ENVIRONMENT
ABANDONED
MINES LAND PROGRAM
The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund is a trust fund of the United
States Treasury. It was established to provide money to states
to eliminate the hazards to public health and safety and the environment
created by coal mine sites that have not been restored. It is
primarily funded by reclamation fees collected from coal mine
operators. Contributions made to the fund are appropriated by
Congress to states with EPA approved reclamation plans, and may
be spent on the reclamation and restoration of land and water
resources; and a variety of other related expenses.
In order to insure the stability of the program and to build on
its accomplishments, the National Conference of State Legislatures
urges Congress to appropriate to states in a timely manner for
the purposes of the program, the entire amount of money annually
deposited in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
July 1994
CLEAN
AIR ACT IMPLEMENTATION
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA)
represent a major step toward addressing important environmental,
air quality, and public health issues. The National Conference
of State Legislatures (NCSL) fully supports its goals. It is essential
that Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
fulfill their responsibilities to facilitate implementation by
the states. NCSL makes the following recommendations:
o The fee system mechanism of the CAAA provides the financial
resources for the states to implement their responsibilities.
However, the federal government should fully fund the implementation
of the Act.
o To address ozone nonattainment problems, significant nitrogen
oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions
must be obtained from both stationary and mobile sources. Other
than auto emission testing, the federal government has the primary
responsibility for regulating mobile sources; and it is essential
that this responsibility be aggressively addressed. Any reduction
that is not obtained from mobile sources must be obtained from
stationary ones. Congress and EPA should take maximum advantage
of tools and strategies, including but not limited to, reformulated
and alternative fuels, exhaust standards, transportation control
measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and mass transit
to minimize mobile source emissions. In addition, federal highway
legislation should be made consistent with CAAA objectives. Furthermore,
the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) should
work together to assure coordination of federal policy. The states
must be made full partners in transportation strategies that reduce
VMT and urban sprawl and promote mass transit.
o The CAAA contain many sweeping and general mandates which will
involve the exercise of broad discretion and interpretation by
the EPA for their implementation. NCSL expects EPA to provide
as much administrative flexibility as the law allows in order
to achieve clean air goals in the most cost effective and efficient
manner. NCSL urges EPA to mitigate the implementation burdens
of the CAAA on states that result from inconsistencies in the
Act, or from delayed EPA regulations that affect subsequent state
regulations. States should not be penalized in the form of reduced
timeframes to complete requirements of the Act, or be sanctioned
when there has been a delay in federal regulations, data or guidance.
EPA implementation of the CAAA should not jeopardize achievement
of the Act's clean air goals.
o Numerous sections of the CAAA require the EPA to develop policy
or technical guidance for the states to follow in their implementation
process. This guidance is essential, as few states have the resources
to develop it on their own. Often-times the CAAA provide little
or no time between the deadlines for guidance and the deadlines
for implementation by the states. NCSL urges Congress and the
EPA to adjust their resource allocation and priorities to assure
that the states receive the technical and policy guidance well
before any enforcement deadlines.
o It is essential that the CAAA be implemented in a fashion to
reduce competition and economic disadvantages between the states,
and therefore EPA should develop guidance that is very clear,
concise, and specific. At the same time, it is essential that
the CAAA be implemented in a fashion which recognizes the variability
of the problems across the nation and the unique legislative and
regulatory needs of each state. Thus, the guidance must not be
overly prescriptive and should allow flexibility.
o EPA should provide training opportunities for states to help
develop the skills and understanding needed to properly implement
the CAAA. In addition, EPA should provide informational resources
to help the public understand its role in implementing the CAAA.
o Throughout the implementation process, it must be recognized
that state and local governments have existing air pollution control
programs to maintain. It would be inappropriate to prescribe for
a state responsibilities equaling 110 percent of the state's resources
without allowance for the state to maintain its existing programs.
It would be inappropriate to apply sanctions when the state fails
after reasonable efforts at achievement.
o The actual implementation of the CAAA is at the state level,
and the states have a wealth of experience in implementing control
programs. NCSL encourages Congress and the EPA to pay particular
attention to the voices of that expertise and experience. EPA
should establish a regular process for communication with state
legislators and should develop a working group of legislators
to become more actively involved in the implementation process.
o NCSL urges EPA to proceed diligently with full implementation
of the CAAA to achieve clean air for our citizens.
o NCSL urges the adoption of national energy, transportation and
other policy that emphasizes energy conservation in order to help
achieve the goals of the CAAA. This should include strengthening
of emission standards for automobiles as technologies improve,
more energy-efficient lighting, buildings, and transportation,
and more research and use of alternative forms of energy.
o NCSL urges the federal government to expeditiously apply the
same CAAA requirements to federal facilities and vehicles that
are required for state and local government facilities and vehicles.
July 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM
The National Conference of State Legislatures urges the federal
government to renew its commitment to environmental protection
and the state-federal partnership for environmental protection.
State governments, acting in partnership with the federal government,
play an indispensable role in our mutual effort to protect natural
resources and combat environmental degradation and pollution.
State implementation of federal law is the cornerstone of our
current system of environmental protection. Many of the most important
laws protecting state citizens are federal laws. States are particularly
dependent upon federal pollution control laws to address the interstate
migration and affects of pollutants. Given the increasing trend
of delegating more authority to the states, it is essential that
the federal government not abandon its commitment to uniform minimum
federal standards, the state-federal partnership and the very
laws and agencies that guarantee the success of our partnership.
In furtherance of the above, the following principles should guide
NCSL's federal lobbying efforts with respect to the state-federal
environmental partnership:
o The present level of commitment and funding for natural resource
and environmental protection efforts should be maintained; specifically,
the federal government should continue its commitment to provide
technical support, research and financial assistance to states;
o The federal government should provide funding to the states
in the form of block grants that provide for maximum state flexibility
to use federal monies in the manner which they deem proper and
in a manner which is consistent with their intended purpose;
o Uniform minimum federal standards for environmental protection
should be preserved and strengthened;
o Statutory authority for states to enact state environmental
and public health standards that are more stringent than their
minimum federal counterparts should be maintained and renewed;
o Within the framework of uniform minimum federal standards, states
should have maximum flexibility in devising approaches and methods
for obtaining compliance with such standards. The federal government
should adopt performance based standards which prescribe the end
to be accomplished and leave the means of obtaining the end up
to individual states. In return for this new level of autonomy,
the federal government should adopt a system of performance audits
and objectively quantifiable benchmarks that would allow the federal
government to certify state performance results in meeting uniform
minimum federal standards;
o There should be consistent, uniform and vigorous federal enforcement
of environmental laws to deter non-compliant behavior and to reward
those who are acting in compliance with such laws. The federal
government should continue its present role of overseeing the
efficacy of state efforts to enforce uniform minimal federal environmental
protection standards. States have a compelling interest in the
uniform application and enforcement of federal laws in order to
prevent pollution havens and to prevent states with lax enforcement
from obtaining unfair economic advantages;
o In light of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, which
suggests that citizens will no longer be able to sue states in
federal court for violations of federal environmental protection
laws, the federal government needs to allocate adequate resources
to ensure compliance among the states.
o Cost-benefit analysis should be performed in environmental decision
making. Sound public policy decision making demands that benefits
should be proportionate to costs, after factoring in the totality
of the circumstances. However, cost-benefit analysis should not
be the only determinative factor in any environmental decision
making process. Rather, such an analysis should be one of the
many tools that inform decision makers in formulating sound public
policy. In the face of uncertainty in devising analytical methods,
any default assumptions that are employed should favor enhanced
environmental protection.
o In order to finance environmental protection efforts, Congress
should create funding mechanisms that consistently generate revenue
solely for such uses. All monies from such funds should be fully
appropriated for their intended uses. The Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) provides an example of how a specifically earmarked
environmental protection fund could operate. In 1965, Congress
created the LWCF to finance America's investment in its public
lands. The LWCF works by using a percentage of offshore-oil-lease
money from federally owned lands to fund conservation efforts.
The idea is simple: use money generated from resource extraction
for resource protection. Without using any general public taxpayer
monies, LWCF monies have financed thirty years of resource protection.
This type of funding model should receive greater application;
finally,
o NCSL supports a citizen's right to access public information.
In an open democracy, the public should have access to publicly
held information. NCSL supports "right-to-know" laws
and other statutory and regulatory mechanisms that readily provide
public access to public information.
July 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL
FINES
All penalties collected by the federal government for noncompliance
of federal environmental laws and regulations, except where the
violator is solely the state, should be directed to the affected
states in which the violation occurred.
All penalties collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for violations of the Clean Water Act that impact a national estuary
should be applied to the implementation of the respective estuary's
comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
July 1994
ESTABLISHMENT
OF A NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
The National Conference of State Legislatures urges the establishment
of a National Institute for the Environment to improve the scientific
basis for decision making on environmental issues. In order to
include state officials in the setting of priorities for the institute,
we urge that a representative of NCSL be included on the proposed
Institute's Board of Governors.
July 1994
EXPLORATION
AND MINING OF MINERALS ON FEDERAL LANDS
Current federal statute allows private parties to apply for a
patent to mine federal land (i.e. land title request) for $2.50
to $5.00 per acre. Once a mining patent is granted, private parties
are allowed to assume permanent ownership of the land. Nearly
all federal lands are eligible without regard for the environmental
sensitivity of such lands.
Private parties granted ownership of federal lands pay no federal
royalties on the proceeds from extracted minerals. In the past,
many mines were abandoned without clean-up or reclamation. Non-reclaimed
mining land is susceptible to erosion and other land despoliation.
Such conditions often threaten ambient air and water quality and
wildlife dependent upon such resources.
Private parties granted ownership of federal lands are not required
to pursue mining activities. The owners may develop the land into
unrelated business ventures such as hotels, ski resorts or other
recreational facilities.
NCSL believes that current mining law should be amended to preserve
and protect the environment and our economically valuable natural
resources. Accordingly, NCSL recommends the following:
o States should be allowed to assume program responsibility over
the regulation and oversight of mining on federal lands. States
granted such authority should be allowed to recover the cost of
implementation, administration and enforcement of their programs.
