Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1668656
label
1974/08/28 HR15155 Public Works for Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Act 1975
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1668656
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1974/08/28 HR15155 Public Works for Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Act 1975
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Atomic Energy Commission. (1946 - 1/19/1975)
Appropriations and expenditures
Energy policy
Legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1668656
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-08-31
month
8
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e016eaa1788c0f58
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 4, folder "1974/08/28 HR15155 Public Works
for Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Act" of
the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 4 of the White House Records Office Case Legislation Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
APPROVED AUG.28 1974
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
Issued 8/29
AUG 23 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for
8/29
Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy
Commission Appropriation Act, 1975 Sponsor -
Rep. Evins (D), Tennessee
Last Day for Action
August 28, 1974
GERALD
Purposes
Appropriates, for fiscal year 1975, a total of
$4,538,272,000 in budget authority for the activities of the
Corps of Engineers - Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Bonneville Power Administration, other power agencies
of the Department of the Interior, the Appalachian Regional
Development Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission,
and related independent agencies and commissions.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
:
Approve and propose
deferrals, option 3.
Affected agencies
--
Approve and propose
deferrals (Signing
statement attached,
option 3)
Discussion
Although the Public Works Appropriation Bill reduces appro-
priations by $20 M below the $4.56 B requested, outlays are
increased $80 M in 1975 and $130 M in 1976. In terms of
impact on inflation, this bill will increase government
expenditures now, add to the difficulty of developing a
balanced 76 budget, and build in increases for the future.
2
Critical changes are delineated in the following table and
discussed below.
Public Works - AEC Appropriation Bill
($ in millions)
Changes by Congress
1975
Outlay
Impact
Budget
Appropriation
1975
1976
AEC
1,804.4
-61.7 1/
-15.0
-6.0
Army Corps of
Engineers
1,616.2
+85.8
+58.1
+88.0
Interior
696.6
-50.9 2/
+29.0
+40.0
Reclamation (540.0)
(-49.3)
(+30.3)
Other (156.6)
(- 1.6)
(- 1.3)
GERALD FORD (TeRAR)
Other Independent
Offices
409.7
+ 5.4
+ 5.4
+ 8.0
Total
4,526.8
-21.4
+77.5
+130.0
Contract
Authority
+ 31.3
+ 1.5
+ 1.5
-
Grand Total
4,558.1
-19.9
+79.0
+130.0
1/
Appropriations reduction does not have dollar-for-dollar
outlay impacts.
2/ Reduction in appropriations associated with decision to
fund the Mexican Colorado River desalting plant incre-
mentally rather than fully fund it in the first year has
no effect on outlays, whereas the addition of appropria-
tions to other projects does have outlay impact.
A major part of the Atomic Energy Commission reduction is a
$30 million cut levied against the unobligated balances
actually carried over, which has no programmatic or outlay
effect. The remaining AEC reduction will require tighter
management and minor delays in nuclear weapons and construc-
tion programs but they will not cause significant program
slippages, and as such are acceptable.
3
The additions for the Army Corps of Engineers and Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation include +$84 M net for on-going con-
struction, increasing 1975 outlays by $69 M; +$30 M for new
starts in planning and construction, increasing 1975 outlays
by $13 M and 1976 outlays by $80 M.
The future effect is indicated by the number of new construc-
tion starts added (31 counting the mandated beginning of
the Eastern half of the Columbia Basin irrigation project)
and the total estimated Federal cost of those projects,
about $2.1 billion. The 34 planning starts added, if con-
structed, will cost $1.5 B. (See attachment A for details)
Though many of the added projects are meritorious and would
be desirable in a less stringent fiscal situation, some
are controversial and some are of low priority.
This bill does not pose an easy compromise between your
policy of budgetary restraint to combat inflation and your
policy of conciliation toward Congress.
Your publicly announced tasks of holding 1975 outlays below
$300 billion and of proposing a balanced 1976 budget, along
with your stated intent to use the veto where necessary to
achieve these goals make this bill a clear candidate for
disapproval. However, disapproval of a public works appro-
priation bill in an election year would generate strong
adverse reaction in Congress and threaten the success of
your conciliation efforts.
The issue is further clouded by two other factors - the
first is the relative uncertainty of successfully deferring
use of these appropriations under the new Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, and the second is the relative uncertainty
as to whether a veto during the coming recess constitutes
a pocket veto or whether an override attempt is in order,
in light of recent court decisions.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides two approaches
to avoiding use of appropriated funds, should you wish to
do so after signature of an appropriation bill.
4
Rescission - in which the President requests enactment
of a bill rescinding the appropriation,
but the funds must be spent if Congress
fails to act in 45 days.
Deferral
- in which the President reports to Congress
the withholding of authority to obligate
appropriated funds for a specific period
of time, but can be overturned by resolu-
tion of either House, which action mandates
expenditure.
Rescission is highly unlikely to be successful in this case.
Deferral possibilities have been discussed with key Congress-
men and Senators in order to test the likelihood of success-
fully deferring all outlay impacts of this bill to FY 1976.
This would require a full year's delay in all new construc-
tion starts and deferral until 1976 of the use of added
funds for on-going construction. Though Senators McClellan,
Stennis and Hatfield are sympathetic to the concept and
might support full deferral, they along with Congressman
Rhodes, Mahon and Evins suggested a compromise which they
would all support. The compromise would begin all new
starts, but defer one-half the funding for new starts and
defer one-half of the congressional additions to ongoing
projects. This approach implies acceptance now of the
$2.1 B future construction commitment, but cuts down the
outlay commitment $30 M in 1975 and $30 M in 1976. There-
fore, this approach would increase outlays over budget by
$50 million in 1975 and $100 M in 1976.
Options
(1) Veto the Bill and work for one which is more acceptable.
(2) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for one-half of
funding and new starts and one-half of add-ons for
new construction (the Congress suggested a compromise).
(3) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for all new starts
and all congressional add-ons, bring the outlay number
down to budgeted levels.
A vetoed Public Works Appropriation Bill would normally be
overridden and there is a chance that this one would be
overridden if the opportunity were immediately presented.
5
However, if the override option exists, the attempt could
not be made until after recess, and by then the pressure
from constituents to do something about inflation might
affect congressional attitudes sufficiently that a more
modest bill would be worked out.
The question of whether the pocket veto option exists
arises from the decision in the case of Kennedy and Sampson.
Justice and the OMB General Council have the issue under
consideration and will address it in a separate memorandum.
A choice between options 2 and 3 does not technically have
to be made at this time. The 30 days allowed for appor-
tionment may be used to work out the details of the specific
items deferred, and a signing statement can establish the
principle while leaving latitude for manuever. However,
you should know that while the Congress prefers partial
deferral, the agency heads concerned recommend full
deferral especially of all the added new construction starts.
Recommendation:
While we have seriously considered a veto of this appropriations
bill, all the factors considered lead us finally to a recommen-
dation of signature with deferral, option 3. In that context
it seems important that this offers the first opportunity to
use the deferral system as a means of obtaining a budget objec-
tive that furthers the fight against inflation. It would be
our plan to work hard toward the acceptance of the full deferral
package which we have already informally proposed to Congres-
sional leaders.
for
a
Roy L. Ash
Director
Attachments: A - List of new starts by project
B - List of changes in ongoing projects
C - Draft signing statement
D - Draft veto statement
ATTACHMENT A
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
CONSTRUCTION
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers:
Indian Bend Wash, Ar
1,100
13,400
Chester, N. Fork Feather, Ca.
900
2,900
Cucamonga Creek, Ca.
600
57,800
Panama City Harbor, Fla.
430
2,905
Lahaina Harbor (small boat) Ha.
300
1,440
Columbia Drainage Levee 3, I11
100
1,720
Big Pine Lake, Ind
500
31,200
Marion, Ka.
100
3,440
Perry Lake, Ka. (roads)
400
3,000
Yazoo River, Belzoni Bridge, Miss
500
7,710
Frazer Wolf Point Bank Stab., Mont.
375
400
New York Harbor Drift, N.Y
330
23,800
Richard B. Russell, Ga.
2,125
178,000
Chillicothe, Oh.
300
5,400
Mill Creek, Oh.
500
57,649
Beaver Drainage Dist. Ore.
300
1,670
Portugues & Bucana, P.R.
1,500
92,900
Cooper River, Charlestown Harbor, S.C.
1,000
74,000
Sacred Heart, Yankton, S.D.
125
250
Aubrey Lake, Texas
3,000
110,000
Lower Monumental, Wa.
450
37,800
Coal River Basin, W. Va.
197
6,900
Stream Bank Erosion Demonstration, MRT
2,000
25,000
Sub-total
17,132
739,314
Bureau of Reclamation
Columbia Basin -- Bacon Siphon & Tunnel
(1,055)
1,000,000
San Felipe, Ca
500
107,400
Dallas Creek, Co
400
63,700
Narrows Unit, Co
500
87,800
Savery Pot Hook, Co., Wyo.
300
47,000
Brantley, N.M.
1,600
50,100
Jensen Unit, Utah
300
17,100
LaBranza, Ca. (Loan)
300
2,300
Central Nebraska (Loan)
1,500
10,000
Sub-total
5,400
1,385,400
Total unbudgeted Construction and
Loan starts
22,532
2,124,714
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
2
PLANNING
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers
Potomac Estuary Pilot Water Treatment, D.C.
350
5,800
Kaskaskia Inland Drainage, I11.
75
5,800
Little Calumet River, I11.
40
300
Big Blue Lake, Ind.
100
39,000
Indian Lake, Kansas
50
37,600
Tomahawk Lake, Kansas
150
40,100
Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas
20
500
Camp Ground Lake, Ky
130
53,400
Dam #3, Big Sandy River, Ky W. Va.
25
330
Charles River, Mass
100
8,300
Ottawa Harbor, Mich., Ohio
10
1,400
Red Run Drain, Lower Clinton River, Mich
50
174,000
Rochester, Minn.
40
37,200
Libby Reregulating Dam, Mont
75
23,000
Dunkirk Harbor, N.Y
45
800
Ellicott Creek, N.Y.
135
4,300
Roaring River Lake, N.C.
100
14,100
Gallipolis L&D Ohio, W. Va.
200
119,000
Days Creek Dam, Ore.
300
131,000
Pt. Marion Lock, Pa.
75
29,800
Lower Rio Grande Basin, Tex.
150
46,000
Buena Vista, Va.
250
12,600
Verona Lake, Va.
200
44,300
Ediz Hook, Wash.
250
5,700
Prairie Du Chein, Wisc.
30
2,400
Mud Lake Pumping Plant
30
900
Bushley Bayou, La.
200
15,500
Miss. River - Vicksburg - Yazoo
50
9,800
Greenville Harbor, Miss.
200
16,000
Miss. River - Natchez Area
50
13,300
Sub-total
3,480
892,230
Resumption of Interrupted Planning
Dickey Lincoln Maine
800
356,000
Big South Fork National Recreation Area, Ky.
250
32,000
Tug Fork Valley Flood Control, Ky.
150
50,000
Bradley Lake, Alaska
62
152,000
Sub-total
1,262
590,230
Total Corps of Engineers
4,742
1,482,230
Bureau of Reclamation
Sub-total: NONE
Total Bureau of Reclamation: NONE
Total unbudgeted planning
4,742
1,482,230
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
3
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
RECAPITULATION (Unbudgeted new starts)
Authority
Federal Cost
Construction
20,732
2,112,414
Loan
1,800
12,300
Planning (new)
3,480
892,230
Planning (resumption)
1,262
590,230
Grand Total
27,274
3,607,174
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION ONCOING PROJECTS - CHANGES
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Tenn-Tom, Ala
30,000
+ 7,900
Snettisham, Alaska
1,400
+
700
McClellan-Kerr Nav. Lock & Dam, Ark
4,000
+ 100
Buchanan Dam - Eastman Lake, Cal
3,700
+ 400
Dry Creek, Cal
13,500
-10,500
Hidden Lake, Ca
2,400
+ 300
Marysville Lake, Cal. *
350
+ 600
Sacramento River Chico to Red, Cal
255
+
245
San Diego Harbor, Cal
500
+
600
Santo Paula Creek Channel, Ca
2,600
- 1,000
Four River Basins, Fla
400
+ 2,600
West Point Lake, Ga. & Ala
6,300
+ 2,500
Kaneohe-Kailua Area, Ha
300
+
180
Lock & Dam 26, I11. & Mo
27,900
- 5,900
Miss. River Regulating Works, Ill
3,200
+ 1,300
Springer Lake, Ill
600
- 300
Big Walnut Lake, Ind. *
225
+
75
Patoka Lake, Ind
3,600
+ 1,000
Uniontown Locks, Ind
7,850
+ 2,000
Hillsdale Lake, Ka
1,500
+
500
Paintsville Lake, Ky
1,000
+
500
Red River Lake, Ky
200
+
300
Taylorsville Lake, Ky
900
+
500
Yatesville Lake, Ky
900
+
600
Atchafalaya, La
500
+
800
Overton - Red River, La
1,100
+
500
Red River Waterway, La
12,000
+ 1,000
Edgartown Harbor, Mass. *
40
+
10
Great Lakes Connecting Channel, Mich
1,200
- 1,000
Clarence Cannon Dam, Mo
21,700
+ 1,000
Harry S. Truman, Mo
30,500
+12,500
Maramec Park Lake, Mo
3,600
+ 1,000
Miss. River Ag. Area 8, Mo *
100
+
100
Libby-Koocanusa, Mont
21,500
+
500
Papillon, Neb
6,000
+ 2,000
Cochiti, N.M.
