| OCR Text |
Show munity Development Committee of the Chamber to recognize efforts in beautifying beautify-ing area homes. Cost-sharing on water projects debated By Helene C. Monberg, Vernal Express Washington Correspondent Washington Like the Congress, the Administration is unable to get its act together on cost-sharing for water projects, pro-jects, and Interior Secretary James G. Watt has told Congress cost-sharing will be applied to Bureau of Reclamation Reclama-tion projects "on a case-by-case basis." Speaking for the Administration, Assistant Army Secretary William R. Gianelli on June 15 told the Senate Water Resources Subcommittee the Administration endorsed a bill by Sen. Robert T. Stafford, R-vt., spelling out local cost-sharing percentages on all components of water projects but navigation, which is handled by separate legislation. The proposed non-federal cost-shares in the Stafford bill are: Flood control, 35 percent. Agricultural water including irrigation, irriga-tion, 35 percent. Recreation, 50 per- cent. Hydro-electric power, 100 percent. per-cent. Municipal and industrial water (M&I), 100 percent. Gianelli indicated there wouldn't be a lot of exceptions. In a letter to Chairman James Abd-nor, Abd-nor, R-S.Dak., of me Senate Water Resources Subcommittee dated June 17, Watt indicated this "ain't necessarily so," as the saying goes, relative to Bureau of Reclamation projects, pro-jects, so Gianelli was, in effect, speaking speak-ing only for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Meanwhile, the House Water Resources Subcommittee of Rep. Robert A. Roe, D-N.J., missed its June 15 deadline for coming out with an omnibus om-nibus new water bill for the Army Corps, and it refused to answer queries from both the press and House staff. Rep. Ray Kogovsek. D-Colo., was unable to get a reading on the new bill, including its cost-sharing features, if any, on June 16, a day after the deadline. Neither could any one else. J. Joseph Tofani, a top water lobbyist here for the National Water Resources Congress, Con-gress, told this corresponndent at the end of the week. "Nothing will happen" hap-pen" on a new corps authorization this year, including its cost-sharing provision. provi-sion. "You mark my words. Nothing will happen until election next year," Tofani stated. And even then, he indicated, in-dicated, cost-sharing will have a problem pro-blem getting out of the gate. It's an understatement to say that the water community is cool to cost-sharing. cost-sharing. Abdnor was the only member of Congress to show up for Gianelli's testimony, an indication of how-popular how-popular the subject is the members of Congress and their constituents in the water business. Capitalizing on this dissatisfaction, in his letter to Abdnor on June 17 to "clear up" confusion on the subject of cost-sharing. Watt wrote Abdnor: "The Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and the Emire;.-which Emire;.-which I chair in the Pre-absence, Pre-absence, has resolved to cr-study cr-study of a construction fc policy in cooperation with the&. the water community and Conp-s will be Department of Interiors; to seek construction fiancingfe new start at a level consistent r; abilities of non-federal sponsors;; ticipate financially and to hoar r commitments made by the t States. Current repayment-quirements repayment-quirements will remain in efe short, cost-sharing arrangemes;. be established on a case-by-caxi Clearly, Congress must ulfe agree with such arrangements.' I. stated. Watt said he was looking fom-; "develop a meaningful cost-sir program" with Congress, but Jeter Je-ter appeared to put a damper kl-possible kl-possible action on the Stafford i. Which is fine with Abdnor becas: isn't in favor of cost-sharing ain; i |
