7913

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7913
• Author: Freshwater Society.
• Title: Water Management in Transition, 1985.
• USFW Year: 1985.
• USFW - Doc Type: Navarre, MN.
• Copyright Material: YES

States as Water Managers:
Increased Control, Expanded Responsibility

States are being asked to be
financially responsible.

States and local governments
can respond more efficiently
and effectively to site-specific
problems than the federal
government can.

An interview with Larry Morandi
Program Manager, Natural Resources
National Conference of State Legislatures

As federal and state roles in water management begin to be reassessed
and restructured, states are responding to their increased responsibilities
with new initiatives in the areas offunding, management and preventive
action. As program manager of natural resources for the National
Conference of State Legislatures, Larry Morandi has managed numerous
water and land resource projects. In this interview he shares examples
of some of the initiatives states are undertaking.

Q: What is the basis for the expanding role of the states in terms of water
management?

A: The federal government is limiting its role in the water management business
- both quantity and quality management. It Simply doesn't have the money
anymore, and it has begun to recognize the capacity of states to manage their
water resources.

An example of this trend is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
groundwater strategy, which has focused on the states' role, The states have been
developing groundwater quality programs because they recognize the problem
and have not been willing to wait for federal action,

Q: Is this shift of major responsibility to the states a positive one?

A: In the case of groundwater, it probably couldn't be any other way. The federal
government couldn't have taken a major role even if they'd wanted to. Cleaning
up surface water is one thing-the sources of contamination are often clear
and well-defined, and they cross state boundaries, Groundwater, however, is
another story. Solutions to groundwater quality concerns depend on altering
land-use activities, and land-use policy has historically been viewed as a state
and local issue, not a federal one.

Q:Are there positive implications in this movementtoward decentralization of water
management structures?

A: Yes, there are a number of implications. For one, historically the EPA would
give money directly to a particular local government. Now, that money is being
funneled through the state, allowing the state to determine and set priorities.
States are being asked to be financially responsible. They are taking on a long-
term planning posture and looking at concerns on a statewide basis.

The states are also brokering money and involving state money in some of these
efforts, This approach is giving states control and at the same time forcing them
to become more responsible,

States and local governments can respond more efficiently and effectively to
site-specific problems than the federal government can. They can also be more
flexible, and they can set up incentives to encourage cooperative interaction.

Q: What are some of the negative implications of this movement in the direction
of non-federal management?

A: In some parts of the country, sufficient revenues are not available at the state
or local level. When the federal government pulls out of waste treatment efforts,
for example, there may be cutbacks in design and implementation. States in a
difficult financial stance will be in a difficult position,

35