|
<br />The Executive Committee met Thursday afternoon
<br />to review the Council's budget and discuss other
<br />matters, including the water policy seminar to be held
<br />April 21-23, in Washington, D,C, The committee
<br />discussed future Council meetings. and its 1993 work
<br />plan.
<br />
<br />The Water Resources Committee began its
<br />meeting with Bill McDonald, Assistant Commissioner,
<br />Resources Management, Bureau of Reclamation,
<br />describing the Bureau's implementation of the
<br />Emergency Drought Relief Act. He noted that interim
<br />guidance on the expenditure of drought relief funds
<br />would be issued soon, and encouraged Council
<br />members to follow this issue closely, The committee
<br />then heard reports on a recent water conservation
<br />conference cosponsored by EPA and the National
<br />Governors' Association and the Council staff's
<br />preliminary efforts to compile the resuits of its state
<br />water use efficiency survey. The committee
<br />considered Its 1993 work plan and heard a
<br />Congressional update. One bill discussed was H,R,
<br />429, the omnibus reclamation package 0NSW #951).
<br />Staff noted that the bill was approved by both the
<br />House and Senate but that. because of concerns
<br />over provisions on the reallocation of water in the
<br />Central Valley Project in California, it faced a potential
<br />veto, The committee also held a thoughtful and well-
<br />received discussion on major river basin governance.
<br />It began with an historical overview by Frank Gregg,
<br />University of Arizona. A panel presentation followed
<br />with a description of the experience with current
<br />institutional arrangements and challenges facing the
<br />Columbia. Rio Grande, Colorado and Missouri River
<br />Basins. With respect to all but the latter. Council
<br />members provided both upper and lower basin
<br />perspectives,
<br />
<br />The 108th WSWC quarterly meeting began Friday
<br />morning, October 9, with a presentation by Daniel
<br />Sanchez, Secretaryrrreasurer and Executive Director
<br />of the All Indian Pueblo Council on how Indian tribes
<br />can work with state agencies on water and
<br />environmental issues, He began by explaining the
<br />Council's view on the priority Indian claims have over
<br />other resource and environmental claims, He then
<br />noted the current 'honest efforts to deal with Indians
<br />on a win-win basis' by some states and said that "we
<br />must sit around the table at arms length and talk to
<br />each other more,'
<br />
<br />After hearing reports from each of Its "working'
<br />committees, the Council adopted one policy position .
<br />concerning implementation of the SDWA. It notes
<br />the increasing disparity between drinking water
<br />requirements the federal government places on states
<br />and localities and the resources it provides to meet
<br />those demands, It asserts that some requirements
<br />are not justified based on the current understanding
<br />of existing risks, It, therefore, resolves that the
<br />Council urge Congress to expeditiously pursue
<br />reauthorization of SDWA and to give states and public
<br />water systems flexibility as they attempt to provide
<br />safe, dependable drinking water. It also resolves that
<br />Congress appropriate $100M to help states meet
<br />mandated regulatory costs, as well as 75% of the
<br />costs for any new requirements. It calls for states
<br />and local governments to raise the revenue necessary
<br />to close the remaining resource gap, to provide safe
<br />drinking water. It also resolves that the Council
<br />support the National Implementation Work Group in
<br />its efforts to recommend changes to SDWA, and
<br />encourages EP A to develop clear and simple drinking
<br />water standards and regulations.
<br />
<br />The Council meeting also included an interesting
<br />panel discussion on water user fees, Representatives
<br />from Alaska, Utah and Oregon discussed water
<br />quantity- and water quality-related fee issues. Ric .
<br />Davidge explained the Alaska Division of Water
<br />Resources' intention to instigate a new fee program,
<br />under Its existing legislative authority, which will
<br />require a $1 per acre-foot annual assessment for
<br />each acre-foot of water used over an annual floor of
<br />50 acre-feet, with some exceptions. The proposal
<br />will generate some $3.4M annually. Fred Pehrson
<br />described the various water quality fees charged by
<br />Utah under state and federally-delegated programs.
<br />as well as the associated benefits and difficulties.
<br />Martha Pagel told of Oregon's interest in exploring the
<br />use of water fees, and its preparation of scoping
<br />documents, discussions with legislative committees,
<br />and the like, concerning the issue. Her experience
<br />indicated the need to establish goals and purposes
<br />which the water use fees will support. for fairness,
<br />and the need for a broad consensus in favor of fees.
<br />She emphasized that this will take time, and Oregon
<br />is now in the goal-setting stage.
<br />
<br />The next WSWC quarterly meetings will be held in
<br />Las Vegas. Nevada, on January 13-15,
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors .
<br />of member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North
<br />Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
|