    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION: UTILIZING INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

                                     OF THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 1, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-45

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    99-388 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

                      K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman

    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas,             COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
        Vice Chairman                    Ranking Minority Member
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             JIM COSTA, California
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                FILEMON VELA, Texas
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    JEFF DENHAM, California              ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             PETE AGUILAR, California
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
    MIKE BOST, Illinois
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi

                                     ______

                        Scott C. Graves, Staff Director

                    Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director

                                     ______

                   Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry

                     GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     Mexico, Ranking Minority Member
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    MIKE BOST, Illinois

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from
      New Mexico, opening statement..................................     4
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................     5
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3

                                   Witnesses

    Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
      U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Dawson, Rachel, Senior Manager, Delaware River, National Fish and
      Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C...........................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Price, Frank, Owner, Frank and Sims Price Ranch; Member, National
      Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sterling City, TX................    52
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
    Bowman, Richard, Director of Government Relations, The Nature
      Conservancy, Lansing, MI.......................................    55
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Rodelius, Kent, Vice President, Agricultural Drainage Management
      Coalition, Willmar, MN.........................................    59
        Prepared statement...........................................    60

          VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION: UTILIZING INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                     Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:41 p.m., in
    Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
    Thompson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Thompson, Gibson,
    Benishek, Allen, Bost, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan,
    Kirkpatrick, and Peterson (ex officio).
        Staff present: Josh Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Skylar
    Sowder, Faisal Siddiqui, John Konya, Anne Simmons, Evan
    Jurkovich, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                       CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

        The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Conservation and Forestry about voluntary conservation:
    utilizing innovation and technology, will come to order. Good
    afternoon, everyone. Chief, thank you for being here. Sorry
    about the delay. Votes have a way of getting in the way of
    things around here. Thank you for your patience. The good news,
    I guess that was the first and the last of the votes for today,
    so we shouldn't run into any further problems with votes or
    conflicts.
        I would like to welcome everyone to this hearing of the
    Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee on the topic of
    utilizing innovation and technology in voluntary conservation.
    This hearing provides an opportunity to highlight new
    practices, innovative approaches to using tried and true
    methods and advancing technology as it applies to voluntary
    conservation efforts.
        We know that voluntary conservation programs work. However,
    it has become increasingly clear that some government agencies
    and environmental activist organizations, which are sometimes
    one in the same, fail to recognize the commitment our farmers,
    ranchers, and foresters make to environmental stewardship.
        Our farmers and ranchers, through assistance and incentives
    provided by the farm bill conservation programs have
    voluntarily reduced soil erosion, increased wetlands, improved
    water quality, and preserved farmland and wildlife habitat. The
    Earth's population is projected to grow to roughly nine billion
    people by the year 2050. Given the growing demands on farmlands
    everywhere, we must invest in the necessary resources and the
    best practices to be certain that producers can continue to
    meet this growing need.
        To that end, I am particularly proud of this Committee's
    work on conservation programs during the deliberation of the
    most recent farm bill. The 2014 Farm Bill contained creative,
    outside-the-box approaches to funding and delivering
    conservation programs.
        Now one of the biggest successes of this creative approach
    has been the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, known
    as RCPP. RCPP is an innovative approach to target conservation
    initiatives. It uses NRCS programs that produce known
    conservation improvements and leverages that Federal funding
    with matching funding from partners in the private-sector. Now
    it has brought together broad coalitions consisting of
    commodity organizations, conservation groups, sportsmen and
    others to unite around a common goal.
        In the first 2 years, RCPP has awarded funding to 199
    projects across all 50 states and Puerto Rico, and matched over
    $500 million in program funding with $900 million from the
    partner contributions. Now these efforts that bring all
    perspectives to the table are the ones that are actually
    working, and it takes everyone coming together.
        Today, we will hear firsthand how RCPP projects are being
    implemented in tandem with many other programs and tools at
    NRCS's disposal, and I especially look forward to hearing about
    an RCPP project that is taking place in my home, the
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
        Our farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land,
    and continually adapt to protect our natural resources, despite
    the overly burdensome regulatory environment that is imposed
    upon them. I see this all the time across the 5th District of
    Pennsylvania where farmers are engaging in innovative
    practices, including no-till farming, healthy soils, and
    adhering to other best practices in order to preserve the
    nutrients in the soil.
        In addition to the great work being done at the state and
    county levels, I am proud that so many of the farmers and
    foresters in Pennsylvania have taken voluntary steps in order
    to do their part to assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake
    Bay. The environmental gains that they have achieved are a
    testament to our producers. No two producers face the same
    natural resource concerns, whether they are 2 miles or 2,000
    miles apart from each other. Protecting our drinkable water
    supply, keeping nutrients in the soil for the next crop year,
    or maintaining a supply of forage for livestock, there is no
    shortage of reasons why we must continue to innovate when it
    comes to preserving our natural resources.
        I would like to obviously thank Mr. Jason Weller, Chief of
    the NRCS for being here today. We greatly appreciate it, Chief.
    I encourage everyone to pay close attention to the testimony of
    our second panel, which is representative of a wide swath of
    our country. It is encouraging to see how farmers, ranchers,
    foresters, and stakeholders have made promoting the health and
    sustainability of the land a fundamental priority.
        Again, thank you all for making the time to be here today,
    and I look forward to hearing the testimony of each of our
    witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
        Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to this hearing of
    the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee on the topic of utilizing
    innovation and technology in voluntary conservation.
        This hearing provides an opportunity to highlight new practices,
    innovative approaches to using tried and true methods, and advancing
    technology as it applies to voluntary conservation efforts.
        We know that voluntary conservation programs work.
        However, it has become increasingly clear that some government
    agencies and environmental activist organizations--which are sometimes
    one in the same--fail to recognize the commitment our farmers, ranchers
    and foresters make to environmental stewardship.
        Our farmers and ranchers, through assistance and incentives
    provided by farm bill conservation programs, have voluntarily reduced
    soil erosion, increased wetlands, improved water quality, and preserved
    farmland and wildlife habitat.
        The Earth's population is projected to grow to roughly nine billion
    people by the year 2050. Given the growing demands on farmland
    everywhere, we must invest in the necessary resources and best
    practices to be certain that producers can continue to meet this
    growing need.
        To that end, I am particularly proud of this Committee's work on
    conservation programs during the deliberation of the most recent farm
    bill. The 2014 Farm Bill contained creative, outside-the-box approaches
    to funding and delivering conservation programs.
        One of the biggest successes of this creative approach has been the
    Regional Conservation Partnership Program, known as RCPP. RCPP is an
    innovative approach to target conservation initiatives. It uses NRCS
    programs that produce known conservation improvements, and leverages
    that Federal funding with matching funding from partners in the
    private-sector.
        It has brought together broad coalitions consisting of commodity
    organizations, conservation groups, sportsmen, and others to unite
    around a common goal.
        In the first 2 years, RCPP has awarded funding to 199 projects
    across all 50 states and Puerto Rico and matched over $500 million in
    program funding with $900 million from partner contributions.
        These efforts that bring all perspectives to the table are the ones
    that are actually working. It takes everyone coming together.
        Today we will hear firsthand how RCPP projects are being
    implemented in tandem with the many other programs and tools at NRCS'
    disposal. I especially look forward to hearing about an RCPP project
    that is taking place in my home, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
        Our farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land and
    continually adapt to protect our natural resources despite the overly
    burdensome regulatory environment imposed upon them.
        I see this all the time across the 5th District of Pennsylvania,
    where farmers are engaging in innovative practices, including no-till
    farming, and adhering to other best practices in order to preserve the
    nutrients in the soil.
        In addition to the great work being done at the state and county
    levels, I am proud that so many of the farmers and foresters in
    Pennsylvania have taken voluntary steps in order to do their part to
    assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay. The environmental gains
    they have achieved are a testament to our producers.
        No two producers face the same natural resource concerns--whether
    they are 2 miles or 2,000 miles apart from each other--protecting our
    drinkable water supply, keeping nutrients in the soil for the next crop
    year, or maintaining a supply of forage for livestock, there is no
    shortage of reasons why we must continue to innovate when it comes to
    preserving our natural resources.
        I would like to thank Mr. Jason Weller, Chief of the NRCS, for
    being here today.
        I encourage everyone to pay close attention to the testimony of our
    second panel, which is representative of a wide swath of our country.
    It is encouraging to see how farmers, ranchers, foresters, and
    stakeholders have made promoting the health and sustainability of the
    land a fundamental priority.
        Again, thank you all for making the time to be here today. I look
    forward to hearing the testimony of each of our witnesses.

        The Chairman. I now yield to the Ranking Member for her
    opening statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A
               REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW MEXICO

        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
    Chief Weller. I, too, appreciate that we are having a hearing
    on how to be more innovative and how to do that in a way that
    incentivizes ranchers and farmers, because clearly we need
    their participation. In fact, they are a very effective,
    willing partner here because they recognize the value of
    effective conservation programs.
        Frankly, as I am preaching to the choir, I am sure farmers
    and ranchers are the backbone of conservation in America. They
    depend on the land for their livelihoods and seek to leave it
    better than they found it. I don't believe that anyone cares
    more about the land than farmers and ranchers. Farmers and
    ranchers across the country have sought to protect water
    quality, soil, agriculture productivity, forest management, and
    air quality by using tools available through the farm bill.
    Specifically, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.
        I have often mentioned the inadequate rainfall and drought
    conditions in my home State of New Mexico, and in the
    Southwest. Fortunately, there are conservation tools available
    to help southwestern producers cope with these dire situations.
    I have heard from several New Mexico producers that the
    Conservation Stewardship Program, which pays producers to adopt
    conservation activities to improve working lands, is helping to
    keep many farmers and ranchers on their lands and in business
    during the past drought. The most recent dire drought has been
    about 5 years, but we expect drought conditions to continue for
    decades longer.
        In addition, the Regional Conservation Partnership Program,
    RCPP, which was created in the 2014 Farm Bill, has allowed the
    New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts to work with
    the New Mexico Acequia Association, and several New Mexico
    land-grants to restore historic acequias on agricultural lands,
    and maybe for some of the folks on the Committee and our
    viewers today, acequias are a traditional way of bringing water
    in arid communities, and it is directly from Spain, that
    irrigation method. This project helps improve water quantity
    and quality, and supports local families and communities served
    by the acequia system. I am looking forward to hearing more
    about conservation efforts that we can explore to help address
    water shortages and improve water quality.
        Soils and soil health have been a recent topic of
    conversation, with last year being the International Year of
    Soils. This resource is critical to the health of the country
    and production of a quality food supply, and I thank the NRCS
    for promoting the issue. Our soils will be a valuable part of
    any future plans to combat global climate change. They have the
    tremendous ability to store carbon, and will only become more
    valuable in the future. I look forward to hearing from Chief
    Weller on ways to capitalize on this underused carbon sink.
        One project I am excited to hear more about in New Mexico
    is the Innovative Tribal Conservation and GHG Management
    Project, which is part of the RCPP under the farm bill.
    Conservation really is an unsung hero when we think about
    American agriculture. Voluntary conservation programs through
    the farm bill are key to helping our farmers and ranchers
    succeed and to keep protecting our natural resources.
        Again, I want to thank the Chairman for holding today's
    hearing, and I am certainly looking forward to hearing from the
    witnesses. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Agriculture
    Committee, Mr. Peterson, for an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
    want to thank you and the Ranking Member for holding this
    hearing.
        The farm bill's conservation programs provide necessary
    tools for farmers and ranchers that preserve our natural
    resources and help us meet regulatory requirements. I have been
    a long-time supporter of voluntary conservation efforts, and
    these efforts have been useful in my area in a number of
    different ways.
        One of the things I have been trying to do is get folks to
    understand that if we do drainage water management in the right
    way, we can not only do a better job of managing the water, but
    also get environmental benefits from being able to do this. In
    my part of the world, we have this flooding going on in the Red
    River Valley, and whenever we have a flood, it just goes across
    land and washes everything out and it all goes in the river,
    and it is a big mess. One thing I am trying to get people to
    look at is the benefits we can get if we do pattern tiling,
    where we try to manage this water underneath the ground instead
    of over top of the ground. We have a witness from my district
    here to explain that to people today, and I thank the Chairman
    for including that person. Also, we are going to, potentially,
    have a field listening session up in our part of the world to
    further explore this, so I appreciate the opportunity to have
    those folks here, and Chief, we are looking forward to your
    testimony. Welcome to the Committee.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair requests
    that other Members submit their opening statements for the
    record so that the witnesses can begin their testimony to
    ensure that there is ample time for questions. The chair would
    also like to remind Members that they will be recognized for
    questioning in the order of seniority for Members who were
    present at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will
    be recognized in order of their arrival. I appreciate the
    Members' understanding.
        Once again, Chief, thank you so much, I know it is
    difficult carving time out of what are busy days to be able to
    come here and to join us. Once again, I am pleased to welcome
    Chief Jason Weller, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, to the table, and Chief Weller,
    please go ahead and begin when you are ready. We have waived
    the normal 5 minutes of time to give you adequate time to
    present the information that you have before us.
        So go ahead and begin when you are ready.

               STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Weller. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lujan
    Grisham, and Members of the Committee. It is good to see you
    all again. I am really excited to be here today and I really
    commend the Committee. Mr. Chairman, the opportunity you are
    affording NRCS, but also the other witnesses here, to talk
    about all the really positive contributions that farmers and
    ranchers are making, and how much innovation is occurring right
    now in the private lands voluntary incentive-based conservation
    arena. It is unprecedented, and I hope to be able to touch upon
    it really briefly in my presentation, and I also very much
    appreciate your forbearance here to allow me to extend my
    remarks a few minutes and actually share with the Committee
    some slides that I have put together. This is, I guess, a
    fallout from the last hearing we had with you and the Committee
    on the soil health topic. This is really an expansion on that
    topic.
        The way this is organized--and this has been really
    difficult for me because, in part, there is so much I want to
    talk about and there are so many awesome things that are
    happening right now. To get this condensed down to 10 minutes
    is pretty hard to do, so I am going to do my best.
        This is grouped into three topic areas. First, is next
    level upgrade for science, next level upgrade for tools, and
    then next level upgrade for partnerships. And all of you talked
    about this in your opening statements, really touched upon what
    is happening in these three areas of science, tools, and
    partnerships.
        NRCS started, as you know, over 80 years ago in the wake of
    the Dust Bowl, and we were at the very beginning, the very
    genesis, the first chief, Hugh Hammond Bennett, Dr. Bennett
    created a Soil Conservation Service. We were known as a
    technical, science-based agency, and what we shared was that
    scientific knowledge with that farmer and rancher to better
    manage, initially, their soils. It is really, then incumbent
    upon us to stay current with current edge of the science, state
    of the science, and continue to share that technical knowledge.
    And really, in everything that we do, whether it is through a
    program, through a conservation plan, it is sharing and
    imparting that technical knowledge on the landscape.
        Really, what we are very focused on at NRCS then is
    ensuring we are not just current, state of the art, but even
    leading edge in many cases on the current state of agronomic
    and conservation science.
        An example of what we have been working with our partners
    from edufield monitoring systems where we are really trying to
    understand beyond modeling--we are really trying to understand
    what is actually happening in real world agriculture and real
    world environments. When you put in place different crop
    rotation systems, residue management systems, tilling
    practices, nutrient management practices, what happens when you
    compare a treated field and an untreated field side by side?
    What happens to the surface water, and importantly, maybe you
    have installed a biorack as part of your ag drainage water
    management system. What happens to that tile water coming out
    of the line? Then over time, we can really scientifically,
    credibly understand when you tweak and manage your crop fields
    better, what is the ultimate result? Beyond something modeled,
    you are actually getting real world information, which you can
    then feed back to that land owner, to that customer, to that
    farmer or rancher. And that scientific knowledge then helps
    drive better landscape decisions, both on a farm, but then in
    this case, a watershed.
        What we are looking at here comes out of Iowa, Sac County,
    Iowa, and this is a tributary of Black Hawk Lake. There is a
    producer, family operation, Linda Richie. And you can see here
    there is a lot of headcut going on in this tributary of the
    stream, and this reservoir is impacted by sediment loadings and
    intermittent loadings coming off farm fields. Well the NRCS,
    using that scientific knowledge we get from those in-field
    monitoring systems and our agronomic expertise can come into
    this landscape and prescribe practices that could transform
    that tributary from what would originally be a real threat to
    that reservoir, in this case, ensuring that clean waters
    continue to flow into that reservoir for that city's water
    supply, but also critically important in protecting those farm
    fields. They can stay productive over time and provide for the
    economic sustainability of that farm.
        Similarly, you can come to a farm field like this--this
    could be anywhere in the Midwest where you have conventional
    tillage going on, not much protection to that soil. You get a
    heavy rain event and you are seeing erosion occurring and the
    gullies forming, carrying off that farm field literally tons of
    sediment, pounds of nutrients that is leaving that farm field.
    Using, again, that science based solution approach, you can
    come in, change the tillage practices, put in cover crops, and
    you can see what the effect is in terms of protecting the water
    as the water leaves the field. It is not carrying the sediment.
    It is not carrying those farm inputs. It is leaving all those
    really valuable components of agriculture in place to grow the
    cash crops we depend upon for our food supply.
        We have used a lot of these scientific tools. What we see
    here is an image of Arkansas, and we have identified with state
    partners there in Arkansas where are small scale watersheds,
    where we know there are risks based on the soils, risks to
    water quality in Arkansas. And so you see, for example, up in
    the northeast part of Arkansas, northwest part of Arkansas,
    there are different river basins, the St. Francis River basin
    in the northeast part of the state. Over there on the border
    with Oklahoma, you see the Illinois River system. And I am
    proud to say, because of the voluntary contributions of farmers
    in these communities and the USDA conservation programs this
    Committee has funded and authorized, we have gone into these
    and over the last several years, put in place conservation
    practices on over 80,000 acres of cropland. As a result of
    these proactive investments, these stream segments are being
    de-listed. They were de-listed in 2014 off of the State of
    Arkansas's list of impaired waters. And this isn't something
    that happened in spite of agriculture, this is something that
    happened because of agriculture. Because of the positive,
    targeted approach that producers took, and the voluntary
    incentive-based conservation programs delivered, we were able
    to clean up these waterways and provide cleaner water for
    communities, but also keep those productive lands in working
    agriculture.
        Other success stories from around the country--this is out
    of South Dakota. This is out of south central South Dakota on
    the border with Nebraska, and it is the Keya Paha River
    watershed, and working counterclockwise from the upper right
    there, you can see where the watershed is located. And really,
    what the impact on these waters in the Keya Paha River was
    bacterial. There was too much E. coli and bacterial coliform
    colonies in the water column. And so we went in, we fenced up
    the creeks, we put in revegetated buffers. You can see in the
    lower left there revegetated buffers just 2 years after we went
    in and treated that watershed. And ultimately, partners there
    in the state went in there and monitored what was happening in
    the water columns. Beyond us modeling and saying we are doing
    good things, we are using science to actually track and give
    agriculture credit for the proactive solution, and you can see
    just over the course of 5 years, how we brought down and cut
    the E. coli bacterial counts by over \2/3\, bringing it to meet
    the state's water quality standards for bacteria.
        In Oklahoma, another success story. This is out of Pond
    Creek in north central Oklahoma in Grant County. This is a 60
    mile stream segment on the Pond Creek, and the entire Pond
    Creek was listed, the main injuries to their creek were low
    dissolved oxygen counts, which is really bad for aquatic
    species, turbidity, which is basically the cloudiness of the
    water, there is too much suspended sediment in the water, and
    nutrients, too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water, and
    bacterial counts, four injuries.
        What you see here is the state went in and monitored what
    was happening in this watershed, and you can see in 2006 that
    in terms of the turbidity, 45--almost \1/2\--50 percent of the
    monitoring results brought back exceeded the state water
    quality standards, and similarly for the bacterial counts, far
    in excess of what was tolerated under the state water quality
    requirements.
        Well NRCS came in, invested over the course of about 8
    years, over $4 million of private lands voluntary incentive-
    based conservation on the landscape. By 2014, in about 8 years,
    we have brought down--in terms of turbidity, there was zero
    exceedances of turbidity, and it met the state water quality
    standards for bacterial counts. This stream segment has been
    de-listed, and this is just one of 48 other success stories in
    Oklahoma in the past decade alone where USDA's conservation
    programs, working in concert and partnership with ranchers, are
    cleaning up the waters of Oklahoma and making those water
    systems and reservoirs healthier for both wildlife and for
    people.
        Beyond targeting in small scale watersheds, what this is,
    is a map of a large watershed, a large basin. In this case, it
    is the Western Lake Erie Basin, which has been a national
    focus, in part, because of the concerns in the area and the
    lake area itself. Let me kind of unpack here what this picture
    is showing. We are using science to really understand what are
    the underlying properties of the soils in this basin, and in
    the watersheds there where it is colored red, kind of a pink
    color, those are soils where inherently they are very erosive,
    and also very porous. They are going to be a high risk of loss
    of sediment and nutrients from those farm fields from surface
    flow. The green are watersheds or areas where there is low risk
    for erosion potential. As we are going to see over time here is
    from 2005 to 2015, we put in place 1.1 million unique acres of
    conservation practices in the Western Lake Erie Basin. You are
    going to see the points over time where using science, we have
    helped to work with farmers to target the right conservation
    practices, and these are just for the soil erosion practices.
    You are going to see the points appear here, and there are also
    colors associated with these points.
        In just about a decade, an enormous unleashed potential
    here of conservation delivering in this landscape, targeting
    those high risk soils, locking them down, avoiding loss by
    controlling and trapping sediments before they leave the farm
    fields, and this is just in the sediment. We have other layers
    we could have shown you also, looking at leaching potential
    where we have also targeted leaching practices. But we estimate
    that these practices alone over the course of a decade helped
    reduce or prevent upwards of 970,000 tons of sediment loss are
    now not flowing into Lake Erie, and upwards of 10.4 million
    pounds of nitrogen and 2.4 million pounds of phosphorus are now
    not flowing into Lake Erie because of all three conservation
    programs delivered by USDA.
        In addition, science is looking at Western Lake Erie Basin,
    there is a lot going on here in this line. Let me try and
    unpack it here. We looked at producers in two main categories,
    what is the health of your soils? Are you gaining carbon or
    losing carbon, the two main factors. And we looked at what is
    your level of conservation stewardship, high level of
    conservation stewardship or low level of stewardship?
    Interestingly, just looking at corn yield, the difference
    between folks that had high levels of soil health, they are
    gaining carbon, versus producers that were losing carbon, those
    guys, in terms of corn yield, had about 15 percent higher corn
    yield per acre, those guys with healthy soils, than producers
    that had unhealthy soils. You are getting a boost in yield, but
    importantly, in terms of phosphorus application, anywhere from
    40 to 50 percent less phosphorus applied per year, resulting
    in--if you look at loss, upwards of 90 percent less phosphorus
    loss per acre, per year. You are getting a 15 percent boost in
    corn, you are applying a lot less fertilizers, you are saving
    \1/2\ of your fertilizer bill, and you are losing 90 percent
    less phosphorus per acre. That, to me, is the definition of
    sustainable agriculture. You have economic sustainability, so
    your input costs are less. You are growing more corn, and you
    are protecting the waters of the local rivers and ultimately,
    Lake Erie.
        But for us, what is next beyond targeting in small scale
    watersheds, large basins, we really are aware that the science
    is next is we have to start being able to target within fields.
    We have to understand where are the inherent risks within a
    crop field and where are we going to apply the right practice
    in the right place.
        What you are seeing here is an example where NRCS's
    geospatial lab is able to develop these kind of maps for our
    field staffs where we look at the underlying soil profiles.
    What you see there on the left is a soil map of a farm field,
    and you can see it in the color coding the different soil
    types. And each one of the soil types has a different inherent
    capacity to both grow food and also lose both sediments and
    nutrients. And so on average, this producer applied 36 pounds
    of phosphorus per acre evenly across his farm fields. But
    again, you can see on the right hand side there on the soil
    types is a vast difference between both yield, so as low as 109
    bushel per acre on average, or as high as 217 bushel per acre
    on average, depending on the soil type. But critically, the key
    there is what was left in the field? The phosphorus was
    applied. What left the field in grain? If you have a risky
    soil, even though you may have applied on average 36 pounds,
    only 15 of those pounds are leaving in the grain. The rest are
    left in the field, potentially to leach or to be lost through
    surface loss.
        If you were to apply through using precision conservation
    techniques, it really then allows our planters to come in and
    really talk about both application of fertilizer using
    precision ag technologies, but also even talking about maybe in
    some parts of the field you don't want to even farm. Why plant?
        Let's start talking about some of the other USDA programs,
    like the Conservation Reserve Program or the easement program,
    where no matter what you do, that corner of the field, this
    inclusion, will never be profitable. Stop planting it, stop
    wasting your money on fertilizer. Let's put it into a
    conservation use.
        We are also coming up with a new tool, conservation
    planning tool. We are trying to upgrade NRCS's planning
    capacities, so we are piloting this year a new tool that we are
    calling the Resource Stewardship Evaluation. What this is, is a
    lot going on there, but basically what we are trying to bring
    to a farmer or rancher is a hiring product. We are trying to
    say what is your level of stewardship for your soils? What is
    your level of stewardship for both water quality and quantity,
    air quality, and wildlife habitat? It is five basic metrics.
        NRCS has had quality planning criteria for all those
    metrics, underlying capacity of soil condition, index, your
    wind erosion, water erosion, et cetera. We have normalized all
    these different tools and metrics to give back a producer
    basically a printout of what their level of stewardship is,
    what is your baseline level of performance, and then we can
    start to run different scenarios, different options for the
    producer, and give them a plan to date. It gives them back real
    time information on what their current level of performance is,
    and then gives them real time information on what different
    options and scenarios they want to do, where they can take
    their performance.
        A real world example, this is out of New Jersey where we
    piloted this last year. You can see there on the left is a
    leased field. This is a producer that had an annual lease, a 1
    year lease and rented it from a local unit of government. And
    you can see the condition of this land was not very good, bad
    soils, highly eroded, and impacting local water supplies. We
    went out and ran the evaluation tool on his operation. You can
    see in the dark green or the lighter green where his state was,
    and he was really not meeting the NRCS recommendation levels
    for management. He was about to lose his lease. He went back to
    the local unit of government and said, ``Give me one more
    chance. I promise you I am going to do the right thing.'' He
    showed the lessor the NRCS evaluation and then what the plan to
    state was. He didn't just get a 1 year lease. The county
    actually gave him a 5 year lease. Now that land is going to be
    kept in production. He put it into a rotational beef grazing
    operation, protecting the waters, but importantly keeping this
    land in active agriculture, contributing to the local economy
    and the local food supply.
        Switching now to innovation tools, where we are going with
    our tool capacity. Through this Committee's leadership, we have
    a program called the Conservation Innovation Grants Program,
    CIG, which in my view is really the venture capital, if you
    will, of conservation where we are really taking high risk,
    high reward opportunities, providing 50/50 cost-share grants to
    far more organizations, universities, nonprofits, for-profit
    companies, all trying to advance innovative solutions, new
    tools, and approaches for conservation.
        The gentleman here is Dennis Carmen, and he is from the
    White River Irrigation District in Arkansas. He partnered up
    with a number of other farmers, as well as the Environmental
    Defense Fund, California Rights Commission, Win Walk
    International, and some other partner organizations, including
    American Carbon Registry, and what they have come up with is an
    enhanced way to grow rice. They were focused on methane
    emissions and trying to reduce methane emissions from rice
    production, but also trying to save water. And they piloted
    different management techniques, and they came up with an
    approach that would reduce methane emissions by \1/2\, a 50
    percent reduction in methane gas emissions, but then also 18
    percent water savings by maintaining or enhancing your yield in
    rice.
        They then developed a protocol which they can then go to
    California, the California Air Resources Board has its
    greenhouse gas registry, where now they have developed the
    first in the nation ag crop based protocol where now rice
    farmers, whether they are in California or Arkansas, can sell
    credits to the California Air Resources Board. It is an
    additional revenue stream for rice country. This guy is not
    only able to grow rice, he is now able to sell methane credits
    to the California Air Board.
        In Cape Cod, the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association,
    through CIG they have developed an online tool--it is an
    irrigation system management tool where they have centers out
    in the vines in the cranberry pond there where they are able to
    monitor in real time air temperature and different climatic
    conditions, and this is about better managing the irrigation of
    this cranberry production system. They are able to save per
    frost event, so they use sprinklers to spray the vines, much
    like wine, viticulture, you are protecting the vines during
    frost events, upwards of 9,000 gallons per acre, per frost
    event. Over the course of a growing season, this technology
    allows the producer to save upwards of 280,000 gallons per
    acre. Huge success story.
        I talked about precision conservation. We have also
    invested in a lot of precision ag conservation solutions. This
    is an example. This is called Adapt-N. It is a collaborative of
    Cornell University, Pennsylvania State University, Perdue
    University, USDA Agricultural Research Service lab, Iowa
    Soybean Association, and some other partners. And there are
    different modules that we can provide for producers where it
    gives them real time information on their application of
    nitrogen. It gives them in-season, in-field nitrogen
    application advice that takes into account climate, near real
    time weather conditions, the previous applications of manures
    and fertilizers, their soil types, their management systems.
    Ultimately, you are really trying to make each field and sub-
    component of a field profitable, maxing out your profit and
    minimizing loss. In this case, loss being both money and
    nitrogen. In the early pilots, they were able to save upwards
    of 20 to 30 pounds of nitrogen per acre, while protecting and
    maintaining yield.
        Finally, soil health, as we have talked about previously,
    the Midwest Cover Crop Council in partnership with the
    Conservation Technology Information Center, CTIC, they
    developed a multi-state online tool. It is called the Cover
    Crop Selection Tool, where it is for producers in Michigan,
    Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. You can go online.
    They have identified where their operation is, what their
    management system is, what their business objectives are, and
    the tool then recommends different cocktails of cover crop seed
    mixtures that are appropriate for their climate and a cropping
    system, but also help them apply these cover crops in a way
    that will be even more effective. And as we have talked, cover
    crops are really important and part of the overall conservation
    soil health management system.
        This is a picture of a field from Indiana. Rodney Rulon is
    the producer, and this is his field. He is part of a family
    operation where they manage in total 600,000 acres of row crop
    in Indiana. They have adopted cover crops and residue
    management systems no-till system of operation, and he believes
    he is saving over $100 an acre by using soil health management
    practices. This is saving wear and tear on his field, saving
    fuel costs, his energy costs, saving fertilizer and other input
    costs. He is saving $100 an acre a year in cash, that is over
    $600,000 a year more profit in a year for his family operation.
        We have also talked about how soil health and these cover
    crops can improve the resiliency of crop fields, and how by
    increasing the soil organic matter, it really creates--turns
    those crop fields into reservoirs where it can actually hold
    and retain water. If you look at, hypothetically, all cropland
    in the United States, if you increase the soil organic matter
    in the cropland of the United States by one percent, you are
    able then to turn those crop fields into underground
    reservoirs. You will be able to hold in those--just a one
    percent increase would increase the water holding capacity of
    the soils to hold the same amount of water that flows over
    Niagara Falls for 150 days. That is a huge amount of water.
        What we are seeing here is out of Brookings County, South
    Dakota, side by side fields. One used convention tillage on the
    right. On the left, no-till high residue management. And you
    can see after a 1" rain event, on the right you have heavy
    ponding. That producer has literally lost tons of topsoil. You
    can actually see where he has some of his beans coming up. They
    are out of the ground. On the left, the beans are looking
    really healthy, coming in. All the water has been captured and
    stored in the soils for later in the summer months when it is
    hot and humid, and that crop is going to need water.
        The CTIC I mentioned earlier and ARS went out and surveyed
    producers in the Corn Belt, and if you recall back in 2012,
    there was a really severe drought, and asked one simple
    question: Did you use a part of your rotation, cover crop or
    not? And what they got back was okay, what was the yield, no
    cover crop, with cover crop. And what you see is corn yield in
    upwards of ten to fourteen percent boost in yield just by
    adopting cover crops as part of your rotation. Which to us is
    then a signal that those producers that have cover crops that
    are protecting the soils, feeding the soils, are improving
    yield and improving their bottom lines.
        And finally, next generation partnerships. We have already
    talked, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lujan Grisham, we have talked about
    the importance and the power of the Resource Conservation
    Partnership Program. I am really proud of NRCS's contribution
    to this, but more proud, frankly, about the robust response
    from the huge array of partners across the country. Sportsmen's
    organizations, universities, cities, counties, water utilities,
    hospitals, churches, I mean, you name it. There are over 2,000
    different partner organizations that have come forward. Many of
    them have never worked in agriculture before, and they never
    really know how to approach agriculture. They are teaming up
    with ag associations, agribusinesses, farmers and ranchers
    themselves, to put in place really exciting conservation
    solutions.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham, as you mentioned with the acequias, I am
    very happy to point out one of the examples of a project we
    already have rolling out here is the Acequias De Las Joyas, and
    this is an example that once you unlock the potential, they are
    ready to roll. And this is a partnership with the New Mexico
    Association of Conservation Districts, Interstate Stream
    Commission, they were ready to rock.
        This is on a 300 year old acequia, you can see in this case
    it is an old, rusted out, inefficient or corrugated pipe, very
    leaky, not very effective. And we have already installed--you
    can see here a welded steel pipe. We are also relining the
    ditches, the irrigation systems with concrete, making it hyper-
    efficient. That means even more parciantes are going to be able
    to irrigate off this acequia simultaneously than previously,
    but also ultimately save a lot more water overall, so the
    system is going to be more successful. And this was installed
    in the end of January, so in a matter of months they were ready
    to roll and get solutions on the ground to be able to help this
    acequia for this coming growing season.
        And then in South Carolina, we have had initially a pilot
    with the U.S. Endowment for Forestry & Communities. What you
    are seeing here is the Smith family. This is Alva and Martin
    Smith in Marlboro County, South Carolina. They are third
    generation farmers, limited resource producers. They have 400
    acres, much of it is forested. And what we are doing in
    partnership with the U.S. Endowment, U.S. Forest Service,
    Center for Heirs Property, Federation of Southern Cooperatives,
    and some other partners, we are first helping families such as
    the Smith family come in and establish clear title, clear
    ownership to their lands. Once they have clear title, that
    unlocks the capacity to come work with USDA. We can them come
    in with our financial assistance program and put in place
    really effective forest management practices that are going to
    improve the health of their forest for long-term timber
    production, giving them long-term economic benefits, but in the
    meantime, giving the community water quality benefits, fire
    protection benefits, air quality benefits, and at-risk species
    benefits.
        And then finally, to me, which is really one of the
    historic partnership examples, and it is something that I hope
    they are going to be writing textbooks about, and this is
    really about how producers and a huge array of partners came
    forward and did something about the potential listing of sage-
    grouse out in the West. And I know it feels like this is past,
    but it is something that is so historic and something I am
    incredibly proud of. And this is something where NRCS was
    actually just a small component of it, so in the wake of the
    candidate decision where the sage-grouse is listed as the
    potential species for listing under the Endangered Species Act,
    we launched what was then the Sage-Grouse Initiative. We had
    over 100 different partner organizations come forward and be
    part of this, so it lost the NRCS identity and became a
    partner-led--really a huge success story.
        This is a map. The green areas are inhabited sage-grouse
    range. The dark areas are what is called the priority areas for
    conservation. This was before we had a lot of really advanced
    tools. We had some pretty good tools for targeting, but we
    didn't have what we have now, what I will talk about in a
    second. What you are seeing here is then how the partnership,
    the locally led approach on this landscape targeted both
    financial systems, which are the aqua blue colored dots, and
    easements, which are the rust colored orange dots. And 100
    percent of the practices were put in place in habited range.
    Three-quarters of the practices were in the priority areas for
    conservation. The scale is unprecedented. Just in 5 years, the
    partnership put in place 4.4 million acres of sustainable
    ranching practices across the West in 11 states. Over 1,100
    producers stepped forward, volunteered, and want to be part of
    the solution.
        What is here is then a new tool we just released last week.
    It is in partnership with Google. We are bringing Google Earth
    technologies that is allowing USDA conservation districts,
    conservation organizations to use the Google Earth
    capabilities. We have different data layers. I am not going
    to--don't worry, I am not going to walk you through what is
    going on here in this slide, but basically you can both work at
    a national level, regional level, state level, county level,
    field level, where you can zoom in, for example here, looking
    at what is going on in this landscape. In this case, one of the
    main threats for sage-grouse is conifer invasion, conifer
    encroachment, where these conifer and juniper are coming in and
    invading what was then at one point sage-grouse habitat, and
    turning it into a forested canopy. It is not very good for
    livestock. Conifer are really thirsty. They soak up all the
    ground water. They change the hydrology in those mountainous
    areas and choke out the seats and springs. But it turns out
    sage-grouse don't like trees either, because of the raptor
    perches, and as soon as the conifers come in, as little as a
    four percent tree canopy cover, the grouse are gone. We can use
    this tool, zoom in, identify areas where we want to treat. In
    this case, we come in like in 2012, you can see how we worked
    with a rancher, cut out his inholdings, cleared it of the sage
    brush. That is pretty impressive. What is more impressive,
    though, is when we radio card a sage-grouse hen in Oregon and
    she flew south down in urban California for the summer, you can
    see where she hung out in the summer. This is a radio plotted
    chart showing where the sage hen spent her time, kind of on a
    shopping trip around the inholding, where apparently she read
    up on our sage-grouse initiative, sage brush initiative
    literature where, yes, she understood where she needs to go,
    where you cut out the trees, that is where I am supposed to
    hang out. She flew in and you can see how she went around and
    took advantage of the new habitat that just had recently been
    opened up, returned both for ranching, but in this case, for
    critical wildlife habitat.
        If you take this kind of success story and you multiply
    that 1,000, it is an example of how ranchers really delivered
    unprecedented solutions in this landscape on a voluntary basis,
    and it is the view for me and my colleagues at NRCS that it is
    not in spite of ranchers, it is because of the American rancher
    that we did not list the sage-grouse in September of 2015.
        Likewise, in Montana, where ranchers in Sentinel and Big
    Centennial and Big Hole Valleys, there is a fish. In this case,
    it is arctic fluvial grayling at risk. It is a candidate for
    listing in Endangered Species Act. It was down to the last 50
    mile segment of the stream, and we put in place voluntary
    conservation practices with the ranching community.
        You can see in this chart over the course of 5 years, the
    populations, depending on which subpopulation you look at,
    either increased 500 to 900 percent in 5 years. Result, not
    listed under the Endangered Species Act because of voluntary
    incentive-based conservation.
        The Oregon chub, this guy should be wearing a cape,
    actually, because he is the first fish species in American
    history not to be taken off the endangered species list because
    it went extinct, because we brought it back from the brink.
    Voluntary USDA conservation programs made this possible. It was
    down to less than the thousandth chub left in Oregon. Wetlands
    reserve practices and acres restored, but also upland water
    quality practices were put in place. Today's fish population is
    140,000 chub and growing taken off the endangered species list
    because of voluntary acts of conservation.
        This is a story of love. This is the Louisiana black bear,
    which was listed--this is actually the teddy bear that
    President Roosevelt could not bring himself to shoot because it
    was so cute and charismatic--listed as endangered. It was down
    to less than 200. It was in separated populations that were not
    connected anymore, so they didn't have the opportunity to mate.
    USDA came in and put in place over 210,000 acres of bottomland
    hardwood habitat to reconnect those populations through CRP and
    wetland reserve opportunities. Today, the populations are
    reconnected, making highways of love where these bears are now
    back to over 800 bears and growing. Proposed for de-listing
    under the Endangered Species Act because of voluntary acts of
    land owners in the Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana
    regions.
        And ultimately, the Peter Rabbit, New England cottontail
    rabbit, again, because of private forestland owners in New
    England stepped forward, voluntarily put in place young forest
    restoration projects on their lands, again, DOI earlier this
    past fall decided not to list this candidate species under the
    Endangered Species Act, not in spite of private landowners, but
    because of the voluntary acts of private landowners and the
    results they delivered in their communities.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for going over my time
    a little bit. Like I said, there is a lot more. This is enough
    I thought I could get away with. I appreciate your interest,
    and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you,
    sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resources
     Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
    Science and Innovation in Natural Resources Conservation
    Overview
        NRCS is focused on delivering innovative, science-based assistance
    to producers to address their natural resource objectives in balance
    with their operational goals.
    Science-Based Solutions
        Cleaner, more abundant water for farmers, ranchers, their
    communities, and wildlife is possible when the right conservation
    practices are in the right places. NRCS is advancing a science-based
    approach to conservation through edge-of-field water quality
    monitoring. Edge-of-field water monitoring enables scientists and
    agricultural producers to quantify the impacts of conservation work on
    water quality.
        Through the innovative National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI),
    NRCS and partners work with producers in high-priority watersheds to
    implement voluntary conservation practices that improve water quality
    while maintaining agricultural productivity. Since 2012, USDA has
    invested more than $100 million in contracts with producers
    participating in this initiative, leading to conservation systems
    placed on almost 500,000 acres in priority watersheds. Results in NWQI
    watersheds include de-listing of streams formerly identified as
    impaired on states' 303(d) lists.
        Using science to focus conservation efforts to achieve the greatest
    benefit delivers more cost-effective results. The Conservation Effects
    Assessment Project (CEAP) is building a solid science-based foundation
    for the dialogue on conservation benefits. CEAP has demonstrated that
    conservation works, and that conservation systems applied in the most
    vulnerable areas deliver the greatest benefits. CEAP results are
    helping stewards target their conservation efforts to reduce nutrient
    and sediment losses from agricultural land.
        The Resource Stewardship Evaluation Tool (RSET) is designed to help
    producers assess how their farm or ranch is operating, the value of
    conservation already in place, and to identify areas they may want to
    improve and practices they may want to implement and the results they
    can expect. Piloted in FY 2015, RSET is already helping producers
    better manage their conservation objectives. In 2016, NRCS will expand
    the use of RSET in selected NWQI watersheds.
    Innovative Tools and Technology
        NRCS invests in cultivating science though Conservation Innovation
    Grants (CIG). Since 2004, approximately $236 million has been awarded
    to over 630 national projects that have addressed a diversity of
    natural resource concerns, such as demonstrating more efficient ways to
    manage nutrients, reduce on-farm energy use, increasing irrigation
    efficiency, and accelerating the development of water quality trading
    and greenhouse gas markets.
        CIG projects are delivering a wide range of new tools and
    opportunities for conservation, from decision support tools to
    precision nutrient application and cover crop options that benefit soil
    health. Using farm bill programs, NRCS also has been accelerating
    adoption of soil health practices and helping producers advance soil
    health management and build resilience in their production systems.
    These benefits lead to greater resiliency to adverse conditions such as
    drought but also boost yields and bottom lines.
    Locally Led, Partner-Driven Stewardship
        Science-based solutions and innovative tools are also supporting
    the locally led approach. NRCS is advancing innovative partner-driven
    conservation through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program
    (RCPP). Created by the 2014 Farm Bill, RCPP is a locally led
    conservation approach that is already showing results. Now in its
    second year, RCPP has demonstrated high demand, with over 2,000
    partners leading nearly 200 projects nationwide. All told, in the first
    2 years of the program, NRCS will have invested about $500 million
    while another $900 million is being brought in by partners to address
    locally defined, nationally significant natural resource issues. For
    the next round of RCPP funding, NRCS will challenge partners to
    consider environmental markets and conservation finance systems with
    agricultural opportunities.
        NRCS also is using science and innovation to drive new partnerships
    that benefit agriculture and wildlife. Consider the NRCS Working Lands
    for Wildlife (WLFW) partnership and the unprecedented voluntary
    collaboration over the past 6 years to restore public and private
    rangeland and young forests on private land. In part because of these
    voluntary efforts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has either de-
    listed or taken off the candidate list six species since September
    2014--determining that these populations were now healthy enough that
    they did not warrant Federal protections under the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA).
    Summary
        New science and innovative tools and technologies are helping to
    forge stronger and broader partnerships that are generating benefits
    for agriculture and the environment. Recent accomplishments demonstrate
    that the nation's farmers and ranchers can achieve production and
    operational goals in balance with the natural resource objectives that
    benefit rural communities and the nation as a whole.

