OCR Text |
Show I mniiiiii milium miinini iiiiinuii iiiiiiiiiiiimiiiihiiiiiiiiiihiiii Western Resources WRAP-UP iiilllllllllllllllllNIIIIIIIIIIUnilUWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIHIIIIIUnilUIIIIIIUUIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIilllllllllll Cost-sharing on water projects By Hel-ne C. Monborg Vernal Express Washington Correspondent Vahington-The Administration 'k'ing through Assistant Army Lretan' William R. Gianelli on June presented its position on cost-faring cost-faring for water projects, with the Jerm "flexibility" replacing the term up-front" financing. Gianelli's forum was the Water Resources Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which had tanding-room only attendance. But "the popularity of cost-sharing among the elected members of Congress is uch that only one member of Congress, Con-gress, Sen. James Abdnor, R-S.Dak., the Subcommittee Chairman, showed ) up for Gianelli's presentation, and he vras clearly uncomfortable with the whole subject of cost-sharing. Gianelli's testimony differed very little from what he has been advocating ad-vocating for a long time. Gianelli stated, "The Administration endorses 5 1030 (a cost-sharing bill by Chairman Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt ., of the Senate Environment Committee) as consistent consis-tent with the policies adopted by the i Cabinet Council on natural resources and environment with two reservations. "First, the percentages specified in 5 1031 should be viewed as minimum requirements for flood control and agricultural water supply" at 35 percent. per-cent. "For example, in the case of local flood control projects where the traditional requirements of lands, easement and rights-of-way exceed 35 percent, these traditional requirement should continue. "Second, long-term cost-sharing policies for flood control and irrigation should consider the ability of project sponsors to raise capital during the construction cycle. Where raising capita would place an undue burden T ; on sponsors, then a portion of thenon-:i thenon-:i federal share could be federally -. financed provided, of course, that the "-i federally financed portion is repaid : with full interest," Gianelli testified. J "In the Adrninistation's view, opera- 'j tion, maintenance and replacement I costs..should be a non-federal respon- ability," he declared. j. The postponed non-federal cost-shares r in the Stafford bill are : -Flood control, 35 percent. ; -Agricultural water including ir-"i ir-"i rigation, 35 percent. ! -Recreation, 50 percent. -Hydroelectric power, 100 percent -Municipal and industrial water (Mil), too percent. : FLEXIBILITY IN, UP-FRONT FINANCING OUT . From a rhetoric standpoint when - fussing cost-sharing, the term . "flexibility" is now "in" and the term y "up-front" non-federal financing is '. Kw out. In his give-and-take during me question and answer portion of his ' testimony with Abdnor, Gianelli repeatedly stressed that the Ad-. Ad-. "unistration planned to be "flexible" m dealing with Congress on cost-;; cost-;; siting. Flexibility will come into Pay, in particular, when prior com- nutaents made by the federal govern-' govern-' I are up for review and when some - m caught between the old '' uTt PoUcy and the new 2 f6 P01 I tney wi11 be con-on con-on "case-by-case" basis, ;.; stated. He didn't mention "up-" "up-" iZ .."g by non-feds. Prior to iTt C "uP-n-ont" financing was a :;. '-sharing staple. B"t basically Gianelli hewed to a : ' I r1 on cost-sharing, and this , r a concern particularly to Abdnor, an Upper Missouri River state, . 531(1 11 would be tough for a lan-n lan-n his state to pay for bank ' aJ r?tl0n the Missouri "when ; ail of the benefits are downstream." . the Cabinet Council will K Sder a state's and its water users' ' " y to Pay-a matter of utmost im-fef im-fef cet0 Abdnor-but he didn't in-s in-s , what the alternatives would be. ;' Gia0 exPressed the hope that ' ' start th SKtestimony on June 15 would jj., aU rolling toward new pro- fee "i k0rizations and follow-up fun-y'l. fun-y'l. T. '.hoPe the Administration will V that If g With this Committee, and ' South rfa?vf started a dialgue-" u UaKotan said. p,ter' during a lengthy impromptu "V then00 rence held at 1116 request of mom r Utside of the Committee ' Qliata was somewhat less con-, con-, ers, toward Congress. Either Con-K Con-K sht bite the bullet on cost-' cost-' (W not ony on the water project land J the bill but also on in-' in-' Prov.I er'ay and major Prt m-'"'iCl? m-'"'iCl? 3nd development, he - Neot k r there wil1 be n water 'ithout ',Tne reality is that ;'? ' 10 have05' Sharing' we are not going P., GieNi new Projects," was the suarina He denied that cost- i,' out that v,3S "ami-West." He pointed Iormer I from California and a Statu. airman of the Western i ates ater Council. Bl'KKAU GKTTING STATIC ON NKW KKCLAMAT10N HKC.l'LATIONS Washington t WRW)-The Bureau of Reclamation is getting a lot of static from irrigators, particularly in California, to its proposed new rules and regulations implementing the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act. Irrigators everywhere are unhappy about the proposed certification regs and in California about the proposal to charge full cost for water deliveries in excess of the 160-acre limit after April 12, 1987 in districts which do not amend their contracts. The 1982 act revised and updated the 1902 reclamation act, increasing the acreage limitation from 160 to 960 acres eligible for irigation water from Bureau of Reclamation projects and made many other changes in the law so important to Western agriculture. The Interior Department and the Bureau of Rec. on May 3 published the proposed new rules and regulations to implement the 1982 law. Two teams are now in the process of talking to managers of water districts, individual in-dividual farmers and the general public about the proposed regs at meetings this week and next in Grand Island, Neb. ; Denver and Grand Junction, Junc-tion, Colo.; Los Banos, Willows and Visalia, Calif.; Phoenix and Yuma, Ariz.; Salt Lake City, Boise, Idaho, Albuquerque, Billings, Mont., Bend, Ore., and Pasco, Wash., following an initial hearing held here in Washington on June 9. The teams are led by Vernon Ver-non S. Cooper, an old Bureau hand who is chief of the acreage limitation branch now working out of the Bureau's E&R Center in Denver, and his assistant, Phillip T. Doe. The comment period on the proposed propos-ed rules and regs ends on July 5. The Bureau plans to complete its reviews of all comments received by July 15, and have them in final form for interagency inter-agency review a month later prior to publication of the final rules and regulations in October. Cooper hopes to have the whole process completed as scheduled prior to his retirement at the end of the year. COAL SLURRY PIPELINE CONTINUES TO ROLL ON Washington (WRW) The bill which would make possible the construction of coal slurry pipelines ( HR 1010) continues con-tinues to roll on in the House, with the House Public Works and Transportation Transporta-tion Committee voting 32-18 to report the bill to the House. This measure previously cleared the House Interior Committee by a 27-13 vote on April 6. The Public Works panel voted on June 8. The bill grants the federal power of eminent domain to those interstate coal pipeline distribution systems determined by federal agencies to be in the national interest. Similar legislation (S 267) cleared the Senate Energy Committee by a vote of 13-7 on April 14, and is due to come up for debate on the Senate floor during the next two weeks. |