Subcommittee on Water, 1984

A LOOK

AT

LEGISLATlotl IN

1984

HHAT TO ANTICIPATE

IN

1985

RUSSELL R. BROl-IN

1,1 _.,..' ' ..._. •• • __..._/~IV r¥7"

• I -

-WHEN THE 9dTH CoNGRESS ADJOURNED, MOST CoNGREss WATCHERS, THE

PRESS, A~D WAtER RESOURCE PUBLICATIONS CITED THE FAILURE OF THE

CoN-GRESS TO ENACT SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION. THE EVIDENCE MOST FREQUENTLY CITED WAS THE DEMISE IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE SESSION OF THE OMNIBUS CORPS OF ENGINEERS1

AUTHORIZATION BILLS, As ALL OF US KNOW, BOTH THE SENATE AND HoUSE VERSIONS WERE EXPENSIVE -- COSTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS; AND CONTROVERSIAL -- ADDRESSING COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS AND THE PERCEIVED LACK OF A NATIONAL HATER POLICY, IN

ADDITION, THE ACTION BY THE CONGRESS IN STRIKING ALL WATER RELATED FUNDING -- NEW AUTHORIZATIONS -- APPROPRIATIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS -- EVEN THE REPROGRAMMING OF EXISTING FUNDS FOR WATER RESOURCE PURPOSES -- FROM THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION IS ALSO CITED AS INDICATIVE

OF FAILURE,

IF THIS AUDIENCE READ AND BELIEVED THIS POPULAR VERSION OF WATER

RESOURCE ACTIVITIES IN THE 98TH CONGRESS, YOU COULD ONLY COI1E AWAY

WITH A FEELING OF FUTULITY AND FRUSTRATION, ON THE OTHER HANDJ IF YOU SU3SCRIBE TO CERTAIN BUDGETARY THEORIES OF "PORKBARRELL" PROJECTS AND NO-GROVITH. ENV I RONI"oENT ALI Sl1 -- YOU r/OULD BE ELATED I~ITH YOUR Y I CTORY,

... ...

.

.

HoWEVER, THIS REFLECTS A PRE-OCCUPATION WITH THE PROGRAHS OF

THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND IGNORES THE PROGRAMS OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE UNITY DEMONSTRATED BY THE WESTERN STATES IN

SUPPORTING WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THE FAILURE OF THE

CORPS' BILL, IN THE LONG RUN, MAY BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE LESSONS THAT MAY BE LEARNED,

---- - -

---·-·-·---··-To THE COifiRARY, THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD OF THE 98TH (O:IGRESS lS ll~ri'<ESS I VE, THE SEt:ATE (OHM I TTEE OU Er~::RGY AriD 1-lATURAL RESOURCES Aim TH~ Cor:sP.ESS R~.t.FF JFW.ED THE TRJ-DITIC::t-L r·:~ltiSTAYS OF nEST£?.H 1-iATER

o::v::LO?::EI\T J.W) J.T THE SA!',E TJI·:E RECOSI:IZ.ED THAT TH:ES HAVE CEAt:GED.

THE LIST OF El~hCTED LEGISLATIO!l IS LENGTHY BUT

1

AM PRETTY SURE YOU

·...

-

.

-2-THESE PROJECTS OR PROGRAt1S WERE ENACTED EITHER INDIVIDUALLY

OR AS AMENDMENTS TO OTHER BILLS -- ALL BECAME PUBLIC LAW:

1.

HoovER DAM POWERPLANT EXPANSION, ARIZONA, NEVADA 2, BELLE FoURCHE PROJECT REAUTHORIZATION, SOUTH DAKOTA 3, CENTRAL PLATTE FEASIBILITY STUDY, NEBRASKA

4,

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1978 SAFETY OF DAMS AcT,

---RECLAMATION STATES

5,.

COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL AcT AMENDMENTS, THE SEVEN CoLORADO RIVER BASIN STATES

6,

YELLOWTAIL AFTERBAY HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY, NoNTANA

7, YAKIMA PROJECT COST SHARING AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PP.OGRAM, HASHINGTON

3, FRENCHMAN/CAMBRIDGE CONTRACT AMENDMENTS, NEBRASKA

9~ GROUNDWATER RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION AcT, RECLAMATION STATES

10

.

