|
<br />WESTE
<br />STATES WA
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />"., ,~" ,.,
<br />0<1'-00.
<br />
<br />
<br />TIIE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES W/J\.
<br />
<br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-20l /942 East 7145 So. / Midvale, Utah 84047 / (801) 561-5300 / FAX (801) 255-%42
<br />
<br />Editor - Norm Johnson
<br />Typist - Carrie Curvin
<br />
<br />WATER QUAUTY
<br />
<br />Clean Water Act (CWA)-Reauthorization
<br />Both the House and Senate have postponed until
<br />next year consideration of CWA reauthorization bills.
<br />
<br />WATER RESOURCES/WATER QUAUTY
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Funding
<br />Venting their frustration with the federal government
<br />for requiring states to administer programs without
<br />providing related funding, a coalition of federal
<br />lawmakers, including Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) and
<br />Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA), and local politicians recently
<br />launched a campaign to curtail unfunded federal
<br />mandates. They cite as an example of the problem a
<br />Congressional Research Service study estimating that
<br />the cost of federal mandates is roughly $430B for state
<br />and local governments. Rep. Condit is preparing
<br />legislation to bar the federal government from forcing
<br />the states to carry out programs without providing
<br />financial support. Meanwhile, he is attempting to
<br />require the United States to reimburse state and local
<br />governments for previously mandated programs.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Rep. Condit successfully added such language to
<br />a House bill that provides states with flexibility to
<br />overhaul their public schools. Also, on Nov. 4 the
<br />House Government Operations Committee approved
<br />H,R. 3425 (to grant EPA cabinet-level status) and
<br />included an amendment to allow states and localities
<br />to opt out of compliance with unfunded federal
<br />mandates. Committee Democrats, however,stressed
<br />that this provision applies only to the bill's mandates,
<br />and that the bill has none.
<br />
<br />The federal legislative debate over unfunded
<br />mandates comes against a backdrop of serious state
<br />and local concerns. At current levels, for example,
<br />
<br />Chairman - Dave Kennedy
<br />Executive Director - Craig Bell
<br />
<br />state CWA revolving loan funds will cover only a small
<br />portion of construction needs. As a result, the
<br />Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
<br />proposes that Congress boost funding to $6B, hall for
<br />state. revolving funds. .and half for !=Iirect muntcipal
<br />grants. Also, public/private partneFshipsare receiving
<br />serious consideration, especially in small communities
<br />that lack the. financial muscle. and management
<br />expertise to upgrade their sewage treatment systems.:.
<br />
<br />This fall, after the state senate turned ,down ·
<br />proposed pollution control fees,. Governor Evan Bayh
<br />(D), declared that he would return Indiana's authority
<br />to regulate landfill and control water pollutiOn to the
<br />U.S. EPA. Kathy Prosser, Commissioner, ,Indiana
<br />Department of Environmental' Management,
<br />acknowledged that her state's actions were
<br />unprecedented, and that, "we're not proud of them."
<br />But, in light of Congressional increases in state
<br />environmental responsibilities and decreasing federal
<br />assistance, "something had to give, and in Indiana, it
<br />just did." Indiana's problems are not unique; at least
<br />half the states, including a number In the West,
<br />disturbed by EPA's testing requirements, have
<br />threatened to return to federal authority their power to
<br />enforce the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
<br />(Governing, November, '93, p, 70).
<br />
<br />A Council of State Gpvernments' study, "Resource
<br />Guide to State' Environmental Management," helps
<br />explain the states' frustration. It estimates that state
<br />governments spent $9.3B on environment and natural
<br />. resources regulation programs during FY91 (the most
<br />recent year for data),The federal share was 14%,
<br />while "the federal share has traditionally been given at
<br />35-40%. Our data shows that states have assumed
<br />almost all of the cost of regulating the environment
<br />and protecting natural resources, at least for those
<br />programs delegated to the states."
<br />
|