Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The Bureau agrees that reevaluation of Pick-Sloan will be necessary <br /> <br />at some time in the not.too-distant future, but believes it may be <br /> <br />premature to consider some of the potential changes. We suggest that <br /> <br />such changes, plus those to date, are reasons for ~ delaying the <br /> <br />reanalysis recommended. <br /> <br />We agree with the Bureau view that achieVing the recommended changes <br /> <br />will be difficult. That is implicit in any effort involving coordi- <br /> <br />nation among three agencies and a~so, at some point, the Congress and <br /> <br />the public. The Bureau response ~efers to requirements for rather <br /> <br />substantial changes in existing'law and related contractual as well <br /> <br />as institutional arrangements without identifying those Changes. We <br /> <br />are not, therefore, able to evaluate the specifics of those views, <br /> <br />DOE C01lllllents on <br />draft re"ort <br /> <br />The DOE pointed out that section 302 of the Department of Energy Orga- <br /> <br />nization Act (Public Law 95-91, August 4, 1977 (a) Stat. 565) specifi- <br /> <br />cally precludes changes in cost alJ,ocations at reclamation projects <br />, <br /> <br />without Congressional approval. If states in pertinent part: <br /> <br />"Sec. 302. (a) (3) <br /> <br />Neither the transfer ., (power marketing functions of <br />Bureau of Reclamation) nor any Changes in cost allocation or <br />project evaluation standards ,hall be deemed to authorize <br />the reallocation of joint cos*s of multipurpose facilities <br />theretofore allocated unless ~nd to the extent that such <br />change is hereafter approved by the Congress." <br /> <br />23 <br />