WSP10281 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Legislative History of P.L. 93-320 As soon as the Minute was officially signed, the Departments of Interior and State began to draft implementing legislation. Because of internal differences within the agencies and the involvement of an unusual number of individuals in the process, progress was slow, particularly in Interior. It was further impeded by arguments between Interior and OMB over such issues as how the desalting plant should be procured and who should have responsibility for its construction. OMB feared that the plant would set a precedent for Federally funded, public- works-style solutions to water quality problems (as indeed its supporters in OSW hoped it would). It insisted that the Secretary of State (acting through mwC) rather than the Secretary of the Interior, construct, operate, and maintain the plant. Assignment of this responsibility to the State Department was intended to make it clear that the desalting plant was a unique response to an international problem. Within the Executive Branch, OMB finally prevailed, although the Congress later disagreed. P.L. 93-320 vested authority for Title I in the Secretary of the Interior, who designated the Bureau of Reclamation as the construction agency. Because of these delays, the Administration's bills were not sent to the Congress until February 7, 1974. Minute No. 242 called for passage of implementing legislation by July I, 1974. Concerned members in both Houses had already introduced their own bills, drafted with the assistance of the Committee of Fourteen (and the Lower Colorado Region of the Bureau of Reclamation, which provided a drafting service): H.R. 12165 was introduced by Rep. Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson of California on January 21, and S. 2940, by Senators Paul Fannin of Arizona and Alan Bible of Nevada on February 1. These Congressional bills were the basis of hearings and mark-up; the Administration bills were largely ignored. The House held three days of hearings on March 4, 5, and 8. The Senate hearings on April 26 lasted one day. During the hearings, there was relatively little debate over Minute No. 242 or the basic elements of the solution. Considering that the Minute was more of an amendment to the 1944 treaty than an interpretation of its terms, the Senate might have insisted on ratifying it, but no such suggestion appears on the record. The states, their Congressional representatives, and agency witnesses soft-peddled their concerns and disagreements. The premise behind the Minute and the workability of the technical measures that were to implement the agreement were never really examined. The states did raise several questions never answered by Administration witnesses, though-questions that may come back to haunt the Federal government when the desalting plant finally comes on line: . Why is the Federal government committing over $100 million to solve a water quality problem at the border, while ignoring projected increases in salinity above Imperial Dam? Why has it not taken a basin-wide approach?