|
<br />Robert Roberts, South Dakota Water and Naturai
<br />Resources Department Secretary and WSWC
<br />Executive Committee member, explained in a recent
<br />article: "The problem here is the belief that more
<br />regulations equal more environmental protection,
<br />Unfunded federal mandates, like pages of the Federal
<br />Register, give the illusion of environmental protection.
<br />Nothing is accomplished until the program is
<br />implemented at the state and local level. " The articie
<br />goes on to raise the question of whether state and
<br />locai governments will continue to invest in local
<br />soiutions to environmental problems, or rebel against
<br />costly federal regulations. "The answer," the author
<br />concludes, "may depend on whether state and local
<br />leaders can convince federal officials to treat them as
<br />equals, and whether they can convince voters to
<br />invest tax dollars in new environmental strategies,"
<br />(State Government News, Oct. '93, p. 24) Some
<br />environmentalists also question the current approach
<br />to environmental protection. Dick Carter, Coordinator
<br />of the Utah Wilderness Association, wrote recently that
<br />"solutions must move away from Washington, D.C.
<br />That model of decision-making falls the adaptive,
<br />participative, dynamic, longterm view. The point Is,
<br />our models - the paradigm[sj - must change. Ail of
<br />them." (High Country News, Nov, 15, '93, pg, 15) Utah
<br />Governor Mike Leavitt (R) has opined, "If we are to
<br />reverse this trend of rampant centralization of authority
<br />at the national level, it will have to be governors and
<br />[statej legislators who do it Congress won't return
<br />decision making to states. The president won't. The
<br />courts won't." (Capitol Connections, Dec. '93, p.2)
<br />
<br />WATER RIGHTSIWATER RESOURCES
<br />
<br />Water Tranmers/Arizona
<br />The Arizona Department of Water Resources
<br />(ADWR) has objected to the proposed imposition by
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation of a fee that must be paid
<br />into an environmental trust fund by the Town of
<br />Payson to obtain federal approvai to transfer its
<br />Central Arizona Project (CAP) subcontract water.
<br />ADWR believes the Bureau's actions establish far-
<br />reaching policy without public input, and objects to the
<br />use of the trust fund at the Secretary of Interior's sole
<br />discretion, DWR officials have also opined that "the
<br />Bureau's actions are a precursor to what we are going
<br />to see in all federal water and power transactions,"
<br />
<br />The situation arose when Payson chose to market
<br />its right to receive CAP water to a deveioper in
<br />
<br />Scottsdale, who transferred the right to the City of
<br />Scottsdale. The developer's action was in lieu of
<br />paying a water resource development fee, and .
<br />Scottsdale agreed to accept the transferred right
<br />instead of cash. The ADWR, which is authorized to
<br />advise and consult with the Interior Secretary on
<br />matters related to use of Arizona's CAP water, had
<br />initial concerns. But, following full public involvement,
<br />ADWR formulated policy guidelines which approve of
<br />the marketing of CAP water in situations similar to the
<br />Payson/Scottsdale transfers.
<br />
<br />After approval by the Central Arizona Water
<br />Conservation District, the prime contractor for CAP
<br />repayment and operation, the Payson/Scottsdale
<br />transfer was sent to federal officials for approval. The
<br />task was deiegated to Bureau of Reclamation
<br />Commissioner Dan Beard because of past involvement
<br />with the issue by interior Secretary Babbitt and
<br />Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Rieke.
<br />
<br />Commissioner Beard recently decided to approve
<br />of the transfer, but required that 7'12% of the money
<br />paid from Payson to Scottsdale must be placed in an
<br />environmental trust fund. Use of the fund would be
<br />according to a priority system, first for environmental
<br />projects in the Payson area, and then for projects
<br />benefitting the State of Arizona. But, the Secretary
<br />would ultimately have broad authority to use the funds .
<br />at his discretion for "other environmental projects."
<br />
<br />In a letter dated Nov. 17 to Secretary Babbitt,
<br />ADWR Director Rita Pearson said, "I must express in
<br />the strongest possible terms my concerns about the
<br />manner in which this money was obtained...." She
<br />then outlined a number of problems, not necessarily
<br />with Interior's intentions, but rather with the process it
<br />used in this instance. The letter mentions lack of
<br />public involvement, lack of express legal authority to
<br />create the trust fund, and absence of specific
<br />guidance in the expenditure of funds, which "may be
<br />used for environmental purposes unrelated to the
<br />environmental goals of Arizona." She also noted, "I
<br />believe the Bureau's action renders the Department's
<br />participation in the reallocation process meaningless."
<br />She concluded, "I am hopeful that after you review the
<br />Bureau's...proposal, you will come to the conclusion
<br />that I have, that if 'reinventing government' means
<br />keeping the public out of the decision making process
<br />and developing programs which spend public monies
<br />on ill-defined objectives, you cannot support it."
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of .
<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 />
|