BOARD00827

• Board Meeting Date: 3/20/2000
• Description: Federal Issues - Warren Act
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

McAuliffe. Dan

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Lee Miller [[e-mail]]
Friday, March 17, 2000 10:11 AM
dan [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Excess capacity legislation and section by section analysis

ll.
r

~

WordPerfect 6.1

WordPerfect 6.1

Dan:

It turns out that neither I nor Steve Arveschoug are available to address the CWCB on the Warren Act legislative effort In
Colorado Springs next Tuesday. Attached are the most recent draft of the legislation and a sectlon-by-sectlon analysis
that you may want to share with the Board.

This draft, which is currently being circulated to Congressional offices, refiects a best effort at compromise between the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado-California advocacy group. It has not yet been introduced. Reclamation
Commissioner Martinez has made passage of excess capacity legislation one of his priorities to be completed before the
end of the administration.

The advocacy group has made a good faith effort to reach. agreement with Reclamation, and there are no major issues of
disagreement, but that there are some minor issues and drafting Issues where the advocacy group and Reclamation are
not in agreement. For instance, the advocacy group draft refers to interest being governed by the 1939 Reclamation
Project Act, which would set the maximum interest rate at 3 percent for M&I water. Reclamation would prefer that the M&I
interest be governed by the 1958 Water Supply Act, which for FY2000 has an interest rate of 8.542 percent. Reclamation
raised this issue after the "final" conference call between Reclamation and a Family Farm Alliance group, that included
more than just the advocacy group membership, and was just too late In the process for resolution prior to sending the
draft to Washington. Another change Reclamation requested was to remove our additions to the compliance with state
law, section 205 that express consistency with Section 8 of 1902 Reclamation Act and that nothing In this section allows
the Secretary to force states to adopt laws. These changes to the state law section were suggested by the Colorado
Water Congress Federal Affairs Committee.

Colorado entities involved in the advocacy group include Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado
Springs Utilities, Pueblo Board of Water Works, Dolores Water Conservancy District, and has the general support of the
Mancos Water District (Mancos, Is pursuing its own "Warren Act" legislation, which you should have received a copy of
earlier this week). Steve Arveschoug, as chairman of the Family Farm Alliance task force, has had extensive meetings
with Colorado water users and interested parties west-wide. While this effort has not achieved universal consensus, the
advocacy group believes that it is time to move this legislation out of the task force arena and into the Congressional
arena. That being said, the advocacy group continues to be interested in discussions with water users and others outside
of the halls of Congress, as well. The Colorado advocacy group members will continue to meet with other Colorado water
users to address their concerns, with a hope of producing legislation that will have the support of all Colorado water
entities.

I apologize that I will not be available to update the CWCB on this matter. I hope this will help in allowing you to bring the
CWCB members up to speed on this important water measure. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at the
numbers or addresses below. Have a great meeting In Colorado Springs.

Sincerely,

Lee E. Miller
Fairfield and Woods, P.C.
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Denver, Colorado 80203-4524
http://www.fwlaw.com/
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Providing legal and legislative guidance
to the western natural resource user community

1