[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1702-S1703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 MORATORIUM ON NEW WETLAND DELINEATIONS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I introduced this week, with 10 
cosponsors, a bill to safeguard the property rights of our Nation's 
farmers. The bill will establish a moratorium on new wetland 
delineations, until Congress has time to enact a new farm bill and to 
consider the wetlands issue on agricultural land in conjunction with 
that bill. This corresponds with the policy set here by this body in 
1985 when we passed the antisodbusting and antiswampbusting provisions 
that are on the books and are generally good pieces of legislation--now 
being abused, though, by faceless bureaucrats, who are trying to 
redetermine additional wetlands. Even though the prior determinations 
have fit into the farming patterns of individual farmers around the 
United States.
  As you know, Mr. President, no less than four Federal agencies claim 
jurisdiction over the regulation of wetlands. Just think of how 
impossible it is for the family farmer of America to try to understand 
what four different Federal agencies want him to do in regard to 
wetlands on his personal property and how that confounds him in making 
business decisions on the operation of his farm.
  Those four agencies last year entered into a memorandum of agreement 
concerning wetlands delineation on agricultural land. Although the 
memorandum of agreement was intended to streamline the regulatory 
process, and it was meant to clarify the role of each agency, it has, 
however, increased the level of confusion and the level of frustration 
among the farmers affected by it. It has not made their life any 
easier. It may have well been the intention of the faceless bureaucrat, 
through that agreement, to make life easier, but it has not.
  The delineation of wetlands on agricultural land has been, for a long 
period of time, a confusing proposition. On the other hand, the 
consequences of the delineations are very clear. The farmer, for 
instance, might alter a wetland without authorization from the Federal 
Government, and could potentially face civil penalties, criminal 
action, and loss of farm program benefits. Because the stakes are so 
very high, I think we have a responsibility in this Congress, as 
representatives of the people, representing a major industry in 
America, because the food and fiber chain, from producer to consumer, 
is 20 percent of our gross national product, and considering the 
importance of this industry and the millions of family farmers, 
independent entrepreneurs that make their living this way, because of 
all these reasons, we must ensure that the delineation process is 
accurate and that it is reasonable.
  As I speak, Mr. President, new wetlands delineation are being 
conducted in the State of Iowa pursuant to the memorandum of agreement. 
It is just starting in the State of Iowa, but is going to cover every 
other State affected by agricultural wetlands. So even though it is of 
immediate impact in my State, in just a few months, this process will 
be going on throughout the country.
  This is a process whereby these people, unknown to the individual 
farmers, take the individual soil survey maps and aerial photos of 
vegetation topography. From these they attempt to find, in areas where 
they have not already said there are wetlands, some other little bit of 
evidence of wetlands, in order to get more farmers under the regulatory 
umbrella and get more land within each farm under that umbrella of 
wetlands? Because the more wetlands determinations and the more of an 
opportunity for the bureaucrats to have some jurisdiction over private 
property they would not otherwise have jurisdiction over.
  This is being done not with on-site farm inspections, not with the 
individual farmer right alongside the soil conservation personnel--
remember, historically, for 60 or 70 years, there has been a very close 
relationship and friendly relationship between the soil conservation 
people who are educating farmers to be better caretakers of our natural 
resources and the farmer wanting to do that and learning from that 
process.
  That sort of consultation has promoted more benefit to the 
environment than any other one process I know from the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. In this current process, it has not been the usual 
close relationship, but it is in the back rooms, or in the laboratories 
around the individual States, where bureaucrats are going over these 
soil maps with this aerial photography to find other wetlands.
 And then send out a new map to the individual farmers with additional 
delineation of wetlands on it. At that point, you have wetlands whether 
you think they are wetlands or not and it is your job, as an individual 
farmer, then, at the appeals process to show that these really are not 
wetlands. And the burden of proof is on the back of the farmer.