States receiving delegation to oversee mining operations should
meet minimum eligibility criteria.
o Persons engaged in mining activities should continue to be required
to submit plans of operation and reclamation to the federal government
or authorized state, the approval of which shall continue to proceed
any mining activity. Reclamation plans should continue to include
measures to return the surface land to an economically viable
and environmentally beneficial condition upon cessation of mining
activities. Permitting authorities should consider, in cases of
approval or denial, the value of environmentally sensitive areas,
as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), when
considering applications to mine.
o All standards and requirements of state and federal law, including
measures to protect fish and wildlife, should continue to be adhered
to and enforced during mining activities and reclamation of affected
lands.
o Mining activities and reclamation should be conducted so as
to minimize adverse impacts to the environment, including vegetation,
topography and habitat. Mining activities shall be consistent
with approved mining and reclamation plans.
o The mined area must be protected from erosion and other land
despoliation that may lead to air and water pollution or wildlife
habitat loss.
o The federal government should only grant miners the use of
federal lands to explore for and extract minerals. Fees should
continue to be charged from the time that a claim is staked. Permanent
ownership of federal lands shall not result solely from filing
a mining claim. The federal government and authorized states should
have authority to obtain reimbursement for administrative expenses
incurred.
o The federal government and authorized states should have authority
to collect royalties from industry on income generated from the
production of minerals extracted from federal lands.
o Upon cessation of mining operations, the lands should be returned
to public ownership. A national hardrock abandoned mines program
should be created to clean up any environmental damage or mitigate
unsafe conditions caused by past mining. Receipts from mining
on federal lands should serve as the financing mechanisms for
such a program.
o States should be allowed to assume responsibility for abandoned
mine programs.
July 1995
HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Over the past two decades, the adage "out of sight, out of
mind" has given way to a national program that seeks to encourage
source reduction, high-technology treatment, and secure disposal
of hazardous wastes. Congress enacted the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and
subsequent amendments and reauthorizations of this initial legislation
to implement its national program. Such legislation requires the
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and cleanup
at contaminated sites so as to minimize the present and future
threat to human health and the environment. Despite this national
program, hazardous waste continues to be a significant environmental
problem.
To address this issue, elected officials, federal and state agency
administrators, industry leaders, environmental groups and the
public must realistically assess potential environmental threats,
continue to engage in an open dialogue, and attempt to find workable
solutions to the increasingly complex problem of hazardous waste.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) believes
that the following principles must be accommodated in crafting
a national solution to hazardous waste management:
o Hazardous waste is a widespread national problem which poses
a significant potential threat to the environment.
o The public overwhelmingly supports programs that address the
responsible treatment, handling and disposal of hazardous waste
and the cleanup of contaminated sites.
o Improper treatment, handling and disposal of hazardous waste
constitutes a national problem that deserves a national solution.
The federal government has an appropriate role to play in crafting
a coherent, coast-to-coast solution to abandoned and inactive
hazardous waste sites. Congress should not abandon the federal
government's commitment to cleaning up hazardous waste sites.
Congress should not attempt to terminate the Superfund program
through placing a numerical ceiling or cap on the number of sites
that may be eligible for listing on the Superfund National Priorities
List.
o The cost of properly stabilizing, treating and disposing of
improperly disposed of hazardous waste is significant. Congress
should continue to finance hazardous waste site cleanup efforts
through national, broad based financing mechanisms that uniformly
spread the costs of such cleanup efforts over a national revenue
base. Congress must recognize that states acting alone do not
possess the ability of the federal government to impose such costs
nationally. Therefore, Congress should continue the present funding
mechanisms that currently provide federal dollars for hazardous
waste site cleanup efforts.
o Our nation's natural resources are one of the many victims of
improper hazardous waste disposal. Natural resources constitute
one of our nation's most valuable assets and must be safeguarded
and in many cases restored.
o Aspects of the current system discourage recycling by regulating
many byproducts as hazardous waste. A separate system for regulating
hazardous materials destined for recycling should be established.
o Other methods for dealing with hazardous waste, aside from disposal,
such as source reduction, pollution prevention, reuse and recycling
should be encouraged and developed.
o A cleanup that is delayed is a cleanup denied. The federal government
must promote measures that will expedite actual site cleanups
and site construction activities.
Consequently, NCSL believes that any solution to our hazardous
waste problems must include the following:
o Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) should adopt policies that encourage both the hazardous waste
content of products and industrial hazardous waste by-products
be kept to a minimum, and that hazardous waste materials be reused,
recycled or made non-hazardous whenever possible.
o Congress and the U. S. EPA should continue to fund, develop
and improve hazardous waste risk assessments, toxicological profiles
of priority pollutants found at Superfund sites and consequent
long term health and environmental impacts data. The work of the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) should
be supported and expanded. Such studies and work should be funded
through disbursements from the Superfund Trust Fund. Any information
gathered from either federal or private sources should be subject
to peer review and made available as needed.
o Historically, the federal government has been the largest producer
of hazardous waste. Therefore, Congress and the federal government
should adopt hazardous waste reduction policies to reduce waste
and develop new and improved waste elimination technologies. Such
policies should include new federal procurement guidelines that
permit suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to accommodate
pollution prevention practices.
o Congress should adopt policies that promote the availability
of affordable environmental liability insurance, including economic
incentives for industry to establish its own voluntary insurance
pool or insurance fund. This would alleviate the difficulty industry
has had obtaining liability insurance for hazardous waste cleanup,
and insure that money is available for cleanups.
o States should be allowed as much flexibility as possible in
devising their hazardous waste management plans and regulations,
including the setting of priorities.
o Congress should establish a mandatory Superfund cleanup schedule
for the U.S. EPA to ensure prompt, but thorough investigation,
study and cleanup of existing Superfund sites, and identification
of new Superfund sites.
o The federal government must collect and disseminate to the public
information on chemical storage, use and disposal practices by
government and industry.
o State and federal hazardous waste management laws should be
vigorously enforced in order to reduce potential human and environmental
exposure and to maintain public confidence in such programs. In
the absence of appropriate agency action, citizens should be allowed
to avail themselves of such enforcement mechanisms.
o Congress should support policies that reduce the importation
of hazardous waste from foreign countries based on treaties and
other agreements.
o Congress should establish policies that decrease the dumping
of hazardous waste in developing countries.
Regarding legal issues associated with hazardous waste management,
NCSL supports:
o Health effects studies designed by the federal government should
be comprehensive enough to be admissible as evidence in victims'
compensation court cases.
o Cleanup liability protection for non-responsible landowners,
renters, or lessees, and institutions or persons financing cleanup
activities at a site previously contaminated by hazardous waste
or petroleum products. Protection should be made available based
on a cleanup plan instituted at the time a contract is entered
into, but would not exempt entities from responsibility for hazardous
waste disposal or practices that occurred on the property during
their involvement.
o Limited liability protection for state and local governments
owning, managing or utilizing a landfill that accepted hazardous
waste and was later designated a Superfund site. NCSL should join
with the National League of Cities and the National Association
of Counties to pursue this relief.
With respect to attempts to reauthorize or amend CERCLA, NCSL
believes that Congress should be guided by the following principles:
o No state laws or regulations shall be preempted or infringed.
Compliance with state laws and regulations shall not be conditioned
upon state governments paying the costs of such compliance.
o In the absence of compliance with state laws and cleanup standards,
states should not be required to commit any resources to a particular
site cleanup. In effect, states should not have to contribute
financially to a cleanup that is not conducted in accordance with
state law. It is inappropriate for the federal government to mandate
state financial participation in constructing a remedy that is
violative of state law.
o The current retroactive, strict, joint and several liability
scheme must be reviewed for cost effectiveness, but should be
maintained until Congress replaces it with a guaranteed new funding
liability scheme that provides an equivalent level of resources
for cleanups without any additional allocation of public funds.
A more efficient private sector financing mechanism should be
adopted as the primary funding source for Superfund cleanups.
However, any new funding mechanism must maintain the "polluter
pays" principle and ensure that private sector resources
remain the primary funding source for Superfund site cleanups.
o Any modification to the current liability scheme must guarantee
that liability determinations will not become further complicated
or lead to an increase in transaction costs. Congress should focus
its efforts on ways to reduce, not increase, litigation transaction
costs at Superfund sites. The current "polluter pays"
liability scheme results in responsible parties cleaning up the
majority of Superfund sites (70%) and provides a powerful incentive
for the proper disposal of hazardous waste that is currently being
generated. Congress must remain mindful of the "collateral"
benefits that have been produced thorough the operation of RCRA
and CERCLA. Collateral benefits include activities such as improved
waste management practices, recycling, pollution prevention measures
and waste minimization.
o Any modification of the current liability scheme must ensure
that the financial resources available to finance remedies at
Superfund sites do not diminish. Similarly, any change in the
current continuing liability scheme must not result in slower
cleanups or higher transaction costs. Any reduction in private
sector financial liability for Superfund sites must not result
in an increase in public sector financial liability for such cleanups.
o Any attempt to alter the current liability scheme must recognize
the fact that 23 states have liability schemes that closely reflect
or mimic CERCLA's "polluter pays" approach to site remediation
financing. Any alteration in the federal model will have far reaching
implications for the ability of states to finance their own site
remediation programs. This is especially true for those states
without independent state legislative programs who rely upon CERCLA
for their authority to address hazardous waste issues.
o The U.S. EPA estimates that over 700 hazardous waste sites are
currently eligible, pursuant to hazardous ranking score (HRS)
criteria, for listing on the National Priority List (NPL). Current
reform efforts in Congress would limit the number of new sites
that could be added to the NPL to approximately 100. By limiting
the number of new sites that are eligible for the NPL, Congress
is effectively eliminating the Superfund program. Beyond the additional
100 sites, the federal government will provide no further financial
assistance to states in addressing over 600 hazardous waste cleanups.
