Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />with flood control, the Act now provides that the users or the states <br />must 'advance 20 percent of the cost of the jlood control projects. <br />In addition to that 20 percent cost-sharing by the useF or the state, <br />they consider flood control in :the nonvendable category, which means <br />that there will have to be an additional 5 percent that the state <br />advances on top of the 20 percent. And that ,is a very radical departure <br />from the way in which we have done business in the past, particularly <br />with the Bureau projects. <br /> <br />A third area relates to navigation. And 'with navigation, the legisla- <br />tion would 'consider that category to be a vendable, which means that <br />the states or the users would have to put up 10 percent of the cost of <br />the navigation project. Heretofore, the federal government has paid <br />the entire cost of the navigation projects, in most instances. <br /> <br />In the area of recreation, for whatever reason, the logic of this <br />escapes us, recreation is now treated as a vendable and, therefore, <br />notwithstanding the fact that the state in recent years :has paid 50 <br />percent of the recreational costs of these projects, we would have to <br />pay 'another 10 percent on top of what we 'are currently paying. In other <br />words, the state would have to pay 10 'percent of the 50 percent that <br />the federal government is paying, which translates to an additional <br />5 percent increase. <br /> <br />Another provision which is important is that the Administration i~ <br />asking Congress to apply this cost-sharing formula, not only to new <br />projects that are yet to be authorized, but they have asked it to apply <br />it to projects that are authorized but where construction funds have <br />not yet been ,received.. And they would do this through a voluntary <br />mechanism. They suggest that states come forward and voluntarily con~ <br />tribute a 10 'percent or 5 percent increment to these projects and that <br />these states would be given a preference in congressional funding to <br />see the projects go forward. The Administration has said that, even if <br />Congress rejects this proposal internally, administratively they would <br />apply this voluntary arrangement. <br /> <br />So I just wanted to report that to the Board, because I think all the <br />aspects of the new Carter policy, the 19 task forces, of those, I view <br />this one of the most odious and the one that is of the gravest concern <br />to Colorado. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: What is the timing on all this? <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Well, my understanding is that in the next two to three <br />weeks the Carter Administration will submit this legislation to the <br />Congress. It is one of the major water reform legislative packages <br />that the Carter Administration is suggesting. so I think probably you <br />will see committee hearings starting in both the Senate and the House <br />within the next month on this very provision. <br /> <br />. <br />MR. STAPLETON: Any questions of Mr. Sherman? We have a never-ending <br />controversy. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: This is something we must watch closely. There is no ' <br /> <br />-9- <br />