Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0..... <br />A <br /> <br />McAuliffe, Dan <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Lee Miller [LMILLER@fwlaw.com] <br />Friday, March 17,2000 11 :05 AM <br />kpolly@nwra.org <br />secwcd@codenet.net; jmcdonald@pn.usbr.gov; MCOLLIER@pn.usbr.gov; <br />dan .mcauliffe@state.co.us: kent.holsinger@state.co.us: j raeder@tfgnet.com <br />Warren Act or not to Warren Act <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Cc: <br /> <br />Kris: <br /> <br />I got your e-mail version of the Reclamation excess capacity legislation, for which I have been serving as the drafter. <br />wanted to clarify one thing. Neither Bill McDonald nor Reclamation has "signed off' on this draft of the legislation. <br /> <br />The advocacy group has made a good faith effort to reach agreement with Reclamation, and it is fair to represent that <br />there are no major issues of disagreement, but that there are some minor issues and drafting issues where the advocacy <br />group and Reclamation are not in agreement. For instance, the advocacy group draft refers to interest being governed by <br />the 1939 Reclamation Project Act, which would set the maximum interest rate at 3 percent for M&I water. Reclamation <br />would prefer that the M&I interest be governed by the 1958 Water Supply Act, which for FY2000 has.an interest rate of <br />8.542 percent. Reclamation raised this issue after the "final" conference call between Reclamation and a Family Farm <br />Alliance group, that included more than just the advocacy group membership, and was just too late in the process for <br />resolution prior to sending the draft to Washington. Another change Reclamation requested was to remove our additions <br />to the compliance with state law, section 205 that express consistency with Section 8 of 1902 Reclamation Act and that <br />nothing in this section allows the Secretary to force states to adopt laws. <br /> <br />I would be happy to provide any additional information you or NWRA may need in its discussion and consideration of this <br />legislation. This has been the culmination of a nearly two-year process (of which I've only been involved for the last year), <br />and while it does not currently enjoy west-wide unanimous support, it does substantially advance the discussion of this <br />important, difficult and contentious issue. <br /> <br />Thanks, Lee <br /> <br />Lee E. Miller <br />Fairfield and Woods, P.C. <br />1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 <br />Denver, Colo'rado 80203-4524 <br />http://www.fwlaw.com/ <br />Phone: (303) 830-2400 <br />Fax: (303) 830-1033 <br />Imiller@fwlaw.com <br />Providing legal and legislative guidance <br />to the western natural resource user community <br /> <br />1 <br />