WSP03125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002823 Chafee said that these matters could be handled in report language. Senator Hutch,son also offered, but later withdrew, an amendment emphasizing "good science" and field-tested data in ESA decisions. She may air it during the fioor vote. In passIng the new narrow ESA revisions, some remarked that the era of big bills is over, and commended Chafee's wisdom in concluding that comprehensive reform of the statute is not likely. Regulatory Reform This week the House Government Reform Subcommittee began discussing a bill, H. R. 2254, to promote state and local government authority in implementing federal ru!e~. Subcoliimit::ee Ct".ain nan, David Mcintosh (R-IN), in a hearing on June 30, stated that the measure is a "bipartiSan bill to promote and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of our federalist system of government, and to recognize the partnership between the federal government and state and local governments in implementing federal programs." Other witnesses included representatives of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of COlmties, the General Accounting Office and a law professor. Environmental and public interest groups are expected to oppose the bill as an attempt to preempt federal authority and to argue that preserving federal authorities is essential in implementing federal standards. Nevertheless, the legislation has strong backing from state and local government groups. The bill provides that in the legislative branch, Congress would have to deliberately identify any sections of a bill where they would be preempting state and local authority and provide the reasons for doing so. The executive branch would need to identify any p'eempted authority In rules and identify the statutory backing for it. In addition, regulatory impact alternatives would have to be defined. Additionally, the judicial branch would be given new rules of judicial construction. Any ambiguity would be construed in favor of preserving the authority of state and local governments. The bill is not retroactive and could only apply to new rules under new laws or new rules under amendments to old laws. Besides Mcintosh, the bill has six other co-sponsors, three of which are Democrats. A companion bill, S. 1214, has been introduced in the Senate by Govemment Affairs Committee Chairman, Fred Thompson (R-TN). No action has been scheduled by the Senate on the bill, but one source in the Senate predicted: "When you've got state and local govemments beating on the door and RECEiVED IUl 0 6 1999 bipartisan support. this thing could" fiy throUQh." Colorado Water , con..-erVCltlOn B04!rc L1T1GATIONIWATER QUALITY .' " TMDLsIClean Water Act A lawsuit challenging the establishment of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Garcia River in Mendocino County, California has been filed in the San Francisco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Pronsolino, et a/. v. Marcus, et al., filed on Aprr112, 1999, questions the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to require the inclusion of 17 stream segments impaired by non-point source pollution on California's Clean Water Act (CWA) S 303(d) list and to prepare and implement a TMDL for these water bodies. The plaintiffs, GUido and Betty Pronsolino, the Mendocino County Farm Bureau, the California Farm Bureau, and the American Farm Bureau, seek to set aside and enjo,n the unauthorized regulation of non-point source pollution by the EPA. Plaintiffs claim that CWA S 303(d)(1 )(A) "specifically limits the identification and listing of water segments to those that fail to meet water quality standards due to point sources of pollution." They contend that the defendants disapproved of California's 1992 S 303(d) list "because [the state] did not list 17 water segments, including the Garcia River which [EPA] determined failed to meet water qua lit) standards due to non-point sources of pollution and natural background conditions." After Califomia failed to establish TMDLs for any of the 17 stream segments, EPA prepared a TMDL for sedimentation for the Garcia River which "requires significant reductions in non-point source sediment loadings to the Garcia River. It achieves these reductions by mandating controls on the activities of timber harvesters and farmers in the Garcia River watershed.' The plaintiffs allege that the interests of the Pronsolinos and others have been severely injured by the implementation of the TMDL which requires conditions and restrictions not mandated by California law to be placed on their Timber Management Plan. These conditions and restrictions result in significant additional costs incurred by the Pronsolinos in harvesting timber on their Copper Queen Ranch, as well as the inability to harvest certain areas of the ranch and the inability to harvest any timber from mid-October to the first of May. A copy of the complaint is available from the Council offices. The attorney for the plaintiffs is Frederick S. Levin of Mayer, Brown & Platt in Los Angeles, CA: phone number (213) 229-9500. The WE'3TERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of member states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming - and associate member state Alaska.