7,400
+
750
East River Spur, N.Y
1,500
+ 1,350
N.Y. llarbor Anchorages, N.Y.
4,000
+ 1,000
B. Everett Jordon, N.C
1,850
+ 1,650
Falls Lake, N.C.
3,000
+ 1,250
2
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Reddies River, N.C.*
140
+
20
Burlington Dam, N.D.*
250
+ 150
Missouri River, Gar. -0ahe, N.D
300
+ 300
Copan Lake, Ok
1,800
+ 2,200
Skiatook Lake, Ok
3,000
+ 1,250
Bonneville L&D, Ore
11,100
+ 400
Scapoose Drainage, Ore
100
+ 180
Raystown Lake, Pa
2,200
+ 300
Tioga-Hammond, Pa
18,000
+ 2,400
Tocks Island, Pa
6,040
- 4,540
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, S.D.'
1,589
- 1,012
Aquilla, Texas*
400
+ 196
Cooper Lake, Texas
2,000
+ 200
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas
3,500
+ 1,000
Lake View Lake, Texas
1,000
+ 1,500
Millican Lake, Texas*
370
+ 130
San Gabriel River, Texas
9,000
+ 1,000
Burnsville Lake, W. Va
9,100
+ 500
R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va
17,600
+ 1,000
La Farge Lake, Wisc
3,000
+ 1,000
East Rockaway Part I, N.Y
000
+ 4,000
Fire Island to Montauk, N.Y
000
+ 2,800
Applegate Lake (land), Ore
000
+ 1,000
Presque Isle, Pa
000
+ 750
Four Mile Run, Va
000
+ 2,000
Miss. River Levees
32,000
+ 1,850
Channel Improvement
35,000
+ 3,000
St. Francis Basin
10,000
+ 6,500
Tensas Basin
2,200
+ 2,000
Yazoo Basin
8,500
+ 7,340
Cache Basin
300
+ 1,000
West Tenn Tribs
300
+ 1,400
Atchafalaya
3,000
+ 1,000
Recreation at completed projects
25,000
+ 1,000
General reduction, delays, carryover
-58,294
-20,997
Total, Corps of Engineers
378,065
52,427
*Projects in planning
3
Budget
Congressional
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction
Changes
Central Valley Project, Ca.
43,640
+15,750
Fryingpan-Arkansas, Co.
27,730
+ 600
Teton Basin, Idaho
11,675
+ 500
Grand Coulee Dam, 3rd Powerplant, Wash.
58,055
+ 2,400
Garrison Diversion Unit, N.D.
10,555
+ 1,000
Oahe Unit, S.D.
4,535
+ 800
Upper Colorado River
29,900
+ 369
Central Arizona
17,500
+ 3,221
Navajo Participation Agreement
31,300
+ 1,000
Loan Program
14,000
+ 1,150
Other
104,027
+ 4,780
Total, Reclamation
352,917
31,570
Total, Corps of Engineers; Bureau of
Reclamation
730,982
83,997
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ENROLLED BILL
SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works
for Water and Power Development and Atomic
Energy Commission Appropriation Act, 1975
Name
Approval
Date
Mike Duval
Yes
NSC/S
Yes
Phil Buchen
Yes
Bill Timmons
Yes
Ken Cole
Comments:
day 30 - 30
a : :
Room Date Maconber
252
I
1
howe
Date
20B1ECI:
iie
ЕИКОГГЕД BITT
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
537
Date: August 26, 1974
Time:
12:00 Noon
Mike Duval
FOR ACTION: Norm Ross
cc (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Glen Schleede
Jerry Jones
Phil Buchen
Dave Gergen
Bill Timmons
NSC/S
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: Tuesday, August 27, 1974
Time:
2:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for Water and
Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission
Appropriation Act, 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Kathy Tindle - West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
K. R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
Nendrike
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 23 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for
Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy
Commission Appropriation Act, 1975 Sponsor -
Rep. Evins (D), Tennessee
Last Day for Action
August 28, 1974
Purposes
Appropriates, for fiscal year 1975, a total of
$4,538,272,000 in budget authority for the activities of the
Corps of Engineers - Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Bonneville Power Administration, other power agencies
of the Department of the Interior, the Appalachian Regional
Development Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission,
and related independent agencies and commissions.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
--
Approve and propose
deferrals, option 3.
Affected agencies
:
Approve and propose
deferrals (Signing
statement attached,
option 3)
Discussion
Although the Public Works Appropriation Bill reduces appro-
priations by $20 M below the $4.56 B requested, outlays are
increased $80 M in 1975 and $130 M in 1976. In terms of
impact on inflation, this bill will increase government
expenditures now, add to the difficulty of developing a
balanced 76 budget, and build in increases for the future.
2
Critical changes are delineated in the following table and
discussed below.
Public Works - AEC Appropriation Bill
($ in millions)
Changes by Congress
1975
Outlay
Impact
Budget
Appropriation
1975
1976
AEC
1,804.4
-61.7 1/
-15.0
-6.0
Army Corps of
Engineers
1,616.2
+85.8
+58.1
+88.0
Interior
696.6
-50.9 2/
+29.0
+40.0
Reclamation (540.0)
(-49.3)
(+30.3)
Other (156.6)
(- 1.6)
(- 1.3)
Other Independent
Offices
409.7
+ 5.4
+ 5.4
+ 8.0
Total
4,526.8
-21.4
+77.5
+130.0
Contract
Authority
+
31.3
+ 1.5
+ 1.5
-
Grand Total
4,558.1
-19.9
+79.0
+130.0
1/
Appropriations reduction does not have dollar-for-dollar
outlay impacts.
2/
Reduction in appropriations associated with decision to
fund the Mexican Colorado River desalting plant incre-
mentally rather than fully fund it in the first year has
no effect on outlays, whereas the addition of appropria-
tions to other projects does have outlay impact.
A major part of the Atomic Energy Commission reduction is a
$30 million cut levied against the unobligated balances
actually carried over, which has no programmatic or outlay
effect. The remaining AEC reduction will require tighter
management and minor delays in nuclear weapons and construc-
tion programs but they will not cause significant program
slippages, and as such are acceptable.
3
The additions for the Army Corps of Engineers and Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation include +$84 M net for on-going con-
struction, increasing 1975 outlays by $69 M; +$30 M for new
starts in planning and construction, increasing 1975 outlays
by $13 M and 1976 outlays by $80 M.
The future effect is indicated by the number of new construc-
tion starts added (31 counting the mandated beginning of
the Eastern half of the Columbia Basin irrigation project)
and the total estimated Federal cost of those projects,
about $2.1 billion. The 34 planning starts added, if con-
structed, will cost $1.5 B. (See attachment A for details)
Though many of the added projects are meritorious and would
be desirable in a less stringent fiscal situation, some
are controversial and some are of low priority.
This bill does not pose an easy compromise between your
policy of budgetary restraint to combat inflation and your
policy of conciliation toward Congress.
Your publicly announced tasks of holding 1975 outlays below
$300 billion and of proposing a balanced 1976 budget, along
with your stated intent to use the veto where necessary to
achieve these goals make this bill a clear candidate for
disapproval. However, disapproval of a public works appro-
priation bill in an election year would generate strong
adverse reaction in Congress and threaten the success of
your conciliation efforts.
The issue is further clouded by two other factors - the
first is the relative uncertainty of successfully deferring
use of these appropriations under the new Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, and the second is the relative uncertainty
as to whether a veto during the coming recess constitutes
a pocket veto or whether an override attempt is in order,
in light of recent court decisions.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides two approaches
to avoiding use of appropriated funds, should you wish to
do so after signature of an appropriation bill.
4
Rescission - in which the President requests enactment
of a bill rescinding the appropriation,
but the funds must be spent if Congress
fails to act in 45 days.
Deferral
- in which the President reports to Congress
the withholding of authority to obligate
appropriated funds for a specific period
of time, but can be overturned by resolu-
tion of either House, which action mandates
expenditure.
Rescission is highly unlikely to be successful in this case.
Deferral possibilities have been discussed with key Congress-
men and Senators in order to test the likelihood of success-
fully deferring all outlay impacts of this bill to FY 1976.
This would require a full year's delay in all new construc-
tion starts and deferral until 1976 of the use of added
funds for on-going construction. Though Senators McClellan,
Stennis and Hatfield are sympathetic to the concept and
might support full deferral, they along with Congressman
Rhodes, Mahon and Evins suggested a compromise which they
would all support. The compromise would begin all new
starts, but defer one-half the funding for new starts and
defer one-half of the congressional additions to ongoing
projects. This approach implies acceptance now of the
$2.1 B future construction commitment, but cuts down the
outlay commitment $30 M in 1975 and $30 M in 1976. There-
fore, this approach would increase outlays over budget by
$50 million in 1975 and $100 M in 1976.
Options
(1) Veto the Bill and work for one which is more acceptable.
(2) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for one-half of
funding and new starts and one-half of add-ons for
new construction (the Congress suggested a compromise).
(3) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for all new starts
and all congressional add-ons, bring the outlay number
down to budgeted levels.
A vetoed Public Works Appropriation Bill would normally be
overridden and there is a chance that this one would be
overridden if the opportunity were immediately presented.
5
However, if the override option exists, the attempt could
not be made until after recess, and by then the pressure
from constituents to do something about inflation might
affect congressional attitudes sufficiently that a more
modest bill would be worked out.
The question of whether the pocket veto option exists
arises from the decision in the case of Kennedy and Sampson.
Justice and the OMB General Council have the issue under
consideration and will address it in a separate memorandum.
A choice between options 2 and 3 does not technically have
to be made at this time. The 30 days allowed for appor-
tionment may be used to work out the details of the specific
items deferred, and a signing statement can establish the
principle while leaving latitude for manuever. However,
you should know that while the Congress prefers partial
deferral, the agency heads concerned recommend full
deferral especially of all the added new construction starts.
Recommendation:
While we have seriously considered a veto of this appropriations
bill, all the factors considered lead us finally to a recommen-
dation of signature with deferral, option 3. In that context
it seems important that this offers the first opportunity to
use the deferral system as a means of obtaining a budget objec-
tive that furthers the fight against inflation. It would be
our plan to work hard toward the acceptance of the full deferral
package which we have already informally proposed to Congres-
sional leaders.
for
a
Roy L. Ash
Director
Attachments: A - List of new starts by project
B - List of changes in ongoing projects
C - Draft signing statement
D - Draft veto statement
ATTACHMENT A
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
CONSTRUCTION
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers:
Indian Bend Wash, Ar.
1,100
13,400
Chester, N. Fork Feather, Ca
900
2,900
Cucamonga Creek, Ca.
600
57,800
Panama City Harbor, Fla.
430
2,905
Lahaina Harbor (small boat) Ha.
300
1,440
Columbia Drainage Levee 3, Ill
100
1,720
Big Pine Lake, Ind.
500
31,200
Marion, Ka.
100
3,440
Perry Lake, Ka. (roads)
400
3,000
Yazoo River, Belzoni Bridge, Miss
500
7,710
Frazer Wolf Point Bank Stab., Mont.
375
400
New York Harbor Drift, N.Y.
330
23,800
Richard B. Russell, Ga.
2,125
178,000
Chillicothe, Oh.
300
5,400
Mill Creek, Oh.
500
57,649
Beaver Drainage Dist. Ore.
300
1,670
Portugues & Bucana, P.R.
1,500
92,900
Cooper River, Charlestown Harbor, S.C.
1,000
74,000
Sacred Heart, Yankton, S.D.
125
250
Aubrey Lake, Texas
3,000
110,000
Lower Monumental, Wa.
450
37,800
Coal River Basin, W. Va.
197
6,900
Stream Bank Erosion Demonstration, MRT
2,000
25,000
Sub-total
17,132
739,314
Bureau of Reclamation
Columbia Basin -- Bacon Siphon & Tunnel
(1,055)
1,000,000
San Felipe, Ca.
500
107,400
Dallas Creek, Co
400
63,700
Narrows Unit, Co
500
87,800
Savery Pot Hook, Co.,Wyo.
300
47,000
Brantley, N.M.
1,600
50,100
Jensen Unit, Utah
300
17,100
LaBranza, Ca. (Loan)
300
2,300
Central Nebraska (Loan)
1,500
10,000
Sub-total
5,400
1,385,400
Total unbudgeted Construction and
Loan starts
22,532
2,124,714
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
2
PLANNING
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers
Potomac Estuary Pilot Water Treatment, D.C.
350
5,800
Kaskaskia Inland Drainage, I11.
75
5,800
Little Calumet River, I11.
40
300
Big Blue Lake, Ind.
100
39,000
Indian Lake, Kansas
50
37,600
Tomahawk Lake, Kansas
150
40,100
Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas
20
500
Camp Ground Lake, Ky.
130
53,400
Dam #3, Big Sandy River, Ky. W. Va.
25
330
Charles River, Mass.
100
8,300
Ottawa Harbor, Mich., Ohio
10
1,400
Red Run Drain, Lower Clinton River, Mich
50
174,000
Rochester, Minn.
40
37,200
Libby Reregulating Dam, Mont.
75
23,000
Dunkirk Harbor, N.Y.
45
800
Ellicott Creek, N.Y.
135
4,300
Roaring River Lake, N.C.
100
14,100
Gallipolis L&D Ohio, W. Va.
200
119,000
Days Creek Dam, Ore.
300
131,000
Pt. Marion Lock, Pa.
75
29,800
Lower Rio Grande Basin, Tex.
