Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" 7J~~ <br />.' ~ \) \ <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />to get either of our projects started. On the other hand, it is <br />not clear that we can get appropriations for either project given <br />the present stalemate betw~en the Administration and Congress. <br />Thus, we are being forced by circumstances beyond our control to <br />cooperate with other states to some extent in their overtures to <br />Secretary Watt to work out a consensus position. Furthermore, <br />all of this is occurring with Congress having said that it, not <br />the Administration, will make the final decision. <br /> <br />Given the position Congress has taken and the political <br />difficulties which this issue has caused Watt, I do not think we <br />should simply assume that Watt wishes to continue the effort to <br />enunciate an Administration policy. If Watt could be confident <br />that he would be permitted by western governors to gracefully <br />exit from this controversy, then he might do so. I think this <br />would be to our advantage, as we could then work directly with <br />the Congressional leadership without being caught in the middle <br />of a tug-of-war. If the opportunity presents itself, I think it <br />would be well to sound Watt out on this point. <br /> <br />Should Watt not indicate a willingness to drop the <br />Administration's efforts to develop a policy, then I think we <br />have no choice but to be a part of any process to develop a <br />recommended state position to the Secretary. This is the only <br />way we can protect our interests (as, for example, in the <br />compromise to which Bill McDonald was able to get the Western <br />States Water Council special committee to agree). <br /> <br />However, we need certain safeguards in any such process. <br />These are addressed in items 3, 4, and 5 of my recommendations <br />(see below). Governor Olson's letter indicates that he would <br />probably concur with the points I recommend to you. <br /> <br />Insofar as Congress is concerned, we have no new concrete <br />information to add to that which is provided in my February 22 <br />memo to you (page 4 of memo, Tab E). IvaI Goslin has recently <br />heard that Chairmen Kazen and Roe may soon state that they do <br />not support new financing arrangements. If this happens, <br />Congressman Bevill allegedly will proceed to put funding for one <br />or more new starts in the House appropriations bill with no <br />requirements for non-federal financial participation. <br /> <br />On the other hand, Bill McDonald has been told that Mr. <br />Bevill has expressed some sympathy towards the recently suggested' <br />idea of a national commission to study this issue. The <br />commission would supposedly be modeled after the commission which <br />dealt with the Social Security system's problems. I have serious <br />reservations about such an approach. The Social Security problem <br />was so severe as to nearly dictate that a compromise be arrived <br />at. Water project financing has no such national urgency--it <br />could just be studied to death with no results at all. <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />3/28/83 <br />