SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
APALACHICOLA–CHATTAHOOCHEE–FLINT RIVER BASIN COMPACT; ALABAMA–COOSA–TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN COMPACT; CHICKASAW TRAIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPACT; AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT REGULATION COMPACT
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room B–352, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George W. Gekas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives George W. Gekas, Lamar S. Smith, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Jerrold Nadler, Sheila Jackson Lee, and William D. Delahunt.
Staff present: Raymond V. Smietanka, chief counsel; Audray Clement, staff assistant; and David Lachman, professional staff member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GEKAS
Mr. GEKAS. [presiding] The hour of 10:00 having arrived, the subcommittee will come to order.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pursuant to a custom that I have established for this subcommittee, we begin the scheduled hearing and/or meeting on time, and then recede into the darkness until a quorum should appear. For the purpose of a hearing of the type that we are going to engage here today, we need a quorum of two, so one other member has to appear along with the chairman before we can begin.
And so I will sing a few songs, but in the meantime, we want to recognize the promptness of our colleagues in the House, Representative Barr and Representative Boyd, and ask for their continued patience until the next member shall appear.
We stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. GEKAS. The subcommittee will come to order.
We note the presence of a working and hearing quorum with the arrival of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, the ranking member on the minority, and we are prepared to proceed with the business at hand.
As everyone knows, the Constitution of the United States requires that, or better stated, prohibits any state from coming to an agreement or compact or contract with any state, or with any foreign nation, without the consent of Congress; hence, these hearings. The states in question have come to a fulsome agreement on various matters touching upon their borders, on their water supplies, their rivers, their populations, and, therefore, they come to the Congress for approval of what they have wrought.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first panel will consist of the Honorable Robert Barr of Georgia and the Honorable Allan Boyd of Florida, whose states are affected by the first item under our program for today.
We know that, for instance, that because Georgia is involved, that our colleague, Mr. Barr, has played an immense role in the fruition of this compact, and of recent vintage, the Speaker of the House, himself a Representative from Georgia, has become involved in the final stages of negotiations and placing commas in place for what is now before us. So we want to acknowledge their involvement and their special efforts in this regard.
We have two compacts that involve these states, so we'll let the gentlemen who are at the witness table flesh out the basic tenets and provisions of the—I want to do this because I want to prove I can say them—the Apalachichola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin Compact, and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact. All of a sudden, my own Susquehanna River comes out favorably. [Laughter.]
And so without further, as they say, ado, we will turn to our distinguished colleagues and ask Bob to begin.
Oh, the gentleman from New York requests time for an opening statement. There's a river in New York too, apparently.
Mr. NADLER. Indeed, named after Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today we will receive testimony on four bills granting Congress' consent to interstate compacts. These compacts allocate water resources, provid for public safety and citizen participation in our Nation's Capital, and promote economic development in two rural counties. This method of allocating responsibility for interstate cooperation reflects the balance achieved by the framers of our Constitution between the sovereign rights of states within the context of our federal system. As such, it is a partnership between the states and the Federal Government.
I look forward to hearing from our colleagues today and from the representatives of the state governments about these efforts.
I do not believe that any of these bills are controversial. With the addition of amendments to two of the bills which reflect the agreement between those state governments and the administration, I believe we should be able to report them to the full committee today and I look forward to doing so.
Thank you.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you, gentlemen. We recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARR OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, foregoing any discussion of the late unpleasantness between the states of Florida and Georgia in the baseball playoffs, it is an honor to appear today with my good colleague from Florida, our neighbor to the South, Mr. Boyd. And it is certainly an honor to appear before you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nadler, on behalf of the subcommittee.
I would like to commend the three states involved, my staff, and the gentlemen behind me, Mr. Reheis and Mr. Carr, who will be testifying today, and many of their colleagues who have been working on this matter, not only for many months but for many years, to resolve these very serious and lingering problems of water allocation as all three of our states, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, move into the 21st century. I would like to commend the state legislatures and the governors of the three states also, for working very, very well together to resolve these very, very thorny problems, and also the administration for working very closely with us in a spirit of bipartisanship since, as we all know, water resources know no parties nor frequently do they know one state or another. They really, indeed, are resources of the country.
I would like to make a brief statement about the importance of these two particular pieces of legislation before you today, H.J. Res. 91 and H.J. Res. 92. Although the language in these two resolutions does not set forth the actual water allocations, these bills are indeed vital to the water flow in this tristate region.
H.J. Res. 91 and 92 will simply lay out the process by which the states, with the approval of the administration, will negotiate the final water allocation formulas. Without the timely passage of these two bills, many months, indeed years, of hard negotiations between the states and the administration, and the legislative efforts of the three states and their governors, will be entirely lost. It is important to point out, Mr. Chairman, that without Federal action by the end of the current year, the legislation before us will be void. And as we all know, there are only a few legislative days left before Congress leaves town for the end of the year. Therefore, it is absolutely essential for Congress to pass these two legislative proposals expeditiously and without amendment.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, Mr. Chairman, all the parties involved are in agreement with the legislation and ready to move forward. It is my hope that Congress will now lend its approval to these proposals and pass H.J. Res. 91 and H.J. Res. 92.
There is, as I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nadler, a panel of experts who will follow this testimony, but I would certainly be happy to answer any questions the committee may have on either of these bills.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Nadler and Ms. Jackson Lee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 1 TO 2 HERE
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman. We acknowledge the arrival of the lady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. We now turn to Congressman Boyd.
STATEMENT OF HON. F. ALLAN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on H.J. Res. 91. Also, I want to thank Congressman Barr for his efforts and Speaker Gingrich's efforts to move us to this point on these very, very, sticky and difficult issues.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The district I represent lies on the end of the rivers in question, and so, many times, we realize that we are sort of at the end of the tail there, and the outcome of this negotiation process. And this Compact is very, very important to us. I have a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman, of about three minutes which I would like to make and then I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Chairman, by the way, you did a great job on the names—the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact. I'm going to call it the ACF River Basin Compact for simplistic purposes.
As many of you are aware, the State of Florida was the last of the three states to approve this Compact, and the Florida legislature did that unanimously. On April 24, 1997, Governor Lawton Chiles signed the bill into Florida law. Obviously, that's why I was very happy to learn earlier this week that the appropriate Federal agencies had finally reached agreement with Alabama, Georgia, and my State of Florida on this Compact.
It's no secret this agreement is of great importance to my State and to the Second Congressional District, which I have the honor of representing in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The ACF Basin forms at the Alabama, Georgia, Florida border, where the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers meet to form the Apalachicola River, which rests entirely within the Second Congressional District of Florida. The Chattahoochee River is a major water source for Atlanta and Columbus, Georgia, and forms the boundary between Alabama and Georgia from Columbus, Georgia to the Florida border. The Flint River runs through the middle of Georgia and joins the other rivers at Lake Seminole in southwestern Georgia, in Bainbridge.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two droughts in the 1980s caused significant water shortages in the ACF Basin and led to disputes and litigation about water allocation in the basin from federally-owned and operated flood control projects. The dispute has been over upstream water usage. An increased need for drinking water, agricultural and industrial needs, have significantly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing into the Apalachicola Bay on the Gulf of Mexico, increasing those salinity levels. Such a marked reduction in fresh water flowing into the Apalachicola Bay can cause harmful effects on the area's marine environment, particularly our famed Apalachicola Bay oyster beds and the estuarine areas that serve as nurseries for a variety of important marine species.
This Compact addresses the issues of the dispute by providing for development and implementation of a water allocation formula for the ACF River Basin under the direction of a commission. If the commission adopts a formula, the states would then be required, to the maximum extent possible, to exercise their authorities over the water resources in the basin consistent with that formula.
Since Florida is downstream, in my view, we have the most to lose. However, if we are successful in this effort, north Florida's water resources could be largely stabilized, thereby easing additional pressure on Florida's precious water resources that supply the central and southern parts of our State while preserving valuable Florida riverine and sea life.
Instead of having this matter settled by a court through litigation, this legislation represents a breakthrough in providing a framework for cooperation among the three states as we use and protect this important natural resource. I look forward to this subcommittee's approval later today and final ratification by the House and the Senate in the coming weeks. Working together, Mr. Chairman, we will have taken another positive step in completing the people's business.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 3 TO 5 HERE
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you.