150
46,000
Buena Vista, Va.
250
12,600
Verona Lake, Va.
200
44,300
Ediz Hook, Wash.
250
5,700
Prairie Du Chein, Wisc
30
2,400
Mud Lake Pumping Plant
30
900
Bushley Bayou, La.
200
15,500
Miss. River - Vicksburg - Yazoo
50
9,800
Greenville Harbor, Miss.
200
16,000
Miss. River - Natchez Area
50
13,300
Sub-total
3,480
892,230
Resumption of Interrupted Planning
Dickey Lincoln Maine
800
356,000
Big South Fork National Recreation Area, Ky.
250
32,000
Tug Fork Valley Flood Control, Ky
150
50,000
Bradley Lake, Alaska
62
152,000
Sub-total
1,262
590,230
Total Corps of Engineers
4,742
1,482,230
Bureau of Reclamation
Sub-total: NONE
Total Bureau of Reclamation: NONE
Total unbudgeted planning
4,742
1,482,230
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
3
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
RECAPITULATION (Unbudgeted new starts)
Authority
Federal Cost
Construction
20,732
2,112,414
Loan
1,800
12,300
Planning (new)
3,480
892,230
Planning (resumption)
1,262
590,230
Grand Total
27,274
3,607,174
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION ONCOING PROJECTS - CHANGES
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Tenn-Tom, Ala
30,000
+ 7,900
Snettisham, Alaska
1,400
+
700
McClellan-Kerr Nav. Lock & Dam, Ark
4,000
+ 100
Buchanan Dam - Eastman Lake, Cal
3,700
+
400
Dry Creek, Cal
13,500
-10,500
Hidden Lake, Ca
2,400
+
300
Marysville Lake, Cal. *
350
+ 600
Sacramento River Chico to Red, Cal
255
+
245
San Diego Harbor, Cal
500
+
600
Santo Paula Creek Channel, Ca
2,600
- 1,000
Four River Basins, Fla
400
+ 2,600
West Point Lake, Ga. & Ala
6,300
+ 2,500
Kaneohe-Kailua Area, Ha
300
+
180
Lock & Dam 26, I11. & Mo
27,900
- 5,900
Miss. River Regulating Works, Ill
3,200
+ 1,300
Springer Lake, Ill
600
-
300
Big Walnut Lake, Ind. *
225
+
75
Patoka Lake, Ind
3,600
+ 1,000
Uniontown Locks, Ind
7,850
+ 2,000
Hillsdale Lake, Ka
1,500
+
500
Paintsville Lake, Ky
1,000
+ 500
Red River Lake, Ky
200
+
300
Taylorsville Lake, Ky
900
+
500
Yatesville Lake, Ky
900
+
600
Atchafalaya, La
500
+
800
Overton - Red River, La
1,100
+ 500
Red River Waterway, La
12,000
+ 1,000
Edgartown Harbor, Mass. *
40
+
10
Great Lakes Connecting Channel, Mich
1,200
- 1,000
Clarence Cannon Dam, Mo
21,700
+ 1,000
Harry S. Truman, Mo
30,500
+12,500
Maramec Park Lake, Mo
3,600
+ 1,000
Miss. River Ag. Area #8, Mo.*
100
+ 100
Libby-Koocanusa, Mont
21,500
+
500
Papillon, Neb
6,000
+ 2,000
Cochiti, N.M.
7,400
+
750
East River Spur, N.Y
1,500
+ 1,350
N.Y. Harbor Anchorages, N.Y.
4,000
+ 1,000
B. Everett Jordon, N.C
1,850
+ 1,650
Falls Lake, N.C.
3,000
+ 1,250
2
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Reddies River, N.C.*
140
+
20
Burlington Dam, N.D.*
250
+ 150
Missouri River, Gar. -0ahe, N.D
300
+ 300
Copan Lake, Ok
1,800
+ 2,200
Skiatook Lake, Ok
3,000
+ 1,250
Bonneville L&D, Ore
11,100
+
400
Scapoose Drainage, Ore
100
+
180
Raystown Lake, Pa
2,200
+ 300
Tioga-Hammond, Pa
18,000
+ 2,400
Tocks Island, Pa
6,040
- 4,540
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, S.D
1,589
- 1,012
Aquilla, Texas*
400
+
196
Cooper Lake, Texas
2,000
+ 200
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas
3,500
+ 1,000
Lake View Lake, Texas
1,000
+ 1,500
Millican Lake, Texas*
370
+
130
San Gabriel River, Texas
9,000
+ 1,000
Burnsville Lake, W. Va
9,100
+ 500
R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va
17,600
+ 1,000
La Farge Lake, Wisc
3,000
+ 1,000
East Rockaway Part I, N.Y
000
+ 4,000
Fire Island to Montauk, N.Y
000
+ 2,800
Applegate Lake (land), Ore
000
+ 1,000
Presque Isle, Pa
000
+
750
Four Mile Run, Va
000
+ 2,000
Miss. River Levees
32,000
+ 1,850
Channel Improvement
35,000
+ 3,000
St. Francis Basin
10,000
+ 6,500
Tensas Basin
2,200
+ 2,000
Yazoo Basin
8,500
+ 7,340
Cache Basin
300
+ 1,000
West Tenn Tribs
300
+ 1,400
Atchafalaya
3,000
+ 1,000
Recreation at completed projects
25,000
+ 1,000
General reduction, delays, carryover
-58,294
-20,997
Total, Corps of Engineers
378,065
52,427
*Projects in planning
3
Budget
Congressional
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction
Changes
Central Valley Project, Ca.
43,640
+15,750
Fryingpan-Arkansas, Co.
27,730
+ 600
Teton Basin, Idaho
11,675
+ 500
Grand Coulee Dam, 3rd Powerplant, Wash.
58,055
+ 2,400
Garrison Diversion Unit, N.D.
10,555
+ 1,000
Oahe Unit, S.D.
4,535
+ 800
Upper Colorado River
29,900
+ 369
Central Arizona
17,500
+ 3,221
Navajo Participation Agreement
31,300
+ 1,000
Loan Program
14,000
+ 1,150
Other
104,027
+ 4,780
Total, Reclamation
352,917
31,570
Total, Corps of Engineers; Bureau of
Reclamation
730,982
83,997
Attachment C
Signing Statement - Approval
I take pleasure today in signing H,R. 15155, the
Public Works Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1975, This
bill is noteworthy in that it is the first to be passed in
anticipation of cooperation between the Executive and
Legislative branches in implementing the new Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
This appropriation bill contains funds for many worthy
projects and is the product of much hard work and deliberation.
At the same time, use of all the funds appropriated on the
schedule contemplated by the Congress would increase 1975
outlays by $80M and commit us to major outlay increases in
future fiscal years. Such increases intensify our number
one problem - inflation.
However, withholding approval would commit us to the
time consuming process of reformulating the Public Works
Appropriation Bill when all our resources should be focused
on more pressing matters before us.
Therefore, after discussions with congressional leaders,
I am signing this bill with the expectations that Congress
will work in cooperation with the Executive Branch to defer
for one full year the expenditure of that amount of appropriated
funds which would contribute excessively to inflationary
government spending.
Thus, we take one more step down the road of cooperation
to which I am totally committed. I hope that this spirit will
prevail as the many other issues present themselves which must
be settled if we are to stop the inflationary spiral.
THE WHITE HOUSE
RUSH
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
537
:
Date: August 26, 1974
Time:
12:00 Noon
FOR ACTION: Norm Ross
CC (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Glen Schleede
Jerry Jones
Phil Buchen
Bill Timmons
NSC/S
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: Tuesday, August 27, 1974
Time:
2:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for Water and
Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission
Appropriation Act, 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Kathy Tindle - West Wing
file
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
Warren K. Hendriks
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
RUSH
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
537
Date: August 26, 1974
Time:
12:00 Noon
FOR ACTION: Norm Ross
CC (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Glen Schleede
Jerry Jones
Phil Buchen
Dave Gergen
Bill Timmons
NSC/S
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: Tuesday, August 27, 1974
Time:
2:00 p. m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H. R. 15155 - Public Works for Water and
Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission
Appropriation Act, 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
OK
Make Dand 8/26
Please return to Kathy Tindle - West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 23 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for
Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy
Commission Appropriation Act, 1975 Sponsor -
Rep. Evins (D), Tennessee
Last Day for Action
August 28, 1974
Purposes
Appropriates, for fiscal year 1975, a total of
$4,538,272,000 in budget authority for the activities of the
Corps of Engineers - Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Bonneville Power Administration, other power agencies
of the Department of the Interior, the Appalachian Regional
Development Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission,
and related independent agencies and commissions.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
--
Approve and propose
deferrals, option 3.
Affected agencies
--
Approve and propose
deferrals (Signing
statement attached,
option 3)
Discussion
Although the Public Works Appropriation Bill reduces appro-
priations by $20 M below the $4.56 B requested, outlays are
increased $80 M in 1975 and $130 M in 1976. In terms of
impact on inflation, this bill will increase government
expenditures now, add to the difficulty of developing a
balanced 76 budget, and build in increases for the future.
2
Critical changes are delineated in the following table and
discussed below.
Public Works - AEC Appropriation Bill
($ in millions)
Changes by Congress
1975
Outlay
Impact
Budget
Appropriation
1975
1976
AEC
1,804.4
-61.7 1/
-15.0
-6.0
Army Corps of
Engineers
1,616.2
+85.8
+58.1
+88.0
Interior
696.6
-50.9 2/
+29.0
+40.0
Reclamation (540.0)
(-49.3)
(+30.3)
Other (156.6)
(- 1.6)
(- 1.3)
Other Independent
Offices
409.7
+ 5.4
+ 5.4
+ 8.0
Total
4,526.8
-21.4
+77.5
+130.0
Contract
Authority
+
31.3
+ 1.5
+ 1.5
I
Grand Total
4,558.1
-19.9
+79.0
+130.0
1/ Appropriations reduction does not have dollar-for-dollar
outlay impacts.
2/
Reduction in appropriations associated with decision to
fund the Mexican Colorado River desalting plant incre-
mentally rather than fully fund it in the first year has
no effect on outlays, whereas the addition of appropria-
tions to other projects does have outlay impact.
A major part of the Atomic Energy Commission reduction is a
$30 million cut levied against the unobligated balances
actually carried over, which has no programmatic or outlay
effect. The remaining AEC reduction will require tighter
management and minor delays in nuclear weapons and construc-
tion programs but they will not cause significant program
slippages, and as such are acceptable.
3
The additions for the Army Corps of Engineers and Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation include +$84 M net for on-going con-
struction, increasing 1975 outlays by $69 M; +$30 M for new
starts in planning and construction, increasing 1975 outlays
by $13 M and 1976 outlays by $80 M.
The future effect is indicated by the number of new construc-
tion starts added (31 counting the mandated beginning of
the Eastern half of the Columbia Basin irrigation project)
and the total estimated Federal cost of those projects,
about $2.1 billion. The 34 planning starts added, if con-
structed, will cost $1.5 B. (See attachment A for details)
Though many of the added projects are meritorious and would
be desirable in a less stringent fiscal situation, some
are controversial and some are of low priority.
This bill does not pose an easy compromise between your
policy of budgetary restraint to combat inflation and your
policy of conciliation toward Congress.
Your publicly announced tasks of holding 1975 outlays below
$300 billion and of proposing a balanced 1976 budget, along
with your stated intent to use the veto where necessary to
achieve these goals make this bill a clear candidate for
disapproval. However, disapproval of a public works appro-
priation bill in an election year would generate strong
adverse reaction in Congress and threaten the success of
your conciliation efforts.
The issue is further clouded by two other factors - the
first is the relative uncertainty of successfully deferring
use of these appropriations under the new Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, and the second is the relative uncertainty
as to whether a veto during the coming recess constitutes
a pocket veto or whether an override attempt is in order,
in light of recent court decisions.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides two approaches
to avoiding use of appropriated funds, should you wish to
do so after signature of an appropriation bill.
4
Rescission - in which the President requests enactment
of a bill rescinding the appropriation,
but the funds must be spent if Congress
fails to act in 45 days.
Deferral
- in which the President reports to Congress
the withholding of authority to obligate
appropriated funds for a specific period
of time, but can be overturned by resolu-
tion of either House, which action mandates
expenditure.
Rescission is highly unlikely to be successful in this case.
Deferral possibilities have been discussed with key Congress-
men and Senators in order to test the likelihood of success-
fully deferring all outlay impacts of this bill to FY 1976.
This would require a full year's delay in all new construc-
tion starts and deferral until 1976 of the use of added
funds for on-going construction. Though Senators McClellan,
Stennis and Hatfield are sympathetic to the concept and
might support full deferral, they along with Congressman
Rhodes, Mahon and Evins suggested a compromise which they
would all support. The compromise would begin all new
starts, but defer one-half the funding for new starts and
defer one-half of the congressional additions to ongoing
projects. This approach implies acceptance now of the
$2.1 B future construction commitment, but cuts down the
outlay commitment $30 M in 1975 and $30 M in 1976. There-
fore, this approach would increase outlays over budget by
$50 million in 1975 and $100 M in 1976.
Options
(1) Veto the Bill and work for one which is more acceptable.
(2) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for one-half of
funding and new starts and one-half of add-ons for
new construction (the Congress suggested a compromise).
(3) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for all new starts
and all congressional add-ons, bring the outlay number
down to budgeted levels.
A vetoed Public Works Appropriation Bill would normally be
overridden and there is a chance that this one would be
overridden if the opportunity were immediately presented.