ELEPHANT BUTTE COST ACCOUNTING, NEW MEXICO

11,

lAw

ENFORCEMENT ON RECLAMATION PROJECTS, RECLAMATION

STATES

12. EKLUTNA HATER SWAP AGREEMENT, ALASKA

LET US TAKE A MOMENT TO VERY BREIFLY EXAMINE SOME OF -THE

MAJOR BILLS OR POLICY STATEMENT THAT WERE MADE BY THE CONGRESS DURING

CONSIDERATION OF THESE BILLS :

Pusu

c L.t<.v:

98-LJ!)q,

.tY.Erm:·1ENTS TO THE P.~cU-.!-'.J..Ti o;:

S;..f

E TY oF D.c.Hs ACT OF 1978, AUTH~RJZES THE APPROPRIATIO:l OF AN ADDITIONAL

5650

MILLION FOR SAFETY \·:O?.K AT THE BuREAU OF RECLf.,l·t~TIO!{ DAf·:s IH THE I~ESTEnN

STATES, PUi>LI C LJ\1~ 98-404 SETTLES A FOUR YEAR CO!n?.OVERSY OVER

COST-SHARJ;:G P.EG~iRE:·:EtirS FOR DAI1 SAF::TY RE?AJRS.

As

HOST OF YOU \~ILL

REQURED THAT ALL DAM SAFETY COSTS 3~ ALLOCATED TO PROJECT PURPOSE~ ~~J

BE REPAID BASCIALLY IN ACCORDA~lCE I~ITH EXlSTli~G R~?AY!-iENT REQUIREV!:IH GOVERN 11\G ?.cCLAI-'oAT I 01\ PROJ !:CTS AND ALSO h. PO:..! CY SUP?O?.TED BY THE

:.

..

.

-3-IN

THE 98TH Co~GRESS, THE HoUSE REVE~SED ITS POSITION, BUT ONLY AFTER A BITTE~ FLOOR FIGHT AND TIGHT VOTE OF

194

TO

192

AND SENT THE

SEr:ATE A BILL I·IITHOUT COST-SHARING REQUIREI·iEI\TS, LJ\RGELY AT THE

INSISTENCE OF SENATOR f'lETZENBAUM, COST SHARWG REQUIREI'IENTS WERE

AHENDED BACK INTO THE BILL BY THE SE!{ATE: HOI·:EVER, A STRONG, UNIFIED

POSITION ON THE PART OF HESTERN SENATORS AND THE Aot-IINISTRATION 11ANAGED

TO KEEP THE COST SHARING REQUIREMENT AT A REASON/-BLE LEVEL.

As FAR AS

1

AM CONCERNED, THE

DAM

SAFETY BILL WAS A REAL vic;TORY

FOR \~ESTERN I·:ATER INTERESTS,

ANOTHER VICTORY WAS ENACTMENT OF

p, l.

·

98-381!

THE HoOVER BILL,

J

THIS WAS NOT SO 1-!UCH AN ENDORSEl'IENT OF \'lATER RESOURCE DEVELOP11ENT AS IT WAS A REAFfiRMATION BY THE CONGRESS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF COST BASED

PR I C l!lG OF FEDERALLY GEl{ ERA TED HYDROELECTRIC POI'IER,

~.

\\

AT FIRST, THE BATTLE Q\'Efl HOOVER PBHER \•lAS CHARACTER I ZED AS

. . .

JUST ANOTHER WESTERN "PORK BARREL" PROJECT ~/HEREBY ~/ESTERN WATER . F.O.•...l.

AND POWER INTERESTS ENJOYED ANOTHER FREE RIDE AT THE~TAXPAYERS.

e

...

cor ,..,. •• _.. ~'"" "'-'"~ .~ ... ···- "~ ~->.tJ...l s •e •• -t" ... '-.

