Comments of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association[1]
on the
Upper Mississippi River Basin
Conservation Act (H.R. 1800)
The Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) strongly supports efforts to reduce
sediment and nutrients in the basin. As
such, the states support the basic purpose and objectives of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act (H.R. 1800). Moreover, the UMRBA applauds the leadership of Representative Ron
Kind and the Upper Mississippi River Congressional Task Force in addressing
these challenging issues. The UMRBA
commented on a predecessor bill in the 106th Congress (H.R. 4013),
and we are grateful that many of our previous suggestions are reflected in the
current H.R. 1800. These modifications
include elaborating on the purpose of the monitoring network, enhancing
integration with existing monitoring efforts, and revising the definition of
the basin.
The UMRBA firmly
believes that any successful effort to addressing sediment and nutrients must
take a watershed approach; must combine monitoring, research, and
implementation; and must integrate the efforts of landowners and local, state,
and federal agencies. In keeping with
these principles and in the spirit of continued cooperation on these important
issues, the UMRBA offers the following comments regarding H.R. 1800:
It is essential
that H.R. 1800’s monitoring and modeling components be linked to viable options
for sediment and nutrient reduction. The UMRBA understands that implementation provisions were not
included in H.R. 1800 in light of the pending Farm Bill reauthorization. This is certainly a reasonable approach,
given that the key U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs will be
revised as part of the Farm Bill process.
However, it must be emphasized that genuine progress in addressing the
Upper Mississippi River Basin’s sediment and nutrient problems will require
significant additional resources. The
resources available through the current conservation programs are quite simply
inadequate to maintain the region’s vital agricultural productivity while
simultaneously addressing the water quality impacts of that activity. Similarly, additional resources are needed
for non-USDA programs that are important to addressing sediment and nutrients,
including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Section 319 nonpoint
source pollution grants to the states.
Section 2(d) of
H.R. 1800 would permit USDA to use the monitoring and modeling data in
targeting conservation programs. This
is a key provision in helping to link the bill’s monitoring and modeling to
implementation.
H.R. 1800’s
emphasis on addressing sediment and nutrient problems is welcome and
timely. However, the UMRBA states
believe the bill’s ultimate effectiveness requires clarification regarding the
primary concerns and intended uses of the monitoring and modeling efforts. For
example, it is not clear whether the measure intends to focus on sediment and
nutrients equally throughout the watershed, or whether the primary concern is
with the sediment and nutrients reaching the Upper Mississippi River and its
major tributaries. Sediment and
nutrients moving off the land throughout the watershed do not all have the same
likelihood of being delivered to the river.
Depending on the intended focus, monitoring and modeling efforts would
be designed somewhat differently.
Similarly, the sources, transport, delivery, and impacts of sediment and
nutrients are far from identical and will require different monitoring and
modeling approaches. Moreover, there
are natural baseline levels of sediment and nutrients that would occur without
human activity. For many water bodies
in the basin, acceptable levels of sediment and nutrient impairment have not
been identified. The bill’s purpose
section and monitoring and modeling titles should explicitly acknowledge and
address these considerations.
Articulating this basic framework will provide the necessary parameters
to those responsible for scoping the monitoring and modeling work.
If the
monitoring work authorized under H.R. 1800 is to be successful, it must be
integrated with other efforts by local, state, and federal agencies, as well as
nongovernmental organizations. Sections
103 and 104 recognize this and would require the Interior Secretary to
inventory existing monitoring efforts, integrate with those efforts, and make
use of existing data to the extent possible.
It is important to ensure that the Section 105 cost sharing provisions
do not inadvertently interfere with this collaboration. As drafted, Section 105 requires a
nonfederal cost share of 25 percent and would allow up to 80 percent of the
nonfederal share to be satisfied through in-kind contributions. This is an important recognition of the
value of state and local monitoring.
However, it is not clear whether the existing state and local monitoring
efforts referenced in Section 105(c) would be subject to the 80 percent cap on
in-kind contributions. In addition, it
is not clear how the cost sharing requirement would actually be
implemented. Given the geographic scope
of the basin and the complex array of potential nonfederal partners,
aggregating contributions to ensure compliance with the bill’s cost sharing
requirements would seem to pose significant challenges.
The UMRBA
welcomes the Section 202 provision to evaluate the relative costs and benefits
of various best management practices (BMPs).
Such an analysis should prove helpful in determining the most suitable
practices for a particular area.
Section 203 would also authorize research into new BMPs. As written, the bill does not indicate how
much funding is anticipated for the BMP research. There is already a considerable body of research regarding
BMPs. From the states’ perspective,
what has been critically lacking is not BMP research per se, but
technical assistance and implementation funds to help landowners adopt proven
BMPs. Moreover, monitoring and modeling
information is needed to target that implementation.
The bill’s
emphasis on coordination of federal nutrient and sediment reduction efforts is
welcome and could be potentially very helpful.
However, by confining the coordination responsibilities in Title V to
the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, H.R. 1800 fails to fully
account for other federal programs and initiatives of direct relevance to the
stated purpose of the legislation. Most
significantly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has lead responsibility
for many water quality efforts related to nutrients and sediment. While most federal water quality programs
are delegated to the states, EPA plays a major leadership role. Of particular note, EPA is currently
developing nutrient criteria on a regional basis. States will have until 2003 (or 3 years after criteria are issued)
to establish nutrient standards. The
U.S. Army Corps on Engineers also has on-going responsibilities related to both
sediment and nutrients, including the more than $130 million annually it spends
to operate and maintain the Upper Mississippi River System for navigation. In addition, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 authorized the Corps to undertake a study of sediment and nutrient
sources and transport in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. While this study has not yet been initiated,
it could be duplicative of the USGS monitoring and modeling authorized in
H.R. 1800 unless the relationship between the two efforts is
clarified. The Mississippi River/Gulf
of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force’s proposed Action Plan, submitted to
Congress in January 2001, further illustrates the importance of coordination
among federal agencies. While it
remains to be seen whether the Action Plan will be implemented, there is no
question that it seeks to address many of the same issues as H.R. 1800. Coordination among federal agencies and
programs is critical to avoid duplication and inconsistencies.
Existing
coordination mechanisms and decision-making processes should be used to the
maximum extent possible. In particular,
the Advisory Council and any other basin-level groups and processes established
pursuant to H.R. 1800 must be integrated with the coordination and
decision-making processes already in place at the basin, state, and local
levels. For example, the bill calls for
the Advisory Council to hold annual public meetings in each of the five states
regarding methods and priorities to address sediment and nutrient loss. However, the Advisory Committee does not
include any voting members from state government. The potential for incongruities between the Advisory Committee’s
work and the states’ own established water quality planning processes, which
include considerable public outreach, would seem to be quite high. Similarly, it is not clear how the Advisory
Committee is intended to link to the local and state-level conservation
planning processes.
H.R. 1800 would
not authorize specific appropriations amounts for any of the programs it would
establish. The U.S. Geological Survey
and Natural Resources Conservation Service will not be able to successfully
implement these new authorities within existing resources. Identifying the specific funding that will
be required to establish a monitoring network, develop models, and conduct
research and demonstration projects will provide important parameters for
scoping these efforts. In addition, securing
the necessary appropriations will likely be challenging under any
circumstances, but the probability of success will be enhanced if specific sums
are authorized.
[1] The
Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin formed the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association in 1981 to coordinate the state
agencies’ river-related programs and policies and to work with federal agencies
on regional issues.