Many states have "banked on" this anticipated federal
financial assistance in formulating their long term hazardous
waste site remediation strategic plans. Congress should not eliminate
the federal hazardous waste program nor its commitment to assist
states in financing such hazardous waste cleanup efforts.
o Congress must not eliminate CERCLA's present site cleanup financing
mechanism unless and until a substitute financing mechanism is
adopted in its place that provides an equivalent and guaranteed
level of funding for actual site cleanups and program activities.
It is unacceptable for Congress to eliminate the present site
cleanup financing mechanism without providing an equivalent alternative.
In the event that Congress were to do so, state citizens would
inevitably pressure state legislatures to fill the financing void
in an effort to ensure that local hazardous waste cleanup efforts
proceed as planned.
o Congress should reduce state "cost-share" requirements
at Superfund sites. Congress should be mindful that the forced
allocation of state resources to National Priority List (NPL)
sites comes at the expense of state efforts to remediate non-NPL
sites. Congress should limit the state "cost-share"
at Superfund sites to 10% of remedial action costs and 10% of
total operation and maintenance costs.
o States should have a greater role in all aspects of Superfund
decision making. The U.S. EPA should be allowed to authorize states
to manage the program if they request such a delegation. States
should have state laws and regulations at least as stringent as
those at the federal level in order to qualify for delegation.
In addition to states being allowed to assume "primacy"
for all aspects of the Superfund program, states should be allowed
to impose their own stricter cleanup standards at sites. Regardless
of any delegation of program authority to individual states, EPA
should nonetheless retain authority to engage in emergency response
actions at any location it deems necessary after appropriate consultation
with the state concerned.
o Presumptive, standardized cleanup remedies should be available
for sites which have common characteristics. Cleanup standards
addressing "how clean is clean" must be adopted to streamline
the remedy selection process. Congress should maintain the federal
commitment to permanency in treatment. Permanent solutions to
improperly disposed of hazardous waste must be accorded preference
over attempts to control access or exposure to such waste. Long
term economic redevelopment efforts will be hurt by a national
policy that defers actual site cleanups.
o Completed remedy selections (i.e. site cleanup plans) at Superfund
sites should remain intact and should not be reopened. Any attempt
to revise or discard previous decisions regarding cleanup plans
at Superfund sites will result in a dramatic slowdown of cleanup
activity. States have a compelling interest in seeing that presently
planned and scheduled cleanups remain on course. Further delays
in construction activities at Superfund sites will further jeopardize
the property values and welfare of state citizens that live in
proximity to such sites. Pre-enforcement judicial review of remedy
selection decisions will also delay site construction activities.
Congress should maintain the prohibition on pre-enforcement review
and resist any other efforts that will further delay actual cleanup
and site construction activities.
o States should be granted a larger role in all aspects of decision
making and remedy selection at federal facilities that are Superfund
sites. Federal facility Superfund site cleanups should not be
financed through the Superfund Trust Fund. Responsible parties
that are agencies, political subdivisions or instrumentalities
of the federal government should not be accorded preferential
treatment with respect to any aspect of the Superfund program
or state laws. Congress should fully fund efforts to promptly
address contamination at federal facilities.
o Communities affected by Superfund sites should have direct and
meaningful input into decisions regarding those sites. Community
views on matters such as future land use shall be accorded "substantial
weight" in any decision making process.
o Risk assessment and cost\benefit analysis should be considered
during the remedy selection process. Any remedy selection process
should fully factor in risks posed to sensitive subpopulations
such a pregnant woman and children. Cleanup decision and remedy
selection should be determined on the basis of public health and
environmental protection and should not be pre-determined by requirements
that mandate the selection of "lowest cost" cleanup
options.
o Congress should create incentives for responsible parties to
engage in voluntary cleanup efforts.
o The uncertainty surrounding the scope of the secured creditor
exemption provided by the existing statute must be addressed.
Congress must resolve the issue of "lender liability"
in order to promote the development of formerly used industrial
and commercial properties (i.e. "Brownfields"). Serious
consideration should be given to codifying in statute the U.S.
EPA regulations that were struck down in Kelly v. EPA,
15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
o Congress should create an incentive program to foster the re-use
of formerly used industrial and commercial properties (i.e. Brownfields).
o Congress should take the Superfund Trust Fund "off-budget"
and provide that all monies collected pursuant to CERCLA's revenue
raising mechanisms are used only to fund program activities and
site cleanups. Furthermore, Congress should fully appropriate
monies in the Superfund Trust Fund for the purposes stated and
set out in CERCLA.
o States should be allowed to use Superfund Trust monies to assess
natural resource damages to address discharges and releases pursuant
to CERCLA and to remedy such damages. Congress should remain mindful
of the fact that states have fiduciary obligations as the trustees
for their natural resources.
o Federal natural resource damage provisions are necessary to
ensure uniform, minimum standards to protect the public health
and environment. However, the various federal statutes that contain
such provisions must be flexible in order to allow states to best
respond to local needs. Specifically, states should be authorized
to apply state natural resource damage provisions that are stricter
than their federal counterparts.
o Congress should not federally mandate a statute of limitation
period for natural resource damages. Questions concerning the
timeliness of legal actions should be a matter of individual state
determination pursuant to state law.
o States should be given the opportunity to assume primary management
and enforcement responsibility for natural resource damage programs.
Their familiarity with local situations allows them to develop
programs that are the most appropriate and effective. Congress
should not place arbitrary liability "caps" on restoration
budgets or damages resulting from the destruction or impairment
of natural resources.
o Funding must be made available to states for natural resource
damage assessment and restoration. Without funding, trustees are
and will continue to be unable to assess damages to natural resources
and develop and implement plans of restoration.
o States should be given the opportunity to recover all costs,
including administrative costs, associated with a claim for natural
resource damages against those parties responsible for the damage.
o The federal government should be subject to all state laws governing
the cleanup of waste materials and be held responsible for payment
of natural resource damages to states. Payment by federal facilities
for state natural resource damages should be independent of Superfund
monies.
o States should be provided with adequate federal financial and
technical assistance in overseeing their natural resource damage
programs.
o Congress must remain mindful that states are heavily dependent
upon their groundwater reserves. States, as Fiduciaries, have
obligations to safeguard their natural resources, which include
groundwater. According to U.S. EPA surveys, 95 percent of rural
and 35 percent of urban households obtain their drinking water
from groundwater. Agricultural production is also very dependent
upon groundwater. Groundwater cleanup remedies under Superfund
should be consistent with the standards and requirements applicable
to the use of that water.
o The implementation of activities designed to minimize both the
use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous pollution
by both the public and private sectors should be encouraged through
federal legislation, environmental regulations and permits. Such
efforts should be accompanied by strong federal enforcement.
July 1996
MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS
In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act
(BLM Organic Act) reversing the 200-year national policy of returning
public lands to private ownership; the Act provides for perpetual
federal retention. Federal agencies are currently reviewing the
uses of lands under federal jurisdiction.
Ninety-three percent of all lands under federal jurisdiction in
the United States are located in the West, and over sixty-three
percent of the land area in the twelve western states is federally
controlled. This limits the western states' prerogatives in managing
the uses of their own land and further limits the potential base
of the states' economies. Units of governments whose property
tax revenue bases have been reduced by large federal land holdings
also require adequate funds to help make up the shortfall. With
perpetual federal retention, Congress must assure state payments
in lieu of taxes in perpetuity.
With the exception of wilderness areas and other generally accepted
environmentally sensitive lands, the Federal government shall
develop policies which maintain the flexibility of state and local
governments to permit environmentally sound development of energy
resources on Federal land. Any such policies shall prevent the
potential adverse environmental impact on adjacent lands and waters,
recreation, wildlife resources, and the overall environment.
Federal agencies are seeking to establish wilderness areas. The
decisions on the potential inclusion of lands in the National
Wilderness Preservation System or other designated use may affect
the potential for state growth, energy development, recreation
opportunities, revenue, and other state concerns.
Federal-state relations regarding federal agency land planning
vary widely and suffer from a lack of specificity on how and when
cooperation should take place. No meaningful mechanism currently
exists in the wilderness review process for the involvement of
legislatures as the state policymaking bodies.
The National Conference of State Legislatures therefore urges
all federal agencies involved in the management of public lands
to incorporate within their regulations provisions for a continuous
and cooperative involvement of state governments in public lands
policy and public lands management. Furthermore, NCSL supports
remedial legislation which will guarantee a state role in public
lands management and establish procedures for designations, disposition,
or use of certain public lands found to be excess property.
Among the many functions of the federal agencies which have public
lands management responsibilities are wildlife management, endangered
species protection, wetlands protection, meeting the open space
requirements of growing population, environmentally sound forest
and rangeland management, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to local governments,
and the administration of mineral development impact loans. Increasing
pressures on rangeland have made better management imperative.
Federal agencies managing federal land should assure that uses
both on-site and off-site do not cause adverse environmental impacts
on the federal land or other adjacent lands or waters and provide
special protection for wetland resources in light of the goal
of no loss of wetlands.
Increasing energy development will impose heavy burdens on federal
agencies to process lease applications properly and expeditiously
and provide for protection of the environment. As Congress considers
funding for federal agencies with public land management responsibilities,
NCSL recommends that Congress assure appropriations sufficient
for the full and proper execution of the agencies' legislative
mandates.
If a federal wilderness designation occurs, state "inholdings"
in wilderness designated areas should be exchanged with lands
of equal or greater value outside of the proposed wilderness designation
area.
July 1995
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
In an effort to protect public health and the environment, and
because it has been shown to be more cost effective than removing
pollution from the environment after it has been introduced, the
National Conference of State Legislatures supports the prevention
of pollution at its source. To that end, NCSL supports:
o encouraging the implementation of activities designed to minimize
both the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous
pollution by businesses and industry;
o federal legislation, environmental regulations and permits that
require pollution prevention by businesses and industry, and the
federal enforcement of these requirements;
o federal funding of pollution prevention research and development;
and
o federal funding and providing of pollution prevention training,
technical assistance, and regulatory guidance for states.