EXPENSE,/\ GIVEAWAY OF FEDERAL RESOURCES,

J

AM SURE ALL OF YOU

ARE FAMILIAR WITH ARTICLES OR EDITORIALS WHICH APPEARED IN BUSINESS \IEEK, THE NEW YoRK TIMES, THE HALL STREET JoURNAL, SACREMENTO BEE

AND SO ON WHICH WERE EITHER CRITICAL OF OR PROTRAYED THE SALE OF

HooVER POWER AS A SUBSIDY TO A SELECT FEW AND A LOSS OF REVENUE TO TRE fEDERAL TREASURY, ~c:~--- - -·-- - ;

--

---PERHAPS THE CHALLENGE TO COST BASED PRICING CAN BEST BE EXPRESSED WlTH A QUOTATION FROM AN ARTICLE APPEAR!f;G IN THE f1ARCH

30,

1984

EDITION OF THE \/ALL STREET JOURNAL,

",,,THE PROPONENTS OF A RENEWED IIOOVER GIVEAWAY ARGUE THAT COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING HOOVER DAM WILL

SOON HAVE BEEN TOTALLY RECOVERD BY THE UNITED STATES1 SO WHY SHOULD HASHINGTON PROFIT FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF JH IS FAC I L1 TY?" AND THE AUTHOR POSED THE QUEST I ON

--11"HELL1 riHY NOT?" .

