to the progress that we have made so far?
Mr. Weller. So we have heard at USDA absolutely concerns
from many stakeholders about the proposed rule.
Senator Boozman. I guess over a million.
Mr. Weller. A million comments it is my understanding that
EPA has received and the Army Corps have received on the
proposed rule, yes. I know that the comment period may have
closed----
Senator Boozman. Most of them negative.
Mr. Weller. Yes, I will defer to EPA and the Corps to
characterize----
Senator Boozman. You have been around for a while.
Mr. Weller. Yes, I know from farming, particularly also
they are concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed
rule, and we are as well concerned about the potential
disincentives for folks to want to participate in programs. We
really feel, though, from our agency standpoint that the
voluntary, collaborative approach is very much effective, and
our intent is to be there working with producers since actually
one of the purposes of EQIP itself is to help producers either
address or obviate the need for regulation, whether that is the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Clean Air
Act.
So we really view ourselves as the shield arm if not the
sword arm in many cases for producers to help them address the
regulatory pressures they either are experiencing or may
experience.
Senator Boozman. No, I would agree, we need to really
concentrate on the voluntary programs, which, again, it seems
like from the testimony today and what we are seeing out in the
field with increased technology that was testified also, that
we really are making tremendous headway. You mentioned the
analogy, which I will use, with the boxcars is great. You know,
we really ought to get some things done.
Again--and I will my close with this--my concern is--and I
am very much opposed to the Waters of the U.S. because--for a
number of different reasons, but also, after hearing today's
testimony, I think that is something that really would be very
detrimental to these types of programs also.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Now the Chair of our Conservation Subcommittee, Senator
Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you. Thank you very much for holding
this hearing, Madam Chair, and the opportunity to ask
questions.
Chief Weller, thank you for your service and your
testimony. You talked about voluntary, collaborative incentive-
based conservation in your testimony, and I wholeheartedly
agree that is where we ought to head. It was the reason I was
so excited to work with members of this Committee in a
bipartisan fashion to craft the farm bill's Conservation Title.
Notwithstanding the spirit in which that piece of legislation
was drafted, we have heard very severe concerns from Colorado
about NRCS' implementation of the new Agricultural Land
Easement Program. Farmers and ranchers in Colorado, rightly
believe that they had a huge hand in writing these provisions
to begin with, because they did. They literally helped write
many of the provisions in the title. Now they have the sense
that their will and the will of this Committee is being diluted
by legal interpretations and bureaucracy at USDA.
One quick example. I visited the Yust Ranch outside
Kremlin, Colorado, this summer, a beautiful property, the
confluence of the Blue River and the Colorado River, that the
Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust worked hard to
cover with an easement. At the 11th hour, before the deal was
finalized, NRCS came in and told the Land Trust they needed to
secure a right-of-way over adjacent BLM land, despite the fact
that a new right-of-way could not be established because BLM is
the owner. The ranch felt that this NRCS requirement was a
solution in search of a problem. I would say that is polite.
In the end, NRCS did grant a waiver at the very end, which
I appreciate, the requirement for the Yust deal, but what I
want to convey to you is that the legal interpretation made no
sense to anybody that had anything to do with drafting the
legislation, including the Cattlemen's Land Trust. Beyond these
right-of-way concerns, we are also concerned about the new
rules to govern the easement program and the decreases in
funding that Congress allotted for this program, a concern that
a lot of that is being spent on overhead and on NRCS' own
programs and not to help farmers and ranchers, producers, stay
on their land and put their land into voluntary easements.
So with all that in mind, could you talk to us a little bit
about what NRCS is doing to ensure that the Conservation Title
actually works as intended and efficiently for our farmers and
ranchers on the ground? Will you please pledge to work with me
and other members of the Committee to rectify some of the
deficiencies that we are hearing about? This is happening in
real time in our States, and I would really appreciate a
response.
Mr. Weller. So let me start with the affirmative.
