Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~~ <br /> <br />,.~ <br /> <br />(:) <br />~I ~ <br />N <br /> <br />$' <br />e:~ <br />'.'eel <br />;:;~ <br /> <br />(~ <br /> <br />~~ <br />,{-i:i <br /> <br />1i?~ <br />~~ <br /> <br />~ <br />[t-~j <br /> <br />~~ <br />~~ <br /> <br />~ <br />;~:~ <br /> <br />;;.>Y.i/ <br />&~:.1 <br />:i~~ <br /> <br />!"'-:1 <br /> <br />b~ <br /> <br />r;~1 <br />.~~~ <br /> <br /> <br />Legislative History of P.L. 93-320 <br /> <br />As soon as the Minute was officially signed, the Departments of Interior and State began' to draft <br />implementing legislation. Because of internal differences within the agencies and the <br />involvement of an unusual number of individuals in the process, progress was slow, particularly <br />in Interior. It was further impeded by arguments between Interior and OMB over such issues <br />as how the desalting plant should be procured and who should have responsibility for its <br />construction. <br /> <br />OMB feared that the plant would set a precedent for Federally funded, public- works-style <br />solutions to water quality problems (as indeed its supporters in OSW hoped it would). It insisted <br />that the Secretary of State (acting through IBWC) rather than the Secretary of the Interior, <br />construct, operate, and, maintain the plant. Assignment of this responsibility to the State <br />Department was intended to make it clear that the desalting plant was a unique response to an <br />international problem. Within the Executive Branch, OMB fmally prevailed, although the <br />Congress later disagreed. P.L. 93-320 vested authority for Title I in the Secretary of the <br />Interior, who designated the Bureau of Reclamation as the construction agency. ' <br /> <br />Because of these delays, the Administration's bills were not sent to the Congress until February <br />7, 1974. Minute No. 242 called for passage of implementing legislation by July 1, 1974. <br />Concerned members in both Houses had already introduced their own bills, drafted with the <br />assistance of the Committee of Fourteen (and the Lower Colorado Region of the Bureau of <br />Reclamation, which provided a drafting service): H.R. 12165 was introduced by Rep. Harold <br />T. (Bizz) Johnson of California on January 21, and S. 2940, by SenatOrs Paul Fannin of Arizona <br />and Alan Bible of Nevada on February I. ' <br /> <br />These Congressional bills were the basis of hearings and mark-up; the Administration bills were <br />largely ignored. The House held three days of hearings on March 4, 5; and 8. The Senate <br />hearings on April 26 lasted one day. . <br /> <br />During the hearings, there was relatively little debate over Minute No. 242 or the basic elements <br />of the solution. Considering that the Minute waS more of an amendment to the 1944 treaty than <br />an interpretation of its terms, the Senate might have insisted on ratifying it, but no such <br />suggestion appears on the record. The states, their Congressional representatives, and agency <br />witnesses soft-peddled their concerns and disagreements. The premise behind the Minute and <br />the workability of the technical measures that were to implement the agreement were never <br />really examined. <br /> <br />The states did raise several questions never answered by Administration witnesses, <br />though-questions that may come back to haunt the Federal government when the desalting plant <br />finally comes on line: <br /> <br />· Why is the Federal government committing over $100 million to solve a water <br />quality problem at the border, while ignoring projected increases in salinity above <br />Imperial Dam? Why has it not taken a basin-wide approach? <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />",;"" <br />