~

th~·~~

IJ4

~

~~~

A

SIMPLE QUESTION1 BUT AS IS SO OFTEN THE CASE 1 SIMPLE QUESTIONS

-4-THE ISSUE OF PRICING FEDERAL POWER HAS BROUGHT TOGETHER A STRANGE I~ I XED BAG OF ADVOCATES FOR 11ARKETI NG PRICING, r',ANY

TRA-DITIONAL SUPPORTERS OF AT LEAST THE PUBLIC PO~IER 110VEMENT HAVE SUDDENLY CHOKED ON THE QUESTION OF MARKET PRICING,

AuCTIONING OFF FEDERALLY GENERATED POWER TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER

...

IS CHARACTERIZED AS PRO•TAXPAYER, PRO-COMPETITION, AND PRO-ENVIRONMENT.

THE SUPPORTERS OF SUCH A"tONCEPT IN THE 93TH (OIIGRESS INCL~DED, THE

NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION, THE ENVIRormENTAL DEFENSE FuND. NATIONAL AuDUBON SociETY, NATIONAL YIILDLIFE FEDERATION, ENVIRONHENTAL PoucY

..

INSTITUTE. SIERRA CLUB. N1ERICAN RIVERS CONSERVATION COUNCIL. FRIENDS

I

oF THE EARTH, AND THE UTILITY CoN.SUMER ~CTION NE~K. A READING oF THE HouSE AND SENATE DEBATE ON THE HOOVER BILL EVOKES UNUSUAL COALITION OF

"

ENVIRONI·\ENTAL LIBERALS AND FISCAL CONSERVATIVES, ADVOCATING HIGHEST

BIDDER SALE OF FEDERAL POI</ER. COUPLED WITH THE NO GROWTH ENVIRON~lENTAl

PRESCRIPTION OF 11

USE LESS AND PAY HORE.--JT'S -GOOD FOR YOU" IS THE

DRIVING FORCE TO ADDRESS THE MASSIVE DEFICIT SPENDING BY THE FEDERAL

GOVERN~lENT,

INITIALLY, THE IIOOVER BILL WAS CHARACTERIZED AS A 1-/ESTERN

ISSUE, BUT BY THE TIME THE .LEG(SLATION REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE

SENATE, RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL POWER IN .OVE'R 30 OTHER STATES WO"KE UP

TO THE FACT THAT MARKET PRICING FOR HooVER WAS PRECEDENTIAL. TO

THE PRICING OF THEIR OWN RESOURCES.

As FAR AS

l

KNOW SUCH A PRICING POLICY WOULD BE UNIQUE AND THE

HOOVER POWER WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONLY POWER SOLD OUTS I DE OF EITHER

STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY GOVERNING THE SALES PRICE OF

ELECTRICAL POWER, THERE WOULD BE NO CONTROL BUT THAT OF THE MARKET

SOVEREIGN, ABOVE THE LAWS AND REGULATORY BODIES WHICH HAVE EXERTED

CONSTRAINT OVER THE PRICING OF ELECTRICITY FOR MOST OF THIS CENTURY.

-5-THERE HAVE.ALREADY. BEEN INROADS INTO THE HISTORIC POLICY OF COST- ~ BASED FEDERAL POWER. SINCE THE EARLY YEARS OF THE FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROGRAM, FEDERAL POWER REVENUES HAVE BEEN USED TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXCEEDED THE ABILITY 'OF THE FARMER TO PAY, THIS IS A COST \'IHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL COST OF

PRODUCING THE EbE.CTRICAL ENERGY BUT RATE PAYERS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO

·. :.

· ASSIST IN RESOURCE DEVELOPHENT AND HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RELATIONSHIP BEHIEEN I~ATER RESOURCE DEVELOPI·iENT AND THE PRODUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER, IN MANY INSTANCES, THE GREAT POWER PRODUCING FEriERAL PROJEC~S OF TODAY 1·/0ULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE INITJATION

.

.

. .

. . . . ..

OF THESE PROJECTS AS PRIMARILY IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENTS, ~ .. FURTHER E-ROSION OF COST-BASED PRICING OCCURED WITH PASSAGE OF THE COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL AcT AND-THE CONCURRENCE OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN STATES IN THE USE OF HYDROPOWER REVENUES TO PAY FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF SALINITY coNTROL MEASUREs.

A.6 ...

~~\·t,"" \.IJQ~ r-..10u•c. ~e\c~t.J

P" ..

rotc.

J ._~ .... ~~"

tA

-f"-L o•i~·~"" t""urt "' ~~~.,.;.... t."\'••"t .

THE ~10ST RECENT ATTEMPT TO TAG NON-WATER RELATED DEVELOPMENT

COSTS TO THE PRICE OF FEDERAL POWER WAS AN ATTEHPT TO PAY FOR THE COST OF A NEW BRIDGE OVER THE COLORADO RIVER NEAR HooVER DAt1 UTIL.J ZING

POWER REVENUES --

J

MIGHT ADD, THIS WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ~DOVER BILL AND WAS REJECTED BY THE CONGRESS,

