BMPs to reduce inputs of phosphorus and nitrogen from the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough basin to Lake Okeechobee. The lake is a class I water resource providing drinking water to five towns around the lake. The project area was contributing a disproportionate amount of phosphorus to the lake (about 30 percent of the phosphorus load but only about 4 percent of the inflow to the lake). Specific BMPs implemented included fencing, water conservation/waste water recycling, drainage improvement, and fertilizer management. Ten-year water quality monitoring results indicated up to a 45 percent decrease in total phosphorus concentrations. The magnitude of decreasing total phosphorus concentrations has increased as the length of the post-BMP implementation water quality monitoring has extended, supporting the conclusion that BMPs were effective in reducing total phosphorus concentrations. In the Oregon RCWP, animal waste management systems installed on dairies reduced bacterial contamination of oyster beds in the Bay by about 40 to 50 percent. This came from a reduction of the dairies' contribution to the bacteria counts by 60 to 70 percent. Sites in the Bay restricted to shellfishing based on FDA classification decreased from 12 in 1979-80 to 1 in 1985-86. Excessive fecal coliform bacteria in storm runoff combined with sewage treatment plant discharges were contaminating shellfish and impairing contact recreation in Tillamook Bay, Oregon. Site factors included very high rainfall (90-140 inches mean annual precipitation) and abundant dairy herds very close to a large commercial shellfishing area (supporting a $1.5 million industry based on annual gross sales). This project has made important contributions concerning the effectiveness of animal waste management BMPs for improving water quality at the watershed level. BMPs implemented over an 11-year period included roofing and guttering of manure storage areas, tidal dikes to prevent high tides from spilling into pastures, and pasture drainage systems to prevent water from standing in pastures where manure is applied. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in both the streams and at all monitoring stations in the Bay have decreased significantly since BMP implementation. . In the Idaho RCWP, water management and sediment control BMPs reduced sediment loads in return flows from irrigated land by 70 percent. Trout fishing has been restored to this cold water trout stream. The Idaho RCWP project implemented BMPs to reduce sediment-related pollutants and animal waste discharging into Rock Creek. The primary source of the sediment was irrigated cropland. Rock Creek provides diverse habitat for wildlife and is used recreationally for fishing, swimming, and tubing. BMPs implemented during the first three years of the project included sediment retention structures, irrigation management systems, and permanent vegetative cover. For the last seven years of the project, BMP emphasis shifted to conservation tillage and animal waste management. Ten-year chemical and biological water quality monitoring data indicate a 70 percent reduction in suspended sediment in both the sub-basin drains and Rock Creek. Project personnel estimate that suspended solids in Rock Creek were reduced from 54,716 tons in 1982 to 20,668 tons in 1986. The long pre- and post-BMP water quality monitoring time frames and high level of land treatment in the project area made possible the documentation of the effectiveness of the following BMPs: irrigation water management, sediment control structures, conservation tillage, cover crops, and filter strips. DEVELOPMENT OF STATE NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAMS UNDER SECTION 319 OF THE ACT. Increased Federal funding to the States is necessary to make measurable progress in restoring and maintaining the quality of the Nation's waters. Appropriated funds should, at minimum, match the initial level authorized under Section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act. The current nonpoint source control program is severely underfunded. For example, the current funding for nonpoint sources is only a small percentage of EPA's budget. This funding level is well below the proportional contribution of nonpoint sources (as compared to point sources) to impairment of the Nation's lakes, streams, and estuaries, as determined by the 305(b) assessment reports. aCongress needs to give nonpoint source control the same commitment that has been given to point source control since the 1970's. Funding should be increased for statewide nonpoint source assessments, especially for monitoring selected nonpoint source control projects. Multi-year funding should be guaranteed to ensure adequate monitoring programs for documenting current conditions, water quality changes, and directing future decisions. Monitoring is required to provide feedback to the public, law-makers, project managers, and State water quality program leaders. This feedback is required for sound decision making. Increased allocations for monitoring should be explicitly provided under Section 319 legislation. Comprehensive monitoring need not be required for all nonpoint source control programs. However, selected projects should have increased Federal funding for monitoring of land treatment/land use changes and water quality. These projects should be selected based on criteria similar to the project selection criteria suggested for the RCWP projects (see pages 4 and 5). A few well designed projects should be comprehensively monitored for sufficient time (at least project duration and, if justified, longer) to document water quality changes. Guidance for minimum monitoring of land treatment and associated water quality changes for selected projects should be maintained and enhanced by EPA in consultation with other Federal, State, and Local Agencies. This will allow technically valid evaluations of individual projects. The lack of such a complete and uniform