July 1994
PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) believes
that local units of state government (municipal corporations,
municipal utility authorities, etc.) should be provided maximum
flexibility in addressing local needs with respect to financing
operations and capital intensive infrastructure improvements to
publicly owned treatment works (POTW's). POTW's include assets
such as waste water treatment plants and drinking water treatment
facilities.
Various federal laws currently present structural barriers that
have the effect of limiting local government options and discouraging
financial restructuring of POTW's. The practical result of such
laws is that local units of government are often discouraged from
pursuing innovative POTW public-private partnerships. Accordingly,
NCSL believes that Congress should eliminate laws that create
institutional or structural barriers that have the effect of impeding
local government's ability to restructure its assets or raise
the capital necessary for costly improvements to POTW's through
public-private partnerships.
Notwithstanding the above, NCSL takes no position with respect
to the issue of whether any particular POTW should pursue a public-private
partnership. The decision to enter such a partnership should be
made by the local unit of government pursuant to the sound exercise
of prudent business judgment. Nonetheless, if a local unit of
government deems privatization of a particular POTW to be in the
best interest of the environment, public health, safety and welfare,
then there should be no federal structural impediments that frustrate
the exercise of such local decisonmaking. In sum, federal laws
should not have the effect of discouraging local governments from
pursuing innovative financing options. During a time of scarce
government resources, private sector investment in public utilities
can offer the possibility of providing an economical and efficient
way to ensure that necessary capital intensive infrastructure
improvements occur and that POTW's are expanded as needed.
NCSL urges Congress and the Administration to make the necessary
changes to federal laws and regulations to remove legal barriers
and impediments to public-private partnerships.
Currently, public-private partnerships for POTW's are occurring
pursuant to three Executive Orders: Executive Order 12803, Infrastructure
Privatization, Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, and Executive Order 12893, Principles
for Federal Infrastructure Investment. Accomplishing privatizations
pursuant to these Executive Orders has proven inefficient and
cumbersome. Accordingly, statutory changes are necessary to remove
remaining barriers to the formation of public-private partnerships.
NCSL urges Congress to enact federal legislation codifying the
objectives and principles, concerning POTW's, as outlined in Executive
Order 12803, Infrastructure Privatization. This document
instructs federal agencies to remove impediments to privatization
of POTW's. NCSL specifically supports the following provisions
of Executive Order 12803:
o Upon request, federal agencies should assist states in the privatization
of federally financed POTW's.
o State-federal agreements regarding federal financing of POTW's
should include sufficient flexibility to accommodate future privatization
of those assets.
o State and local governments are the most familiar with their
unique situations and should be allowed and encouraged to make
choices they deem appropriate regarding provision of public services.
These choices include the decision to privatize POTW's.
o Privatization agreements should include provisions ensuring
that POTW's will continue to serve the public and protect the
environment to standards required under relevant federal, state,
and municipal laws, ordinances and regulations. Such public services
should continue to be provided at reasonable rates. Additionally,
environmental protection must remain as the paramount priority
for all POTW's.
o Proceeds from privatization of public utilities should be distributed
as follows. First, state and local governments should recoup their
total investment. Next, the federal government should recoup total
federal investment minus depreciation for reinvestment in drinking
water and waste water programs. Finally, any remaining funds should
be kept by the state and local governments.
Beyond the terms of Executive Order 12803, NCSL believes that
the most appropriate course of action would be for the federal
government to provide total loan forgiveness for any monies that
were lent to finance POTW improvements. Such total loan forgiveness
would be contingent upon a given state agreeing to use the unexpected
additional revenue for infrastructure improvements at needy or
underfinanced POTW's.
NCSL also supports Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership. This executive order directs federal agencies
to increase flexibility for state governments to meet the specific
and unique needs of their communities. The Order also contains
provisions allowing state governments to deviate from the original
repayment provisions of federal loans that financed POTW infrastructure
improvements.
NCSL also supports Executive Order 12893, Principles for Federal
Infrastructure Investment. This executive order contains a
directive that federal agencies include incentives encouraging
public-private partnerships in infrastructure improvement loans.
NCSL believes that it is imperative for public-private partnership
agreements to make diligent efforts to provide for placement of
dislocated workers in municipal or private employment.
Finally, NCSL urges Congress to enact legislation in furtherance
of the above objectives.
July 1996
RADON
The National Conference of State Legislatures recognizes that
radon in the home represents a serious threat to human health.
In 1988, the U.S. Surgeon General identified radon as the second
leading cause of lung cancer in the United States.
Therefore, NCSL urges Congress:
o To continue funding the State Indoor Radon Grants (SIRG) program
so that states will have the funds available to develop programs
to inform and assist their citizens regarding radon testing and
mitigation;
o To continue to fund Regional Training Centers, which are of
benefit to the states;
o To provide adequate federal financial assistance for federal
radon programs;
o To direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking
Water Office to carry out further studies on the issue of radon
in water;
o To insure that any effort to remove radon from drinking water
take into consideration a risk assessment/cost benefit analysis
of the human health hazard incurred by the presence of radon in
the water. Assumptions made in the analysis should be identified
and made available; and
o To continue its promotion of the awareness of radon hazards,
particularly with respect to real estate transactions.
Furthermore, NCSL supports:
o The development of an accurate predictor of the amount of radon
actually released from water into the home to address the current
uncertainty;
o Expansion of the SIRG grant program to cover activities related
to the optional adoption by states of model federal construction
standards;
o The EPA radon proficiency program that sets standards for radon
products and services; and
o Maximum state flexibility to develop radon programs that are
tailored to meet their needs.
NCSL is opposed to the preemption by the federal government of
state law.
July 1994
RECREATION
AND PARK RESOURCES
In 1987, the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors released
their final report which recommended a number of public and private
actions needed to meet the nation's long-term recreation resource
and service needs. One of these actions called for the development
of a national trust fund. The Commission recommended that there
be an equitable distribution of these outdoor recreation funds
between federal, state and local governments, and private non-profit
organizations.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) encourages
Congress and the Executive Branch to take action to adequately
fund an outdoor recreation grant program which provides financial
assistance to establish and maintain a nationwide system of parks,
recreational areas and historic sites. NCSL recommends that the
grants program address the following issues:
o Funds should be earmarked to encourage partnerships between
the private sector and public entities.
o At least one-half of the receipts of the trust fund should be
available for state and local governments.
o The planning requirements of the trust fund should encourage,
but not require detailed statewide and local recreational planning.
o The trust fund should be designed to encourage states to adopt
similar outdoor recreation trust funds on the state level.
o The level of funding should be consistent from year to year
so state and local governments can adequately plan for acquiring
funds to meet the matching requirements of the program.
o There should be financial incentives for state and/or local
actions that meet national outdoor recreation goals.
July 1994
SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Recognizing the need to manage solid waste in an environmentally,
economically, and politically acceptable manner, states are enacting
comprehensive solid waste management plans. In the long run, source
reduction and recycling offer the most economically and environmentally
sound methods for dealing with a significant percentage of the
solid waste stream.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) believes
that properly designed and operated landfills will continue to
be a component of any comprehensive solid waste management plan.
The volume of waste to be landfilled should be reduced and minimized
through environmentally sound methods such as source separation
to retrieve recyclable or reusable materials. Yard waste and some
biodegradable materials should be composted rather than landfilled.
Source separation should occur in all waste streams. Solid waste
incinerators without energy recovery and landfilling should be
limited, whenever practical, to non-toxic and non-hazardous materials
that cannot be treated by any other economically and environmentally
sound method. With respect to waste-to-energy or resource recovery
facilities, their capacity should be designed for the solid waste
volume remaining after source separation, toxic materials removal,
recycling, and pollution prevention measures have been implemented.
The states are in need of the full cooperation and assistance
of the federal government to accomplish their diverse solid waste
management objectives. Recognizing the importance of a state-federal
partnership and in support of the objectives of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), NCSL makes the following recommendations:
o Congress should stimulate markets for recycled materials, recycling
and source reduction and the development of comprehensive solid
waste management plans. The federal government should undertake
research and offer extensive technical assistance to states to
aid in developing and managing comprehensive solid waste plans.
The federal government should provide guidance on ways to safely
handle and dispose of ash from resource recovery facilities.
o The federal government should significantly increase technical
assistance to state and local governments in developing comprehensive
source reduction, source separation, reuse and recycling programs
while fully recognizing the primacy of state and local governments
in solid waste management. The federal government should act as
a clearinghouse to aid in coordinating exchange of technical information
among states. The states and the federal government should work
together to establish a method for uniformly measuring solid waste
reduction and recycling. The development of solid waste management
plans is a state and local government responsibility and the federal
government should restrict its role to reviewing these plans for
thoroughness and setting performance standards.
o It is essential that tax, legal, and financial incentives be
developed and used to stimulate and develop markets for recycled
materials and products manufactured from recycled materials, as
well as to stimulate source reduction, reuse, and recycling programs.
This would result in more competitive status for materials that
are currently noncompetitive partially due to tax and financial
incentives offered on virgin materials and throwaway articles.
