Charting a New Course for Watershed Programs

Remarks by Bruce I. Knight, Chief
Natural Resources Conservation Service, at
National Watershed Coalition
9th National Watershed Conference

Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky
May 25, 2005


Good morning. I want to talk with you this morning about the future of the NRCS watershed programs. We need to chart a new course for our work on watersheds, and I want you to be part of that effort.

Cooperative Conservation

NRCS has been “A partner in conservation since 1935.” That’s seven decades of helping people help the land.

Our partnership extends beyond individual landowners to state and local governments as well as private organizations. In line with President Bush’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative, we look for opportunities to work with others to

• avoid duplication,
• leverage resources, and
• accomplish mutual environmental goals.

Last month, the White House announced that it will host a Cooperative Conservation Conference, August 29-31 in St. Louis. The goal is to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas on ways we can work together—at all levels of government—in concert with communities and landowners to enhance and protect the environment.

NRCS will be part of that conference—as will other USDA agencies—and other departments including Interior, Defense, Commerce and EPA. Most importantly, our customers will be part of this conference—the first national conference held in about 40 years.

We are looking forward to this conference as a special opportunity to foster relationships and forge alliances that will enable us to move forward in voluntary conservation activities. I hope some of you will be part of this meeting.

Watershed Program Achievements

Let’s turn now specifically to watershed programs. Last August, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of PL 566.

Over the years under this statute and PL 534, NRCS has completed work on 2,000 watershed projects throughout the Nation. In fact, since 1948, nearly $6 billion in USDA watershed programs assistance has gone to local communities to help construct 11 thousand flood control dams in every U.S. state and territory. Those dams and other measures provide more than $1.5 billion in benefits every year by

• controlling floods,
• conserving water, and
• improving community water supply.

Specifically, flood control and other measures built under NRCS watershed projects protect:

• Nearly 57,000 bridges
• Nearly, 155,000 farms and ranches
• More than 46,000 businesses

They also conserve nearly 1.8 million acre feet per year of water.

2006 Budget Proposal

This sounds like a very effective program. So how come the President’s proposed budget for 2006

• Cuts funding for Watershed Surveys and Planning by nearly 30%,
• Reduces Watershed Rehabilitation by 45%, and
• Completely eliminates any funding for Watershed Operations?
   

Good question. I’m glad you asked!

Two years ago, I stood before you and talked about how watershed programs are integral to our conservation efforts. That is still true.

Two years ago, I talked about how successful watershed programs have been in reducing flooding. That is also true.

Two years ago, I talked about the value of a broader approach that watersheds represent and the importance of partnership in identifying and achieving resource goals. That hasn’t changed.

Where Do We Go from Here?

So what’s the problem?

It’s simply this: we are no longer able to manage this program effectively. That’s because for at least the past 4 years, 100%--and even more—of the funds for watershed operation have been earmarked.

I want to say to you—and if you take nothing else away from my talk today, I want you to get this—

Zero funding does not mean zero support.

This Administration is not abandoning its commitment to watershed programs. We’re not giving up on local cooperative partnerships that cut across property lines and jurisdictions.

But it’s time to re-think our watershed programs. It’s time to begin a discussion on what a watershed program might look like if it’s based on national priorities. And I want to launch that discussion right here in this room.

For the last several years, we haven’t been managing a watershed program. We’ve been administering a basket of earmarks. And that poses some serious problems.

Let me just ask: Do any of you feel good about where we are? Does anyone define the current watershed program as a success?

Time for Change

The conference title: “The Watershed Program at 50: Reflections on the Past and Forecasts for the Future” reminds me of a brief personal story.

When I was in college, I went with the International 4-H Youth Exchange to Egypt. It was a life-changing experience for me. In fact, if I hadn’t taken that trip, I probably wouldn’t be here today.

Egypt is a beautiful country, amazingly complex. But I came to understand, as I toured the pyramids and visited Aswan—now that’s a big dam—that Egypt’s history is both a blessing and a curse.

It is just too easy to focus on the former glory and lose sight of the opportunity to achieve excellence in the present. Pride in the past, unchecked, can limit the vision needed for change and success today.

Our watershed program has been a hallmark of success for this agency. Many NRCS leaders came from this program. But we can’t let a fondness for historic achievements hold us back from accomplishing our goals today.

Think about other past successes. Returning to Egypt, how about the abacus? An ingenious and revolutionary counting device.

But you won’t find any at your local feed store. Instead, you’ll find a $5 credit card calculator that has more functions than most of us know what to do with.

How many of you card-carrying engineers brought your slide rule today? In fact, how many of you have been engineers long enough to have even used slide rules?

Under Secretary’s Testimony

This spring, Under Secretary Mark Rey testified before both the Senate and the House Appropriations committees for us on the NRCS watershed program. He pointed out that right now we have some duplication between the watershed program and farm bill programs.

He said, “We can provide land treatment, both with the watershed program and CTA and in our EQIP program, and then, also, with the structural side of things, you have some of the duplication with other agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers…”

He also noted that because the watershed program is largely earmarked, “…we now find ourselves with many States having a watershed planning staff, a watershed engineering staff that are underutilized...”

Under Secretary Rey also pointed out that the Administration “…tried to set priorities on the basis of what was going to give us the greatest environmental benefit ….over the four decades that this program has been in operation, we have dealt with a lot of the biggest watersheds within our authority that pose the greatest threat to life and property…a lot of work has already been completed.”

A Better Approach…

Let me say again that the Administration’s budget is a priority-setting document. Many of you have been told by your appropriators that your project, your dam, will go through.

As Chief of this agency, I will administer the program the Congress gives me. And if Congress provides funds for this program and tells me to implement it, we will. However, you shouldn’t take restored funding as a sign that all is well.

Many of you face a different problem. If you’re not blessed with an aggressive appropriator, your watershed program is starving. And we need to address that.

I want to suggest some questions to get our discussion going. And for you to consider among yourselves during your time here and when you get back home as well.

For example,

• What should the watershed program look like?
• How can it respond to the needs of conservation in the 21st Century?
• Should it operate in a separate sphere from the other conservation programs?
• How do we address redundancies with other programs that also include conservation land treatment, nutrient management and vegetative practices?
• What can we do under the authorities of the watershed program that we can’t do under other programs?
• How can we prioritize and match projects we fund to national goals and tie them to our strategic plan?
• What do we do about earmarks? About a backlog in the program of $1.8 billion? How long are projects in the backlog? Are the sponsors still there? (Are they still alive?)
   

The View Ahead

We’re beginning to consider some of these questions within NRCS. We want to come up with some concepts of what a new watershed program might look like.

We’d like to work with you on innovative ideas—what we can do to make this program responsible to national priorities. We don’t have all the answers yet, but we would like to work with you.

I appreciate your listening to our thoughts. Now I’d like to hear yours.
 

<Back to 2005 Speeches