Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM 83-2 -3- January 14, 1983 <br /> 8. On page 10, the Department of the Interior requests the deletion of <br /> all of the language after the word 'Agriculture' on line 8 through the <br /> word 'Council' on line 10. The Department of Agriculture also requests <br /> this deletion and further requests the deletion of the remainder of the <br /> paragraph. At issue here is whether or not the governor and the Advisory <br /> Council can constitutionally have veto power over decisions made by the <br /> Administrative branch of the federal government. This poses an important <br /> legal question and I believe the Forum should seek advice of attorneys <br /> associated with the states and the Forum's work before we decide this <br /> issue. It may be that language can be prepared to accomplish the intent <br /> of the states while avoiding the constitutional issue. I believe this <br /> issue should be resolved by the Forum, perhaps with the assistance of the <br /> Work Group, before hearings are held on the legislation. <br /> 9. On page 10, starting with line 14 and continuing on to page 11 through <br /> line 2, the Department of Agriculture requests that all of these provi- <br /> sions be deleted and a substitute language, prepared by the Department of <br /> Agriculture, be inserted. The changes requested by the Department of <br /> Agriculture relate to their concern that there is a.ceiling placed on the <br /> onfarm agricultural programs by years. They would propose that funds be <br /> made available, as necessary, by the Congress. The limitations in S. 2202 <br /> are there as a result of the Forum's request. The Forum previously felt <br /> that state monies are involved in this cost sharing through the expendi- <br /> ture of basin accounts. Without a limit on the onfarm agriculture <br /> program, the states and the power users could not determine the potential <br /> fiscal impact of the program. I believe this is an important basic issue <br /> and needs to be resolved by Forum policy before testimony is given to the <br /> Congress concerning the .legislation. <br /> 10. On page 11, line 24, the Department of Agriculture has requested an <br /> amendment that corrects an error in the .legislation. <br /> 11. On page 12, the Department of the Interior requests the deletion of <br /> lines 4 and 5 and requests the insertion of language prepared by the <br /> Department. The changes requested would modify the current cost sharing <br /> requirements in P.L. 93-320 for the Department of the Interior programs <br /> and would further modify the cost sharing requirements proposed for the <br /> Department of Agriculture programs. The Department of the Interior <br /> proposes that either cost sharing be accomplished within the first year or <br /> that interest be paid on the expenditures by the basin states. This is an <br /> important issue. I have written to the Department of the Interior, Bureau <br /> of Reclamation, for clarification as you can see from the enclosed letter. <br /> I believe the basin states need to analyze this request in detail before <br /> testimony is prepared on the legislation. <br /> 12. On page 12, the .Department of the Interior requests that line 6 be <br /> deleted. This line was added by the staff of the committee in the Senate <br /> and the Forum had previously judged that the requested deletion was an <br /> error. I anticipate that the Forum can support the change requested by <br /> the Department of the Interior. <br /> 13. On page 12, lines 8, 9, 10, and 16, the Department of Agriculture <br /> requests some changes which would make the repayment authorized for the <br />