Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />001524 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Governors for asking r:0r the opportunity to comment, and <br />then failing to take it. whether the failure to respond <br />in this instance would foreclose opportunities for <br />later comment is an open question, especially since <br />Congress, rather than the Secretary, will have the final <br />say. <br /> <br />Option 2: Respond with a non-substantive letter. <br /> <br />The positive elements of this option are the same as <br />for option 1. Furthermore, this option would serve to <br />at least acknowledge the Secretary's invitation. <br /> <br />The negative aspect of this option is that a <br />non-substantive response may simply look silly, without <br />negating the opportunity for the Secretary to criticize <br />the Governors for failing to respond. <br /> <br />Option 3: Respond with substantive comments. <br /> <br />The positive aspect of this option is that <br />substantive comments might have some effect on the <br />policy decision of the administration. Also, the WESTPO <br />Governors would have responded affirmatively to their <br />request for input into the administration's decisions. <br /> <br />The negative aspect of this option is that it <br />requires agreement among the states on issues of great <br />difficulty. More importantly, Colorado must be sure not <br />to give away anything in these comments that might prove <br />to be important in negotiations on Animas-La plata or <br />Narrows. Furthermore, we must not foreclose any <br />opportunities to obtain access to power revenues to <br />assist with up-front financing. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />While the Secretary's request for comments by March 25th <br />would seem to indicate that the administration finally expects to <br />announce its formal policy on non-federal financing requirements, <br />all intelligence which we get from various sources, including <br />other western states, is to the contrary. What we are hearing is <br />that Watt's request is only a face-saving political gesture and <br />that he in fact has no intention of ever announcing a formal <br />policy or enunciating formal guidelines. <br /> <br />The reasons for this appear to be two-fold. First, there <br />are significant differences of opinion within the administration <br />on this matter, primarily between Assistant Secretary Carruthers <br />(Interior) and Assistant Secretary Giannelli (Army). Second, <br />watt apparently wants to back away from the issue gracefully <br />since Congress has been so adamant in stating that it alone will <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />2/22/83 <br />