Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MAR-24-1999 16:14 <br /> <br />P.03 <br /> <br />Memorandum 99-26 <br />March 23,1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />If the salinity control program were to receive an appropriation of $15 million per year <br />for the Bureau of Reclamation out into the future, this increased ceiling would extend our <br />authorization for about 7 years. Another alternative is to simply remove the ceiling and insert <br />words that allow the Bureau to spend money as appropriated by the Congress. This might be <br />our preferred option. There are some that believe this second option would be more difficult <br />to move through the Congress. <br /> <br />I believe that we will also have the support of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau <br />advises me that it has received appropriations under the $75 million current ceiling in the amount <br />of about $24.5 million. Assuming a $14 million appropriation by the Congress mis year for FY <br />2000, me number would reach $38.5 million. The Bureau has obligated, wim on-going <br />agreements, $47 million. Subtracting the obligations from the ceiling, there remains about $28 <br />million and at the present rate of funding that would leave about 2 years, including FY 2000, <br />of funding. Currently, mere is being considered the possibility of bringing to the Forum a <br />salinity control oppottllnity in the Henderson, Nevada area that might alone require about half <br />of the remaining ceiling. The Bureau thinks that perhaps the next advenised request for <br />proposals would be the last one under the current ceiling for some period of time unless the <br />ceiling is raised. Only additional RFP's would go out if some of the proposals that funds are <br />obligated for do not use those obligated funds. <br /> <br />This all means to make me case that we need to act and secure additional authorization <br />within the next two to three years so that we do Dot have a break in the funding for the program. <br />A break in the funding for the program would not only be initially disruptive to the program and <br />delay implementation, but it could be problematic to get the Bureau to again insert funding into <br />a tight budget at current levels. I also believe that currently the Congress, the Administration <br />and the associated political situation can be viewed as favorable for our moving ahead. For me, <br />it is very difficult to anticipate the political situation as we near the next Presidential election and <br />after mat election with a new President, new Administrative officials and a new Congress. <br /> <br />I would appreciate Forum members advising me or members of the Management <br />Committee; Jerry Zimmerman, Jeff Fassett and Larry Anderson on or before March 31 about <br />your concerns or support with respect to the introduction of legislation at this time. I will call <br />a Forum member from each state, if we have not heard from you by that date, to see if we have <br />consensus on this issue. If we do, 1 would immediately be asking Senator Bennett to move <br />ahead with the sponsorship of the legislation. <br /> <br />np <br />attacmnent <br /> <br />cc: Dave Trueman <br />