My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03203
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:49:09 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:36:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8021
Description
Section D General Correspondence - Western States Water Council
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
2/10/1995
Author
Western States Water
Title
Western States Water 1995 - Issues 1082-1121
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br /> <br />"''-1'- ,'.' ~ <br />(j;); ;:hWESTERN <br />,- . '. 1:~~~~Iii~ <br />STATES <br />WATER <br /> <br />(; <br /> <br />recycled paper <br />conserves water <br /> <br />THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL <br /> <br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201 /9~2 East 7145~.?,.j Midya!e, Utah 84047 / (801) ~.61.5~OO I FAX (801) 255-9642 <br /> <br />Chairman - Larry Anderson; Executive Director - Craig BeIl; Editor - Craig BeIl; Typist - Alona Banks <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE <br />Regulatory Reform, '. <br /> <br />The Senate this week began formal debate on the <br />Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (S. 343) <br />introduced by Senators Dole (R-KS) and Johnston (D- <br />LA) (WSW #1090). Over the July 4 break, agreement <br />was reached on provisions streamlining the petition <br />process and deleting the bill's Toxic Release Inventory <br />provision that might have removed 288 new chemicals <br />from the Toxic Release Inventory that have been added <br />since 1994 as required under the Community Right-to- <br />Know Act. However, agreement was not reached on the' <br />supermandategrQvision l<;lnguagli!'which would limit the .' <br />bill's retroactive applicability. <br /> <br />A bipartisan group is now threatening to support an <br />alternative bill based on a more mOderate measure.. <br />supported by Senator Roth (R-DE) if additional <br />concessions are not granted. The alternative measure <br />would set the threshold for major rules at $100 million, <br />double the $50M threshold of the Dole-Johnston bill. In <br />place of the automatic-sunsel'pro\fisionof S. 343,lhe <br />alternative versiori"'wollld issue a notice of proposed .' <br />rulemaking warning agencies that a rule <:ould be <br />repealed if they fail toreitiew it. Further, the alternative <br />would limit the risk assessment requirements'.to eleven <br />federal agencies. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Numerous amendments to S. 343 are expected. They <br />are likely to include the alternative bill's increased <br />threshold level. Senator Kennedy (D-MA) proposes <br />restoring the Delaney clause, which would set a zero- <br />risk standard for carcinogenic pesticides in processed <br />foods. Senators Dole and Abraham (R-MI) want to <br />require agencies to place on their review calendar rules <br />recommended by the Small Business Administration. <br />Senators Nunn (D-GA) and Coverdell (R-GA) want to <br />add language clarifying that rules affecting small <br />businesses must also meet cost-benefit requirements. <br /> <br />WATER RESOURCES <br />Water,ConserVation <br />- '" - - ':: ~ ,. : <br /> <br />.;.. ~, <br /> <br />.-."..- <br /> <br />" , <br />"TheWestem States Water Council and U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamatiori co-sponsored ,a workshop on water <br />conservation in the West in San Diego, Califomia on July <br />10-12. The meeting focused on sfate:and federal efforts <br />to promote water conservation. More than eighty <br />federal, state and local officials pa~icipated. Fourteen <br />states sent representatives to discuss their water <br />conservation programs, alid there were a number of <br />presentations on different policy, proje'ct and program <br />initiatives within Reclamation. <br /> <br />The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's proposed water <br />conservation guidelines, .criteria and separate rules were <br />'discU~~E1(Lbriefly ,(WSW;~1079). The deadline for <br />COmmeritson the guidelines has been extended through <br />July 25. Ed Osann, Director of Policy and External <br />Affairs, addressed some of the comments received to <br />date and pointed out that there was a clear dichotomy <br />between the views expressed by states and water <br />,districts. and Ihose<:by, environmental groups. While <br />. -,unable \erstate i,~:<lfai1y policy, decisiOns had been made <br />at this time, he predicted th<;lt,a clE1arer distinction would <br />be made as to'the nature and. purpose of the guidelines <br />and the separate rules. Further; there would be a <br />number of modifications. References to Section.210(b) <br />of the Reclamation Reform'Actwilllikely be removed, <br />and Reclamation's statutory authority otherwise clarified. <br />The requirement for Bureau approval of plans will likely <br />be removed, thus eliminating for the moment the federal <br />action triggering compliance with the National <br />Environmental Policy Act. This will likely apply to both <br />the guidelines and the proposed rules. However, plan <br />implementation may trigger NEPA compliance. The <br />latter are expected to be finalized by December and the <br />former by September, but no decision has been made <br />with respect to the effective date of each. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.