| Show I i i Western Resources WRAP WRAP-UP i r rr N rYr rt yA I Water project sharing cost part 1 f By Helene C Vernal Vernol Express Washington Correspondent Washington The Administration Is up in the air about taking a final position on sharing cost on water projects even tho Administration spokesmen continue to push the concept position It also has not developed a final tion on Its efforts to get local Interests to load front 35 percent of the costs of a awater awater water project altho it favors that con con- concept concept too A meeting that Interior Secretary James G Watt and Assistant Army Secretary William R Rr Gianelli had on these issues on Nov 23 ended without any consensus Watt heads the Cabinet Coun cis cil on natural resources which sent a pro pro- proposal proposal to the White House In June Its It's still bottled up at the White House and at the theOffice theOffice Office of Management and Budget The Administration has a lot of pressures on It as the Congress and the governors are looking at sharing cost The President hasn't signed off on any other proposal yet and I have no idea when he will Dr Garrey E Carruthers Assistant Secretary of Interior who has been In charge of the sharing cost task force for the Administration told Western Resources Wrap Wrap-up on Nov 24 found widespread skepticism here this week that the Administration would take any official position on cost cost- sharing soon Alto the need for legisla- legisla legislation longtime tion is cited and that could take a long longtime time We have been waiting for the Ad- Ad Administration Administration ministration position since June and nothing has developed yet David W Gwaltney a Senate Appropriations Com Com- Committee key who works on funding for tor water projects told on Nov 24 It wont won't make any difference what the Administration comes out with until it is in legislation that has the support of the Administration the Congress and local interests Gwaltney continued sharing Cost and load front financing worked out administratively on an ad hoc basis project project-by-project wont won't fly he said Everyone Is going to want to know what the ground rules are That will take authorization legislation Gwaltney told CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION Gianelli is aware of this criticism But without legislation I have no alter alter- alternative native but to try to work out sharing cost with local interests on individual pro pro- projects projects Gianelli told on Nov 24 That Is how we were able to send some projects to Congress for funding in 1983 and we hope to do the same thing in 1984 I dont don't see that I have any option If we can get some of these moving people will see It is a good thing and well we'll get some legislation he said Innovative financing is a must for new projects No new water projects have been authorized for tor the US U S Army Corps of Engineers projects In the past six years There Is absolutely no way to meet future water needs under present procedures Gianelli told a national water symposium hereon here on Nov 8 New procedures will require payment by users of vendible portions of projects and Innovative financing regardless of the form that the new procedures take he said He I Ie outlined how he went a about bout sending nine new Corps projects to Congress for funding In the 1983 fiscal year beginning on Oct 1 and how he Is continuing to pro pro- proceed teed hoping he can get the Presidents President's approval for additional project funding for fiscal year 1984 The Corps was asked In September 1981 to identify projects projects which could go to construction in 1983 and the Corps found 15 which covered the spectrum geographically and functional functional- functionally ly gave the Army the green light to explore sharing cost and front up-front financing with project sponsors Letters were written to sponsors and the district engineers for the Corps ar- ar arranged arranged ranged the meetings Robert Elland Eiland who worked for Gianelli when he was director of the water resources agency in Califor- Califor California California nia and Is now u a special assistant to Gianelli for project financing visited with each sponsor explained that cost cost- sharing was sought and asked for a response prior to April 1 of this year All sponsors responded and two thirds agreed to some form of sharing cost Gianelli submitted the Army's proposal for a budget amendment for nine projects pro pro- projects to on April 1 and on May 25 the President transmitted a budget amendment to Congress all nine of the projects Gianelli related I Carruthers and Reclamation Commis- Commis Commissioner Commissioner Robert N Broadbent have carried on a similar program for Bureau pro pro- projects projects The Congressional jury is out on the results of their efforts despite local willingness to share cost STATUS OF SHARING COST PROPOSALS Of the Corps projects sent to th the House Appropriations Committee for funding on May 25 four were flood control pro pro- p three were hydro electric projects one was purpose multiple and one was wasa wasa a harbor project for the replacement of ofa ofa a jetty The flood control projects were Merced in California In Hawaii Davenport in Iowa and Virginia Beach in Virginia The hydro projects were Strube Lake Lakein Lakein in Oregon and additional unit at Bon Bon- Bonneville