                            PowerPoint Presentation

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well Chief, thank you so much, and we really
    appreciate your presentation. Congratulations for what you have
    accomplished what the Fish and Wildlife Service hasn't been
    able to do. When it comes to endangered species, you have set a
    great model there.
        I am going to take the liberty of the first 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Chief Weller, one of the most innovative programs in my
    opinion to come along in some time is the Regional Conservation
    Partnership Program, and that was a key component of the
    House's Conservation Title. One of the main purposes of the
    program was to help producers in meeting and avoiding the need
    for national, state, and local natural resource regulatory
    requirements related to agriculture production.
        My question is straightforward. Do you think the program is
    helping producers deal with the regulatory requirements, and
    can you give us some specific examples of projects that are
    doing so?
        Mr. Weller. The short answer is yes. It is going to help
    and be tremendous, and what is really the secret of the sauce
    here is that instead of NRCS determining what is the species or
    official wildlife determining from the national office, this is
    where we are going to go work, what the program does is it
    gives local partners, local communities, local farming,
    ranching communities, forestland owners to step forward and
    say, ``You know what, we are concerned about,'' in the case of
    your question, ``regulatory impacts or risks we have in our
    area, and here is the help that we need.'' It really puts them
    in the driver's seat to design projects to meet their water
    quality or air quality or habitat concerns.
        And then it allows opportunities for other partners,
    whether private organizations, both for and nonprofit
    organizations to step forward and leverage their capacities,
    their sack of tools, their boots-on-the-ground know-how, and
    then buddy up with NRCS and go out and get after it.
        Again, coming back to the sage-grouse example, there is at
    least two RCPP projects that I am aware of, maybe three, which
    specifically calls out Endangered Species Act concerns where it
    is in Colorado, Oregon, and Nevada where we have RCPP projects
    in place that are being partner led, locally led, but it
    specifically is to address sage-grouse restoration needs. And
    again, it is because of the concerns about needing to maintain
    positive momentum to head off at the pass any cause for listing
    of the greater sage-grouse in the future. That is one example.
    There are others in the long leaf pine ecosystems of the
    Southeast where there are a lot of species, whether the red
    cockaded woodpecker--tortoise, and then there are all sorts of
    aquatic species, different mussels and fish that are at risk
    for listing also under the Endangered Species Act, and then
    specifically call out the importance of RCPP to leverage USDA
    and non-Federal investments to restore the long leaf pine
    ecosystem, for both forest product production, but also
    importantly for habitat for both at-risk and game species.
        I think at least about \1/3\, if you look at all 199
    projects, and they self-identify what the resource concerns are
    them. Off the top of my head, it is about \1/3\ of our projects
    to date where they specifically call out at-risk species
    habitat as one of the core criteria why they want this project
    to be successful.
        The Chairman. Thank you. In addition to the farmers and
    ranchers, there are some 22 million family forest owners who
    own over \1/3\ of our forests and who grow almost 50 percent of
    the wood that we use in the United States. Unlike farmers and
    ranchers, often these owners aren't actively engaged in their
    land management, and we know that if they aren't actively
    managing their land, that this can cause issues such as
    insects, invasive species, non-invasive species, disease,
    infestations, wildfire threats. What innovative approaches is
    NRCS using to reach these owners and get them involved in
    production as well as conservation?
        Mr. Weller. We talked a little bit about RCPP, but there
    are efforts also outside of that one program authority where we
    are really trying to work with State Foresters, but also non-
    Federal partners. Like in this case, it could be the U.S.
    Endowment for Forestry. There is a whole collaborative of
    folks, for example, like in the long leaf pine ecosystem again,
    that are focused on restoring the health of the long leaf pine
    forests. I mentioned in New England and your forests as well
    where there is a locally-led approach, whether it is a wildlife
    organization or forestry group. They have the ongoing
    expertise. They have the people in the field that can really
    help us reach those private landowners that we may not have
    relationships with, yet.
        I am proud of our partnership, actually, with another
    Federal agency, in this case, the Forest Service. Historically,
    our agencies have sort of been ships passing in the night where
    we perhaps may not have worked as well together as we should
    have. We are now trying to be much more mindful and purposeful
    of working together on both sides of the property line, so when
    we go into a community, into a forest or a county or a
    watershed, we want to make sure if the Forest Service were
    going to go in and do wildfire treatments on their side of the
    property line, we also then get the private landowners access
    to EQIP and other financial assistance so they, too, can treat
    their forests. That whole basin is then protected and restored.
    And so we have almost over 40 projects now across the country
    where NRCS, Forest Service, State Foresters, and other partners
    are coming in, all contributing our money together, working on
    both sides of the private property line and the public property
    line to restore the health of the whole forest, treating it as
    a true forest as opposed to just different property owners.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Chief. My time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Chief Weller, for your enthusiasm about the range of
    possibilities and that collaboration and voluntary efforts can
    produce real results. I really appreciate that, and I am hoping
    for the same kind of environment on looking at ways to use our
    agro-ecosystems to capture atmospheric carbon. Actually, New
    Mexico State University and one of their research scientists,
    Dr. David Johnson, has been looking at this issue very
    specifically. And so far, there are some key findings from his
    research, that the restoration of beneficial soil microbial
    communities and the relationships that they develop then with
    plants builds, in fact, healthy soils that can capture
    significant, is the operative word, significant amounts of
    carbon from the atmosphere and can also reduce the rate of
    which soil microbial communities respire this carbon.
        My understanding is that he is currently reaching out to
    EPA for an agreement to explore this biotechnology and
    recognition of the increases in soil carbon as legitimate
    carbon offsets. I am interested in hearing whether NRCS has
    been working with EPA to promote soil carbon sequestration.
        Mr. Weller. We have been working very hard on soil carbon
    sequestration. I would not say we have worked with EPA, but we
    have worked with land-grant extensions with a lot of
    stakeholders in the agricultural community, and this is really
    part of our bigger perspective on soil health, where we are
    trying to understand better the biota that live below the
    surface soil as microbes and critters that live below the
    surface, and how important they are for helping plants in both
    pulling in the carbon, but also attenuates the residue and
    basically mulch it down and transform that plant residue into
    soil organic carbon.
        And while we have a pretty good understanding of it, it is
    actually a burgeoning field. We are really partnering with a
    lot of scientists at both USDA and outside of the department,
    and the university research community to better understand
    those properties. We also have partnered with organizations to
    help, much like with the example I had on rice methane, where
    better management, for example, of pastures and grazing lands,
    how can livestock operators also take advantage of carbon
    markets. And so we have, again, through the Conservation and
    Innovation Grants Program, we have had some grants that help
    invest in that, help develop the protocols, so that if you have
    a grazing operation, how much carbon is actually being pulled
    out of the atmosphere by those pastures, by those rangeland
    vegetation, and ultimately store it in the carbon soil profile
    as carbon, soil organic carbon. And ultimately then, selling
    those credits to a carbon exchange.
        And so one of the first examples of that was in North
    Dakota in partnership with General Motors. General Motors
    actually purchased and retired tens of thousands of carbon
    credits, based on these protocols that the Conservation and
    Innovation Grants helped develop. And so this is then payments
    from General Motors that ultimately end up with grazers, so
    they are ultimately going to get additional revenue source if
    you keep those working lands working.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Can you give me, Chief Weller, kind of
    an idea about what the annual grant could look like? I mean,
    how much money are we spending across the country, roughly?
        Mr. Weller. Across the country? On that one example, it is
    just the initial pilot. GM didn't release how much money they
    spent on it, but it was in the millions of dollars. And
    ultimately, those ranchers are going to be getting an annuity
    payment. It is modest----
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. This is exactly what I want to hear,
    although I would encourage you to work with all Federal
    agencies so that you have the same kind of effort where we
    don't traditionally work as well as we could, certainly, in
    leveraging the Federal partnerships, taking the models that you
    have used in the community and making sure that they apply
    across all the different Federal jurisdictions.
        But I am really interested in finding a way to move
    beyond--and it is not a complaint--move beyond a pilot and
    think about programmatic aspects with some specificity and some
    tools and resources. And I have only--this always happens, Mr.
    Chairman--only 30 seconds left, but if you could follow up with
    us about some of those ideas and strategies so that this
    Committee could look at whether or not we can partner with you
    to make sure that they are available to more states and more
    communities, because I think that this is a real viable aspect
    and could really do a whole lot to reach your ultimate goal of
    healthy soil.
        So thank you very much, Chief. I appreciate it. I yield
    back with 6 seconds. Can I credit those?
        The Chairman. You can get credit for those.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Okay. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. I don't know what you will do with them, but
    you can get credit for them.
        The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize Mr. Benishek
    from Michigan, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks, Chief Weller, for being here. I, too, think that
    this RCPP model is really the way to go, and to me, I have seen
    similar public-private partnerships do a much better job in
    delivering the service that they are trying to deliver than
    government regulators. To me, a lot of times in Washington when
    the government starts doing things from so far away, they don't
    take into account the regional and local concerns, and by
    having a public-private partnership, if it is for charitable
    works or nutrition or soil conservation, getting all the people
    involved and showing them how this is an advantage to them,
    providing leadership, that is really the way to go with all
    government, or a large majority of government services. I am
    happy that this seems to be successful.
        The question I have is now that this is started, you have
    done a couple rounds of conservation projects. How is it going?
    How have things changed since you have been there? Tell me,
    have you learned anything? Is there anything that we should do
    differently with the next farm bill, or what are some of the
    challenges that you are seeing that maybe could make us do
    something even better the next time?
        Mr. Weller. Well, what I have seen is really an evolution.
    We have done two rounds of awards, and we are actually about to
    hopefully release the announcement for the third round in the
    near future, in the next couple weeks. We feel we have really
    positive momentum, and the response from partners across the
    country have been great, so for every dollar that we could
    award into a project, a partner project and the demand was
    seven, eight-fold for that $1. It is very competitive. Which to
    me just shows that there is huge unlocked potential, untapped
    potential that really we can better harness, but people are
    also very excited. When you give them an opportunity to really
    take the lead and to design projects that work in their
    communities to your point, you are going to have much more
    enduring and a quicker success.
        So from the first round, both----
        Mr. Benishek. It is a better way of doing things than regs,
    simply regulating from Washington, as far as I can see.
        Mr. Weller. From our experience, we are inherently a
    locally-led agency, so we really take to heart, first,
    understanding what the farmgate, what that producer wants to do
    in that community, that county with the local work group wants
    to do, and what are the priorities in that state. Really that
    is our history and our culture at the agency, but it fits well
    to a point you are making, yes.
        Mr. Benishek. Can you name a particular challenge or
    problem that some producers are quoting that are making them
    hesitate to join this? Has it all been positive?
        Mr. Weller. From what I have heard, it is, but I don't want
    to overstate it is all positive. Of course, there are growing
    pains and some projects are quicker out of the gate than
    others. But, holistically, if you look at the projects, the
    overwhelming number of projects have been successful. Some
    producers, though, may be reluctant in a state like Michigan
    where they hear about this, but they are not sure who these
    partners are. They haven't heard of them, or they just don't
    want to work with--it could be they don't want to work with the
    government, they don't want to work with NRCS, or they don't
    want to work with a different partner for whatever reason. That
    may be a reluctance. And so what the program still allows the
    producer, if they don't want to work directly with the RCPP
    partnership, they can still come to the local conservation
    district and still get access to assistance directly that way.
        There are ways that the Committee has built into the
    program so that you don't necessarily have to work with the
    partnership, you can work privately as an individual as well.
    Overall, I have heard the feedback from both our staff, but
    also producers around the country. It has been positive.
        Mr. Benishek. Well do you agree with me and my assessment
    that this public-private partnership and voluntary conservation
    is a better way to conserve our land and improve production for
    farmers?
        Mr. Weller. I will say that a voluntary approach is a great
    way to do conservation.
        Mr. Benishek. All right. I will yield back the remainder of
    my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief, I want to talk a little bit about this P.L. 83-566
    situation. Apparently the appropriators had asked you for a
    list of projects, and you didn't get it to them for a while and
    now you have given them one. Is that part of why there wasn't
    any appropriation, because they hadn't gotten these project
    lists before, or do you know why they didn't?
        Mr. Weller. I do not know why they did not include
    appropriations for P.L. 83-566 in the 2016----
        Mr. Peterson. Do you know why the Administration didn't
    request anything in the budget?
        Mr. Weller. I don't know specifically why, but I can
    surmise. The President, to point in the 2016 budget, requested
    $200 million for P.L. 83-566, for the Watersheds Operations
    Program. Seeing that it was not successful, the Appropriations
    Committee did not appropriate any money to the program. In the
    2017 budget, the President's budget includes no money for P.L.
    83-566, but instead of taking money--in this case, $200 million
    for P.L. 83-566, for the first time what the President has
    done, not just President Obama, but a President, has not
    chipped, has not cut the farm bill conservation programs. There
    is zero cut to the EQIP Program, zero cut to Conservation
    Stewardship Program, zero cut to the easement program. It is
    the first time that has ever happened in a budget, which, easy
    to understand, Mr. Peterson, then for the budget process, they
    had to find money to make that happen. It was a decision, in
    the end, where to put that money and instead of P.L. 83-566
    where it didn't get appropriations, they decided to keep that
    money in the farm bill programs.
        Mr. Peterson. Well, we appreciate the P.L. 83-566 or the
    RCPP that was designated up from the valley there. They are
    using some of that money for planning for these P.L. 83-566
    projects, and there are 12 of them that are in process. I have
    been in a couple meetings here in the last 2 months where they
    have been working on these, but they are not in your plan here,
    so I don't know if that is because they are not completed yet
    or what. But, one of the concerns they have and I have is if
    there going to be money for these once the planning is done,
    which is going to be in a year or 2. And what is the prognosis
    for money for P.L. 83-566 going into the future, do you think,
    in terms of funding, because there is a lot on both sides of
    the border. This is what people want to use to try to help
    manage this flooding situation.
        Mr. Weller. Historically, it has been a hugely successful
    program. As you are probably aware, we helped install over
    12,000 projects and facilities around the country in 48 states,
    so it has a very proud heritage. Unfortunately, it hasn't been
    funded. We have not received appropriations for 7, 8 years. But
    if you look back at the success of these projects, it has been
    very effective. A resuscitated, renewed program would be really
    powerful, and that is, in part, why the President included it
    in his 2016 budget, but also through your leadership, it is in
    RCPP, which is why we are now having some success at least
    doing the engineering work on those facilities, peach
    facilities in the Red River Valley.
        Regarding the future, whether there is going to be future
    resources, that is up to both Congress in appropriations, and
    then for that specific project, they can reapply for the next
    phase so when we get ready for construction, they would be
    eligible to come back and reapply for RCPP funds in the future.
    It is a competitive program, but it is a great project. I can't
    guarantee, but they were successful----
        Mr. Peterson. I am moving ahead with the hopeful attitude
    that it is going to work out.
        Mr. Weller. Yes.
        Mr. Peterson. One of the other things that came up that is
    a continuing frustration is the lack of coordination between
    NRCS and the Corps, and there was a Memorandum of Understanding
    that was done between the Corps and NRCS back in 2012, and I
    thought this had all gotten worked out. And so I go to this
    meeting in January and find out that the whole thing has broken
    down and is not working. Why can't we get to a situation where
    we can have the Corps and the NRCS come to a determination? I
    thought your guy in Minnesota had it worked out that the Corps
    was going to go along with whatever NRCS came up with, and then
    I find out that she wasn't doing that. They have wasted 2 years
    screwing around with this deal, and you have another situation
    where they have been trying to get some kind of conservation
    gateway to try to get things worked out between you and FSA and
    RMA, and that is, I am not sure, working either. Can you help
    us get to a way that we can get these projects approved?
        Mr. Weller. I can't specifically speak to what is happening
    with the Corps. I can only manage what I can manage, which is
    the NRCS side of that relationship, but I hear you, and I will
    follow up with our----
        Mr. Peterson. You work with those folks, right?
        Mr. Weller. I have met with the Corps commander recently
    about that MOU from the national perspective, but as you
    understand it, it really depends on which Corps district you
    are in, and each district is different. It sounds like you need
    to do some follow-up with the Corps.
        Mr. Peterson. You understand now and hopefully people
    understand why some of us are so concerned about this Waters of
    the U.S., because if that thing goes through and we have 300
    more pages of regulations, you think we have a problem now,
    because this will just give an opportunity for everybody to not
    agree to anything.
        So anyway, whatever you can do to help us with that would
    be appreciated.
        Mr. Weller. Will do.
        Mr. Peterson. And if you can get our projects on the list,
    it would help. Okay? I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Allen from Georgia is recognized, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chief,
    for joining us. Obviously, you are very proud of the things you
    have done and thank you for your presentation. Obviously the
    improvement you made in a lot of these properties is pretty
    amazing.
        One of the things that you talked about how the working
    relationship that you have with farmers and ranchers, and how
    it has proven to be a great benefit to conservation. About \1/
    3\ of our forests, about 50 percent of the wood in the U.S. is
    owned by owners that aren't actively engaged in land
    management. And we know if they are not actively engaged in
    this process, that problems can happen like insects, diseases,
    infestations, any wildlife threats, and that sort of thing.
        What is NRCS using to reach these owners and get them
    involved in the production, as well as conservation?
        Mr. Weller. Trying to identify who those non-operating land
    owners are, the absentee landlords, is a challenge for us and
    it is really, particularly on the conservation stewardship
    side, to your point, when they are not there on the land it is
    hard to know year to year what is actually happening in your
    forest or in your fields.
        So we have tried some examples in some other states, not in
    the Southeast, but in the Midwest an initial try at this in
    three different states where we worked with the Farm Service
    Agency and we sent out mailers. They have lists of who the
    landlords are, and so we figured out who were the folks we
    wanted to actually touch, we hadn't heard from in a while. And
    we tried different methods, basically postcard mailings, to
    reach out to these landlords, and tried different techniques to
    try and get their interest. We actually had a pretty good
    response from folks. Once they understood that we really wanted
    to talk to them and were not there to take something and we are
    actually here to offer something, we received a pretty good
    response.
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Mr. Weller. But a lot of times, as you know, those
    landlords also live out of state, so it is about reconnecting
    them back to their land or their property, and then trying to
    work out--we either go through their tenant, and oftentimes
    through their tenant is the best way to reach those landlords,
    equipping them with the tools--whether it is like that resource
    stewardship evaluation I showed earlier where you empower the
    tenant to then go to the landlord and say here is what I am
    going to do for your property. I will make it even better. Or I
    would like to flip that around and also try out working with
    the landlord, do you know what happened to your property while
    you were away? Here is where your property is being managed and
    where would you like to take it?
        So trying to identify who those folks are, trying new
    techniques to get their attention, and then equipping the
    tenants with great information so they can then go talk to
    their landlord about investments maybe they can both jointly
    make to enhance the value of the property through better soil
    quality, or better forest health. We are trying a lot of
    different techniques, but it is a challenge that I will admit
    we are not yet fully up to speed on.
        Mr. Allen. What sort of impact into that group are you
    making? Is it substantial impact, or is there still a lot to
    do?
        Mr. Weller. There is still a lot to do. It has been pretty
    modest so far.
        Mr. Allen. The pine straw industry is big in my district in
    Georgia, and of course, we have over 400 potential species in
    the South to be listed on the endangered species list in the
    coming years. Well, some of our pine straw folks are a little
    concerned about this, as well as, some things that crop up from
    time to time. As far as those industries, are you working with
    the folks in that industry and what kind of things are we doing
    so those folks can continue to do business?
        Mr. Weller. Yes, we are. We are trying to work with the
    timber and the pine straw industries, understanding the
    importance for local cultural practices, but also economic
    opportunities. The best form of conservation is one that
    actually improves the bottom line of a landowner or business,
    and that is going to be the most enduring conservation
    treatment. And so it is helping, whether it is our previous
    conversation, an absentee landowner, or to the actual
    landowners who are there on site and working with the industry,
    how do you ensure the health of that forest so it can produce
    the pine straw long-term? What are the different practices,
    then we can come in to either do tree stand improvements,
    prescribe fire to ensure you are treating the undergrowth
    understory, but also ensuring the health of those forests, fire
    breaks, other practices we can put in place working with the
    industry and where to site those practices. Where are the
    priority areas that for the industry is important to restore
    the vitality of those stands? There are a lot of different ways
    we can approach it and tackle it, but yes, it is critical that
    we understand what the priorities are of industry, and if there
    are opportunities and then leverage. Does the industry know the
    contact information for a lot of those landlords, landowners,
    and they have ways to reach out to them and encourage them to
    participate in our programs in ways that we can't. It is a
    great collaborative approach.
        Mr. Allen. Good, good. I am glad to hear that. Thank you,
    Chief.
        Mr. Weller. Thank you.
        Mr. Allen. I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Chief, thank you so much for your leadership. One of the
    issues that citizens follow, and rightfully so, they evaluate,
    they scrutinize government. We talk a lot about programs and
    today, you have talked a lot about outcomes, and we all
    appreciate that. Measurable outcomes, in terms of what is the
    return on investment for all the work that we try to do within
    the farm bill, providing tools for you, your agency, and
    talking on behalf of all the Members that are on this
    Subcommittee, we appreciate the fact that you are a good
    steward in the work that you do, and you are looking for
    outcomes, looking to deliver outcomes, just not promulgate or
    continue business in the way we have always done it in terms of
    programs, and that is greatly appreciated.
        So thank you for being here today, and thanks for your
    continued leadership.
        Mr. Weller. Thank you very much, sir, and I hope it gives
    this Committee some comfort, but also the taxpayer comfort that
    their resources are being used wisely and well. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        I would like to welcome our next panel of witnesses to the
    table. I will give you a few minutes to get settled in, and
    then we will proceed.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. I want to welcome our panel, and thank you so
    much for each of you of taking the time of coming here to
    present on this topic today. It is my pleasure to introduce our
    next panel of witnesses to the table.
        We have Ms. Rachel Dawson, Senior Manager, Delaware River
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Mr.
    Frank Price, Owner of Frank and Sims Price Ranch in Sterling
    City, Texas; Mr. Rich Bowman, Director of Government Relations
    for The Nature Conservancy in Lansing, Michigan; and Mr. Kent
    Rodelius, Vice President of Agricultural Drainage Management
    Coalition in Willmar, Minnesota.
        Welcome to each of you. Witnesses are reminded that the
    Members have your written testimony, and thank you for that. We
    had that ahead of time, and remind you to limit oral
    presentations to 5 minutes. All written statements are included
    in the record.
        Ms. Dawson, please begin whenever you are ready.