You said at one point that the Apalachicola is entirely within your district. I'm looking at the map. I can't read it right. Does the Apalachicola run north and south, or sort of east and west?
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it runs basically north and south. It's called the Apalachicola at the Georgia-Florida border, from there south. As I told you, the two rivers run together.
Mr. GEKAS. Yes.
Mr. BOYD. The Chattahoochee and the Flint run together to form the Apalachicola and it flows out of Lake Seminole in Bainbridge, Georgia.
Mr. GEKAS. All right.
I have no questions. Does the gentleman from New York wish to pose any questions?
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NADLER. I just have one question.
I take it, then, that the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact was approved by all three State governments?
Mr. BOYD. That's correct. Florida, being the last, did that this spring. I think Georgia did it earlier in the year.
Mr. BARR OF GEORGIA. Earlier this year, that is correct, Mr. Nadler.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I just wanted to show that I could pronounce it, too. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Mr. GEKAS. We thank our colleagues and we dismiss them with our gratitude.
Mr. BARR OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nadler.
Mr. GEKAS. We will now ask the second panel to take their seats at the witness table. And that panel consists of, first, Peter D. Coppelman, who is the principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He supervises the General Litigation, Wildlife and Marine Resources, Policy Legislation, and Special Litigation sections. Since joining the Department in 1994, he has been involved in numerous environmental priorities of the administration. Prior to the Department of Justice, he served with the Wilderness Society, California Rural Legal Assistance, and a recycling and solid waste company. He received his AB degree magna cum laude from Harvard, was a Fulbright Scholar in India, and received his law degree from Cornell.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With him is G. Robert Kerr, the director of the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Known as one of the State's leading environmentalists, Mr. Kerr is president and CEO of the Southern Appalachian Man and Biosphere Program, policy chairman of the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative, is on the Board of Directors of the National Parks and Conservation Associations.
Joining them is Harold Reheis. Is it Reheis?
Mr. REHEIS. Reheis.
Mr. GEKAS. Reheis, the director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, a position he has held since 1991. Although he has worked with Georgia's Department since his graduation from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1969, he also received his master's degree in environmental engineering from the University of Florida in 1971.
Also at the witness table is Walter Stevenson, who is director of the Office of Water Resources of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs. Mr. Stevenson received his bachelor of science degree from Troy State University and his law degree from the University of West Alabama. A 33-year career employee of the State of Alabama, Mr. Stevenson serves as an officer with numerous resource and development associations and organizations.
And finally, Doug Barr, who is the executive director of the Northwest Florida Water Management District. He has worked on issues related to the Apalachicola River, and other surface and ground water systems in northwest Florida for the last 20 years. Since 1993, he has served as Florida's member of the technical coordination group for the comprehensive study being performed cooperatively with Alabama, Georgia, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, concerning the river basins that we are considering here today. He received his bachelor of science degree in geology from Bradley University and his MS from Texas Christian. He is a registered professional geologist and author of numerous publications on ground surface water resources of northwest Florida.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of the number of witnesses and the scantity of time, we will ask each witness to restrict his time to five minutes for the oral presentation. We will at the outset ask unanimous consent, without objection, that each of the written statements will be permitted to be entered into the record and we ask each now to summarize that written statement up to five minutes of oral presentation.
We begin with Mr. Coppelman.
STATEMENT OF PETER D. COPPELMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. COPPELMAN. Are we on now?
I'm pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Department of Justice's views on House Joint Resolutions 91 and 92. These resolutions provide the Federal Government's consent to water compacts between Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the United States for two basins which I won't try to pronounce because we all know what we are talking about by now.
The resolutions also contain important implementing provisions that clarify parts of the compacts. The Department of Justice negotiated, on behalf of several Federal agencies, the compacts and the implementing provisions.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The administration supports the passage of the two resolutions with two amendments, and I'm pleased to report that we have agreement of the states on these two changes, and now we all support passage of these resolutions.
The resolutions, after long negotiations, mark an opportunity for a new partnership in managing the water resources of the basins. Since we began our negotiations, all four parties have viewed the compacts as a promising administrative approach to addressing resource strains in the basin.
On October 1, of this year the administration sent the committee its views, recommending four changes in the joint resolutions, and after extensive discussions with the states, we believe that we can meet our concerns by making only two changes.
Our first concern with the legislation was paragraph 6 of section 4, which, as introduced, provides that the ''allocation formula shall not be construed to interfere with the ability of Federal employees to take actions mandated by Federal law.'' We viewed the term ''mandated'' as too constraining, and after several discussions, we agreed with the states to recommend deletion of the reference to mandates in paragraph 6.
The states have agreed to one other amendment we recommended in our October 1st letter involving alternative dispute resolutions. The compacts provide detailed procedures for dispute resolution between the states, including a provision that resolution of a dispute may be made binding on the states only if the state parties to the dispute agree to be bound. The proposed amendment similarly provides that the United States can be bound only if the Federal commissioner agrees to be bound.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We support these alternative dispute resolution procedures which are a helpful tool in avoiding expensive and time-consuming litigation. The proposed change will improve those procedures in the compacts and encourage their use if disputes arise.
The administration withdraws the two remaining proposed amendments we suggested in the October 1st letter because our discussions with the states assure us that we agree on a satisfactory interpretation of the applicable provisions in the resolutions. Both of these proposed amendments related to Federal agency participation at technical committee meetings of the commissions. Paragraph 2 of section 4 of the resolutions appropriately provides for Federal agency participation at technical committee meetings at which allocation formulas will be discussed or negotiated.
We were concerned about the opening phrase of the paragraph that provided for participation ''upon the request of the Federal commissioner.'' Our concern was that the phrase could impose a formality that might impede Federal agency participation and work to the detriment of all parties, but the states assure us that the phrase is not intended to restrict access, and that the Federal Commissioner will be free to develop a system of making requests as he sees fits.
Paragraph 3 of section 4 provides for notice to the Federal Commissioner of any technical committee meetings of the Commission where Federal compliance with an allocation formula will be discussed. Here our concern was that, unlike the preceding paragraph on technical committee meetings held to develop an allocation formula, paragraph 3 makes no mention of the ability of Federal agencies to participate in meetings where Federal compliance is discussed.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, the states assure us that they do not construe paragraph 3 to exclude Federal agency participation at such meetings. It is in the interest of all parties to allow Federal agency participation to allow for early action to remedy any alleged violations.
So, in conclusion, I reiterate that we support this legislation and commend all of those who worked so hard to bring us to this day. The success of these compacts will hinge on continued cooperation between the parties, and joint development of this legislation is a promising first step.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coppelman follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 6 TO 10 HERE
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you the gentleman. We turn to Mr. Kerr.
STATEMENT OF G. ROBERT KERR, DIRECTOR, POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSISTANCE DIVISION, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. KERR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My name is Bob Kerr and with me is my friend and associate, Harold Reheis. We have, from our governor, the assigned responsibility to represent the State of Georgia in the water matter before you and in any future water allocation negotiations with our friends to the west, Alabama, and our friends to the south, Florida, as well as with the Federal agencies. I have given you an extensive written statement and I will summarize that as follows:
H.J. Res. 91 is to grant the consent of Congress to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint—sometimes even in Georgia we have trouble saying all that—River Basin Compact among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. H.J. Res. 92 is to grant the consent of Congress to the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact between Alabama and Georgia.
In 1990, the State of Alabama, concerned about potential impacts of the proposed reallocations of storage from Federal reservoirs in Georgia, filed suit in Federal District Court in Alabama to prevent the Corps of Engineers from reallocating storage without completing adequate environmental assessments. The State of Florida joined Alabama in the lawsuit. Thereafter, the three states and the Corps of Engineers began negotiations to resolve these issues.
It was agreed that a comprehensive study needed to be conducted by a partnership of the Federal Government, represented by the Corps of Engineers and the three States. A 1992 Memorandum of Agreement commits the three states and the Corps of Engineers to a partnership which involves a live-and-let-live agreement on water use and water management in the basins, commits the partners to jointly conduct a comprehensive study of water resource issues, seeks to achieve a long-term water management agreement among the partners, and puts the lawsuit on inactive status. The MOA anticipates the ratification by Congress of the two interstate water compacts during the calendar year of 1997, and that MOA will expire on December 31, 1997.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ACF and ACT Compacts are the result of numerous negotiation meetings among the States and the Federal Government, represented by the Department of Justice, from September through December of 1996. The three states agreed on language to take to their legislatures in the 1997 sessions, but several concerns still remained for the Department of Justice.
