Laserfiche WebLink
<br />{ <br /> <br />.001523 <br /> <br />.1.. 'I'he Carter administration water policy review. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />2. The Domenici-Moynihan proposal for block grants and <br />cost-sharing change, (5. 621 in the last Congress). <br /> <br />3. The Reagan administration review of cost-sharing, as <br />embodied in the June 15 memo (attachment C) from watt to <br />the President. However, no formal positions have yet <br />been taken and no decisions made on cost-sharing as of <br />this date--hence the invitation to comment. <br /> <br />4. The Congressional response to the Reagan administration <br />on these issues. House Report No. 97-850 (Energy and <br />Water Development Appropriations Bill), October, 1982, <br />indicated quite clearly that Congress wants to make the <br />policy decisions on cost-sharing: <br /> <br />. . . all the cognizant authorizing <br />committees of Congress have not fully <br />addressed the proposed "innovative financing" <br />issue which would require up front financing <br />and cost-sharing from non-federal sponsors. <br />Until Congress fully considers and addresses <br />such" innovative financing.', the Committee <br />directs that no up-front financing and <br />cost-sharing be implemented. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As you are aware, we have indicated to the Reagan <br />administration that we are willing to consider non-federal <br />financing for the Narrows and Animas-La Plata projects through <br />the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. <br />Preliminary discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation on these <br />projects began in November following the very adverse reaction <br />from all quarters to watt's announcement of alleged "new starts. <br />in October. <br /> <br />Issue Analysis <br /> <br />The issue is whether the WESTPO Governor.s should respond <br />collectively to the January 25 Watt invitation, and if so, what <br />the substance of that response should be. <br /> <br />Option 1: No response. <br /> <br />This opt ion avoiils the problem of trying to reach a <br />consensus among the states, which hold fairly divergent <br />views. It does not require Colorado to give anything <br />away on the substance of. these issues prior to the <br />completion of our negotiations on Narrows and Animas-La <br />Plata. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The negative elements of this option are that a non- <br />response may allow the Secretary to criticize the <br /> <br />ME110RANDUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />2/22/83 <br />