Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1- <br /> <br />002166 <br /> <br />through IBWC, construct, operate, and maintain the plant. <br />Assignment of this responsibility to the State Department <br />was intended to make it clear that the desalting plant was a <br />unique response to a serious international problem. Within <br />the Executive Branch, OMB finally prevailed, although the <br />Congress later disagreed. In P.L. 93-320, the authority was <br />returned to the Secretary of the Interior, who designated <br />the Bureau of Reclamation as the construction agency. <br /> <br />Because of these delays, the Administration's bills were not <br />sent to the Congress until February 7, 1974. Minute No. 242 <br />called for passage of implementing legislation by July 1, <br />1974. Concerned members in both Houses had already <br />introduced their own bills: H.R. 12165, by Rep. Harold T. <br />(Bizz) Johnson of California on January 21; and S. 2940, by <br />Senators Paul Fannin of Arizona and Alan Bible of Nevada, on <br />February 1. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />These Congressional bills were the basis of hearings and <br />mark-up; the Administration bills were largely ignored. <br />House held three days of hearings on March 4, 5 and 8. <br />Senate hearings on April 26 lasted one day. <br /> <br />The <br />The <br /> <br />There was relatively little debate over the basic elements <br />of the solution. Yet the states did raise several questions <br />never answered by Administration witnesses: <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />. Why is the Federal government committing over $100 <br />million to solve a water quality problem at the <br />border, while ignoring projected increases in <br />salinity above Imperial Dam? Why has it not taken a <br />basinwide approach? <br /> <br />· Why have no provisions been made for replacement of <br />water lost in the effluent stream from the desalting <br />plant? <br /> <br />15 <br />