An agenda and teleconference call-in information will be distributed by e-mail before each meeting to members of the Committee and any other Members of the Council that indicate their interest. Contact either Mike Slayton or Peter Evans for additional details. Decisions of the Committee: During the Committee’s first meeting, in November 2005, the Committee discussed legislative priorities and agreed to inquire about support in their states or watersheds for a set of proposed Farm Bill provisions. We also agreed to monitor a set of federal agency programs in the President’s FY-07 budget proposal. These topics will be central to the Committee’s ongoing discussions. The Committee has discussed legislative opportunities and priorities and agreed to take action or monitor the issues listed below. The Desalination Drought Protection Act position statement and Streamgage Funding letters recommended by the Committee were endorsed by the Board of Directors in February, 2006. The Committee also decided to continue promoting awareness of the difficulties we face due to limited federal support for the streamgaging programs and to inquire about support in their states or watersheds for a set of proposed Farm Bill provisions for 2007. The Committee is tracking the set of federal program appropriations, indicated below, to compare funding recommended in the President’s FY-07 budget with recent years’ budget proposals and appropriation levels. Contact either Mike Slayton or Peter Evans for additional details. Federal Legislation Streamgaging Budget for USGS in FY-07:Our efforts with the Interior Department, OMB and Congress to highlight the importance of reliable funding for the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) and Cooperative Water Program (CWP) have been partially successful. The President’s proposed budget for FY-07 included a $2.82M increase for the NSIP and a cut ($2M) from the level of funding for the CWP. The Congress is still working on its FY-2007 appropriations bill for the Interior Department (HR-5386), although the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved the same bill adopted by the House of Representatives and the next action will occur on the Senate floor. This bill adopts the $2.82M increase for the NSIP but rejects the proposed cut in CWP funds, holding its appropriation at the FY-06 level. This will mean the USGS still gets only about 15% of the funding needed for NSIP and the Cooperators are still paying about 70% of the CWP. The ICWP and most of organizations that joined in the request to Interior and OMB last August (still available on our Streamgage Funding page), provided testimony this spring to support an additional $12M for the CWP, so that both programs could recover their 2003 levels of capability. Refer to our Streamgage Funding page for additional information or contact Peter Evans. WRDA Action in the Senate-Next Action in Conference Committee: Senators from both parties agreed on June 27 to the terms for floor debate and then debate and vote on the bill with several amendments on July 20, 2006. Senators Bond (R-MO), Inhofe (R-OK), Feingold (D-WI) and McCain (R-AZ) lead the Senate through over 10 hours of debate before approving the bill. The most controversial amendment approved by the Senate (on a vote of 54-46) introduces elements from S-2288 (the Water Resource Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, see below), introduced last February by Senators McCain and Feingold that would require independent peer review of proposed projects with cost estimates >$40M. An alternative amendment offered by Senators Inhofe and Bond to strengthen the Corps’ existing review process failed on a vote of 51-49. Another controversial amendment offered by Senators Feingold and McCain, which would have established a cabinet-level task force to prioritize previously authorized projects, was defeated on a vote of 19-80. Senator Specter (R-PA) won approval of a less controversial amendment to keep a dredge operating in the Delaware River, overcoming objections that the equipment is too old to maintain and operate efficiently. The Senate amendments and differences in funding authorizations for various projects in the House and Senate versions will require a Conference Committee, so additional revisions and debate may still lie ahead. Many Members of Congress would like to see the conference Committee complete its work in time to brag about the project authorizations during their reelection campaigns, but many others are fearful of the additional $12B impact to the deficit projection and or the continuation of negative reaction to the earmarking for special interests. Neither the House nor the Senate has announced its representatives to the Conference Committee, but the staffs on both sides and many lobbying firms are very active. Our letter urging Senators Frist and Reid to schedule quick action put ICWP in position to join over 270 organizations in the April 2006 “Ring for Water Resources” call-in to urge Senator Frist to schedule the bill for consideration. The history of WRDA action in the past suggested it would either get fast-track action in the last days of the session or stall again. The White House has expressed concern that the bill will “create expectations for future appropriations that cannot be met given competing spending priorities within the overall need for spending restraint, including deficit reduction.” In a recent OMB statement on WRDA, the Administration expresses support for the independent peer review of Corps’ proposals, a process for setting priorities and for de-authorizing navigation projects with extremely low levels of commercial use; it also identifies a need to adjust cost-share requirements. National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005: Congressman Alcee Hastings (R-FL) introduced legislation (H.R. 1386) in March 2005 to establish a National Drought Council for at least eight years within the Office of Secretary of Agriculture to develop a strategy and coordinate preparation for drought response efforts at a national scale.