|
<br />The report was prepared by ACIR staff and
<br />reviewed by a special committee of ACIR members,
<br />Including Senator David Durenburger (R-MN), current
<br />Montana Governor Stan Stephens, Salt Lake County
<br />Commissioner Mike Stewart, and Colorado Springs
<br />Mayor Robert Isaac.
<br />
<br />The study finds that federal rules and procedures
<br />protecting the environment often are 'complex,
<br />conflicting, difficult to apply, adversarial, costly,
<br />inflexible, and uncertain.' Further, federal
<br />decision making procedures often result '...in delay,
<br />wasted effort and money, lost opportunities to
<br />accommodate both environmental protection and
<br />infrastructure objectives, prolonged litigation, and
<br />more process....' The report notes that federal, state
<br />and local agencies have made substantial progress
<br />towards streamlining the process, but more needs to
<br />be done to clarify the environmental protection and
<br />infrastructure responsibilities of federal, state and local
<br />governments. Moreover, the intergovernmental review
<br />process should '..,recognize a key role for the states
<br />in reconciling and mediating the interests of citizens,
<br />local governments, states, Indian tribes and the
<br />federal government.'
<br />
<br />The report finds five main reasons for the current
<br />difficulties. First, some environmental standards are
<br />unnecessarily arbitrary, or are applied arbitrarily.
<br />Second, federal decision making frequently involves
<br />too many sequential steps and potential veto points
<br />and is too detailed, pervasive, and distant from the
<br />site to be efficient, effective and realistic. Third, many
<br />agencies have different environmental responsibilities
<br />as well as multiple and. diverse triggers for vetoes, but
<br />not enough data, expertise or money, time and
<br />personnel to adequately analyze and coordinate their
<br />activities. Fourth, mechanisms need to be further
<br />developed to balance diverse needs and values and
<br />avoid gridlock and litigation. Fifth, projected project
<br />costs fail to internalize full environmental costs and
<br />allocate those costs among project beneficiaries.
<br />
<br />Also of note, the report states that while some
<br />federal statutes such as the National Environmental
<br />Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Power Act and Electric
<br />Consumers' Protection Act call for balancing social,
<br />environmental and economic objectives, others such
<br />as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and
<br />Clean Water Act apply environmental standards
<br />without regard to other costs and needs.
<br />
<br />The report includes seven recommendations
<br />covering: (1) integrated administration of federal
<br />environmental protection laws through NEPA and the
<br />Council on Environmental Quality; (2) administration
<br />of environmental decisionmaking by executive order;
<br />(3) integration of federal pollution control laws; (4)
<br />state implementation of federal environmental
<br />protection laws; (5) federal and state use of
<br />environmental mediation for dispute resoiution and
<br />negotiated rulemaking; (6) federal reimbursement of
<br />mandated environmental protection costs; and (7) the
<br />scientific basis for ecological management. For
<br />copies of the report contact ACIR, 800 K Street,
<br />South Building, Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20575;
<br />(202) 653-5536.
<br />
<br />W6.TER RESOURCES
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Corps of Engineers
<br />
<br />The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has announced
<br />the deauthorization of several projects, or separable
<br />elements, due to Congress' failure to obligate funds
<br />for planning, design or construction within five years
<br />from the date of authorization as required by the
<br />Water Resources Development Act of 1986. However,
<br />the Congress may choose to specifically continue a
<br />project's authorization. Eight projects, including Big
<br />Pine Lake in Texas, were continued by the Energy
<br />and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1992
<br />(P.L. 102-104) and the Water Resources Development
<br />Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580; WSW #962 and #966).
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The deauthorization notice was signed by Nancy
<br />Dorn, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
<br />It includes the following projects and elements: Alaska
<br />- Allison Lake Hydropower and Scammon Bay;
<br />Arizona - Gila River tributaries downstream from
<br />Painted Rock Reservoir; California - Morro Bay Harbor
<br />Office, Noyo and Sunset Harbors, and Sunset Cliffs
<br />in San Diego; Montana - the Milk River near Havre;
<br />Hawaii - Waikiki Beach on Oahu; New Mexico - Pecos
<br />River at Carls bad; North Dakota - Grafton; Oregon .
<br />Blue River powerhouse and Yaquina south jetty;
<br />South Dakota - Upper Missouri River streambank
<br />erosion and Lake Herman dredging; and Texas -
<br />Cottonwood Bridge at Lewisville Lake, Carl L. Estes
<br />Lake, Clopton Crossing Lake, and Harbor of Refuge
<br />at Seadrift. For more information contact John Micik,
<br />Corps of Engineers, CECW-BA, Washington, D.C.
<br />20314-1000; (202) 272-0705. (57 FR 59335)
<br />
<br />.
<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 />
<br />~eason'z ~reettngz
<br />
|