Two BILLS IN THE 98TH CONGRESS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE INT

ER-DEPENDENCE OF WATER AND POWER IN THE WEST. THE FIRST BILL AUTHORIZED THE REHABILITATION OF THE BELLE fOURCHE IRRIGATION PROJECT IN SOUTH DAKOTA. THE PROJECT HAD BEEN BUIL..T BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IN THE EARLY 1900's, HAD NO HYDROELECTRICAL COMPONENT, AND COSTS WERE THE

SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE riATER USERS. LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED j ... ~.Cf1't

,.,.

"~~""'

..

""'

.

TO AUTHORIZE REHABILITATION OF THE PROJECT, HOWEVER, THE COSTS OF .

(I

THE REHABILITATION WERE CLEARLY BEYOND THE ABILITY OF THE WATER USERS TO PAY, THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WAS REAUTHORIZED AS A UNIT OF THE PICK

SLOAN f.lJSSOURI RIVER BASIN PROGRAM AND t1ADE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE

FROI-1 HYDRO POWER REVENUES. THE BELLE fOURCHE LEGISLATIOH PASSED THE

-6-THE SECOND BILL AUTHORIZED THE USE OF PICK SLOAN POWER REVENUES TO PAY IRRIGATIOI~ COSTS BEYOim THEI"IATER USERS ;..BILITY TO PAY ON THE FREHCHHAN UNIT IN ;·lEBRASKA. THIS MEASURE, TOO, HAS BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW,

THE CRITICAL ELEI'IENT IN BOTH BILLS 1NAS THE CONTINUED WI LL!t~GNESS

-ON THE PART OF THE POWER CONSUMER TO ASSIST IN PAYING THE COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE. IT WOULD IWT BE IIICORRECT TO STATE THAT WITHOUT SUCH SUPPORT ON THE PART OF THE POI·/ER COHI''tUN lTV --PASSAGE OF EITHER BILL WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT--IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE,

WE HAVE SEEN AN INTERESTING REVERSAL OF THE TRADITIONAL ROLES OF THE WATER AND PO\\'ER COH11UNI Tl ES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, HHERE AT. ONE Tli'\L PO\\'ER DEVELOP11ENT WAS INC I DENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCT I ON OF I RR I GAT! ON PROJECTS; NOW, IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE

ASS I STANCE OF POWER REVENEUES Aim THE SUPPORT OF. THE POWER COI1MUN!TY, NEW WATER PROJECTS OF THE-~EXT DECADE WILL BE EVEN MORE DEPENDENT UPON THE WILLINGNESS OF THE POWER C0:1HUNITY TO CONTINUE SUPPORT--· _{. .}

1

HOPE SOMEONE IN THE WATER RESOURCES COMMUNITY IS. LI ~TENING •• ,

AND EVEN IF THERE ARE NO NEW PROJECTS, EXISTING PROJECTS WILL

FIND THEMSELVES IN THE POSITION OF THE BELLE FoURCHE PROJECT, f'iASSIVE REHAB! L1 TAT I ON AND BETTERMENT PROGRAI1S \'II LL NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN AS OLDER PROJECTS WERE OUT. THE RESULTS WILL BE THREEFOLD; FIRST MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEMS HAY ALLOW GREATER UTILIZATION OF THE WATER RESOURCE Atm EXPANSION OF BENEFIT OUTS IDE OF PROJECT BOUNDAR! ES; SECONDJ A

MORE EFFICENT PROJECT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT PROJECT PARTICIPANTS, AND

THIRD, THE WATER USERS WILL NEED TO LOOK TO POWER

FINANCE SUCH EFFORTS.

REVENUES TO HELP ~

...

.,~

r

~...,

~,..

PERHAPS IT MAY APPEAR ATTRACTIVE TO ~ WATER

.to ... !r

e•

•

,

..

f,.,...~.., ... - !1/1. ,. ~ USERS TO HAVE (\

fEDERAL POWER AUCTIONED OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER; CERTAINLY, THIS COULD PROVIDE ··ADDITIONAL REVENUES FOR WATER RESOURCE DEVELOP11ENT, BUT

I

A/1 NOT SURE WHETHER THE WATER RESOURCE COI",f1UNITY WOULD HAVE THE POLITICAL CLOUT TO WITHSTAND THE DEMANDS THAT THESE REVENUES BE USED

TO FURTHER OTHER EFFORTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN OTHER PARTS OF

&,..-.. ~

THE COUNTRY--OR EVEN TO RETIRE THE rlATIOilAL DEBT./\~ 'I'IATER USERS HUST

-7-REMEMBER THAT 1·1ANY OF THEM BENEFIT FROM PROJECT POWER DELIVERED

AT VERY MODEST RATES, WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF ~ARKET PRICING OF

IRRI_~ATION PUI-iPING PO\'lER? THIS IS SOI·iETHING THE \·lATER COHf-iUNITY MUST