(more...) ESA Compliance Concerns: At the beginning of the 109th Congress, House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) announced a renewed effort to improve the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including a series of hearings throughout the year and around the country. These hearings have demonstrated concern from both pro- and con, and it appears unlikely legislation will be passed in this election year. (More...) Desalination Drought Protection Act: The House version (HR-1071) is scheduled for mark-up and Committee consideration soon. The companion Senate version is S-1016. Both direct the Secretary of Energy to make incentive payments to the owners or operators of qualified desalination facilities to partially offset the cost of electrical energy required to operate such facilities, and for other purposes. House resources Committee markup was November 16. ICWP Committee Members agreed to consider adopting a resolution in support of this legislation. At its March 28, 2006 meeting, the Board of Directors approved a statement in support of this legislation. FY-07 Appropriations: We have begun to analyze the Presidents’ proposed budget for changes in the following programs (and others that may subsequently be prioritized by the Committee:
2007 Farm Bill: The Department of Agriculture sought recommendations for the 2007 Farm Bill last year and has listed 5 areas in which they are interested, including the “achievement of conservation and environmental goals.” Several of the national farm organizations have announced support for increasing incentives for “stewardship practices” on agricultural lands and streamlining the programs that deliver those incentives. However, their support (and presumably that of the Administration) depends upon the results of international trade talks (known as the “Doha Round” of trade negotiations, inspired by a desire to help developing countries and reduce terrorist activities that many believe are motivated, in part, by economic disparities). Despite the July 23 suspension of further negotiations (to reduce agricultural subsidies in the US and European Union and drop market barriers in developing nations), the Senate Agriculture Committee appears ready to start hearings on the 2007 Farm Bill. The Florida Conservation Coalition has proposed a set of 9 programmatic improvements, many of which relate to water and land use practices that are essential elements of integrated water resource management and the watershed approach. Some of these conservation programs, including the Conservation Security Reserve and the Environmental Quality Incentives programs, are under continuing pressure in the budget reconciliation conference report that the House sent to the Senate in December 2005 (including $39.7B in spending cuts in agriculture conservation, energy and other programs). State Revolving Funds: On December 15, 2005 Representative Hunter (R-TN) introduced HR-4560 to authorize appropriations to the state water pollution control revolving funds. It has been assigned to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to the House Resources Committee for hearings. Inland Waters Policy Commission: On November 17, Senator Snowe (R-ME) introduced S-2050, which would establish a 16 member commission to hold hearings, conduct a study and make a report (including recommendations for a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national policy for responsible use and stewardship of inland waters) to the President within 2 years. Within 120 days, the President would be required to submit a report to Congress with proposals to implement or respond to the Commission’s recommendations. The bill includes an $8.5M authorization and has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for hearing. Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006: On February 15, Senators Feingold (D-WI) and McCain (R-AZ) introduced S-2288, a revised version of legislation the same Senators introduced last year to require independent review of Corps’ projects costing more than $25M and those thought to have potentially significant impacts. It would also require periodic revision of the Corps’ planning guidelines and reinstatement of the Water Resources Council, first enacted in 1965 to oversee water resource projects (last year's version did not resurrect the Council). Under the 2006 version, the Council would assess risks and prioritize water projects based on environmental, economic and public safety considerations. Some complain that the proposal to have the Water Resources Council identify areas vulnerable to flooding and storms and to update agency planning guidelines duplicates measures taken last year by the Corps, but environmentalists applauded the effort, saying it will focus on national priorities and require federal projects to mitigate environmental and other impacts the way private companies and citizens are. It has been assigned to Senate EPW, but no Committee action has been scheduled. National Levee Safety Program Act of 2005 – Introduced by Rep. Duncan (R-TN and Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment) in December 2005, HR-4650 directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps of Engineers, to: 1) inspect every levee in the US that was constructed or maintained by the Corps or identified by a state governor, excluding levees the failure of which would not pose a significant threat to human life or property; 2) notify the Governors of inspection results, hazardous conditions, and remedial needs; 3) submit a priority list of flood damage reduction studies and projects each year; and 4) maintain an inventory of US levees and inspection results. HR-4650 would also establish an Interagency Committee on Levee Safety to assist federal levee safety programs through coordination and exchange of information concerning implementation of levee safety guidelines. It also directs the Corps to: 1) establish the National Levee Safety Review Board to monitor levee safety and to advise the Corps on national levee safety policy; 2) establish a national levee safety program, including federal levee safety guidelines; and 3) research levee construction, rehabilitation, inspection, safety, security, and management and maintain technical and archival records. Other Issues
.
|
||
© Copyright 2005 Interstate Council on Water Policy |
||