|
<br />Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted
<br />by July 28, to Rangeland Reform '94, P.O, Box 66300,
<br />Washington, D.C. 20035-6300, Along with suggested
<br />modifications and the reasons for the changes, please
<br />identify the specijic section and paragraph label for
<br />the regulatory text. For information call Mark W. Stiles,
<br />Regulations Analyst, Division of Legislation and
<br />Regulatory Management, BLM; (202) 208-4256.
<br />
<br />E~RONMENT~ATERRESOURCES
<br />
<br />Endangered Species Act/Utah/Virgin River
<br />
<br />A U,S. District Court has ruled the U.S. Fish &
<br />Wildlife Service (FWS) must designate critical habitat
<br />for the endangered Virgin River chub by December 1,
<br />1995, A Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund lawsuit
<br />alleged that the FWS had violated the Endangered
<br />Species Act by not designating critical habitat for the
<br />endangered chub within two years of it's June 1986
<br />listing. Shortly after the ruling was handed down
<br />another suit was filed seeking to force FWS to list as
<br />endangered the Virgin River spinedace. Sierra Club
<br />attorney Munir Meghjee told the Salt Lake Tribune,
<br />'The Virgin River fish are one fin away from extinction,
<br />and this gives them some badly needed protection."
<br />
<br />However, Larry Anderson, Director of the Utah
<br />Division of Water Resources, said the decision
<br />'complicates the program we already have in place to
<br />recover the fish. What it is going to take Is a
<br />commitment from water users, the state, and federal
<br />agencies to find solutions to the fish problems." The
<br />ruling may hinder plans to develop water projects in
<br />the Virgin River Basin to respond to rapid growth In
<br />southwestern Utah. Another alternative now being
<br />considered is building a pipeline to transport some of
<br />Utah's share of the water from the Colorado River In
<br />Lake Powell to Washington County. Anderson said,
<br />.Vv(Jlve just looked (.1. tho pOSGlbUity to see if :t made
<br />any sense. That's as far as we'Ve gone." Preliminary
<br />cost estimates for the pipeline range from $141-250M.
<br />
<br />WATER QUAUTY
<br />
<br />Safe Drinking Water Act-Reauthorization
<br />
<br />The Senate Environment and Public Works
<br />Committee has reported out S. 1547, to amend the
<br />
<br />Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). S. 1547 originally
<br />followed closely the Clinton Administration's SDWA
<br />recommendations I;NSW #1018), but was changed to
<br />provide state and local governments increased
<br />flexibility to carry out SDWA requirements. The bill
<br />would increase funding, allow some risk assessment
<br />and cost/benefit analysis in standard setting, and
<br />provide assistance to disadvantaged communities,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />S. 1547 would create a state revolving fund (SRF)
<br />and authorize $1 B annually from FY95-FY2000. State
<br />governors would be allowed to use up to 50% of
<br />SDWA and Clean Water Act SRFs interchangeably to
<br />meet their most critical needs, and use up to 30% of
<br />SDWA SRF funds to aid disadvantaged communities
<br />with subsidized loans. Instead of current standard
<br />setting procedures (25 contaminants regulated by EPA
<br />every three years), . the bill establishes the following
<br />schedule for the agency: (1) thirteen disinfection
<br />byproduct contaminants within three years; (2) fifteen
<br />additional contaminants within the next five years; and
<br />(3) seven additional contaminants In each subsequent
<br />5-year period. EPA may also decide not to regulate a
<br />contaminant under certain criteria. Generally, risk
<br />standards would be set at one In one million cancers
<br />for carcinogens, while no risk assessment standards
<br />would be used for non-carcinogens.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />In addition to increased financial aid to small
<br />drinking water systems, S. 1547 would ease their
<br />monitoring requirements. Monitoring frequency would
<br />change from three months to three years for many
<br />substances Infrequently detected In the systems.
<br />Also, such systems could apply for variances from
<br />some standards where they can show they adequately
<br />protect human health thorough use of any "small
<br />system" technology approved by EPA. Variances
<br />could be granted by states with SDWA primacy,
<br />subject to a five-year review.
<br />
<br />On March 10, Senator Pate Domenici (R-NM) and
<br />others introduced S. 1920. A SDWA reauthorization
<br />bill similar to H,R. 3392, the Slattery/Bllley bill
<br />I;NSW #1027). However, it would create a SRF with
<br />provisions for disadvantaged communities, rather than
<br />establish a grant program. Consideration of costs and
<br />public health benefits, along with other risk analysis
<br />techniques, would be allowed as part of standard-
<br />setting procedures under S. 1920. Further, monitoring
<br />requirements would be based on the occurrence of
<br />contaminants.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Govemors 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 />
|