data base has restricted such evaluations for the Model Implementation Program (MIP), RCWP, and by current indications, the present USDA Demonstration, Hydrologic Unit Area, and Management Systems Evaluation Areas (MSEA) Water Quality projects. Best management systems should be encouraged. Systems of best management practices directed at water quality improvements have proved to be far more effective than the installation and maintenance of individual best management practices. It will be difficult to enforce a law that requires implementation of best management practices that are pre-specified at a national level. National guidance from EPA as described under the "National Program Guidelines" would be beneficial, however flexibility needs to be maintained to tailor best management systems to local problems and capabilities. Flexibility must be emphasized in the selection and design of best management systems to enable adaptation of technology to local conditions. The best management system approach would be consistent with the strategy being proposed for the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Overlapping water quality requirements must be compatible with and responsive to local concerns. All State reporting requirements for water quality programs such as 319 and 305(b), 205(j), CZMA, etc. should be consolidated. Consolidation of nonpoint source pollution assessment and management reporting would avoid duplication of efforts and would increase reporting efficiency. It would also provide users with easier access to consolidated, updated information. MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS In regard to commercial fertilizer management, we agree with the concept of requiring a nutrient management plan. However, to make the manufacturer/distributor responsible for developing such a plan raises conflict-of-interest questions. It also is not consistent with USDA programs and incentives for grower adoption of best management systems recommended by agricultural educational and technical assistance agencies. STATEMENT OF CHRIS MYRICK, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AGRIChemical RetaILERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the issue of agricultural nonpoint source pollution, the reauthorization of the Water Pollution Control Act, S. 1081, the Water Pollution Prevention Act of 1991, and the recent United States General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled "Greater EPA Leadership Needed to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution". I am Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs for the National AgriChemical Retailers Association or NARA, which is based in Washington DC. NARA is the only independent national trade association representing retail dealers of crop protection chemical products. We represent over 1,400 members located in 44 States. Even though this hearing is to discuss the overall non-point pollution issue, it has come to my attention that S. 1081, the Water Pollution Control Act of 1991, is also under consideration today as a means to control agricultural non-point source discharges. S. 1081 would regulate farmers by applying certain requirements on any sediment, nutrient, or chemical discharge from their farms. This requirement would not only affect large corporate farms, but also small family farms that produce livestock and crops. Because our members have already been significantly affected by point and nonpoint source reduction programs currently being carried out by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, they are confused that this Subcommittee may be considering a proposal which duplicates efforts already undertaken by Federal and State governments. Although reductions of nonpoint sources of surface water pollution have occurred since the implementation of the Clean Water Act's Section 319 provisions, along with numerous provisions within the Farm Bill, agriculture has remained under attack by various environmental advocacy groups. For whatever reason, these same groups have already proposed significant modification to the Clean Water Act that is directly aimed at agricultural production operations within a few months after nonpoint source inclusions in the 1990 Farm Bill. Many of the proposals duplicate provisions contained in the Farm Bill. Allow me to review some of the provisions that are currently in place to protect our water resources from non-point source pollution and express our viewpoints on S. 1081. A. Agricultural NonPoint Source Provisions, 1985 Farm Bill With the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill, the nation's approach to soil, water, and wetland conservation dramatically changed. For the first time in history, receipt of most Federal farm program benefits were tied to commodity price supports, agricultural credit, and crop insurance. Two of the 1985 Farm Bill's Conservation Titles contained language which would require farmers to reduce agricultural rvnoff into lakes and streams. One of these titles, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), gave producers an incentive to retire highly erodible cropland and other fragile land from production for a period of 10 years. The Federal Government provided a cost share incentive for producers enrolled in the program to establish and maintain a permanent vegetative cover on the CRP acres for erosion control, a critical factor in addressing the nonpoint source problem. To date, almost 34 million acres of land, eight percent of the nation's cropland, have been enrolled in the program. Estimates indicate that once these acres have been covered with grass (or other vegetation), erosion from cropland will have been reduced by more than 650 million tons annually. This reduction amounts to over 20 percent of the erosion occurring annually on cropland in the U.S. However, I would like to point out to this subcommittee that CRP enrollment did come at a significant cost to the retail sector of the agrichemical