neville on the Columbia River along the Washington Oregon line and the Bradley Lake project in Alaska since deleted Freeport Harbor in Texas was the har- har harbor harbor bor project and Randleman Lake in North Carolina was the purpose ni purpose project Gianelli asked the Committee to reprogram 29 million in 1983 budget budget- requested money to start these projects It didn't Instead it waited for the authorizing committee the House Public Works and Transportation Committee to act It hasn't to date and there is no pro pro- prospect that it will during the special ses ses- ses session slon sion starting on Nov 29 Interiors Interior's Watt announced the 10 new reclamation starts with local cost cost- sharing at the annual meeting of the Na Na- Na National Water Resources Association in Salt Lake City on Oct 26 They included a modification of the Buffalo Bill dam project on the Shoshone River in Wyom- Wyom Wyoming Wyoming ing on which Wyoming has already put up 47 million as a load front contribution tion the Rock power project in Arizona which is a reimbursable non Indian project and eight small projects under the reclamation loan program of which five are in California and one each eachin eachin in Arizona Montana and Washington As only one of these projects was a abona abona bona fide sharing cost project Watts Watt's an an- an announcement as dubbed a non announcement by some of the Colora Colora- doans at the Salt Lake City meeting Moreover funding requests by amen amen- amending ding the 1983 budget have not gone to Congress Gwaltney told on Nov 24 He said the Administration was ex ex- ex petted to ask 38 million to start the power project a little over a million dollars to start Buffalo Bill dam modifications and small amounts for the small loan projects Even If the Republican controlled Senate Committee ap- ap approves ap- ap approves proves the budget requests for these 10 new reclamation projects for fiscal year 1983 the chances arent aren't good that Con Con- Congress gress will complete work on the regular 1983 power and water funding bill in the special session from Nov 29 Dee 17 Its It's generally assumed here that only water projects already under construction construction tion will be funded at 1982 levels under another continuing resolution Broadbent told he favors volun tary sharing cost by potential l water and potential power users The states and poten- poten water and power users have in- in indicated indicated their willingness to pay either load front costs or to share cost to get their projects going In several instances he said The power and others who arent aren't are willing to pay pay the costs of the capacity of the power plants at Hoover Dam Colorado has put up 30 25 million to start the Narrows and Animas La Plata projects Idaho will help pay for enlarging the Palisades power plant in Idaho The Marines are willing to pay 60 per per- percent percent cent of the cost of the Margarita Project In California and the local water district is also willing to provide several million toward the construction of this project near Camp Pendleton in Southern California A local controversy over water for Camp Pendleton has been settled by the parties they told the Senate Energy Committee in year mid Asked whether he anticipated the state would be more supportive of the Margarita project with the election of Republican Ge George rge Deukmejian to the governorship in California Broadbent replied No ques- ques question question tion about it He predicted the Bureau would have a couple of new water project starts for 1984 fiscal year And perhaps a cou- cou couple couple of new hydro projects too he said Carruthers said his home state of New Mexico is considering a sharing cost pro pro- proposal proposal altho it would be on a modest scale scaler WJ Pat OMeara of the Na Na- Na National Water Resources Association told on Nov 23 Montana and Washington have also approved of cost cost- sharing in an effort to move their water projects along Several Western states such as North and South Dakota and Nevada will be hard put to come up with sharing cost money however OMeara stated Cost sharing is no answer for a poor state an old Bureau ot of Reclamation hand told on Nov 23 COMPARISON OF COST COST- SHARING BY AGENCY Local L interests have have always cost cost- shared on the construction of water pro pro- projects projects B Joseph of the Water Resources Congress told on Nov 23 But at different amounts for different types of projects for different agencies a study conducted In 1974 by the Water Resources Council indicated The 1974 Water Resources Council study indicated that local in in- in interests tended to pay a higher percentage of water projects of all types where the federal sponsoring share of projects was 49 percent or nearly half according to the 1974 study It found that non non- nonfederal nonfederal federal interests paid overall only 20 percent of the cost of Corps of Engineer Projects and they paid 37 percent of the cost of Bureau of Reclamation projects projects tend to be smaller than the others projects In 1974 planning was paid for almost completely by the feds Gianelli told the national water symposium here on Nov 18 that the Administration wanted planning to be shared cost shared cost on a 50 basis upon the completion of a funded federally reconnaissance or first bevel study |
