My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00145 (2)
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
PUB00145 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:17:35 AM
Creation date
9/19/2007 3:57:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2005
Title
Western States Water Council - Seattle, WA., July 13-15, 2005
CWCB Section
Administration
Description
Western States Water Council - Seattle, WA., July 13-15, 2005
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.
/
527
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 />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />Boise, Idaho , <br />April 21, 2005 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />interstate also includes tribes? Roger-'-yes! Mark Pifher--ASIWPCAflagged interstate <br />coordination as a concern and has asked for a more formal process. <br /> <br />. Roger said EP A is also dealing with SDW A issues. <br /> <br />. Stephen Bernath-is SRF going to get funding? Roger - President's request is $780million <br />down from $816. <br /> <br />. Walt Baker-the OIG just left UT re: SRF audit. There is a disconnect betweenEPA HQ <br />and OIG, and state becomes punching bag over issue of 30 year loans. HQ letter allows it, <br />but OIG not pleased. <br /> <br />. Stephen Bernath-in the resolution, there is a specific recommendation on EP A guidance. <br />The problem is it does not carry legal weight. Washington is afraid of what will happen with <br />AFO/CAFOs with the new guidance. Will it be like general permits, where the guidance <br />does not line up with implementation? <br /> <br />DOCUMENT A TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS - Roger Gorke, EP A <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt explained this issue came up in the NM meeting. With respect to NPS program <br />in particular, OMB wants to document what are the results and justification for the investment. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Roger-Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) final will be done in late summer. <br />Performance Assessment Reporting Tracking (PART) - OMB, raises the question of what are we <br />getting out of 106 money and 319 money? One of the first things cut in state budgets is monitoring, <br />so EP A looking to see what they should do in these cases. <br /> <br />Mark Pifher-P ART review is very significant to states, and he commended EP A for their <br />outreach to states. The review of 106 is really a review of how efficient the states are in spending <br />the money. Important to ASIWPCA members. <br />With regard to PER - there were 14-15 petitions to withdraw state delegation, which is a concern. <br /> <br />Walt Baker-relative to point sources, we are looking at the SRF. We know how to measure <br />activity but are not good at measuring effectiveness. For 319,whole different issues; more complex. <br /> <br />Stephen Bernath-concerned whether EP A is looking to document results at the appropriate <br />scale. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.