On January 11, 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich and representatives of Georgia and the Department of Justice and the Corps of Engineers negotiated additional changes to the compacts, and I might add that that was a 15-hour session, with the understanding that the remaining Federal concerns could be resolved in the implementing language to be developed by the Congress. On January 13, representatives of Alabama and Florida agreed to the January 11 changes.
The implementing language of section 2, 3, 4, and 5 of both H.J. Res. 91 and H.J. Res. 92 represents a compromise reached by the three states and the Department of Justice. After several exchanges of drafts and negotiating meetings on July 3rd and October 10th and teleconferences this week, the states have agreed to numerous changes proposed by DOJ. As you have heard, we are all in agreement on those changes and have agreed to them.
Due to the complexity of the technical issues that the states and the Corps of Engineers have studied over the last six years, water allocation formulas to equitably apportion the waters in these two basins among the states have not yet been developed. The states must develop an allocation formula by unanimous agreement before the end of 1998 or the compacts will dissolve. Once the states have agreed to the allocation formulas, the Federal Commissioner has a period of time in which to concur or non-concur with the allocation formula.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basins are of enormous importance to the economic and environmental health of all three states. Georgia respectfully requests the ratification of Congress of H.J. Res. 91 and H.J. Res. 92. Georgia is, in fact, the upstream state, and we realize that we have a responsibility not only to the citizens of our State, but to our friends to the south and west.
I'd also like to take a moment to thank Speaker Newt Gingrich, Representative Barr, and the Georgia delegation for their support and involvement in this matter.
And with your permission, I have a letter from the governor of Georgia, Zell Miller. It's very short, and I'll read that into the record rather quickly.
''Dear Chairman Gekas:
''I understand that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold hearings and consider markup on two interstate water compacts on October 23, 1997. On behalf of the State of Georgia, I request the support of your subcommittee for passage of H.J. Res. 91, granting consent of Congress to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact, and H.J. Res. 92, granting consent of Congress to the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact. The legislatures of the states of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia adopted identical Compact language, which was subsequently signed into law for the respective states by Governor Chiles, Governor James, and myself.
''The adoption of these Compacts by the states is an historic event, but we need ratification by the Congress to complete it. This unprecedented measure can end decades of dispute among the three states over the management of the shared river systems.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''With kindness, regards, I am, Sincerely, Zell Miller.''
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you the gentleman. Without objection, the letter itself will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF G. ROBERT KERR, DIRECTOR, POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSISTANCE DIVISION, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
My name is Bob Kerr. I have been designated by Governor Zell Miller to represent the State of Georgia at the policy level in negotiations with the States of Alabama and Florida and with representatives of numerous federal agencies to develop two interstate water compacts. With me today is Harold Reheis, Director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, who is designated by Governor Miller to represent Georgia at the technical level in these negotiations and in the studies that have led to these compacts.
These compacts are today before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law as House Joint Resolution 91 and House Joint Resolution 92. HJR 91 is to grant the consent of Congress to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin Compact among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. HJR 92 is to grant the consent of Congress to the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin Compact between Alabama and Georgia.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HISTORY
After years of planning for the long term water supply needs of the Metro Atlanta area, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD), the Atlanta Regional Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) proposed in 1988 to meet a portion of Metro Atlanta's water needs by reallocating some of the storage in Lake Lanier, a reservoir built and operated by the COE in the ACF River Basin. In 1989, the Atlanta Regional Commission completed a negotiation with the COE and federal electric power customers to pay the federal government for loss of hydropower revenues associated with reallocation of storage in Lake Lanier.
Also in 1989, the COE proposed to reallocate storage in two other federal reservoirs (Allatoona and Carters Lakes) in the ACT River Basin for water supply in several Georgia cities and counties.
In 1990, the State of Alabama, concerned about potential impacts in both the ACF and ACT Basins of the proposed reallocations of storage, filed suit in Federal District Court in Alabama to prevent the COE from reallocating storage without completing adequate environmental assessments. The State of Florida, concerned about the potential impacts of upstream reallocation on its portion of the ACF River Basin, joined Alabama in the lawsuit. Thereafter, the three states and the COE, began negotiations to resolve these issues.
It was agreed that, due to the complexity of water needs in the ACF and ACT River Basins, a comprehensive study needed to be conducted by a partnership of the federal government, represented by the COE, and the three states. Funding was appropriated for the study by Congress and by the states.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In January 1992 the three Governors and the Assistant Secretary of the Army signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which committed the four parties to a partnership. The partnership involves a ''live and let live'' agreement among the states and the federal government on water use and water management in the ACT and ACF River Basins; it commits the partners to jointly conduct a comprehensive study of water resources issues; it seeks to achieve a long-term water management agreement among the partners; and it puts the lawsuit on inactive status. The MOA has been extended twice since the Comprehensive Study has been more difficult to complete than had been originally assumed. The MOA anticipates the ratification by Congress of the two interstate water compacts during calendar year 1997, and the MOA will expire on December 31, 1997 or upon ratification of the compacts, whichever comes first.
DEVELOPMENT OF COMPACTS
In August 1996, the three states agreed in concept on interstate water compacts and in September 1996 began drafting language for them. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the COE, and other interested federal agencies were invited to participate in drafting and did so. The ACF and ACT Compacts are the result of numerous negotiation meetings among the states and the federal government, represented by DOJ, from September through December 1996.
The three states agreed on language to take to our respective legislatures in their 1997 sessions, but several concerns still remained for DOJ. In a long meeting on January 11, 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich, representatives of Georgia Governor Zell Miller, and representatives of DOJ and COE, negotiated additional changes to the compact provisions, with the understanding that the remaining federal concerns could be resolved in the implementing language for the compacts when they come to the Congress. On January 13, representatives of Alabama and Florida agreed to the January 11 changes.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In their 1997 sessions, the legislatures of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia passed the compacts with unanimous or nearly unanimous votes, and the three Governors signed the bills into law. Section 1 of HJR 91 is the ACF Compact enacted by Alabama, Florida and Georgia; Section 1 of HJR 92 is the ACT Compact enacted by Alabama and Georgia. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of HJR 91 and 92 are the implementing federal language. The two Joint Resolutions are identical except for the names of the participating states and the names of the river basins.
The implementing language of Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5 of both HJR 91 and HJR 92 represents a compromise reached by the three states and the federal agencies represented by DOJ after several exchanges of drafts and negotiation meetings on July 3, 1997 and October 10, 1997, and further teleconferences this week and last week. In this process, the states have agreed to numerous changes proposed by DOJ.
It should be noted that these compacts do not settle all the differences among the states on water management issues in the ACF and ACT River Basins, but they provide a solid framework in which to do so. Due to the complexity of the technical issues that the states and the COE have studied over the last six years, we have not yet developed water allocation formulas to equitably apportion the waters of these river basins. The states must do that by unanimous agreement before the end of 1998 or the compacts dissolve.
Once the states have agreed on allocation formulas, the Federal Commissioner on each Compact Commission has a period of time in which to concur or non-concur with the allocation formula. Since a decision to non-concur would also dissolve either compact, the burden is on the states to develop allocation formulas which satisfy the requirements of existing federal laws and which provide appropriate stewardship of these vital water resources.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The waters of the ACF and ACT River Basins are of enormous importance to the economic and environmental health of all three states. We are up to the task of developing good water allocation formulas, we take our stewardship responsibilities very seriously.
Georgia respectfully requests the ratification by Congress of the ACF and ACT River Basin Compacts through adoption of House Joint Resolution 91 and House Joint Resolution 92.
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 11 HERE
Mr. KERR. Thank you, sir.
Mr. GEKAS. We turn to Mr. Reheis.
Mr. REHEIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'll pass on any statements. Mr. Kerr has made the statements for Georgia and we're satisfied with that.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you the gentleman. Mr. Stevenson.
STATEMENT OF WALTER B. STEVENSON, DIRECTOR, ALABAMA OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES
Mr. STEVENSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My name is Walter B. Stevenson, Jr., director of the Alabama Office of Water Resources. As you stated earlier, the written statements were made part of the record and I brought with me a prepared letter from Governor James of Alabama to the committee.
