To accomplish these next steps in cleaning our waters will take a concerted effort from farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners, as well as urban and suburban residents. Notwithstanding the work that remains, farmers, ranchers, and foresters have been working for years to reduce the effects of their operations on water quality. Much has been achieved in this regard using many of the conservation tools that the Congress and Department wrote into the 1985, 1990, and 1996 Farm Bills.
For example, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been an extremely effective tool in reducing erosion on highly erodible lands. Continuous sign-up of buffer practices under CRP has become an important part of water quality protection. The Wetlands Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have benefited thousands of farmers and ranchers and helped them improve the productivity of their operations through improved conservation. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is playing an important role in protecting the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, salmon habitat in Oregon and Washington, and drinking water supplies for New York City. The President's FY 2001 budget request includes $1.3 billion above currently authorized levels to bolster our agriculture conservation programs.
I am proud of agriculture' s and forestry' s contributions to the nation' s efforts to clean our waters, while recognizing that we can and should do more. As Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman noted before a Senate Committee in February it is not a matter of whether farmers should do more, but "how to proceed with our efforts to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution."
It is no secret that USDA's relationship with EPA got off to a rocky start last fall when my office filed comments highly critical of their proposed rules. However, as I have pointed out before, these comments were not cleared through the Office of the Secretary and do not represent USDA's official position. Having said this, many of those concerns had validity and we realized to obtain the best rule possible, we needed to be part of EPA's efforts in refining their initial proposal. So in January Assistant Administrator Fox and I established an interagency workgroup of our senior staff to review key issues. That group worked through the winter and came to the agreement that has been outlined by Mr. Fox on the issues of interest to USDA. As you have heard, EPA has agreed to reflect these agreements in its final TMDL rule.
I want to briefly highlight the aspects of our agreement pertinent to agriculture and forestry. Both agencies decided that giving local citizens and state governments the most say in how pollution budgets are established for impaired waterways would have the greatest measure of success. The agreement grants States more flexibility in setting priorities, more time to develop lists of impaired waters, and simplifies listing requirements, dropping a requirement that "threatened waters" be listed. States will have 15 years to develop TMDLs for their impaired waters and the final regulation will not set a time limit for attainment of Water Quality Standards.
Most importantly from the standpoint of agriculture, EPA and USDA agree that voluntary and incentive-based approaches, such as the water quality improvements that farmers make through federal conservation programs or on their own initiative, will be given due credit in the development of TMDLs.
Much of our concern was related to the regulation of pollution from forest operations - harvesting, road building and other activities. Under the revised regulation no NPDES permits will be required for five years from publication of the final rule. After that period States are given choices in determining the degree of federal regulation that will apply. Forest operations in States that develop adequate forest water quality programs based on EPA-approved BMPs will never be subject to NPDES permits. EPA will consult the USDA in determining the standards for approving BMPs. Operations on National Forest System lands, where operators already follow regulations that require consistency with State water requirements, will be exempt from NPDES permit requirements.
We were concerned whether operators who are implementing those BMPs required by a State would be subject to penalty for failing to meet water quality standards. I learned that the EPA cannot legally mandate States to adopt these requirements, but as an incentive to good faith compliance with forestry BMPs, the EPA will encourage State programs to include a good faith exemption from any directly enforceable State water quality standard. If a State fails to gain approval for their forestry BMP program after five years, the State or EPA will have the authority to designate discharges of significant stormwater pollution as needing a NPDES permit. Any NPDES permits that are issued by EPA will include BMPs, as opposed to numerical effluent limitations. EPA expects that States will follow this practice. Finally, dischargers that are allowed to operate without a NPDES permit will not be exposed to citizen suits for failure to have a permit. This is a brief summary of our silviculture proposal, I would be happy to answer any detailed questions you may have.
Adequate funding of the programs that will help landowners address TMDLs is key to their success. The EPA is currently developing estimates of the overall cost of the TMDL program and the analysis will be available when the final rule is published. USDA agricultural conservation programs are dramatically enhanced by the Farm Safety Net proposal in the FY 2001 budget. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would be increased from $200 million to $325 million. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be expanded to 40 million acres. Under our current authority, we are increasing CRP continuous sign up incentives by $100 million in FY 2000 and $125 million in each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), which will reach its statutory 975,000 acre cumulative cap in FY 2001, will enroll 250,000 acres annually. Finally, under the President's budget, a new $600 million Conservation Security Program would be funded and will provide annual payments to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily implement various conservation practices, many of which will benefit water quality.
However, in both House and Senate appropriation bills, a provision has been inserted limiting FY 2001 EQIP funding to $174 million, $151 million less than the President's Budget and $26 million below its authorized level. Congress also has not authorized additional funding for WRP, CRP, or the new Conservation Security Program, as requested by the President. I strongly urge Congress to drop the objectionable EQIP provision and fully fund these important programs that can provide State and local partners the tools to successfully build their TMDL programs.
USDA believes education and outreach to the affected communities will play decisive roles in these efforts to improve water quality. We and the EPA believe the final TMDL rules must be fair, clear, and provide farmers with greater certainty. With this in mind, we are working diligently with the EPA to achieve these goals.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before your Committee. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues and respond to your questions.