  This is kind of a way of saying, ``You are guilty of having something 
that you did not even know you had,'' particularly if you have been 
farming this very land for a long period of time.
  Well, we ought to inform the farmer of this process. The bureaucracy 
has not informed the farmer of the process. In fact, in my State, in 
Story County, IA, there was a meeting to discuss this whole process, 
but it was by invitation only.
  Although it may be legitimate to have some further determination, it 
ought to involve the farmer and it ought to require that the bureaucrat 
making that determination at least visit the area and see with their 
own eyes what the situation might be. This would reinforce the close 
relationship we have had for six or seven decades between the soil 
conservation consultant, engineer, and the individual family farmer. I 
am talking about the family farm, not the big corporate farmer with the 
absentee landownership and some foreign manager taking care of the 
land.
  This process is currently going on, so that farmers will soon be 
deprived of the right to farm their land or improve their property 
because a Federal bureaucrat decides that such activity interferes with 
a protected wetland.
  Remember, we went through this process after we passed the 
antiswampbusting and antisodbusting legislation in the 1985 farm bill. 
I do not, for the most part--not completely, but for the most part--I 
do not hear any individual farmers complain about that determination or 
the regulations that have followed that determination. That is because 
there was an open effort on the part of the bureaucracy to work with 
the farmers, to understand what the process is, to have input. But not 
now. The meetings in my State are by invitation only.
   [[Page S1703]] Now, I suppose it sounds like we are opposed to 
protecting valuable wetlands. Well, I think the litmus test of that is 
our vote for the antiswampbusting, antisodbusting provisions in the 
1985 farm bill. There were no efforts to repeal those provisions. In 
fact, even in the 1990 farm bill, there was some expansion in this 
area.
  But I think we ought to be cognizant of the fact that it is not good 
for agriculture, it is not good for our general economy, and it surely 
is not conducive to the family farmer. He should not be expected to 
confront a faceless bureaucrat every so often, with changes in the 
rules every few years, so that farmers can never be certain if their 
conduct is allowed under the current regulatory scheme.
  I am also opposed to the promulgation of a memorandum of agreement by 
four Federal agencies that will significantly affect the ability of 
private property owners to improve their land without the benefit of 
input from the people affected by the agreement.
  My bill basically accomplishes two things. First, it will allow those 
property owners affected by the memorandum of agreement to have some 
input through congressional hearings on the wetlands policy. At the 
very least, Congress should ensure that the concerns of the private 
owners are heard before they are deprived of the use of their land.
  The second purpose of the bill is to stop the bureaucracy from acting 
based upon the flawed memorandum of agreement. It is my sincere hope 
that this Congress will reform Federal wetlands policy. This policy 
should be based upon sound science, recognize the constitutionally 
protected right of private property, and, above all, institute a large 
dose of common sense into the program.
  And where a real opportunity to instill common sense into this 
program was missed by the bureaucracy, is when the agreement was not 
promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act. That process 
allows the publishing of whatever the bureaucrat wants to regulate, but 
it institutes upon them a discipline and a hearing process to make sure 
that there is input from all segments of the regulated community.
  Now, in my State, we do not try to sneak things over on the people. 
This process of ignoring public input is foreign to the thinking of the 
commonsense approach of mid-Americans who are law-abiding citizens, who 
want to work with their Government, who want to keep the economy or the 
environment sound.
  And so I beg for 6 months to slow the process down, to alert the 
family farmers of America to what is going on. That it is affecting 
their right to farm, and to do it in a businesslike fashion, and to 
allow the Agriculture Committee, under the extremely capable leadership 
of Senator Lugar, to review this whole process and to work it into the 
farm bill. That is just 6 months. Surely there is nothing wrong with 
that. Nothing is going to happen in the next 6 months that is going to 
be catastrophic to this whole process. I think that it is a commonsense 
approach.
  So this bill stops the Government from finding new wetlands on farms 
until this reform can be put in place.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________