UMRBA Update

April 3, 2001

Washington News

• Pipeline Safety---The Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has issued two new proposed rules related to pipeline safety.  In the March 20 Federal Register, RSPA proposed lowering the reporting threshold for hazardous liquid pipeline spills from 50 barrels to 5 gallons.  The agency is also seeking comments on revisions to the hazardous liquid accident report form to improve its usefulness.  The current report form, which has not been changed since it was first introduced in 1984, has a variety of deficiencies that RSPA hopes to correct.  In particular, failure cause categories are oversimplified and there is insufficient information collected on the consequences of the spill.   In part, RSPA's effort to improve pipeline safety and spill data is in response to Congressional interest in the issue.  A number of pipeline safety bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress, after similar legislation stalled in the final weeks of last session.  In its March 20 Federal Register notice, RSPA acknowledges that "Although this proposed Act [S.2438] did not achieve final passage in the last Congress, we believe the intention to require improved data collection is apparent."  Comments are due by May 21, 2001. 

In the March 21 Federal Register, RSPA announced another proposed rulemaking, extending the requirements for pipeline integrity programs to hazardous liquid operators who own or operate less than 500 miles of pipeline.  In December 2000, the Office of Pipeline Safety published a rule requiring hazardous liquid operators that own or operate 500 or more miles of pipeline to have integrity management programs.  The requirements apply to pipelines that could affect areas defined as high consequence areas, including populated areas, unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and commercially navigable waterways.  By focusing first on these higher volume operators, the Office of Pipeline Safety addressed an estimated 87 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines.  The new proposed rule, which includes the same requirements as the December 2000 regulation, would cover the remaining 13 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines and would impact approximately 5,440 miles of pipeline.  Comments are due by May 21, 2001. 

New Bills

• H.R. 1024 and S. 661 "Transportation Tax Equity and Fairness Act"---Amends the 1986 Internal Revenue Code to repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon excise tax on fuel used by inland waterway transportation and railroads.  H.R. 1024 would be effective upon enactment and S. 661 would be retroactive to January 1, 2001.  H.R. 1024 introduced 3/14/01 by Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) and three others.  S. 661 introduced 3/29/01 by Fred Thompson (R-TN) and six others.

• H.R. 1082 Expands the Conservation Reserve Program---Raises the cap on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program from 36.4 to 45.0 million acres.  Introduced 3/15/01 by Collin Peterson (D-MN) and 53 others, including Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Lane Evans (D-IL), Greg Ganske (R-IA), Mark Kennedy (R-MN), Bill Luther (D-MN), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), David Phelps (D-IL), and Jim Ramstad (R-MN).

• H.R. 1138 Bars CWA Feedlot Permitting in States with Nutrient Management Programs---Amends the Clean Water Act to exempt certain animal feeding operations from the CWA's permitting provisions.  Specifically, CWA permits could not be required in states with a qualifying nutrient management program for animal feeding operations.  State programs would have to contribute to meeting state water quality goals, include guidelines to restrict the discharge of pollutants, and include nutrient management planning guidelines.  Introduced 3/21/01 by Nick Smith (R-MI) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). 

• H.R.  1156 "State Water Sovereignty Protection Act"---Provides that whenever the U.S. seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it will be subject to state law.  Delegates to each state the authority to regulate water, including the authority to regulate water in interstate commerce.  Companion bill for S. 446.  Introduced 3/21/01 by Michael Simpson (R-ID) and four others.

• H.R. 1178 "Small Community Drinking Water Funding Act"---Directs EPA to establish a new Small Public Water System Assistance Program by July 1, 2002.  States wishing to participate would establish a parallel program and submit annual priority lists to EPA.  Criteria for determining priority would include human health risks, compliance with national primary drinking water regulations, and financial need.  Funding would be allocated among the states proportionately based on need, with no participating state receiving less than one percent and with three percent reserved for Indian tribes.  States would then award grants to small, disadvantaged communities for up to 80 of project costs.  Other federal funds could be used for the 20 percent cost-share.  The bill authorizes $750 million annually in FY 02-06 for the program.  Introduced 3/22/01 by Jim Gibbons (R-NV) and Tom Udhall (D-NM).

• H.R. 1252 "Arsenic Reduction in Drinking Water Act"---Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish a maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water of 10 parts per billion (ppb) by FY 03 and 3 ppb by FY 06.  Authorizes EPA to make grants directly to small public drinking water systems (i.e., those serving fewer than 10,000 people) to assist those systems in meeting the new arsenic standards.  Authorizes annual appropriations of $800 million per year in FY 02-06 for these grants.  H.R. 1252, S. 632, and S. 635 come in response to the Bush Administration's March 20 proposal to withdraw the new arsenic standard issued late in the Clinton Administration.  The new standard would have reduced the allowable arsenic level in drinking water from the current 50 ppb to 10 ppb.  EPA Administrator Whitman has committed to reviewing the relevant science and issuing a new standard by 2006.  H.R. 1252 introduced 3/27/01 by Bernard Sanders (Independent-VT) and 13 others.

