A24—Lancaster Fanning, Saturday, March 22,1980
Buck passing
(Continued from Page Al)
The amendment, which set
up the Rural Clean Water
Program in 1977, provided
the framework for the final
regulations for the program
winch were published by
mid-1978.
Giovannitti said his
division, with DER’s
Department of Soil and
Water Conservation, and the
Soil Conservation Service,
began putting the package
together for a state-wide
plan by the end of 1978.
He said a cooperative
committee, consisting of
representatives from the
three agencies, set up a
priority system, identifying
areas in agriculture that
were causing the most
pollution problems. The
watersheds were ranked,
with the Conestoga and
Tulpehocken watersheds
coming in first and second in
the state.
But, noted Giovanmtti, his
division still did not consider
the agricultural pollution m
water quality to be as severe
a problem as the impact of
the trichloroethylene
situation in Chester County.
Actually, he pointed out,
the original Federal Clean
Water Act of 1972 did not
even address agricultural
pollution. With the amend
ment of 1977, state en
vironmentalists recognized
the possibilities of getting
funding for Pennsylvania
farmers, and therefore
began to formulate a plan
using the existing state
policies.
Background for the plan
had been gotten through
Pennsylvania’s forerunner
to the Federal Clean Water
Act. The Pennsylvania
program, known as
COWAMP, for Com
prehensive Water
Management, blended into
the federal Section 208 area
wide waste treatment
management with more ease
than it takes to explain.
But, said Giovanmtti, even
though the area-wide
planning in Pennsylvania
was underway, there were
no funds to carryout the 1977
amendment’s rural clean
water program.
Finally, when Congress
was approving the Fiscal
Year 1980 budget last Fall,
the subiect of dollars for
BARN
BOOT
Foractivefarmers Rugged
barnyard acid resistant
uppers for extra long wear
on hardworking feet Come
try on a pair
RED
WING
BOOKS
SHOE SERVICE
107 E STATE ST
QUARRYVILLE PA 17566
717 786 2795
CLOSED WEDNESDAYS
RCWP was addressed.
However, during the ap
propriations bill approval,
there was finagling and
inter-agency fighting going
on between USDA’s SCS and
the sister-agency ASCS, said
Giovannitti.
When the feathers finally
settled and the budget was
approved, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Con
servation Service won the
adminstration respon
sibilities for RCWP. Reasons
given for the change were
RCWP cost-sharing was
similar to the programs
already administered by
ASCS and would require no
major changes in the
agency.
This reasoning was an
attempt to save time and
money, but according to
Giovanmtti, it slowed the
whole RCWP process down.
Actually, the final
regulations for RCWP under
ASCS admmstration were
published in the Federal
Register on March 4, just
one da / prior to USDA
Secretary Bob Bergland
announcing the project
dollar recipients.
Walter Peechatka, head of
the Soil and Water Con
servation Commission in the
state agreed with Giovan
mtti when he said, “I don’t
ever recall a specific date
for a state plan deadline
being announced under the
ASCS admmstration, but
under the old SCS
regulations, we knew.”
Both Giovanmtti and
Peechatka pointed out the
applications for the
Tulpehocken and Conestoga
watersheds had been sub
mitted to EPA last summer.
And a sample of the
proposed state-wide plan
had been sent in hopes that
the official plan signed by
the governor would not be
long in following.
So, what was the hold up?
According to the two DER
officials, getting the state
wide plan to the governor’s
office for approval was a
lengthy process. The public
participation requirements
set-up in the regulations tied
up the plan.
The proposal was
published, said Peechatka,
m the Pennsylvania Bulletin
and a public meeting was
held on November 14. He
That s why they re called BIG BONUS beans
Stop by and let us help you select the AGRIPRO
variety or blend that s ]us! right for you A
THINK AGRIPRO
P.L BOHRER & BRO., INC.
SMOKETOWN, PA
pointed out that only two
people other than agency
personnel attended the
public meeting.
Then there was a 30 day
waiting period where DER
had to accept written
comments and respond to
each one individually.
The state plan was finally
ready and submitted to the
governor’s office through
channels on February 1,
1980. Giovanmtti noted that
DER had been in touch with
the Attorney General’s office
to keep him informed and
speed up the process.
Even so, the plan was not
signed by the governor until
February 26.
The plan still has not
received approval from
EPA.
When asked if he knew
USDA was about to fund the
RCWP applications,
Giovanmtti stated he knew
they were planning some
funding, but didn’t know
when—it wasn’t clear under
the ASCS administration.
