UMRBA Update

 

April 4, 2002

 

 

Washington News

 

Hazard Mitigation---On March 12, FEMA published a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of $25 million in FY 02 funds for its new Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program.  Funds will be allocated among states based in part upon population, with no state receiving less than $250,000.  Eligible PDM activities in FY 02 include management costs, information dissemination, planning, technical assistance, and mitigation projects.  FEMA is urging states to focus this year’s PDM funds on developing state and local multi-hazard mitigation plans.  In the future, local governments will not be eligible for PDM funds for mitigation projects unless they have an approved plan.  In the February 26 Federal Register, FEMA published an interim final rule addressing mitigation planning.  Comments on the interim rule are being accepted through April 27.  State letters of intent for PDM funds were due March 30, with grant applications due June 30.  Information on the PDM Program is available at http://www.fema.gov/mit/pdm.htm.

 

COE Disaster Procedures---The Corps of Engineers published a proposed new rule governing its natural disaster policies and procedures in the February 26 Federal Register.  More specifically, the rule covers assistance the Corps provides under P.L. 84-99.  This includes disaster preparedness, emergency operations, rehabilitation, emergency water supplies, drought assistance, and advance measures.  Among the changes are modifications to the criteria used to determine the eligibility of both federal and non-federal flood control projects for rehabilitation assistance.  Distinctions are made between rehabilitation and work done to address maintenance deficiencies or to enhance the projects.  The rule includes a 25 percent non-federal cost-share for rehabilitation of either federal or non-federal flood control projects.  It also includes regulations implementing the WRDA 96 provision authorizing the Corps, at the non-federal sponsor’s request, to provide nonstructural alternatives to rehabilitation of flood control works.  Other language in the rule outlines the specific circumstances and terms under which the Corps will provide other types of assistance, such as flood fighting and emergency supplies.  The Corps is accepting comments on the proposed rule through April 29.

 

USDA Conservation Programs---The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently surveyed members of the USDA State Technical Committees, asking them to assess the effectiveness of existing conservation programs and recommend potential improvements.  According to the GAO report, Agricultural Conservation:  State Advisory Committees’ Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns, the majority of state committee members ranked all current programs as moderately to extremely effective.  However, the survey results also reveal that program effectiveness varies by region and type of agricultural operation.  For example, most programs are viewed as more effective for field crops, such as corn or wheat, than for specialty crops.  Factors cited as limiting the current programs’ effectiveness include lack of funding and failure to compensate landowners for maintaining conservation measures that they originally installed at their own expense.  Committee members offered a variety of recommendations for improving the USDA’s conservation efforts, including increasing program flexibility and increasing emphasis on lands that remain in production.  GAO’s report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02295.pdf. 

 

Impaired Waters---According to a recent GAO report, the states vary substantially in their approaches to assessing water quality and identifying impaired waters.  Water Quality:  Inconsistent Approaches Complicate Nation’s Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters cites differences in the areas of water quality standards, monitoring practices, data standards, listing processes, and designated uses for interstate waterbodies.  Twelve of the 15 states GAO surveyed for the report said it is at least somewhat important to collaborate with adjacent states on water quality assessments, though most reported that they have not done so.  GAO’s recommendations to EPA include the following:  provide additional guidance to the states on key functions such as standard setting that ultimately influence Section 303(d) impaired waters lists; establish more consistent criteria governing removal of waterbodies from Section 303(d) lists; provide clear guidance regarding methodologies for Section 303(d) lists; and work with states to resolve inconsistencies on interstate waters, including working through interstate organizations.  GAO’s report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02186.pdf.

 

NAWQA Report---The National Research Council (NRC) recently released a report examining Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program.  NAWQA is USGS’s program to assess water quality status and trends nationwide through cyclical assessments of representative waterbodies.  The NRC’s report comes at the close of the first 10-year monitoring cycle.  The report generally lauds USGS’s execution of the program, citing methodological consistency and production of high quality data in particular.  However, the NRC does offer several specific recommendations and sounds some cautionary notes.  Among the issues cited are resource constraints, affordability for cooperators, and NAWQA’s challenge of responding to policy and regulatory needs, while not being driven by those needs.  The NRC’s report is available at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309083052/html/index.html. 