Absolutely I would be willing to work with you and your staff
and stakeholders in Colorado, but also in any State that has
concerns about our delivery of the program. It is very
concerning to me that there is a perception or a real
experience about additional bureaucracy. If there is anything,
we need to reduce that and get out of the way. In the example
you provided, having a provider secure access over public
lands, we are taking a hard look at that and trying to apply a
little bit of country common sense, and so we are going to be
updating that and fixing that.
Senator Bennet. I would say just on that point that, at
least to my mind, the interpretation in that case or the
requirement--which was not a requirement that any Federal
agency, any other Federal agency has ever required of any
landowner that I am aware of in our State, because it would be
impossible to do it--is exactly a piece with the legal
interpretation that your general counsel office is promoting
with respect to these provisions. So I just want to make sure
you are not left with the impression that this was a one-time
problem.
Mr. Weller. Absolutely. I am aware of this not just in this
one example. Particularly with the checkerboard pattern of
landownership throughout the West, this is a problem that we
need to fix, and we are going to fix it.
Senator Bennet. I would say thank you for appreciating
that. A lot of what we were trying to do with this legislation,
at least in my mind, was have a Western perspective actually
inform the farm bill when it came to conservation. You
mentioned in your opening testimony the importance not just of
water quality but of water quantity. That is a huge issue for
us as well.
So I just want to volunteer to be at your disposal as you
look at this to make sure that we are getting to the outcome
that our farmers and ranchers really expected us to achieve.
Mr. Weller. So we also have been--we have not been idle
over the last several months. With the farm bill passing in
February, we had to get the Agricultural Land Easement Program
up and running in a matter of months. But in the interim, we
have been working with land trusts, different conservancy
groups, State agencies to try and understand--in part what we
know was a little bit of a shotgun marriage coming out this
summer, the new Agricultural Land Easement Program. Right now
we are finalizing our regulations, and I would be happy to
visit with you or your staff as we are finalizing those
regulations just to update you as to kind of where we are.
Senator Bennet. That would be great, and I would also
volunteer to give you the names of some people in Colorado that
I think you ought to talk to.
Mr. Weller. I would welcome that.
Senator Bennet. Good. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Roberts, our soon-to-be Chairman, if I give him the
gavel. We may wrestle for that.
[Laughter.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Things will not change much.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding the hearing on this
important topic, and, Chief Weller, welcome. I have noted with
interest your background in the House on the Appropriations
Committee, then the White House on the budget, and that
obviously gave you a good background for all of this. Some of
this gets pretty specific, to say the least.
My statement says voluntary conservation programs are
talked about in shops all across Kansas not only as a way to
protect viable land and water resources, but also for the
ability of farmers and ranchers to continue operating. That is
why you mentioned that you are the shield to protect producers
from regulations that exceed the cost-benefit yardstick.
There is, however, a palpable fear, particularly in the
western part of my State, that the Federal Government is
already too close to mandating how cattlemen raise livestock,
how and where farmers can plant crops, whether or not they will
be allowed to pass their family businesses to the next
generation.
One of the perceived threats is the listing of the lesser
prairie chicken as a threatened species, which you, I think,
mentioned. Many Kansans, including myself, believe that the
listing decision was unwarranted, especially during a tough
drought, when voluntary conservation efforts were already
underway to increase population of the species. That drought
lasted 3 years. We are still short on rain.
In February, Congress required the Department to conduct a
90-day review and an analysis on all efforts that pertain to
the conservation of the bird, including the Lesser Prairie
Chicken Initiative, CRP, and EQIP. While the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Department of Interior I know oversees
and enforces the Endangered Species Act, the Department and the
NRCS have many of the tools and the voluntary programs that
could and should have prevented a listing.
Now, earlier this year, the Department publicly stated that
the report on the effectiveness of the Lesser Prairie Chicken
Conservation Programs would be submitted to Congress the week
of May the 5th. I know you are busy down there, but that was
nearly 7 months ago. The absence of the report has caused
additional frustration with a lack of transparency between the
public and the Federal Government.
