My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12258
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12258
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:14:24 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:28:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8021
Description
Section D General Correspondence - Western States Water Council
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/7/1994
Author
Western States Water
Title
Western States Water 1994 - Issues 1025-1076
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 East 7145 So. 1 Midvale, Utah 84047 1 (801) 561-5300 1 FAX (801) 255-9642 <br /> <br />Chairman - Dave Kennedy; Executive Director - Craig Bell; Editor - Norm Johnson; Typist - Carrie Curvin <br /> <br />WATER aUAUTY <br /> <br />Clean Water Act - Reauthorization <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (CWA) <br />faces significant challenges, including the reluctance <br />of 46 agricuttural-state Senators to support S. 1114, <br />the Senate CWA bill, in its current form as explained <br />in a recent letter to Senator Baucus (D-Ml), the bill's <br />principle sponsor and Environment Committee Chair <br />CNSW #1042). Despite this and other distractions, <br />Senate Majority Leader Ge\lrge Mitchell (D-ME) has <br />indicated he considers passage of a CWA bill this <br />session to be a high priority. He would like S. 1114 <br />brought to the Senate floor quickly, if possible by <br />Memorial Day. In response, the Environment <br />Committee Staff have redoubled their efforts to find <br />common ground on a number of important, <br />outstanding issues. <br /> <br />In the House, one or more hearings will be held <br />prior to markup by the Public Works Committee of <br />H.R. 3948, to reauthorize CWA.. <br /> <br />Ground Water/Utah <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The State of Utah has recently published a revised <br />version of its Administrative Rules for Ground Water <br />Quality Protection. They are the result of a three-year <br />effort by state and federal agencies, industry, and <br />citizen interest groups to broaden and improve the <br />regulations that protect ground water in Utah. <br />Revisions to the regulations fit within three basic <br />categories: (1) clarifications of meaning or intent and <br />removal of redundant requirements; (2) addition of <br />new ground water quality standards; (3) inclusion of a <br />section to address corrective and remedial actions. <br />Newly adopted maximum contaminant levels for <br /> <br />drinking water resulted in'the need for some new <br />ground water quality standards. Also, the revisions <br />include a section to establish the means and <br />methodology for cleaning up ground water when <br />contaminated by spills or other discharges. The <br />regulations will apply to both new and existing facilities <br />that discharge to ground water. For more information <br />call (801) 538-6146, <br /> <br />Safe Drinking Water Act - Reauthorization <br /> <br />Senate leaders have apparently reached <br />consensus concerning the most contentious, <br />outstanding issue related to the Safe Drinking Water <br />Act (SDWA) reauthorization. S. 2019, to reauthorize <br />SDWA, now could be brought to the Senate floor for <br />a vote as early as May 13, or possibly during the week <br />of May 16. The final, difficutt issue was standard <br />setting. Senate staff, EPA,and the White House finally <br />agreed to the compromise on May 11. <br /> <br />The language will establish a new EPA process for <br />setting standards. It includes more flexibility to make <br />risk analysis and cost control part of the process. <br />Current law calls for maximum contaminant levels to <br />be set at zero for carcinogenic substances. Under the <br />compromise, standards would be set to "ensure a <br />reasonable certainty of no harm," For carcinogenic <br />substances, standards could not "resutt in a significant <br />increase in individual lifetime cancer risks," The <br />compromise also calls for a study on standard setting <br />and related matters by the National Academy of <br />Sciences to help form the basis for the new process. <br /> <br />Reportedly, some environmentalists believe the <br />standard setting compromise would unacceptably <br />weaken protection against both carcinogenic and non- <br />carcinogenic substances in drinking water, and would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.