 

Privatizing Water Services---The National Research Council recently released a report entitled Privatization of Water Services in the United States:  An Assessment of Issues and Experience.  The report examines a range of privatization options, from contracting for specific services such as laboratory analysis, to the sale of all assets to a private company.  While no single approach is suitable for all circumstances, the NRC maintains that various privatization options may be attractive under a range of conditions.  The report notes that small and medium size water suppliers, in particular, face increased difficulty complying with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements in a cost-effective manner.  The NRC’s report is available at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309074444/html/1.html. 

 

Drinking Water Infrastructure---A new GAO report concludes that, while EPA has done good work establishing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program, it must now enhance its oversight and management.  In particular, Drinking Water:  Key Aspects of EPA’s Revolving Fund Program Need to Be Strengthened calls on EPA to refine its estimate of the nation’s drinking water infrastructure needs by calculating and reporting the precision of its needs assessment survey.  In addition, the report recommends several measures to enhance EPA’s oversight and management control, including establishing more rigorous and consistent annual reviews of state DWSRF programs and ensuring that all states are independently audited.  The GAO’s report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02135.pdf.  

 

Drinking Water Security---EPA has announced plans for how it will spend the $89 million in water security funding that it received as an FY 02 supplemental appropriation.  Large, publicly owned drinking water utilities (i.e., those serving over 100,000 people) are eligible for non-competitive grants of up to $115,000.  These grants may be used for vulnerability assessments, security enhancements, and/or emergency planning.  According to EPA, “a significant portion” of the funds will also be directed toward meeting the needs of small and medium drinking water and wastewater systems.  This will include training and technical assistance.  Other EPA priorities include state water security coordination, coordination and training for first responders, and development of new treatment and detection tools.  Further information is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security/large_grants.html. 

 

Riparian Restoration---A committee of the National Research Council has issued a report calling for restoration of riparian areas as a national goal.  The study leading to Riparian Areas:  Functions and Strategies for Management began in 1999 and was sponsored by seven federal agencies.  According to the NRC panel, the protection and restoration of riparian areas is critical to the following five federal goals:  protection of water quality, protection of wetlands, protection of threatened and endangered species, reduction of flood damage, and beneficial management of federal lands.  The report describes what is known about the structure and function of riparian areas, describes human impacts and legal protection, and outlines protection and restoration options.  The NRC’s report is available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309082951/html/. 

 

Ballast Water Management---On March 4, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.  The notice requests comments on development of a ballast water treatment goal and an interim ballast water treatment standard designed to prevent the introduction of non-native species.  Pursuant to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, the Coast Guard is required to regulate ballast management practices on the Great Lakes and to issue voluntary guidelines to protect other U.S. waters.  The Coast Guard’s notice identifies a variety of potential goals and standards and includes cost estimates for various alternative technologies.  The Coast Guard is accepting comments through June 3.

 

Spill Response Exercises---The Coast Guard published a March 13 Federal Register notice seeking comment on revised guidelines for the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP).  PREP is the program through which the Coast Guard, EPA, and other federal agencies coordinate private and federal sector compliance with the 1990 Oil Pollution Act’s spill response exercise requirements.  The proposed changes to the 1994 PREP guidelines are based on previous feedback.  Comments on the revised guidelines are due by May 13.  The guidelines are available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/nsfcc/nsfweb/download/PREP/PREP%20GLNS%20Rev%2028FEB02.pdf

 

 

New Bills

 

H.R. 3561 “Twenty-First Century Water Policy Commission Establishment Act”---Establishes a 17-member Twenty-First Century Water Policy Commission to study all aspects of public and private water management.  Within one year, the Commission is to convey its recommendations for a comprehensive water policy to Congress.  The policy is to ensure an adequate and dependable water supply, eliminate duplication and conflict, consider options for increasing water supply while safeguarding the environment, identify financing options, and avoid placing increased mandates on state and local government.  The Presidentially appointed Commission will include representatives of federal agencies (8), non-governmental organizations (5), local governments (2), and state or tribal governments (2).  Introduced December 20, 2001 by John Linder (R-GA), Nathan Deal (R-GA), and Ken Calvert (R-CA). 

