Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r- <br />~ <br /> <br />o <br /><=> <br /> <br />reported out of committee contained the following language for <br />the three Bureau of Reclamation projects in the bill (i.e., <br />Buffalo Bill, Headgate Rock, and Animas-La Plata): <br /> <br />Provided further, that none of the funds <br />herein appropriated may be expended to <br />undertake such projects except under terms <br />and conditions acceptable to the Secretary of <br />the Interior as shall be set forth in binding <br />agreements with those non-federal entities <br />desiring to participate in project <br />construction. Each such agreement shall <br />include a statement that the non-federal <br />entities are capable of and willing to <br />participate in project cost-sharing and <br />financing in accordance with the terms of the <br />agreement. At such time as the Secretary has <br />executed a formal binding agreement and has <br />determined that the non-federal entities' <br />financing plan demonstrates a reasonable <br />likelihood of the non-federal interests' <br />ability to satisfy the terms and conditions <br />of the agreement, the Secretary shall <br />transmit the agreement to Congress: provided <br />further, that the Secretary shall initiate <br />construction of a project in accordance with <br />such agreement unless a joint resolution <br />dispapproving such agreement becomes law <br />within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the <br />agreement by Congress. The 90-day period <br />shall not include days on which either the <br />House or Senate is not in session because of <br />adjournment for more than three consecutive <br />calendar days. <br /> <br />A threatened veto due to the inclusion of funding for Corps <br />and Bureau projects has been delaying floor action on the bill. <br />As of the date of this memo, the bill has not been brought up for <br />consideration because the Senate leadership and the White House <br />are apparently at an impa&se. <br /> <br />I will give you an update on the latest developments at the <br />Board meeting. In this regard, the Board may want to take a <br />position on whether the House or Senate language is more <br />preferable--given that some language on cost-sharing seems <br />inevitable. <br /> <br />JWM/gl <br /> <br />Enclosure: as stated <br /> <br />l1EMORANDUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />June 21, 1985 <br />