              STATEMENT OF RACHEL DAWSON, SENIOR MANAGER,
               DELAWARE RIVER, NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE
                      FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Dawson. Sure, thank you.
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, as the Senior Manager for the
    Delaware River Program, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today to discuss the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation's, NFWF's, agriculture partnerships in the Delaware
    River watershed.
        Established by Congress in 1984 to leverage public-private
    investments, NFWF currently works with 15 Federal partners and
    more than 45 corporate and foundation partners to conserve
    fish, wildlife, and their habitats. To date, we have funded
    nearly 15,500 conservation projects across all 50 states and
    U.S. territories, 900 of those alone in the last fiscal year.
        Today, I would like to share with you some of our
    innovative work with farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
        Three years ago, the William Penn Foundation of
    Philadelphia formed a partnership with NFWF, Drexel
    University's Academy of Natural Sciences, and the Open Space
    Institute to design and help implement an innovative voluntary
    initiative to improve water quality and habitat health across
    the Delaware River watershed.
        The watershed crosses four state borders and provides
    drinking water for 15 million people, including in Trenton,
    Philadelphia, Wilmington, and \1/2\ the population of New York
    City, and it provides a vital habitat for fish and wildlife and
    unparalleled recreation.
        To restore and protect these resources, the William Penn
    Foundation launched the Delaware River Watershed Initiative in
    2014 with an initial 3 year, $35 million investment, which
    targeted eight sub-watersheds for focused restoration and
    conservation. Selected through an unprecedented assessment of
    on-the-ground potential to improve water quality, these sub-
    watersheds will serve as real life laboratories in which
    concentrated restoration and conservation will be strategically
    implemented, leveraged, and monitored.
        Local partners have worked together to develop plans to
    implement the initiative, and accelerate adoption of practices
    that improve and protect water quality. Chief among the
    strategies for most of these sub-watersheds is expanded NRCS
    voluntary forest management and farm conservation practices.
        One-size-fits-all conservation planning isn't an option for
    the region's diverse agriculture communities. Farms tend to be
    small, often fewer than 80 acres, and ownership is very
    complex. From the leased and rotating farmland in southern New
    Jersey to Plain Sect farmers wary of government cost-share
    programs in southeastern Pennsylvania, we have a great
    variability in landowner and producer dynamics. And despite its
    position in a notably urban corridor, the region serves as a
    smorgasbord of agriculture production. From the Garden State's
    vegetable farms, orchards, and nurseries, to Pennsylvania's
    mushrooms, dairy farms, and tobacco fields, and to New York's
    vast private forests critical for clean water, it truly has it
    all.
        As the initiative partners got to work on strategies to
    address the challenges of such variability, the launch of the
    Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP, was a
    remarkably timely opportunity tailor-made to deliver expanded
    conservation with a complimentary water quality benefit.
    Additionally, it was one that was particularly responsive to
    the aforementioned diversity.
        In late 2014, NFWF in partnership with the American
    Farmland Trust and other partners was awarded a 5 year, $13
    million RCPP to address water quality through the Delaware
    Watershed Working Lands Conservation Protection Partnership. Of
    particular importance, the partnership is leveraging $17.6
    million in resources from partners for a conservation impact
    that amounts to more than $30.6 million.
        There are four main reasons why we are excited about the
    RCPP opportunity in the Delaware watershed. First, the
    partnership helps efficiently expand delivery of important farm
    bill conservation and forest management programs in the region.
    Second, we are able to increase technical assistance in
    important places by growing the capacity of both traditional
    agriculture organizations like conservation districts, and
    partner nonprofits who are honing their ability to work with
    projects and landowners. Third, and perhaps most importantly,
    RCPP affords the partnership an opportunity to work with NRCS
    to design applicant criteria and adjust ranking so that cost-
    share funds are available to the projects and places that will
    have the most benefit for water quality. And finally, the RCPP
    in Delaware is an excellent example of the power of leveraging
    private and public resources to do the most good. We are able
    to help producers achieve their conservation goals, while also
    utilizing private funding to incentivize, for example,
    implementation by landowners who prefer not to use government
    funding or to test innovative methods like conservation
    vouchers, bonus payments, and higher rates of cost-share for
    implementing the highest priority practices.
        In only its first few months, the project is on its way
    towards its initial 5 year goals to work with 1,100 landowners
    to implement conservation on at least 16,750 acres and to
    improve management of 20,000 acres of working forests. This
    partnership has the potential to dramatically accelerate
    conservation and to build a stronger, more capable network
    among the agricultural communities and local nonprofits in the
    region.
        While my testimony today is focused on the Delaware River
    watershed, let me close by mentioning NFWF's numerous other
    leveraging efforts to advance voluntary conservation on working
    lands. Among them are the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund,
    a partnership in Kentucky with Altria to help transition
    tobacco growers to continuous no-till, and the Gulf Coast
    Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative. In the interest of time,
    those details are included in my written testimony.
        And again, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
    Fifteen seconds.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dawson follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Rachel Dawson, Senior Manager, Delaware River,
            National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C.
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry and to provide testimony
    regarding the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's (NFWF's)
    agriculture partnerships in the Delaware River watershed and elsewhere
    across the country.
    Introduction to NFWF
        NFWF was established by Congress in 1984 to catalyze public-private
    investments to conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Since our
    creation, NFWF has become one of the world's largest conservation
    grant-makers. We work with both the public- and private-sectors to
    protect and restore our nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
        NFWF supports conservation efforts in all 50 states and U.S.
    territories. Our projects are rigorously evaluated and awarded to some
    of the nation's largest conservation organizations, as well as some of
    the smallest. We neither advocate nor litigate. Instead, NFWF
    specializes in bringing all parties to the table--individuals,
    government agencies, Tribes, nonprofit organizations, and corporations.
    Together, we protect and restore imperiled species, promote healthy
    oceans and estuaries, improve working landscapes for wildlife, advance
    sustainable fisheries, and conserve water for wildlife and people. NFWF
    currently works with 15 Federal partners and more than 45 corporate and
    foundation partners.
        In Fiscal Year 2015, NFWF funded nearly 900 conservation projects
    across the nation. The Foundation awarded $87.6 million in Federal
    funds, $449,000 in other public funds, and $38.0 million in private
    contributions, leveraged by $119.7 million in grantee match.
        Since its inception, NFWF has funded nearly 15,500 conservation
    projects, awarded $955 million in Federal funds, $857 million in non-
    Federal funds, and leveraged $1.7 billion in grantee match for a total
    conservation investment of $3.5 billion.
        Today, I would like to share with you some of NFWF's long history
    of working with farmers, ranchers, and foresters. We have supported
    targeted outreach and technical assistance to farmers to accelerate the
    pace of conservation, leveraged farm bill funding with private
    investment, demonstrated on-farm benefits of conservation, and achieved
    targeted species-specific and water quality outcomes. In total, NFWF
    has leveraged more than $61.2 million of USDA's Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS) funds into over $228 million in on-the-
    ground conservation.
    Enhancing Voluntary Conservation in the Delaware River Watershed
    Delaware River Watershed Initiative
        Three years ago, the William Penn Foundation (WPF) of Philadelphia
    formed a partnership with NFWF, the Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS)
    of Drexel University, and the Open Space Institute (OSI) to design and
    help implement an innovative voluntary initiative to improve water
    quality and habitat health across the Delaware River Watershed.
        The Delaware River has a 13,500\2\ mile watershed that crosses four
    state borders and provides drinking water for 15 million people,
    including the cities of Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and \1/2\
    the population of New York City. At 330 miles, it also is the longest
    undammed river east of the Mississippi, providing vital habitat for
    fish and wildlife and unparalleled recreation opportunities for the 8+
    million people who live and play in the watershed. But, like many
    watersheds across our country, communities here are also grappling with
    water quality challenges in the face of growing pressures from
    development and other stressors.
        Launched in 2014 with an initial 3 year investment of $35 million
    from the William Penn Foundation, the subsequently-named ``Delaware
    River Watershed Initiative'' (DRWI) carefully targeted and prioritized
    eight sub-watersheds for restoration and conservation investment. These
    were selected based on an assessment of the severity of current and
    potential threats to water quality, as well as the on-the-ground
    potential of local organizations to do something about it.
        These focused sub-watersheds are to serve as on-the-ground
    laboratories in which restoration and conservation will be
    strategically implemented, leveraged, and monitored.
        Seven of the eight priority sub-watersheds are dominated by private
    forests and farmland, and local partners--with support and assistance
    from NFWF, WPF, ANS, and OSI--have collaboratively developed and driven
    strategies to accelerate adoption of restoration and conservation
    practices that improve and protect water quality. Chief among the
    strategies for most of these sub-watersheds is an emphasis on expanded
    voluntary forest management and farm conservation practices in concert
    with NRCS.
    Agriculture in the Delaware Watershed
        There is substantial diversity among private landowners in the
    region, often presenting a challenge to one-size-fits-all conservation
    planning. Farms tend to be small and ownership is complex. For example
    in New Jersey, food and agriculture is the third largest industry, but
    the average farm size is only 80 acres. Much of the farmed land in the
    region is leased, which necessitates engaging both farmers and
    landowners in discussions about conservation. Plain Sect farmers, who
    are less likely to participate in government cost-share programs,
    predominate in areas of southeastern Pennsylvania. In addition, there
    are a number of small operators involved in producing and supplying
    locally grown foods for direct marketing.
        Agriculture acreage is mostly in a corn/soybean rotation with
    wheat; however, there is some striking variation among producers across
    the watershed. As the Garden State moniker would suggest, vegetable
    farming is common in eastern and southern New Jersey, along with
    perennial crops like blueberries and peaches, sod, and nursery
    production. In Pennsylvania, tobacco production continues to be a
    significant cash crop. Livestock operations are spread throughout the
    region and consist mainly of small- and medium-sized dairies. Poultry
    houses are becoming more numerous in northern Berks County, and the
    surrounding area includes a sizeable number of equine operations.
    Mushroom production is a unique feature of the agricultural economy in
    Chester County, where more than \1/2\ of the mushrooms produced in the
    United States are raised.
        The upper portion of the watershed is largely private forest and is
    the source of much of the watershed's exceptionally clean water. The
    majority of family forest owners are near or past retirement age, and
    these tracts are especially vulnerable to degradation, fragmentation,
    and development. In addition, many larger forest tracts are owned by
    hunting and fishing clubs or organizations that host summer camps.
    There are high rates of seasonal use and absentee landownership.
        As the partners of the DRWI began to develop and implement
    collaborative strategies to address these challenges, the launch of the
    Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) was a remarkably
    timely opportunity tailor-made to deliver a conservation program with a
    complimentary focus on water quality. Additionally, it was one that was
    particularly responsive to the aforementioned varied landscape and
    landowner characteristics throughout the region, as well as the local
    priorities and strategies specific to each priority sub-watershed.
    Delaware Watershed Working Lands Conservation Partnership
        In late 2014, NFWF, in partnership with American Farmland Trust and
    a dozen other partners, was awarded a 5 year, $13 million RCPP from
    NRCS for the Delaware Watershed Working Lands Conservation and
    Protection Partnership. Of particular importance, the Partnership is
    leveraging $17.6 million in cash and in-kind resources from partners,
    including significant match from the William Penn Foundation's
    investment in the DRWI.
        Additional collaborators and supporters of the RCPP include: Cape
    Atlantic Conservation District; Berks County Conservation District;
    Chester County Conservation District; North Jersey Resource
    Conservation and Development (RC&D); Stroud Water Research Center;
    Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed; Natural Lands Trust; The
    Land Conservancy; Partnership for the Delaware Estuary; Berks County
    Conservancy; New Jersey Water Association; Pinchot Institute for
    Conservation; Brandywine Conservancy; Wallkill River Watershed
    Management Group; Catskill Forest Association; Delaware Highlands
    Conservancy; Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
    Resources; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; New
    Jersey Forest Service; and the American Mushroom Institute.
        This RCPP project is designed to address water quality as the
    primary resource concern in the Delaware Watershed. Secondarily, the
    project will prioritize efforts to reduce forest fragmentation and
    habitat degradation in the headwaters, and protect water quantity in
    the lower reaches of the basin, which is a growing concern as aquifers
    experience overdrafts from irrigation.
        The partnership is guided by a comprehensive approach to voluntary
    agricultural and forestland conservation at the sub-watershed scale,
    drawing on the assessment and targeting performed to establish the
    DRWI. In areas dominated by farmland, the partnership builds on the
    NRCS models for minimizing pollution at the source, and maximizing
    nature's ability to slow and filter polluted runoff (including ``Avoid,
    Control, Trap'' and the ``Four Rs'' nutrient management concept).
    Farmers can reduce polluted runoff through practices to minimize excess
    fertilizer and pesticide use, control erosion from exposed soils and
    barnyards, and treat nutrients by restoring wetlands and forested
    streamside buffers.
        In forested areas, the partnership assists landowners in developing
    and implementing forest management practices that improve forest health
    and resilience, while protecting water resources.
        Broadly, the partnership aims to improve the delivery of technical
    assistance to landowners by growing the capacity of traditional
    agriculture organizations such as conservation districts, while also
    working with a large network of community-based nonprofits to improve
    how they work with the agricultural community to deliver voluntary
    conservation.
        For example, the partnership is supporting new technical assistance
    staff in three conservation districts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
    as well as at the North Jersey RC&D. These positions will specifically
    reduce the bottleneck in implementing cost-shared conservation by
    focusing on whole farm conservation planning and practice design. This
    support has been especially well-received in New Jersey, where
    conservation districts are largely focused on erosion and sediment
    control programs and have limited (and often overloaded) staff devoted
    to agriculture.
        Private matching funds are being used to provide training and
    funding to local land trusts and watershed organizations so that they
    can continue to build the pipeline of projects and hone their outreach
    skills. These organizations often have strong landowner relationships
    but lack knowledge and understanding about how landowners can access
    cost-share funding and which conservation practices are most cost-
    effective at achieving water quality outcomes and on-farm benefits for
    any given farm. Armed with training and assessment tools, these
    organizations are key allies in accelerating the pace of conservation.
        A key element of the RCPP design that will be critical to its
    success is that the partnership is able to establish criteria used to
    rank and prioritize the allocation of cost-share funding. For the
    Delaware RCPP, projects are given priority if they occur in one of the
    DRWI priority sub-watersheds and will improve water quality. The
    partnerships also are able to give greater priority to projects
    addressing the greatest local needs. For example, in Pennsylvania, the
    local partnership has prioritized livestock operations that are within
    100-200 of a stream or wetland. And in southern New Jersey, they have
    prioritized irrigation projects that conserve water and projects that
    improve groundwater recharge for the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer.
        The partnership is enhanced with dedicated and flexible
    implementation funding from the WPP and other sources to incentivize
    participation by producers. The use of private funding provides
    streamlined access to implementation funding for some practices and
    encourages participation by some landowners who prefer not to use
    government funding. Private funds also are being used to test
    innovative incentives like conservation vouchers, bonus payments, and
    higher rates of cost-share in exchange for implementing the highest
    priority practices. We have found early on that the blend of this
    targeted, private investment with the RCPP is driving conservation to
    the places it is needed most and can have the greatest impact.
        In only its first few months, the project is on its way toward its
    initial 5 year goals to work with 1,100 landowners, to implement
    conservation on at least 16,750 acres, and to improve management of
    20,000 acres of working forests.
        Indeed, the Delaware Watershed Working Lands Conservation
    Partnership has the potential to dramatically accelerate conservation,
    and to build a stronger, more capable, network among the agricultural
    communities and local nonprofits in the region.
    Other Successful NFWF Agriculture Partnerships
        NFWF has dozens of examples of programs across the country that
    leverage public and private funding to accelerate the pace of voluntary
    conservation on working lands. For example:
    Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund
        In 2015, NFWF formed a public-private partnership to restore
    monarch butterfly habitat. Over the past 20 years, the North American
    monarch population has plunged from one billion to less than 60
    million, due mostly to loss of critical habitat. The partnership, which
    includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, NRCS, several state Soil and
    Water Conservation Districts, the Texas Farm Bureau, and Monsanto, is
    establishing critical monarch habitat in nine central states by
    enrolling private landowners in the Conservation Stewardship Program
    and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. In its first year,
    the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund awarded $3.8 million to 23
    projects that will restore over 50,000 acres of monarch habitat on
    working lands.
        NFWF has just been awarded a new $5.6 million Monarch RCPP that
    will expand the program and spread the focus.
    Money, Water, and Wildlife in Kentucky's Tobacco Country
        NFWF is partnering with Kentucky NRCS and Altria to help transition
    tobacco growers to continuous no-till. Kentucky has been a leader in
    adoption of conservation tillage practices that improve soil health,
    reduce polluted runoff, and reduce fuel and labor costs associated with
    tilling; however, tobacco growers have been late to adopt no-till
    because of technological barriers. This partnership has supported
    technical assistance positions in two conservation districts, and also
    used private funding to purchase equipment that can be rented out to
    farmers who are not ready to make the significant capital investment in
    a practice that is unproven on their farm. In addition to providing
    vital private funding, Altria is able to use its relationship as a
    tobacco buyer to initiate conversations with otherwise uninterested
    landowners.
    Gulf Coast Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative
        In the days following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, NFWF and
    NRCS worked with farmers, ranchers, foresters, and private landowners
    across the Gulf states to create over 500,000 acres of wetland habitat
    for migrating waterfowl. Because of this initiative, millions of
    migrating birds had access to non-oiled or threatened habitat. This
    valuable partnership continues with rice growers and other farmers in
    the Gulf region. NRCS and NFWF have established a goal to partner on
    $100 million worth of projects over the next 5 years.
    Conclusion
        Again, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to share just
    a few of the innovative conservation efforts of NFWF partners and
    grantees. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

        The Chairman. You did fine. Thank you very much, and
    actually, you have great details on those three other programs
    that you touched on very quickly that is included in your
    written testimony, so thank you for that.
        Mr. Price, go ahead and proceed whenever you are ready.

     STATEMENT OF FRANK PRICE, OWNER, FRANK AND SIMS PRICE RANCH;
                   MEMBER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
                     ASSOCIATION, STERLING CITY, TX

