WASHINGTON, D.C. — Gov. Bob Riley slammed President Barack Obama and other federal officials last week, saying they are breaking promises on how states can spend money expected as a result of the oil spill and who must approve the spending.
“For the federal government to come up and say that all of this NRDA (Natural Resource Damage Assessment) money has to go out for ecological restoration, and not for economic, is typical for a federal bureaucracy, telling the people what their needs are,” Riley said in a telephone interview.
“We never need to get to the point that any state has to have permission from the federal government to spend money that is rightfully ours,” he continued.
A White House official, who asked to remain anonymous in order to discuss the matter, gave the following statement to the Press-Register:
“Statutes define what responsible parties must pay and how those monies can be spent, and we have to follow the law,” the official said.
The administration declined further comment.
Riley’s concerns center on the NRDA environmental review and Clean Water Act fines, which could together bring billions of dollars to Gulf Coast states.
Federal officials told Riley months ago that NRDA money could be used for either economic or environmental restoration, the governor said. Now, they’re saying that the money should be limited to environmental use, according to Riley.
He also expressed concern that the federal government wants to approve recovery projects selected by the state, from both the NRDA and Clean Water Act funds, rather than letting the states decide on projects for themselves.
A letter sent from federal recovery chief Ray Mabus to Riley last week described the recovery effort as a joint state and federal project.
Referring to NRDA, Mabus, who also serves as Navy secretary, wrote, “we are working closely with your representatives, and those of other affected states, to identify major restoration projects in each of the states that can be launched without delay, when agreed to by the responsible parties.”
Mabus spoke similarly about Clean Water act funds, saying “the affected Gulf Coast states will play a critical role, along with federal authorities, in deciding how those funds are spent.”
Federal officials have long emphasized the role of Gulf Coast locals in planning the recovery. When Obama announced Mabus’ appointment to head the federal recovery effort in June, he highlighted the leading role to be taken by local officials in his very next sentence.
“The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists and other Gulf residents,” Obama said.
Like Riley, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour believes states should have control over how recovery money is spent, Press Secretary Dan Turner said. He added that the governor’s office wasn’t yet sure what degree of control the federal government intended to exercise over the money.
“We haven’t gotten a real clear direction on what the next steps are,” Turner said.
The Press-Register sought comment from the governors of the three other Gulf states — Florida, Louisiana and Texas — late last, week but received no response.
Turner added that recovery money shouldn’t be walled off for environmental use only.
“You really can’t separate the damage done environmentally and the damage done economically,” he said. “The timing of the oil spill was during a peak tourism season along the Gulf Coast.”
Steve McKinney, a lawyer from Birmingham-based Balch & Bingham LLP acting as outside counsel for Alabama, said NRDA requires the parties responsible for the spill to pay for environmental and economic harm.
According to Riley, billions of dollars could be allocated to states as a result of NRDA. This would be apart from the $5.4 billion to $21.1 billion BP PLC and other responsible parties could be charged through Clean Water Act fines.
If NRDA money is restricted for environmental use only, Riley said, “that really (puts) Alabama, Mississippi and Florida at a significant disadvantage.”
The governor, who will be leaving office in January, added that if federal restrictions on the money remain “unacceptable,” the state can drop out of the federal deal and negotiate with BP independently.
That process could be long and difficult, according to Riley, but it would be better than having to answer to a federal bureaucrat.
“Each state is fully capable of making a determination about how that money should be spent in their own state,” Riley said.