 

H.R. 3609 “Pipeline Infrastructure Protection to Enhance Security and Safety Act”---Makes a variety of pipeline safety changes, including subjecting all government operators to one-call notification requirements.  Requires the federal government to consider vulnerability to terrorism when assessing the safety of pipeline facilities.  Imposes certain information, planning, and operating requirements on pipeline operators.  Directs the Departments of Transportation and Energy to implement a cooperative program of research, development, and demonstration.  Establishes new public safety and education requirements.  Requires coordinated environmental review of pipeline repair and rehabilitation projects.  Introduced December 20, 2001 by Don Young (R-AK), Thomas Petri (R-WI), and 5 others.

 

H.R. 3673 “Recreational Waters Protection Act”---Directs EPA to establish a revised standard for new Type 1A marine sanitation devices.  Establishes performance standards for these new devices.  Introduced February 5, 2002 by Jim Saxton (R-NJ). 

 

H.R. 3792 “Clean Water Infrastructure and Security Improvement Act”---Reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, with authorized appropriations rising from $3.0 billion in FY 03 to $7.0 billion in FY 07.  Expands the list of activities eligible for assistance from a CWSRF, while requiring that all eligible activities benefit the water quality of navigable waters.  Other provisions include technical and planning assistance for small systems and grants to financially distressed communities.  Introduced February 26, 2002 by Sue Kelly (R-NY) and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA).

 

H.R. 3800 “Federal Investment in Sustainable Hydropower Act”---Modifies federal statutes and regulations governing hydropower licensing, including a number of changes to streamline the licensing and environmental review process.  Reduces terms for new and renewed licenses to 30 and 15 years, respectively.  Requires licensees to maintain a bond to cover costs of decommissioning and restoration.  For watersheds with multiple projects, requires FERC to coordinate licensing terms so that resources are adequately and equitably protected.  Establishes a 1 mill per kilowatt hour royalty for the use of public waters and directs 50 percent of royalty revenues to the states for fish and wildlife enhancement.  Other provisions include new requirements for data collection, reporting, and enforcement.  Introduced February 27, 2002 by John Dingell (D-MI) and Edward Markey (D-MA). 

 

H.R. 3996 “Water Quality Research, Development, and Technology Demonstration Act”---Authorizes $80 to $100 million annually for competitive grants, which nonprofits would use to provide technical assistance to rural and small municipalities regarding wastewater treatment.  Authorizes states to use Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) money to provide technical and planning assistance to small communities and to subsidize innovative projects.  Requires EPA to establish a Water Quality Research Technical Advisory Committee and to consult with the Committee in developing a five-year plan to guide water pollution control research, technology demonstration, etc.  Authorizes $20 million annually for a technology demonstration program, including projects addressing excess nutrients, nonpoint source pollution, sewer overflows, and erosion and sediment problems.  Introduced March 19, 2002 by Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Ralph Hall (D-TX).

 

S. 1987 “Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act”---Requires the Corps to report to Congress within one year on all authorized projects that have not been completed, including each project’s purpose, history, and justification.  Establishes new deauthorization processes for projects that are inactive, have never been initiated, or have been suspended.  Directs the National Academies of Sciences to report on the Inland Waterways System, including identifying underused segments and proposing new uses for those segments.  Calls for a Water Resources Council report on prioritizing projects and deauthorizes municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply projects.  Requires a final Chief’s Report or a 3/5 vote in order for the Senate to consider a Corps project.  Beginning in FY 03, the Secretary of the Army can only recommend projects with a benefit-cost ratio of at least 1.5.  Pending projects with lower ratios would be subject to deauthorization.  Modifies the Corps’ Principles and Guidelines, and establishes economic development and environmental protection/restoration as co-equal goals of water resources planning and development.  Subjects certain proposed projects to a 180-day review by an independent panel of experts.  Among the triggers for review are gubernatorial request and an estimated project cost greater than $25 million.  Increases the non-federal construction cost-share to 55 percent for navigation projects, 50 percent for flood damage reduction projects, and 65 percent for beach nourishment projects.  Operation and maintenance costs exceeding one cent per ton mile for navigation projects would also be subject to cost-sharing from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (25% from the Trust Fund if O&M is between 1 and 10 cents per ton mile and 100% from the Trust Fund if O&M exceeds 10 cents per ton mile).  Introduced March 5, 2002 by Bob Smith (R-NH), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and John McCain (R-AZ). 

