Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Position No. 202 <br /> <br />9. Federal funding should be made available to the states to support watershed <br />management. The funding should not be tied to following processes specified by EP A. There <br />should be sufficient flexibility in funding to allow states to deal with watershed problems <br />according to the priorities they have identified. <br /> <br />RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />Implementation ofprograrns authorized by the Clean Water Act should be based on <br />the magnittlde of risk to human health, the protection of designated uses, and the likelihood <br />of further significant and unreasonable water quality degradation if no action is taken. <br /> <br />fUNDING <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. The minimum funding at the national level for the state revolving fund (SRF) <br />should be $2.4 billion armually for at least five additional years beyond the current <br />authorization to meet the original funding commitment of the CW A. Funding levels must be <br />restored in response to changes from the "stimulus package" which caused a reduction of <br />funding to unacceptable levels. This funding is also needed to provide adequate assistance for <br />new needs created by the 1987 reauthorization, such as controls on non-point source pollution, <br />stormwater, and toxics. Adequate funding should also be provided to meet the water quality <br />needs of small communities and rural areas. A grant program or combination 10anlgrMt <br />program with loan terms greater than 20 years should be implemented through new funding <br />and/or in a manner that does not deplete SRF assets. <br /> <br />2. CW A Section 106 funding should be increased to a level that enables states to <br />maintain effective water quality planning, ambient monitoring, permitting, and compliance. <br />Funds available to states under CW A Sections 104, 319, and any new funding for pollution <br />prevention and watershed management should be combined into Section 106, and a single <br />grant should be awarded to each state. States should then have flexibility in targeting the <br />expenditure of funds. <br /> <br />3. For any new federally mandated programs, new federal funds should be <br />provided. The Council opposes MY increased matching requirements for federal funds. <br /> <br />4. In providing SRF financial assistance to municipalities, federal requirements <br />other than those specified by CW A Title VI should not be imposed. Once federal <br />capitalization of the program ceases, EP A oversight should be limited to ensuring that the SRF <br />is maintained. federal crosscutting laws associated with the SRF program should be <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br />