Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Uj12 <br /> <br />ADMINISTRATION. THE MISINTERPRETATION AND MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW <br />TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF <br />THE ADMINISTRATION. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I AM OFTEN AMUSED BY THE TACTICS EMPLOYED BY POLITICIANS AND <br />BUREAUCRATS TO SIDESTEP MAJOR PROBLEMS BROUGHT TO THEM BY THEIR <br />CONSTITUENTS....FIRST DECLARING THE NEED FOR A STUDY AND PUBLIC <br />HEARINGS, AND SECONDLY; FOLLOWING THE STUDY AND INITIATING A PLANNING <br />EFFORT: ALL OF WHICH IS INTENDED TO PUT OFF THE PROBLEM UNTIL IT <br />GOES AWAY OR AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION IS ADVANCED WHICH CAN BE ADOPTED <br />WITHOUT A LOSS OF CONSTITUENCY. THE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED A REVISION <br />OF WATER 'RESOURCES PLANNING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE. <br /> <br />WHILE I RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE <br />EVALUATION OF PROJECTS WHERE FEDERAL DOLLARS ARE TO BE USED, THE <br />BASIC CONSIDERATION MUST ALWAYS BE NEED. NEED FOR WATER SUPPLY, <br />FLOOD. CONTROL, RECREATION OR FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT AS DE- <br />TERMINED BY LOCAL AND REGIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. I DO NOT ADVOCATE SO <br />CALLED "PORT BARREL PROJECTS" BUT NEITHER DO I ACCEPT THE TENET THAT <br />THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE BUREAUCRACY SHOULD MAKE THE FINAL DETER- <br />MINATION ON A WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THROUGH "HIT LISTS" IN <br />OPPOSITION TO LOCAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT. <br /> <br />SINCE THE FIRST MAJOR PUBLIC WORKS.PROJECTSAIMED AT THE DEVELOP- <br />MENT AND CONTROL OF OUR WATER RESOURCES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS <br />ACTED AS THE"SOURCE OF FINANCING. IN MANY INSTANCES THE PROJECT COSTS <br />WERE PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND, IN OTHER MORE RECENT PROJECTS, <br />CERTAIN NON-VENDABLE COSTS SUCH AS FLOOD CONTRO~ STRUCTURAL MEASURES <br />WERE PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOV~RNMENT AND THE VENDABLE COSTS SUCH AS <br />WATER SUPPLY WERE TO BE REPAID BY THE PROJECT SPONSOR THROUGH USER <br />CHARGES. <br /> <br />LET ME STATE AT THE OUTSET THAT I FAVOR STRONG STATE ROLES IN THE <br />FINANCING OF MAJOR WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE FEDERAL <br />GOVERNMENT PROVIDING A BACK UP FINANCING CAPABILITY FOR EXTREMELY LARGE <br />PROJECTS OR FOR PROJECTS WITH INTERSTATE BENEFITS. I SEE NO NEED TO <br />PASS THE TAX DOLLAR THROUGH THE FEDERAL TREASURY ON EVERY PROJECT, SUB- <br />JECTING THE STATES AND LOCAL PEOPLE TO EVERMORE COMPLEX COST REALLOCA- <br />TION FORMULAS AND INCREASED FEDERAL CONTROL. <br /> <br />THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COST SHARING <br />FOR WATER PROJECTS WITH "HOLDS OUT THE FEDERAL CARROT" FOR STATE <br />PARTICIPATION. THIS IS A POLICY DESIGNED TO FURTHER CENTRALIZE THE <br />CONTROL OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN WASHINGTON AND IT SHOULD BE <br />OPPOSED BY ALL WHO BELIEVE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. <br /> <br />. IT IS A PARADOX TO FIND THE ADMINISTRATION ADVOCATING A STRONGER <br />STATE ROLE IN THE FINANCING OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS RE- <br />QUIRING A STRENGTHENING OF THE STATE'S CAPABILITIES TO PROVIDE MONEY <br />FOR THIS PURPOSE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE PRIMARY <br />MEANS IN MOST STATES FOR PROVIDING SUCH MONEY IS THROUGH ISSUANCE OF <br />TAX EXEMPT BONDS, HOWEVER, USE OF TAX EXEMPT BONDS BY STATE AND LOCAL <br />GOVERNMENTS IS UNDER CONTINUAL ATTACKSBY CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE FEDERAL <br /> <br />- 4 - <br />