Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br /> <br />WESTER <br />STATES <br />WATER <br /> <br /> <br />o' <br /> <br />October 27. 1995 <br />Issue No. 1119 <br /> <br />THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL <br /> <br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201 /942 East 7145 So. / Midvale, Utah 84047 / (801) 561-5300 I FAX (801) 255-9642 <br /> <br />Chairman - Larry Anderson; Executive Director - Craig Bell; Editor - Tony WiUardson; Typist - Alana Banks <br /> <br />CONGRESSIONAL UPDA TE/ENVIRONMENT <br />Endangered Species Act <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The House Resources Committee recently reported <br />H.R. 2275, to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, <br />but several obstacles remain before .it can go to the <br />House floor CNSW #1117). Crafted by Committee Chair <br />Don Young (R-AK) and Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), the <br />bill was sequentially referred to the House Agriculture <br />. Committee. Once that Committee reports the bill, it must <br />go to the House Rules Committee. House Speaker <br />Newt Gingrich (R-GA) has reservations about the bill, <br />giving rise to speculation as to how the Rules Committee <br />may handle the issue. Senator Dirk Kempthome (R-ID), <br />Chair of the . Environment and Public Works <br />Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries,. and <br />Wildlife, is expected to introduce a bill shortly. <br /> <br />While claiming that H.R. 2275 incorporates 80% of <br />the Westem Govemors' Association's recommendations, <br />the bill's authors claim no endorsement. Indeed, a WC3A <br />memo states that the bill differs in several respects from <br />the consensus position adopted by the govemors. For <br />example, the bill amends Section PIJhe law's federal- <br />state cooPlilrative agreement provision, to allow not only <br />states, but ~1s9 local govemments and priv,ate citizens to <br />develop coopera~ve management agreements designed <br />to conserve'listed candidate species. Concem has been <br />raised that this change could fracture state management <br />and divide state funding sources. The bill also makes <br />major.' changes that eliminate much of the law's <br />protection for species' habitat, broadly expands the <br />definition of incidental take, and provides several <br />. exemptions from the Act, while adding a number of new <br />. procedural requirements. <br /> <br />. ENVIRONMENTIWATER QUALITY <br />"Environmental Protection Agency <br /> <br />.~ven l/:1e.l1r9spect ofsignific<lnt budget cuts, WSWC <br />Chairman Larry AnderSon wrote EPA, on behalf of the <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Western States Water Council, regarding the need for <br />more flexibility for states to target remaining funds to the <br />highest priority issues: In a letter dated October 4, EPA <br />Associate Administrator Shelley Metzenbaum responded <br />expressing concern about the proposed cuts and <br />acknowledging that uncertainty surrounds funding and <br />flexibility. Ms. Metzenbaum wrote: "However, I think <br />you can be encouraged by the recent statelEPA National <br />Environmental Performance Partnership System <br />(NEPPS) agreement that has been reached between the <br />agency and state environmental commissioners, which <br />provides great flexibility for states to identify their own <br />priorities and work out agreements with EPA regional <br />offices to address environmental issues accordingly." <br />Also, she notes EPA has initiated a new Performance <br />Partnership Grant (PPG) system, that allows eligible <br />state and tribal agencies to combine separate <br />categorical grant funds into one grant. "This will <br />increase state flexibility even further by enabling them to <br />address their most significant environmental priorities, <br />help improve environmental performance, and reduce <br />the administrative burdens ot'the grants process." <br /> <br />The NEPPSagreement, dated May 17, 1995, sets <br />forth the following principles, among others, to guide the <br />process: (1) continuous environmental improvements <br />are desirable. .and achievable; (2) a core level of <br />environmental protection must be maintained; (3) joint <br />EPA/state planning should be based on environmental <br />goals that are adaptable to local conditions; (4) <br />EPA/state activity plans and commitments should <br />allocate federal and state resources to the highest <br />priority problems across all media and should seek <br />pollution-prevention approaches before management, <br />treatment, disposal and cleanup; and (5) a differential <br />approach to oversight should provide an incentive for <br />state programs to perform well, rewarding strong state <br />programs and freeing up federal resources to address <br />problems where state programs need assistance. The <br />agreement also sets forth a detailed description of the <br />components of the system and describes a new <br />