KEEP IN t·11ND, Ar~D Fli{ALLY, 1"F POI~ER REVENUES ARE SIPHOl~ED OFF TO

OTHER USES IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT REVtNUES \·IOULO EVER AGAIN BE !·lADE AVAI!.ABl:.E FOR THE ·REHABILITAriON THAT INEVITABLY

...__

l•iUST TAKE PLACE? THE RECLAl'lAT I ON FAR~1ER. OF THE \'/ESTERN S:'fATES ARE ~lORE DEPENDENT NOW UPON THE POWER COMMUNITY THAN EVER BEFORE AND THIS

DEPENDENCE WILL BE LARGER IN THE FUTURE, ·THE AGRICULTURAL COMMLJN,i.TY

MUST COME TO GRIPS WITH THIS DEPENDENCE - - FOR CERTAINLY THOSE WHO

OPPOSE WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS RECOGNIZE IT AS A KEY

-

A cJ..

PG I'S ,... ... \"\"" "t .. t'C~~ ELENE NT IN PREVENTING FURTHER GROWTH, ~ -, ] ..

"'1'

ti>-&. t6ob .. K W4t.f rr':}•-tll .., .... 1~ rtclly n•il ~ .... c.J:(,•.., SI. ... T·

A

REAL MILESTONE WAS ENACTMENT OF P~l. 98-569~ WHICH AMENDED AND

UPDATED THE COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL AcT OF

1974

,

THIS

is

IMPORTANT LEGISLATION FOR THE WATER USERS OF THE LO~/ER BASIN WHO

SUFFER FROM DISSOLVED SALTS IN COLORADO RIVER WATER AND OF EVEN

GREATER IMPORTANCE FOR THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER BASIN

RE-SOURCES WHOSE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE IMPEDED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH

DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON DOWNSTREAM SALINITY,

I

~HO COULD BE AGAINST CLEhH WATER, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER

QUALJTY AND UPPER BASltl DEVELOPl'lENT \'lAS NOT MISSED BY THOSE \'IHO OPPOSE DEVELOPV1ENT OF ANY KIND, IN ADDITION, THERE \~ERE THE PERPETUAL !10TION

!·iACHINES OF r!SC!-.!... R~SEAWT \•:HO Fn~::> J..NY AND AU ... l·;r:s7::~;~ 1\ATER BILLS

TO BE OSJECTIC;:!.~.sL:: .:..;;::; ·.-:;{0 ~:OC.lD::D AT IHE LAST l·:i:!UTE T~AT THEt::E HAD TO

BE HIGHER LEVELS OF Rc i !·i3U~ShE!..E COSTS •

THE CoNGREss ALSO E::J..CTED

P.L.

98-L!34 I·IHICH F'ROVID~: ::-:R ;.. cc:·.r:·;.L-~.:s.·. FROGRAI-1 OF RESEARCH AND DEf·',Qf~STRATION PROJECTS. FOR GROUt:D~·;ATER RECHARG::

TH_c. ~ Co"G"ESS _{•• n ,..._}' I _...,c.~_v - -·_~.·,_c--D _,.It:. pI _{• ~•} 0J

8-434

I'HlCH \: F'"C"'~-:"\ -..1·~: -·--, • .. ,..~

cr·--

... 1""-.

--

c.-.:.

-

•.

-

::.. ••

.

F?.OGRAI-1 OF RESEARCH Mm Di:~\OI~STRATION PROJECTS. FOR GROUr:::;;·!ATER RECHAKf:.

-3-f..o_r_ TOGETH~R A VERY SUCCESSFUL Aim S I GIH F I Cf..!lT l·iATER CONGRESS,

BuT THERE l'lERE ALSO l·lEASURES THAT DID IWT HAKE IT THROUGH THE (or:GRESSIONAL GAUNTLET AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE AS WELL.

THERE \'/ERE THE CORPS 01-\N I BUS BILLS

J

FIRST 11ENT I OHED, THERE WAS

--AN AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SANTA I'IARGARITA. PROJECT IN CALIFORNIA VIHICH PASSED THE SENATE BUT WAS HELD UP IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL OPPOSITION, THERE WAS LEGISLATION TO RAISE APPROPRIATIONS CEILINGS

.

FOR THE S~'tALL RECLA/'lATION PROJECTS ACT WHICH I'>'AS THE SUBJECT OF INTENSE NEGOTIATION BETWEEN PROPONENTS AND ENVJRONi1ENTAL OPPONENTS IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE 98TH CONGRESS BUT FAILING RESOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENCES, NEITHER THE SENATE NOR THE HoUSE CONSIDERED A BILL, AND FINALLY, A BILL ~IHICH ~IOULD HAVE EXPAIWED THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SAN LUIS UNIT OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT TO INCLUDE PLEASANT VALLEY IRRir.6TION

DISTRICT WHICH FAILED IN THE HoUSE BY A VOTE OF

402

TO 19. WHICH IS,

I

THINK, A MODERN DAY RECORD FOR FAILURE OF A BILL UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.

AND THERE WAS, OF COURSE, THE ELIMINATION OF ALL WATER RELATED ITEMS FROM THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION,

ON BALANCE, THE WESTERN STATES FAIRED WELL IN THE 98TH CONGRESS AND THE EASTERN STATES DID NOT,

I