5
However, if the override option exists, the attempt could
not be made until after recess, and by then the pressure
from constituents to do something about inflation might
affect congressional attitudes sufficiently that a more
modest bill would be worked out.
The question of whether the pocket veto option exists
arises from the decision in the case of Kennedy and Sampson.
Justice and the OMB General Council have the issue under
consideration and will address it in a separate memorandum.
A choice between options 2 and 3 does not technically have
to be made at this time. The 30 days allowed for appor-
tionment may be used to work out the details of the specific
items deferred, and a signing statement can establish the
principle while leaving latitude for manuever. However,
you should know that while the Congress prefers partial
deferral, the agency heads concerned recommend full
deferral especially of all the added new construction starts.
Recommendation:
While we have seriously considered a veto of this appropriations
bill, all the factors considered lead us finally to a recommen-
dation of signature with deferral, option 3. In that context
it seems important that this offers the first opportunity to
use the deferral system as a means of obtaining a budget objec-
tive that furthers the fight against inflation. It would be
our plan to work hard toward the acceptance of the full deferral
package which we have already informally proposed to Congres-
sional leaders.
for
a
Roy L. Ash
Director
Attachments: A - List of new starts by project
B - List of changes in ongoing projects
C - Draft signing statement
D - Draft veto statement
ATTACHMENT A
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
1975 Rudget
Total Estimated
CONSTRUCTION
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers:
Indian Bend Wash, Ar
1,100
13,400
Chester, N. Fork Feather, Ca
900
2,900
Cucamonga Creek, Ca.
600
57,800
Panama City Harbor, Fla
430
2,905
Lahaina Harbor (small boat) Ha
300
1,440
Columbia Drainage Levee 3, Ill
100
1,720
Big Pine Lake, Ind.
500
31,200
Marion, Ka
100
3,440
Perry Lake, Ka. (roads)
400
3,000
Yazoo River, Belzoni Bridge, Miss
500
7,710
Frazer Wolf Point Bank Stab., Mont.
375
400
New York Harbor Drift, N.Y.
330
23,800
Richard B. Russell, Ga.
2,125
178,000
Chillicothe, Oh.
300
5,400
Mill Creek, Oh.
500
57,649
Beaver Drainage Dist. Ore.
300
1,670
Portugues & Bucana, P.R.
1,500
92,900
Cooper River, Charlestown Harbor, S.C.
1,000
74,000
Sacred Heart, Yankton, S.D.
125
250
Aubrey Lake, Texas
3,000
110,000
Lower Monumental, Wa.
450
37,800
Coal River Basin, W. Va.
197
6,900
Stream Bank Erosion Demonstration, MRT
2,000
25,000
Sub-total
17,132
739,314
Bureau of Reclamation
Columbia Basin -- Bacon Siphon & Tunnel
(1,055)
1,000,000
San Felipe, Ca.
500
107,400
Dallas Creek, Co
400
63,700
Narrows Unit, Co
500
87,800
Savery Pot Hook, Co. Wyo.
300
47,000
Brantley, N.M.
1,600
50,100
Jensen Unit, Utah
300
17,100
LaBranza, Ca. (Loan)
300
2,300
Central Nebraska (Loan)
1,500
10,000
Sub-total
5,400
1,385,400
Total unbudgeted Construction and
Loan starts
22,532
2,124,714
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
2
PLANNING
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers
Potomac Estuary Pilot Water Treatment, D.C.
350
5,800
Kaskaskia Inland Drainage, I11.
75
5,800
Little Calumet River, I11.
40
300
Big Blue Lake, Ind.
100
39,000
Indian Lake, Kansas
50
37,600
Tomahawk Lake, Kansas
150
40,100
Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas
20
500
Camp Ground Lake, Ky.
130
53,400
Dam #3, Big Sandy River, Ky. W. Va.
25
330
Charles River, Mass.
100
8,300
Ottawa Harbor, Mich., Ohio
10
1,400
Red Run Drain, Lower Clinton River, Mich
50
174,000
Rochester, Minn.
40
37,200
Libby Reregulating Dam, Mont
75
23,000
Dunkirk Harbor, N.Y
45
800
Ellicott Creek, N.Y.
135
4,300
Roaring River Lake, N.C.
100
14,100
Gallipolis L&D Ohio, W. Va.
200
119,000
Days Creek Dam, Ore.
300
131,000
Pt. Marion Lock, Pa.
75
29,800
Lower Rio Grande Basin, Tex.
150
46,000
Buena Vista, Va.
250
12,600
Verona Lake, Va.
200
44,300
Ediz Hook, Wash.
250
5,700
Prairie Du Chein, Wisc.
30
2,400
Mud Lake Pumping Plant
30
900
Bushley Bayou, La
200
15,500
Miss. River - Vicksburg - Yazoo
50
9,800
Greenville Harbor, Miss.
200
16,000
Miss. River - Natchez Area
50
13,300
Sub-total
3,480
892,230
Resumption of Interrupted Planning
Dickey Lincoln Maine
800
356,000
Big South Fork National Recreation Area, Ky.
250
32,000
Tug Fork Valley Flood Control, Ky.
150
50,000
Bradley Lake, Alaska
62
152,000
Sub-total
1,262
590,230
Total Corps of Engineers
4,742
1,482,230
Bureau of Reclamation
Sub-total: NONE
Total Bureau of Reclamation: NONE
Total unbudgeted planning
4,742
1,482,230
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
3
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
RECAPITULATION (Unbudgeted new starts)
Authority
Federal Cost
Construction
20,732
2,112,414
Loan
1,800
12,300
Planning (new)
3,480
892,230
Planning (resumption)
1,262
590,230
Grand Total
27,274
3,607,174
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION ONCOING PROJECTS - CHANGES
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Tenn-Tom, Ala
30,000
+ 7,900
Snettisham, Alaska
-1,400
+
700
McCle11an-Kerr Nav. Lock & Dam, Ark
4,000
+
100
Buchanan Dam - Eastman Lake, Cal
3,700
+ 400
Dry Creek, Cal
13,500
-10,500
Hidden Lake, Ca
2,400
+ 300
Marysville Lake, Cal. *
350
+
600
Sacramento River Chico to Red, Cal
255
+
245
San Diego Harbor, Cal
500
+ 600
Santo Paula Creek Channel, Ca
2,600
- 1,000
Four River Basins, Fla
400
+ 2,600
West Point Lake, Ga. & Ala
6,300
+ 2,500
Kaneohe-Kailua Area, Ha
300
+
180
Lock & Dam 26, Ill. & Mo
27,900
- 5,900
Miss. River Regulating Works, Ill
3,200
+ 1,300
Springer Lake, Ill
600
- 300
Big Walnut Lake, Ind *
225
+
75
Patoka Lake, Ind
3,600
+ 1,000
Uniontown Locks, Ind
7,850
+ 2,000
Hillsdale Lake, Ka
1,500
+
500
Paintsville Lake, Ky
1,000
+
500
Red River Lake, Ky
200
+
300
Taylorsville Lake, Ky
900
+
500
Yatesville Lake, Ky
900
+ 600
Atchafalaya, La
500
+
800
Overton - Red River, La
1,100
+
500
Red River Waterway, La
12,000
+ 1,000
Edgartown Harbor, Mass. *
40
+
10
Great Lakes Connecting Channel, Mich
1,200
- 1,000
Clarence Cannon Dam, Mo
21,700
+ 1,000
Harry S. Truman, Mo
30,500
+12,500
Maramec Park Lake, Mo
3,600
+ 1,000
Miss. River Ag. Area 8, Mo
*
100
+
100
Libby-Koocanusa, Mont
21,500
+
500
Papillon, Neb
6,000
+ 2,000
Cochiti, N.M.
7,400
+
750
East River Spur, N.Y
1,500
+ 1,350
N.Y. Harbor Anchorages, N.Y.
4,000
+ 1,000
B. Everett Jordon, N.C
1,850
+ 1,650
Falls Lake, N.C.
3,000
+ 1,250
2
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Reddies River, N.C.*
140
+
20
Burlington Dam, N.D.*
250
+
150
Missouri River, Gar.-Oahe, N.D
300
+ 300
Copan Lake, Ok
1,800
+ -2,200
Skiatook Lake, Ok
3,000
+ 1,250
Bonneville L&D, Ore
11,100
+ 400
Scapoose Drainage, Ore
100
+
180
Raystown Lake, Pa
2,200
+
300
Tioga-Hammond, Pa
18,000
+ 2,400
Tocks Island, Pa
6,040
- 4,540
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, S.D.'
1,589
- 1,012
Aquilla, Texas*
400
+
196
Cooper Lake, Texas
2,000
+
200
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas
3,500
+ 1,000
Lake View Lake, Texas
1,000
+ 1,500
Millican Lake, Texas*
370
+
130
San Gabriel River, Texas
9,000
+ 1,000
Burnsville Lake, W. Va
9,100
+ 500
R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va
17,600
+ 1,000
La Farge Lake, Wisc
3,000
+ 1,000
East Rockaway Part I, N.Y
000
+ 4,000
Fire Island to Montauk, N.Y
000
+ 2,800
Applegate Lake (land), Ore
000
+ 1,000
Presque Isle, Pa
000
+ 750
Four Mile Run, Va
000
+ 2,000
Miss. River Levees
32,000
+ 1,850
Channel Improvement
35,000
+ 3,000
St. Francis Basin
10,000
+ 6,500
Tensas Basin
2,200
+ 2,000
Yazoo Basin
8,500
+ 7,340
Cache Basin
300
+ 1,000
West Tenn Tribs
300
+ 1,400
Atchafalaya
3,000
+ 1,000
Recreation at completed projects
25,000
+ 1,000
General reduction, delays, carryover
-58,294
-20,997
Total, Corps of Engineers
378,065
52,427
*Projects in planning
3
Budget
Congressional
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction
Changes
Central Valley Project, Ca.
43,640
+15,750
Fryingpan-Arkansas, Co.
27,730
+ 600
Teton Basin, Idaho
11,675
+ 500
Grand Coulee Dam, 3rd Powerplant, Wash.
58,055
+ 2,400
Garrison Diversion Unit, N.D.
10,555
+ 1,000
Oahe Unit, S.D.
4,535
+ 800
Upper Colorado River
29,900
+ 369
Central Arizona
17,500
+ 3,221
Navajo Participation Agreement
31,300
+ 1,000
Loan Program
14,000
+ 1,150
Other
104,027
+ 4,780
Total, Reclamation
352,917
31,570
Total, Corps of Engineers; Bureau of
Reclamation
730,982
83,997
Attachment C
Signing Statement - Approval
I take pleasure today in signing H,R. 15155, the
Public Works Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1975. This
bill is noteworthy in that it is the first to be passed in
anticipation of cooperation between the Executive and
Legislative branches in implementing the new Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
This appropriation bill contains funds for many worthy
projects and is the product of much hard work and deliberation.
At the same time, use of all the funds appropriated on the
schedule contemplated by the Congress would increase 1975
outlays by $80M and commit us to major outlay increases in
future fiscal years. Such increases intensify our number
one problem - inflation.
However, withholding approval would commit us to the
time consuming process of reformulating the Public Works
Appropriation Bill when all our resources should be focused
on more pressing matters before us.
Therefore, after discussions with congressional leaders,
I am signing this bill with the expectations that Congress
will work in cooperation with the Executive Branch to defer
for one full year the expenditure of that amount of appropriated
funds which would contribute excessively to inflationary
government spending.
Thus, we take one more step down the road of cooperation
to which I am totally committed. I hope that this spirit will
prevail as the many other issues present themselves which must
be settled if we are to stop the inflationary spiral.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 27, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
MR. WILLIAM WARREN E. TIMMONS HENDRIKS P.AM your
SUBJECT:
Action Memorandum - Log No. 537
Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works
for Water and Power Development and
Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation
Act, 1974
The Office of Legislative Affairs concurs in the attached
proposal and has no additional recommendations.
Attachment
GEBALD ABPURIT K.FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 27, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
MR. WILLIAM WARREN E. TIMMONS HENDRIKS P.AM Jorwas
SUBJECT:
Action Memorandum - Log No. 537
Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works
for Water and Power Development and
Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation
Act, 1974
The Office of Legislative Affairs concurs in the attached
proposal and has no additional recommendations.
Attachment
SEALTY FORD ESABLE
THE WHITE HOUSE
RUSH
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
537
Date:
August 26, 1974
Time:
12:00 Noon
FOR ACTION: Norm Ross
CC (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Glen Schleede
Jerry Jones
Phil Buchen
Bill Timmons
NSC/S
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Tuesday, August 27, 1974
Time:
2:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for Water and
Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission
Appropriation Act, 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Kathy Tindle - West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 23 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 15155 - Public Works for
Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy
Commission Appropriation Act, 1975 Sponsor -
Rep. Evins (D), Tennessee
Last Day for Action
August 28, 1974
Purposes
Appropriates, for fiscal year 1975, a total of
$4,538,272,000 in budget authority for the activities of the
Corps of Engineers - Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Bonneville Power Administration, other power agencies
of the Department of the Interior, the Appalachian Regional
Development Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission,
and related independent agencies and commissions.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
--
Approve and propose
deferrals, option 3.
Affected agencies
:
Approve and propose
deferrals (Signing
statement attached,
option 3)
Discussion
Although the Public Works Appropriation Bill reduces appro-
priations by $20 M below the $4.56 B requested, outlays are
increased $80 M in 1975 and $130 M in 1976. In terms of
impact on inflation, this bill will increase government
expenditures now, add to the difficulty of developing a
balanced 76 budget, and build in increases for the future.