• H.R. 1310 and S. 646 "Corps of Engineers Reform Act"---Establishes Congressional intent that economic development and environmental protection and restoration be co-equal goals of water resources planning and development.  Directs the Corps to revise its principles and guidelines in several ways, including considering ecological restoration costs in its economic models, incorporating new techniques in risk and uncertainty analysis, eliminating disincentives for nonstructural flood damage reduction projects, encouraging restoration of aquatic ecosystems, and ensuring that water resources projects are justified based on benefits to the general public rather than private businesses.  Directs the Secretary of the Army to establish stakeholder advisory committees for new or substantially modified projects, upon receipt of any written request.  Such committees are to include representatives from various levels of government and a range of private organizations.  With controversial and/or large projects, or upon the request of an affected state, the Secretary would also be required to establish an independent review panel.  Panels would be comprised of five to nine individuals with a range of expertise, including biology, engineering, and economics.  The costs of both stakeholder committees and independent review panels would be federal expenses and would be limited to $250,000 and $500,000 per project, respectively.   The Secretary would also be required to establish an Office of Independent Review to implement the review panels.  The bill also contains a number of mitigation-related provisions, including a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for acreage damaged by water resources projects and a requirement that mitigation consider the spatial distribution of habitat and the importance of natural hydrology.  Other provisions require concurrent mitigation, completion of mitigation prior to construction, and establishment of a mitigation tracking system.  According to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), the bill is designed "to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, to balance economic and environmental interests, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement."  Feingold expressed his hope that provisions of the bill will be combined with findings from a pending NAS study of peer review into "a serious reform bill" that will pass this year.  H.R. 1310 introduced 3/29/01 by Ron Kind (D-WI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Thomas Barrett (D-WI), and 11 others.  S. 646 introduced 3/29/01 by Russ Feingold. 

• H.R. 1321 "Conservation Security Act"---Amends the 1985 Food Security Act by establishing a new Conservation Security Program to assist farmers in promoting soil and water conservation, air and water quality protection, diversity of flora and fauna, wetland restoration and conservation, wildlife habitat restoration, environmentally sound management of invasive species, and a variety of other similar conservation purposes.  Owners and operators of agricultural operations who wish to participate in this voluntary program would develop a conservation security plan describing the particular conservation practices they intend to implement on their lands.  If the plan is approved by USDA, the agency would enter into a conservation security contract with the agricultural landowner or operator, whereby the landowner would agree to implement the plan and maintain the conservation practices in exchange for annual payments from USDA.  Three tiers of conservation practices would be established, with the highest annual payments made for practices in Tier III.  Tier I practices, for example, would include such things as nutrient management, soil conservation, pest management, invasive species management, irrigation water conservation, wildlife habitat management, strip cropping, and contour farming.  Annual payments for Tier I practices would not exceed $20,000 and annual payments for Tier III practices would not exceed $50,000.  The bill also provides for technical assistance for developing and implementing the conservation security contracts.  Introduced 3/29/01 by John Thune (R-SD) and five others, including Leonard Boswell (D-IA).

• S. 632 "Arsenic Reduction in Drinking Water Act"---Reinstates the final arsenic rule promulgated by EPA on January 22, 2001.  That rule established a maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water of 10 parts per billion.  Authorizes assistance funding, which the states would distribute to drinking water systems for projects needed to comply with the new arsenic standard.  The compliance assistance funding would be allocated among the states proportionately based on need.  Introduced 3/27/01 by Bill Nelson (D-NE). 

• S. 635 "Arsenic Standard Reinstatement Act"---Reinstates the final arsenic rule promulgated by EPA on January 22, 2001.  That rule established a maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water of 10 parts per billion.  Provides that the 10 ppb standard cannot be revised save by Act of Congress.  Introduced 3/27/01 by Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Patty Murray (D-WA). 

Committee Action

• Water Infrastructure---In a series of hearings last week, three Congressional committees sought to better understand the extent of infrastructure capital needs for wastewater and drinking water.  Dozens of witnesses offered testimony, providing often times conflicting estimates of need.  The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a coalition of utilities, municipal organizations, contractors, and environmental groups, released a report last month that indicates, over the next 20 years, investment needs will average $24 billion per year for drinking water and $23 billion per year for wastewater.  In contrast, EPA's Drinking Water Needs survey released in February estimates drinking water infrastructure needs at $150 billion over the next 20 years.  It's 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey estimated wastewater infrastructure needs of $140 billion.  In her testimony, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman acknowledged that EPA's estimates may be low and indicated that EPA plans on releasing a new Clean Water Needs Survey in 2002 and is working on new methodologies and models to improve the accuracy of its estimates.  For example, she noted that the new model for estimating costs associated with reducing sanitary sewer overflows predicts "significantly higher" costs than those in the 1996 survey. 

Perry Beider, an analyst with the Congressional Budget Office, testified that "existing estimates of how much investment will be needed over the next 20 years are very uncertain and may be too large."  In particular, he cautioned that there is no national inventory of the age and condition of water and sewer pipes, which will require the "lion's share of the investment."  In addition, he said "the very concept of an investment need is a fuzzy one...future needs are not a predetermined reality; they are partly the result of many federal, state, local, and private choices yet to be made."