Mr. GEKAS. Without objection, the letter will be made part of the record.
[The information follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 12 TO 13 HERE
Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you.
I'm here today to represent the State of Alabama in regard to your consideration of H.J. Res. 91 and 92, and to request your favorable consideration of the pending measures.
In 1990, the State of Alabama filed suit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers alleging that the Corps had failed to follow the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act in approving the request for the reallocation of water at various Federal reservoirs for water supply, and they had also failed to follow the Corps regulations in operation of Federal reservoirs on rivers flowing into the State of Alabama.
This was labeled the southern version of water wars. The dispute eventually brought the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the negotiating table. On January the 3rd, 1992, the governors of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the Assistant Secretary of Army met in Montgomery, Alabama to sign a Memorandum of Agreement that established a partnership to study, evaluate, and assess the water resources in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. The partnership evolved to the point where the three states recognized the need for a long-term relationship and the establishment of interstate compact commissions to make the decisions necessary to manage the available water resources in the best interest of the people who depend on these water resources. You have before you today the results of this tremendous effort of representatives and interested persons from each of the states, and the substantial input of a number of state agencies.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State of Alabama passed the two compacts without a dissenting vote in February of 1997. On behalf of the citizens of the State of Alabama, I urge your favorable consideration to H.J. Res. 91 and 92. By giving consent of these compacts, Congress will recognize and acknowledge the benefit that all interested persons gain in resolving conflicts over natural resources by working together to resolve the differences and by avoiding protracted and expensive litigation.
Unless the compacts are approved, it is my belief that the states will soon find themselves in a U.S. Supreme Court battle in an equitable apportionment action. I might here also one important factor in this current day and time: There are provisions in the compact for funding of the activities of the Commission, that will be shared equally among the states. The total Federal expenditure is only related to that necessary to support the Federal Commissioner in his activities, his or her activities. And I think that's an important point.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to represent the views of the State of Alabama to the committee and ask for your consideration. Thank you.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you the gentleman. Mr. Barr.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS E. BARR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to express the State of Florida's support for the passage of House Joint Resolution 91.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read into the record a letter from Governor Lawton Chiles to yourself regarding passage of the compact legislation. That letter is dated October 3.
''Dear Chairman Gekas:
''On behalf of the State of Florida, I would like to request the support of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law's passage of House Joint Resolution 91, granting the consent of Congress to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact. As you may know, the legislatures of the States of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia adopted identical compact language, which was subsequently signed into law by the respective States, by Governor James, Governor Miller, and myself.
''We are extremely pleased that the three States have adopted the compact legislation, the first such interstate river basin compact adopted jointly by Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. Through cooperation, we believe this unprecedented measure promises to end decades of dispute and litigation between the three states over the equitable management of this valuable, shared river system. To continue this progress, we request the support of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law in passage of House Joint Resolution 91.
''With kind regards, I am sincerely, Lawton Chiles, Governor of the State of Florida.''
Mr. GEKAS. Without objection, we will enter the letter itself into the record.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 14 HERE
Mr. BARR. Thank you.
Over the past several years, Florida representatives, along with members of Alabama and Georgia, have worked cooperatively with the Corps of Engineers in the performance of a comprehensive water resources assessment of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. This study has been directed to determine the availability of water in the basin and projecting future water demands.
Early in the process, however, it was recognized that some form of interstate coordination mechanism would be necessary to implement the results of the study, provide a forum for the cooperative, shared management of the basin. We believe we have accomplished this through the ACF River Basin Compact, a compact that was passed unanimously by the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate as chapter 97–25, laws of Florida. Through this compact, Florida hopes to enter into a new, long-lasting partnership with Alabama and Georgia that provides for the equitable allocation of water and shared management of the river basin to the mutual benefits of all three of the States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Douglas Barr follows:]
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS E. BARR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to express the State of Florida's support for passage of House Joint Resolution 91. If I may, I would like to read into the record a letter from Governor Lawton Chiles to the Chairman regarding passage of the Compact legislation (attached).
Since 1993, Florida representatives along with those from Alabama and Georgia have been working cooperatively with the Corps of Engineers in the performance of a comprehensive water resources assessment of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin. This study has been directed at determining the availability of water in the basin and projecting future water demands. Early in the process, however, it was recognized that some form of an interstate coordination mechanism would be necessary to implement the results of the study and to provide a forum for cooperative, shared management of the basin. We believe we have accomplished this through the ACF River Basin Compact—a compact that was passed unanimously by both the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate as Chapter 97–25, Laws of Florida. Through this Compact, Florida hopes to enter into a new long-lasting partnership with Alabama and Georgia that provides for the equitable allocation of water and shared management of the river basin to the mutual benefit of each state.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today and would request your favorable consideration of House Joint Resolution 91.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman.
I just have a couple of questions.
Mr. Stevenson, the suit that was filed, as you reported, in the early stages of these controversies against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was that now withdrawn because of the agreements reached, or is it still pending?
Mr. STEVENSON. It's still pending. It has been stayed at various times since 1990 and it's in the northern district of Alabama.
Mr. GEKAS. And was that because of the alleged failure of the court to act, or was it to cause them to act?
Mr. STEVENSON. It was basically two points: One, we felt like some re-allocations of water from Federal reservoirs have been operating for some time to change the purpose of those reservoirs, they had failed to follow the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act by not looking at downstream impacts. We had a second allegation that, in fact, the Corps had failed, in the operation of those reservoirs, to follow their own guidelines and authorizations of Congress.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Kerr, we know that the allocation of waters by themselves are not a part of this legislation; that is, that's left to the workings of the various organs in your State and in the other states.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KERR. That's correct, sir.
Mr. GEKAS. Is there already a plan contemplated for that or a formula?
Mr. KERR. There is no formula at this point that has even been discussed among the three states. I'm certain that the States of Alabama and Florida, like the State of Georgia, are looking at possibilities right now. We will get together very soon and lay out a series of meetings and opportunities to discuss those formulas, but there's nothing on the table at the moment.
Mr. GEKAS. I fear that the failure to agree on allocations will bring this matter back to the U.S. Congress and I am trying to avoid that. Do your job on that.
Mr. KERR. We will do our best, sir.
Mr. Stevenson, if I might add, one reason we haven't started discussing allocation formulas in the compacts that are before you, that sets up a public participation process that's necessary before we start the formal negotiations.
Mr. GEKAS. The public participation would be to the extent of whatever formula is advanced, and get public reaction on that? Or are you going to get the public input before you do a formula?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KERR. We'll do it both ways because, clearly the formula will be the difficult part of this entire activity and we do not have a precedent in the Southeast on how to go about this formula development.
Mr. GEKAS. I have no further questions. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. NADLER. Yes. I'd like to ask Mr. Coppelman of the Justice Department, do you believe that, with the adoption of the amendments that you have negotiated with the states, the responsible Federal agencies will have the discretion they need to enforce the laws that they are charged with administering?
Mr. COPPELMAN. Yes, we do.
Mr. NADLER. You think it's sufficient?
Mr. COPPELMAN. Yes.
Mr. NADLER. Let me ask Mr. Kerr of Georgia and Mr. Barr, one from each state, to answer the same question.
Mr. KERR. Yes, sir, we do. It is certainly our intent in developing this allocation formula to make sure that there is not only adequate, but perhaps even excessive, Federal involvement in the development of it. They have an opportunity to reject the formula, if they so choose later on, and we certainly think that the discretion is there in this process.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Stevenson.
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Nadler, thank you very much. We feel like that, clearly, the Federal agencies can operate their facilities under their existing law, consistent with the compact and allocation formula. What we, I believe that we're doing in the Compact is saying, within the discretion that the Federal agencies have, is when there is a choice to either meet or not meet the allocation formula, to meet that allocation formula, but, clearly, that's within the discretion that they have and we do not see a conflict in that.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you.
Let me ask you, Mr. Stevenson, the subcommittee has before it an amendment to the two river basin compacts. We also have before us a letter: I'd like you to clarify the position the State of Alabama on these amendments which I was under the impression had the support of all parties.
We have a letter from Governor James, dated today, that says the State of Alabama would support the Compact, but says that it opposes certain amendments. And I specifically refer to the proposed change to section 4(6) where he says, ''If the Federal agencies are allowed to exercise their discretion in a manner inconsistent with the allocation formulas in instances where such agencies could exercise the discretion in a manner consistent with the formula, the Federal agencies would be able to veto the unanimous water resource management decisions made by the interstate commissions with full participation of the Federal agencies and the public.''