He added that if the plan
would have been approved
and in to EPA earlier, the
applications would not
necessarily have been
funded. He said the projects
were judged on merit, but he
said EPA was receptive to
the two Pennsylvania ap
plications, especially the
sub-basin of the Conestoga
with a dollar figure of $1.9
million.
Carl Kaufman, the state
executive director for ASCS
in Pennsylvania, said, “I
thought we had everything
going for us. The ap
plications were submitted in
a timely manner, but the
governor had not signed the
state conservation plan.”
He added the reason he
was given for not being
funded by Washington D.C.
was the projects were too big
dollar-wise.
Kaufman said there may
be a possibility for Penn
sylvania to get some funding
in the near future. But his
positive outlook is not shared
by Peechatka.
Peechatka pointed out the
13 projects approved by
USDA only used $3O million
of the $5O million allocated
for RCWP, but the difference
would be eaten up by in
flation since the cost base for
the applications was
developed some time ago.
And, the President’s
proposed budget for next
year slices the RCWP funds
to a total of $2O million
PH: 717-299-2571
nation-wide. Again, these
funds would be needed to
meet the inflation costs on
the approved projects if
current trends continue.
“The outlook is dim,”
Peechatka said, “but we’re
going to keep on plugging.”
According to Richard
Pennay, the agricultural
program specialist for ASCS
in Harrisburg, after the
appropriations bill amended
the Clean Water Act of 1977,
the state plan wasn’t ab
solutely required for ap
plications to receive funding,
unlike the original RCWP
regulations under SCS.
But, according to Dean
Quinn, Deputy Director of
Conservation and En
vironmental Protection
Division of ASCS in the
Washington office, all of the
funding went to states with
approved plans.
He explained that m the
original regulations
developed by SCS in
December, 1978, in the
proposed regulations for the
ASCS administered program
published in the Federal
Register of December 21,
1979, and finally in the
March 4, 1980 final
regulations, it called for an
approved water quality plan
m order for a state to be
eligible for RCWP funds.
He added the size of the
Tulpehocken watershed
project was a limitation for
funding, even if Penn
sylvania would have had an
approved plan. He laughed
and said it would have taken
50 percent of this year’s total
SMUCKER'S SALES & SERVICE
• Good used diesel
engines
Install a blower fan
for better diesel &
refrigeration cooling.
Longer life on diesel.
LET ME BREATHE!
FOR PROMPT SERVICE CALL
717-334-4158 OR IF NO ANSWER
CALL 717-354-4374.
allocation to fund that one
project.
Quinn stated all the
projects that were funded
have approved plans, either
state or area. He pointed out
the state of lowa has an EPA
approved state-wide plan for
conservation, whereas
Missouri has area plans
covering 5 to 10 counties and
a state plan covering those
parts of the state not under
area plans.
Quinn's outlook on the
possibilities of future fun
ding for Pennsylvania was
not as bleak as the Com
monwealth’s officials paint.
He said additional funds are
looked for during the 1981
budget development.
He anticipates the $2O
million plus the $9 million he
says is left from this year’s
budget after projects and
inflation costs are sub
tracted will be enough to
fund several new projects at
the rate of $1 to $2 million a
shot.
The final dollar value
given to RCWP is always
changeable. He noted last
year the Senate recom
mended a sum of $75 million
dollars for the program, the
House recommended no
money, with the final out
come— $5O million.
In order to be eligible for
any of the 1981 funds though,
each state will have to
resubmit the old ap
plications or submit new
ones. Quinn said he hopes by
the tune the additional funds
are available this coming
Fall, Pennsylvania's state
RD#2, BOX 21
NEW HOLLAND, PA 17557
DISTRIBUTOR FOR:
LISTER, PERKINS &
SLANZI DIESELS
conservation plan will have
been approved by EPA.
Amos Funk, vice*,
chairman of the Lancaster.
County Conservation
District commented it
wasn’t that the projects
weren’t good, or that they
were politically decided.
“EPA told the judging
committee the 208 plan was a
few days too late,” he said.
Neighboring states that
had state plans and projects
approved included:
Delaware, New Castle
County, $1,157,799;
Maryland, Double Pipe
Creek, $4,117,400; and
Vermont, St Albans Bay,
$1,215,526.
If the agencies influencing
the purse strings of RCWP
catch up with one another,
there may be a chance for
the farmers in Penn
sylvania, especially those m
the Conestoga and
Tulpehocken watersheds, to
finally realize some ad
ditional conservation funds
better late than never.
( 25* )
kjEAR A
i n g
• New Sputnik wheels
and parts
We mount diesels
on balers, crimpers,
cornpiclcers, etc.
For lower cost per
hour power, rely on
tsten
DIESEL POWER
»)