2
Critical changes are delineated in the following table and
discussed below.
Public Works - AEC Appropriation Bill
($ in millions)
Changes by Congress
1975
Outlay
Impact
Budget
Appropriation
1975
1976
AEC
1,804.4
-61.7 /
-15.0
-6.0
Army Corps of
Engineers
1,616.2
+85.8
+58.1
+88.0
Interior
696.6
-50.9 2/
+29.0
+40.0
Reclamation (540.0)
(-49.3)
(+30.3)
Other (156.6)
(- 1.6)
(- 1.3)
Other Independent
Offices
409.7
+ 5.4
+ 5.4
+ 8.0
Total
4,526.8
-21.4
+77.5
+130.0
Contract
Authority
+
31.3
+ 1.5
+ 1.5
-
Grand Total
4,558.1
-19.9
+79.0
+130.0
1/ Appropriations reduction does not have dollar-for-dollar
outlay impacts.
2/ Reduction in appropriations associated with decision to
fund the Mexican Colorado River desalting plant incre-
mentally rather than fully fund it in the first year has
no effect on outlays, whereas the addition of appropria-
tions to other projects does have outlay impact.
A major part of the Atomic Energy Commission reduction is a
$30 million cut levied against the unobligated balances
actually carried over, which has no programmatic or outlay
effect. The remaining AEC reduction will require tighter
management and minor delays in nuclear weapons and construc-
tion programs but they will not cause significant program
slippages, and as such are acceptable.
3
The additions for the Army Corps of Engineers and Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation include +$84 M net for on-going con-
struction, increasing 1975 outlays by $69 M; +$30 M for new
starts in planning and construction, increasing 1975 outlays
by $13 M and 1976 outlays by $80 M.
The future effect is indicated by the number of new construc-
tion starts added (31 counting the mandated beginning of
the Eastern half of the Columbia Basin irrigation project)
and the total estimated Federal cost of those projects,
about $2.1 billion. The 34 planning starts added, if con-
structed, will cost $1.5 B. (See attachment A for details)
Though many of the added projects are meritorious and would
be desirable in a less stringent fiscal situation, some
are controversial and some are of low priority.
This bill does not pose an easy compromise between your
policy of budgetary restraint to combat inflation and your
policy of conciliation toward Congress.
Your publicly announced tasks of holding 1975 outlays below
$300 billion and of proposing a balanced 1976 budget, along
with your stated intent to use the veto where necessary to
achieve these goals make this bill a clear candidate for
disapproval. However, disapproval of a public works appro-
priation bill in an election year would generate strong
adverse reaction in Congress and threaten the success of
your conciliation efforts.
The issue is further clouded by two other factors - the
first is the relative uncertainty of successfully deferring
use of these appropriations under the new Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, and the second is the relative uncertainty
as to whether a veto during the coming recess constitutes
a pocket veto or whether an override attempt is in order,
in light of recent court decisions.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides two approaches
to avoiding use of appropriated funds, should you wish to
do so after signature of an appropriation bill.
4
Rescission - in which the President requests enactment
of a bill rescinding the appropriation,
but the funds must be spent if Congress
fails to act in 45 days.
Deferral
- in which the President reports to Congress
the withholding of authority to obligate
appropriated funds for a specific period
of time, but can be overturned by resolu-
tion of either House, which action mandates
expenditure.
Rescission is highly unlikely to be successful in this case.
Deferral possibilities have been discussed with key Congress-
men and Senators in order to test the likelihood of success-
fully deferring all outlay impacts of this bill to FY 1976.
This would require a full year's delay in all new construc-
tion starts and deferral until 1976 of the use of added
funds for on-going construction. Though Senators McClellan,
Stennis and Hatfield are sympathetic to the concept and
might support full deferral, they along with Congressman
Rhodes, Mahon and Evins suggested a compromise which they
would all support. The compromise would begin all new
starts, but defer one-half the funding for new starts and
defer one-half of the congressional additions to ongoing
projects. This approach implies acceptance now of the
$2.1 B future construction commitment, but cuts down the
outlay commitment $30 M in 1975 and $30 M in 1976. There-
fore, this approach would increase outlays over budget by
$50 million in 1975 and $100 M in 1976.
Options
(1) Veto the Bill and work for one which is more acceptable.
(2) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for one-half of
funding and new starts and one-half of add-ons for
new construction (the Congress suggested a compromise).
(3) Sign the bill and send up deferrals for all new starts
and all congressional add-ons, bring the outlay number
down to budgeted levels.
A vetoed Public Works Appropriation Bill would normally be
overridden and there is a chance that this one would be
overridden if the opportunity were immediately presented.
5
However, if the override option exists, the attempt could
not be made until after recess, and by then the pressure
from constituents to do something about inflation might
affect congressional attitudes sufficiently that a more
modest bill would be worked out.
The question of whether the pocket veto option exists
arises from the decision in the case of Kennedy and Sampson.
Justice and the OMB General Council have the issue under
consideration and will address it in a separate memorandum.
A choice between options 2 and 3 does not technically have
to be made at this time. The 30 days allowed for appor-
tionment may be used to work out the details of the specific
items deferred, and a signing statement can establish the
princ ple while leaving latitude for manuever. However,
you should know that while the Congress prefers partial
deferral, the agency heads concerned recommend full
deferral especially of all the added new construction starts.
Recommendation:
While we have seriously considered a veto of this appropriations
bill, all the factors considered lead us finally to a recommen-
dation of signature with deferral, option 3. In that context
it seems important that this offers the first opportunity to
use the deferral system as a means of obtaining a budget objec-
tive that furthers the fight against inflation. It would be
our plan to work hard toward the acceptance of the full deferral
package which we have already informally proposed to Congres-
sional leaders.
for
a
Roy L. Ash
Director
Attachments: A - List of new starts by project
B - List of changes in ongoing projects
C - Draft signing statement
D - Draft veto statement
ATTACHMENT A
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
CONSTRUCTION
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers:
Indian Bend Wash, Ar.
1,100
13,400
Chester, N.Fork Feather, Ca.
900
2,900
Cucamonga Creek, Ca
600
57,800
Panama City Harbor, Fla.
430
2,905
Lahaina Harbor (small boat) Ha.
300
1,440
Columbia Drainage Levee 3, Ill
100
1,720
Big Pine Lake, Ind.
500
31,200
Marion, va.
100
3,440
Perry Lake, Ka. (roads)
400
3,000
Yazoo River, Belzoni Bridge, Miss.
500
7,710
Frazer Wolf Point Bank Stab., Mont.
375
400
New York Harbor Drift, N.Y.
330
23,800
Richard B. Russell, Ga.
2,125
178,000
Chillicothe, Oh.
300
5,400
Mill Creek, Oh.
500
57,649
Beaver Drainage Dist. ,Ore.
300
1,670
Portugues & Bucana, P.R.
1,500
92,900
Cooper River, Charlestown Harbor, S.C.
1,000
74,000
Sacred Heart, Yankton, S.D.
125
250
Aubrey Lake, Texas
3,000
110,000
Lower Monumental, Wa.
450
37,800
Coal River Basin, W. Va.
197
6,900
Stream Bank Erosion Demonstration, MRT
2,000
25,000
Sub-total
17,132
739,314
Bureau of Reclamation
Columbia Basin -- Bacon Siphon & Tunnel
(1,055)
1,000,000
San Felipe, Ca.
500
107,400
Dallas Creek, Co.
400
63,700
Narrows Unit, Co
500
87,800
Savery Pot Hook, Co. Wyo.
300
47,000
Brantley, N.M.
1,600
50,100
Jensen Unit, Utah
300
17,100
LaBranza, Ca. (Loan)
300
2,300
Central Nebraska (Loan)
1,500
10,000
Sub-total
5,400
1,385,400
Total unbudgeted Construction and
Loan starts
22,532
2,124,714
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
2
PLANNING
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
Authority
Federal Cost
Corps of Engineers
Potomac Estuary Pilot Water Treatment, D.C.
350
5,800
Kaskaskia Inland Drainage, I11.
75
5,800
Little Calumet River, I11.
40
300
Big Blue Lake, Ind.
100
39,000
Indian Lake, Kansas
50
37,600
Tomahawk Lake, Kansas
150
40,100
Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas
20
500
Camp Ground Lake, Ky
130
53,400
Dam #3, Big Sandy River, Ky. W. Va
25
330
Charles River, Mass
100
8,300
Ottawa Harbor, Mich., Ohio
10
1,400
Red Run Drain, Lower Clinton River, Mich
50
174,000
Rochester, Minn.
40
37,200
Libby Reregulating Dam, Mont
75
23,000
Dunkirk Harbor, N.Y.
45
800
Ellicott Creek, N.Y.
135
4,300
Roaring River Lake, N.C.
100
14,100
Gallipolis L&D Ohio, W. Va
200
119,000
Days Creek Dam, Ore.
300
131,000
Pt. Marion Lock, Pa.
75
29,800
Lower Rio Grande Basin, Tex.
150
46,000
Buena Vista, Va.
250
12,600
Verona Lake, Va.
200
44,300
Ediz Hook, Wash
250
5,700
Prairie Du Chein, Wisc
30
2,400
Mud Lake Pumping Plant
30
900
Bushley Bayou, La.
200
15,500
Miss. River - Vicksburg - Yazoo
50
9,800
Greenville Harbor, Miss.
200
16,000
Miss. River - Natchez Area
50
13,300
Sub-total
3,480
892,230
Resumption of Interrupted Planning
Dickey Lincoln Maine
800
356,000
Big South Fork National Recreation Area, Ky.
250
32,000
Tug Fork Valley Flood Control, Ky.
150
50,000
Bradley Lake, Alaska
62
152,000
Sub-total
1,262
590,230
Total Corps of Engineers
4,742
1,482,230
Bureau of Reclamation
Sub-total: NONE
Total Bureau of Reclamation: NONE
Total unbudgeted planning
4,742
1,482,230
UNBUDGETED NEW CONSTRUCTION, LOAN, PLANNING STARTS (CONT.)
3
1975 Budget
Total Estimated
RECAPITULATION (Unbudgeted new starts)
Authority
Federal Cost
Construction
20,732
2,112,414
Loan
1,800
12,300
Planning (new)
3,480
892,230
Planning (resumption)
1,262
590,230
Grand Total
27,274
3,607,174
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION ONCOING PROJECTS - CHANGES
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1975
($ in thousands)
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Tenn-Tom, Ala
30,000
+ 7,900
Snettisham, Alaska
-1,400
+
700
McClellan-Kerr Nav. Lock & Dam, Ark
4,000
+
100
Buchanan Dam - Eastman Lake, Cal
3,700
+
400
Dry Creek, Cal
13,500
-10,500
Hidden Lake, Ca
2,400
+
300
Marysville Lake, Cal. *
350
+ 600
Sacramento River Chico to Red, Cal
255
+ 245
San Diego Harbor, Cal
500
+ 600
Santo Paula Creek Channel, Ca
2,600
- 1,000
Four River Basins, Fla
400
+ 2,600
West Point Lake, Ga. & Ala
6,300
+ 2,500
Kaneohe-Kailua Area, Ha
300
+
180
Lock & Dam 26, I11. & Mo
27,900
- 5,900
Miss. River Regulating Works, Ill
3,200
+ 1,300
Springer Lake, Ill
600
- 300
Big Walnut Lake, Ind. *
225
+
75
Patoka Lake, Ind
3,600
+ 1,000
Uniontown Locks, Ind
7,850
+ 2,000
Hillsdale Lake, Ka
1,500
+
500
Paintsville Lake, Ky
1,000
+
500
Red River Lake, Ky
200
+
300
Taylorsville Lake, Ky
900
+
500
Yatesville Lake, Ky
900
+
600
Atchafalaya, La
500
+
800
Overton - Red River, La
1,100
+
500
Red River Waterway, La
12,000
+ 1,000
Edgartown Harbor, Mass. *
40
+
10
Great Lakes Connecting Channel, Mich
1,200
- 1;000
Clarence Cannon Dam, Mo
21,700
+ 1,000
Harry S. Truman, Mo
30,500
+12,500
Maramec Park Lake, Mo
3,600
+ 1,000
Miss. River Ag. Area 8, Mo *
100
+
100
Libby-Koocanusa, Mont
21,500
+
500
Papillon, Neb
6,000
+ 2,000
Cochiti, N.M.
7,400
+ 750
East River Spur, N.Y
1,500
+ 1,350
N.Y. Harbor Anchorages, N.Y.
4,000
+ 1,000
B. Everett Jordon, N.C.
1,850
+ 1,650
Falls Lake, N. C
3,000
+ 1,250
2
Budget
Congressional
Corps of Engineers
Construction
Changes
Reddies River, N.C.*
140
+
20
Burlington Dam, N.D.*
250
+
150
Missouri River, Gar.-Oahe, N.D
300
+ 300
Copan Lake, Ok
1,800
+ 2,200
Skiatook Lake, Ok
3,000
+ 1,250
Bonneville L&D, Ore
11,100
+ 400
Scapoose Drainage, Ore
100
+
180
Raystown Lake, Pa
2,200
+
300
Tioga-Hammond, Pa
18,000
+ 2,400
Tocks Island, Pa
6,040
- 4,540
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, S.D.
