Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />5. Comparison of Section 502 of <br />P. L. 90-537 and Section 8 of S. 1004 <br /> <br />These provisions are the same with respect to <br /> <br />implementing the basic elements of the Seven-State Agreement. The <br /> <br />clarifying amendment substituting "money" for "aU expenditures", <br /> <br />and the change in the source of the money from which reimbursement <br /> <br />of the 1987 deficiency in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund <br /> <br />should be made are not considered changes of substance.W Further, <br /> <br />Section 8 of S. 1004 represents the view of the Senate Committee, <br /> <br />rather than the Seven-State Agreement implemented by H.R. 4671 and <br /> <br />P,L, 90-537 as above discussed. <br /> <br />E. Legislative History Proves That <br />Section 502 of p, L. 90-537 Imple- <br />mented the Seven-State Aqreement. <br /> <br />Statements of representatives of the Upper Division <br /> <br />and the Department of the Interior to the House of Representatives <br /> <br />Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation during its May 1966 <br /> <br />nearings on H.R 4671 indicates their understanding of Section 502 <br /> <br />a s follows: <br /> <br />1. Upper Division <br /> <br />The Honorable John A. Love, then and now Governor <br /> <br />.lQ/ Section 8 of S. 1004 provided that any deficiency in <br />reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund <br />remaining as of June 1, 1987 should be paid from the <br />Hoover power revenues after payout of the Boulder <br />Canyon Project in 1987. Section 502 of P. L. 90-537 <br />provided it should be paid from the development fund <br />provided therein. <br /> <br />-9- <br />