My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Statement of John W. Keys, III on H.R. 3881
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Statement of John W. Keys, III on H.R. 3881
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:31 AM
Creation date
6/3/2010 2:00:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Briefing Papers H.R. 3881
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
3/19/2002
Author
John W. Keys, III; Subcommittee on Water and Power
Title
Statement of John W. Keys, III on H.R. 3881
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
http: / /resourcescommittee. house. gov / 107cong /water /2002mar 19/keyes.htm <br /> • <br /> we will send a copy to the Committee. <br /> Reclamation also has concerns about the implications for potential water delivery contractors arising <br /> from the various restrictions imposed by H.R. 3881 on the Secretary =s contracting authority. For <br /> example, H.R. 3881 states that Reclamation can contract with any entity delivering water for municipal <br /> or other purposes, but the entity must first have signed an agreement with the District under certain <br /> terms listed in the legislation. These terms include a provision for payment of any surcharges set by the <br /> District. This requirement alone could provide significant leverage to the District to impose substantial <br /> surcharges as a prerequisite to an agency =s entering into a contract with the Secretary. <br /> Finally, the application of revenues collected under the legislation, not related to the surcharges of the <br /> District, is not consistent with current Reclamation law. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Reclamation appreciates the District =s forward thinking and collaborative planning efforts in developing <br /> its. P_SOP reports_ While we applaud their efforts to plan for the future, we must recognize the many <br /> complexities of the Project. Unlike many Reclamation projects, the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project was <br /> developed for multiple uses from the beginning, so our role is different and broader than the District =s. <br /> Reclamation is committed to build upon the good work done by the District. As such, the Department <br /> proposes that Congress authorize Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study consistent with the <br /> AReclamation Manual Directives and Standards for feasibility studies @, with a shared ownership of the <br /> -end product; and to produce contracting authorities consistent with and complementary to Reclamation <br /> law. <br /> Reclamation commends the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Enterprise Board <br /> for its efforts to address its future water needs. Reclamation would be happy to work with the sponsor <br /> and the Committee to develop legislative language that would achieve the sponsor=s goals while <br /> addressing our concerns with H.R. 3881 as introduced. This concludes my statement and 1 would be <br /> pleased to answer any questions. <br /> # # ## <br /> 3 of 3 3/20/02 10:17 AM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.