WSPP00089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...~. .: ~... .~ l . to hel? finance the related costs. It is useful to note that in the Papa go Settlement veto message President Reagan did not approve the legislation to implement a settlement where (1) the United States had n0t ~een a major party in the negotiations, and (2) the contribution by all of the participants was not significant in relation to their bene- fits. In addition to the specific ccst sharing requirements for Indian settle- ments, this Administration's water project cost sharing policy is sometimes applicable to water rights settlements and basically follows these guidelines: 1. The Department of the Interior will negotiate reasonable financing arrangements for every project on a case-by-case basis; 2. Prior commitments to individual States and other related Federal obligations will be a factor in negotiations leading up to project construction, and 3. Project beneficiaries, not necessarily governmental entities, should ultimately bear a substantial part of all project development costs. In his January 24, 1984 letter to Senator Laxalt, President Reagan said, "This process will result in arrangements that are workable, fair, just, and practical. It will put into place the final building blocks in an improved program to meet America I s current and impendi ng water needs while recognizing Federal budget'ary realities." Tl1is flexibility provides extraordinary latitude. For example, there are assests other than cash, that can be contributed to settlements, including in-kind services, contributed water, power, or land. Even segments of the project can be built by interested parties sharing the costs and lowering the burden on the Federal Government. In summary, the case-by-case approach allows us to look for new solutions to cost sharing. We do not need nor want to be locked into the old traditional ways. 0210 3