        Mr. Price. My son and I operate a ranching enterprise,
    raising sheep and cattle, as well as a hunting operation based
    on Sterling City, Texas. My son and I have run the ranch, which
    dates back to 1876, with two goals in mind. The first is that
    the ranch must be operated on standalone basis, where we follow
    a strict budget and expect the operation to show an annual
    profit. Our second goal, like many other ranchers, is to leave
    the land in better condition for future generations. We serve
    to make our ranch land sustainable, which increases
    productivity, even after the land is utilized for grazing.
        Ranching in west Texas comes with its fair share of
    difficult times. However, we have been able to keep our
    operation sustainable during those hard times by utilizing
    voluntary conservation programs and applying management
    practices that enhance the operation. Drought is a common
    problem in west Texas, and it requires adaptability and forward
    thinking to maintain the resources on the ranch.
        In 2011 and 2012, we were challenged with one of the worst
    droughts in the generation, 100 consecutive days of 100 or
    higher, a total rainfall of 5\1/2\" for the year. Water was
    virtually nonexistent, wildfires were prevalent, but we were
    able to survive and remain sustainable because of our grazing
    management practices and the opportunity to work with the
    NRCS's voluntary conservation programs to improve our ranch and
    make our grasslands resilient.
        By utilizing the conservation planning of the NRCS and the
    National Grazing Lands Coalition, in addition to the
    development of innovative grazing technologies, we have
    increased perennial grasses on the ranch, improved ground
    cover, greatly reduced soil erosion due to both wind and water,
    reduced labor inputs, and ensured adequate forage for the
    livestock and wildlife populations on the ranch. Furthermore,
    by implementing these programs, we were able to keep expenses
    down by lowering feed, fuel, equipment, and labor costs,
    improving profitability of our operation.
        Through the help of NRCS and voluntary conservation
    programs, we have been able to make our ranchland more drought
    tolerant. We have achieved that by installing groundwater
    storage systems connected by an extensive pipeline system, and
    improved our grasses on the ranch with utilizing brush control.
    We use a variety of ways to reduce brush by including
    prescribed burns, mechanical, and chemical treatment. We leave
    the large trees in place to create a savannah-type range land.
    The resulting increased water availability, grass cover, and
    shading properties of the savannah landscape improves the
    welfare for the livestock, wildlife, and the ranchmen alike. It
    is truly a win/win situation.
        When wildfire came through our ranch in 2011, we had to
    rebuild miles of fencing. EQIP gave us the opportunity to
    reposition some of those fences to better adapt to our grazing
    program. One of the reasons EQIP has become popular among
    ranchers is because it is a working lands program, conservation
    programs that enhance the land's production do not limit its
    use for both the ranchers and conservation of our resources.
    CSP, Conservation Stewardship Program, is another program that
    I use to improve my land, water, and wildlife habitats.
        The biggest point I would like to make is that voluntary
    part of conservation programs is what really makes it work for
    ranchers. We have had excellent success in using these
    programs, but just because the practices work for my family
    does not mean it is right for everybody. It is important that
    we keep these programs funded to safeguard their continued
    success, and above all else, these programs must stay
    voluntary.
        I believe that economic activity and conservation go hand
    in hand, and we are always looking for new innovative
    conservation programs that will have tangible benefits for the
    environment and help improve our ranching lands. USDA's
    conservation programs have been a great asset to cattle
    producers and it is important that these programs continue to
    be implemented in the same practical, producer-friendly,
    voluntary manner for years to come. Together, we can sustain
    our country's natural resources and economic prosperity,
    ensuring our way of life for future generations.
        I appreciate the opportunity to visit to you, and look
    forward to answering any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Frank Price, Owner, Frank and Sims Price Ranch;
        Member, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sterling City, TX
        Good afternoon, my name is Frank Price. My son and I operate a
    ranching enterprise, raising cattle and sheep, as well as a hunting
    operation based in Sterling City, Texas. I am a member of the National
    Cattlemen's Beef Association and am testifying before you today
    representing the many cattle feeders and family ranchers, who each have
    a stake in protecting the environment. Thank you Chairman Thompson and
    Ranking Member [Lujan] Grisham for allowing me to testify today on
    voluntary conservation in agriculture.
        U.S. cattlemen own and manage considerably more land than any other
    segment of agriculture--or any other industry for that matter.
    Cattlemen graze cattle on approximately 666.4 million acres of the
    approximately 2 billion acres of the U.S. land mass. In addition, the
    acreage used to grow hay, feed grains, and food grains add millions
    more acres of land under cattlemen's stewardship and private ownership.
    Some of the biggest challenges and threats to our industry come from
    the loss of our natural resources. The livestock industry is threatened
    daily by urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government
    overreach. Since our livelihood is made on the land, through the
    utilization of our natural resources, being good stewards of the land
    not only makes good environmental sense; it is fundamental for our
    industry to remain strong. We strive to operate as environmentally
    friendly as possible, and it is through voluntary conservation programs
    that ranchers will continue to be a proud partner with the government
    to reach our environmental conservation goals.
        My son and I represent the fourth and fifth generations of the
    Price family to ranch in west Texas. Our Ranch dates back to 1876, when
    my great-grandfather began ranching at the age of eighteen. We now
    operate on 68,000 acres of land spanning across four counties in west
    Texas. My son and I run the ranch with two goals in mind: the first
    goal is that the ranch must be operated as a stand-alone business,
    where we follow a strict budget and expect the operation to show an
    annual profit. Our second goal, like many other ranchers, is to leave
    the land in better condition for future generations. The primary way we
    are able to preserve the land, as well as our ranching heritage for
    future generations, is through innovative practices and voluntary
    conservation programs.
        Ranching in west Texas comes with its fair share of difficult
    times, as it does for my fellow cattlemen across the country. However,
    we have been able to keep our operation sustainable during those hard
    times, by utilizing voluntary conservation programs and applying
    management practices that enhance the operation. Drought is a common
    problem in west Texas and it requires adaptability and forward thinking
    to maintain the resources on the ranch. In 2011 and 2012, we were
    challenged with one of the worst droughts in a generation. Water was
    virtually nonexistent and wildfires were prevalent. But we were able to
    survive, and remain sustainable, because of our grazing management
    policies and the opportunity work with the NRCS's voluntary
    conservation programs to improve our ranch and make our grasslands
    resilient. These voluntary programs were a great benefit to many
    producers who, quite frankly, would not have survived without them.
        One way we made our ranch drought-resistant is by installing above
    ground water storage systems, connected by an extensive pipeline
    system, and by recycling rubber tires as drinking water troughs. This
    ensures our livestock and wildlife have adequate and reliable water
    throughout the year.
        We graze our cattle with a carefully managed grazing plan that we
    developed with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and
    the National Grazing Lands Coalition (NGLC) utilizing their
    conservation planning capabilities. We have learned that when you
    utilize a flexible, planned grazing program at a conservative rate,
    leave grass cover after you move out of a pasture, and give the
    rangeland adequate recovery time, you will grow more grass with limited
    rainfall. Through cooperation with state and local agencies, in
    addition to the development of innovative grazing strategies, we have
    increased perennial grasses on the ranch, improved ground cover,
    greatly reduced soil erosion due to both wind and water, reduced labor
    inputs, and ensured adequate forage for livestock and wildlife
    populations on the ranch. Our grazing strategy is a big part of why
    we've been able to keep the ranch resilient and sustainable.
    Furthermore, by implementing these programs we are able to keep
    expenses down by lowering feed, fuel and equipment costs, thus
    improving profitability of our operation.
        Another key to improving the grasses on our ranch is brush control,
    which we often do in partnership with NRCS. We use a variety of ways to
    reduce brush including prescribed burns and mechanical treatment. We
    leave the bigger trees in to give the grasslands a savannah effect
    which also provides shade for the cattle, improving their welfare.
        We are strong advocates of prescribed fire on the rangeland. We try
    to mimic the fire conditions that nature learned to deal with hundreds
    of thousands of years ago. It is a very good tool within our tool box
    of land improvement measures. NRCS and the GLCI have provided valuable
    assistance in our burning endeavors.
        The Environmental Quality Incentive Program, or EQIP, is a cost-
    share program that rewards and provides incentives to producers for
    implementing conservation practices. When wildfire came through our
    ranch in 2011, we had to rebuild miles of fencing. EQIP helped us do
    it. One of the reasons EQIP has become popular among ranchers is
    because it is a working-lands program. Conservation programs that keep
    land in production and do not limit its use are best for both the
    ranchers and conserving our resources.
        Another working lands program is the Conservation Stewardship
    Program. CSP rewards those of us that have been conservationists and
    have spent the time and money in the improving of our land, water, and
    wildlife habitats. CSP offers cattlemen the opportunity to earn
    payments for actively managing, maintaining, and expanding conservation
    activities like cover crops, rotational grazing, ecologically-based
    pest management, and buffer strips..
        NRCS personnel are a tremendous resource for the ranchmen. In
    recent years local NRCS personnel are prevented from going to training
    sessions given at the Society of Range Management and Grasslands
    Conservation Initiative meetings. We as ranchmen must have well
    informed NRCS personnel to move forward with innovative conservation
    practices. They are our first go to source of knowledge.
        The biggest point I'd like you to take away from this hearing is
    that the ``voluntary'' part of the conservation programs is what really
    makes it work for ranchers. We've had success using some of these
    conservation programs, but just because this system works for us does
    not mean it's right for everybody. It's important that we keep these
    programs funded to safeguard their continued success, and above all
    else--these programs must stay voluntary. A one-size-fits-all approach
    that accompanies top-down regulation does not work. If these programs
    were to become mandatory, the rules and regulations that farmers and
    ranchers would be subjected to would make it harder for them to utilize
    the unique conservation practices that help their individual operations
    thrive.
        I believe that economic activity and conservation go hand in hand
    and we are always looking for new, innovative conservation programs
    that will have tangible benefits for the environment, and help to
    improve our ranching lands. USDA's conservation programs have been a
    great asset to cattle producers and it is important that these programs
    continue to be implemented in the same practical, producer friendly,
    and voluntary manner for years to come to ensure that cattlemen will
    continue to have the ability to do what we do best--produce the world's
    safest, most nutritious, abundant and affordable protein while
    operating in the most environmentally friendly way possible Together we
    can sustain our country's natural resources and economic prosperity,
    ensuring the viability of our way of life for future generations. I
    appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today. Thank you for your
    time, and I welcome any questions you may have.

        The Chairman. Mr. Price, thank you so much.
        Mr. Bowman, go ahead and proceed whenever you are ready for
    5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF RICHARD BOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF
       GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, LANSING, MI

        Mr. Bowman. Great. Thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member. I am really pleased to be here. I wasn't sure
    at 6 o'clock when it was 14 and blowing snow sideways in
    Michigan that I was going to make it, but we did get here.
        I want to give you a slightly different view on
    conservation and innovation at The Nature Conservancy. While we
    have agricultural projects all around the country and of other
    countries, I am going to focus on our work in Michigan.
        One of the challenges that we face is that conservation
    isn't cheap. It has to be paid for, we make our living based
    upon the fact that members and donors believe that we are
    making a difference, and this is why they write us a check and
    give us that money. And so we ask ourselves all the time the
    question, how much conservation is enough, and how effectively
    are we actually getting conservation done? And as a result of
    that, we have made a lot of investment in recent years in
    tools, and rather than showing slides, I actually have up on
    the screen live one of the tools that we developed that we used
    in a project in a watershed in Michigan we did jointly with
    Coca Cola. They actually provided us some private funding for
    this, and they were interested in buying water offsets for the
    water that they were using to make product, and we said well,
    you can do it by paying farmers through agricultural
    conservation. They said no, you don't understand. We don't want
    to buy conservation practices, we want to buy gallons of water.
    And so what this tool actually allowed the technician to do out
    in the field is to sit down with the producer in their living
    room, just like this, and zoom into their farm and zoom into a
    field, and fairly quickly go in and select a producer's field.
    They went, did this, and then when they selected the field, the
    tool brings up a pull down menu. This predates Google Earth, so
    this is actually based on our GIS and the NRCS's soils maps and
    topography maps, and it tells you the size of the field and the
    relative parcels, and then you just go in and tell how you are
    currently farming the field. We will say conventional row crop
    agriculture, and the producer is considering switching to no-
    till, and when you tell it to calculate in about \1/2\ a second
    how much the increase or decrease in groundwater recharge will
    be as a result of that practice on that field. And this project
    was paying farmers $1.60 per thousand gallons, or something
    like that.
        And so as Mr. Price mentioned, conservation ultimately is a
    business decision for the producer, and they decided whether or
    not they were willing to make that change, based upon that
    payment. And that actually allowed us to get the fields where
    we had either the most impact, because the payment was the
    highest, or fields where well we didn't get as much impact. We
    didn't pay very much for them, and in my written testimony near
    the end, I talked about what I think the next opportunities for
    conservation are. And if there is any weakness to the way we
    practice conservation right now, it is the fact that we pay for
    practices in hopes of an outcome, instead of paying for
    outcomes regardless of the practice. And in order to pay for
    outcomes, as Chief Weller so eloquently talked about, we have
    to develop the scientific knowledge to quantify those outcomes.
    Mr. Benishek, we refer to them as those response curves. If you
    take two aspirin to make your headache go away, don't 20
    aspirin make it go away faster? Well, maybe not. Maybe there
    actually is an appropriate level of conservation to apply to a
    site. And then also really thinking about how we specifically
    deploy tools.
        The last thing I would say is in order to really magnify
    our conservation impact, we have another tool that I am not
    showing you today, because it is a little more complicated, but
    we have put it into the hands of about 120 certified crop
    advisors in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan, and they are now
    talking about conservation as part of the farmers' entire
    management program. That is an RCPP project where we then make
    a referral to NRCS for the technical and financial assistance
    for those growers who are interested in those conservation
    practices.
        And with that, I would be happy to answer any of your
    questions when we get to that portion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Richard Bowman, Director of Government Relations,
                      The Nature Conservancy, Lansing, MI
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Grisham and Members of the
    Committee:

        Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Rich Bowman and
    for the past 10 years I have served as the Director of Government
    Relations for the Michigan Operating Unit of The Nature Conservancy
    (TNC). Prior to that, I served for 6 years as the Executive Director of
    Trout Unlimited in Michigan and started my career in policy almost 30
    years ago as a member of the Staff of the Michigan Farm Bureau. I am
    also a fourth generation farmer from Michigan and while I have not
    actively farmed for a number of years, my brother still manages the
    home farm in southern Michigan and I believe it is hard to seriously
    care about the stewardship of natural resources without taking an
    interest in agriculture and forestry.
        The Nature Conservancy is one of the world's leading conservation
    organizations, with over 3,500 staff working in every U.S. state and 35
    other countries on every continent on the planet and a mission to
    protect the broad array of natural systems upon which all life depends.
    Everyone associated with TNC takes pride in the fact that we are a non-
    confrontational, solutions oriented organization. We stick strongly to
    our values, but also recognize that at the end of the day if we haven't
    solved the problem, being ``right'' about the issue has a hollow ring
    at best. We also are committed to basing our work on sound science and
    we put our money where our mouth is. Over 25% of our staff are Ph.D.
    scientists and are global leaders in their area of expertise. They
    challenge our assumptions and test our work to make sure our supporters
    resources are used on work that is replicable, meaningful and
    impactful.
        In Michigan, we have over 50 staff and manage nature preserves and
    reserves totaling over 33,000 acres including a commercial forest
    reserve in the Upper Peninsula that encompasses over 26,000 acres.
        Additionally, we have helped the State of Michigan, as well as
    Federal and private partners secure conservation on over 300,000
    additional acres through easements, acquisitions and management
    agreements. And we have worked with many private forest and farm land
    owners and managers helping them improve the health and productivity of
    their property.
        Being in the heart of the Great Lakes, TNC has had an ongoing
    interest in the health of our aquatic systems, and with agriculture
    occupying nearly 40% of Michigan's land area, how agriculture is
    practiced can have a profound effect on the health and function of our
    lakes, streams and the Great Lakes.
        Almost twenty years ago we started with a small demonstration
    project with a few growers in one watershed in central Michigan. Today
    we are leading a conservation partnership in the Saginaw Bay Region in
    Michigan that includes the watersheds of six entire rivers, and
    partners with over 100 Certified Crop Advisors, dozens of agronomy
    suppliers and purchasers of ag products and the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service to eliminate any ag related water quality concern
    that could limit the health of the aquatic organisms in those river
    systems. And that is only one of dozens of projects that TNC as a whole
    has in ag regions around North America and globally.
        The topic today is innovation and technology and I am going to
    share with you three innovations we are bringing to agricultural
    conservation and the technology we are continuing to develop to support
    those innovations. I will close with a few observations about how we
    could speed the pace of innovation through policy.
        An innovation is by definition nothing more than a new solution to
    an old problem. So let's start by defining the problems around which we
    want to innovate. They are:

      1.  How much Conservation is ``enough''?

      2.  Every field is different, but how they are different matters.

      3.  There aren't enough ``boots-on-the-ground'' helping farmers
                practice conservation.
    How Much Conservation is ``enough''?
        Many of us in the conservation community have promoted as the idea
    that we can never have too much ``conservation''. Some individuals have
    legitimately challenged this idea by saying unlimited conservation is
    akin to saying if two aspirin are good to make ones headache go away,
    then 20 must be better. The real problem here is the lack of a clear
    definition of the conservation outcome we want to achieve and the
    understanding of the ``treatment'' to achieving that outcome.
        The innovation we developed in Michigan is something we call an
    ``Ecological Response Curve''. Fisheries scientists have studied fish
    response to water quality for years. And starting about 15 years ago,
    USDA through the Natural Resources Conservation Service initiated a
    program called the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP). The
    purpose of CEAP is to specifically quantify the relationship between
    conservation best management practices (BMP's) and the impact those
    BMP's have on ecological services like water quality and wildlife. By
    taking the CEAP data on a practice(s) impacts on water quality and
    aligning it with fish community response to water quality, our
    scientists could draw a relationship where they could say how many
    acres in a watershed need to be treated with specific practices to
    achieve a healthy fish community; in essence the equivalent of how many
    aspirin you need to take to make the headache go away for a watershed.
    We are currently working with USDA and other partners to complete this
    same type of analysis for the Western Lake Erie Basin.
        Our scientists were able to refine this analysis even further, in
    partnership with the CEAP scientists, by determining which water
    quality component was actually the limiting factor on the biological
    community on every stream segment in all of the watersheds in southern
    Michigan and Wisconsin. This understanding becomes key because if
    farmers are applying (and taxpayers are supporting) practices to reduce
    nitrogen, and the limiting factor is phosphorus, we can spend a lot of
    time and money and not solve our problem; to extend the medical
    analogy, aspirin is good for a headache, but maybe not very effective
    for heartburn.
    Every Field is Different
        In 2007, TNC in Michigan and the Michigan Farm Bureau held a
    meeting to discuss the conservation title of the farm bill to see where
    we might work together. To our mutual surprise, we agreed on almost
    every policy concept except one, the ``targeting'' of conservation
    programs to specific watersheds or geographies. Our colleagues from the
    Farm Bureau told us it wasn't that they disagreed that problems might
    come from a specific area or that some fields contributed more to
    problems than others, it was that their members didn't feel that the
    science behind targeting was field specific enough to justify giving a
    benefit to one member over another. This conversation became the basis
    for our second innovation.
        The Institute of Water Research (IWR) at Michigan State University
    had been working with the Army Corps of Engineers to develop GIS based
    models to predict where sediment was coming from. We approached IWR and
    asked them if they could incorporate factors into the model about
    sediment and nutrient loads and build a tool where we could analyze the
    impact of specific practices on specific fields. The result is the
    Great Lakes Watershed Management System (GLWMS).
        The GLWMS is a publicly available web-based tool that allows anyone
    who wants to use it to do an analysis of the changes in groundwater
    recharge as well as sediment and nutrient loading to the nearest body
    of surface water based upon the application of one or more conservation
    best management practices. GLWMS also has the ability to aggregate the
    total of those changes on a watershed or sub-watershed basis. This
    means our ecological response curves can tell us how much we need to do
    to get a healthy fishery in a watershed and GLWMS can tell us how much
    a specific practice in a specific field will contribute, and by keeping
    track of what is done it can tell us how close we are to solving the
    problem.
        The GLWMS is currently available in four watersheds in the Great
    Lakes region, the Saginaw Basin in Michigan, The Fox River Basin in
    Wisconsin, the Western Basin of Lake Erie in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan
    and the Genesee in New York. The web address is www.iwr.msu.edu/glwms
    or simply put ``Great Lakes Watershed Management System'' into your
    favorite search engine and then go in and play around with the tool.
    While it takes a little knowledge of field based conservation
    practices, it is a relatively intuitive site.
    Not Enough ``Boots-on-the-Ground''
        Early in our work in agriculture in Michigan, we funded a
    technician in a local soil and water conservation district office.
    While the technician did good work, we soon realized there was a limit
    to the number of farmers that the technician could talk to and we
    needed to increase the number of growers we could reach and influence,
    something within our organization we call project leverage. For many in
    the conservation community, the answer to this problem is a lot more
    public funding for a lot more technicians. While this works in theory,
    the reality of the financial limits of government probably don't make
    this pragmatically unlikely.
        The solution once again came from a partner, the Michigan Agri-
    Business Association (MABA). MABA leadership had heard about the work
    we were doing with CEAP, ecological response curves and the GLWMS and
    they approached us and suggested we partner on a proposal under the
    newly created Regional Conservation Partnership Program. We would bring
    the defined outcomes and site specific analytic tools and they would
    bring the boots on the ground in the form of over 100 Certified Crop
    Advisors who would discuss conservation best management practices with
    their customers, which are virtually every farmer in the Saginaw Bay
    region.
        Additionally, we are trying to use the innovations we develop to
    make the ``boots-on-the-ground'' we have more efficient. We used the
    GLWMS to pre-screen and identify fields in the watershed that have the
    highest potential for positive conservation impact and provide that
    information in the form of maps to Certified Crop Advisors so they can
    pre-plan their visits with their grower customers. And we are working
    with our tool developer, IWR and NRCS to find a way to import data from
    GLWMS into the application material a grower must fill out to receive
    cost-share financial assistance from the NRCS. It is our aim to
    eventually have a system where the grower and his crop advisor could
    determine the appropriate conservation practices, apply for financial
    assistance and submit all the required documentation without the grower
    having to physically make a trip to a USDA service center.
        This project is new, just initiated over the last 11 months, and is
    an experiment in the delivery of conservation technical assistance. It
    is not without its growing pains. We are managing through the suspicion
    of the government agency field staff of the motivations of the private-
    sector and their commitment to ``Getting it right'' and the reverse
    suspicion of the private-sector towards the government agency staff of
    not caring about the business realities they and their customers face
    and the bureaucracy of government. We are seeing these suspicions
    diminish as we work together to stand this project up and are confident
    that as we all learn about each other's constraints we will solve
    future problems as they arise.
    One Final Innovation
        One of the weaknesses of our current voluntary conservation program
    is that they don't have a mechanism to really take into account the
    business realities of growers. The closest we have come is land set
    aside programs where growers bid to enroll land and we accept the
    lowest bidder. This gives us the most acres for the least dollars, but
    simply retiring or treating acres may not solve the environmental
    issues we wish to address. In farm country it was commonly know that
    farmers put their least productive land into conservation uses and keep
    their best land in production, which is how they maximize their return
    on investment. The problem is, some of that land that is really
    productive may also provide significant conservation benefits, but
    should we pay more if we get more.
        In our Saginaw Bay work, we have some non-NRCS money that we are
    using to incentivize farmers to put in conservation best management
    practices on a Pay for Performance basis. Using the GLWMS, we analyze
    the increase in groundwater recharge or decrease in sediment load and
    then offer a payment based on those outputs, (gallons of water or tons
    of sediment). We don't care how the farmer farms, what we care about,
    and pay for, are the result of what he does. We believe that
    calculating the unit of output and then pricing it, is in the long run
    the most cost effective way to get the conservation outcomes we need.
        Thank you for your attention, I would be happy to answer any
    questions.

        The Chairman. Okay, Mr. Bowman, thank you very much.
        I now recognize Mr. Rodelius for 5 minutes of testimony. Go
    ahead.

              STATEMENT OF KENT RODELIUS, VICE PRESIDENT,
        AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT COALITION, WILLMAR, MN

        Mr. Rodelius. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you
    very much for this opportunity to speak with you today. I am
    here representing the Agricultural Drainage Management
    Coalition. I spent the last 30 years in the drainage industry
    traveling the Midwest. Today, I would like to give you a brief
    overview of water table management, and tell you about some
    exciting innovations.
        So what is water table management, or subsurface tile
    drainage? There is a flash drive in your testimony I sent that
    has a video of how this really works.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: the video can be seen at: https://www.dropbox.com/
    s/yay97i8ampancx7/Ag%20Water%20Management%20101%20.mp4?dl=0.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are three important components to a system. Commonly,
    plastic pipes called tile are installed beneath the surface of
    agricultural fields to collect water. These tile lines are
    usually buried 3 to 4 deep and spaced about 40 to 80 apart.
    These lines are laterals that then run into main that conveys
    the water to the outlet. The outlet is where the main empties
    the water out of the field, usually into a ditch.
        So why install tile? Why is this practice so widely used?
    Here are a few of the benefits.
        The number one reason is increased yield. Farmers get a 15
    to 25 percent increase in production. Tile reduces soil erosion
    and keeps the topsoil on the land. It stores water in the soil
    profile, and can reduce flooding. Farmers can plant earlier in
    the spring and harvest on time in the fall, and by managing
    their water, farmers are able to better utilize the potential
    of their seed and other inputs. It is far more economical to
    increase production through tile than to farm more acres.
        The NRCS has long held that subsurface drainage is the best
    management practice. In the 1940s through the 1970s, the USDA
    had a vigorous cost-share program to encourage farmers to
    install subsurface drainage. It is estimated that during that
    time period, more than 50 million acres were artificially
    drained. These systems are still very effective in managing the
    water table, and increasing crop production.
        The 1985 Federal Farm Bill introduced conservation
    compliance. A new swampbuster provision was adopted. Any
    producer in the farm program could no longer drain a wetland.
    Landowners have continued to install tile, but now for the
    purpose of managing water and crop production. Any current
    drainage work requires permits and is highly regulated by
    several agencies. Tile drainage is often viewed as the culprit
    for nitrogen and phosphorus in our water. You need look no
    further than the Des Moines Waterworks lawsuit. But most of
    these nutrients would move into our water bodies, even if there
    was no tile.
        Currently, there are about 300 million acres of cropland in
    the U.S. About 100 million of those acres have some type of
    artificial drainage. But are there new and better ideas we
    should consider for drainage systems?
        The ADMC was started in 2003 to find solutions and
    practices that improve and maintain agronomic production while
    producing environmental benefits. Today, we have developed new
    technology and innovations that allow us to install smart
    drainage. With these new systems, we can harvest and treat
    water before it exits the system. A variety of drainage water
    management practices can dramatically improve the environmental
    outcomes. These practices help to reduce the risk of farmers
    losing their crop, improve wildlife habitat, reduce the risk of
    flooding, and minimize the loss of nutrients. The following
    practices are smart drainage solutions. All of these
    innovations allow us to capture and treat water and remove
    significant amounts of nutrients. They are controlled drainage,
    saturated buffers, woodchip bioreactors, and sub-irrigation
    systems. We can also retrofit these practices on many acres of
    existing tile systems.
        The NRCS and the ADMC have a great working relationship. In
    2011, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the ADMC
    and the NRCS. This memorandum calls for the ADMC to train and
    certify technical service providers to help with the
    implementation of smart drainage technology for water
    management practices. Many of these practices are eligible for
    NRCS cost-share money.
        In conclusion, the challenge we face is to feed nine
    billion people while maintaining water quality and economic
    viability on the farm. We need to implement these innovative
    conservation practices using smart systems of drainage water
    management. These practices are proven and cost-effective in
    enhancing water quality on working lands.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rodelius follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Kent Rodelius, Vice President, Agricultural
                   Drainage Management Coalition, Willmar, MN
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Kent
    Rodelius, Vice President of the Agricultural Drainage Water Management
    Coalition \1\ and am here today representing that group. I am also the
    Agricultural Sales Manager at Prinsco and Chair of the Associates for
    the National Land Improvement Contractors of America. The purpose of
    the ADMC is to promote public and private partnerships committed to
    improving water quality, wildlife habitat, and agronomicsthrough water
    management, research and education.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The ADMC is a collaboration of agricultural producers,
    agricultural industry corporations, conservation groups and others to
    advance water quality and agricultural productivity. http://
    admcoalition.com/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have personally worked in the drainage industry traveling the
    Midwest for the past 30 years.
        It is estimated that we will soon have nine billion people in the
    world to feed. And demand will grow well beyond just population growth.
    Three Indicators of World Food Demand

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: Iowa State, Bruce Babcock.

