Laserfiche WebLink
<br />question but that Congress, if it enacts such legislation, will probably <br />amend it rather extensively. This is where we come in looking after <br />our :oWn interest. We would certainly warit to amend 'it 'to 'provide that <br />we get a portion of the power revenues :to'repay whatever the state puts <br />in. It is grosslyurifair for the federal government to be 100 percent <br />repaid and the states not. : It makes ,rio sense at all. <br />, , <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I might also make ,a very brief report on I <br />the proposed water reorganization that is going to be considered and <br />probably submitted by the Carter Administration to Congress. I would <br />liKe to do that because I won't be able to join you this afternoon. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Fine. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: The Carter Administration, as part of their overall <br />national resources reorganization, is proposing to create a new <br />Department of Natural Resources. This would be an expansion of the <br />existing Department of the Interior. <br /> <br />Now, one ,of the most important aspects of the proposed reorganization <br />is a change in the way in which the water:agencies of the 'country. are <br />structured. The proposal is that there will be a separation between <br />the pOlicy, budgeting, and planning aspects of wate~ development on the <br />one hand and the construction and implementation aspects on the other <br />hand. By that I mean that:the Corps of Engineers' budgeting and plann- <br />ing functions would be transferred to the new Department of Natural <br />Resources, to a new water 'agency in that department. ' <br /> <br />Meanwhile, all of the construction and the operating responsibilities <br />in the Bureau of Reclamation would be transferred to the Corps of <br />Engineers. ' The Corps of Engineers would remain as part of the Depart- <br />ment of the Army and the Department of Defense. So you would see for <br />the first time a very clear distinction between these two elements of <br />planning, 'policy; arid budgeting, on one hand, and construction on the <br />other. ' <br /> <br />The Soil Conservation Service's planning and budgeting functions would <br />be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to this new Department <br />of Natural Resources. Construction functions on SCS projects would be <br />transferred to the Corps of Engineers. <br /> <br />The Water Resources Council would be abolished, and the functions that <br />it has performed would be moved to the new Department of Natural Resources. <br />The technical and planning aspects would be incorporated into the new <br />water agency. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The project review function, which is in the new proposal--and it is <br />no longer 'a proposal; it:has been funded--for the Carter Administration <br />would be lodged with the Secretary of the Interior's office outside of <br />the water agency. But there would no longer be an interagency.indepen- <br />dent review of water projects. <br /> <br />Now, with that said, I think you should know that the,'National Governors <br />Water Committee, the overwhelming sentiment expressed on Monday in Salt <br /> <br />-10- <br />