Show 1 f Western Resources WRAP-UP a r I. ly Washington-The Administration and members of Congress Interested in water development are gearing up for a showdown over the 1979 public works funding bill financing water projects in the next The bill passed the Senate on Sept 27 by an Then It went to the White where the President is ex- to veto The White House on 27 had a meeting for some key of Congress opposed to the including Robert W. who attempted to cut out pro- opposed by the Administration without when the bill first came to a vote in the House in Each person at the meeting was given a packet including four maps highlighting the 27 new starts included In the bill over Administration tion and other projects that the White House a on the White House position on the and a press release which any member of Congress can put out under his own name Indicating why-ln the words of the White House-he is opposed to the One map in the tion for new projects in Colorado would cost In Oklahoma in Utah in North in Texas They were un- budgeted and added by The figures appear to Include full funding for projects on which Congress included only study The White House is inviting citizens from various walks of life to briefings with top government officials who are handing out materials to lay the groundwork for a Presidential A banker from Salt Lake City was invited to such a briefing on as a member of the executive committee of a national He wrote to Gunn on 22 stating that Charles L. chair- man of the Council on Economic Ad- the budgeting pro- cess and some of the dilemmas that were facing the in- eluding an emphasis on reclamation He told the con- of businessmen from all over the the inequities of a cost deter- on all these water projects with the approach that a local project would be started calling for a nominal amount the first year of appropriation Congress having any idea what the ultimate cost consequences would at no time directly stated that the purpose of the dissemination of the information there the White was based on possible Presidential veto to HR th and water an- on my visits businessmen there after the meeting that he was lay ng the foundation for Lake City banker wrote to The hB WaS only but to all Western states IN out at the meeting was a summary of what is wrong with the ap- bill from the initiation for over 50 new water project construction ing the leng-term funding of recommended by the President and projects ques- merit or not fully construction or planning on six projects previously terminated because they are unsound the Water Resources the entity responsible for coor- water bill has no funding for the federal personnel level in- creases of more than in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Ku of The background material indicated the 26 new starts requested by the President would cost as the Office of Management and Budget wanta all projects to be fully funded in- But it stated the 53 projects in HR including the 26 proposed by the President and the 27 added by Con- wr uld cost a total of of which only is included in the 1979 funding It as an the Animas- LaPlata project in Colorado and New Mexico It funded as a construction S tion is mi hon Part al these maior In the 1 section of the briefing material was this If the President vetoes the water project funding won't it be a continuation of the war on the There never was a on The President supports the valt of water in the Including such large projects as the Bon- neville Unit of the Central Unit Dallas and Dolores In Colorado and many is interesting to note that the president's budget supports construe- tion on projects more than billion-about 50 percent of this con- Is in the The President new water project starts m every The President's water cy in June also reflects cern and sensitivity to the special water problems in the the White House briefing material WHAT THE BILL PROVIDES The conference or the final of the 1979 public works fun- ding bill carries a price tag of of which about 35 percent is for water project The bulk of the about 60 is ear- marked for the Department of which carries on a large research and development The latest breakdown on fiscal 1979 funding for water projects for the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Ar- my Corps of according to the staff of the House Appropriations is million for the Corps projects and for Bureau The committee estimate is that the Corps' 1979 funding 's million below the 1978 fiscal vear which ends 30 and the Bureau 1979 funding is million less than the 1978 The House Appropriations Commit- tee claims construction money is pro- vided In the funding bill for only three projects to which the tion has raised objections-the Narrows project in funded at Yatesville Lake in funded at million and Bayou Bodeau in funded at It opposes three other projects for which study money only is for the project in for the Fruitland Mesa project in Colorado and for the Savery-Pot Hook project in Col- and sum of million b conditional- In the bill for continued con- section of the Auburn dam and reser- voir California if the site is found to be seismically safe by a panel of experts-a position similar to that taken by the There is no funding for six projects on the President's last five that i w were previously on the Applegate Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene Boeuf Richard Dam and in for a rescission or deferral of as he authority to do under the which includes funding for eight departments and including billion for the Department of for fiscal 1979 beginning Chairman Tom of the House Public Works Appropriations Subcommittee and Chairman Sidney U. of the House Interior Ap- had this exchange on the House floor is my information that the benefit-cost ratio on the Narrows pro- in Colorado is very The en- in Colorado I am told are generally in agreement with the construction of the revised Lake in Kentucky has a benefit-cost I may have some difficulty with the Bayou Bodeau project in bill for the project and the ultimate cost is going to be The total cost of Narrows is estimated at and for Yatesville the total price tag is Presidential opposition to a few water projects not sufficient reason in my mind for the President to veto the Under the Budget the President can single out any project which he considers to be an unworthy one without vetoing the bill and send up a rescission to the Congress and let the Congress consider at that time whether that particular project or those projects should funded is that not is Not only can of funds under the Budget He has two Bevill and House Democratic Leader Jim on 22 and Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd recently asked dent Carter not to veto the Byrd in- at his press conference on 23 that a Presidential veto was not or- When Byrd was asked by this correspondent about the possibility of a the Senate leader was visibly angered by this He said the bill would be brought up direct- and that is exactly what he did as soon as the final vote was taken on 27 In the Senate by agreement on the natural gas looks like pork to some people looks like the saving of human to those who live in the drought-prone areas of the West and to those who live in flood-prone areas of West Byrd He vowed he would hold up a public works ap- to make it for the President to pocket veto it after Congress has adjourned Congress is Panning to adjourn A major effort was launched in the White House by Bevill to get a heavy majority vote for the bill on 14 to show the President the public works funding bill is veto-proof in the The Bevill group mustered well over the two-thirds needed to override a worked with Bevill to turn out the heavy Jonty vote were Reps Frank Evans and Timo hy E both Col- McKay of airman Harold T. l of Works p. W. and Norman D. Dicks ul In case of a House Republican Leader John J. has G R. Ford to work on a veto |