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Could you clarify the governor's position? Does the State of Alabama, in fact, support these Compacts with the amendments before us that we are considering today?
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Nadler, yes, we support it.
The letter was written, of course, to get here today and it was dated for the 23rd, for the date of the hearing. These negotiations coming to closure on this final language has happened since that time.
Mr. NADLER. So the amendments as stated now satisfy you.
Mr. STEVENSON. As I understand them, to take out the wording dealing with mandating, the State of Alabama does support that.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the individuals who have appeared on the behalf of these compacts and we promise you that we will expedite the issues today. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. BARR. Thank you.
Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. We are now prepared to move to H.J. Res. 95, which is a compact proposed between Mississippi and Tennessee, establishing the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Authority.
To flesh out the details with this proposed Compact, we have the privilege to hear from our colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, who is also a member of this subcommittee and who will not leave this chamber following his testimony, and the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker, whose states are involved, of course, intimately in the issues at hand. This, of course, envisions the development of an industrial park that would span both states and, therefore, is important to both states.
Suppose we begin the testimony by asking Mr. Bryant to lead off. With him will be Mr. Mike Thornton, the executive director of the Marshall County Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Thornton has some 35 years' experience in economic development and planning, and has been, you see here, with Marshall County for the past seven years. He graduated from the University of Alabama with a bachelor of science degree in 1961, and subsequently graduated from the University of Oklahoma, Economic Development Institute, in 1969. Despite Mr. Thornton's degree from the University of Alabama, both of his sons graduated degrees in engineering from Auburn University, leading no doubt to some good exchanges at the kitchen table.
In any event, we will begin with the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED BRYANT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler. I'm pleased to be here today, along with my good friend and colleague, Roger Wicker.
We appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the proposed Tennessee-Mississippi State Compact, and I want to thank you and the members of the staff for helping us move this legislation so quickly.
At the request of our former colleague, and now Tennessee governor, Don Sundquist, and the governor of Mississippi, Kirk Fordice, I, along with Roger Wicker, introduced H.J. Res. 95, which will congressional consent to an interstate compact establishing the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Authority. Under the compact, the Chickasaw Authority would conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing an industrial park which would lie in both Fayette County, Tennessee, which I represent, and Marshall County, Mississippi, which Roger Wicker represents.
Should the authority issue a favorable report, the states would then negotiate a new compact implementing the details needed to establish a 4,000-to-5,000-acre industrial park. These large tracts of land would come complete with utilities and infrastructure needed to attract and support the more sophisticated, high-technology industry for which the two states already compete.
There are many potential benefits of this effort. It's hoped that by disposing of the incentive wars between the states, both Tennessee and Mississippi can capitalize on the advantages of the region that lie on both sides of the border and attract new employment and investment opportunities.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The proposed project would help to develop the educational or economic opportunities needed to improve the quality of life of the people living in the area, while at the same time fulfilling the industrial growth needs of Memphis, located in a nearby community or county.
Mr. Chairman, this project is noncontroversial and represents an innovative approach to the mutual benefit of the two counties and the two states. It has been co-sponsored by the entire Tennessee-Mississippi delegations. I hope that you and the rest of my colleagues on the subcommittee will be able to support the passage, and I thank the Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ED BRYANT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the proposed Tennessee/Mississippi state compact, and I want to thank you and the members of your staff for helping us move this legislation so quickly.
At the request of our former colleague and now Tennessee Governor, Don Sundquist, and the governor of Mississippi, Kirk Fordice, I introduced along with Roger Wicker, H.J. Res. 95 which would give congressional consent to an interstate compact establishing the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Authority.
Under the compact the Chickasaw Authority would conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing an industrial park which would lie in both Fayette County, Tennessee, and Marshall County, Mississippi. Should the Authority issue a favorable report, the states would then negotiate a new compact implementing the details needed to establish a 4 to 5,000 acre industrial park. These large tracks of land would come complete with the utilities and infrastructure needed to attract and support the more sophisticated high technology industry for which the two states already compete.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are many potential benefits of this effort. It is hoped that by disposing of the ''incentive wars'' between the states, both Tennessee and Mississippi can capitalize on the advantages of the region that lie on both sides of the border and attract new employment and investment opportunities.
The proposed project will help to develop the educational and economic opportunities needed to improve the quality of life of the people living in this area, while at the same time fulfilling the industrial growth needs of Memphis.
Mr. Chairman, this project is noncontroversial, and represents an
innovative approach to the mutual benefit of the two counties and the two states. I hope that you and the rest of my colleagues on the Subcommittee will be able to support its passage.
And I thank the chair.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman.
We turn to our colleague, Mr. Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MS
Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nadler. It is a pleasure for me to join my colleague, Ed Bryant, and to visit with you just briefly today about the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact. It's only three syllables. We're almost embarrassed after the difficulty of the words of the last two panel, but it will lead to the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Authority, if this committee so approves.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I'm just excited to be here on behalf of Marshall County, Mississippi, a very excellent county. It's the county that my great-great-grandfather first settled in when he moved from North Carolina to Mississippi in 1850, but we do have some economic needs in Marshall County.
Approximately 35 percent of the families have incomes below $15,000, Mr. Chairman. Fifty-two percent of the adult population in Marshall County do not have a high school diploma. So that's the reason that I'm so excited to be here in front of you today to talk about jobs in the private sector and a partnership between Mississippi and Tennessee.
The Marshall County folks set about to set up a large industrial park in the northern part of the county. At the same time the Tennessee people around the Memphis area were looking at a similar idea. It just stood to reason that they pool their efforts and join in this 4,000-or 5,000-acre industrial park, which will be both in the State of Tennessee and in Mississippi.
As Mr. Bryant mentioned, the governors, your former colleague, Don Sundquist, Governor Fordice of Mississippi, and the State legislatures of both states, have enthusiastically endorsed this concept. I appreciate the committee's consideration, and I am glad to be here as part of this panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wicker follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 15 TO 16 HERE
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman.
Mr. Thornton.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL THORNTON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHICKASAW TRAIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, HOLLY SPRINGS, MS
Mr. THORNTON. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the behalf of the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact project.
Mr. GEKAS. Without objection, the written statement of the gentleman will be accepted for the record and you may summarize the contents.
Mr. THORNTON. As has been pointed out, the economic needs in Marshall County, Mississippi and Fayette County, Tennessee are very similar and, in some respects, dire. We both adjoin the metropolitan area of Memphis, Tennessee, and with the growth that's occurring in that area, these counties have not quite yet experienced a lot of the overflow of the growth, primarily because of the lack of industrial properties in the right place, the lack of infrastructure, and other matters.
Several years ago, we were looking for a site in north Marshall County for just our purposes alone, and we, after looking at the landownership pattern, and so forth, we found out that in Fayette County, Tennessee, we had similar problems and opportunities. Out of that came the vision of trying to put together a multi-state joint compact to develop a large industrial property that was located in both counties and immediately adjacent to Collierville, which is a suburb of Memphis, Tennessee.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This got a jump-start in 1995, when Governor Sundquist and Governor Fordice went to the Southern Governors Conference and both endorsed this concept, still in the very early stages at that time, because there was a lot of competition, as you know, between the states for these highly-sophisticated industrial projects nowadays, and we ended giving away a lot of stuff that we probably shouldn't give away because we don't have the equal playing fields between the different areas.
And, subsequently, the legislative bodies in both states, Tennessee and Mississippi, passed enabling legislation in 1996 which allows us, with the consent of Congress, to complete certain feasibility requirements, and so forth, and advance or improve legislation, should the project look and be determined to be feasible, which we believe it is at this point, and that allowed us to secure some funding from the State of Tennessee and Mississippi through ARC to start and conduct a phase I feasibility study, which we are about halfway through with that study at this point in time, and should complete it by the end of March.
Based on this study being positive, we hope that we will be able to come back with the implemented legislation in the next session of both States' legislatures and get the necessary enhanced legislation to really implement this project.