industry. In areas of the country with a preponderance of highly erodible land, many retail dealers went bankrupt when over 25 percent of their crop base was taken out of production. Conservation_compliance has also been a factor in addressing the nonpoint source problem. The Soil Conservation Service is now assisting producers in developing conservation plans on between 1.4 and 1.5 million farms, covering over 135 million acres of highly erodible land. These plans, according to the USDĂ, will reduce erosion on these lands by approximately 50 percent. By 1994, farmers must be producing under the requirements of their conservation plans. In addition, the 1985 Farm Bill also had many other requirements which were aimed at preventing nonpoint source discharges from farm fields. B. Agricultural NonPoint Source Provisions, 1990 Farm Bill Clearly, the agricultural community, as well as Congress, seriously addressed the nonpoint source issue in the 1985 Farm Bill. However, last year the passage of the 1990 Farm Bill went even further, implementing more direct and specifically targeted measures to address nonpoint source pollution. 1. Flexible Acreage Controls for Farm Program Crops Congress, addressing the concerns of farmers and responding to several Federal reports, instituted a new program in the 1990 Farm Bill which gives farmers more planting flexibility, thereby facilitating a reduction in fertilizers and pesticides used. În total, farmers now have planting flexibility on 25 percent of their crop base. What is important about this flexibility program with respect to nonpoint source reductions can be summarized by statements made in United States General Accounting Office (GAO) Testimony during the 1990 Farm Bill debate. The Testimony, which summarized a GAO study, stated: "Growing legumes, using manure efficiently, and following the guidelines of regular soil tests can enhance fertility and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers". The report went on to say that, "Using different cultivation techniques and cover crops to control weeds can limit the need to use herbicides." These are all alternative techniques which are enhanced by planting flexibility. The planting flexibility now contained in the Farm Bill will afford farmers the opportunity to use less agricultural inputs in producing their crops, thereby reducing the possibility of non-point releases which may be hazardous to our environment. However, Congress must allow farmers time to use the new flexibility programs to fully understand the positive impacts on agricultural runoff before instituting additional mandatory requirements. 2. Expansion and Targeting of CRP Acres The 1990 Farm Bill has also made significant changes to the Conservation Reserve Program. These changes have been important to the agricultural nonpoint source issue because they target environmentally sensitive land for enrollment. In entirety, at least 40 million acres of farmland that would be a significant contributor to nonpoint source pollution will be taken out of production or modified to reduce runoff through CRP. In addition, Congress directed the USDA to target areas such as the Chesapeake Bay watershed for enrollment in this acreage retirement program. 3. Water Quality Incentive Program Also new in the 1990 Farm Bill is a Water Quality Incentive Program. This program will help farmers develop plans and institute farm management practices which will protect water quality on up to 10 million acres over the next five years. Specifically, the Water Quality Program will assist farmers in developing a description of the prevailing characteristics of their farm, including information relevant to protecting water quality, as well as practical, quantitative water quality protection goals and objectives that will minimize contamination or degradation of surface and ground water. In defining lands that are eligible for the program, Congress was very specific as to nonpoint sources of surface water contamination. Section 319 watersheds, wellhead protection areas, and other environmentally sensitive areas designated by State and Federal authorities are to be eligible for the program. 4. Other Farm Bill Programs Many other Farm Bill provisions were specifically aimed at reducing nutrient and pesticide runoff from farm fields. These programs include the Environmental Easement Program, Integrated Farm Management Program, amendments to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, along with numerous research and farmer education initiatives. Clearly, agricultural nonpoint source pollution has not been ignored by the agricultural community or Congress as suggested by some proposals that have been forwarded to this subcommittee. In fact, the American taxpayer has already paid billions of dollars for the CRP, conservation plans, and many other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source run-off. These programs must be given time to work. C. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act The amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1988 will severely impact retail crop protection chemical dealers and the producer community. Under this law, the EPA is required to write new regulations governing the safe storage, disposal, and transportation of pesticides. However, before I get into the specifics of these regulations and other requirements that will reduce nonpoint and point source discharges into lakes, streams, and rivers, I would like to summarize the impact expected from new environmental regulations on the retail sector of our industry. From statistics NARA complied through a survey of some of its members located in the Midwest, we have estimated that in 1990 the average retail dealer spent around $25,000 on environmental regulatory compliance. In just three short years, we expect environmental regulations will cost our dealer members an average of $77,000 per year, a $52,000 increase. (Dealers employ three to five people.) [Table 1-2]. |