|
<br />farmers, livestock producers, agribusiness, forest
<br />product producers and our small rural communities."
<br />
<br />The Senators identified several provisions that
<br />"must be addressed...." Included were: (1) water
<br />quality criteria and standards provisions of S, 1114
<br />that "far exceed the original purposes of the act;" (2)
<br />a mandatory NPSP program, while a better way to
<br />address agricultural runoff is through a cooperative
<br />partnership between government and landowners; (3)
<br />management measures required of farmers and
<br />ranchers under S.1114 that may cause undue
<br />economic burdens, rather than "economically
<br />achievable" criteria applied on a farm-by-farm basis;
<br />(4) certain timeframes that are inadequate: (5) a
<br />provision to be added to S. 1114 to clarify that the
<br />authority of states to allocate quantities of water
<br />should not be impaired by the CWA; (6) financial
<br />assistance to help meet requirements of the bill that
<br />will likely be inadequate; (7) the lack of language to
<br />adequately address wetland reform; and (8) federal
<br />mandates for anti-degradation and outstanding natural
<br />resource waters that are unnecessary. In addition to
<br />matters commented on in some detail, the letter
<br />contains a list of "other Important concerns."
<br />
<br />The Senators closed by expressing their Intent to
<br />improve water quality management by working with
<br />Senator Baucus, and others, to reauthorize CWA. It Is
<br />difficult to determine the precise effect the letter will
<br />have. An effort has been underway for some time to
<br />address a number of the concerns mentioned, but
<br />several may be difficult.to deal with. Environmentalists
<br />have said In the past that S. 1114 cannot be made
<br />weaker from their standpoint without losing their
<br />support for the bill. Further, as many as 30 Senators
<br />have holds on S, 1114.
<br />
<br />In the House, a bipartisan alternative CWA
<br />reauthorization bill was presented, In concept, to the
<br />Public Works Committee on April 28, It incorporates
<br />a number of suggestions that have been offered to
<br />Improve H.R. 3948, including the Ideas of many state
<br />representatives. The bipartisan bill Is expected to be
<br />offered as a substitute for H.R. 3948, or in pieces as
<br />amendments, Several House members have requested
<br />further hearings before committee markup Is held. In
<br />a related matter, some 30 environmental organizations
<br />have written members of the House asking them to
<br />oppose H.R. 3948 in Its current form. "The bill," they
<br />say, "not only does little to solve serious remaining
<br />
<br />water pollution problems; It actually would weaken
<br />existing law in a number of critical ways." After .
<br />pointing out concerns with the bill, the organizations,
<br />"urged the committee to support a significantly
<br />stronger bill to reauthorize ICWA]."
<br />
<br />Safe Drinking Water Ad. - Reauthorization
<br />
<br />The Senate was expected to vote on S. 2019, to
<br />reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
<br />during the week of April 25, but has not yet done so.
<br />The bill was approved by the Senate Environment
<br />Committee. It would modify EPA's standard-setting
<br />process for drinking water contaminants, and
<br />otherwise significantly change the SDWA for the first
<br />time In almost a decade. As reported by the
<br />Environment Committee, S. 2019 would allow EPA to
<br />consider risks posed by contaminants, and costs
<br />associated with regulating them, when setting
<br />standards. Further, It would ease EPA's schedule for
<br />establishing standards, and offer some changes for
<br />small water systems. It does not offer as much
<br />regulatory relief as S. 1920, the so-called "coalition
<br />bill" to reauthorize SDWA.
<br />
<br />Finding a negotiated solution to three Issues has
<br />so far prevented the Senate from voting on S. 2019.
<br />They are source area protection, small system viability, .
<br />and standard-setting. Significant progress has been
<br />made In the negotiations, but more work remains
<br />before the bill can be brought to the floor without a
<br />battle, ARhough a settlement could come quickly, It
<br />could also take a few weeks. Even after agreement Is
<br />achieved on major issues, floor amendments may be
<br />offered, some of which could be contentious.
<br />
<br />Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME)
<br />and President Clinton have identified SDWA
<br />reauthorization as very high priority. The President
<br />said, "S. 2019 encompasses many of our
<br />recommendations and I look forward to achieving the
<br />substantial Improvements It promises..." SDWA
<br />reauthorization is thought by many observers to be
<br />more likely In this Congress than CWA reauthorization.
<br />
<br />POSmON OPENING
<br />
<br />The Mnl Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition is
<br />seeking applicants for the position of Executive
<br />Director. The Coalition is composed of 22 Missouri
<br />River Basin Indian Tribes. Call (605) 343-6054.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL Is an organization of represenlativesappointed 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 />
|