|
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />WE'STERN
<br />, , -- \'" ,,~
<br />ST A TESNo C~/I/~O
<br />, :" V I J
<br />W~' , AT' 'E" RCoCoio,-,,<to 1995
<br />':, ' ' nse"'"uon~:d
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />November 9. 1995
<br />Issue No, 1l2!
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />recycled paper
<br />conserves water
<br />
<br />THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OFl}IE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL'
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 East 7145 So. I Midval~, tilab 84047) (801) 561-S300'f'f'AX (861) 255-%42, ,
<br />
<br />Chairman - Larry Anderson; Executive Director - Craig Bell; Editor - Tony WilIardson; Typist - Alana Banks
<br />
<br />ADMINISTRATION UPDATE
<br />EPA Water User Fee Proposal
<br />"~<
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The EP A and the Environmental Financial Advisory
<br />Board have <;onducted several open meetings in
<br />preparation for issuing a report to Congress on options
<br />for funding wastewater treatment infrastructure
<br />improvements. A primary option under consideration at
<br />the meetings has been the possibility of taxing water
<br />and wastewater users to help finance infrastructure
<br />imprqvements. Water utility groups have participated in
<br />aU of the rneelings. They have drafted a letter to EPA
<br />Assistant Administrator for Water Robert Perciasepe,
<br />stating, "despite our numerous and vehement opposition
<br />to a water and wastewater user fee, we have b~n
<br />ignored, and this taxing approach continues to be a
<br />viable option: The draft letter states tl1at, for every
<br />dollar raised by the proposed tax, half would ,go to
<br />overhead. It also expresses concerns that funds raised
<br />would be diverted to programs unrelated to water. It
<br />further notes that private t!tilities do not qua!!fy to receive
<br />money from the Clean Water Act state revolving fund;
<br />but wOI,lIc;l be required to pay taxes under lt1e prOPQH~ '
<br />wit~pllt fSpeiving any impr\Wements i",.~xc!la~e."ThIll
<br />letter also opposes the nation of c:ollectifl9 t"e:majo(ity ,
<br />af taxes. from large-publiC utilities to be' redistribiJ~
<br />primatily to small'!Jtilities. "There are ~r ways to
<br />addresS', the problem$ of small utilities,' such .as
<br />pll!ventingthe formation of non-viablesysfems llnd
<br />rea\istiqally addressing the viability of existing, utilities,"
<br />!tie utility groups suggest. . " ' .
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />CONGR\,!SSION~L UPPA TEI)'V~ TER QU~LITY,'
<br />"..sife Drinking Water Act
<br />
<br />~e Safe Drinking W8ter Act (~DW.A) reauthorization
<br />bHl h8s enjoyed remarkable success, ill the ,Senate in Its
<br />briefspan. (W$W'#111l!), However, wes!em statE!$,
<br />the Natlonal Water Resources Adminislration (NWRA)
<br />
<br />and others 1If1ll ROW criticizing a,prlivisiOll in the bill that
<br />apparently would make open canals with incidental
<br />domestic wilter use'subject to, SOWA regulation. The
<br />NWRA advOC$tes exempting irrigation districts from the
<br />definition of a publiC water system. The National
<br />Resources Defense Council and two other groups have
<br />also recently criticized the bill ,for setting a radon level
<br />that allegsdly poses a 1 in 500 (:l!ncer risk.
<br />
<br />Meanwhile, a floor vote on the SDWA bill has been
<br />postponed so that staff can neg~liate over isSues that
<br />threaten to'block its p,al;Sa!!e, Major amendments are
<br />expected from both' Repu~li~ns and D~ocrats.
<br />Senator Borll:l (R-MO); EPA Appropriations Ch~ir, urges
<br />cl,ltting 'the $1 billion annual slate revolving fund
<br />authorized in the bill. Senator fl'airclaugh (R-NC) wants
<br />an am~dment repealing apPucation,of the Davis-Bacon
<br />Act's requirement to pay workerS on federally funded
<br />projects at union rates: Senator Boxer (D-CA) is seeking
<br />amendments to require states to disclose pollutant levels
<br />in drinking watef,-and togr!lnt the EPA flexibility to
<br />bypass 'certain,requiremsnts ,in :emergenCY"lIit1lationll:-
<br />SllIIator Kemty (O-MA) may al$O introduce a source
<br />wl\Iter protlletion amendment aimed at Obviating '$OlT18
<br />drinkln~ water lrei!tment COlII$'.
<br />" ,.... .
<br />
<br />WAJEI$ QV~rry
<br />BotJIIOWater Standards
<br />.,' J
<br />
<br />~inning next May, the Food and Drug
<br />AdMiiiilitration will require bottled waters to carry
<br />accurate labels: "spring"water" must come from a
<br />spring; "mineral water" must carry a certain mineral
<br />content; "sterile' water must be processed to meet FDA
<br />standards for commercial sterility; and if water comes
<br />from municipal supplies, it will have 10 be, labeled so.
<br />The . International Bottled Water AsSOCiation,
<br />representing 85% of the'250water Dottlers in the United
<br />StateS,asked tiieFDA 10 establish some ground rules.
<br />.c~nsid8r;ed a food prOduet, bollled water is IUbjtct ta
<br />
|