Strong incentive should especially be offered to promote reuse
and recycling of products made from nonrenewable natural resources.
o Regulation, tariffs and transportation policies should be revised
to remove artificial price supports in order to create regulatory
parity between recyclable and reusable material and virgin material.
o The Congress and the federal government should act to stimulate
national and international markets for reusable and recyclable
materials.
o The provisions of RCRA requiring the federal government to promulgate
regulations for federal procurement of recycled products should
be fully implemented. The federal government should give priority
consideration to the purchase of reusable and recycled products
and allow a temporary price differential, where applicable, for
goods made from recycled materials.
o The federal government should focus research efforts to determine
what specific components of products create significant problems,
not only for landfilling but also for composting, recycling, incineration,
and other management techniques. The Congress should then amend
RCRA or other pertinent statutes to either prevent the use of
materials that create significant solid waste disposal problems
or require the reuse or recycling of same.
o In cases where manufactured products cause an increase in toxicity
in the solid waste stream, but are not regulated by RCRA, Congress
should take steps that would remove such toxic materials from
the waste stream.
o Federal requirements should be strengthened to encourage use
of recyclable packaging that can be practically marketed. The
effect of excessive packaging on the solid waste stream should
be addressed. The federal government should act to require or
encourage reduction or elimination of toxic elements in packaging
and printing nationwide.
o The federal government should review packaging, particularly
the new breed of plastic containers, with a view toward establishing
criteria for reduction and to facilitate the safe and affordable
recycling of packaging materials.
o Federal programs should be directed towards extensive public
education on the need for reducing and recycling solid waste,
including unit pricing.
o Congress should provide for a limited waiver of the Commerce
Clause to provide states with the greatest authority possible
to manage solid waste. Such a waiver should allow states to restrict
imported waste and to allow restrictions on the exportation of
waste, including the imposition of differential fees.
o Funds received from any permits authorized by federal law and
issued by states for purposes of management of solid waste shall
be expended as determined by state legislatures.
July 1995
STATE
FEDERAL RELATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
To foster cooperative state-federal relations and to prevent the
duplication of federal and state government efforts to protect
the nation's environment and natural resources, the National Conference
of State Legislatures advocates the following measures:
o Congress and the Executive Branch should consult with the appropriate
state legislative and administrative officials during the process
of enacting federal environmental legislation and in developing
and implementing regulations.
o States should be given the opportunity to assume primary management
and enforcement responsibilities for environmental programs. Their
familiarity with local situations allows them to develop programs
that are the most appropriate and effective. Primacy should be
encouraged through the implementation of incentives such as flexibility
and technical assistance.
o Federal environmental laws and regulations may be necessary
to ensure uniform, minimum standards to protect the public health
and environment. These laws should be flexible in order to allow
states to best respond to local needs, they should always be accompanied
by adequate federal funding and they should not preempt existing
state law and programs except as necessary to achieve the minimum
national standards.
o Federal environmental programs including permitting should be
consolidated and coordinated. Such efforts can produce savings,
administrative improvements and increased effectiveness in the
intergovernmental system.
o Cost sharing arrangements for protection of the environment
or the cleanup and containment of environmental pollution should
be determined through close intergovernmental consultation and
cooperation with all affected entities.
July 1995
WATER
QUALITY
Clean
Water Act
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) believes
that water quality throughout the nation must be protected and
in many areas restored. NCSL also believes that the framework
established under the current Clean Water Act has enabled states
and local governments, working in concert with the federal government,
to make progress toward cleaner water. Further, the Act has served
to promote recycling and reuse of pollutants that might otherwise
be discharged into the nation's waters.
The federal government phased out the federal grant program and
established State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for addressing the wastewater
treatment needs of the nation. Although the SRF program was originally
intended to expire in 1994, NCSL actively supports the concept
of SRFs including reauthorization of the wastewater SRF at levels
commensurate with state needs. Thus,
NCSL urges that:
o Congress and the Administration extend and fully fund the wastewater
treatment SRF created in the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act of 1987;
o Congress appropriate full funding for non-point source pollution
control as authorized by the Clean Water Act of 1987 and expand
the provisions of this program to restore and protect our nation's
waters;
o States be provided with increased flexibility in determining
the most beneficial and cost-effective use of wastewater treatment
dollars;
o Congress initiate an incentive program to encourage water conservation
in the states;
o The limitation on use of loan monies for administration of the
state revolving fund program be removed;
o EPA strengthen pretreatment pollution prevention requirements
to reduce the amount of hazardous waste flowing to waters from
wastewater treatment plants and from contaminated sludge;
o Congress require the EPA to promptly adopt nationwide discharge
standards for point sources of pollution, excluding stormwater
discharges and agricultural field run-off.
Drinking
Water
In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which
required EPA to establish drinking water standards and monitoring
requirements to ensure Americans that public water systems deliver
safe drinking water. States that met certain conditions including
adopting national standards and enforcing compliance were granted
the authority to administer their own programs.
In 1986, Congress amended the SDWA to accelerate EPA's standard-setting
procedures and to establish a monitoring program. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was required to issue regulations for 83 contaminants
in 3 years, and 25 new contaminants every three years thereafter.
The 1986 amendments also required surface water to be disinfected
and filtered, and groundwater to be disinfected. These amendments
and the regulations issued to implement them have significantly
increased responsibilities and hence compliance costs at the state
and local public and private water systems level.
Federal funding assistance to the states for implementing and
complying with the regulations of the SDWA have not been commensurate
with the costs, and state budgetary shortfalls prevent states
from compensating for the difference from their own resources.
Small and mid-sized water systems are particularly hard hit because
they do not have the rate base necessary to absorb highly prescriptive
and expensive programs.
In the best interest of the public drinking water supply, NCSL
urges Congress and the Administration to increase federal appropriations
for safe drinking water programs to necessary levels. A special
consideration for financial assistance should be given to those
states that have communities and water systems that have limited
resources to deal with the requirements of the SDWA. States should
receive additional federal financial assistance in order to develop
and maintain the administrative and technical capacity needed
to implement the program's mandated objectives.
Furthermore, NCSL supports the following provisions:
o States should have maximum flexibility in administering their
drinking water programs.
o States should have the authority to prioritize activities based
on state public health needs.
o States should be able to use federal drinking water funds to
consolidate public water systems when it is economically or environmentally
beneficial, and/or in the best interest of the public health.
o Water systems should be able to use federal drinking water funds
for land acquisition in order to facilitate infrastructure construction.
o In determining national standards for water quality, Congress
should direct EPA to base its standards on scientifically sound
principles for protection of human health. The ability of EPA
to require water systems to test for additional contaminants must
consider the human health risk posed by the contaminant. Congress
must eliminate specific numbers goals for identification of new
contaminants in drinking water. In lieu of such goals, Congress
should adequately fund EPA's research efforts to develop scientifically
sound standards which will assure safe drinking water for every
citizen of this nation.
o EPA should be directed to work closely with primacy states
in establishing a comprehensive program of water testing which
recognizes the potential of contaminants based upon source, storage
and delivery of water. Human health should be the basis for establishing
any contaminant management program.
o Disapproval or withdrawal of primacy should not result in a
decreased level of public health protection in that state.
o Congress should establish a safe drinking water state revolving
fund (SRF) modeled after the wastewater treatment facilities SRF
but including the following provisions:
o States should be able to transfer money between the wastewater
treatment facilities SRF and drinking water SRF if they feel it
is in the best interest of the public, or they should be able
to combine the two SRFs if it is in the public's best interest.
o States should be able to extend the life of drinking water SRF
loans as necessary to accommodate low-income communities provided
the loan repayment period does not exceed the useful life of the
project.
o States should be able to use the earnings on the interest of
drinking water SRF monies for drinking water grant assistance
to low-income communities, or for other drinking water related
projects as determined by the individual state.
o States should be able to use at least 6-8% of drinking water
SRF funds for administrative costs.
o State SRF match money, if required, should be waived for the
first year. Current state funds used for safe drinking water purposes
should qualify as matching funds.
Groundwater
The National Conference of State Legislatures is concerned with
the growing incidence of groundwater contamination. Groundwater
withdrawals have quadrupled since 1945 and today nearly one-half
of the water used for human consumption in the United States is
groundwater. In recent years, contamination of this precious resource
has grown in alarming proportions.
NCSL believes that the federal government can work with states
to ensure protection of groundwater supplies by providing a framework
within which federal and state research, state and regional management
techniques, and state regulatory initiatives can be shared across
the nation.
NCSL believes that the development of groundwater policy should
take into account or include the following:
o Historically, states have developed and implemented groundwater
planning and management programs. State primacy must be important
in the development of groundwater legislation but there is a need
for federal coordination in interstate cooperation. Federal parameters
for the protection of the quality of groundwater are needed.
o There needs to be federal assistance available to states in
protecting wellhead/recharge areas from contamination.
o A coordinated approach allowing, where possible, for integration
of existing federal, state and, where possible, local laws which
regulate groundwater quality should be undertaken.
o A survey of state data collection and research needs should
be completed to assess future needs for financial and technical
assistance with respect to aquifer mapping, monitoring and classification.
o Groundwater policy should build upon existing federal and state
laws and management techniques, but assure the protection of regional
supplies and quality. Any policy should recognize the diversity
of hydrologic, climatic, economic, legal, and social factors within
various states and regions.
o Legislation should encourage the use of interstate compacts
or agreements with respect to resolving interstate disputes regarding
groundwater management.
o States should be accorded primacy in devising appropriate financing
mechanisms for groundwater programs.
o A concerted water conservation program with appropriate financing
should be developed jointly by the federal, state and local governments,
but implemented by state and local governments.
o A comprehensive review of groundwater contamination from pesticides
should be undertaken and recommendations based on this review
should be implemented.
Indian
Water and Fishing Rights
In a growing number of states, Indian tribes have begun to claim
their water and fishing rights, often after these resources have
been appropriated for other uses under state law or federal reclamation
projects. Because access to water and the fishery resource is
vitally important in these states, a procedure for determining
how to allocate these resources among the competing claims to
limited supplies is crucial.
The National Conference of State Legislatures feels the following
principles should guide any policy or actions regarding Indian
water and fishing rights:
o Resolution of disputes between Indian and non-Indian users should
be as fair and equitable as possible. The terms of settlement
should consider the legitimate claims and the economic hardships
that will be imposed on those who have legally obtained their
rights, and also on those who have been denied full possession
of their rights.
o Procedures should be flexible, to account for the variety of
local needs, resources, claims, and relationships among users
and claimants.
o Clarification of the extent of Indian rights to water and the
fishery resource is necessary for sound water management, for
allocation of these resources among competing uses and for planning
future growth and development.
o Procedures for resolving Indian water and fishing rights disputes
should encourage communication and cooperation among various users
and seek to avoid further destructive confrontations.