So my question is: Why has the report not been submitted to
the Congress? Who or what is holding it back? When will the
USDA finally release it?
Mr. Weller. So the lesser prairie chicken has been a focus
of our agency now for many years. We have created a landscape
initiative just very much focused on the lesser prairie
chicken, and we have tried to target our resources to help----
Senator Roberts. Well, where is the report?
Mr. Weller. The report is still in departmental clearance,
I am afraid to say, and it should be released imminently. It
has been finalized by our agency, and it----
Senator Roberts. What is ``imminently''? A couple of weeks?
Mr. Weller. Hopefully within the next week to 2 weeks.
Senator Roberts. Within the next week, good. Well, that is
good news.
In a similar vein, do you have any update on the
effectiveness of the NRCS-run Lesser Prairie Chicken
Initiative, i.e., are populations of the bird increasing? We
hear they are.
Mr. Weller. We hear anecdotally that, yes, they are, so we
have, as I said, this initiative where we focused close to $30
million to work with ranchers and farmers to put in place
practices. Those practices have treated over a million acres in
the core area for the lesser prairie chicken, and we think it
is having a very beneficial impact on the populations in these
core areas where we have targeted the resources. So we think it
is working.
Senator Roberts. Let me move to the waters of the United
States that Senator Boozman mentioned. Nine Senators met with
the Administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, on the final day
of the Congress before we adjourned--well, we did not adjourn,
we are back. But at any rate, we really basically just asked
her why we cannot roll back these regulations. While voluntary
conservation measures are popular in Kansas to preserve and
improve our water quality and availability, the EPA's proposed
Waters of the United States is a major concern. I just attended
the annual Farm Bureau dinner, about 1,000 farmers out in
Kansas. That was the number one issue, lesser prairie chicken
number two. You would think it would be a lot of other things,
but that is just the way it was. I was disappointed that the
Department and the NRCS were involved with the EPA's efforts
through this additional interpretive rule. I want you to
cooperate, and I want you to communicate, more especially with
lesser prairie chicken, and that is good. But the interpretive
rule has created confusion among the countryside, singling out
56 NRCS technical standards as qualifying for exemptions. Now,
I would defy any farmer, their CPA, or any farm organization to
try to wade through those 56 and make sense out of it to the
degree that they feel that they are doing things the right way
according to the NRCS.
The Clean Water Act already exempts normal farming and
ranching activities from many of the permitting requirements,
so basically why did the NRCS spell out 56 exemptions when the
law already has one?
Mr. Weller. So the intent was, I think, a good one.
Unfortunately, I know there have been a lot of concerns raised
by stakeholders here in Congress as well as among our farming
and ranching stakeholders. It was a process that NRCS, sitting
down with the Army Corps and EPA, identified practices,
activities that occur, may occur in the Waters of the U.S.
These are not upland practices. In these cases, they could be
like stream crossings, actual wetland restorations themselves,
where, when producers have had to get permits, in some cases it
has taken months or years to get a permit; or as an agency, we
have had to invest hundreds of hours of staff time trying to
get a permit to do a 0.8 acre wetland restoration.
So the intent was to streamline those activities that
actually occur in the Waters of the U.S., to not have to go
through a permitting process. But that said, as has been
pointed out previously, a lot of stakeholders were very much
concerned about both the proposed rule as well as the
interpretive rule that EPA and the Army Corps promulgated and
produced. I understand that EPA and the Army Corps are very
carefully considering options on how to address concerns on the
interpretive rule.
Senator Roberts. So that has still not been finalized with
regards to the 56 as opposed to one. My question I think has
already been answered, and I am over time, and I apologize to
my colleagues. Who wanted the clarification of the exemptions?
Before this rule, the farmers in my State certainly were not
asking for it.
Mr. Weller. I think we have heard from our customers
themselves, and a lot of this then is, I think, variability
between Corps districts. There are some Corps districts that
have a very strict interpretation, and there are other Corps
districts that do not.