 

 

Committee Action

 

Clean Water SRF Reauthorization---At a March 20 mark-up session, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the Water Quality Financing Act (H.R. 3930), reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).  Although it has been a year since the Committee first held hearings on wastewater infrastructure needs, this specific legislative proposal moved surprisingly fast.  It was introduced on March 12, a hearing was held on March 13, and the bill was approved by voice vote on March 20, with only one amendment. 

 

H.R. 3930 increases authorized appropriations to capitalize CWSRFs from the current $1.35 billion to $2 billion in FY 03, with further annual increases of $1 billion, to $6 billion in FY 07. The current CWSRF allotment formula would apply to the first $1.35 billion of any annual appropriation.  However, EPA would be directed to develop a new formula based on the latest water quality needs assessment for use in allocating any funds appropriated above $1.35 billion after FY 03.  In addition, the bill requires that states develop an “intended use plan” for prioritizing water infrastructure projects based on water quality benefits and affordability.  Other provisions require states to use 25 percent of their CWSRF funds above $1.4 billion for additional subsidization; to use 15 percent of CWSRF funding to assist small disadvantaged communities; and to institute a variety of requirements for loan applicants, including a requirement that they pay prevailing wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act.  In addition to reauthorizing CWSRF funding, H.R. 3930 reauthorizes Section 106 grants to states at $250 million annually.

 

Among the witnesses at the March 13 hearing was Ben Grumbles, EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water.  In his testimony, Grumbles expressed the Administration’s general support for many of the provisions of H.R. 3930 and the Committee’s efforts “to build fiscal sustainability in water infrastructure.”  However, he also emphasized that the increased funding levels are not consistent with the President’s priorities and “the Administration would not support such funding levels.”  Testimony from the hearing is available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/03-13-02/03-13-02memo.html and a section-by-section summary of the bill is available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/issues/secbysec3930.html.

 

Water Infrastructure Investment---On February 26 and 28, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on S. 1961, the Water Investment Act.  In contrast to the House water infrastructure funding bill (H.R. 3930), the Senate bill is more comprehensive legislation, addressing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), as well as the Clean Water SRF (CWSRF).  Like the House bill, S. 1961 increases the CWSRF funding authorization to $6 billion by FY 07 and sets forth new conditions for loan recipients, including requirements that they coordinate with local transportation and watershed plans and have rate structures that reflect the cost of service and capital replacement.  The bill also sets forth new state requirements for prioritizing projects, includes new provisions to assist small and disadvantaged communities, and revises the CWSRF formula based on need, rather than the current population-based formula.  With regard to the DWSRF, S.1961 increases annual authorized appropriations to $6 billion by FY 07 and revises provisions concerning project restructuring conditions, intended use plans, uses of assistance, community development conditions, additional authorized activities, loan subsidization for disadvantaged users, capital improvement needs surveys, and competitive bidding.  Finally, S. 1961 requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of utility rate structures and calls for USGS to undertake a national water assessment and develop a list of water resource research priorities.

During the February hearings, the Committee heard from representatives of EPA, USGS, water utilities, local communities, environmental organizations, and states.  EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Ben Grumbles, reiterated the Administration’s concern about the high funding levels in the bill, but endorsed the provisions related to loan conditions and other efforts to enhance fiscal sustainability.  In contrast, the representative of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) applauded the SRF funding increases, but expressed concern about many of the new administrative provisions. “Our hope and expectation was that this proposed legislation would modernize and minimize the program to make it more user friendly.  To the contrary, we note certain provisions that appear to make matters more difficult by adding greater complexity…. Overall, we are concerned that some of the new requirements will lead to extensive bureaucracy, burdensome implementation and oversight, project delay, increased costs and potential litigation.”

Mark-up of S.1961 had been scheduled for late March, but is now likely when Congress returns from its spring recess.   Testimony from the February 26 and 28 hearings is available at http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_107.htm.

