|
<br />objectives are to promote program integration, better
<br />target resources, enhance flexibility to carry out
<br />mandates, achieve innovation, transfer experiences
<br />nationwide, and test the hypothesis that the watershed
<br />approach is beneficial.
<br />
<br />A recent letter was signed jointly by: Michael Cook,
<br />Director, EPA Office of Wastewater, Enforcement and
<br />Compliance; Robert Wayland, Director of EPA's Office
<br />of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; and Don
<br />Ostler, ASIWPCA President. It notes, 'This venture is
<br />one of many efforts that EPA has supported In recent
<br />months to enhance states' abilities to incorporate a
<br />more resource-based approach to program
<br />management and decision-making. For example: [1]
<br />the 1991 Agency Operating Guidance has allowed
<br />states to pursue a basin approach to NPDES
<br />permitting...; [2] flexibility has been granted in the use
<br />of various grant resources, including wetlands,
<br />non point source, and near coastal waters grants...; [3]
<br />demonstration projects for mapping state water bodies
<br />using Geographic Information Systems were
<br />inttiated...; [and 4] a handbook presenting approaches
<br />for geographic targeting is being developed.'
<br />
<br />'These actions represent significant developments
<br />that will facilitate State efforts to manage water quality
<br />programs on a watershed basis. Nevertheless, it is
<br />clear that states -- the front-line managers of the
<br />nation's water resources -- are in the best position to
<br />identify those additional reforms and tools needed to
<br />advance watershed-based management even further.
<br />Consequently, EPA is Offering States...an opportunity
<br />to try out more innovative, creative ways of doing
<br />business, recognizing that In so doing, States will
<br />need greater latttude and flexibility in certain areas.
<br />The goal is to improve the institutional relationship
<br />between EPA and the States so that we can better
<br />identify and meet the changing needs of our
<br />programs. Additionally, EPA is offering to assist in
<br />documenting the results from certain ventures so that
<br />other states may also benefit from the experience.'
<br />
<br />EPA and ASIWPCA are establishing a pilot program
<br />for states to demonstrate their experience in using a
<br />watershed management approach. Additional
<br />discussions between ASIWPCA and EPA will take
<br />place during ASIWPCA's Mid-Winter meeting on
<br />February 17-19, in Washington, D.C. This effort
<br />appears to have enough momentum to sustain it for
<br />some time. A number of groups have also expressed
<br />
<br />interest In incorporating a watershed managen,ent
<br />approach into the Clean Water Act when the act is
<br />reauthorized ryvSW #972).
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />WATER RESOURCES/UTlGA1l0N
<br />
<br />Texas/Ground Water/Sierra Club v. Luian
<br />
<br />A Texas federal judge has ordered the U.S. Fish
<br />and Wildlife Service and the Texas legislature to
<br />require the Edwards Aquifer to be managed to protect
<br />endangered species in the San Marcos and Comal
<br />Springs (Sierra Club v. Luian, No. 91-CA-069 (Jan. 30,
<br />1993)). The Texas legislature has until June 1, to
<br />adopt a permanent regulatory strategy 'pursuant to
<br />new or existing State Law' to protect the flow of the
<br />springs. The strategy must protect against the taking
<br />of endangered species 'even in a repeat of the
<br />drought of record.' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
<br />must determine the springflow necessary to protect
<br />the endangered species.
<br />
<br />Historically, ground water in Texas has been
<br />subject only to the absolute ownership rule. More
<br />recently, some local ground water management
<br />districts have been formed. The state, however, has
<br />no authority to regulate use of the Edwards Aquifer,
<br />which is a primary source of drinking water for San
<br />Antonio. Some efforts at regulation have been made
<br />in response to gross overuse of the aquifer by certain
<br />individuals. These efforts, however, have been
<br />unsuccessful. Environmental groups filed sutt in
<br />federal court to require regulation of the aquifer to
<br />protect endangered species habitat.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The recent ruling will allow the Sierra Club to
<br />return to the court for relief if the Texas legislature fails
<br />to act. Texas Water Commission Chair John Hall said,
<br />'The...requirement that a plan be developed that
<br />guarantees springflow...during a repeat of tile drought
<br />of the 1950s is not good news for the 1.5 million
<br />people dependent upon the Edwards. Our biggest
<br />concern is whether the decision properly balances the
<br />needs of human beings with those of endangered
<br />species.' Other reactions have varied widely, with
<br />concern for traditional water use patterns, fear of loss
<br />of private property rights, praise for protection of fish
<br />and wildlife, and calls for discussions that will lead to
<br />a long term solution to the controversy among the
<br />many concerned interests. Council staff have copies
<br />of the decision.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization 01 representatives appointed by the Governors 01 .
<br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
<br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
|