Senator Roberts. Will you consider withdrawing the
interpretive rule and any guidance already issued until the
full Waters of the United States rule is finalized?
Mr. Weller. I defer to EPA and Army Corps on what they
ultimately want to do, but, yes, that is one of the options
that are being considered.
Senator Roberts. What do you think about that?
Mr. Weller. I think we need to take very close heed and pay
attention to the concerns from farmers in this confusion that
the interpretive rule unfortunately has created, and if
anything, it needs to be simplified so that it's a little more
clear as to what the intent was and what the benefits are.
Senator Roberts. Are changes to the interpretive rule or
guidance, are you considering all the comments you have
received? Because you have received a bunch, I know.
Mr. Weller. Yes. I know, absolutely, EPA and the Army Corps
are considering the comments they have received, over a million
comments on the proposal.
Senator Roberts. All right. Thank you, sir.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Donnelly?
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Weller, thank you for being here. I am from Indiana.
I am a huge supporter of cover crops, our State is, a huge
supporter of clean waterways, good agricultural management by
our farm and agriculture community. In my time, I have never
seen our waters cleaner in our State. Yet, no one wants cleaner
waters than the farmers who live right there on the farm with
their own children, their own family there. There is a real
feeling, I think, in our ag community of what has become an us-
against-them situation in regards to the Waters of the United
States, that our farmers feel we work nonstop every single day
to voluntarily comply to make our waters cleaner, to make
things better. All we hear is more Government regulation.
I think what has happened is those actions have lost the
confidence of our ag community, that they sit and work every
single day to make our waters cleaner and say all we do is get
more hassles every day. So where is the connection between the
voluntary actions we are taking, the reality of what is going
on in our State and I am sure other States, and where
Government regulations have gone?
Specifically, I also want to ask you about one of the
things that has struck me the most were concerns from
conservation supporters that the interpretive rule may actually
have a negative impact on producers' implementing conservation
practices. Many Hoosier farmers have said they were unaware
conservation practices trigger Clean Water Act permitting
requirements, and by creating specific exemptions, an
assumption has been created without a State exemption other
practices requiring a CWA permit before being implemented. Did
you think about this consequence and about what would happen?
Mr. Weller. I know there was a lot of careful consideration
put into the interpretive rule, and there are experiences in
other States where producers want to put in place practices,
and they have had to go through a permitting process that has
been in some cases pretty difficult. So I think the intent was,
again, to help streamline, but we are also aware of the
unintended consequences of, if nothing else, confusion but also
perceptions about the need for permitting or disincentivizing
actions. It was something that--I will just say it was at least
personally to me a surprise.
Senator Donnelly. You know, as was said, there are over a
million comments, and they are from folks who love the land,
who love what they are doing, who have no desire to see our
waters become in lesser condition at any point. Do you
understand the frustration and the feeling that our farmers
have when they look up and they go, ``Our Government is
supposed to be my partner and instead they seem like my
adversary''?
Mr. Weller. I definitely appreciate the frustration. In my
home State of California, farmers there, I think more than
anywhere, are actually very heavily regulated, whether it is
for air, for wildlife, and for water. When I visit producers in
the Central Valley or along the coast, I understand both the
palpable frustration but also the bottom-line business costs
that regulation creates. So it is a perception elsewhere in the
country.
Senator Donnelly. These are smart business people who
understand that dirty water does not increase their bottom
line; it makes it more difficult; that the ability to run their
operations with effective clean water and good situations makes
them more profitable, but not only makes them more profitable,
but at the end of the day they are--they are the
conservationists and the environmentalists who are on the front
line, who are there dealing with it every single day. I guess I
would just urge you and the EPA as we look at this to have more
confidence and more faith in our farmers, our ag community, and
others that they want to solve the problem without having to
get another layer of regulation put on top of them.
Additionally, I also wanted to ask you about when we are
incentivizing a large group of farmers to implement voluntary
conservation practices, we have limited financial resources.