 

Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act---On March 20, the House Resources Committee approved H.R. 3480, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act, after a March 7 hearing on the bill in the Subcommittee on Water and Power.  H.R. 3480, directs the U.S. Geological Survey to establish a sediment and nutrient monitoring network for the Upper Mississippi River Basin and a modeling program to identify significant sources of sediment and nutrients in the Basin. The modeling effort is to relate nutrient loss and sediment loss to landscape, land use, and land management practices and address river channel nutrient transformation processes.  In addition, the bill directs the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct “a comprehensive water resources assessment of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.”  Appropriations of $6.25 million per year are authorized for the USGS and $650,000 for the NRC.

 

The UMRBA testified in support of H.R. 3480 at the March 7 hearing, as did representatives of the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, the Center for Bioenvironmental Research at Tulane University, and the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research at the University of Iowa.  Bob Hirsch, USGS Associate Director for Water, also testified, calling the goals of the bill “commendable” and confirming that the provisions are “within the scope and expertise of the USGS.”  However, Hirsch cautioned, “funding for the activities in H.R. 3480 is not included in the fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget proposal and would remain subject to available resources.”  He also expressed concern about the cost-sharing provisions, indicating that they should “conform with other similar programs, such as the USGS Cooperative Water Program, which requires a dollar for dollar match.”  Testimony from the March 7 hearing is available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/water/2002mar07/agenda.htm.

 

Farm Bill---In early March, House and Senate conferees began their complicated negotiations on the Farm Bill (H.R. 2646).  The first and most pressing issue to be resolved was the difference in cost estimates.  On March 6, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released new scoring for the Senate bill, estimating that it will cost $79.6 billion over 10 years, which is $6.1 billion more than both the original estimate and the House bill, and pushed the cost significantly over the budget resolution.  Before adjourning for their spring recess, conferees reportedly reached tentative agreement on funding the conservation title at $17.2 billion, which is $1.2 billion above the House level, but $3.1 billion below the Senate level.  However, negotiators have not yet decided which conservation programs will be changed to accommodate this new limit.  The two most likely candidates for change are the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the new Conservation Security Program (CSP).  EQIP, which is currently authorized at $200 million annually, is slated for a substantial increase to $1.5 billion in both the House and Senate bills.  The CSP is a new program proposed in the Senate bill, but not included in the House bill.  CSP would be a $2.4 billion program that would provide three different tiers of incentive payments to landowners who maintain or adopt conservation practices on private working lands.  A comparison of the conservation and forestry provisions of the House and Senate Farm Bills is available at http://nacdnet.org/govtaff/FB/House-Senate.htm.

 

Invasive Species---On March 14, three House Resources subcommittees held a joint hearing on H.R.3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act.  The bill establishes several new grant programs designed to control harmful non-native species and conserve and protect native species and habitats.  It also authorizes refuge system demonstration projects to promote ecologically based strategies to control exotics.  In his testimony on the bill, Department of the Interior Science Advisor James Tate outlined several of Interior’s concerns, many of which are related to the relationship of the newly-authorized grant programs to existing programs, cost-sharing provisions, and grant requirements.  Testimony from the hearing is available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/agenda.htm.

 

Sea Grant Reauthorization---On March 7, the House Resources Committee filed its report on H.R.3389 (H.Rpt. 107-369), a bill to increase funding for the Sea Grant Program and provide $5 million annually, in FY 04 through FY 08, for university research grants on zebra mussel biology and control.  H.R. 3389 was then referred to the House Science Committee, which amended the bill on March 20.  Among the changes made by the Science Committee was the addition of new language directing the National Sea Grant Program to coordinate its activities with the National Science Foundation and a requirement that any funding above the FY 02 level be distributed to state Sea Grant Programs on a merit-review competitive basis.

 

Drinking Water Security---On February 28, the House named its conferees for H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act, thus setting in motion official negotiations with the Senate, which had already named its conferees late last year.  The Senate version of H.R. 3448 does not include any provisions related directly to water.  However, the House version adds a number of new provisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act, including a requirement that community water systems serving populations over 3,300 assess their vulnerability to terrorist attack.  Those vulnerability assessments are then to be used to develop emergency response plans.  EPA would be authorized to provide financial assistance for communities to comply with these requirements.  In addition, the House bill directs EPA, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control, to review “current and future methods to prevent, detect and respond to the intentional introduction of chemical, biological or radiological contaminants into community water systems and source water for community water systems.”  EPA would also be required to review “methods and means by which terrorists or other individuals or groups could disrupt the supply of safe drinking water or take other actions against water collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution facilities which could render such water significantly less safe for human consumption.” 