Therefore, NCSL recommends:
o The extent and nature of Indian rights to water and the fishery
resource should be quantified. Only when the amount of these resources
that Indians are entitled to has been fully identified can resolution
of the controversy proceed.
o Where conflicting claims to these resources occur because Indians
claim prior rights to water or fish already appropriated, tribes,
states and non-Indian users should seek to resolve the dispute
through mediation, with federal participation as necessary to
ensure that states and tribes arrive at an enforceable agreement.
Procedures should be implemented, however, to coordinate the process
of obtaining approval from Congress. Indian tribes interested
in negotiating with states often encounter difficulty in identifying
the appropriate state agency or official to meet with, as no single
unit has authority to commit the state to provisions of a settlement.
States should consider the creation of a single negotiating unit.
o Where mediation is unsuccessful in resolving disputed claims
adjudication should be sought, with the ability to initiate adjudication
in state courts.
o Federal legislation is needed to provide compensation by the
federal government to all owners of legally determined water or
fishing rights, if those rights are later altered or taken by
the United States or Indian tribes, or if the exercise of those
rights is precluded by action of the United States.
o In view of the extent of Indian rights to water and fishery
resources, tribal governments should be directly represented on
national, state, regional, and interstate water and fishing regulation
and water and fishing policy planning bodies and commissions,
including Interstate Company Commissions, Interbasin Commissions,
River Basin Commissions, and others.
o As a tangible indicator of federal intentions to provide timely
funding where treaties have been signed among Indians, state,
local and federal governments, the federal government should immediately
and fully fund authorized projects.
National
Water Resources Policy
The national water policy which has evolved over the past 30 years
exists today as a cumbersome and poorly coordinated effort to
manage our nation's water resources. Jurisdiction for federal
water projects is scattered throughout agencies of the federal
government and committees of Congress. The National Conference
of State Legislatures sees a need for clearer, more coordinated
and more consistent federal policies. These policies, however,
should recognize and build upon the constitutions, statutes, policies
and programs of the states as the fundamental basis for a truly
national effort toward better water resources management. The
federal government should recognize that water resources policy
can and must be developed at the state level. The appropriate
role for the federal government should be to provide technical,
research and financial assistance to the states at their request.
Historically, the states have developed water resources management
programs through legislative action, judicial deliberations and
financial contributions. Therefore, the primacy of the states'
role deserves special recognition in federal policy and the states
should have the policymaking prerogative. An effective state-federal
partnership cannot be expected to result from a revision of federal
policies unless states are given the opportunity to review and
develop their own.
However, the nature of federal activities in water resources management,
involving direct actions by federal agencies, an array of narrow
categorical grant programs for specific management purposes, and
a similar range of regulatory programs, has been a major barrier
to comprehensive management and appropriate action at the state,
local and interstate levels.
NCSL believes that there must be more concerted attention to the
need for water conservation, both within and between federal and
state governments, to the planning and implementation of water
resources development and to water quality improvement. If adequate
supplies of this precious resource are to be ensured for future
generations, there is doubtless much in current practice and policy
that must be improved.
NCSL endorses the following principles:
o The states have the primary authority and responsibility for
water resources management. Primary authority and responsibility
for water resources management functions, including planning,
development and regulation, rest with the states and their delegated
interstate agencies. Water resources management, wetland protection,
coastal zone management, and soil conservation projects should
be clearly delineated by Congress as the primary responsibility
of the state and their delegated interstate agencies, with federal
oversight.
o A national water conservation initiative should be undertaken
to encourage water conservation at the federal, state and local
levels. Functions such as navigation and flood control and other
issues at the prerogative of the state should continue to be shared
with the federal government to the degree appropriate. Federal
policy must recognize and respect the rights of the states to
administer their individual water laws and to manage their water
resources.
o The role of the federal government is four-fold: (1) to establish
a framework of national objectives developed in cooperation with
the states; (2) to provide assistance to the states in the development
of programs to meet state needs within such a framework; (3) to
be consistent with such state programs to the maximum extent possible
when undertaking direct federal actions pursuant to the national
interest; and (4) to coordinate agency activities through a national
coordinating entity reporting directly to the President and with
provision for adequate state and public input.
The responsibility of the federal government is to establish,
in full cooperation with states and other appropriate interests,
national objectives for the protection, management, restoration,
development, and use of water and related resources to meet national
economic, environmental and social objectives and to assist in
implementing such policies in federal actions and through assistance
and support for state actions.
The essential steps toward orderly, efficient and balanced water
resources management are to recognize the primary responsibility
of the state and to put each state in the position to secure,
in cooperation with local governments, coherent water management
strategies.
Federal policy should be directed toward strengthening the capacity
of the state to act as the integrator and manager of all programs
affecting the water resources of the state. To do so effectively,
states need:
o Realistic and dependable financial support to integrate management
activities through expansion of provisions for state assistance;
o Full funding of authorized programs consistent with congressional
intent;
o Capable technical assistance, at state request, from federal
agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), the Bureau of Land Management, the
Corps of Engineers, or the Bureau of Reclamation, possessing extensively
developed expertise;
o Additional research assistance, at state request, (for example,
the water resources research centers established under the Water
Resources Act of 1964, or similar legislation) and information
on water conserving devices; and
o Assurance that direct federal actions will be consistent with
state programs, responsive to national policy, and carefully evaluated
against mutually agreed upon standards.
o There must be continuity in federal support for water management
programs. Effective scheduling of local and state government appropriation
processes and personnel recruitment is made extremely difficult
by sharp variations in federal funding levels and by the failure
to fully fund authorized programs.
o Federal actions must be consistent with adopted state and interstate
water and related resources plans and programs. A major frustration
among regional, state and local water resources decision makers
is the problem of securing consistency of federal projects with
federally-assisted water planning programs.
o There must be greater flexibility in the entire federal support
system for water resource planning and management.
o Federal project evaluation, planning, financing, cost sharing,
and cost recovery policies should be reviewed and simplified.
o Project evaluation should promote equal consideration of both
structural and non-structural solutions.
Existing federal policies present a bewildering array of planning,
evaluation, financing, cost sharing, and cost recovery options
for direct federal and federally-assisted water projects and programs.
Inequities exist among those who pay for and those who benefit
from such projects and programs. Moreover, many existing programs
create inherent financial biases which favor certain solutions
to water problems over others, sometimes resulting in the approval
of programs of only marginal utility. Accordingly, NCSL urges
that:
o Cost-sharing policies should be consistent among alternative
means for achieving the same purpose. This means uniformity among
cost sharing policies for both structural and non-structural alternative
solutions to a problem under existing agency authorities and broadening
some agency authorities to permit consideration of more alternatives.
o Cost sharing policies should be consistent among federal agencies
for the same purposes. There should be no financial grounds for
non-federal participants to "shop around" for the best
deal.
o The public participation requirements of project planning and
evaluation criteria should be aggressively carried out.
o Water conservation must be a fundamental consideration in all
future
o A national water conservation initiative implemented by the
states as a part of their total water management programs with
federal financial and technical assistance including a water management
programs.
A national water conservation initiative reflecting regional variations,
as defined below, must be the cornerstone of national water policy.
Water conservation involves the more efficient use of water in:
(1) day-to-day uses; (2) resources allocation including conjunctive
uses; (3) drought response; and (4) effective use of seasonal
water including storage where necessary. National policy must
be flexible enough to accommodate both environmental and economic
differences which may vary region by region.
Accordingly, NCSL recommends: component for evaluation of the
true benefits and costs of conservation;
o Encouraging comprehensive management of intermittently available
freshwater resources to maximize the availability of surface and
groundwater supplies;
o Examining closely the incentives and disincentives for encouraging
conservation, recycling and reuse of water; and
o Examining and promoting where feasible the practices of conjunctive
use of water supplies.
The federal government currently supports a wide variety of water
research programs, both through the individual federal water agencies
and through the state water resources research centers created
under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 and coordinated
by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of Interior. Through
those vehicles, important research has been conducted in all phases
of water management. However, little coordination exists among
these programs and no specific mechanism exists which can focus
the water research establishment on the planning and management
concerns of the nation's principal water managers---the states.
NCSL recommends that:
o At the federal levels, there should be greater coordination
among the many mission oriented federal agency research programs
by tying them more closely to a national coordination entity;
and
o At the state and regional level, require that the research agenda
of both the federal agencies and the federally-supported water
resources research centers can be developed in conjunction with
the expressed research needs of the state.
o Congress should recognize state primacy over all water rights
within each state's boundaries and bring to closure the debate
on the Federal Reserve Water Rights Policy.
Wetlands
Wetlands are an integral and indispensable component of both the
environmental and economic health of the nation. They provide
critical habitat for a broad range of fish, wildlife, and invertebrate
species. One-third of the species listed as threatened or endangered
depend on wetlands for their survival.
At the same time, they offer important economic and recreational
benefits such as hunting and fishing. Wetlands provide resting
and feeding points for millions of migratory waterfowl along the
four major American flyways, and are of both direct and indirect
importance to the nation's annual commercial fish catch.
Wetlands also provide numerous other overlapping environmental
and economic benefits, including natural flood control, reduced
shoreline erosion, recharged groundwater, and water purification
through filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants from runoff.
Nonetheless, widespread recognition of these benefits is relatively
recent. Wetlands have historically been viewed as impediments
to progress -- swamps to be drained or filled. As a result, the
nation has lost more than half its native wetlands. During the
past decade, wetlands losses have approached 300,000 acres per
year.
Public and private efforts to stop these conversions have generally
been uncoordinated, unfocused, and ineffective. There has been
some duplicative effort and inconsistency. The existing programs
also leave major gaps in the overall protection effort.
NCSL recognizes the need to protect the nation's remaining wetlands
to fill those gaps in protection programs and to expand current
regulatory and non-regulatory programs at all levels of government.
However, in arid states that are hampered in their water development,
other states with historically low wetlands loss or high percentage
of usable land classified as wetlands, there may be the need for
flexibility in the regulation and management of water development
and wetlands policy.
