INHOFE CONTINUES TO MAKE HIS CASE IN SUPPORT OF WRDA, DRAWS MORE PRAISE FROM OKLAHOMA NEWSPAPERS

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...WATER PROJECT BILLS IMPORTANT (Oklahoman, Sen. Inhofe Op/Ed, Sept. 30)

September 30, 2007

THE OKLAHOMAN

WATER PROJECT BILLS IMPORTANT

BY SENATOR JIM INHOFE

The president has cited "excessive spending” as his motivation for the potential veto. But as I continue to point out, and as The Oklahoman did in a recent editorial, the fact is the WRDA bill is not a spending bill, it is an authorizing bill. It simply sets out which projects and programs are allowed to get in line for future funding. While the bill is not perfect, it makes significant progress in addressing our water resources needs in a responsible manner. Infrastructure is an essential part of our nation's economy and its importance should not be understated.

WRDA not only authorizes and modifies critical projects in the areas of waterways navigation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration nationwide, but it also has a real and important impact here in Oklahoma. Communities across the state, from Guymon to Durant, can benefit from this bill, ranging from authorizations improving our lakes and waterways to authorizations for sewer improvements and water-related infrastructure.

One important outcome of this bill is the authorizing of funds to complete the relocation assistance for residents in the Tar Creek communities. Most importantly, it provides the legal authority the Environmental Protection Agency requires to re-evaluate remediation plans at Tar Creek to conduct remediation and resident assistance, taking an important step toward finally solving one of Oklahoma's most pressing environmental issues.

The WRDA bill will result in savings of almost $10 million for the city of Edmond and $1.5 million for the communities surrounding the Waurika Conservancy District by clarifying disputes with the Army Corps of Engineers over water use. The bill also will continue ongoing projects at the Red River that will enhance drinking water supply and agricultural irrigation. And these are just a few examples of the types of improvements that can take place across the state when this bill becomes law.

In addition to this good news, keep two things in mind. First, I am a staunch fiscal conservative, but I am not apologetic about increased spending on our nation's defense and infrastructure needs. Second, this bill doesn't spend a dime. It's an authorizing bill that sets criteria for projects. Without this bill, Senate appropriators would be turned loose to ram earmarks through with no discipline at all.

WRDA is critical to the viability of our nation and I know that most Oklahomans, Americans and members of Congress will agree that it is necessary to come together and override the president's veto of this bill to ensure that these necessary authorizations become law.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE (Janet Pearson, Tulsa World, Sept. 30, 2007)

Septemeber 30, 2007

Highlight: "Thanks to the efforts of U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and others, water development projects soon could be sprinkled throughout the state, vastly improving critically needed infrastructure, expanding and improving water supplies and irrigation sources, and opening the way for major lakeside developments that could bring new life to flagging communities."

Highlight: "A former Tulsa mayor, Inhofe is keenly aware of the limited resources cities face, which no doubt is one reason he pushed this measure. Inhofe's conservative credentials surely are as good as anyone's, so the argument this bill is laden with unnecessary pork just doesn't hold water. (Sorry.) That won't stop the charges of the "born-again conservatives," as he describes them, who won't support these justifiable, much-needed infrastructure improvements. But we here in Tulsa, and Lawton, and Duncan, and Waurika, and Wilburton, and Bethany, and Woodward, and Disney, and Durant (etc., etc.) know better."

TULSA WORLD

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE

By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor

Link to Column

It's been said many times -- too many probably -- that water is the oil of the 21st century.

If that's so, then Oklahoma, once known as the oil patch, could someday be known as America's water wonderland.

We're not talking just about the Arkansas River development plan here, though obviously that is the first thing that springs to mind.

Thanks to the efforts of U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and others, water development projects soon could be sprinkled throughout the state, vastly improving critically needed infrastructure, expanding and improving water supplies and irrigation sources, and opening the way for major lakeside developments that could bring new life to flagging communities.

The $23.2 billion Water Resources Development Act of 2007 has passed the House and Senate by large margins but could face a presidential veto. The large approval margins likely ensure an override, and therefore might fend off a veto.

The cost of the massive bill has raised some eyebrows, but the fact that each and every listed project must carry the name of a congressional sponsor helps defend their inclusion.

The bill is what's known as an authorization bill, which means in effect that listed projects are officially in line for federal funding (assuming eventual approval). It's impossible to predict if all the projects will receive all the funding authorized. That's where negotiations come in -- and where public support matters.

The most publicized element to date, of course, is the $50 million for Arkansas River development in Tulsa County. The bill authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct such activities as ecosystem restoration, recreational uses and flood damage reduction.

The authorized corps activities are components of the development plan that will go before Tulsa County voters on Oct. 9. If voters approve that plan, and if Inhofe succeeds in obtaining federal funds for river development, then the federal money can be applied toward the public portion of the project. Officials say the 0.4 percent sales tax could be terminated before the seven-year deadline if that occurs.

What's more, there is reason to believe that if Tulsa County voters approve the $282 million sales-tax plan, thereby teaming up with the charitable donors who have pledged $117 million, there might be a better chance of obtaining the federal money. Members of Congress tend to pay closer attention if there's strong public support for such a project, and if it's deemed a high local priority.

