Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C\: <br />'J') <br />I.'\) <br />-' <br /> <br />-, <br />'-'-' <br /> <br />c:) <br /> <br />t, <br /> <br />MENORA.'iDUM 83-2 <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />January 14, 1983 <br /> <br />8. On page 10, the Department of the Interior requests the deletion of <br />all of the language after the "oed' Agriculture' on line 8 through the <br />word 'Council' on line 10. The Department of Agriculture also requests <br />this deletion and further requests the deletion of the remainder of the <br />paragraph. At issue here is whether or not the governor and the Advisory <br />Council can constitutionally have veto power over decisions made by the <br />Administrative branch of the federal government. This poses an important <br />legal question and I believe the Forum should seek advice of attorneys <br />associated with the states and the Forum's work before we decide this <br />issue. It may.be that language can be prepared to accomplish the intent <br />of the states while avoiding the constitutional issue. I believe this <br />issue should be resolved by the Forum, perhaps with the assistance of the <br />Work Group, before hearings are held on the legislation. <br /> <br />9. On page 10, startitlg with line 14 and continuing on to page 11 through <br />line 2, the.Department of Agriculture requests that all of these provi- <br />sions be deleted and a substitute language, prepared by the Department of <br />Agriculture, be inserted. The changes requested by the Department of <br />Agriculture,relate to their concern that there is a.ceiling placed on the <br />onfarm agricultural programs by years. They would propose that funds be <br />made available, as necessary, by the Congress. The limitations in S. 2202 <br />are there as a result of the Forum's.request. The Forum previously felt <br />that state monies are involved in this cost sharing'through the expendi- <br />ture of basin accounts. Without a limit on the onfarm agriculture <br />program, the states and the power users could not determine the potential <br />fiscal impact of the program. I believe this is an important basic issue <br />and needs to be resolved by Forum policy before testimony is given to the <br />Congress concerning the legislation. <br /> <br />10. On page 11, line 24, the Department of Agriculture has requested an <br />amendment that corrects an error in the legislation. <br /> <br />11. On page 12, the Department of the Interior requests the deletion of <br />lines 4 and 5 and requests the insertion of language prepared by the <br />Department. The changes requested would modify the current cost sharing <br />requirements in P.L. 93-320 for the Department of the Interior programs <br />and would further modify the cost sharing requirements proposed for the <br />Department of Agriculture programs. The Department of the Interior <br />proposes that either cost sharing be accomplished within the first year or <br />that interest be paid on the expenditures by the basin states. This is an <br />important issue. I have written to the Department of the Interior, Bureau <br />of Reclamation, for clarification as you can see from the enclosed letter. <br />I believe the basin states need to analyze this request in detail before <br />testimony is prepared on the legislation. <br /> <br />12. On page 12, the Department of the Interior requests that line 6 be <br />deleted. This line was added by the staff of the committee in the Senate <br />and the Forum had p,reviously judged that the requested deletion was an <br />error. I anticipate that the Forum can support the change requested by <br />the Department of the Interior. <br /> <br />13. On page 12, lines 8, 9, 10, and 16, the Department of Agriculture <br />requests some changes which would make the repayment authorized for the <br />