 

EPA Cabinet Status---On March 21, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs held a hearing on elevating EPA to Cabinet level status.  Subcommittee Chair Doug Ose (R-CA) explained that the subcommittee currently has two bills before it, H.R. 2438 and H.R. 2694.  “The two bills take radically different approaches. One offers no reforms to the agency and the other offers a multitude of reforms. The principal question facing our Subcommittee at this hearing is what, if any, reform should Congress explore in the process of elevating EPA to a cabinet level department?”  In his testimony, John Stephenson, GAO Director of Natural Resources and Environment, said there might be merit in elevating EPA to a Cabinet department, but that “regardless of its status as a department or agency, EPA must respond more effectively to the fundamental performance and accountability management challenges it faces if it is to achieve its mission.”  Karen Studders, Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, also testified at the hearing, voicing Minnesota’s strong support for elevating EPA to Cabinet level status.  Among the reasons she cited, was enhancing the agency’s “clout for dealing with pollution crossing state, national, and international boundaries.”  As an example, Studders explained that Minnesota is working with other states to mitigate the water quality impacts of nutrients on both local waters and the Gulf of Mexico.  “I can tackle nutrient-reduction with local partners.  However, I have no authority to deal with nutrients coming from bordering states or countries. The Department of the Environment could lead the charge on interstate environmental problems of this magnitude -- with the full force of cabinet-level status.”  Hearing testimony is available at http://www.house.gov/reform/reg/hearings/index.htm.

 

Pipeline Safety---Issues surrounding pipeline safety were the subject of a variety of recent hearings and a legislative markup.  The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit held a February 13 hearing on regulatory issues, while the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held its hearing on March 19.  At both hearings, witnesses addressed issues related to the amount and type of training that pipeline operators receive, how often natural gas pipelines serving sensitive areas should be inspected, the role of states in the pipeline regulatory process, security concerns following recent terrorist attacks, operator qualification, integrity management, reduction of third party damage to pipelines, population encroachment on pipeline right-of-ways, and environmental streamlining for repair of pipelines. Testimony from the hearings is available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/highway/02-13-02/02-13-02memo.html and http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/03192002Hearing509/hearing.htm.

 

On March 20, the House Science Committee approved H.R. 3929, the Energy Pipeline Research, Development and Demonstration Act.  The bill provides $100 million over five years for pipeline research related to materials and inspection, stress and fracture analysis, leak detection technologies, risk assessment, and information systems surety. The Committee made a number of relatively modest changes to the bill in response to suggestions from witnesses who testified at a March 13 hearing on the bill in the Energy Subcommittee.  Testimony from the hearing is available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/energy02/index.htm.  Details on the Committee markup are available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/index.htm. 

 

 

Committee Schedules

 

Interior Appropriations---The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee will hold a hearing on April 10 on the FY 03 budget for the National Park Service.  On April 18, the Subcommittee will hear from members of Congress regarding appropriations for the Department of the Interior.

 

EPA and FEMA Appropriations---The House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has two remaining hearings to take testimony on the FY 03 budgets of EPA and FEMA.  On April 10 the Subcommittee will hear from members of Congress and on April 16 members of the public will testify.

 

Water Resources Development Act---The House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee will meet on April 10 and 17 to hear testimony on proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2002 (WRDA 2002).

 

 

River Basin News

 

Mississippi River Congressional Caucus---On March 21, the Mississippi River Congressional Caucus held a hearing to explore current issues of interest to a variety of constituent groups.  The UMRBA was asked to provide testimony on the Environmental Management Program (EMP), particularly with regard to the proposed FY 03 budget for the program.  UMRBA also submitted, for the written record, copies of its “States’ Perspectives” document on the Navigation Study; testimony on FY 03 appropriations for the Corps of Engineers and US Department of Agriculture; and testimony on H.R. 3480, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act.  Also testifying at the hearing were representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers Association, and MARC 2000, all of whom spoke to the need for lock improvements on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.  In particular, MARC 2000 requested “initial authorization for lock modernization in WRDA 2002,” noting that WRDA 2002 must also include “the assurance of serious consideration to authorization and funding of environmental restoration, based on scientifically-based solutions.”  MARC 2000 also expressed support for full funding of the EMP.