NCSL calls for a no-net loss of wetlands through a consistent
yet flexible national policy and urges that:
o The President and the Congress should establish the national
goal of eliminating the net loss of both wetlands acreage and
wetlands habitat values, as a result of any activities, and of
increasing both wetlands acreage and wetlands habitat values.
The President and the Congress should promptly adopt policies
and regulatory reforms to achieve this no-net loss goal.
o Congress should establish wetlands protection, restoration and
creation as part of the mission of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Soil Conservation Service, the Federal Highway Administration,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other appropriate federal
agencies. These agencies should coordinate efforts to assure a
comprehensive, non-duplicative wetlands program. Congress should
consider the designation of a single federal agency to be responsible
for the development, implementation, and enforcement of a national
wetlands program.
o Congress should facilitate the delegation of wetlands protection
programs to the states to achieve no-net loss of wetlands with
strong regulatory programs by allowing these states to regulate
all wetlands within their borders and by providing technical resources
to assist states in developing and operating their programs.
o Congress should establish a clear preferred sequence of mitigation
options that begins with avoidance of adverse effects on wetlands
followed by a reduction of unavoidable adverse effects, and allowing
compensation by creating, replacing or restoring other on-site
or off-site wetlands areas, only as a last resort.
o Congress should recognize that private landowners have an economic
stake in wetlands resources and establish a strong program of
economic incentives that encourages and assists the private sector
to exercise its management responsibilities in a way that will
protect the public values wetlands provide while contributing
to a reasonable return on its investment.
o The President should reaffirm Presidential Executive Orders
11990 ("Protection of Wetlands") and 11988 ("Floodplain
Protection"), both issued in May 1977, as viable and valuable
adjuncts to the establishment of a nationwide wetlands policy.
o All federal land-holding agencies should, in cooperation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, undertake a full inventory of the wetlands on their lands
and develop a management plan that will ensure the continued protection
and enhancement of these areas. These agencies should also evaluate
the possibility of establishing further beneficial wetland acreage,
when economically feasible, and act to develop a coordinated inventory,
mapping, and reporting system that is useful to the regulated
community and that has been carefully verified on the ground.
o Federal agencies with responsibility for wetlands regulation
and management should initiate a National Wetlands Research Program
to improve methods for assessing wetlands functions and values,
to assess cumulative impacts, to study the effectiveness of protection
programs, and to study wetlands restoration and creation techniques.
o Federal agencies should work closely together, and with states
and the private sector, to integrate wetlands protection programs
with state and local comprehensive planning processes. The process
should emphasize advance identification of wetlands, assess the
role and importance of wetlands including the land and water on
which wetland depend, consider the economic and ecological benefits
of wetlands, explore the compatibility of different uses, and
integrate wetlands protection with other social goals.
o Federal and state regulators, with the cooperation of the private
sector, should have sufficient flexibility to select the options
that best protect the balance of needs of the wetlands resource
while ensuring environmentally sound and predictable regulatory
programs.
o The current efforts to re-define and change the definition of
wetlands are confusing to regulators, the states, private landowners
and local governments and should end. Present definitions, as
adopted in 1987 for the Army Corps of Engineers, should be the
baseline of the no-net loss policy. This policy shall be revisited
upon release of the proposed wetland study of the National Academy
of Science.
o Federal agencies, in conjunction with states, the private sector,
and nonprofit groups should expand their education and outreach
programs to inform the public and landowners about the location
of wetlands, the values wetlands provide, the regulations governing
their use, and the existence of financial incentives and other
options available to protect and enhance them.
o The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection
Agency should agree on strategies for effectively monitoring,
verifying, and enforcing permits authorizing activities in wetlands.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice and other regulatory
authorities should take any necessary action, including amending
existing regulations, to prevent the willful altercation of wetlands
characteristics to circumvent regulatory jurisdictions.
o If states are to be encouraged to oversee the wetlands permitting
process, they should be provided adequate federal financial and
technical assistance.
Agricultural
Wetlands
o Given the existing maze of regulations and agencies with jurisdiction
over agricultural wetlands, the federal government should consolidate
all regulations under one agency and provide for the delegation
of such wetlands authority. Because the present system of federal
agricultural wetlands regulation is burdensome and confusing,
primacy should be made available to the states. Regulation of
agricultural wetlands should only occur in the context of an overall
farm conservation plan.
July 1995
ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT
NATIONAL
ENERGY
The National Conference of State Legislatures urges the federal
government to develop, implement and maintain an expansive, integrated,
environmentally-sensitive and cost-effective national energy policy.
The NCSL recognizes the efforts of the federal government in the
development and implementation, to date, of the National Energy
Strategy, and encourages its continued implementation, development
of a follow-up version of the NES, and adoption of comprehensive
energy legislation by Congress.
The primary goals of a national energy policy should be to provide
for the most efficient use of energy, to promote reliable sources
of domestic energy supplies, to develop a comprehensive energy
conservation strategy and to develop and promote the use of alternative,
renewable energy sources. A national energy policy should ensure
adequate supplies of affordably priced energy. A national energy
policy should ensure the use of energy in an efficient and environmentally-sound
manner so that the needs of our citizens, economy and national
security interests are met. Energy independence shall be the long
term goal of the United States. A balanced mix of energy sources
is essential to the security and the future economic growth of
the United States. It is also imperative that a national energy
policy account for the effect of the use of each fuel source on
the environment.
Principles
Those principles which NCSL believes ought to guide the development
and implementation of a national energy policy include:
o Promotion of the most efficient and economical use of all energy
resources.
o Promotion and provision of incentives for the development and
optimal use of all energy resources.
o Assurance that various domestic energy sources are continually
developed, maintained and stored to prevent supply emergencies
and to preserve the nation's independence.
o Consideration and assessment of environmental costs and benefits
for all energy resources, fuels and technologies in rendering
legislative, regulatory and market decisions regarding energy
production and use.
o Provision of an affordable energy supply for all citizens.
o Specification and balancing of clear lines of local, state and
federal regulatory authority.
o Development of both short - and long-term strategies to provide
adequate energy supplies, efficient utilization of those supplies
and optimum cost effectiveness.
o Promotion of the education of school-age children regarding
energy resources, consumption and production and regarding environmental
protection, safety and risks in energy production.
o Assurance of expanded energy research and development and broadening
of the citizenry's access to energy-related information.
o Assurance of participation of state and local officials in the
development and implementation of a national energy plan and strategy.
o Avoidance of mandates, particularly unfunded mandates, upon
state and local governments in order to effect a national energy
policy.
Promotion of energy conservation and efficiency and the development
and use of alternative and renewable energy supplies.
Implementation
The development of environmentally-sound energy conservation and
efficient supply and distribution systems requires long range
planning, least-cost planning, and sustained efforts. The immediate
establishment and implementation of a national energy strategy,
as recommended in this document and further discussed and supported
in existing NCSL policies, will assure that the future energy
needs of American citizens, the United States economy and national
security interests are met in an efficient and environmentally
sound manner.
Development of a national energy strategy should have at least
these six principal steps: (1) a forecast and assessment of our
nation's energy future and its impacts; (2) an evaluation and
ranking of short and long-term energy options available to the
nation; (3) an evaluation of possible energy futures which provide
greater benefits to our citizens, based upon the options ranked
above; (4) development of recommendations for energy options and
energy futures that the nation should pursue, with the establishment
of national targets or goals; (5) evaluation and recommendation
of implementation mechanisms including, but not limited to, incentives,
technical assistance, educational programs, regulatory standards
or guidelines to achieve the targets or goals; and (6) coordination
of federal and state components, responsibilities, and authority.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) should rank the energy options
available to the nation. The options should be grouped by end
use and not by specific fuels or efficiency improvements. The
ranking of each option within a group shall reflect the market
and nonmarket costs of energy saved or delivered, the relative
degree of uncertainty and risk exposure, and the compatibility
of each option with other national goals. Ranking should be periodically
revised to reflect changes over time. Any ranking and any energy
policy should include the long-term environmental impacts.
In choosing among energy policy alternatives, a cost-benefit approach
should be applied in which the full long-term costs of an option
in taxes, consumer energy bills, environmental impacts, security
risks, and other national goals are weighed against the additional
availability or conservation of energy and other long-term benefits
it might be expected to generate.
Those measures involving the lowest costs, in terms of public
expenditures, revenue losses, costs to consumers, and environmental
or other impacts, should be considered first. Energy policy alternatives
that would improve our energy security and reliability without
imposing significant new costs, while balancing the need for environmental
protection, should be implemented. Although the potential costs
and benefits of a given proposal can be extremely difficult to
estimate, this framework is valuable in setting consistent terms
of debate for our various energy policy choices both now and in
the future.
An effective national energy policy must include carefully coordinated
federal and state components. The responsibility for developing
the state components rests principally with the legislatures.
Channels of communication between state legislatures and the federal
government must be strengthened. In the development of a national
energy policy, the federal government shall consult closely with
state legislatures, shall devise mechanisms to bring state legislatures
as full participants into the energy decision-making process on
a continuing basis, and shall ensure the inclusion of representatives
of the legislative branch of state government in all state-federal
working groups in the energy area.
Conservation
and Energy Efficiency
Increased energy efficiency and conservation should be considered
as primary sources of energy, since both are practical, cost-efficient
and essential for addressing future energy needs. Increased efficiency
will decrease our reliance on imported oil, reduce the environmental
impacts of fossil fuels, reduce the long-term operating costs
of U.S. industries thus improving their competitiveness, slow
the depletion of our finite fossil fuels and extend the time we
have to make the transition to new and innovative energy technologies.
Environmental concerns associated with energy policy choices can
be accomplished most effectively by improving the efficiency of
this nation's energy use and by making sure that choices among
fuels and energy products and services reflect their true environmental
costs. This principle shall apply to imported energy as well as
domestic energy.