THINK THE MAIN REASON WAS THAT WESTERN

INTERESTS CONTINUED THE TRADITIONAL "ONE PIECE AT A TIME" LEGISLATIVE

STRATEGY THAT HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST _• e:i P S,

EASTERN INTERESTS RETAINED AN "OMNIBUS BILL" STRATEGY WHICH HAS NOT REALLY BEEN SUCCESSFUL FOR OVER A DECADE,

ANOTHER REASON FOR WESTERN SUCCESS WAS THAT THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAS AN ESTABLISHED POLICY ON COST-SHARING AND

I

WOULD QUOTE FROM THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON S.

1739

-

THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AcT OF

1933:

-9-uTHE CoMMITTEE .•• HAS AN ESTABLISHED POLICY OF EXAMINING BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT AUTHORIZATION ON A PROJECT-BY-PROJECT BASIS,

THE CoMMITTEE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT ESTABLISHMENT

OF ARBITRARY ACROSS-THE-BOARD REQUIREMENTS FOR

~CONTRIBUTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE EITHER PRUDENT OR DESIREABLE AND INTENDS TO CRAFT EACH PROJECT AUTHORIZATION TO CONFORti WITH THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

THAT DICTATE THE VIABILITY OF A GIVEN PROJECT,0

I SHOULD PO I NT OUT THAT THIS \~AS THE COMI1ITTEE' S POLICY PRIOR TO THE PRESIDNET'S LETTER 0~ JANUARY

24

TO

SENATOR lAXALT IN 1·/HICH HE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF COST SHARING, IN ANY CASE, THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD OF THE COMMITTEE REFLECTS THAT POLICY.

AND A THIRD ELEMENT, HAS BEEN THE RECOGNITION ON THE PART OF }HE \•/EST THAT COST-SHt.RING HAS AL\~AYS BEEN PART OF THE RECLA/1ATION PROGRAt1 -- AND ALSO A WILLINGNESS TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN TIHES OF FEDERAL DEFICIT SPENDING, NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES, WHEN ABLE, SHOULD CONTRIBUTE RESOURCES DURING CONWTRUCTION,

f·\AYBE THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE HUGE CORPS OF ENGINEERS 011NIBUS BILLS SHOULD TAKE A PAGE FRO~I THE RECORD OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMHJ TTEE,

To TRY M!D PREDICT THE ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA OF A NEW CONGRESS IS HAZARDOUS AT BEST,

IT

IS ALWAYS SAFE HO\~EVER, TO LOOK AT LEGISLATIVE LEFTOVERS ~/HI CH ARE Ll KEL Y TO BE REINTRODUCED, OF PARTICULAR INTEREST WOULD BE THE FOLL011II:G l·i=.;.SURES:

fIRST iN THE AREJ.. OF \·lATER RESOURCE D5.Vt:LCPi-:~~lT ARE THE PROPOSA!...S

TO AUTHOP.IZE THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAHATION OF THE

LAKE A:mc.s-\·!J..Gr~ER REcL,;;.;,;TJON PROJECT IN SoUTH D.:.KOTA J..ND THE CENTRAL

SOUTH DAKOTA ~lATER Su?PL Y SvsTEf·l, UOTH PROJeCTS ~IOULD EE AUTHOR I ZED

AS UfllTS OF THE PICK-SLOAH f•1JSSOURI EASIN Pr:os~Afoi,

.

.

-10-ALSO, THERE MAY BE LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE REPLACEMENT OF

THE f1INIDOKA PROJECT POWERPLANT IN IDAHO. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS

PROJECT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SENATE VERSION OF THE HOOVER BILL.BUT

WAS DROPPED BY THE HOUSE. TilE f·hNIDOKA PROJECT I-lAY PROVE TO ESTABLISH

IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS FOR COST-SHARING REQUIREI1ENTS AND INTEREST RATES.

THERE \'/ILL ALSO BE REINTRCDUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO INCREASE THE

APPROPRIATIOtJS CEILING FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAV.ATION'S S~:ALL LOAN

PROGRAM, IN THE NEW CONGRESS, ANY PROGRAM WHICH ALLO\'IS ZERO INTEREST

LOANS WILL FACE EXTRAORDINARY OPPOSITION, IN ADDITION, ANY AUTHORIZATION

~ND THIS APPLIES TO OTHER IRRIGATION PROJECT ~UTHORIZATIONS AS WELL AS

or pe rl. •P f A.f>l' • "'(> ri.r.•C.u .,, .. "'Y'~ .1 f~dZ::r

THE LOAN PROGRAM -- I~HICH PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR OR ENCOURAGES THE

PRODUCTION OF SURPLUS CROPS WILL BE IN TROUBLE.