        We have the land resources, technology and seed varieties to feed
    the world but without managing our water we will not be able to meet
    this challenge.
        The key question of our time is how to address this need while
    maintaining a productive environment. Can we manage the tension this
    creates, such as hypoxia zones and harmful algal blooms that are
    occurring in areas like the Gulf of Mexico, Western Lake Erie Basin,
    Chesapeake Bay and other, with challenges like that exemplified by the
    Des Moines Water Works Clean Water Act lawsuit and other environmental
    questions.
    Managing Agricultural Drainage Systems
        Today I would like to share with you some history and information
    on the current status of water table management in the U.S.
        It is critical that we all have a basic understanding of water
    table management or sub-surface drainage systems.
        Agricultural drainage systems are designed to manage the water
    table below the ground surface. Commonly plastic pipe (generally called
    tile) is installed beneath the surface of agricultural lands to collect
    water. Those lines then run into a main that conveys the water out of
    the field. These mains eventually have and outlet; usually a ditch.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Egyptians and Romans are credited with some of the earliest
    drainage. Later on, the Northern Europeans developed extensive systems
    for drainage, and, as Northern Europeans immigrated to the Unites
    States they brought the practice of tiling with them.
        One of most significant development in drainage came as a result of
    the great Dust Bowl that occurred during the 1920's and 1930's. As a
    result of the vast amount of soil erosion caused by
        From the 1940's through the 1970's, USDA had a program called the
    Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). It was administered by the
    Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (now the Farm
    Service Agency) with technical assistance provided by the Soil
    Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service).
    During this time period USDA promoted drainage of farm land as a best
    practice to conserve soil and improve farm viability.
        This program provided cost-share that helped farmers pay the cost
    of wetland drainage. It was estimated that during this time period
    there were over 57 million acres drained. Much of this happened in the
    Midwest and great tracts of land came into production.
        So the question can be asked why all this drainage?
        The simple answer is economics and crop production.
        Here is a brief list of why people drain or manage the water table
    on their land:

      1.  Increase yields--15 to 20% increases;

      2.  Reduce soil erosion--keeps topsoil on the land;

      3.  Reduce phosphorous loss;

      4.  Store water in the soil profile--soil acts like a sponge--reduces
                flooding;

      5.  Allow timely planting and harvest; and

      6.  Reduce salinity (salt levels) of soils.

        However, the landscape changed dramatically with the implementation
    of the 1985 Farm Bill. This introduced the ``Swampbuster'' provision
    and Conservation Compliance.
        The new Swampbuster provision effectively ended Federal incentives
    to drain wetlands and made USDA program benefits contingent on farmers
    Not draining or manipulating wetlands.
        It is important to understand that today new drainage on farmland
    in the U.S. has virtually stopped and farmers know to ask NRCS for a
    wetland determination to make sure they don't inadvertently run afoul
    of Swampbuster.
        With drainage water management, we are not talking about draining
    wetlands but rather Managing the water on land that is already drained
    and upon which it is appropriate to install modern drainage.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              [The Extent of Farm Drainage in the United States, Figure 6.
            Percent of STATSGO map unit drained.]

        The graphic above shows the percentage of drained land in the U.S.
    and some groups are challenging farming practices and seeking solutions
    to water quality issues. Farm groups are looking for answers as well.
        And finding answers is the reason the ADMC was formed in 2003. Our
    goal is to find solutions and practices that help maintain and improve
    agronomic production while at the same time providing environmental
    benefits.
        Of the 300 million acres of row crop lands in the continental U.S.,
    approximately 100 million acres has tile drainage. As the chart below
    illustrates, in just nine states in the Upper Midwest, the NRCS
    estimates that approximately 30 million acres would benefit from DWM
    with existing technology today.
    Cropland Suitable Drainage Water Management

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              [February 1, 2012. Central National Technology Support
            Center. Fort Worth, TX Map 2012-42.]

        Managing drainage systems encompasses a set of conservation
    practices that can be implemented on a large scale that will produce
    equally large scale beneficial results such as improvements in water
    quality, flood reduction, wildlife habitat, and, for many practices,
    increases in farm economic viability and energy efficiency.

        Highlights of projects the ADMC has been working on:

        In 2006 we received a large Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG)
    from NRCS to demonstrate and assess the benefits of Drainage Water
    Management. This practice holds water back in the soil profile with a
    control structure on the outlet. The graphics below illustrates how
    water can be managed year round to maximize both crop production and
    environmental benefits.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We have been able to significantly reduce the nitrates in the water
    coming off these fields. Often we see a reduction of nitrates of 45% or
    more.
        We received another CIG grant in 2011 to demonstrate and quantify
    the benefits of saturated buffers to denitrify water in buffers along
    ditches and stream banks. As the Committee knows, across much of
    America we have built thousands of miles of buffers around agricultural
    fields to improve environmental outcomes. But typically only surface
    runoff runs through the buffer, most of the water circumvents the
    buffer by running through tile lines.
        Saturated buffers, a new practice developed by the Agricultural
    Research Service, directs water into the buffer where habitat is
    enhanced and water quality vastly improved.\2\ Saturated buffers will
    not work everywhere but they are one of the most cost effective tools
    available for improving water quality. I note, however, there is no on-
    farm benefit, so incentives will have to come from off the farm to
    support widespread adoption of this practice. NRCS is currently
    developing a conservation practice standard for financial assistance.
    Additional incentives could come from payments for ecosystem services
    and other market mechanisms. The graphic below provides an overview of
    how a saturated buffer functions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Data generated from this project indicates that properly
    designed saturated buffers can reduce nitrate concentrations in
    discharge waters below the limits of detection with modern analytical
    techniques! That is amazing performance at low cost. The cost of
    installing a saturated buffer is simply to install a control structure
    and seep lines to distribute water into the buffer. These findings are
    fully reported in ``Demonstrate and Evaluate Saturated Buffers at Field
    Scale to Reduce Nitrates and Phosphorus from Subsurface Field Drainage
    Systems'' December 15, 2015.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In 2011 the ADMC signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRCS
    to train and certify Technical Service Providers to help with
    implementation of approved practice.
        In addition, we are studying and implementing practices such as Bio
    Reactors and sub-irrigation.
        Bioreactors provide the habitat for bacteria that can ``digest''
    nitrates and strip them out of the water. They perform much like
    wetlands in this regard. They have the advantage of not taking land out
    of production.
        An operator can farm right over top of a bio reactor. Again the
    environmental return on investment is high,\3\ but, again, there are no
    on-farm benefits so outside incentives are required if this practice is
    to be widely adopted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ http://web.extension.illinois.edu/bioreactors/design.cfm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schematic of Bioreactor

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Sub-irrigation uses the same tile lines that take water out of the
    fields in times of excess and provide back into the growing zone during
    times of drought. With minor modification in the design and
    installation, the same system can move water out of or into the field.
    This eliminates the need for two systems to provide irrigation or
    drainage--a substantial capital saving. But the savings go well beyond
    that. Sub-irrigation uses less than \1/2\ the amount of water of
    conventional irrigation. In addition, Sub-irrigation allows the capture
    of tail water and enables the reuse of that water (and any nutrients it
    may contain) to support crop production. Reusing the water further
    strips nutrients that previously were lost from the system; improving
    both water quality and crop production at a substantial savings to the
    producer.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Economics of Controlled Drainage and Sub-irrigation in Selected
    Missouri Soils, M. Nussbaum, J. Hester, J. Henggeler, ASABE Online
    Technical Library, June 10, 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Irrigation

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The NRCS has been an amazing partner on these projects. Currently
    they are writing practice standards so much of this research can be
    adapted. We are grateful for our relationship with the NRCS.
        I would briefly like to comment on a couple of additional key
    benefits of managing these systems: flood reduction and risk reduction.
        To foster flood reduction, we can manage tile lines to hold water
    and thereby store water in the soil profile. Not only can we close one
    valve to hold water in one field, but we can link these systems
    together. We can operate them remotely--and they can be operated as
    single systems or as a group. In fact, we can link not only fields, but
    whole farms and even a watershed to hold water in the soil. For
    example, a large low pressure is moving across the Midwest and
    threatens flooding--say in the Red River--we can actually hold water in
    the soil profile on hundreds--even thousands of acres. The water held
    in the soil would decrease any flooding and it can be done tomorrow; we
    don't have to wait decades for permits.
        But holding the water back in the field could cause crop damage and
    farmers would need to be compensated for any losses--perhaps through a
    downstream flood reduction fund. But it is unquestionably less
    expensive to hold the water in a field than to pump out a town and pay
    for restoration, or to build a large impoundment area that takes land
    out of production and away from agricultural producers and requires
    ongoing public management expense. With this approach, a farmer has a
    new ``commodity'' to sell and a new market.
        Finally, I call the Committee's attention to reducing risk
    associated with agricultural production. We are already embroiled in a
    conversation about the crop insurance system. But let me point out a
    bright light where there will not be controversy--and where there is
    need for action. A very substantial portion of crop loss is caused by
    either too much water or not enough. We can take huge bites out of
    these risk variables through practices such as managing tile lines and
    sub irrigation.

                                  Reducing Risk

          Corn Loss Iowa Post WWII           Soybean Loss Iowa Post 1950

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Charts courtesy of Chad Hart, Managing Risk in Agriculture,
            Iowa State University, June 2013.

        As you can see from these charts, over \2/3\ of corn loss has come
    from too much or too little water. Likewise these variables have
    accounted for over \1/2\ of soybean loss in the past sixty years in
    Iowa. We can foster boarder adoption of these beneficial practices, and
    reduce the burden on taxpayers and costs to producers if we adjust the
    premiums to farmers who adopt and use these practices.
        As I stated earlier--we must manage the tension to feed the growing
    world population and also provide water quality solutions.
        In these uncertain times when farm prices are unstable and
    manufacturing and skilled jobs are at risk, this again is an
    opportunity. This is American technology, developed and made right here
    in the USA. Expanded utilization of these practices will not only
    improve agricultural profitability and the environment but create
    thousands of good paying jobs that stay at home. Our export position
    will be strengthened and recovery in the Heartland expanded.
        Just a few reminders in closing:

      1.  The world's population continues to grow and must be fed.

      2.  Managing water is an essential factor in all crop production.

      3.  We have the luxury of excess water on much of our cropland.

      4.  Water quality matters to everyone.

      5.  The suite of practices know as Drainage Water Management are some
                of the most cost efficient and effective ways to improve
                water quality and many of them contribute to other goals
                like expanded production, wildlife habitat and flood
                reduction.

      6.  Water Table Management is still the ``Best Management Practice''

        Thank you for your kind attention.
                                  Attachment 1
                                 land and water
    Vol. 59, No. 6, November/December 2015
    Drainage Solutions
    Innovations in Water Management To Improve Crop Productivity and Water
            Quality
        Several key innovations are coming on line to dramatically improve
    both agricultural productivity and water quality by management of water
    flowing through tile lines. The first of these is Drainage Water
    Management where water is held in the field during the dry periods of
    the growing season and during fallow periods to improve productivity,
    and water quality. The second is Sub-Irrigation, which uses the same
    subsurface tile lines used for drainage to irrigate crops. These two
    systems can dramatically improve farm economic viability and cost-
    effectively reduce nutrient loss to waterways.
        With the exceptional growth in demand for agricultural production
    to meet growing populations, higher expectations on diet, and provide
    fiber and fuel for the 21st Century we will see a massive
    intensification of agricultural lands. To achieve these objectives of
    protecting environmental quality and raising agricultural productivity
    we have to revolutionize our agricultural production systems. We simply
    have to be more efficient in our use of land and water.
    Drainage Water Management Overview
        Of the 300 million acres of row crops in the Continental U.S.,
    approximately 100 million acres have artificial drainage. This is not
    drainage of wetlands, but systems to reduce the amount of water in the
    field, particularly during early season for planting and initial plant
    growth, and harvest. Drainage removes water that could impede
    germination and allows the soil to warm earlier, improves field
    trafficability during wet periods and significantly increases yield.
    While there may be some environmental benefits like reduced rill
    erosion and resulting soil and phosphorous loss, these systems can
    foster increased loss of nitrogen from fields and reduce the water
    holding capacity of a watershed.
        The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has identified
    that with existing technology, over 30 million acres in ten Midwestern
    states alone would benefit from Drainage Water Management. (DWM) DWM
    has been shown to be one of the most cost effective techniques to
    reduce nutrient loss from agricultural lands.1 This practice
    also has the advantage of increasing yields, particularly in drought
    years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Kieser, et al., noted just the environmental benefits (not
    including agronomic benefits) to be substantial. ``Assuming a 30
    percent nitrogen load reduction, the costs for a retrofit would be
    $0.66/lb to $0.93/lb and the costs for a new installation would be
    $2.86/lb to $4.17/lb.* (xii) Jaynes, et al. (xiii) estimated at of
    $1.23/lb when the costs were applied over a 20 year lifetime at a 4%
    interest rate, and found this price to be cost-competitive with other
    nitrogen removal practices. For example, constructed wetlands cost
    $1.48/lb, fall cover crops cost $5.02/lb, and bioreactors cost $1.08/lb
    to $6.88/lb. (xiv) Advances in technology are likely to reduce the cost
    of DWM implementation.''
        * Editor's note: the references [(xii-xiv) reformatted to be
    footnotes 12-14] refer to the endnotes in the following attachment,
    Drainage Water Management Implementation Costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DWM refers to controlling the flow of water discharged from tile
    lines to improve environmental performance and agricultural production.
    Without controls, tile lines drain water and associated materials from
    fields around the clock year round. However, drainage typically is only
    needed during part of the year, and closing off drainage during most of
    the year will significantly reduce nutrient loss and improve yields.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Automated instrumented DWM site--note how little land is
            taken out of production.

        The golden rule of drainage management is ``Drain only what is
    necessary to ensure trafficability and crop production--and not a drop
    more.'' That means during the fallow season, tile lines should be shut
    off. This allows water to stay in the field, nitrogen uptake to occur
    by any cover crop or residual in the field and denitrification to occur
    by bacteria in the soil. In addition, after the crop has become
    established, it is prudent to reduce water (and nutrient loss) by
    selectively managing tile outflow to hold water in the field just below
    the root zone of the crop. This increases agricultural productivity and
    reduces nutrient loss.
        By managing tile lines typical nutrient loss can be reduced by
    about \1/2\. Less nutrient application is required as the nutrients are
    held in the field instead of lost through water drainage. Production is
    increased, particularly during dry years when crops are stressed by
    lack of water and nutrient availability. It's a ``win win'' for both
    the producer and the environment. Input cost can be reduced, yield
    increased and water quality protected. Secondary ecosystem service
    benefits like flood reduction, wildlife habitat improvements and
    greenhouse gas emission reductions can also be achieved.

                               Causes of Crop Loss

               Corn 1948-2010                       Soy 1995-2010

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Charts courtesy of Chad Hart, Managing Risk in Agriculture,
            Iowa State University, June 2013.

        DWM does not require land to be taken out of production. An
    automated system can be monitored and managed remotely. The capital
    investment to install DWM has a life cycle of 50 to 100 years making it
    one of the best production and environmental management investments
    available. Design and installation of controlled drainage is eligible
    for financial assistance from the NRCS. This practice can be
    implemented on over 30 million acres with existing technology--as
    identified by NRCS.
    Sub-Irrigation
        A new emerging practice is to use the same tile lines to also
    provide irrigation. The same infrastructure that removes water during
    times of excess can be used to put water into fields during periods of
    drought. Sub-Irrigation requires only modest changes from DWM: (1) a
    slightly upgraded tile system that allows for more close management of
    flow, and (2) a pump to raise water to the highest point in the filed
    where it can be introduced into the tile system.
        Sub-Irrigation has several advantages over conventional irrigation.
    First, it uses about \1/2\ the water. There is no evaporation as the
    water is sprayed on the crop because water is put proximate to the root
    zone where it is needed instead of on the surface. Second, Sub-
    Irrigation uses less than \1/2\ the energy. Less water is moved to meet
    plant requirements so less water is pumped. In addition, the only
    energy required is to deliver water to the highest point in the field
    for introduction into the tile system. With Sub-Irrigation gravity
    rather than an ``energized'' system distributes water through the
    field. Control structures within the field (i.e., float operated valves
    that require no separate management or energy inputs) provide for even
    water distribution. Third, the same infrastructure system that removes
    excess water is used to provide irrigation removing the need for two
    water management systems.
        Sub-Irrigation can be economically implemented with existing
    technology on up to 6 million acres today. If water drained from fields
    during wet periods can be stored on site, the economics and
    environmental outcomes of this practice can be further improved.
    Nutrient rich drainage waters can be treated in wetlands or ponds and
    can be reused for irrigation.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Schematic of sub-irrigation distribution of water into
            cropped field. Graphic courtesy of AgriDrain.
    On-Farm Benefits
        In addition to reducing environmental impact, these practices have
    significant economic benefit for producers. DWM and Sub-Irrigation can
    contribute to substantial yield increases. They can reduce input costs
    from savings in nutrient, energy and water. These practices can also
    take a huge bight out of the risks farmers face every time they plant a
    crop.
        By utilizing these water management systems, tremendous risk can be
    taken out of crop production. For example, 65% of corn loss in Iowa
    since the Second World War has been from either not enough water or so
    much that the crop is flooded out. 55% of crop loss since 1950 for
    soybeans is from the same causes.
        Another on-farm benefit is to deliver enhanced ecosystem services.
    Ecosystem services are the goods and services provided by nature like
    clean water, abundant wildlife and other valuable ``products'' that
    make life possible or increase our enjoyment of it. There is growing
    acceptance that people are willing to pay for these services and some
    markets are emerging. Hunters are commonly willing to pay for the right
    to hunt on a farm and greenhouse gas markets are operating around the
    world. There are many ecosystem services delivered by DWM and Sub-
    Irrigation like flood reduction, water quality, greenhouse gas
    reduction and wildlife habitat improvements that are highly
    quantifiable and readily can enter into ecosystem service markets. As
    markets develop and are more broadly operated, ecosystem service
    products may offer a new class of assets that farmers can produce and
    derive income from.
    Conclusion
        There are significant on farm benefits from installing DWM and Sub-
    Irrigation including but not limited to increased agronomic production,
    reduced input costs and reduced risk. There are also significant off
    site benefits including reducing nutrient loss to waterways, reduced
    flooding and other ecosystem services. If ecosystem service markets
    develop it may be possible to for commerce in those activities to add
    to the economic viability of farm operations. Likewise, early voluntary
    action that reduces environmental impact can help reduce pressure for
    regulation and reflect positively on agricultural producers. L&W
    By Dave White & Alex Echols
        Dave White, President, Ecosystem Services Exchange

        Dave was Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service from
    January 2009 to December 2012, where he led, directed, and managed the
    nation's largest private lands natural resource conservation
    organization. In addition to his work with NRCS, White was detailed to
    Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's office in Washington, D.C., where he helped
    craft the conservation title of the 2008 Farm Bill and to Indiana
    Senator Richard Lugar and helped develop the conservation title of the
    2002 Farm Bill.

