Mr. Chairman, one of the earlier speakers made a comment about how this amendment would be bad for the watershed. How I would like to respond to that is that contained in this amendment is a new approach to protecting watersheds so that we do not have to have each individual farmer apply for the conservation programs that will improve water quality, but we can do it with a number of farmers getting together, a number of farmers getting together in one State, or we could do it with a number of farmers getting together in a multi-State region which is protecting, truly, a broad watershed area. So contained in this amendment is a specific program with specific criteria to use agriculture and the conservation program to protect the water quality in a watershed.
Wayne Gilchrest: “Mr. Chairman, one of the earlier speakers made a comment about how this amendment would be bad for the watershed. How I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to watershed protection during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Wayne Gilchrest
This is not a perfect bill. There is no utopia in the legislative process. Through consensus and dialogue, we have tried to integrate the ideas of the Members, and we feel very strongly that we have come up with a bill that will improve…
Under those circumstances, with the supervisors aware of the actions of the border agents, the defendant subsequently was found out to be wounded, under those circumstances, in a Federal court, did the prosecutor take into consideration…
I think this is something that can be worked out on a bipartisan basis, and doesn't need to be one side of the aisle, and doesn't need to be contentious.
There are ways to continue the objectives of the Endangered Species Act that would be less time consuming, less litigious, less burdensome.





