BOARD00549 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Ayes.) Those opposed? (NO response.) The motion is carried. MR. SPARKS: The next one, Mr. Chairman, is more difficult because the Administration, at this point, is absolutely opposed to the Narrows Project. We are not completely certain as to what the real basis for the objection is. We do know that the project is opposed by Miss Katherine Fletcher; that, apparently, is enough in this present Administration. The Interior Department has not been completely unsympathetic with the Narrows Rroject. The problem originates out of the White House. That being the case, we will have a very difficult time doing anything on the Narrows at all. However, as I pointed out in this memorandum, there has been an exchange of correspondence between Senator Hart and Secretary Andrus. The basis for it was the Narrows Project, along with the Fruitland Mesa and the Savery-Pot Hook Projects., The Secretary indicated to Senator Hart that he was sympathetic in helping Colorado utilize its share of water under the south Platte Compact and the colo- rado River Compact. In both cases, these projects come completely within the 'purview of those compacts. The water for all of these projects is water which belongs to Colorado under the compacts. This is the point that Senator Hart raised. He, in effect, said: "Are you trying to modify these compacts and take away Colorado's share of the water?" The Secretary's response was: "NO, we are willing to work with you to see that you develop and utilize your share of the compact water." I sent copies of the Secretary's letter to the Board. You can read it as well as I can, and you are probably just as puzzled as I am as to what the hell it says. In any event, the letter suggests that the Administration might be willing to help us to some extent on the Narrows with a project reformu- lation. I'm not sure what line we can pursue in the project reformula- tion. I have discussed it with Joe Hall and his people in the Lower Missouri Region and with the Board of Directors of the Central and Lower South Platte Water Conservancy Districts. The other possibility is that, when that portion of the President's water policy--it is no longer a proposed water policy, as far as he is con- cerned; it is his water policy--the President places strong emphasis upon state cost-sharing if federal funds are to be involved in water resource development. That is a somewhat difficult portion of this water policy to argue with. Our argument has been that it should not be retroactive. In fact, the President's proposed bill, which I understand will be introduced this week or next week in Congress, does not attempt to apply retroactive cost-sharing to projects. But there is a very significant part of that bill, which I, quoted, in this memorandum, to the effect that, even though it is not a legal prerequisite, the President will -21-