Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />and $I.lM over FY2002 spencling). No money is requestecl for the Water Resources Research Act <br />~ <br />program, <br /> <br />Farm Bill - EOIP <br /> <br />The Administration has requested a record $4.9B for conservation and related environmental <br />stewardship spending (up $582M over FY2003). This includes $2B for the Conservation Reserve <br />Program (CRP), $850M for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) $250M for <br />wetlands reserves, $112M for farmland protection, $85M for grassland reserves, $51M for ground and <br />surface water conservation (up $6M), $42M for wildlife habitat incentives, $19M for the new <br />Conservation Security Program, and $8M for water conservation and water quality "enhancements" in <br />the Klamath River Basin. <br /> <br />The funding accompanies new NRCS EQIP rules that implement changes authorized by the 2002 Farm <br />Bill. Under National Priorities, the rule lists first: "Reduction of nonpoint source pollutants; such as <br />nutrients, sediment, or pesticides and excess salinity; in impaired watersheds consistent with [Total <br />Maximum Daily Loads] TMDL... as well as the reduction of groundwater contamination, and the <br />conservation of ground and surface water resources." <br /> <br />Campbell's Ogallala Aquifer Statement: U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell made the following <br />statement at a hearing conceming legislation implementing a multi-state study of the Ogallala Aquifer. <br /> <br />STATEMENT BY SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL CONCERNING S. 212. <br /> <br />Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on two important bills. My statement <br />only relates to one - S, 212, a bill to study and monitor the High Plains Aquifer (Ogallala). <br /> <br />I am concerned that S. 212 provides a window for federal involvement in managing the most <br />scarce and important resource in the West - water. <br /> <br />The Federal Government has repeatedly recognized that states best manage water, and many <br />states have developed successful water management systems. One of the finest of which is in <br />my state of Colorado. It has worked well with the respective federal agencies and Colorado has <br />developed the foremost in-stream flow program in the nation. <br /> <br />S. 212 provides a window for federal involvement in the management of state water. I believe <br />that the sponsors of the bill are well intentioned, as they recognize many states would like to <br />better monitor their water, but deficits and funding constraints preclude aclditional spending. <br /> <br />Therefore, S. 212 authorizes funds for participating states to assist in doing the work. <br />However, I am troubled by the level of federal involvement in a few areas. For example, the <br />bill provides for USGS to monitor water on a county-by-county basis even when states do not <br />opt-in to the program. <br /> <br />Second, the bill allows for state engineers a seat at the Federal Review Panel. However, I am <br />concerned with the level of the states' voice at that table, especially when weighed against <br />Federal interests. <br /> <br />Furthermore, I know that the High Plains Aquifer has been studied in the past. In fact, I am <br />aware of one ongoing study using federal dollars by two distinguished universities. The <br />difference with that study and the program proposed in this legislation lies in the level of <br />federal involvement in managing a uniquely state resource. <br /> <br />I am certainly not the sole voice of concern with this bill. I have a letter from the Colorado <br />Farm Bureau expressing their strong opposition to S. 212 for a variety of reasons. I ask <br />unanimous consent that a copy of which be placed in the Record. <br /> <br />5 <br />