White Paper: Options for Managing the Land Protection Component of the PRRIP

Home Browse Search

Land Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 the amount that would have been spent by the individual agencies without joint action. Sec. 16- 1 -107. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act was clearly drafted with joint actions of local governments in mind -- this was a companion to the Wyoming Community Development Act. Other statutes reinforce the goal of state /federal cooperation, directing that the governor shall designate and authorize a state agency or department to administer any federally supported cooperative program in the state, Wyo. Stat. Ann., Sec. 9 -1 -216, or to appoint persons to any advisory planning or action committee required by the state's participation in federally supported programs. Interstate joint powers agreements are not expressly forbidden, though none have been created. Wyoming's attorneys are of the view that, although the joint activities contemplated in the proposed Program are not explicitly authorized, provided a public benefit is obtained for Wyoming, there is nothing to bar the state from participating in and funding joint Program activities. C. Constraints on Public Employees Working in Intergovernmental or Joint Public/Private Ventures Under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, irrespective of whether a legal or administrative body is created, state officials may participate. Sec. 16 -1 -106. Wyoming attorneys anticipate that Wyoming- appointed state officials will be able to participate in non- profits or other legal or administrative bodies created to further the interests of the Program. 3. State of Colorado a. Constraints on Financial Participation The Colorado Constitution, Article V, Sec. 34, provides that "[n]o appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state ...." As in Wyoming, this clause of the Constitution has generally been interpreted as prohibiting outright gifts. Provided some government purpose is served, appropriations may be made to entities not under the direct control of the State of Colorado. E.g., Johnson v. McDonald, 49 P.2d 1017 (1937) (joint funding of a depression -era jobs program constitutional because the state highway system benefits). With respect to the proposed Program, Colorado expects to satisfy the ESA obligations of its water users through the Program. This furthers the purposes assigned to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Commission to manage and develop Colorado's water resources. A- 9