I will summarize by saying we think that the positive effects of this unique approach is unique in many respects, one of which it is a public/private venture where the private landowners are going to put up their land, through this governmental entity, and the entity will take this property and develop it accordingly, operating, hopefully, as much like a private business as legally possible, to see if we can't make a private/public venture work, and that we can for the first time maybe have an account for all of the funds that we take in, public and private, and get a return on our investment, the taxpayers' investment.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so we think if this can be done—and we believe at this time it can—that the positive effects of this project would be that in this particular case it would provide a large, industrial tract in a semi-rural area, right next to a metropolitan area that is currently underdeveloped, and would bring higher and better-paying jobs to the residents of that area.
It would also give the opportunity for two states to work closely together on industrial development without the in-fighting that occurs a lot of times that is really detrimental to both states.
Also, this would provide us a chance, as I see it, to provide back to the area a benefit to the development of property and also to the—if, in fact, this can be done, and we can take the public money and the private money, and generate excess revenues, we can return those funds back to these two counties, which are two of the poorest counties in both states, in the way of additional infrastructure for economic growth.
What we're asking today is that this committee would help us at this stage to certify the compact to the extent that we can finish the feasibility studies and then see what we have, and come back to this committee with, hopefully, a project that can be implemented along these lines.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thornton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL THORNTON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHICKASAW TRAIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, HOLLY SPRINGS, MS
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NEED
In 1992, the Marshall County Industrial Development Authority recognized the need to develop a large, regional industrial park in the north part of Marshall County between where Goodman Road extension will intersect Highway 72 and the Tennessee State line.
The concept of a two-state industrial effort materialized when we discovered a large tract of relatively uninhabited land located on both sides of the Mississippi/Tennessee state lines and owned by only a few persons. We then gained the verbal agreement of the landowners to participate in a public-private partnership and the support of local and state officials for the concept. The property is ideally located adjacent to the Memphis metro area and is traversed by three major thoroughfares.
The project got a jump start in 1995 when Governors Sundquist and Fordice announced their support at the Southern Governors Conference. In 1996, the Tennessee and Mississippi State Legislatures in general sessions passed enabling legislation which created the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact subject to Congressional approval and set up a board of directors to implement its development. Financial support from local, state, and federal sources enabled the project to proceed to its current stage of feasibility study.
THE PROJECT
The project would be a 4,000 to 5,000 acre industrial park located in both Mississippi and Tennessee and including land from Marshall County, Mississippi, and Fayette County, Tennessee. Its location is adjacent to metro Memphis, which is short of available land for future industrial growth.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The rural nature of the area, plus the current and planned accessibility, make it ideal for a high- quality planned park providing jobs for residents of both states.
Potential development is aided greatly by the proximity to the city of Memphis and by regional and multi-state support/accessibility from the planned improved Highway 72, Goodman Road, Nonconnah Parkway, Mississippi Highway 304 extension and possibly Interstate 69.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The first phase of the project involves the further definition of the concept, investigation of properties, utility evaluation, economic feasibility studies and additional legislation. The process is ongoing and will be completed by the end of March, 1998. The scope of work includes land planning and utilization, transportation, utilities, environmental issues, additional legislation, organization and development, financial projections, real estate evaluation and ownership analyses, and marketing.
We are requesting additional funding from the Economic Development Administration and other sources for Phase II specific detailed financial and engineering/environmental planning and analyses and other pre-development costs. Assuming that additional funding is forthcoming, current projections are that all planning and pre-developmental activities will be completed by the fall of 1998. This will allow the Compact to handle potential industrial clients at that time.
OWNERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Not only is Chickasaw Trail Industrial Park envisioned to be a cooperative effort between the states of Mississippi and Tennessee, but also between the public sector and the private sector. Owners of land to be included in the park would become share holders in the development along with government entities.
A development authority with broad powers is envisioned to be the agency in charge of bringing about the development. In 1996 the state legislatures of Mississippi and Tennessee created the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact subject to Congressional approval and set up a board of directors to implement its development. The Compact board of directors includes appointees from both states, local communities and the private sector.
POSITIVE EFFECTS
1. Provide needed large regional industrial park.
2. Provide competitive area for growth with cooperation of two states.
3. Joint ownership between Mississippi/Tennessee local governments will ensure development over reasonable time frame at economical costs.
4. Private land owners increase their respective opportunity to develop their properties at optimum price and over reasonable period of time.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
5. Set precedence for cooperative approach to area development that will make the North Mississippi/West Tennessee area unique and a leader in the south for entrepreneurial development—possibly all of the United States.
6. Will put area up front with a competitive edge in the late 1990's.
7. Will benefit all those involved: land owners—local governments—states—citizens of the area—industry.
8. Sets apart Mississippi and Tennessee as definitive leaders in economic development for the late 1990's and early 21st century.
9. Sets precedence for the return of grant funds to local governments for other economic development activities.
10. The state development agencies of Mississippi and Tennessee have the ability to make the playing field even in the recruitment of industry.
11. The public-private partnership minimizes the use of tax dollars in the development of the property; e.g. the land owners commitment of land to the project eliminates need to purchase land.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York for a statement.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I just wanted to say that it seems that Mr. Bryant's interstate compact should be dealt with as expeditiously as his interstate tax bill.
Mr. GEKAS. One question: Highway Interstate 69, I assume, goes between both states?
Mr. THORNTON. Yes. You know, the current plans for Highway 69, as nebulous as they may be, and we served on that planning committee down there——
Mr. GEKAS. Yes, how about Highway 72?
Mr. THORNTON. Highway 72, yes, sir.
Mr. GEKAS. Does that go north and south between both states?
Mr. THORNTON. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. GEKAS. And, then, Nonconnah Parkway?
Mr. THORNTON. Nonconnah Parkway is an extension off of 240.
Mr. GEKAS. Is it all in Mississippi or all in Tennessee?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THORNTON. No, all this is in Tennessee.
Mr. GEKAS. I see.
Mr. THORNTON. Nonconnah would be in Tennessee.
Mr. GEKAS. All right.
Mr. THORNTON. Goodman Road would be all in Mississippi.
Mr. GEKAS. Okay. Well, I have my geography straight.
We thank the witnesses. We now recess until after 10 after 11:00 for the purposes of allowing the Members to appear on the Floor for a pending vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. GEKAS. The hour of 10 after 11:00 having arrived, the absence of a hearing quorum, we will recess until the arrival of the next member.
[Recess.]
Chairman GEKAS. In the presence of a hearing quorum with the attendance of the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, we will proceed with the consideration of H.J. Res. 96, concerning amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact, the provisions of which will be amply supplied by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis, our colleague, who is the chief sponsor of the legislation, and who appears with Chief McDevitt and Mr. Evans at the witness table.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will begin with the statement by Mr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to be here with my friend, Jack Evans, member of the City Council in Washington, D.C., and Chief McDevitt.
I'm happy to be here before you today to review the proposed amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA, the Interstate Compact. The amendments under consideration have been enacted by all the signatories of the WMATA Compact; Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The bipartisan area delegation is seeking congressional consent to the proposed amendments.
The amendments do a couple of things. It would allow the Authority to conduct its business more efficiently and effectively. This is an effort to streamline the Authority's practice to provide for an enhanced level of protection for the Transit Authority's police officers. The amendments will both protect the public's right to have input in region's transit decisionmaking process, and enhance public safety throughout the region.
To be even more specific, the first amendment modifies the Authority's current public hearing process relating to fare increases and changes in transit service. The proposal will bring the Authority into conformity with other transit properties that follow Federal public hearing standards that have been in place since 1982.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently the Authority's public hearing practices are far broader than the Federal guidelines, and it really inhibits the ability of the Transit Authority to respond to market changes in an efficient business-like manner.
Under the proposed amendments the Authority will continue to be required to hold public hearings on proposals, to raise fares, or implement major service reductions. However, the Authority will not be required to hold public hearings for minor service changes, thus enabling WMATA to adjust to the needs of the riding public. As a former local elected official in the region, I can attest to the fact that cumbersome regulations often inhibit the most entrepreneurial public entity from truly serving the public and making cost effective decisions.
We should commend WMATA for taking the initiative to amend their Compact, to provide additional flexibility in how they provide transit services. This subcommittee agreed last year to reduce other unwieldy regulations governing WMATA's procurement practices. The result of this prior Compact change has been to significantly speed up the WMATA procurement process. I thank the subcommittee for their previous Compact modification, and urge that we provide similar flexibility for the Authority in the public hearing process.