        Alex Echols, Executive Vice President, Ecosystem Services Exchange

        Alex started his career working for the Senate for 12 years,
    writing key conservation programs like the Conservation Title of the
    farm bill and an extensive rewrite of bilateral and multilateral
    foreign aid programs. He spent 6 years at the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation as Deputy and then Acting Executive Director. In
    2001, he set up a consulting firm to help industry, landowners, the
    conservation community and government deliver more conservation for
    dollars invested.
                                  attachment 2
    Drainage Water Management Implementation Costs
    Abstract

    Joanna E. Allerhand                  Kieser & Associates
    James A. Klang, P.E.                 536 E. Michigan Ave, Suite 300
    Mark S. Kieser                       Kalamazoo, MI 49007
                                         www.kieser-associates.com

        Build-up of the current agricultural drainage network began during
    the 1870s as part of a national land reclamation policy. Since then,
    drainage has been both criticized and praised. Overall, agricultural
    drainage enabled previously marginal land to become highly productive
    and profitable farmland.\1\ However, intense drainage also contributed
    to negative environmental impacts, including substantial losses of
    wetlands and wildlife habitat.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Strock, J.S., P.J.A. Kleinman, K.W. King, J.A. Delgado (2010)
    Drainage water management for water quality protection. Journal of Soil
    and Water Conservation 65(6): 131A-136A; and USDA. Pavelis, G.A., Ed.
    (1987) Farm Drainage in the United States: History, Status, and
    Prospects. USDA-ERS Miscellaneous Publication Number 1455. Washington,
    D.C.
        \2\ USDA, 1987.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subsurface drainage lines act as conduits of nitrate--the mobile
    form of nitrogen--to surface waters. Under natural conditions, nitrate-
    laden water passes through the soil profile and is removed, at least
    partially, through denitrification. In fields with subsurface drainage,
    tile lines intercept the water before denitrification can occur. As a
    result, subsurface drainage effluent contributes to excess nitrate
    loading to surface waters, which can lead to water quality
    impairments.\3\ Figure 1 illustrates the estimated extent of subsurface
    drainage.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Dinnes, D.L., D.L. Karlen, D.B. Jaynes, T.C. Kaspar, J.L.
    Hatfield (2002) Review and Interpretation: Nitrogen Management
    Strategies to Reduce Nitrate Leaching in Tile-Drained Midwestern Soils.
    Publications from USDA-ARS/UNL Faculty. Paper 263. Accessed January 31,
    2012 at http://digitialcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/263; Mitsch, W.J.,
    J.W. Day, J.W. Gilliam, P.M. Groffman, D.L. Hey, G.W. Randall, N. Wang
    (2001) Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the
    Mississippi River Basin: Strategies to counter a persistent ecological
    problem. BioScience, 51(5): 373-388; and Randall, G.W., D.J. Mulla
    (2001) Nitrate nitrogen in surface waters as influenced by climatic
    conditions and agricultural practices. Journal of Environmental
    Quality, 30: 337-344.
        \4\ Sugg, Z. (2007) Assessing U.S. Farm Drainage: Can GIS Lead to
    Better Estimates of Subsurface Drainage Extent? World Resources
    Institute, Washington, D.C. Accessed January 20, 2012 at http://
    pdf.wri.org/assessing_farm_drainage.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1. Subsurface Tile Drainage

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Sources: 1992 National Resources Inventory and World
            Resources Institute.
              Extent and location of subsurface drainage, as estimated by
            Sugg, 2007.\4\

        Nitrate export through tile lines can be reduced by implementing
    drainage water management (DWM). One such practice involves installing
    a device that controls the volume of water leaving a field. These
    controlled drainage devices can be adjusted based on the season and
    drainage needs. The control device can adjusted such that water tables
    drop prior to planting to allow the fields to become sufficiently dry
    for equipment access. Subject to producer desires and time constraints,
    the device can be used to adjust water levels throughout the growing
    season. Then after harvest, the water level is raised to minimize
    drainage during the non-cropping season.
        DWM reduces nitrate export by reducing the drainage volume from
    tile drain outlets as opposed to reducing the concentration of nitrate
    in the effluent. Most of the nitrate reductions from DWM systems occur
    when drain flow is reduced during the non-cropping season. In humid
    temperate regions, approximately 88 to 95 percent of nitrate loss
    through conventional tile drainage occurs during the fallow period.\5\
    DWM systems allow the producer to raise the drainage outlet and bring
    the water table near the surface, thus reducing flow volume and nitrate
    losses during the non-cropping season.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Drury, C.F., C.S. Tan, W.D. Reynolds, T.W. Welacky, T.O. Oloya,
    J.D. Gaynor (2009) Managing Tile Drainage, Subirrigation, and Nitrogen
    Fertilization to Enhance Crop Yields and Reduce Nitrate Loss. J.
    Environ. Qual. 38: 1193-1204.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DWM implementation has been shown to substantially reduce nitrate
    losses from farm fields, thereby contributing to water quality
    improvements. Jaynes, et al.,\6\ estimated DWM could be implemented on
    11.9 million acres of cornland in the Midwest. Of these lands, 7.2
    million acres were located in the Upper Mississippi and Tennessee/Ohio
    watersheds, which drain to the Gulf of Mexico. Within these watersheds,
    DWM could reduce nitrate-N loading to the Gulf by 114.4 million
    pounds.\7\ This amounts to a reduction of 15.97 lb/acre. From 2001-
    2005, an average of 1.8 billion pounds of nitrate-N per year were
    transported to the Gulf.\8\ Based on this loading estimate and the DWM
    reduction estimate of 114.4 million pounds from Jaynes, et al.,
    implementing DWM on all suitable lands in the Upper Mississippi and
    Tennessee/Ohio watersheds could reduce overall nitrate loading to the
    Gulf by 6.4%.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Jaynes, D.B., K.R. Thorp, D.E. James (2010) Potential Water
    Quality Impact of Drainage Water Management in the Midwest USA.
    Proceedings of the 9th International Drainage Symposium held jointly
    with CIGR and CSBE/SCGAB, June 13-16, 2010, Quebec City, Canada.
        \7\ Jaynes, et al., 2010.
        \8\ EPA (2007) Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by
    the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-08-003, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Costs of implementing DWM vary based on site characteristics,
    drainage system design, and the type of control structure installed.
    One study estimated costs could range from $65/acre for a new
    installation on a 6" main to $88/acre for a retrofit on a 12" main.\9\
    Annualizing these costs based on a 15 year lifetime and a 19.8 acre
    treatment area, estimated costs ranged from $6.73/year on a 6" main and
    $9.08/year on a 12" main.\10\ Cooke, et al.,\11\ estimated $20-$40/acre
    for a retrofit installation and $89/acre for a new system in complex
    topography. Assuming a 30 percent nitrogen load reduction, the costs
    for a retrofit would be $0.66/lb to $0.93/lb and the costs for a new
    installation would be $2.86/lb to $4.17/lb.\12\ Jaynes, et al.,\13\
    estimated a cost of $1.23/lb when the costs were applied over a 20 year
    lifetime at a 4% interest rate, and found this price to be cost-
    competitive with other nitrogen removal practices. For example,
    constructed wetlands cost $1.48/lb, fall cover crops cost $5.02/lb, and
    bioreactors cost $1.08/lb to $6.88/lb.\14\ Advances in technology are
    likely to reduce the cost of DWM implementation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition [ADMC] (2011)
    Drainage Water Management for Midwestern Row Crop Agriculture.
    Conservation Innovation Grant 68-3A75-6-116 Report.
        \10\ ADMC, 2011.
        \11\ Cooke, R.A., G.R. Sands, and L.C. Brown (2005) Drainage water
    management: A practice for reducing nitrate loads from subsurface
    drainage systems. pp. 27-34. Proceedings of the Gulf hypoxia and local
    water quality concerns workshop. Sept. 26-28, 2005, Ames, Iowa. http://
    water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/upload/2006_8_24_msbasin_
    symposia_ia_session2.pdf.
        \12\ Cooke, et al., 2005.
        \13\ Jaynes, D.B., K.R. Thorp, D.E. James (2010) Potential Water
    Quality Impact of Drainage Water Management in the Midwest USA.
    Proceedings of the 9th International Drainage Symposium held jointly
    with CIGR and CSBE/SCGAB, June 13-16, 2010, Quebec City, Canada.
        \14\ Jaynes, et al., 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A simple analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of DWM under
    various scenarios and assumptions. Whereas the estimated cost of $1.23/
    lb from Jaynes, et al.,\15\ was for a 20 year period, the analysis
    conducted here uses similar assumptions but only considers upfront
    capital costs for a 1 year period. Jaynes, et al., determined that 7.2
    million acres of cornland in the Upper Mississippi and Tennessee/Ohio
    watersheds were suitable for DWM. Within these areas, 20 percent of DWM
    implementation would be retrofits and 80 percent would be new
    installations.\16\ A retrofit was assumed to drain 11.86 acres while a
    new installation would drain 19.77 acres. Both the new and retrofit
    practices had a unit cost of $1,100, and new installations included an
    additional cost of $32.53/acre.\17\ Applying these assumptions, a basic
    analysis indicated the total cost of implementing DWM on 7.2 million
    acres of suitable cornland in the Upper Mississippi and Tennessee/Ohio
    watersheds would be $638 million ($89/acre). The cost of retrofit
    installations would be $133 million ($93/acre) and the cost of new
    installations would be $505 million ($88/acre). The unit costs of
    nitrate-N reductions achieved by implementing DWM on all suitable
    cornland in the Upper Mississippi and Tennessee Ohio watersheds would
    be $5.81/lb for retrofits and $5.52/lb for new installations, with a
    weighted average of $5.58/lb. These are based only on initial capital
    costs and 1 year of nitrate-N reductions. The unit costs for a 5, 10,
    and 20 year project lifetime are estimated to be $1.24/pound, $0.67/
    pound, and $0.37/pound, respectively, using a 4% discount rate and
    assuming operation and maintenance are 2.5% of the capital costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Jaynes, et al., 2010.
        \16\ Personal correspondence (2012) with D.E. Jaynes confirmed that
    new and retrofit installations were assumed to have equivalent
    reduction efficiencies.
        \17\ It was not specified by Jaynes, et al., (2010) as to how they
    derived these annualized costs for nitrate reductions associated with
    DWM. As such, some of the numbers included here differ from those
    reported by Jaynes, et al., (2010). The cost analysis could be adjusted
    to include data that might better represent the current status of DWM
    technologies.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Drainage water management (DWM) can be an effective strategy for
     reducing nitrate losses from farm fields. DWM structures allow the
     producer to control the water level in the soil. When the level is
     raised during the fallow period, substantial reductions of nitrate
     loading to surface water can be achieved. The costs of DWM can be
     competitive with other management strategies.

         7.2 million acres of Midwest cornland is suitable for DWM
         in the Upper Mississippi and Tennessee/Ohio watersheds.

         1.43 million acres of this cornland (20%) could be served
         by retrofits and 5.73 million acres (80%) by new installations.

         114.4 million pounds nitrate-N could be reduced if DWM was
         implemented on all 7.2 million acres.

         DWM could reduce nitrate losses by nearly 16 pounds/acre.

         Total costs of implementing DWM on all 7.2 million acres
         would be $638 million ($133 million for retrofits and $505 million
         for new installations).

         Retrofit costs are estimated to be $93/acre, and new
         installations are $88/acre, with a regional weighted average of $89/
         acre.

         First year nitrate-N reductions from DWM using only capital
         costs are estimated to be $5.58/pound (weighted average); $5.81/
         pound (retrofits), and $5.52/pound (new installations).

         Nitrate-N reduction costs for a 5, 10, and 20 year project
         lifetime are estimated to be $1.24, $0.67, and $0.37/pound,
         respectively.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (These numbers are derived from Jaynes, D.B., K.R. Thorp, D.E. James
      (2010) Potential Water Quality Impact of Drainage Water Management in
      the Midwest USA. Proceedings of the 9th International Drainage
      Symposium held jointly with CIGR and CSBE/SCGAB, June 13-16, 2010,
      Quebec City, Canada.)

        DWM implementation costs potentially could be offset by a yield
    increase or covered through a water quality trading (WQT) program. Any
    potential yield increase would depend on the specific application of
    controlled management. A yield increase of 1.68 bushels/acre for a 6"
    main and 2.27 bushels/acre for a 12" main would offset the control
    structure expense, assuming $4/bushel corn.\18\ A WQT program could
    provide producers with a method of payment for implementing DWM. With
    the adoption of nutrient criteria, some municipal wastewater treatment
    plants (WWTPs) will be required to reduce nitrogen discharges. These
    plants could meet their regulatory compliance goals by purchasing
    nitrogen reduction credits from producers implementing DWM. In many
    cases, nitrate reductions achieved through DWM would be highly cost-
    effective compared to achieving reductions through WWTP upgrades.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ ADMC, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Attachment 3
    Managing Agricultural Drainage Flood Mitigation and Associated
            Ecosystem Benefits
    Andrew Manale, M.S., M.P.P.
    What It Is and Why You Should Care
        Agricultural drainage water management (DWM) entails managing the
    flow of subsurface water on agricultural land. By reducing the volume
    of water that drains from land, temporarily storing runoff, and slowing
    or altering the timing of the flow of runoff, DWM mitigates the risk of
    downstream flooding. Retaining or retarding subsurface-flow water in
    soils at critical times of the year when soils rebuild also reduces the
    movement and discharge of nutrients that otherwise would pollute rivers
    and streams.
        Conversion of wetland or poorly drained soils to agricultural use
    or enhancement of the agricultural productivity of marginal, heavy
    ``wet'' soils has generally involved installing subsurface tile
    drainage lines. These lines, as they have conventionally been
    constructed, lower the water table and drain water quickly from the
    fields to local ditches, streams and rivers, reducing the waterlogging
    of soils. Depending upon the porosity of the soil and the level of the
    watertable, they can also reduce the volume of surface runoff. By
    directing and retarding water flow through soils, they can change the
    timing of peak water flows. Depending upon the nature of storm events,
    the contour of the land, and the characteristics of the watershed, such
    changes in the timing and volume of water flows can reduce or
    contribute to downstream flood impacts.
        To farmers the advantage of subsurface drainage has been earlier
    cropping, reduced risk of root damage, and greater crop yield.
    Improving the productivity of the land for agricultural use comes at a
    societal cost when uncontrolled drainage inadvertently contributes to
    downstream water flows and leads to on-farm loss of nutrients, such as
    nitrates and phosphorus, that degrade downstream water quality. By
    regulating water flows through control of the timing and volume of its
    release and thereby retaining water from extreme events on the land,
    DWM contributes to public safety from flooding and protects water
    quality.
        Studies in the Red River Basin and elsewhere find that tile
    drainage can both mitigate or contribute to the severity of flooding.
    Whether or not tile drainage is a boon or a cost depends upon the
    ability to manage the drains. Regardless of whether or not tile
    drainage contribute marginally to downstream flow and flooding, DWM
    can, by allowing for controlled reduction or management of flow,
    provide a means for significantly reducing downstream water volume and
    increased water levels associated with flooding. Modeling and actual
    field trials suggest that properly time in-field retention of
    stormwater can reduce peak flows. In conjunction with surface berms and
    outlet gates such as ditch risers, tile drainage controls enhance the
    amount of water that can be stored per acre, in some circumstances up
    to 3 acre-feet (Manale, JSWCS 2000, 2006). Through the inclusion of
    structures, such as roads and culverts, in an overall system of water
    management, DWM can hold multiple acre-feet of floodwater for timed
    release of runoff when it is less likely to contribute to high flood
    stages.
        Drain Water Management techniques can mimic natural systems, such
    as wetlands, for slowing the flow and storing of water. Just as a
    wetland provides a suite of ecosystem services, DWM, by allowing for
    management of soil functions in agricultural systems to build soil,
    enhances the delivery of their environmental benefits, such as carbon
    and nitrogen sequestration, and ground water infiltration. Over longer
    periods of time more water is retained in the upland areas of
    watersheds and less water is available to contribute to rising
    downstream flood levels.
        Farmers themselves benefit from DWM from healthier, more drought
    resilient soils and retention of more nutrients in the soils. Healthier
    soils require fewer fertilizer inputs.
        Healthy, productive soils and less outlay for fertilizers mean more
    income for farmers.
        Yet, despite the advantages to farmers, market conditions and
    government policy alter the calculus for installing DWM. High commodity
    prices encourage farmers to expand production to marginal lands.
    Federally subsidized crop insurance shields the farmer from the risk of
    producing on marginal land. And improvements in soil quality, and hence
    economic return, accrue over many years, whereas the additional cost of
    DWM is today.
        There are a number of policy options to encourage the greater use
    of DWM. A traditional approach is to subsidize the installation of DWM
    where new tile drains are being installed or to pay for modification of
    existing tile drainage systems. Just paying to have the control devices
    installed does not however guarantee that the devices are maintained
    and used, particularly when controlled drainage and water retention on
    the land is most needed in time of flooding or high flood risks.
    Easements and land purchase can be expensive, such as what has been the
    policy in New York State to protect the city of New York's water
    supply. Newer approaches involve advanced options contracting and
    paying for ecosystem services. In the former, called options contracts
    for contingent takings, flood control authorities contract with farmers
    to manage floodwaters on their land in the likelihood of extreme
    weather (RFF, 2008). They are insured against loss of revenue should
    doing so lead to reduced yield or increased costs. In the latter,
    farmers are paid for storing floodwater on their lands as an ecosystem
    service. The more water they store, the more they earn.
        New Federal policy developments will lead to increased interest in
    DWM and temporary storage of floodwaters on agricultural lands. Under
    the Federal Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the White House
    has issued new requirements, the Principles and Requirements, that lay
    out broad principles guiding how Federal agencies develop and implement
    water investments, including the maintenance of existing projects
    (White House 2013). The new requirements specifically call for non-
    structural and watershed approaches that examine how the larger
    landscape can be managed to achieve public safety and other desired
    public outcomes. DWM and temporary water retention on agricultural
    lands are consistent with these new principles for flood mitigation.
    [References]
        Manale, A,. Flood and water quality management through targeted,
    temporary restoration of landscape functions. Journal of the Soil and
    Water Conservation Society, 2000.
        Manale, A. Waffles are not just for breakfast anymore. Journal of
    the Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2006.
        Resources for the Future. Options Contracts for Contingent Takings.
    2008. Benefits to farmers.
        White House, Council on Environmental Quality. Principles and
    Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources. March 2013.