 While the House and Senate hearings were intended to focus on water infrastructure needs, a number of Committee members reportedly used them as an opportunity to criticize EPA Administrator Whitman's recent proposal to withdraw the Clinton Administration rule reducing the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water.  Whitman's March 20 announcement has provoked outcries from the environmental community and Democratic lawmakers and resulted in the introduction of bills aimed at keeping the stricter standard.

 Testimony from the March 27 hearing in the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water is available at http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_107.htm#03-27-01.  Testimony from the March 28 hearing in the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment is available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/ctisub5.html.  Testimony from the March 28 hearing in the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials is available at http://www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/03282001-127/03282001.htm.

• Agricultural Emissions Trading---On March 29, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee held a hearing on environmental trading systems for agriculture.  While the focus was primarily on opportunities for farmers to participate in emissions markets to offset greenhouse gases, a representative from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) discussed that state's Water Quality Trading Program.  Michigan is the first state in the nation to implement a statewide voluntary water quality trading program.  The program, which focuses on nutrients and allows trading among point and nonpoint sources, is based on plans that individual farmers develop with an NRCS certified planner.  The plans identify specific management actions that the farmer can implement to create credits.  Revenue from the sale of the credits is determined by and goes to the farmer, with trading opportunities identified through an electronic "board of trade."   Michigan, DEQ has found that  water quality trading "can capitalize sustainable agricultural changes and at the same time reduce the costs of complying with point source permits and implementing programs required under the CWA."  Testimony from the hearing is available at http://www.senate.gov/~agriculture/Hearings/Hearings_2001/March_29__2001/march_29__2001.html. 

Future Committee Schedules

• Interior FY 2002 Appropriations---House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee begins its hearings on April 4 and will hear from Interior Secretary Gale Norton on April 25.  The Senate subcommittee will begin hearings on April 5, with Norton testifying on April 24.

• EPA FY 2002 Appropriations---House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will take testimony on EPA's budget May 9 and 10.  The Senate subcommittee begins its hearings April 25 and will hear from EPA on June 13.

• FEMA FY 2002 Appropriations---The Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee begins its hearings April 25 and will hear from FEMA on May 16.

• Coast Guard FY 2002 Appropriations---House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee will take testimony on the Coast Guard budget May 2.

• Corps of Engineers FY 2002 Appropriations---The Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee will hold hearings on the Corps budget on April 24.  The House subcommittee hears from the Corps on April 25.

• Agriculture FY 2002 Appropriations---The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee will hear from Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman on April 25.

Floor Action

• Coast Guard Authorization---On March 22, the House passed the Coast Guard Personnel and Maritime Safety Act (H.R. 1099) by a vote of 415 to 0 under suspension of the rules.  The bill modifies a number of Coast Guard authorities, including allowing the Coast Guard to borrow up to $100 million from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) in emergencies when response resources are inadequate.  As with other expenditures from the OSLTF, efforts would be made to recover money from the responsible party(ies).  The bill also extends the authorizations for several advisory groups, including the Navigation Safety Advisory Council, the National Boating Safety Advisory Council, and the Towing Safety Advisory Committee.  All three of these groups would be extended through FY 05.  The Coast Guard would be directed to review its existing harbor safety committees and develop one or more prototypes for establishing such committees in more small- and medium-sized ports.  The measure also increases the authorized federal funding for boating safety from $82 to $83 million and broadens the range of expenditures used in calculating a state's boating safety expenditures.

River Basin News

• Governors Concerned with Proposed Missouri River Changes---In a March 22 letter to President Bush, the Governors of nine states bordering the Mississippi River voiced concern with proposed management changes on the Missouri River.  According to the Governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, "major changes [in Missouri River management] are being considered without documentation of their full effects or input from the impacted states outside the Missouri River Basin."  More specifically, the letter highlights the importance of Missouri River flows in supporting navigation and other beneficial uses on the Middle Mississippi during low flow conditions and says the proposed reservoir management plan would reduce flow from the Missouri during these critical periods.  In addition, the Governors are concerned that the trend toward increased water depletions from the Missouri River will exacerbate the adverse consequences of the proposed management changes.  In particular, they maintain that the depletions will further reduce reservoir releases, especially in low precipitation conditions, precisely when the Missouri River flows are most critical to the Middle Mississippi.   The Governors call on President Bush "to ensure that decisions are reached on the operations on the Missouri River only with the direct involvement of all those states that rely on the Inland Waterway System."  Toward that end, they ask that the Corps brief the Mississippi River states "on the full effects of these proposals."  They also call for the Corps to analyze the combined effects of the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposals and anticipated depletions "on the entire Mississippi River system and the compounded effects of these changes" and to provide an opportunity for meaningful input before selecting its Preferred Alternative.  In addition, the letter asks the President to form an interagency group, including the Agriculture and Transportation Secretaries, to review the proposed management changes.

For more information regarding Congressional action and links to related sites, visit http://thomas.loc.gov/.

The UMRBA Update is produced by the staff of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, an organization formed by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to represent the states' common water resource interests.  Please direct questions and comments to bnaramore@umrba.org.