The other major change to the WMATA project that I submit for your review, is removal of Compact language that currently limits WMATA's transit police to carry their service weapons only when they're on duty or in direct transit to and from duty assignments. Consent to the proposal will allow the transit police to join every other police force in this region, including the Capitol Hill police, in authorizing its officers to carry weapons during off-duty hours.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I'll tell you that the transit police are among the best trained force in this region. They deserve to have the ability to defend themselves during the off-duty hours. It's an unfortunate reality that the transit police are also dealing with a violent prone criminal element, who sometimes seek revenge after they have been apprehended. We need to respect the transit police, authorize them to carry the weapons they've been trained to use, and trust that the extensive training the transit police receive will serve them well if they are confronted during off-duty hours.
In closing, I want to thank the chairman for moving so expeditiously on this legislation. These amendments are important to the daily workings of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and to the safety of its police officers. On behalf of the region, please accept our appreciation for your efforts to support regional transit authority. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 17 TO 18 HERE
Mr. GEKAS. We thank our colleague, and we turn to Mr. Evans.
Where in Pennsylvania do you originate?
Mr. EVANS. Thank you for asking. Yes, I was going to mention, I was born and raised on the banks of the Susquehanna River, and it's Nanticoke, Pennsylvania.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. I remember it well.
Mr. EVANS. Nanticoke, which is up by Wilkes-Barre and Scranton.
Mr. GEKAS. Oh, I know Nanticoke very well.
Mr. EVANS. You're familiar with that as well?
Mr. GEKAS. You're especially welcome.
Mr. EVANS. Thank you. Actually, both my uncle and grandfather went to Dickinson Law School, so many connections to the Pennsylvania contingency.
Mr. GEKAS. Well, I can promise you, you will prevail.
Mr. DAVIS. I went to camp in Pennsylvania. Does that count? That helps. It's in Hughesville; that helps.
STATEMENT OF JACK EVANS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. EVANS. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I'm pleased to appear before you today. My name is Jack Evans, and I am chairman of the Board of Directors at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, better known as Metro, and a member of the Council of the District of Columbia. Joining me today is Chief Barry McDevitt, who is the head of the Metro Transit Police Force. I request that my full statement be included in the record, and I will now take time to summarize my testimony.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Without objection, Please summarize.
Mr. EVANS. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created in 1967 as an Interstate Compact agency and an instrumentality of three signatories; the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Transit Authority is charged with planning, financing, building, and operating a public transit system for the Nation's capital. The WMATA Interstate Compact is a basic enabling legislation that provides guidance to the Transit Authority, in carrying out its daily responsibilities.
The amendments that we are submitting to you today have been adopted by all three signatories. The proposed amendments allow desired changes in our public hearing requirements consistent with federal regulations, and would permit our transit police officers to carry their issued service weapon while off duty, as is the policy for other police forces in our region.
We are seeking the change in public hearing requirements in order to give the Authority more flexibility to respond to the market, and to bring the Authority into conformance with federal transit administration guidance. The proposed amendment directs the WMATA Board of Directors to adopt a set of internal regulations, governing fare and service changes. In fact, the WMATA Board has already done this, and the proposed new rules and regulations will become effective once we receive congressional consent to the proposed Compact amendments.
While we are seeking to relax the Compact's requirement with respect to the public hearing process, our proposed new rules and regulations remain either as restrictive or more restrictive than the federal requirement in every case. I would like to submit the entire set of new WMATA rules pertaining to the public hearing process for the record.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Without objection.
Mr. EVANS. We are also seeking an amendment to change the current restrictive language that prohibits off-duty transit police officers from carrying their issued service weapon. This amendment has been endorsed by the Washington Area Council of Governments Police Chiefs Committee, the Council of Governments Chief Administrative Officers Committee, and the Washington Area Council of Governments Board of Directors.
We encourage our sworn officers to ride public transportation while off duty. We are troubled by the fact that at any given time an off-duty transit police officer could be recognized and confronted by a violent, criminal offender. While we do not want our off-duty officers engaging in proactive law enforcement activity outside our primary jurisdiction, we firmly believe that they should be afforded the legal authority to carry their issued service weapon off duty for self protection, just as other law enforcement officers throughout the region and elsewhere are permitted to do. This practice is also a commonplace within the transit industry. I would like to submit for the record a chart, demonstrating that every police force in this region allows or requires its police officers to carry their issued service weapon off duty.
Mr. Chairman, these amendments go to the heart of how the Authority conducts its business on a daily basis, and I urge you to adopt these modifications to the WMATA Interstate Compact to enable the Authority to operate in a more efficient and responsive manner. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your congressional colleagues for their continued support of Metro. Without your efforts we would not have been able to build the great system that we have today, which in my view is the finest subway and bus system in the world. And I encourage to continue this support so that we can continue to expand the system throughout the metropolitan region. Thank you very much.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK EVANS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jack Evans. I am the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and I am an elected member of the City Council of the District of Columbia. I am pleased to be here to testify before you on two specific amendments to the Authority's Interstate Compact.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, created in 1967, is an interstate compact agency and an instrumentality of three signatories: the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Authority was created to plan, finance, construct, and operate a comprehensive public transportation system for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
In order to amend the Interstate Compact, all three signatories must adopt identical documents. These amendments must be consented to by Congress because of its jurisdiction over all interstate compacts. The WMATA Compact has been amended only five times since its inception in 1967. The bill before you today represents the sixth set of compact amendments the Authority has sought.
The proposed amendments would allow desired changes in our public hearing requirements, consistent with federal regulations governing other transit agencies, and would permit our Transit Police officers to carry their issued service weapon while off-duty, as is the policy for other police forces in our region.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fare and Service Change Rules and Regulations
The Authority is seeking to amend the public hearing requirements contained in Section 62 of the WMATA Compact pertaining to fare and service changes. These amendments make the public hearing requirements more flexible and bring the Authority into conformance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance. The proposed amendment directs the WMATA Board of Directors to adopt a set of internal rules and regulations governing Metrobus and Metrorail fare and service changes. The rules and regulations themselves would no longer appear in the Compact.
The FTA fare and service change regulations, contained in 49 CFR 635.7 and 635.9 as amended, acknowledge that it is reasonable to require a forum for public comment only when a transit operator is proposing to raise fares or to implement a major reduction in service. We recognize and concur with the necessity to hold a public hearing before implementing a fare increase for travel on WMATA services. The WMATA Compact, however, requires a public hearing for essentially all changes in fares. As part of our commitment to fare simplification we may propose reducing some Metro fares, and we seek to bring this provision of the Compact into conformance with the federal requirement.
We likewise recognize and concur with the necessity to hold a public hearing before implementing any major WMATA service reduction. However, the Compact requirements are significantly more restrictive than the federal regulation, which requires a public hearing only for a major service reduction or for a series of minor reductions over a short period of time that together constitute a major reduction.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to the foregoing difficulties, the Compact also is exceedingly vague with respect to experimental services and promotional and demonstration fares. We seek to correct this defect by adding language, modeled after the federal regulation, which will allow us to institute new service and promotional fares after a sufficient test period.
The federal regulation suggests publication of a public hearing notice 30 days in advance, but it permits local laws to supersede the federal regulation in defining this time requirement. Rather than the 30 day requirement currently imposed by the WMATA Compact, we feel it would be more effective to publish our announcements of public hearings in major daily newspapers only 15 days in advance, but to publish them twice—once a week in two successive weeks.
On December 8, 1994 the WMATA Board of Directors approved a proposed amendment to Section 62 of the WMATA Compact to allow the Board to establish these new fare and service change regulations. All three Compact signatories—the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia—now have approved the Board-adopted amendment.
In anticipation of this change to the WMATA Compact, the Authority staff has developed a set of internal regulations governing Metrobus fare and service changes that are modeled after the language of the federal regulation. The WMATA Board has resolved that the effective date of these new Metrobus rules and regulations would follow Congressional consent of the proposed Compact amendment.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The new WMATA rules define the approval process for:
Fare increases and decreases
Promotion and demonstration fares
Fare reimbursement
Major and minor service increases
Major and minor service decreases
Emergency service changes
Experimental service enhancements
The new rules define the limits of ''major'' and ''minor'' with respect to service changes.
The new rules define the requirements of the public hearing process regarding:
Pre-hearing notice, including time and posting locations
Post-hearing public record
Notice of impending service change
These new rules and regulations notwithstanding, the WMATA Board maintains the authority to request a public hearing in connection with any fare or service change.