In other words, we could move up in the federal-funding line if the local money is approved.

Fifty million dollars would go a long way toward building the infrastructure needed to bring about the envisioned development and amenities along the riverbanks.

But Tulsa's stretch of the Arkansas River is only one of about a dozen water-development projects included in the bill that could greatly benefit Oklahoma.

At least as important is a $30 million authorization for completing the buyout of residents in the Tar Creek Superfund site in Ottawa County. While not technically a water-development project, this authorization gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority and flexibility to revisit remediation plans for the abandoned mining district and undertake relocation of the residents.

Observers believe this element is critical to continuing the buyout program initiated at the state level by Gov. Brad Henry. Once relocation is completed, that devastated area could finally be on the path to restoration.

Also included is a lake advisory committee that would give citizens more input and control over Lake Eufaula operations, a measure that has been vigorously sought by interested parties.

New language clearing the way for public-private development partnerships at Lake Texoma -- a major goal of new U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin -- and at other corps lakes in Oklahoma could mean significant economic boosts for a number of Oklahoma communities. This pilot effort also could serve as a model for future lake development throughout the nation.

Clarifying language also would allow for improved drinking water and irrigation supplies from the Red River, where salt-removal projects have been undertaken. The bill insures that recreation, fishing and habitat needs would not be impacted.

And, just as important to the communities in need of them are the many small water and sewer infrastructure projects authorized in the bill. Amounts ranging from $500,000 to $16 million will provide system improvements and upgrades for 19 communities.

And last but not least, $6.5 million was authorized for the Oklahoma Statewide Comprehensive Water Plan, a crucial document that will guide how Oklahoma's precious water resources are divided up in coming years.

Are these projects just pork, as some detractors suggest? Not if you live in a community that literally faced the loss of its water supply during the recent drought. Should these projects be locally funded? If that were possible, maybe. But any local leader will testify that mandate after mandate has drained local resources to the point the money just isn't there.

A former Tulsa mayor, Inhofe is keenly aware of the limited resources cities face, which no doubt is one reason he pushed this measure.

Inhofe's conservative credentials surely are as good as anyone's, so the argument this bill is laden with unnecessary pork just doesn't hold water. (Sorry.)

That won't stop the charges of the "born-again conservatives," as he describes them, who won't support these justifiable, much-needed infrastructure improvements. But we here in Tulsa, and Lawton, and Duncan, and Waurika, and Wilburton, and Bethany, and Woodward, and Disney, and Durant (etc., etc.) know better.

OPENING STATEMENT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S REACTOR OVERSIGHT

I am very disappointed that Commissioner McGaffigan is not here with us today.  For more than 10 years, I have appreciated his frank and insightful testimony before this Committee.  Ed and I shared a common goal to transform the Commission into a more effective and disciplined agency and I have had the greatest respect for his tenacious efforts.  The results are a remarkable and an admirable legacy.  The sad thing about this legacy is that Ed is not here to see new reactor licenses get filed and observe the impact of his efforts as the NRC meets this new challenge.  He will be sorely missed. 

 

Thank you, Senator Carper and Senator Voinovich, for holding this hearing today.  I am a firm believer that constant oversight is critical to ensuring that federal agencies are productive and efficient.  The NRC is a solid example of how oversight by this Committee over the last 10 years transformed the agency from a subjective and unpredictable regulator to a more safety-focused, efficient one.

   

One key element in that transformation was the reform of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process.  The old process was subjective, inconsistent and bureaucratic.  The reforms put in place in 2000 have established a more safety-focused process that is measurable.  Even the GAO found the process to be logical and well-structured, and that the process causes the industry to constantly improve.  The GAO also found it to be a very open process which provided the public and other stakeholders considerable information on its activities.

  

The very nature of requests for the so-called “Independent Safety Assessments” implies that the NRC’s oversight is inadequate to ensure safety and is somehow biased.  The NRC was established, by law, as an independent agency.  If the integrity of the agency is in question, then I’m eager to hear the evidence.  If the Reactor Oversight Process is deficient in some way, then I’d also like to know that so it can be remedied.  As I understand it, the NRC is moving to address the few weaknesses highlighted by the GAO.  I look forward to the testimony today on these issues. 

 

I’m also interested in the GAO’s conclusions about the NRC’s readiness to review new plant applications.  Last week, NRG filed a license application for 2 new plants in Texas .  I hope this is the first of many to come.  However, this surge of applications presents a significant challenge to the NRC’s ability to manage its workload.  In the effort to balance existing responsibilities with new plant licensing reviews, I am concerned that the NRC may not have all the tools in place that it will need.

   

During its review of Early Site Permits, the NRC was caught flat-footed because it underestimated the number of public comments and was unprepared to manage volume of work.  Similarly, as the agency begins to review license applications, I’m concerned that some important management processes are not in place.   Without clear processes for prioritizing resources and tracking Requests for Additional Information (RAI’s), I am concerned that the agency will soon find itself fully engaged in reviewing multiple applications without having all the necessary tools in place.  I look forward to hearing Chairman Klein’s testimony on how the NRC is addressing these and other issues reported by the GAO.