|
<br />the House rule. In addition, a February 1 letter from
<br />over 20 major environmental organizations expressed
<br />opposition to any "weakening amendments;" that is,
<br />any addressing risk assessment, environmental cost-
<br />benefit analysis, "takings" of private property, and
<br />unfunded federal mandates. Such amendments have
<br />been strongly endorsed by the National Governors'
<br />Association and other groups.
<br />
<br />In what is being viewed as an unexpected and
<br />embarrassing defeat for the Administration and House
<br />majority leadership, the rule failed by a 191-227 vote
<br />(with 60 Democrats voting with Republicans, and
<br />another 12 abstaining). The defeat of the rule iead the
<br />House leadership to withdraw H.R. 3425 from floor
<br />debate, and Its future is uncertain. Reps. John Mica
<br />(R-FL) and Karen Thurman (D-FL) intend to offer an
<br />amendmfmt to require risk assessment and cost-
<br />benefit analysis for all environmental rulemaklngs.
<br />According to freshman Rep. Mica, "This vote really
<br />expresses the frustration of so many members.... We
<br />have all of these government regulations that are
<br />killing small business. The question for us is this:
<br />When do you address it? This vote says we do It
<br />now, not later." However, many Democrats view the
<br />vote as "a dangerous precedent" and fear that there
<br />may be similar amendments proposed to the
<br />Superfund and Clean Water Act reauthorizations.
<br />
<br />With respect to the takings issue, Rep. Norman
<br />Minetta, Chairman of the House Public Works and
<br />Transportation Committee, has said he does not.
<br />support "..,the idea that government cannot act to
<br />restrict activities on private property which harm the
<br />public interest without paying off the iandowner.... it
<br />makes no more sense for us to say that we must
<br />reimburse a farmer or developer for not doing things
<br />to wetlands which harm others downstream than it
<br />would be for us to say that we must reimburse the
<br />same farmer or developer for any point or non-point
<br />source pollution controls they must put in to keep from
<br />harming others downstream." He added that such a
<br />change, "...would not only end wetlands protection, we
<br />would begin the unravelling of all environmental law."
<br />
<br />WATER RIGHTS
<br />
<br />Indian Reserved Rights/Fort McDowell Community
<br />
<br />On February 7, the Secretary of Interior published
<br />
<br />a Statement of Findings regarding implementation of
<br />the Fort McDowell indian Community Water Rights
<br />Settlement Act of 1990 (PL 101-628), and waived all
<br />present and future water rights claims on behalf of the
<br />indian community and the United States. Dated
<br />January 31, the statement sets forth actions that had
<br />been taken to implement and fulfill the settlement act.
<br />It was signed by John J. Duffy, Chairman, Working
<br />Group for Indian Water Settlements. (59 FR 5609)
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />In accordance with the settlement, Interior has
<br />executed a contract with the Salt River Project for the
<br />storage and re-regulation of the community's water,
<br />and made available for delivery an additional 13,933
<br />acre-feet of Central Arizona Project water acquired
<br />from the Harquahala Valley Irrigation District ryvSW #
<br />839). Further, a subcontract with the Roosevelt Water
<br />Conservation District for CAP agriculturai water service
<br />has been revised. A special $23 Indian community
<br />development fund has been established and federally
<br />funded for use in the design and construction of
<br />facilities to put to beneficial use the community's water
<br />entitlement. and for other economic and community
<br />development activities. An additional $2M has been
<br />deposited in the fund by the state of Arizona. Further,
<br />the community has a $13M federal loan under the
<br />Small Reciamation Projects Act for the construction of
<br />water delivery and conveyance facilities on the
<br />reservation. Lastly, the Superior Court of the state of
<br />Arizona for Maricopa County has approved a
<br />stipulation waving the community's water rights claims
<br />(WSW #851).
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Of note, the statement summary reiterates, "It is
<br />the policy of the United States, in fulfillment of its trust
<br />responsibility to Indian tribes, to promote Indian
<br />self-determination and economic self-sufficiency, and
<br />to settle, wherever possible, the water rights claims of
<br />Indian tribes without lengthy and costly litigation." For
<br />more information, contact Deborah Saint, Chair,
<br />Implementation Team for the Settlement Act, P.O. Box
<br />10, Phoenix, AZ, 85001; (602) 379-3180.
<br />
<br />PEOPLE
<br />
<br />Reese Peck, of the South Dakota Department of
<br />Water and Natural Resources and an alternate
<br />member of the Western States Water Council has
<br />been appointed by Governor Water Miller to replace
<br />Robert E. Roberts as a member of the Executive
<br />Committee,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of
<br />member states. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
<br />South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member states Montana and Oklahoma
<br />
<br />.
<br />
|