|
<br />recognizes that the Commission has entered into
<br />MOA's with other federal and states agencies. Ms.
<br />Moler stipulates, however, that such agreements
<br />"properly recognize each participant's legal
<br />responsibiiities and authority" and "do not
<br />administratively reverse the law as written by Congress
<br />and interpreted by the courts."
<br />
<br />She goes on to say that she remains "committed to
<br />establishing better relationships with the states. I have
<br />taken steps to ensure that their interests are fully
<br />considered in the Commission's decision-making
<br />processes." She then refers to improvements in the
<br />Commission's NEPA process and the expanded scope
<br />of public interest decisions made possible through a
<br />recent notice that FERC may reopen and revisit
<br />licenses ryvSW #1011). "I specifically invite the
<br />Council to fully ventilate its views on these important
<br />issues," she said. She aiso refers to state
<br />comprehensive water right planning, concluding that
<br />"deveiopers carry a heavy burden when they ask the
<br />Commission to act inconsistently with a
<br />comprehensive plan that accounts for all public
<br />interest considerations." Her letter closes by
<br />reemphasizing her desire to work cooperatively with
<br />the states, noting "the Commission will carry out its
<br />responsibiiities with sensitivity to your concerns."
<br />
<br />WATER RESOURCES
<br />
<br />FY94 Energy and Water Appropriations
<br />
<br />The President signed the $22B FY94 energy and
<br />water appropriations bill (P.L. 103-126) on October 28.
<br />While the bill is within budget guidelines and contains
<br />less money than requested by the President overall,
<br />Congress added significant funds to the President's
<br />request for the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
<br />Reclamation. Still, funding for both agencies is less
<br />than in the past. Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ)
<br />unsuccessfully offered an amendment to further
<br />reduce funding, and included for the record a letter
<br />from environmental groups that read in part: ....This
<br />amendment...represents an...effort to hold the line
<br />against wasteful spending. For FY94, the President
<br />requested about $3.75B for the accounts covered by
<br />the amendment, but the Committee appropriated
<br />about $4.09B, an increase of $344M. This money will
<br />go to the BuRec and the Corps,...agencies in...need of
<br />'reinvention,' given their proclivity toward...uneconomic
<br />projects and their failure to ensure that beneficiaries
<br />
<br />pay for the benefits of federal water projects."
<br />
<br />Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
<br />Chair J. Bennett Johnston countered that the
<br />committee recommended $3.9B in funding, which is
<br />less than last year, taking into account inflation. He
<br />also said that last year Sen. Bradley pushed through
<br />the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment
<br />Act, with an estimated cost of $2.6B. Further,
<br />concerns over flood control in the Mississippi River
<br />Basin are greater now than when the bill was drafted.
<br />He added, "I am for budget cutting, but in a year when
<br />you have had all of these tremendous floods, and we
<br />are already less in reai terms than we had last year,
<br />where are we going to take it from?" Sen. Johnston
<br />named several projects funded under the bill and said,
<br />'Altogether, I think there are 54 Corps projects and
<br />about another ten Bureau of Reclamation projects
<br />[that are] ongoing.... Are we supposed to stop
<br />those?" (Sept. 30, CR, S. 12808-810)
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Grazing Reform
<br />
<br />The Senate fiiibuster over a bill raising grazing fees
<br />and implementing range reforms ended when Interior
<br />Secretary Babbitt withdrew the proposed changes
<br />from his department's appropriation bill on Tuesday,
<br />Nov. 9. The bill was due for another cloture vote that
<br />afternoon. Proponents twice failed to break the
<br />fiiibuster led by western senators who voiced several
<br />objections, including some related to water rights
<br />provisions. As earlier reported ryvSW #1016), a "draft
<br />clarifying amendment" had been offered by the
<br />Administration to address objections, but concerns
<br />remained about the water and other provisions.
<br />
<br />tit
<br />
<br />Notwithstanding the defeat, grazing issues are far
<br />from decided, as far as the Administration is
<br />concerned. As he withdrew the proposal, Secretary
<br />Babbitt echoed an earlier commitment, "We intend to
<br />move forward with the regulatory proposal to bring
<br />about range reform." But, some expect Babbitt to
<br />hold off on range reform proposals until they are
<br />,
<br />heald by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
<br />Committee. He has said that he plans to include more
<br />people in the process; elected officials, ranchers and
<br />environmentalists, beginning with a trip to Colorado
<br />nextl week. Further, in a Nov. 10 Wall Street Journal
<br />articile a White House officiai confirmed that the
<br />Ad~inistration is negotiating on a grazing fee plan to
<br />sho~e up support for the NAFTA treaty.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organizationlOf representatives appointed by the Governors of
<br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, Califomia, Colorado, Hawaii, Id;/ho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
<br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and WyominQ, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
<br />,
<br />
|