One of the things we are looking at is whether we can
demonstrate that a number of these practices make direct
financial sense for farmers through increased yields, reduced
input costs. We might see these practices take off. What are
your keys for us to continue to increase the number of folks
planting cover crops and implementing other voluntary
conservation practices? Because as I said, I am a huge believer
in cover crops, of what it has done to hold the nutrients in
the ground, to help reduce runoff, to help keep our rivers and
streams cleaner. What are the things you think of that we can
do to help increase voluntary conservation practices?
Mr. Weller. So I think there are two things that are
critical. Number one is to find more farm advocates, and this
is increasingly--it is less a problem in Indiana. Indiana in
many cases is the hotbed of the soil health movement. But to
have actual--and the former panel talked about this, to have
farmers--the best form of, I guess, salesmanship is a farmer-
to-farmer conversation, peer pressure. So where farmers see how
cover crops can be incorporated, how they work, can actually
help their bottom line, that is the best kind of, I think,
pioneer or piloting approach to demonstrate the power and
effectiveness of cover crops. So we are working with partners
to help identify those pioneers, those leading-edge
conservationists to show the power of cover crops.
The second thing is then to just get the economics down, to
really show the bottom line is saving money. It is saving money
through optimizing inputs, but also by helping them improve the
overall resiliency of their soils. It is helping them be
productive whether it is through wet or through dry periods as
well.
Senator Donnelly. I know how busy you are. I would ask you,
though, to stay in close touch not only with everybody else's
ag communities, but especially, as you said, in Indiana. We are
strong believers in cover crops, of what it can do on a
voluntary basis for our water condition, for our water
cleanliness, for nutrient maintenance. I think the closer you
stay towards being in contact on a constant basis not only with
my ag community but everybody else's, I think you will find
there are a lot more solutions there than you could ever
imagine.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Hoeven?
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it.
Chief Weller, good to have you here. The first thing, I
would like you to come out to my State and meet with my
farmers. Would you be willing to do that?
Mr. Weller. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I would appreciate it, and I
think it is obviously very good for them to have you out there,
but I think it is beneficial to have you out there as well in
terms of your job and what you do.
Waters of the U.S. is a big problem for our farmers and
ranchers. What are you doing to solve the problem? What do you
feel can be done to solve the problem of Waters of the U.S.?
Mr. Weller. So as USDA generally, NRCS specifically, we are
not regulatory, and the Waters of the U.S. rule is an EPA and
Army Corps regulation. While we did provide technical advice on
the interpretive rule, which is a tangential effort, the
overall proposed rule on the Waters of the U.S., I would defer
to EPA and Army Corps on taking into account the million-plus
comments they have received from the public and from
stakeholders.
Senator Hoeven. But you are hearing from farmers on what a
big problem it is?
Mr. Weller. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Hoeven. It is my strong belief it needs to be
rescinded. Our farmers and ranchers are looking at 56 different
practices they are supposed to try to understand, track, and
follow. I mean, this thing is just absolutely unworkable.
Senator Roberts asked you what you can do to help. I guess
I would just ask for your assistance. This is a big problem,
and I think you are hearing that very directly from farmers and
ranchers.
Mr. Weller. Yes, we are, sir.
Senator Hoeven. On the conservation compliance issue, I
want to ask you about what you are calling an ``obvious
wetland.'' So in terms of conservation compliance, one of the
things that NRCS is using is they are talking--they are using a
criteria in approaching or managing wetlands, calling certain
areas ``obvious wetlands'' as a part of their conservation
compliance measurement. Can you define what an ``obvious
wetland'' is?
Mr. Weller. So under the 1985 Food Security Act, we have
sort of a three-step approach to identifying what a wetland is:
Number one, does it have hydric soils? Number two, is it
inundated with water sufficient so that site would support
hydrophytic vegetation? Three, under normal conditions, would
it actually grow hydrophytic vegetation?