While we are seeking to relax the Compact's requirements with respect to the public hearing process, our proposed new rules and regulations remain either as restrictive or more restrictive than the federal requirement in every case. This change will allow us to be more responsive to the needs of the riding public. I would like to submit the entire set of new WMATA rules pertaining to the public hearing process for the record.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Metro Transit Police Operations
On June 4, 1976, the President of the United States, in concert with legislation passed by the governing bodies of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, signed into law authorization to establish the Metro Transit Police Department. Sworn members enjoy tri-state law enforcement jurisdiction with responsibility for public safety and security on Metro transit facilities throughout the Washington, D.C. region.
Today, we seek an amendment to Article XVI (General Provisions) pertaining to Police Operations of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact. Specifically, we seek to change current restrictive language that prohibits off-duty Transit Police Officers from carrying their issued service weapon.
This important amendment has been endorsed by the Washington Area Council of Governments Police Chiefs Committee, the Council of Governments Chief Administrative Officers Committee, and the Washington Area Council of Governments Board of Directors. It also has been approved by the legislative bodies of the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia.
The Metro Transit Police Department currently has an authorized force of 298 sworn law enforcement officers. During the past 22 years, Metro has experienced lower crime rates than the surrounding jurisdictions where our facilities are located.
The Transit Police have developed an international reputation for excellence and professionalism in law enforcement for the following reasons:
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Rigorous hiring standards: Normally, only one recruit is eventually accepted into the police academy out of approximately every 800 thoroughly screened applications.
2. Demanding and constant training: Our recruits must successfully complete intensive training at the Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy, including extensive firearms training. After completing the Academy, Transit Police recruits receive thorough specialized training with local police forces in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Our recruits then receive federal training and familiarization which includes instruction from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and others. Finally, specialized instruction is provided on Metrorail safety procedures.
Upon conclusion of the formal training phase, recruits are assigned with veteran Transit Police field training officers before they are allowed to patrol on their own. In total, a recruit officer receives over thirty-three weeks, (more than eight months) of uninterrupted training to become a Transit Police Officer.
Each sworn member is thereafter required, on an annual basis, to meet mandated in-service jurisdictional training standards for law enforcement officers. Transit Police members currently receive a minimum of eight hours of annual firearms training which meets, or exceeds, local requirements for police officers in the region.
3. Quality supervision: The third reason for our success is the high caliber of supervision in the Department. Our police management staff closely monitors and reacts to officer activity daily and crime patterns as they develop. Furthermore, over 87% of our supervisory staff have successfully completed the intensive three month Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy Curriculum at Quantico, Virginia for criminal justice professionals.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We encourage our sworn officers and supervisors to ride public transportation while off-duty. Unfortunately, while in the presence of their family or friends, some of our officers have been threatened with serious bodily harm by individuals who they had previously arrested or cited for even minor criminal violations of law. In pursuit of their private lives off-duty officers, the majority of whom live in the Washington, D.C. region, have had unfortunate confrontations with offenders.
Over the past three years, Transit Police Officers have issued 12,197 criminal citations and arrested 3,623 individuals for various violations of law. The majority of these offenders also live and work in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. While we encourage our off-duty members to initiate appropriate law enforcement action on Metrorail and Metrobus, we cannot, under the current constraints of our Compact, authorize them the option of carrying their issued service weapon. No other police department in the region, if not the country, has such restrictions on its sworn personnel. I would like to submit for the record a chart demonstrating that every police force in this region either allows, or requires, its police officers to carry their issued service weapon off-duty.
We are troubled that at any given time, an off-duty Transit Police Officer could be recognized and physically harmed by a violent criminal offender. Their sworn obligation to enforce the law and to protect transit customers from some of society's most violence-prone citizens should also provide the protection in situations requiring self-defense of allowing them to be armed while off-duty. While we do not want our off-duty members engaging in pro-active law enforcement activity outside of our primary jurisdiction, we firmly believe that they should be afforded the legal authority to carry their issued service weapon off-duty for self-protection, just as other sworn law enforcement officers of the region and elsewhere are permitted to do. This practice is also commonplace within the transit industry.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conclusion
In summary, these amendments go to the heart of how the Authority conducts its business on a daily basis. I urge you to adopt the changes to the WMATA Compact to enable the Authority to operate in a more efficient and responsive manner.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 19 TO 28 HERE
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you.
Does Chief McDevitt wish to testify? We have no written statement, do we from you, or do we?
STATEMENT OF BARRY McDEVITT, CHIEF, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN TRANSIT POLICE FORCE
Mr. MCDEVITT. Yes, sir, my remarks are contained in Mr. Evans written statement.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Well, then we will accept it for the record, and ask you to summarize.
Mr. MCDEVITT. Sir, I would just like to answer any questions that you have now. Basically the statement has been already presented.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman.
I only have one question. I just want to repeat what the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis, has asserted; that whatever we do here today would not mitigate against the necessity for public hearings if a rate increase should be proposed, is that correct?
Mr. EVANS. That's correct.
Mr. GEKAS. I think that's very important to the people of the District of Columbian and others, and since the gentleman from Virginia has made that abundantly clear, I really am reemphasizing it with that question.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I just know I couldn't support that, because I'd have to answer to all these people.
Mr. GEKAS. You're exactly right.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Does any member have any questions? If not, we——
Mr. NADLER. Yes, I do have one question.
Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. NADLER. Councilman Evans, in your testimony on page 2, you state that the changes in the public hearing notice requirements set out by the Federal Transit Administration meet the notice requirements in the regs.
Has the FTA reviewed these proposed changes or approved them? And if not, what opportunity would the FTA have to ensure that these changes and the manner in which Metro implements them, meet the notice and public hearing requirements of the current regulations?
Mr. EVANS. Congressman, the FTA has approved the regulations already, and stands ready to move forward on them when Congress passes this.
Mr. NADLER. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. GEKAS. There being no further requests for time, we thank the panel, and we promise you expeditious action before the day is out. Thank you.
And the gentleman from Ohio has appeared, in all his splendor.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I ask the staff to chain the members to their chairs.
For the record we have in attendance, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot; the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith; the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler; the chairman, and a ghost contingent, which will materialize in a few moments.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
55–947
1999
APALACHICOLA–CHATTAHOOCHEE–FLINT RIVER BASIN COMPACT; ALABAMA–COOSA–TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN COMPACT; CHICKASAW TRAIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPACT; AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT REGULATION COMPACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.J. RES. 91, H.J. RES. 92, H.J. RES. 95, AND H.J. RES. 96
October 23, 1997
Serial No. 81
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
SONNY BONO, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN ROTHMAN, New Jersey
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
JERROLD NADLER, New York
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RAYMOND V. SMIETANKA, Chief Counsel
CHARLES E. KERN II, Counsel
JAMES W. HARPER, Counsel
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
October 23, 1997
OPENING STATEMENT
Gekas, Hon. George W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
WITNESSES
Barr, Douglas E., Executive Director, Northwest Florida Water Management District
Barr, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia
Boyd, Hon. F. Allan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Bryant, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee
Coppelman, Peter D., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environmental And Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia
Evans, Jack, Chairman, Board of Directors, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and Member, City Council, Washington, DC
Kerr, G. Robert, Director, Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Stevenson, Walter B., Director of Water Resources, Alabama
Thornton, Michael, Project Director, Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Council, Holly Springs, MS
Wicker, Hon. Roger F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Barr, Douglas E., Executive Director, Northwest Florida Water Management District:
Letter dated October 3, 1997, from Lawton Chiles
Prepared statement
Barr, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: Prepared statement
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Boyd, Hon. F. Allan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida: Prepared statement
Bryant, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee: Prepared statement
Coppelman, Peter D., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environmental And Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice: Prepared statement
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement
Evans, Jack, Chairman, Board of Directors, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and Member, City Council, Washington, DC: Prepared statement
Kerr, G. Robert, Director, Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Prepared statement
Stevenson, Walter B., Director of Water Resources, Alabama: Letter dated October 23, 1997, from Fob James, Jr., Governor, State of Alabama
Thornton, Michael, Project Director, Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Council, Holly Springs, MS: Prepared statement
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wicker, Hon. Roger F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi: Prepared statement