WSP12258

• 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

WESTERN
TAT
A TF1 E

n0157P

.

July 29, 1994
ue No. 1054

o

r cled paper
serves water

TIIE WEEKLY NEWSLETfER OF TIIE WESTERN STA1li') WATER COUNCIL

Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201 /942 East 7145 So. / Midvale, Utah 84047 / [phone] / FAX (801) 255-%42

Chairman - Dave Kennedy; Executive Director - Craig Bell; Editor - Ricky S. Torrey; Typist - Carrie Curvin

CONGRESSIONAl UPDATE

Clean Water Act

.

Although it is unlikely that a comprehensive
reauthorization of the Clearr Water Act (CWA) will be
passed this Congress, some see improved prospects
for passage of a "Clean Water 'Ute.'" Congressional
committee and EPA staff have been meeting with state
and industry groups in hopes that a broad consensus
can be reached on a comprehensive bill. However,
negotiations are fa~ering and, focus has shifted to a
much scaled down reauthorization bill. Recently,
Senate Appropriations, VA, HUD and the Independent
Agency Subcommittee entered the fray by allocating
funds for the state revolving loan program. This action
contrasted with the HOLlse Appropriations bill, which
conditioned release of fLlnds on CWA reauthorization.

Senator Baucus, Chairman of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, has vowed
to fight a "money only" reauthorization bill. However,
some Senate sources indicate that all parties in the
debate recognize that lime is running out and that
Senate support to block wastewater funding is lacking.
Thus, a Clean Water Act "Ute" bill, even a "money
only" bill, may be a possible outcome this Congress.

Superfund

.

Washington sources indicate that debate over the
1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response Uability
and Cleanup Act (CERCLA) is heating up in light of
the need for Congressional reauthorization this year.
A recent campaign to repeal a Superfund rule that
makes companies responsible for the clean-up of
waste sites created before 1980 threatened to kill the
bill, since a coalition of lawmakers, environmentalists

and business leaders, who earlier forged the
compromise redraft of the statute, flatly rejected the
repeal of the retroactive liability clause. Some argue
that W a compromise fails this year, it might be
impossible to renew Superfund next year, given the
difficulty in forgihg consensus in the first place.

Virtually everyone agrees, however, that the statute.
has been ineffectual. Environmenialists point out that
only about 150 sites have been cleaned LIP in 14
years, while more than 1200 remain on the EPA
Superfund National Priorities list. On the other hand,
business interests complain that the statute does not
allow them the flexibility thatrnany sites require.

Attempting to expedite Senate passage of the
revised statute, Senator Baucus last week proposed
two amendments. One would allow EPA to adopt site-
. . specific . measures to contain water. contamination
where ground-water standards cannot be met. The
s~condwould exempt certain sites from national
health standards where attainment is "technically
infeasible or unreasonably costly."

Mining Law Reform

Work on mining law reform is continuing in the
House and Senate. Senator Bennett Johnston, Chair
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
recently began a dialogue with western Democratic
senators about developing some amendments to his
Chairman's mark. Believing that the minority wants to
kill the legislation, he is attempting to fashion a bill that
the western Democrats can SLlpport.

One significant issue in the debate is the extent to
which the federal government should be involved in
ground-water protection efforts associated with mining