My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00144 (2)
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
PUB00144 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:17:10 AM
Creation date
9/19/2007 3:43:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2006
Title
Western States Water Council - Breckenridge, CO., July 19-21, 2006
CWCB Section
Administration
Description
Western States Water Council - Breckenridge, CO., July 19-21, 2006
Publications - Doc Type
Water Policy
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
491
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 />. <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />Washington, DC <br />March 28, 2006 <br /> <br />There is not a need to affect Superfund. I don't see a problem allowing states or tribes to permit <br />CW A authority under a Good Samaritan program. Focus on what we can agree upon, and we can <br />always come back and amend it later. <br /> <br />Questions: <br /> <br />Allen Biaggi: Is there one or 2 stumbling blocks? <br /> <br />Ken Kopocis: I think that has to be worked out in how we craft the regulatory program. <br />Keep in mind that you are hopefully reducing releases to where they are no longer a threat. There <br />is a lot of consensus in trying to get this done. <br /> <br />Duane Smith: Michelle could you speak to SRF funding and streamgaging? <br /> <br />Michelle Nellenbach: The president's budget on SRF funding was cut again. Our charge <br />is to try to find funding. We are working closely with the appropriators. We hear the some of <br />the states are not going to do TMDLs. The Chairman is concerned about EP A handling things <br />the states ought to be handling. Federal mandates need to be funded. <br /> <br />Catherine Ransom: Cuts to stream gaging is a huge problem. <br /> <br />On SRFs, the budget resolution had an amendment offered. You're seeing a bit of a <br />stalemate on some of these programs. WRDA is a priority for many of you folks, but we need to <br />be willing to do certain things to get it moving forward. <br /> <br />Tim Brown: I think the potential involvement in remediation activity, <br />what percent of mines would be likely subjects? There needs to be some kind of perspective set <br />forth. It needs to be put into context. <br /> <br />John Anderson: The mining association will be one of the witnesses at the hearing. <br /> <br />Ken Kopocis: I would think there are not many sites. If the remining activities are viable, <br />they could undertake the activity. <br /> <br />Michelle Nellenbach: Is the concern that they would be allowed to continue to remine <br />under the CW A permit? Allow them to do the remediation and they can remine it under the ... <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt: Various viewpoints on mining. What happens with respect to mine <br />drainage? <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.