 

Representatives of the Upper Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers Association (UMIMRA) also testified at the hearing.  Among their concerns were the Comprehensive Plan authorized in WRDA 1999; lock improvements; improved flood control; low-head low-impact hydropower facilities at locks; and an approach to environmental needs based on enhancement and incentives, rather than mitigation.  A representative of the Bay Island Drainage and Levee District in Illinois also urged that levee improvements under the P.L. 84-99 program remain 100 percent federally funded.

 

Navigation Study---In March, the Corps of Engineers hosted a series of five public meetings to acquaint residents of the basin with changes to the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Study and seek public input.  Over 650 people attended the meetings, which were held in Bloomington (MN), La Crosse (WI), Davenport (IA), St. Louis (MO), and Peoria (IL).  Those in attendance were provided with an overview of the recent changes in the study direction, a description of the new collaborative study process, and an overview of how the study will utilize scenarios of future world conditions.  The slides and text of the presentation made at the public meetings are available at http://www.ursbethesda.com/umr-iwwsns/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.whatsnew. 

 

The draft Navigation Study Interim Report is scheduled for release May 10 and the final Interim Report will be submitted to Corps headquarters on July 1.  The “Tentative Plan” is scheduled for Winter 2003, with publication of a Chief’s Report anticipated in Fall 2004.

On February 27, the UMRBA approved a document entitled “Upper Mississippi River Basin States’ Perspectives on Refocused UMRS Navigation Study.”  In it, the five basin states set forth their collective views on some of the key study issues, such as mitigation and cost sharing, and also offer preliminary suggestions regarding recommendations resulting from the study.  The suggestions address navigation improvements, environmental needs, floodplain management, and comprehensive planning.  The document is available at http://www.umrba.org/policy/nav/navstudystates.htm.

 

Minnesota Water Programs---On February 11, the Minnesota Planning Agency released Charting a Course for the Future: Report of the State Water Program Reorganization Project.  The report is the result of a directive from the state legislature to develop a plan for the reorganization of state water programs and functions.  With regard to overlap and duplication, Minnesota Planning found that “overlap among state water programs occurs in some instances, but the notion that such overlap results in duplication is more perceived than real.”  However, the agency did find that there is a variety of obstacles to achieving better coordination among state agencies, including the fact that fulfilling their immediate responsibilities is a higher priority than coordination and funding is not typically allocated to support coordination efforts.  The report includes five specific recommendations: 1) to better integrate water policy in the state legislature, reconstitute the Legislative Water Commission to review all water program budgets and other legislative water issues; 2) enhance coordination among state water agencies by reinvigorating the Water Resources Committee of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), having EQB itself serve that function, or creating a Governor’s Environmental Cabinet Cluster; 3) provide greater support to local units of government to implement comprehensive local water plans; 4) establish a comprehensive integrated water monitoring and data management strategy for surface and ground water; and 5) seek consistency in the enforcement tools used by state water regulatory agencies, including use of administrative penalty orders.  The report is available at http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/Report.html?Id=1835.

 

Wisconsin Wetlands Restoration Rules---Wisconsin DNR is proposing new regulations governing wetland restoration, with the intent of streamlining the process for property owners.  Currently, people seeking to restore wetlands for conservation purposes are subject to the same process as those seeking permits to dredge or fill wetlands.  According to Scott Hausmann of Wisconsin DNR, “we’ve developed what we think is a quicker, simpler way to regulate the typical wetland restoration and management activities without losing environmental oversight.”  The proposed permitting process would take approximately 30 days, rather than the current 90 days, and would allow property owners to implement a restoration strategy over time under a single permit.  The proposed rules are available at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/wetlands/nr353.pdf. 

 

 

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. The Update is also available on the UMRBA’s web site at http://www.umrba.org/newsletter.htm.