OCR Text |
Show Domenici-Moynihan water development bill Bv Helene ('.. Monberg : Washington A cat-and-mouse game J take place in the Senate during the jt few weeks as the sponsors of a new broach to water development seek to -rt their bill thru the Senate over the Lotions of Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, J who has threatened to filibuster t lo death. : sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., and i Daniel Patrick (Pat) Moynihan, j-N.Y-. the new chairman of the Senate s subcommittee on 'Water Resources, jere able, after 12 months to trying, to ; import their revolutionary new water ill by a 7-6 vote of the Senate Environment Environ-ment and Public Works Committee, to jie Senate on May 15 as an amendment i !0a small hydro bill (S 1641). Johnston, who is the chairman of the Energy and Water Resources Subcom-jjttee Subcom-jjttee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, promptly put a "hold" on ; the bill- Domenici and Moynihan then aid they would try to attach their pomenici-Moynihan proposal to other egislation to get it thru the Senate. : Johnston vowed to filibuster it. The three are poles apart on the bill. According to Domenici and Moynihan, ieir proposal in effect allows the states lo take the lead in water project ievelopment, with the federal govern-aent govern-aent continuing to pick up the tab. Essentially," Domenici claims, "it . establishes a five-year demonstration program with money to be distributed" ty the federal government at the rate of '. II billion a year for five years "to the ates on a formula based on both geographic size and population. What te are proposing is a streamlining of the system. States would determine which projects are the most important and then determine funding based on their I ;hare under this formula," the New lexico Senator stated at the time the till was reported to the Senate on May ii. . Johnston shot back that Domenici-lloynihan Domenici-lloynihan is a "terrible, awful bill" i which takes away Congressional ' authority to authorize water projects and its oversight authority over funding ten. ACTUAL PROVISIONS OK DOMKMCI-iMOVMHAfN BILL As reported out of the Senate Committee, Com-mittee, the latest Domenici-Moynihan froposal established a five-year iemonstration program providing $1 iion annually to states beginning in fiscal year 1982. The money would be distributed to the states on a formula teed equally on land size and popula-tion, popula-tion, with three percent of the funding set aside for Alaska. The states would develop their own priority lists for projects to be built under the demonstration program. Such projects could include water supply supp-ly and renovation, desalinization and torn safety in addition to the more traditional irrigation, power, flood con-W, con-W, drainage and navigation purposes. A demonstration project must have Sate and federal approval, but it need meet the traditional benefit-cost 'alio standard under which benefits iust outweigh costs. The revamped ftimenici-Moynihan proposal set aside "50 annuallv for new water survevs. o to be determined on a priority -Bsisbythe states. The report on the bill (96-774), which as just become available, explains the scaled-down Domenici-Moynihan Domenici-Moynihan plan would work. "The states "wld choose among projects that are jo be designed and constructed by the ee federal water resources agencies 111 -S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water nd Power Resources Service, Soil Con-ovation Con-ovation Service) on which the state's 'located funds would be spent. This ""ley would be spent on the state's Priorities, not those selected by confess. con-fess. Large projects, multi-state pro-and pro-and many on-going projects ould be expected to continue under the aditional approach of specific concessional con-cessional authorization and line-item funding." The report underscored that the jmenici-Moynihan demonstration a would be in addition to "the ex-. ex-. '"8 Program of individual project , ' 'wizations and line-item appropria-s appropria-s by Congress. It would not supplant ;a lhs is a test of whether a streamlin-'8 streamlin-'8 of the process can improve the na-.al na-.al water resources program." Con-; Con-; s would, as usual, determine the i1 amount of money for water lopment annually, but $1 billion uld be set aside for the demonstra-. demonstra-. program annually for the next five lt E)omenic'-Moynihan proposal 5 cleared the Committee on May 15 . snarpiy scaled-down version of the t gltal bill (S1241) introduced by the l sPonsors on May 24, 1979. It would ;, Ve Provided $4 billion a year to the for water development, but the '5 would have had to pick up a flat Percent of the cost of such projects, -j. original plan got nowhere until the So SPnsors cut out the statelocal id rirntnent cost-sharing plan and scal- -illi Wn b'Ck rant Pla" frm W on 'o $1 billion a year. Even so, the new version is in trouble. Among the objections that Johnston s raising to the latest Domenici-Moynihan Domenici-Moynihan plan are that it cuts back on Congressional perogatives and oversight over-sight in the water development field; that it expands federal funding to new areas, notably local water supply and renovation of local water works ; it does away with the traditional benefit-cost ratio; and it, in effect, provides for a new water-financing block grant program pro-gram for the states under the guise of a demonstration plan. No major water organization is endorsing en-dorsing Domenici-Moynihan plan at this point. "No water organization in Colorado supports it," Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., told Western Resources Wrap-up Wrap-up (WRW) on May 22. All of the Democrats on the Committee voted against the bill except Moynihan when it was reported out on May 15; the Committee Com-mittee Republicans voted en bloc for it. Republicans traditionally have been higher on block grants than Democrats. WATKK COUNCIL The original Domenici-Moynihan bill provided for an independent Water Resources Council to administer the block grant program. A separate bill (S 1639) was reported out of the Senate Environment En-vironment and Public Works Committee Commit-tee on May 15 authorizing a continuation continua-tion of the Water Council with the Council Coun-cil Chairman to be appointed by the - President with the advice and consent by the Senate. The Council Chairman, in turn, would appoint a chairman of a state adivsory committee, who would be selected from persons recommended by the National Governors' Association. Associa-tion. The Council would continue its regular duties under authorization similar to the President's budget request re-quest for the Council for fiscal 1981, $46.3 million. As the House Water Resources Subcommittee Sub-committee headed by Rep. Ray Roberts, D-Tex., has resolved not to move a Council authorization bill until the Senate Committee moves the House-passed omnibus water bill (HR 4788), the Council expects to limp along for another year without an anthoriza-tion anthoriza-tion under funding provided for 1981 by the Johnston Appropriations panel. |