So those three characteristics, those are the three tests
we use for identifying a wetland, and that is what we would use
to identify an obvious wetland.
Senator Hoeven. What response have you had from the farmers
using that approach? What is their reaction? Is this something
that--look, the problem they have is the uncertainty. When they
are out on their farm, those wetlands change all the time, as
based on conditions. They need to have some kind of certainty
in terms of understanding what they are allowed to do and how
you are going to approach it. How do you give them more
certainty in that process?
Mr. Weller. So what the farm bill, the Farm Security Act,
provides then is that certainty where you get a certified
wetland determination from NRCS. We then stand behind that
certification. We will then identify for a producer whether
there are or are not these wetland conditions on the farm and
whether or not they were prior converted or not prior to the
1985 act itself. So it is that certification that is what
provides that certainty to a producer.
Senator Hoeven. Well, I think that is part of the problem
is when they go through that certification process, they always
feel like they are kind of guessing as to where you are going
to come down on it. How do you make that a more certain
process?
Mr. Weller. So we are trying to do a lot of different
things, both within North Dakota but I think across the Nation,
is bring more of that certainty. So one of the things we are
going through right now is the methods we use for--first,
starting with the off-site method for determining wetlands. We
are trying to bring state-of-the-art science using LiDAR
technology, aerial photography, remote sensing technology so
that we can efficiently and quickly provide those
determinations, those preliminary determinations to a producer.
They can always request an on-site determination, though. If
they want to have a field service person come out and actually
walk the field with them and do the soil tests and the site
determinations, that is always available. They have an appeals
process to go through. There are a lot of protections in there
to assure that a good, credible, transparent, science-based
process has been used to really--because we take it very
seriously.
Senator Hoeven. Well, and that is where interaction with
the farmers, by you as well as your people, I think is helpful
so that there is some understanding in terms of what your
approach is going to be, so that, they can--they know what they
can and cannot do.
What about use of conservation groups, NRCS' use of
conservation groups? That obviously creates some concerns with
the farm groups. Have you talked to the farm groups and met
with them on that? Give me your thinking on that and what your
approach is going to be in terms of--I think with any of these
practices, you need to be communicating with the farm groups so
they know what you are doing, why you are doing it, it is
transparent, and they are comfortable with it.
Mr. Weller. Absolutely. We are not going to partner with an
organization that does not have a good relationship with
farming. We often partner with organizations across the country
to help amplify our field workforce, and we are really trying
to stretch the public tax dollar as far as possible. But to be
clear, we do not hire conservation organizations to do wetland
determinations. That is a Federal role. That is the
determinations we do. We may hire consultants, engineering
operations, folks who have agronomy degrees, that they provide
us determinations, and at the end of the day it is NRCS that is
still making that determination itself. But we do not hire
conservation organizations or advocacy organizations to do
wetland determinations.
Senator Hoeven. Have you communicated that to the farm
groups? Do they understand that?
Mr. Weller. I have communicated that, yes, but I know there
is still a concern about the relationship the NRCS has with
conservation organizations in North Dakota. To be clear, those
contractual arrangements are really about providing the
technical assistance, planning, and farm bill program delivery.
It is not wetland determinations that we are doing with those
groups.
Senator Hoeven. One final piece that I want to ask is in
the farm bill, we included the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, and you are obviously well familiar with
it. In North Dakota, in the Red River Valley, which affects
North Dakota and Minnesota--to a lesser degree our good friends
in South Dakota--but primarily North Dakota and Minnesota, we
have tremendous flooding. We have it every year almost. We need
a holistic solution that addresses it not only for the urban
areas--Fargo and Moorhead--but also for the rural areas and
addresses it for the small towns and for our farmers as well.
That Regional Conservation Partnership Program is very,
very important to us. It is a big area of focus. We need it in
that area as part of a total flood protection plan that
protects the rural areas as well as the communities. I ask for
your strong participation and help in that multi-State effort.
You are an important part of the solution.