1,589
- 1,012
Aquilla, Texas*
400
+
196
Cooper Lake, Texas
2,000
+
200
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas
3,500
+ 1,000
Lake View Lake, Texas
1,000
+ 1,500
Millican Lake, Texas*
370
+
130
San Gabriel River, Texas
9,000
+ 1,000
Burnsville Lake, W. Va
9,100
+ 500
R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va
17,600
+ 1,000
La Farge Lake, Wisc
3,000
+ 1,000
East Rockaway Part I, N.Y
000
+ 4,000
Fire Island to Montauk, N.Y
000
+ 2,800
Applegate Lake (land), Ore
000
+ 1,000
Presque Isle, Pa
000
+
750
Four Mile Run, Va
000
+ 2,000
Miss. River Levees
32,000
+ 1,850
Channel Improvement
35,000
+ 3,000
St. Francis Basin
10,000
+ 6,500
Tensas Basin
2,200
+ 2,000
Yazoo Basin
8,500
+ 7,340
Cache Basin
300
+ 1,000
West Tenn Tribs
300
+ 1,400
Atchafalaya
3,000
+ 1,000
Recreation at completed projects
25,000
+ 1,000
General reduction, delays, carryover
-58,294
-20,997
Total, Corps of Engineers
378,065
52,427
*Projects in planning
3
Budget
Congressional
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction
Changes
Central Valley Project, Ca.
43,640
+15,750
Fryingpan-Arkansas, Co.
27,730
+ 600
Teton Basin, Idaho
11,675
+ 500
Grand Coulee Dam, 3rd Powerplant, Wash.
58,055
+ 2,400
Garrison Diversion Unit, N.D.
10,555
+ 1,000
Oahe Unit, S.D.
4,535
+ 800
Upper Colorado River
29,900
+ 369
Central Arizona
17,500
+ 3,221
Navajo Participation Agreement
31,300
+ 1,000
Loan Program
14,000
+ 1,150
Other
104,027
+ 4,780
Total, Reclamation
352,917
31,570
Total, Corps of Engineers; Bureau of
Reclamation
730,982
83,997
Attachment C
Signing Statement - Approval
I take pleasure today in signing H,R. 15155, the
Public Works Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1975. This
bill is noteworthy in that it is the first to be passed in
anticipation of cooperation between the Executive and
Legislative branches in implementing the new Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
This appropriation bill contains funds for many worthy
projects and is the product of much hard work and deliberation.
At the same time, use of all the funds appropriated on the
schedule contemplated by the Congress would increase 1975
outlays by $80M and commit us to major outlay increases in
future fiscal years. Such increases intensify our number
one problem - inflation.
However, withholding approval would commit us to the
time consuming process of reformulating the Public Works
Appropriation Bill when all our resources should be focused
on more pressing matters before us.
Therefore, after discussions with congressional leaders,
I am signing this bill with the expectations that Congress
will work in cooperation with the Executive Branch to defer
for one full year the expenditure of that amount of appropriated
funds which would contribute excessively to inflationary
government spending.
Thus, we take one more step down the road of cooperation
to which I am totally committed. I hope that this spirit will
prevail as the many other issues present themselves which must
be settled if we are to stop the inflationary spiral.
93D CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session
and
REPORT
No. 93-1274
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
AUGUST 8, 1974.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. EVINS of Tennessee, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To.accompany H.R. 15155]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15155)
making appropriations for public works for water and power develop-
ment, including the Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Bureau of Recla-
mation, the Bonneville Power Administration and other power
agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Appalachian regional
development programs, the Federal Power Commission, the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, and related
independent agencies and commissions for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 11, 23, 24
and 25.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 4, 6, 10, 14, 20, and 21, and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 2:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $330,705,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 3:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 3, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $65,284,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
38-006 0-74-1
2
Amendment numbered 7:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 7, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $161,948,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 8:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 8, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $446,577,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 9:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 9, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amentment insert $700,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 12:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 12, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $19,427,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 13:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 13, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $400,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 15:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 15, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $244,123,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 16:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 16, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $24,621,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 17:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 17, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $22,967,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
3
Amendment numbered 18:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 18, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $55,800,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 22:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 22, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $128,000,000;
and the Senate agree to the same.
The committee of conference report in disagreement amendments
numbered 1, 5 and 19.
JOE L. EVINS,
EDWARD P. BOLAND,
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
JOHN M. SLACK,
OTTo E. PASSMAN,
GEORGE MAHON,
GLENN R. DAVIS (except
amendment No. 7 and
report language re
amendment No. 11)
HOWARD W. ROBISON,
JOHN T. MYERS,
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG,
Managers on the Part of the House.
JOHN C. STENNIS,
JOHN L. McCLELLAN,
WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
ALAN BIBLE,
ROBERT C. BYRD,
JOHN O. PASTORE,
MARK O. HATFIELD,
MILTON R. YOUNG,
ROMAN L. HRUSKA,
CLIFFORD P. CASE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE
OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15155) making appropriations
for Public Works for water and power development, including the
Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonne-
ville Power Administration and other power agencies of the Depart-
ment of the Interior, the Appalachian regional development programs,
the Federal Power Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the
Atomic Energy Commission, and related independent agencies and
commissions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and for other
purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House and the
Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report:
TITLE I-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
OPERATING EXPENSES
Amendment No. 1:3 Reported in technical disagreement. The man-
agers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede and concur
in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment appropriating
$1,411,960,000 instead of $1,428,760,000 as proposed by the House
and $1,433,960,000 as proposed by the Senate. The managers on the
part of the Senate will move to concur in the amendment of the
House to the amendment of the Senate. The change from the House
Allowance includes an increase of $1,200,000 for the Physical Research
Program leaving a reduction of $2,700,000 from the budget request
applied as a general reduction in the overall physical research program;
an increase of $300,000 for Program Support; a decrease of $8,000,000
in the Nuclear Materials Program; and a decrease of $600,000 in the
Biomedical and Environmental Research Program; the change in
selected resources is adjusted accordingly by an increase in the amount
of $300,000; and an additional $10,000,000 reduction in the total
appropriation is applied as a result of unobligated balances.
The Committee of Conference is agreed that travel shall not exceed
the amount as proposed in the budget request.
PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Amendment No. 2: Appropriates $330,705,000 instead of $317,655,-
000 as proposed by the House and $337,705,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The increase over the House includes $2,000,000 for weapons
production, development, and test installations; $4,250,000 for the
National Security and Resources Center, Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory, New Mexico; $3,800,000 for a computer system at
(4)
5
Sandia Laboratories, to be accomplished in the manner proposed by
the Senate; restoration of $5,000,000 general reduction based on
anticipated slippage; offset by a decrease of $2,000,000 for the TRI-
DENT production facilities.
TITLE II-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL
General
The Committee of Conference is agreed that the Corps of Engineers
should participate in the bicentennial activities as proposed in the
Senate report.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Amendment No. 3: Appropriates $65,284,000 instead of $61,542,000
as proposed by the House and $67,847,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The changes from the House bill are allocated to the following studies:
Alaska:
(FC) Rivers and harbors in Alaska (Alaska hydroelectric)
+ $60, 000
(FC) Metropolitan Anchorage
+75,000
(FC) South-central-Railbelt area
1 + 75, 000
Arizona:
(FC) Gila River and tributaries (Gila Drain) Arizona and New
Mexico
1 + 140, 000
Arkansas:
(FC) White River Basin Reservoirs
+25,000
Maryland:
(FC) Potomac River, North Branch, Maryland and Virginia
1 +75,000
Mississippi:
(N) Pearl River
+30,000
(FC) Pascagoula Basin
+25,000
Nevada:
(FC) Truckee Meadows
+30,000
New Hampshire:
(FC) Connecticut River streambank erosion (Wilder Lake,
New Hampshire and Vermont to Turners Falls Dam,
Massachusetts)
+60,000
North Dakota:
(FC) Pembina River
+50,000
Oregon:
(FC) Portland metropolitan area
+ 20, 000
(N) Siuslaw River and bar
1 + 62, 000
Pennsylvania:
(FC) Raystown Dam hydro study (modification for power)
+75,000
South Dakota:
(FC) Missouri River, South Dakota, Nebraska, North Dakota,
and Montana, additional hydro
1 + 130, 000
Washington:
(FC) Columbia River and tributaries, Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
1 +340,000
(Comp) Puget Sound and adjacent waters (Anacortes-March
Point area navigation)
1 + 40, 000
(FC) Yakima Valley regional water management study
+ 100, 000
Special Studies:
Cross Florida Barge Canal (court-ordered study)
+ 1, 000, 000
Cooperation with States (sec. 22, Public Law 93-251)
+ 500, 000
Review of Authorized Projects:
Deauthorization Review (sec. 12, Public Law 93-251)
+800,000
Restudies of deferred projects-Beatrice, Nebr. (FC)
+30,000
1 Increase in House bill figure.
6
Amendment No. 4: Changes "Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life" to "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Amendment No. 5: Reported in technical disagreement. The man-
on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede and concur
in agers the amendment of the Senate with an amendment appropriating
$973,681,000 instead of $988,533,000 as proposed by the House and
$985,838,000 as proposed by the Senate. The managers on the part of
the Senate will move to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate.
The funds appropriated under this heading are to be allocated as
shown in the following tabulation:
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Alabama:
(R)
John Hollis Bankhead lock and dam
$9, 200, 000
$9,200,000
(MP)
Jones Bluff lock and dam
8, 500, 000
8,500,000
(N)
Mobile Harbor, Theodore Channel
$125, 000
$125, 000
(FC)
Montgomery
50,000
50, 000
(N)
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Ala. and Miss
30, 000, 000
37, 900, 000
West Point Point Lake Ala. and Ga. (See Georgia.)
Alaska:
(MP)
Bradley Lake (feasibility study)
62, 000
(FC)
Chena River Lakes, Fairbanks
17,200,000
17,200,000
(N)
Hoonah Harbor
100,000
100, 000
(N)
Humboldt Harbor
200, 000
200,000
(N)
Metlakatla Harbor
80, 000
80, 000
(MP)
Snettisham
1, 400, 000
2, 100,000
Arizona:
(FC)
Indian Bend Wash
194,000
1, 100, 000
(FC)
Phoenix and vicinity, including New River (stage 1)
500, 000
500,000
(FC)
Phoenix and vicinity, including New River (stage 2)
200,000
200, 000
Arkansas:
(FC)
Bell Foley Lake
424, 000
424, 000
(MP)
De Gray Lake
1,400,000
1,400,000
(FC)
De Queen Lake
1, 920, 000
1, 920, 000
(FC)
Dierks Lake
530,000
530,000
(FC)
Gillham Lake
850,000
850,000
(N)
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System,
Arkansas and Oklahoma:
(a) Bank stabilization and channel rectification
610,000
610,000
(b) Navigation locks and dams
4, 000, 000
4, 100, 000
Conway, Ark., water supply
(100,000)
(MP)
Norfork Lake-Highway Bridge
50, 000
(N)
Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La
7,000,000
7, 000, 000
(MP)
Ozark lock and dam
2,630,000
2,630,000
(FC)
Red River levees and bank stabilization below Denison
Dam Ark., La., and Tex
1, 900, 000
1,900,000
(FC)
Village Creek, Jackson and Lawrence Counties
135,000
135, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
California:
(FC)
Alameda Creek, Del Valle Reservoir
$720, 000
$720, 000
(N)
Bodega Bay
$80, 000
$80, 000
(FC)
Buchanan Dam-H. V. Eastman Lake
3, 700, 000
4, 100, 000
(FC)
Chester, North Fork of Feather River
900,000
(FC)
Cucamonga Creek
600,000
(FC)
Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel
13,500,000
3, 000, 000
(FC)
Fairfield vicinity streams
302, 000
302, 000
8
(FC)
Hidden Lake
2, 400, 000
2, 700, 000
(N)
Humboldt Harbor and Bay
48, 000
48,000
(FC)
Lytle and Warm Creeks
3, 600, 000
3, 600, 000
(MP)
Marysville Lake
350,000
950,000
(FC)
Merced County streams
300,000
300,000
(FC)
Napa River
500,000
500,000
(MP)
New Melones Lake
15,500,000
15,500,000
(N)
Oakland Harbor
1,500,009
1,500,000
(FC)
Pine Flat Lake
200,000
200,000
(FC)
Sacramento River bank protection
1, 000, 000
1,000,000
(FC)
Sacramento River Chico Landing to Red Bluff
255,000
500,000
(N)
San Diego Harbor
500,000
1,100,000
(FC)
San Diego River, Mission Valley
300, 000
300, 000
(N)
San Francisco Bay to Stockton (John F. Baldwin and
Stockton ship channels)
725,000
725,000
(FC)
Santa Paula Creek channel
2, 600, 000
1,600,000
(FC)
Sweetwater River
100,000
100,000
(FC)
University Wash and Spring Brook
270, 000
270, 000
(FC)
Walnut Creek
545, 000
545, 000
Colorado:
(FC)
Bear Creek Lake
9, 050, 000
9, 050, 000
(FC)
Chatfield Lake
3,065,000
3,065,000
(FC)
Las Animas
1,800,000
1,800,000
Trinidad Lake
H.R. 1274 0-2
(FC)
6, 200, 000
6, 200, 000
Connecticut:
(FC)
Danbury
2, 500, 000
2, 500, 000
(FC)
Park River
500, 000
500,000
Delaware:
(N)
Delaware Bay to Chesapeake Bay Waterway, Del., Md.,
and Va
75,000
75,000
(N)
Inland waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay
(Chesapeake and Delaware Canal), pt. II, Del., and Md
3, 715, 000
3, 715, 000
District of Columbia:
(S)
Potomac estuary pilot water treatment plant, D.C., Md.
and Va
350, 000
Florida:
(BE)
Brevard County
400,000
(FC)
Central and Southern Florida
4, 400, 000
4, 400, 000
(FC)
Dade County
200,000
200,000
(BE)
Duval County
130, 000
130,000
6
(FC)
Four River Basins
400,000
3, 000, 000
(N)
Jacksonville Harbor (1965 act)
7,000,000
7, 000, 000
(N)
Miami Harbor (1968 act)
4,760,000
4,760,000
(BE)
Palm Beach County (reimbursement)
1, 165, 000
1, 165, 000
(N)
Panama City Harbor
430,000
(BE)
Pinellas County
100,000
100,000
(N)
Tampa Harbor (main channel)
900,000
900,000
Georgia:
(MP)
Carters Lake
8, 500, 000
8, 500, 000
(MP)
Richard B. Russell (Trotters Shoals) Dam and Lake, Ga.,
and S.C.
