|
<br />.
<br />--/
<br />
<br />
<br />~~
<br />WESTERN
<br />STATES
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />WATER
<br />
<br />November 3, 1995
<br />Issue No. 1120
<br />
<br />(;
<br />
<br />, RECEIVEt;lCYcled paper
<br />NOV 0 6 d'erveswater
<br />
<br />THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL
<br />
<br />Colorado Wale'
<br />Ct'p..",..-ti..", D""'I'A
<br />
<br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 EaSt 7145 So. / Midvale, Utah 84047 1(801) 561-5300./ FAX (801) 255-9642
<br />
<br />Chairman - Larry Anderson; Executive Director - Craig Bell; Editor - Tony WilIardson; Typist - Alana Banks
<br />
<br />CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE
<br />Budget Reconciliation/Appropriations'
<br />
<br />~,
<br />
<br />The House ana Senate approved the COhference
<br />report on the $19.38 Energy and Water AppropriatiOns'
<br />Bill (H.R. 1905) on October 31. The vote was 402"24 in
<br />the House and 89-8 in the Senate. The bill now goes to
<br />the President., He has said'he'will sign it. H.R 1905
<br />includes $3.2El for the Corps of Engineers, $845M for
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation, $258M for the Western'Area
<br />Pow~r Marketing Administration (PMA), $30M for the
<br />Southwest PMA, $4,2M for the Alaska PMA, and $146M
<br />for ihe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
<br />
<br />Agreement has yet to be reached on appropriations
<br />bills funding the Department of the Interior (H.R. 1977)
<br />and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (H:R 2(j99).
<br />The House sent H.R 1977 back,to the Conference
<br />Committee, and several changes have been made to
<br />accommodate the House and the Administration, which
<br />has threatened to veto. the bill (WSW #118). However,
<br />a consensus has yet to be reached.
<br />
<br />t/
<br />
<br />9n November .2, the House adopted,a' niotion to; ,
<br />inslrllct.its cOAfwees\o,nH.R 2099.to.agreeto'a.5enate,
<br />amend~nt.slriking a number of eontroversial-iargiSlative:
<br />riders to limit aFp~hjbit spending by EPAfar certainr
<br />enfQipement-andother activities. The House .I:\as noW
<br />twiCll v,oted to ~rop the riders. After the first HQ!'ise vote, '
<br />the91aller,was reconsidered and the riders retained on
<br />a tie' vote: The most recent vote ~ppears to show
<br />growing str~ngth among,a coalition of Democrats and
<br />moderate Republ~J1s !hat "...can read,the polls,~ which
<br />show publicconce{ll'Qverenvironmental protection, The
<br />While House calls tIl& i'louse vote positive, but repeated
<br />its opposition to EPA fu~ding CU!S from ,$6.6B to-$4.88.
<br />~.. f: t "." 'I ,.i
<br />1 fih~1 aclion .~.many ~,9th~r., 5lppro~iations bills is'
<br />pengil19.plong ~th Pll'.~9' of--a !3udget r,s!;onciliation
<br />bill, new debt ceiling, and another continuing resolution.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />ENVIRONM~t'lt .
<br />Endangered Species Al?t IESAI
<br />, .' ~ . . "','
<br />
<br />Sena~r. DirkKeimpiIi9r~ei~:ID), introduced the
<br />Endangered Species Conservation Act (S, 1364) on
<br />.. .~- . t
<br />October 26. It is cosponsored by s~v,en..of \~e nine
<br />Republican.s on the Senate EnvirOiJmimt Committee,
<br />which has'jurisdiction. It is the secoO,Il Senate ESA bill ,
<br />introduced (WSW #1 095). It would. redefine the "taking"
<br />of protected species, eliminate the mandate of full
<br />recovery for all species, and pro\(idecompensation for
<br />takings of private prope.rty, ra1her' than imposing
<br />penalties, to encourage 'pre~'ervlillion onisted spe,cies.
<br />'....., .;' ...r:.. .'
<br />-. '..'"
<br />The bill would allow 'onIY"specles 'that are li~ely to .
<br />bec6ine extinct within 40.. ye~rs to be protected as
<br />endangered, or within 100 _ yearil to be treatea as ,
<br />threatened. 'Subspecies and distinct population'
<br />segments could not be listed unless it was determined
<br />there was a "complete lack of gene flow" within the
<br />habitat or population segment. The "taking" of protected
<br />species would not include "harm" to the spicies, tiiJt only:
<br />actions that "proximately ~nd foreseeably" injure, kill, or
<br />reduce to possession a P1ember of the species..
<br />Jeopardy wouid be:retlefined to mean that the entire "
<br />species wo~id be ~p~riled bya protiOsed federal action.
<br />
<br />States cl\~td'}eliiew listings to determil)e wtiiither the
<br />listing is warranted. Listing ;decisions would be peer-
<br />revieW~ and could be chall~nged in federal court. A
<br />cominiSsion of five individuals appointed by tlie
<br />Presidilnt would propose options for recovery of listed
<br />species. The Interior Secretary would have a year after
<br />listing to propose a abnservatioh plan arid designate
<br />critical habitat. The Secretary would be required to
<br />,consultwith.govel']1ors of ~cted states and hold public
<br />~:,:hearif1gs oh proposed conservation Plans. The bill
<br />,would also allow the delegation of authority to states to
<br />develop and implement eciilservl!ltion plans for listed
<br />species.
<br />
|