fiNALLY, THERE ~:AY BE INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE YELLOWTAIL AFTERBAY POWERPLANT, THIS PROJECT, TOO, 'f/A:

IIKLUDED IN THE SENATE VERSION OF THE HOOVER BILL, BUT \·iAS DROPPED IN THE

HousE. LAsT YEAR, THE BuREAU \~As AUTHORIZED TO urmERTAKE A FEASIBILITY

STUDY OF THE PROJECT AND THE REPORT IS DUE LATER THIS YEAR, IF THE

PROJECT_~OOKS FAVORABLE, THERE LIKELY WILL BE AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION

INTRODUCED,

i~EW LEGISLATIVE iNITIATIVES MAY INCLUDE SOME KIND OF OMNIBUS

CALIFORNIA BILL, AUTHORIZATION, IF NECESSARY, OF ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN

SIX PROPOSAL FOR THE PHOENIX AREA IN ARIZONA, AND NECESSARY

AUTHOR-IZATION OR NEW AUTHORITY WHICH MAY BE NEEDED AS A RESULT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GARRISON STUDY COMMISSION,

IN AND OF THEMSELVES, THESE BILLS ARE OF INTEREST TO BOTH

THE \'lATER AND POWER RESOURCES COMMUNITIES, BuT THEY WILL ALSO SERVE

QUESTIONS TO WHICH THE WATER RESOURCES COMMUNITY MUST BE PREPARED

TO RESPOND, SOME OF THE CHALLENGES OFFERED TO PROJECT SPONSORS

CAN BE TRACED BACK 10 THE ORIGINS OF THE FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROGRAM,

You

WILL BE CALLED UPON TO JUSTIFY YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE

FEDERAL SUPPORT; NAMELY NO INTEREST CHARGED ON RECLAMATION COST

• •

-11-OTHER CHALLENGES ARE HORE CUR~ENTi PRODUCTION OF SURPLUS CROPS ON FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT LANDSi AVAILABILITY OF CHEAP PROJECT

PUMPING POWER, AND OF COURSE, ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, FINALLY, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EXISTING PROJECTS OR WHOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED, MARKET PRICING OF PROJECT WATER, ACCELERATED REPAYMENT OF EXISTING DEBT, MARKET RATES FOR ELECTRIC POWER, ~ MITIGATI,ON OF FISH AND

~!ILD

LI

FE

.)

~r;t.tt:-/la../js':S

~-f.~

~~

i

,;yf

t:-'-.c w~ G4 -.,. ~.:-•

+

o

rc-r ... y

FRANKLY, IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL THAT ATTEMPTS TO REORDER THE GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING PROJECTS WILL BE SUCCESSFUL -- CONGRESSIONAL

OPPOSITION WOULD BE MASSIVE. .

,A~ h.t,.,._.i.~ _., .,.\\ w~"" w~ "'~"-' c:l..wl.,.._,if 1~ ~ '-• t \-~.~ 1 Wv• .. ~ s.~ ~ ~~tff~~'"'"") ~ r....a~L ... ~ .. ~ .. ;s .

~':JE\'E~, FOR NEW PROJECTS, THE WATER RESOURCES COMMUNITY WILL HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH NEW IDEAS,

ntvJ

WHICH LEADS ME TO MY LAST AREA OF COI".MENT, THE CONGRESS ITSELF,

11

AND SPECIFICALLY THE SENATE C0~1MITIEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, FIRST TO BE RECOGNIZED IS THE SIMPLE FACT THAT A MINORITY OF THE

MEMBERS COl-lE FROM RECLAMATION STATES, IN LIGHT OF THIS, LAST CONGRESS' SUCCESS IN WESTERN WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION CAN ONLY

f""""''-1•/ ~' I"•J--"~ .. ~..,_:.., ,...,,~ .

BE SUBSCRIBED TO POLl Tl CAL CLOUT, BUT, WITH THE ~IOU NT I NG CONCERN FOR THE DEFICIT AND STRONG SUPPORT FOR BUDGET CUTS AND INCREASED REVENUES, lT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, LET

ALONE THE MOMENTUM IN THE WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS, THE PRESIDENT'S

.c ... ~ - ""'"~

~'SPENDING CUT PROPOSALS PROVIDE AN EXTRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE

""•~•r er~

WHO OPPOSE \'lATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND TO SUPPORT A

It

PRESIDENT WITH WHOM THEY 'r'IOULD OTHERWISE DIFFER ON VIRTUALLY ANY ISSUE,

You MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE f·1EHBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO OFFICE SINCE THE

GOLDEN AGE OF PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS AND REFLECT IN THEIR OUTLOOK

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC OF THE

70's

AND THE BUDGET DEFICITS OF

THE

80's,

THE WATER AND POWER CO~~UNITIES, IF THEY WANT MORE, MUST