(L) 500, 000
2,125,000
(N)
Savannah Harbor (40 feet widening and deepening)
1, 103, 000
1,103,000
(N)
Savannah Harbor (sediment basin)
2,300,000
2,300,000
(BE)
Tybee Island
900,000
900,000
(MP)
West Point Lake, Ala. and Ga
6, 300, 000
8, 800, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Hawaii:
(N)
Kahu lui Harbor mitigation of shore damages attributable
to navigation projects, sec. 111
($500, 000)
(FC)
Kaneohe-Kailua area
$300, 000
480,000
(N)
Lahaina small boat harbor
300,000
(N)
Waianae small boat harbor
$125, 000
$125, 000
Idaho:
(MP)
Dworshak Dam and Reservoir
10,000,000
10,000,000
(FC)
Ririe Lake
7, 400, 000
7,400,000
Illinois:
(N)
Calumet River and Harbor (1962 act), Illinois and Indiana
170,000
170,000
10
(FC)
Carlyle Lake
400,000
400,000
(FC)
Columbia drainage and levee district #3
100,000
(FC)
East Moline
150, 000
150,000
(FC)
East St. Louis and vicinity-Cahokia Creek Low Dam
900,000
900,000
(FC)
East St. Louis and vicinity (interior flood control)
1,200,000
1,200,000
(FC)
Harrisonville and Ivy Landing-Drainage and levee district
No. 2
300, 000
300,000
(FC)
Helm Lake
175, 000
(N)
Illinois Waterway, Calumet-Sag modification, pt. I, Illinois
and Indiana
1, 500, 000
1, 500, 000
(N)
Illinois Waterway Duplicate Locks Ill. and Ind
210, 000
210, 000
(FC)
Kaskaskia Island drainage and levee district
75,000
(N)
Kaskaskia River navigation
4,700,000
4,700,000
(FC)
Levee District 23 (Dively), Kaskaskia River
645,000
645,000
(FC)
Little Calumet River
40, 000
(N)
Lock and dam 26, Mississippi River, Alton, Ill., and Mo
27,900,000
22,000,000
(N)
Lock and dam 53 (temporary lock), Illinois and Kentucky
7, 000, 000
7,000,000
(FC)
Louisville Lake
200, 000
200,000
(FC)
Louisville Lake (U.S. Route 45)
700, 000
700,000
(N)
Mississippi River between Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Ill.
and Mo.:
(a) Chain of Rocks
4,540,000
4,540,000
(b) Regulating works
3,200,000
4,500,000
(FC)
Milan
80, 000
80, 000
(FC)
Moline
100,000
(FC)
Rend Lake
100,000
3, 186, 000
3, 186, 000
(FC)
Rock Island
120,000
120, 000
(N)
Smithland locks and dam Illinois and Kentucky
22,300,000
22, 300, 000
(FC)
William L. Springer Lake (formerly Oakley Lake) (land
acquisition)
600,000
300, 000
Indiana:
(FC)
Big Blue Lake
100, 000
(FC)
Big Pine Lake
500, 000
(FC)
Big Walnut Lake
225, 000
300, 000
(FC)
Brookville Lake
1, 985, 000
1, 985, 000
Calumet River and Harbor. (See Illinois.)
(N)
Cannelton locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky
2, 650, 000
2, 650, 000
(FC)
Evansville
1,600,000
1,600,000
(FC)
Greenfield Bayou levee
200,000
Illinois Waterway, Calumet-Sag modification, pts. I and II,
Illinois and Indiana. (See Illinois.)
(FC)
Island levee
200,000
200, 000
11
(FC)
Marion
75, 000
75, 000
(FC)
Mason J. Niblack levee (pumping facilities)
1,044,000
1,044,000
(N)
Newburgh locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky
6,000,000
6, 000, 000
(FC)
Patoka Lake
3,600,000
4,600,000
(N)
Uniontown locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky
7,850,000
9, 850, 000
Iowa:
(FC)
Bettendorf
200,000
200,000
(FC)
Clinton
3, 000, 000
3, 000, 000
(FC)
Davenport
200, 000
200, 000
(FC)
Marshalltown
1, 800, 000
1, 800, 000
(FC)
Missouri River levee system, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska
300,000
300, 000
(N)
Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas Mis-
souri, and Nebraska
4, 700, 000
4, 700, 000
(FC)
Ottumwa
20, 000
20, 000
(FC)
Rathbun Lake (fish hatchery)
700,000
(FC)
Saylorville Lake
8, 300, 000
8,300,000
(FC)
Waterloo
3, 000, 000
3, 000, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Kansas:
Arkansas-Red River Basins chloride control, Texas,
Oklahoma, and Kansas. (See Oklahoma.)
(FC)
Big Hill Lake
$500, 000
$500, 000
(FC)
Cedar Point Lake
$160, 000
$160, 000
(FC)
Clinton Lake
8, 750, 000
8, 750, 000
(FC)
Dodge City
1 450, 000
1,450,000
(FC)
El Dorado
50, 000
50, 000
(FC)
El Dorado Lake
4, 000, 000
4, 000, 000
(FC)
Great Bend
180, 000
180, 000
(FC)
Hillsdale Lake
1, 500, 000
2, 000, 000
(FC)
Indian Lake
50, 000
12
(FC)
Kansas City, Kansas River, (1962 mod)
5, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
(FC)
Marion
78, 000
100,000
78, 000
Missouri River Levee System. (See Iowa.)
Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, and Nebraska. (See Iowa.)
(FC)
Onaga Lake
106, 000
106, 000
(FC)
Perry Lake area (road improvements)
400, 000
(FC)
Tomahawk Lake
150,000
(FC)
Tuttle Creek Lake (road improvements)
20,000
(FC)
Winfield
50,000
50, 000
(FC)
Wolf-Coffee Lake
400, 000
400, 000
Kentucky:
(FC)
Big South Fork National River and recreation area, Ky.
and Tenn
250,000
(FC)
Camp Ground Lake (phase 1)
130,000
Cannelton locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. (See
Indiana.)
(FC)
Carr Fork Lake
3, 800, 000
3,800,000
(FC)
Cave Run Lake
3,000,000
3,000,000
(FC)
Dam No. 3, Big Sandy River, Ky. and W. Va
(FC)
Falmouth Lake
25, 000
200, 000
(MP)
Laurel River Lake
6, 200, 000
6, 200, 000
Lock and Dam 53 (temporary lock). (See Illinois.)
(FC)
Martins Fork Lake
3, 000, 000
3, 000, 000
Newburgh locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. (See
Indiana.)
(FC)
Paintsville Lake
1,000,000
(FC)
Red River Lake
1,500,000
200,000
500,000
Smithland lock and dam, Illinois and Kentucky. (See
Illinois.)
(FC)
Southwestern Jefferson County
3, 000, 000
(FC)
3,000,000
Taylorsville Lake
900,000
(FC)
1,400,000
Tug Fork Valley, Ky., Va., and W. Va. (phase 1)
Uniontown locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. (See
150, 000
Indiana.)
(R)
Wolf Creek Dam-Lake Cumberland (Rehab.)
6, 000, 000
(FC)
Yatesville Lake
6, 000, 000
900,000
Louisiana:
1,500,000
(N)
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black
500,000
(FC)
Bayou Bodcau and tributaries
1, 300, 000
300,000
300,000
13
(N)
Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump Waterway
1,400,000
(N)
Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow
1,400,000
200,000
(FC)
Larose to Golden Meadow
200,000
1,200,000
(FC)
1,200,000
Lake Pontchartrain, and vicinity
3,300,000
(N)
3,300,000
Mermentau River (channel improvement)
1,534,000
(N)
Michoud Canal
1,534,000
2,160,000
(N)
2,160,000
Mississippi River, gulf outlet
1, 300, 000
(N)
1, 300, 000
Mississippi River outlets, Venice
510,000
(FC)
510,000
Morgan City and vicinity
100,000
(FC)
100,000
New Orleans to Venice hurricane protection
9,000,000
9,000,000
Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La. (See Arkansas.)
(FC)
Ouachita River levees
405,000
(N)
405,000
Overton-Red River Waterway (lower 31 miles only)
1,100,000
(N)
1,600,000
Red River emergency bank protection
3, 900, 000
(N)
3,900,000
Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, La
12,000,000
13,000,000
Red River levees and bank stabilization below Denison
Dam, Ark., La., and Tex. (See Arkansas.)
(N)
Vermilion lock (replacement)
100, 000
100, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Maine:
(MP)
Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes (resumption)
$800, 000
(N)
Frenchboro Harbor
$200, 000
$200, 000
Maryland:
(FC)
Bloomington Lake, Md. and W. Va
7, 200, 000
7, 200, 000
Delaware Bay to Chesapeake Bay Waterway. (See Dela-
ware.)
Inland waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Del.
and Md. (C. & D. Canal), pt. II. (See Delaware.)
14
Potomac Estuary pilot water treatment plant, District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. (See District of Co-
lumbia.)
Massachusetts:
(FC)
Charles River Dam
5, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
(FC)
Charles River Natural Valley Storage Area
100, 000
(N)
Edgartown Harbor
$40, 000
50, 000
(BE)
Revere Beach
150, 000
150, 000
(FC)
Saxonville
108, 000
108, 000
(N)
Weymouth Fore and Town Rivers
1, 800, 000
1, 800, 000
Michigan:
(N)
Great Lakes connecting channels
1, 200, 000
200,000
(N)
Lexington Harbor
400, 000
400, 000
(N)
Ludington Harbor
80, 000
80, 000
(N)
Ottawa River Harbor, Mich. and Ohio
10, 000
(FC)
Red Run Drain and Lower Clinton River
50, 000
(FC)
River Rouge
1, 800, 000
1, 800, 000
(FC)
Saginaw River
850, 000
850, 000
(N)
Tawas Bay Harbor
130, 000
130, 000
Minnesota:
(N)
Beaver Bay Harbor (incl. Silver Bay)
40, 000
(FC)
Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River, Minn. and S. Dak
40, 000
560, 000
560, 000
(N)
Lutsen Harbor
60, 000
(FC)
Mankato and North Mankato
60, 000
1, 900, 000
1, 900, 000
(FC)
Rochester (phase 1)
(FC)
Roseau River
40, 000
100, 000
100, 000
(FC)
Twin Valley Lake
100, 000
(FC)
Wild Rice River-South Branch and Felton Ditch
100, 000
96, 000
96, 000
(FC)
Winona
230, 000
Mississippi:
230, 000
(FC)
Edinburg Lake (phase 1)
(FC)
Tallahala Creek Lake
100, 000
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Ala. and Miss. (See Ala.)
(N)
Yazoo River, Belzoni Bridge (Adv. Part)
500, 000
Missouri:
(FC)
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, Mo
400, 000
(MP)
Clarence Cannon Dam and Reservoir
400, 000
21,700,000
22,700,000
(MP)
Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir
30,500,000
43,000,000
(FC)
Little Blue River Channel
500, 000
500, 000
(FC)
Little Blue River Lakes (land acquisition)
2, 500, 000
2, 500, 000
15
Lock and Dam 26, Alton, Ill. and Mo. (See Illinois.)
(FC)
Long Branch Lake
2, 000, 000
2, 000, 000
(FC)
Meramec Park Lake
3, 600, 000
4, 600, 000
(FC)
Mississippi River Agricultural Area No. 8 (Elsberry drain-
age district)
100, 000
200, 000
Mississippi River between Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Ill.
and Mo. (See Illinois.)
Missouri River Levee System. (See Iowa.)
Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, and Nebraska. (See Iowa.)
(FC)
Perry County drainage and levee districts 1, 2, and 3
180, 000
180, 000
(FC)
Smithville Lake
8, 600, 000
8, 600, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Montana:
(FC)
Frazer-Wolf Point bank stabilization
$375, 000
(MP)
Libby Dam-Lake Koocanusa
$21, 500, 000
22, 000, 000
(MP)
Libby Dam (additional units and reregulating dam)
$890, 000
$890, 000
(MP)
Libby Reregulating Dam, power units (phase 1)
75, 000
Nebraska:
(MP)
Gavins Point Dam Lewis and Clark Lake (relocation of
Niobrara, Nebr.), Nebr. and S. Dak
3, 500, 000
3, 500, 000
Miscouri River Levee System. (See Iowa.)
Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas, Mis-
souri, and Nebraska. (See Iowa.)
