|
<br />federally permitted activity complies with state water
<br />quality standards and protects designated uses
<br />included in those standards. An amendment to strike
<br />this language was proposed, but withdrawn. On CWA
<br />Section 404, the bill would allow EPA and states to
<br />negotiate the level of federal oversight of a delegated
<br />state wetlands program.
<br />
<br />Several issues remain unresolved, and a messy
<br />floor battle looms ~ solutions are not negotiated in the
<br />next two or three months, Among the remaining
<br />controversial issues are a mandated study of the
<br />health affects of chlorine compounds as envisioned by
<br />the Administration's position on the CWA
<br />reauthorization, provisions on compensation for the
<br />taking of properly rights, and whether to include risk
<br />analysis in standard setting and other CWA programs.
<br />Further, the SRF funding formula approved by the
<br />committee is considered controversial. Also up for
<br />discussion are creation of statewide anti-degradation
<br />plans, a number of issues related to ONRWs, several
<br />NPSP matters, unfunded mandates created by the bill,
<br />and "savings clause" language for state-created water
<br />rights and state water law. Committee staff have
<br />agreed to negotiate solutions to these and other
<br />issues. Several groups and individuals will be involved
<br />in the negotiations. Notw~hstanding the work left to
<br />do, some key players were optimistic about the bill's
<br />future. EPA Administrator Carol Browner
<br />congratulated the committee for ~s accomplishments
<br />and said she was "encouraged" by the proposed bill,
<br />She said, "The Committee's bill mirrors President
<br />Clinton's Clean Water In~iative in many important
<br />respects. "
<br />
<br />A House bill to reauthorize the CWA was filed late
<br />on March 3. Details were not available at press time.
<br />Rep. Norman Mlneta (D-CA), Chair of the House Public
<br />Works and Transportation Committee, recently
<br />described the bill. It will in~ially authorize $3B a year
<br />for the SRF program, Mineta said he will seek to
<br />increase that funding level by $500M for each fiscal
<br />year covered by the bill. Mineta also said that he will
<br />seek flexibility for state and local governments in
<br />addressing NPSP and watershed programs.
<br />Subcommittee markup could begin in April, Given the
<br />bill's breadth, Mineta said a full committee markup will
<br />likely be necessary as well. Mineta noted that he
<br />would have to play "very hard ball" in his committee to
<br />keep an amendment out of the bill addressing
<br />compensation for the taking of private properly rights
<br />
<br />under CWA. He said he expects such an amendment
<br />to be offered on the House floor.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />WESTERN GOVERNORS
<br />
<br />WGA/WSWC Watershed Management Workshops
<br />
<br />Approximately 75 people, representing an array of
<br />federal, state and local agencies, as well as public and
<br />private interest groups, attended a meeting
<br />cosponsored by the Western Governors' Association
<br />and the Western States Water Council in Boise, Idaho,
<br />February 24-26, Recognizing the recent emphasis on
<br />watershed management, the group was convened to
<br />answer three basic questions: (1) What types of
<br />problems are best suited to a watershed approach?
<br />(2) Are there particular methods and processes that
<br />are likely to succeed? (3) What immediate issues and
<br />actions offer opportunities for use of the watershed
<br />approach?
<br />
<br />The group first heard from David Rosgen, a noted
<br />hydrologist, on the topic "healthy rivers/healthy
<br />watersheds," and from Todd Harris, Water Quality
<br />Officer at Metro Wastewater in Denver, on the topic
<br />"altered watersheds," Dave Getches, Professor of
<br />Law, University of Colorado, who facil~ated the
<br />workshop, next described how watershed
<br />management f~s within the Park City Principles and
<br />explained the objectives of the workshop. Frank
<br />Gregg, former professor at the School of Renewable
<br />Natural Resources, University of Arizona and Director
<br />of the Bureau of Land Management during the Carter
<br />Administration, described the history, opportun~ies,
<br />and real~ies of watershed management.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The group heard five presentations on watershed
<br />management efforts. These were in the form of case
<br />studies on the Rio Grande River/City of EI Paso in New
<br />Mexico and Texas, the Muddy Creek in Montana, the
<br />John Day Watershed in Oregon, the San Pedro River
<br />in Arizona, and the Henry's Fork Watershed in Idaho.
<br />After discussing lessons learned in the general
<br />session, participants convened in breakout groups to
<br />explore various aspects of watershed management.
<br />These groups then reported their findings in a general
<br />session, which focused on recommendations and
<br />future actions. A report will be prepared summarizing
<br />the recommendations of the group.
<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 />
|