It shall be part of the energy strategy of the United States to
promote energy efficiency in a variety of ways including setting
or strengthening as technologies improve: Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards for automobiles; energy efficiency provisions
in building codes (including lighting efficiency standards and
weatherization); home appliance and heating and cooling unit efficiency
standards; waste recycling and reduction standards for industrial
manufacturing; standards for conservation in electrical production
and supply including cogeneration, and use of alternative energy;
and a national transportation policy, emphasizing various forms
of mass transit, that promotes energy efficiency. These measures
impose costs as well as provide benefits and should be evaluated
for adoption along the lines outlined in the implementation section.
Programs must be cooperatively developed and implemented by the
states and federal government working together as full partners,
and should consider incentives to promote and encourage energy
efficiency and development of cost-effective energy resources.
States should continue to have the authority to establish incentives
for consumers to purchase automobiles with improved energy efficiency
of motor vehicles including, but not limited to; (a) efficient
vehicle purchase incentives, such as gas guzzler taxes and feebates
(fees and rebates linked to improved fuel economy or emissions);
(b) public and private fleet procurement guidelines and incentives
that favor efficient vehicles; (c) other consumer incentives for
efficiency, such as "pay as you drive" automobile insurance.
Also, the federal government shall promote energy conservation
education and fund research into conservation technologies. Federal
funding of energy conservation programs, including grants to states,
should be enhanced.
The government's leadership role in the purchase and use of new
energy efficient technologies and products shall be expanded,
and all government-owned buildings shall make use of economical
energy conservation programs.
In addition to the energy conservation program called for above,
additional policies should be adopted, including the following:
Research and Development -- Priority should be given to the renewable
energy resources for the long-term and to the conservation and
conversion from existing fossil fuel resources in the short-term.
Basic energy conservation research funded by the government shall
include superconductivity studies.
Energy from Solid and Liquid Waste -- The conversion of solid
and liquid waste after all recyclable and reusable materials are
removed can make a contribution to our energy supply. A resource
recovery program which utilizes the waste stream should be encouraged
where economically and environmentally feasible for this purpose
provided that problems with air emissions and ash residue are
resolved.
Architecture -- Use and design of innovative building technologies,
including building orientation, that enhance conservation and
efficient energy usage shall be promoted.
Renewable
Energy
Renewable energy sources are characterized by a broad range of
technologies, costs, efficiencies and environmental concerns.
Renewable energy sources include, but are not limited to, geothermal,
hydropower, biomass, wind, photovoltaics and solar. Recognizing
this spectrum of resources, the federal government should institute
a long range, stable Renewable Energy Development Program which
identifies and assists renewable energy sources from research
and development through demonstration projects and commercialization
in a cooperative effort among industry, higher education, and
national laboratories.
Renewable energy resource development must be ranked and funded
on the basis of factors including energy efficiency, economic
competitiveness, environmental impacts, and technological adaptability.
Part of this program, and critical to its success, is federal
development of alternative technologies that improve renewable
energy efficiencies, cut costs, and assist in integrating renewable
energy into existing energy systems. Also needed is a translation
and distribution system for international technical and marketing
papers on renewable energy. The U.S. should strive to become a
world leader in the use of renewable energy resources.
Energy
Emergency Preparedness
The federal government should support and enhance energy emergency
preparedness in order to reduce the potential impact of petroleum
supply disruptions. Initial efforts should focus on strategies
to prevent emergencies from occurring. Such programs shall give
consideration to existing state laws and programs, and state and
local officials shall be included in the federal planning process.
The national energy emergency preparedness program shall include
the following principles: voluntary conservation is preferred
to mandatory measures wherever possible; any mandatory response
should be phased in, beginning with the least stringent measures,
with gasoline rationing reserved for only the most severe shortage;
and to minimize undue hardships on states and regions heavily
dependent on motor vehicle transportation, rationing allotments
and allocation plans should be based on state and regional needs
and strategies rather than on national averages. Priority shall
be given to home heating needs including home heating oil and
propane, provided homes are adequately insulated.
It is essential that emergency response procedures be thoroughly
and carefully tested to ensure the coordination and flow of information
between energy suppliers, consumers, and federal, state and local
governments. Maintenance and operation of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR) is essential to any national energy emergency preparedness
plan. The federal government should fill the SPR to its authorized
level. There should be continued refinement of the timely sales
process for SPR oil and the continued regular testing of the SPR
sales mechanism and physical drawdown capabilities. Where necessary,
regional rotating product stocks or other mechanism to ensure
regional availability of supplies should be established. Fuel
switching capability for large energy users to reduce dependence
upon a single fuel source should be encouraged.
Section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C.S.
Appx. 2406(d), generally prohibits the export of domestically
produced crude oil transported by pipeline over the right-of-way
granted by sec. 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization
Act, 43 U.S.C. 1652.
This restriction affects the value of the domestic crude oil produced
from Alaska North Slope reserves, reduces the market value of
the oil in Alaska and on the west coast of the United States,
increases the oil's market transportation costs, reduces tax revenues
collected by these states and their local governments, lessens
oil industry employment, discourages the exploration for and development
of additional domestic crude oil reserves, and otherwise diminishes
the nation's energy independence and economic activity.
A recent study by the United States Department of Energy finds
that elimination of the restriction on export of Alaska North
Slope crude oil would create thousands of jobs, significantly
increase government revenue, reduce the trade deficit with Japan,
and cause no harm to the environment, all with minimal, if any,
effect on gasoline prices paid by consumers.
The United States Congress has under consideration reauthorization
of the Export Administration Act. Lifting the restriction on the
export of Alaska North Slope crude oil would result in a number
of immediate and long-term economic benefits to the nation and
the affected states.
The National Conference of State Legislatures therefore opposes
the continuing restriction on export of Alaska North Slope crude
oil and urges the United States Congress, as part of its reauthorization
of the Export Administration Act, to eliminate from the Act the
provision restricting the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil,
recognizing that the President can restrict the export of any
commodity, if necessary, during a national emergency.
Crude
Oil
The federal government should promote the environmentally-sound
production of domestic energy resources in coordination with the
conservation and efficient use of energy resources, and the management
of energy imports.
The federal government should promote and encourage domestic production
of crude oil in an environmentally sound manner in order to supply
United States consumers with a secure source of petroleum, and
provide a stabilizing influence to the world price of crude oil.
Since domestic production is declining rapidly, the efficient
use and conservation of these resources must be encouraged. Also,
the extraction and transportation of crude oil must be done only
with full safeguards for the protection of the environment. In
this regard, the federal government should consider incentives
for domestic exploration, maintenance of stripper wells, but excluding
other extractions, and technological research for methods of enhanced
oil and gas recovery that are environmentally safe and in accordance
with state policy.
The federal government should ensure that energy resources are
utilized in a manner that recovers the most energy value possible
while assuring full protection of the environment. Similarly,
it should be the strategy of the United States to alleviate oil
dependency by funding research and development to perfect alternative
fuels, particularly for the transportation sector and primary
modes of personal transportation. Enhanced oil and gas recovery
from known reserves should be promoted in an environmentally sound
manner.
The federal government should manage United States imports by
diversifying import suppliers, pursuing a Pan American Energy
Alliance with Western Hemisphere producing nations, and opening
a dialogue with suppliers worldwide.
Coal
Coal is America's leading fossil fuel in reserve. Coal holds the
promise of long-term energy security for this nation. Resources
of coal can be properly utilized only if we develop a technology
to burn coal more cleanly, and efficiently. Because coal consumption
produces carbon dioxide, conservation and efficiency must be emphasized.
Mined lands should be reclaimed to an environmentally appropriate
state.
It should be the goal of the United States to provide continued
support for the Clean Coal Technology Program, in partnership
with the private sector. Research and technology development in
clean coal usage should include work in precombustion, combustion,
post-combustion, and coal conversion areas with desulfurization
efforts a top priority. The United States should jointly address
transboundary environmental problems with its neighbor Canada.
A resolution on the issue of acid rain must be reached soon and
should take into account the findings of the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
and other recent scientific reports. Programs should be designed
to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxides by at least 50% and to
reduce nitrogen oxides emitted into the air from coal burning.
The solution should promote the utilization of clean coal technologies
and balance costs to our environment and health with potential
impacts upon the economy and costs to electricity consumers.
Since gas generated from coal can be distributed through existing
pipeline systems, and since the delivery of coal in a conventional
form will require extensive capital investment in plant conversion
and rail transportation, coal gasification should be seriously
considered as an alternative to the use of coal in a conventional
manner.
The effects on local infrastructure needs and the costs of prime
farmland protection and land reclamation shall be considered in
the development of a national coal program. Financing of activities
under the abandoned mine reclamation fund shall be accelerated,
and a federal commitment to reclamation shall be strengthened.
No federal policy having implications for land development or
management should be adopted without accommodating the laws and
views of affected states.
Natural
Gas
It should be part of the strategy of the United States to include
the use of clean, efficient natural gas. It should be used in
a manner that sustains long-run availability. This should include
the co-firing of natural gas with other fuels for efficiency or
environmental purposes. Natural gas is a fuel that can be depended
upon over the long term. Based on our history of exploration and
the current levels of consumption, EIA sources indicate there
to be at least 70 years worth of gas available for U.S. consumption.
Proven reserves account for 11 years of supply.
The United States should encourage domestic production of natural
gas in an environmentally sound manner. Further, the federal government
should complete price deregulation by 1993 as provided in current
law.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should expedite decisions
regarding pipeline construction serving the oil-dependent markets
and should be encouraged to provide access by interconnecting
pipelines to producing areas of this nation. Both producers and
users of natural gas benefit from orderly transportation programs
which provide competition and reliable supplies of natural gas
at the lowest possible cost. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
should take steps, to the extent the Natural Gas Act and the Natural
Gas Policy Act allow, to remove the disincentives for natural
gas pipelines to provide voluntary transportation of natural gas
for others, and should immediately take such actions as may be
necessary to provide final take-or-pay relief in the natural gas
marketplace.
The federal government should fund continuing research and evaluation
relative to the environmentally sound production and use of natural
gas, in order to conserve energy by improving efficiency and should
promote development of alternative vehicular fuels.
| 