Mr. Weller. Well, thank you, sir. We really appreciate the
tools that this Committee and you have provided us through the
new program to help provide those locally driven solutions, so
thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Chief.
Senator Donnelly. [Presiding.] Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, first of
all, I know it has been talked about already, but just make
clear, from my State and the people I represent, that one of
the biggest issues and concerns in the State of South Dakota
and its number one industry, agriculture, is this proposed rule
concerning Waters of the United States, which was published
earlier this year by EPA.
There is not anything that I have been familiar with
initiated by EPA, or any other Federal department, for that
matter, that has resulted in so much concern and fear in my
home State.
Since you are here today, Chief Weller, I wanted to
reiterate to you and remind you of your obligation and
responsibility as well as that of Secretary Vilsack and others
at USDA to make absolutely certain that you guard the welfare
and well-being of production agriculture and our farmers and
ranchers as EPA appears to be moving forward with this rule in
spite of broad bipartisan opposition from across the country. I
just wanted to put that on the record.
I do want to ask a question with regard to an issue that we
have had in eastern South Dakota. As eastern South Dakota is
ground zero when it comes to the prairie pothole region, and
farmers particularly in northeastern South Dakota have been
challenged by flooding on and off now for the past several
years. Many of these farmers, in order to comply with the
conservation compliance provisions in the 2014 farm bill have
requested wetland determinations from the NRCS. It is an issue
I have been deeply involved with and appreciate your agency
sending personnel from Washington, DC, at my request, this past
summer to a wetlands meeting that we had in Aberdeen, South
Dakota, where we had more than 300 farmers and ranchers attend.
As a follow-up to that meeting, I am wondering perhaps if you
can provide me with an update on the wetlands determinations
backlog in South Dakota and what progress has been made since
that meeting that we had last July.
Mr. Weller. Absolutely. So since that meeting in July, we
have reduced the backlog in South Dakota by an additional 10
percent, so now it is down to less than 2,600 requests for
determinations to be made. We are making good progress. I am
optimistic. Our State conservationist there, Jeff Zimprich, is
absolutely totally focused on this, and he has a lot of
responsibilities, but he gets the importance of this. While we
have made progress, that is not sufficient. He has 18 staff
dedicated full-time just doing wetland determinations. He is
going to bring an additional four people on full-time, so over
20 people dedicated full-time doing nothing but wetland
determinations. He has another eight people working half-time
on this.
I recently just sent an additional million and a half
dollars, the majority of which is going to South Dakota, to
hire additional staff, additional resources to get more
determinations done quickly. We have a 3-year plan to get all
the backlog completely wiped out across all four prairie
pothole States, and I am holding the State conservationists
accountable for getting that backlog cleared out. So while we
have made progress, it is not sufficient, it is not acceptable,
and so we are going to get those determinations made as quickly
as possible.
In terms of that Aberdeen meeting, I understand that Jeff
left that with a 45-step action plan. He has already started
implementing it. He is well on his way to getting that rolled
out. In January, he is going to be sending out letters to
customers, updating them where they are at, basically
acknowledging that we have received your request, we are on top
of it, here is our estimated timeline to get to you. So we
really are going to do a much better job with the customer
service that I think you expect of us.
Senator Thune. Thank you. I appreciate that, and like I
said, I appreciate your folks coming out for the meeting in
July, and I know it was a very spirited meeting, because it is
something that we hear a lot from our farmers and ranchers up
in that area of South Dakota. I appreciate the sort of singular
focus you have put on that, and I look forward to your
continued responsiveness. It sounds like you have got a plan in
place. We are delighted to hear that. We hope that it will work
that backlog down because it is something that has been a
lingering problem that has created great consternation for a
lot of our producers in that region of South Dakota. So I
appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Senator.
Chief, thank you very much. I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here today. Any additional questions for
the record should be submitted to the Committee clerk 5
business days from today, so that is by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
December 10th.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
DECEMBER 3, 2014
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
DECEMBER 3, 2014
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
DECEMBER 3, 2014
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]