Laserfiche WebLink
Page 10 of 14 <br /> <br /> REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 6 <br /> BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL <br /> DATRU4~ <br /> TIME: 5:1 <br /> PM <br /> <br /> BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br /> COMMENTS: A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN HAS BEEN VOICED STATEWIDE OVER <br /> THE INABILITY TO FUND HIGH-PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION <br /> CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. OTIA III WAS REALLY INTENDED TO <br /> GENERATE MONEY FOR STATE PRIORITIES SO IT WOULD STAND <br /> TO REASON THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST AN INITIAL EFFORT TO <br /> ADD TO THE STATE'S PRIORITY LIST (I.E., THE MAY 2002 <br /> OTC PROJECT LIST). IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE <br /> SEVEN PROJECTS ON THE OTC LIST, NONE IN LANE COUNTY AND <br /> NONE OF DIRECT BENEFIT TO EUGENE. <br /> <br /> THERE IS, OF COURSE, THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL PRESERVATION <br /> AND WE SHOULD MAKE THE PITCH BUT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT <br /> POLITICALLY FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL <br /> SHIFT IN THAT DIRECTION GIVEN THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF <br /> THE BILL. STILL, IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO LOBBY FOR AN <br /> AMENDMENT THAT WOULD TRANSFER UNEXPENDED BRIDGE MONEY <br /> TO CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR OMP. ADDITIONALLY, AN <br /> AMENDMENT COULD BE SOUGHT THAT BROADENS THE SET OF <br /> PROJECTS FROM THE MAY 2002 OTC LIST TO SOMETHING THAT <br /> MAY MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT CURRENT PRIORITIES, <br /> INCLUDING PROJECTS IN LANE COUNTY. RECOMMEND A NEUTRAL <br /> POSITION WITHOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE <br /> THE LOCAL BENEFIT. -- REVIEWED BY KURT COREY <br /> <br /> SB 2/16/2005 3/2/2005 WATER QUALITY PRI 2 SUPPORT <br /> 0532 <br /> <br />RELATING <br /> RELATING TO WATER QUALITY; AMENDING ORS 468B.048. <br />CLAUSE <br /> <br />TITLE PROHIBITS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION FROM ESTABLISHING <br /> WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ARE LESS STRINGENT THAN STANDARDS <br /> PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED. <br /> <br /> POL <br /> CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY Ni3MRECOI~ENDATION <br /> <br /> PETER PETER <br /> PWW 3/1/2005 PRI 2 YES VIII.B.1.E OPPOSE <br /> RUFFIER RUFFIER <br /> <br /> COMMENTS: <br /> THIS BILL PROHIBITS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION <br /> FROM ESTABLISHING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ARE LESS <br /> STRINGENT THAN STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED. MY <br /> RECOMMENDATION IS TO OPPOSE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT WOULD <br /> NOT ALLOW THE DEQ TO REVISE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS <br /> BASED UPON NEW DATA OR SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE <br /> MECHANISMS AND ACTIONS OF TOXICITY AND POLLUTION <br /> IMPACTS. THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER REGULATIONS MANDATE <br /> THAT THE STATES REVIEW AND UPDATE THEIR WATER QUALITY <br /> STANDARDS ON A TRIENNIAL BASIS. THIS REVIEW IS COMPLEX <br /> AND TIME CONSUMING, AND CONSIDERS ANY ADDITIONAL DATA <br /> GENERATED FROM TOXICITY STUDIES OR BIOLOGICAL <br /> ASSESSMENTS. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THE U.S. EPA REVISES <br /> <br />http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 <br /> <br /> <br />