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony.
    Thanks to all members of the panel for your testimony.
        I will take the liberty of the first 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Dawson, we were talking about return on investment. I
    want to say, I have a lot of respect for my predecessors who
    had the vision to establish the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation. The collaborative efforts have come as a result of
    that, so thank you for your service. Plus, you have the most
    fun acronym in Washington, NFWF. What can I say?
        My question for you: much of the United States has recently
    had the worst drought in history. Fortunately, Pennsylvania has
    not seen as much damage to our agriculture production as folks,
    certainly, in the West have. What are some of the issues that
    you have seen in Pennsylvania over the past few years that have
    impacted conservation and agriculture overall?
        Ms. Dawson. It is true, Pennsylvania is quite blessed with
    something on the order of 40" of rain per year, so that is
    pretty remarkable and a great resource for agriculture in the
    state. But farmers there are certainly not immune to
    challenges. Perhaps what we see most significantly is when use
    changes. That can have a huge dynamic on hydrology and the way
    agriculture is done in the state, and we want to keep our
    working lands working, so we are very dedicated to finding ways
    to get solutions that help keep farmers on the land.
        We are also seeing issues with invasive species and new
    pests in our forestry work. This is a huge challenge that we
    are working in partnership to try to find solutions to, but
    continues to be quite a behemoth in conservation. And as we
    have talked a lot about today, managing soil health is going to
    have a lot of impact on our ability to manage that water,
    manage flooding, and also keep nutrients on the land where they
    can do the most good. We are working to implement solutions
    with our agriculture partners to be big proponents of managing
    for soil health so we can benefit both the farmer and the
    ecosystem at the same time.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Price, some folks have the mindset that if you take
    cattle off the land, it will be better for wildlife and
    everything will go back the way it was before we ever showed
    up. What are you thoughts on that?
        Mr. Price. I am extremely concerned to--through the
    antiquities. Of course, much land is being taken out of
    production, taking livestock off the land. A major design of
    the system over hundreds of thousands, millions of years, using
    the animal impact and fire to rejuvenate those lands. Before
    man came along, we had fire. We had droughts. We had wet
    spells. We had extreme cold. We had extreme heat, and we had
    huge herds of buffalo and of other wildlife. Can you imagine
    10,000+ historians say 50,000 to 60,000 buffalo in one herd
    coming across the landscape here in Washington, D.C. before the
    buildings were here? In modern day terms, it was devastating.
    There was nothing left. But nature designed her plants, mainly
    the grass species, to put on fresh tillers when that fire
    impacts them, when the animals bit them off, laid on them,
    stomped on them, whatever, and then it rejuvenated itself. You
    can take land that is totally out of use by wildlife or
    livestock, and the grasses get old. They get marbling, then
    they die.
        In New Mexico at Las Cruces, at the research center there
    in the 1930s, they fenced off an area, put no livestock on it.
    At the time, it was a really good light grama grass cover.
    Today, that grama grass exists as much in desert as any of the
    rest of it, due to the lack of animal impact. The animal impact
    is so important for the future of our western United States,
    and those brittle environments for certain. And so we must
    utilize our livestock, properly managed, to rejuvenate these
    lands. It is the only resource we have, because I don't think
    we can go back to pre-man conditions. I don't think anybody
    wants to move back to Europe or Asia or Africa, or wherever
    they came from, and that is the only way we can reenact those
    conditions.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Price. I am going to go ahead
    and yield back. We will get another round, but let me just say
    that, I know from the previous Subcommittee hearing that we had
    on healthy soils and other healthy soils opportunities forums I
    have been able to sit as a part of, clearly there are some
    practices that show and document how livestock helps to
    stimulate soil growth, soil production, and healthy soil. Thank
    you.
        I recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    the panel. We really appreciate your level of expertise and
    participation in these hearings so that we can better navigate,
    as a Committee, how we support you and support USDA to make a
    difference.
        Mr. Price, in your testimony you mentioned how helpful NRCS
    is and that the personnel there are an incredible resource for
    ranchers. And some of the New Mexico ranchers and the Tribal
    communities have expressed to me that navigating NRCS programs
    can be very difficult, especially for small producers, because
    they don't really have the staff or resources to apply for
    multiple programs or loans or grants. I have also heard that
    some producers may get a grant, so they might be smaller and
    still manage to get a grant, but because there is no technical
    assistance components to those grants, it can be very difficult
    for them to successfully implement their projects without
    further assistance from USDA. And as a user of those programs,
    can you talk to me about some ways that we can make
    conservation programs more user-friendly so that all producers,
    irrespective of their size, can benefit from the investments
    that we have worked to make available.
        Mr. Price. Some of this issue goes back to 1985. The highly
    growable lands, the NRCS personnel were sent to attend to that
    and look at it in detail. It took them away from--on us
    ranchers, I am sorry, to study these issues, to talk to us
    about them. We didn't have that expertise for land planning,
    conservation planning. That is where National Grazing Lands
    Coalition came into effect. It was formed in 1995, which was
    put in there for our grassroots, boots-on-the-ground program
    where they could help us understand the issues. I strongly
    believe that right now, NRCS needs to be able to train those
    personnel in their offices, the local offices, that can tell us
    the story, help us understand.
        Right now, a lot of people think that EQIP, NRCS is based
    on getting money from the government. That is a huge part of
    it, when we are proud to have that opportunity for that, but we
    have to have education from those NRCS personnel. One of them
    told me a while back in pretty simplistic terms. He said
    instead of giving you fish, we want to teach you how to fish.
    And that is huge.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I appreciate that. I agree with you that
    that sort of education and technical assistance needs to be
    driven back down to the local level and make that available.
        In addition to that partnership, what changes or
    improvements can you recommend to NRCS that better supports the
    innovation that we have talked about today for these
    conservation practices? I have put you right on the spot, that
    will teach you to be part of the panel. We want to solve all of
    these problems.
        Mr. Price. I am not known to be real quick on my feet.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I am sorry. We are delighted to have you
    here. Your experience makes a difference, and if there are
    things that come to you, that is very helpful to us. If there
    are things that you want to bring back to us, but it really is
    the work that you do that makes a difference in all of our
    abilities to help every producer engage in a productive way.
        Mr. Price. And that is one of the things the NRCS people I
    have worked with in the past, they have always struggled with
    why don't all of these ranchers just jump on board and take
    part in it?
        Every one of us ranchers has a different lifestyle. We have
    different goals. I love what I do, and I get excited talking
    about what I do, but a lot of ranchers, that is not their
    focus. That is not what they do. How you convince other folks
    to participate, in particularly, more intensive grazing
    programs, it is very important on how we move forward with our
    grassland. So many times we utilize that money and then we
    don't emphasize grazing management. That needs to be a huge
    part of it. We need to look at that harder as to how we
    convince people. We can't take forces on them, but if the
    Federal Government is allowing us to utilize their dollars for
    help, they should say, ``Okay, Frank, we really need you to
    focus more on grazing management so that work that you have
    done can be more productive with the future.''
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. All right. Well I appreciate that
    partnership developing aspect, so thank you for your response.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Benishek,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bowman, hey, good to see you.
        Mr. Bowman. Good to see you.
        Mr. Benishek. I am always happy to see you the other day at
    the Great Lakes meeting that we were both there for a while
    there, and I was happy to hear about your work, this
    conservation plan, and then your example with the water table
    work that you are doing. And you also in your written testimony
    talked about this Michigan agribusiness, developing a
    partnership with them. Can you tell me more about how that
    works?
        Mr. Bowman. Sure. We have identified a suite of ten NRCS
    practices that have field-based practices that have the most
    positive impact on water quality, and we have put those into a
    tool similar to this one that allows the certified crop
    advisors when they are meeting with their customers to use that
    tool to talk about different production scenarios and how they
    can integrate conservation into those production scenarios. But
    one of the important things, and my fellow witness, Mr. Price,
    would appreciate this, is that we don't lead with the cost-
    share. The conservation has to make business sense for the
    producers' operation, and then we share with them, there may be
    financial assistance available if you are interested, but you
    ought to farm this way anyway. And there are some producers
    that don't want to participate with the government because they
    have their reasons, and we actually have some private pools of
    money that we have put together where we can cost-share on
    practices using that private money, that then don't have some
    of the application requirements that you--that the producer has
    to go through with public money.
        Mr. Benishek. Well, you also mentioned in your written
    testimony about how some of the government agency people had
    some reluctance to work with the producers a little bit, too.
        Mr. Bowman. Oh, I have to be careful. I don't know if the
    Chief is still here, but the fact is is that when we first
    proposed this project and said we are going to have certified
    crop advisors talking about conservation with their producers,
    we ruffled some feathers among some of the agency folks out in
    the field because they sort of said well, that is what we do,
    and the fact is, they are the technical experts on conservation
    when it comes to applying those conservation practices. But, in
    order for us to be most effective, maybe we don't need them out
    there recruiting the growers. Maybe we need them helping the
    growers with the actual execution of the practices, and we can
    use other folks to recruit the growers.
        Yes, we are going through some growing pains with this
    project, but we are going to come out on the other side all
    right.
        Mr. Benishek. That is good to hear. You might have heard my
    comments with the Chief there. These private, nonprofit
    partnerships along with the businesses, it just works better
    because there is better communication between all the parties,
    rather than having the government make an edict about, ``You
    have to do this,'' and then they don't really know what they
    are talking about because they are not right there on this farm
    or on the land. And this approach leads to a much better
    result.
        Let me just end by asking that question. How can we make
    this better? In the farm bill, were there policies there that
    helped you out or made it better?
        Mr. Bowman. Well, there is one item and we are in
    discussion with NRCS on this right now, and this is a little
    bit of a cultural change for the agency. When they work with a
    grower, the first thing they go do is go out and develop a
    conservation plan for that farm. And that can sometimes be
    involved for both the agency and the grower to get through all
    of that. One of the things we are asking for is actually sort
    of an exemption from that conservation planning requirement,
    because in our RCPP proposal, we had to already say what the
    resource concern was we were addressing. We had to already say
    how we were going to address it, and we had to put in place a
    protocol to screen that only the fields that were actually
    addressing it would be eligible for the cost-share. And so if
    we have a grower that has never done anything with the
    government before and we are saying to them why don't you try
    doing this filter strip or this drainage control structure on
    this one spot, and then we turn around and they say well, you
    have to have the staff person come out and do this conservation
    plan and do all that kind of stuff. Maybe we can make a little
    bit easier entry for them into these programs by looking at
    some different ways to get them in.
        Mr. Benishek. All right, thank you. I am out of time. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Peterson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rodelius, how much of the tile that is being put in now
    has structures associated with it?
        Mr. Rodelius. There is actually very little tile being put
    in right now that is controlled drainage, that they are
    actually holding water back in the soil profile. I think we
    estimated it at about 20,000 acres. It is really quite a
    process to get it approved and to get it into practice.
        Mr. Peterson. So, getting the structures approved is quite
    a process?
        Mr. Rodelius. The problem is there aren't enough technical
    service providers. There aren't enough people to assist farmers
    in the process.
        Mr. Peterson. And so most of the time, it is not happening?
        Mr. Rodelius. Most of the time it is not happening. I would
    agree with that.
        Mr. Peterson. And the biggest problem is it is just too
    much work, too complicated?
        Mr. Rodelius. It is a lack of understanding of the process.
    Going out and telling the story, what needs to be done and
    showing the benefits is something that we really have to get
    more involved in.
        Mr. Peterson. Is the cost-share adequate that is being
    offered for these if they do get through the process?
        Mr. Rodelius. It is an encouragement to the farmers and
    producers are really not very quick to buy into a cost-share on
    a lot of those things. The biggest thing that we could do is
    get people to do a cap on 30 year conservation activity plan so
    they could look at their farm and see what practices might be
    available, what might work on their farm. It gives them an
    overview of what could be done, and there is pretty good cost-
    share money for that.
        Mr. Peterson. Up in the valley, where I have talked about
    potentially tiling a lot of that, it would probably need
    structures with it. Would the farmers tile their land and
    include a structure if we took care of it through the
    conservation partnership or something?
        Mr. Rodelius. I think that area is really well situated for
    that practice. The flatter it is, the better controlled
    drainage will work.
        Mr. Peterson. And they probably have a better understanding
    of what the reason for doing this is as well.
        Mr. Rodelius. Absolutely. They have been surface draining
    for so long, they understand how water moves.
        Mr. Peterson. But you could use the structures to
    significantly improve water quality and solve some of these
    other issues that people have if it was more widespread, is
    that not correct?
        Mr. Rodelius. Absolutely. We can dramatically reduce
    nitrogen and phosphorus in the outflow.
        Mr. Peterson. You probably aren't aware of this, but we are
    having this big controversy or discussion in Minnesota over
    these buffer strips because the governor came out and was going
    to require 16\1/2\ buffer around every ditch in Minnesota. It
    has caused quite a commotion. At one time, it was 50. You can
    imagine, 50 on every ditch.
        So with these saturated buffers, which I guess went through
    some pilot program and now is, I guess, an accepted practice,
    is that correct?
        Mr. Rodelius. There is an interim standard for saturated
    buffers.
        Mr. Peterson. In interim practice?
        Mr. Rodelius. There is no cost-share, yes, but the practice
    is being quickly adopted.
        Mr. Peterson. Are the folks that are working on the buffer
    strips in Minnesota aware of this, and is this something that
    is being considered in whatever they are doing out there?
        Mr. Rodelius. The Agricultural Drainage Management
    Coalition has held several workshops and onsite events to show
    that this practice does work and how minimally invasive it is
    to a farm practice. To put a controlled structure out on a
    buffer strip and then to put some tile lines out, the minimum
    300 up to about 1,000, we can denitrify and dig phosphorus
    out of a lot of water.
        Mr. Peterson. Well, we have, and that is my understanding,
    too, some work to do, because the people that I have talked to
    that are involved in this, some of them that are supposed to be
    knowledgeable, have no idea about this whatsoever. They just
    think this is some kind of a wacko thing that I am talking
    about. We have a lot of work to do to get people to understand.
        Mr. Rodelius. If we have that buffer initiative in
    Minnesota and it would be criminal not to put this practice on
    those buffers. It is really important that we consider that,
    that initiative that we can put buffers and saturate the
    buffer. It is a great wildlife land. There are a lot of wins on
    that end.
        Mr. Peterson. I went to the Ducks Unlimited banquet, and
    the Ducks Unlimited guy got up and made this speech about how
    we have to stop this tiling because they are destroying all the
    wetlands and the wildlife in the country. What are they still
    living in the 1940s or what is going on? How can anybody be
    making a speech like that? He is one of the leaders in Ducks
    Unlimited. Is that propaganda that they teach these people, or
    what?
        Mr. Rodelius. Well, it seems like everybody likes bad news,
    and people, not all the time, but most of the time when you see
    those type of publications, they show a big white cap slew and
    they say we have to stop wetland drainage. You haven't been
    able to drain a wetland for multiple years, but if it sells
    memberships and if I had a week to live I would want to spend a
    few days of it duck hunting.
        Mr. Peterson. We have a lot of education to do and we
    appreciate you coming out and spending some time with the
    Committee today.
        Mr. Rodelius. Thank you.
        Mr. Peterson. I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and now recognize the
    gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our panel
    for being here today and kind of giving us some insight on what
    we are trying to do as far as conservation is concerned.
        Mr. Price, specifically relative to your operation, there
    are people in this town that think that the cattle industry is
    bad for the environment and bad for the land, and that the
    wildlife would be far better off without the cattle industry.
    Do you have any thoughts about that, and what are we doing in
    the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to change the
    perception out there?
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir, and I am proud to discuss the animal
    impact on the land, which is extremely important. We can't go
    back to those pre-man times and have the huge herds of wildlife
    crossing the country, and as we take land out of production
    with no livestock and turn it into strictly wildlife areas, I
    can show you places in my home county that haven't had
    livestock on them for 50 and 60 years. They are turning into a
    desert. The lands right next to them, they are being ranched
    properly and proper grazing management are flourishing for our
    country. Granted, it is a drier environment than a lot of
    places, but so we have to keep that animal impact on the land
    and the only way we can do that is us livestock men, cattlemen
    through proper grazing management.
        We, in my opinion, the environmental enthusiasts I call
    them that think that we ought to just take all of the livestock
    off the land, they are polluting it, we are their best
    resource. All we have to do is tell them our story and get them
    to where they understand it. As we increase the strength of
    those grass systems and the root systems get deeper covers, we
    stop the soil erosion from wind and water. It takes that bad
    old CO2 out of the air and through photosynthesis
    what does it do? It turns that carbon dioxide into oxygen, puts
    it back out in air and puts the carbon in the soil where we can
    raise more grass. It is a win/win situation and we just have to
    get practiced enough at it to move ourselves forward.
        Mr. Allen. Industry-wide, are all of our cattlemen doing it
    the right way, or is there still a lot of work to be done
    there?
        Mr. Price. We have made some huge mistakes in the past. My
    great grandfather in 1876 started his ranching enterprise. From
    records that we have, he grazed from five to six times more
    animals per acre than we can even think about doing now. He
    wasn't doing it to abuse the land. It was a pristine grass
    story you hear, and boy, this grass is going to produce
    forever. We can't hurt it. He didn't realize he was making a
    mistake. Early on, he recognized that he wanted this land to
    continue on the family. A little off the subject, he sold \1/2\
    of his land when his children came of age to his children, and
    the way they paid for it was through the sales of the wool. It
    was a good deal for everybody, but he wanted to move on into
    the future.
        So we made mistakes. We have to admit we made those
    mistakes. I make mistakes on a daily basis. Let's learn from
    it.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, Thinking about endangered species, are you
    all having the problem with the wild hogs in Texas like we are
    having in Georgia?
        Mr. Price. They are potentially the worst environmental
    problem we have. We have to figure something out.
        Mr. Allen. We have to do something.
        Just a week ago, we had the Administrator of the
    Environmental Protection Agency sitting right there in your
    seat, and we were talking about the WOTUS rule, Waters of the
    U.S. From what you understand of that, if you had to get a
    permit due to the WOTUS rule, do you have any idea what kind of
    effect that would have on your operation, what kind of impact?
        Mr. Price. I am afraid it would decimate the livestock
    industry in our area. I have land myself that is up on the top
    country. I have some what we call plow your lakes. Once every
    10 to 15 years they will have water in them because there came
    a huge rainfall. This year, by gosh, we got water and still
    have some water in them. It rained 9\1/2\" in 1 day. But it
    scares me to think that through the Waters of the U.S. rule
    that they can come in and make us get permits for doing
    basically anything, if they let those rules perpetuate. It is a
    scary situation for us ranchmen. We need to stop that.
        Mr. Allen. Well right now the courts are in our favor, and
    we have an injunction against it, but thank you for your time,
    and all of you for your testimony, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I will take the liberty of just another round for anybody
    that would like. I will start that out with Mr. Bowman. Tell me
    about the pay for performance model TNC is using in the Saginaw
    Bay area. It sounds pretty interesting. Can you expand on this?
        Mr. Bowman. Sure. We have a calculator very similar to the
    one that I just showed you that actually estimates the amount
    of sediment and nutrient that enters the nearest surface water
    body, and that is actually important because some hills run
    down towards a river or a stream or a ditch, and other hills
    run down to a low spot in a field. We are only interested in
    the places where it actually runs into water. And in using that
    tool, we can calculate from applying field-based practices what
    the estimated reduction in tonnage is. We actually use the
    NRCS' universal soil loss equation to so that calculation, and
    then with money that we have from a couple private donors--
    actually the Method Corporation that makes salt products and
    Green Mountain Coffee have both given us grants for this work.
    We put a price on that sediment, and I am sorry, I can't tell
    you what that price per ton is right now, but we say to the
    producer if you are willing to make those changes, here is how
    much we will pay for you to make those changes. It is a pretty
    simple program.
        The Chairman. Simple, but effective. Sometimes less is
    more.
        Mr. Bowman. Sometimes less is more.
        The Chairman. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Rodelius, thank you for your testimony, in your written
    testimony and your oral statement, you have laid out a really
    strong case of what we are doing today in terms of agricultural
    drainage is different from the days in the past. The benefits
    of that, you have laid out nicely in terms of preventing
    erosion and retaining water within the soil profile, what is
    it, the ten to fifteen percent increase yield in terms of
    crops.
        You referenced the implementation of swampbuster and its
    impact on drainage management, and because of this policy,
    drainage is often used as a bad word. Can you talk more about
    the conservation benefits of proper drainage management? And
    also, you discussed a consequence. What are the consequences of
    the land when excess water is not properly managed?
        Mr. Rodelius. In the Midwest, we have the luxury of excess
    water. A lot of our soils are saturated. Much of the time when
    we want to go in and plant, what the tile system does is really
    kind of heal the land. If we have high water tables, we have a
    lot of salinity that we have that we can move out of the water,
    out of the soil by tiling. By putting control structures in we
    can hold water back in the soil profile and denitrify. One of
    the most important things about holding back some water and
    being able to utilize some water is that when that crop needs
    water badly, we don't need that soil drained that far, so if we
    can hold some water and make it available when the corn is
    silking or when the pods are filling on the beans, it is an
    incredible bump in production and it doesn't take any more
    inputs, it doesn't take any more chemicals, it doesn't take
    anything more to do that, so the upside of drainage, I have
    been doing this for over 30 years and I have yet to meet anyone
    who is sorry they tiled. It is such a wonderful and cost
    effective method of managing.
        The Chairman. It doesn't take any more acreage to get that
    increased yield for our farmers as well.
        Mr. Rodelius. Correct.
        And it is like an annuity. It is year after year after
    year.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I will yield back and recognize
    the Ranking Member. Any additional questions?
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Dawson, you discussed how the role of your organization
    is not to advocate or litigate, but to create a collaborative,
    if you will, to bring all the parties to the table. And I am
    definitely interested in hearing more about some of the
    successful agricultural partnerships that you mentioned in your
    written testimony. The Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund and
    the Gulf Coast Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative.
        Unfortunately, in my opinion, too many still believe that
    efforts to protect endangered and threatened species or
    species' habitats always ends up hurting farmers and ranchers,
    and prevents them from working their lands, but it is clear to
    me that farmers and ranchers are not the enemy and we should be
    enlisting them as productive partners and allies in helping us
    protect endangered species and their habitats.
        How can we eliminate this misconception that we are always
    at opposite ends of the spectrum and that we can, in fact, work
    together on these issues?
        Ms. Dawson. That is a great question. Again, we don't
    advocate, and that does make it difficult for us to play an
    active role in dispelling that myth, but we believe that by
    perpetuating our partnerships, by growing them, by increasing
    the role of partners and our voices at the table to do good
    work, we are able to get practices implemented on the ground
    that advance habitat restoration and that make for more
    resilient landscapes. And we are really able to let the work
    speak for itself.
        And by doing that and by increasing our ability to
    demonstrate what we are able to do by working in partnership
    with farmers and ranchers in the ag community, by increasing
    habitat on those lands or making it more friendly to those
    species, we are able to promote that concept in that way.
        With respect to those other geographies where we are doing
    a lot of other great work, unfortunately I am very narrow in my
    scope for my specific geography, but we would be happy to give
    you more information on those projects as well.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. That would be great. I mean, we all--and
    I know that it is just the two of us right now, which I
    appreciate that the Chairman did for a much larger
    representation of this Committee and Members of Congress. We
    all have pressure about making sure we are doing the right
    thing for those species, and we are supporting and advocating
    for our producers and our ranchers and farmers.
        What else can Congress do that minimizes what could be, and
    too often is, natural tension that creates a more harmonious
    environment where people really are and motivated to work
    together and do many of the kind of problem solving aspects
    that each of you have talked about in your testimony today?
    What can we do?
        Ms. Dawson. You have seen some great examples here today of
    folks coming to the table to work together to find innovative
    and special solutions to some of our problems. I think that
    consistent support for those programs that have enabled that is
    going to be of paramount importance, going forward. Continuing
    support for EQIP and other farm bill conservation programs
    makes it possible for a lot of us to deliver and engage in the
    practices that we want to see on landscapes. And enabling NRCS
    and other organizations to do demonstration projects so folks
    can see it enacted in real life, I think that that makes such a
    big difference when people can see the kinds of things that
    maybe Mr. Price is doing on his land. We can see those in
    action and people can see that it works and we are able to get
    more interest in things that way.
        And then continuing to work with community-based
    organizations, the folks on the ground who are doing the work,
    they are the ones who are experts in what is really needed.
    Instead of any kind of top down approach, it is really great to
    be able to engage the people who are doing the work who are
    engaging locally who can drive the planning and the strategies
    from that side of things.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back. That is like a minute and
    almost 10 seconds credit I have.
        The Chairman. Well if the gentlelady will yield, I would
    like to open up to the other three members of the panel to----
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I yield, absolutely.
        The Chairman.--answer that question as well. What can we
    do, in being forward looking, I think we did a pretty good farm
    bill, but before we know it, it will be time to start on the
    next one. Any critique on things we can do differently, or new
    ideas that we haven't addressed? What should we do or what
    shouldn't we do?
        Mr. Price. I don't know what you should do, but the Great
    Plains--and that covers a whole lot of country--developed and
    functions as a grazing and fire-dependent vegetative ecology.
    Lack of either disturbers, and that includes the fire and the
    grazing, changes the vegetative dynamics and subsequently
    limits the habitat for livestock and wildlife. In other words,
    as I have said before, we are changing our environment from
    lack of animal impact and you look at some of these endangered
    species, the sage-grouse, the monarch butterfly, the changes of
    these rangelands turning into a brush-type desert habitat that
    is what is causing this, and we need to portray to the public
    and through NRCS is a tremendously good way to do it, or the
    USDA, what has happened and what we need to do to resolve it,
    and push it as hard as we can. We are literally looking at the
    desertification of the Great Plains. And we are pretty darn
    close to being there already.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bowman?
        Mr. Bowman. I have one for you that will be really hard,
    and it is hard because you are in the public spotlight. Our
    trustees, on a regular basis, will ask us what we tried that
    didn't work, and my brother still farms. He tried growing 20
    acres last year. It was a complete disaster, the worst thing he
    ever did, but he tried it. And producers try things, the
    private-sector tries things, the not-for-profit sector tries
    things, and it would be a really interesting set of testimony,
    albeit a risky set of testimony, to ask the agencies to come in
    and say so what did you try in the last year that didn't work,
    and what did you learn from it? That is the only way we change
    these programs is by trying things and recognizing that some of
    them aren't going to work. I'm still not sure our RCPP proposal
    is going to work. We are going to get some good stuff done, but
    whether or not we get to the outcomes we want to get to, I
    don't know. It is an experiment. It is a new way to deliver
    conservation, and figuring out how to try some of that stuff.
        I managed a nonprofit that was rehabilitating housing in an
    urban area with HUD grants, and every month I had to submit a
    monthly report and every month, that report came back from the
    person whose job it was to review that, because something was
    wrong on it. And frankly, I spent more time filling out reports
    than I did rehabbing houses, and was grumbling about it to one
    of my older mentors, and he said what you have to understand is
    that that individual will never get in trouble because you
    didn't get any houses done, but they will get in trouble if
    they get a bad GAO report. And that is the culture that you are
    fighting, that you have to figure out how to change, how to
    enable that risk taking.
        The Chairman. Understood. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rodelius, any input?
        Mr. Rodelius. I would just like to remind all of us that we
    live in the midst of a very productive bunch of soil. We have
    some of the best soil in the world. Only 11 percent of the soil
    in the world is arable, and of that, very little of it is
    highly productive, and we have to manage the tension of farming
    that land to its maximum and healing that land at the same
    time. I would really encourage the NRCS to keep helping people
    help the land, and let's find ways to work together toward that
    end.
        The Chairman. Okay, thank you very much.
        I yield to the gentlelady for any closing remarks.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any specific
    closing remarks. I appreciate the panel, and I really
    appreciate the closing sentiments and your allowance of extra
    time to talk about the power of learning from our mistakes, not
    being so risk-adverse, and to taking every opportunity to
    collaborate and work together.
        So thank you very much for the hearing today, and thank you
    very much to the panel for staying so late. We appreciate you
    very much.
        The Chairman. Just seconding all the comments of the
    Ranking Member. Thank you for coming here and sharing your
    expertise. Chief, thanks for sticking around. That is why USDA
    is my favorite agency. You guys are in it for the long haul.
    You and Chief Tidwell, consistently, are engaged and when we
    are doing something, you are here for the second panel, and we
    recognize that and we really, really appreciate it.
        Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
    hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
    additional material and supplementary written responses from
    the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
        This Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry hearing is
    now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                      [all]