(FC)
Papillion Creek and tributaries
6, 000, 000
8, 000, 000
Nevada:
(FC)
Gleason Creek Dam
120, 000
120, 000
(FC)
Humboldt River and tributaries
250,000
250, 000
New Jersey:
(N)
Corsons Inlet and Ludlam Beach
100 000
100, 000
(FC)
Elizabeth
2, 700, 000
2, 700, 000
(N)
Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach
75, 000
75, 000
(N)
Newark Bay, Hackensack, and Passaic Rivers
525, 000
525, 000
Tocks Island Lake, Pa., N.J., and N.Y. (See Pennsylvania.)
New Mexico:
(FC)
Cochiti Lake
7, 400, 000
8, 150, 000
(FC)
Las Cruces
817, 000
817, 000
(FC)
Los Esteros Lake
2, 500, 000
2, 500, 000
New York:
(FC)
Allegany
57, 000
57, 000
(N)
Cattaraugus Harbor
120,000
120,000
(N)
Dunkirk Harbor
45, 000
(N)
East River Spur Channel
1 500, 000
2, 850, 000
(BE)
East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay
(part I)
4, 000, 000
(FC)
Ellicott Creek
135, 000
(BE)
Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet
1, 500, 000
1, 500, 000
(FC)
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point
2,800,000
(BE)
Hamlin Beach State Park (reimbursement)
1, 180, 000
1,180,000
(N)
New York Harbor (anchorages)
4, 000, 000
5,000,000
(N)
New York Harbor collection and removal of drift
330, 000
(FC)
Scajaquada Creek
100,000
100,000
Tocks Island Lake, Pa., N.J., and N.Y. (See Pennsylvania.)
(FC)
Yonkers
815, 000
815, 000
North Carolina:
(N)
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, bridges
100, 000
100, 000
(FC)
B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake
1, 850, 000
3, 500, 000
(FC)
Brunswick County Beaches
1, 000, 000
(FC)
Falls Lake
3, 000, 000
4, 250, 000
(FC)
Howards Mill Lake
100,000
100,000
Little River Inlet, S.C. and N.C. (See South Carolina.)
(N)
Manteo (Shallowbag Bay)
65, 000
65, 000
(N)
Morehead City Harbor
200, 000
200, 000
(FC)
Randleman Lake
100,000
100,000
(FC)
Reddies River Lake
140,000
160, 000
(FC)
Roaring River Lake (phase 1)
100, 000
North Dakota:
(FC)
Burlington Dam
250, 000
400,000
(MP)
Eagle Bay and Fort Yates Highway Bridges
122, 000
122,000
(MP)
Garrison Dam-Lake Sakakawea
200,000
200,000
(FC)
Minot
3, 000, 000
3, 000, 000
(FC)
Missouri River, Garrison Dam to Lake Oahe
300,000
600, 000
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, S. Dak. and N. Dak. (See South
Dakota.)
(FC)
Pipestem
417, 000
417, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Ohio:
(FC)
Alum Creek Lake
$3, 500, 000
$3, 500, 000
(FC)
Caesar Creek Lake
4, 500, 000
4,500,000
(FC)
Chillicothe
300,000
(FC)
Clarence J. Brown Dam and Reservoir
1, 624, 000
1,624,000
(FC)
East Fork Lake
4,500,000
4,500,000
(N)
Gallipolis locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia
$200, 000
(N)
Hannibal locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia
10, 110, 000
10, 110, 000
(N)
Huron Harbor
$100, 000
100,000
(FC)
Mill Creek
400,000
500,000
Ottawa River Harbor, Mich. and Ohio (See Michigan.)
(FC)
Paint Creek Lake
762, 000
762, 000
(FC)
Point Place
54, 000
54, 000
18
(N)
Willow Island locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia
10, 100, 000
10, 100, 000
Oklahoma:
(FC)
Arcadia Lake
260, 000
260, 000
(FC)
Arkansas-Red Basins chloride control, Texas, Oklahoma,
and Kansas
1, 300, 000
1, 300, 000
(FC)
Birch Lake
3, 450, 000
3, 450, 000
(FC)
Clayton Lake
660,000
660,000
(FC)
Copan Lake
1,800,000
4, 000, 000
(FC)
Hugo Lake
700,000
700,000
(FC)
Kaw Lake
11,100,000
11, 100, 000
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkan-
sas and Oklahoma. (See Arkansas.)
(FC)
Optima Lake
9, 150, 000
9,150,000
(FC)
Skiatook Lake
3,000,000
4,250,000
(FC)
Waurika Lake
9,400,000
9, 400, 000
(MP)
Webbers Falls lock and dam
1,246,000
1, 246, 000
Oregon:
(FC)
Applegate Lake (land acquisition)
1, 000, 000
(FC)
Beaver Drainage District
300,000
(MP)
Bonneville lock and dam (2d powerhouse) Oregon and
Washington
11,100,000
11, 500, 000
(MP)
Bonneville lock and dam (mod. for peaking), Oregon and
Washington
6, 600, 000
6, 600, 000
(FC)
Catherine Creek Lake
1,500,000
1, 500, 000
(N)
Columbia and lower Willamette Rivers, (40-foot project),
Oregon and Washington
600, 000
600, 000
(N)
Coos Bay
139, 000
139, 000
(MP)
Cougar Lake
750, 000
750,000
(FC)
Days Creek Lake (phase I)
300, 000
(FC)
Elk Creek Lake
1,500,000
1, 500, 000
(MP)
John Day lock and dam, Oregon and Washington
5, 200, 000
5, 200, 000
(MP)
Lost Creek Lake
29, 000, 000
29, 000, 000
(FC)
Lower Columbia River bank protection, Oregon and Wash-
ington
500,000
500, 000
(MP)
McNary lock and dam, Oregon and Washington
500, 000
500, 000
(FC)
Scappoose Drainage District
100, 000
280,000
The Dalles lock and dam, Washington and Oregon (addi-
tional units). (See Washington.)
(N)
Tillamook Bay and Bar
1, 510, 000
1,510,000
(FC)
Willamette River Basin bank protection
300,000
300,000
19
Pennsylvania:
(FC)
Blue Marsh Lake
7,275,000
7, 275, 000
(FC)
Chartiers Creek
1,500,000
1,500,000
(FC)
Cowanesque Lake
5, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
(FC)
DuBois
500, 000
500,000
(N)
Grays Landing lock and dam
100, 000
100, 000
(N)
Point Marion lock
75, 000
(BE)
Presque Isle Peninsula
750,000
(FC)
Raystown Lake
2, 200, 000
2,500,000
(FC)
Tioga-Hammond Lakes
18,000,000
20,400,000
(MP)
Tocks Island Lake, Pa., N.J., and N.Y (Comprehensive re-
view and analysis)
6, 040, 000
1, 500, 000
(FC)
Tyrone
1, 800, 000
1,800,000
(FC)
Union City Lake
800, 000
800,000
Construction, general, State and project
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Puerto Rico:
(FC)
Portugues and Bucana Rivers
South Carolina:
$1, 500, 000
(N)
Cooper River-Charleston Harbor
(N)
Little River Inlet, S.C., and N.C
1, 000, 000
(N)
Murrells Inlet
$250, 000
$250, 000
(FC)
Reedy River
250,000
250,000
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, Ga. and S.C. (See
130,000
Georgia.)
South Dakota:
(MP)
Big Bend Dam-Lake Sharpe
$1, 124, 000
Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River, Minn. and S. Dak. (See
1, 124, 000
Minnesota.)
Gavins Point Dam-Lewis and Clark Lake (relocation of
Niobrara Nebraska) Neb. and S. Dak. (See Nebraska.)
(FC)
Sacred Heart Hospital, Yankton, Missouri River, emer-
gency bank stabilization
(MP)
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, S. Dak. and N. Dak
125,000
Tennessee:
1, 589, 000
577,000
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. (See
Kentucky.)
(MP)
Cordell Hull Dam and Reservoir
Texas:
1, 161, 000
1, 161, 000
(FC)
Aquilla Lake
Arkansas Red Basin chloride control, Texas, Oklahoma,
400, 000
596, 000
and Kansas. (See Oklahoma.)
(FC)
Aubrey Lake
3, 000, 000
(FC)
Big Pine Lake
230, 000
230, 000
(FC)
Buffalo Bayou and tributaries
1,100,000
1,100,000
(FC)
Carl L. Estes Dam and Lake (Mineola)
360,000
360, 000
(FC)
Clear Creek
100,000
100,000
(FC)
Cooper Lake and channels
2,000,000
2,200,000
(N)
Corpus Christi ship channel
3,500,000
4, 500, 000
(FC)
El Paso
1,800,000
1,800,000
(FC)
Freeport and vicinity, hurricane ffood protection
2,200,000
2,200,000
(N)
Freeport Harbor (1970 act)
150, 000
150, 000
(N)
Galveston Channel (1971 act)
1,570,000
1, 570, 000
(FC)
Guadalupe River (remove logjams)
285,000
285,000
(FC)
Highland Bayou
1,000,000
1,000,000
(FC)
Lake Brownwood modification
250, 000
250, 000
(FC)
Lakeview Lake
1,000,000
2, 500, 000
(FC)
Lavon Lake modification and east fork channel improve-
ment
5, 400, 000
5, 400, 000
(FC)
Lower Rio Grande Basin (phase 1)
150,000
(FC)
Millican Lake
370,000
500, 000
(N)
Mouth of Colorado River
150,000
150, 000
120,000
21
(FC)
Pecos and vicinity
120, 000
(FC)
Peyton Creek
170,000
170, 000
(FC)
Port Arthur and vicinity hurricane flood protection
5, 900, 000
5, 900, 000
Red River Emergency Bank Protection (See Louisiana.)
Red River levees and bank stabilization, below Denison
Dam, Ark., La., and Tex. (See Arkansas.)
(FC)
San Antonio Channel improvement
2,175,000
2,175,000
(FC)
San Gabriel River
9,000,000
10,000,000
(FC)
Taylors Bayou
500,000
500,000
(FC)
Texas City and vicinity hurricane flood protection
1,737,000
1,737,000
(N)
Texas City channel (industrial canal)
90,000
90, 000
(FC)
Three Rivers
60,000
60, 000
(FC)
Trinity River project
650,000
650, 000
Utah:
(FC)
Little Dell Lake
420,000
420, 000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Virginia:
(FC)
Buena Vista (phase I)
$250, 000
Delaware Bay to Chesapeake Bay Waterway. (See Dela-
ware.)
(FC)
Fourmile Run, City of Alexandria, and Arlington County
$2, 000, 000
(FC)
Gathright Lake
$6, 000, 000
6, 000, 000
Potomac Estuary pilot water treatment plant, District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. (See District of
Columbia.)
Tug Fork Valley, Ky., Va., and W. Va. (See Kentucky.)
(FC)
Verona Lake (phase I)
(BE)
Virginia Beach (reimbursement)
200, 000
230, 000
230, 000
Washington:
Bonneville lock and dam, Oregon and Washington. (See
Oregon.)
(MP)
Chief Joseph Dam, Rufus Woods Lake (additional units)
27,000,000
27, 000, 000
Columbia and lower Willamette Rivers, (40-ft. project)
Oregon and Washington. (See Oregon.)
(BE)
Ediz Hook
(MP)
250, 000
Ice Harbor lock and dam, Lake Sacajawea (additional units)
5, 400, 000
5, 400, 000
John Day lock and dam, Oregon and Washington. (See
Oregon.)
(MP)
Little Goose lock and dam-Lake Bryan (additional units)
4, 600, 000
4, 600, 000
Lower Columbia River bank protection, Oregon and
Washington. (See Oregon.)
(MP)
Lower Granite lock and dam
35,600,000
35,600,000
(MP)
Lower Granite lock and dam (additional units)
4, 600, 000
4,600,000
(MP)
Lower Monumental lock and dam
1, 650, 000
1,650,000
(MP)
Lower Monumental lock and dam (additional units)
200, 000
450,000
McNary lock and dam, Oregon and Washington. (See
Oregon.)
(MP)
The Dalles lock and dam, Washington and Oregon (addi-
tional units)
1, 100, 000
1, 100, 000
(FC)
Wahkaikum County Consolidated Diking District No. 1
380, 000
380, 000
(FC)
Wenatchee, Canyons 1 and 2
270, 000
270, 000
(FC)
Wynoochee Lake (fish hatchery)
696, 000
West Virginia:
(FC)
Beech Fork Lake
5, 500, 000
5, 500, 000
Bloomington Lake, Md. and W. Va. (See Maryland.)
(FC)
Burnsville Lake
9, 100, 000
9, 600, 000
(FC)
Coal River Basin
147, 000
197,000
Dam No. 3, Big Sandy River. (See Kentucky.)
(FC)
East Lynn Lake
3, 200, 000
3, 200, 000
Galipolis Locks and Dam, Ohio and W. Va. (See Ohio.)
Hannibal locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia. (See
Ohio.)
(FC)
R. D. Bailey Lake
17, 600, 000
18,600,000
Lower Guyandot River
(500, 000)
(FC)
Stonewall Jackson Lake
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
Tug Fork Valley, Ky., Va. and W. Va. (See Kentucky.)
(FC)
West Fork Lake
50, 000
50, 000
Willow Island lock and dam, Ohio and West Virginia. (See
Ohio.)
Wisconsin:
(FC)
La Farge Lake and channel improvement
3, 000, 000
4, 000, 000
(N)
Northport Harbor
40, 000
40,000
(FC)
Prairie du Chien
30,000
(FC)
State Road and Ebner Coulees
100, 000
100,000
Budget estimate for fiscal year 1975
Conference allowance
Construction, general, State and project
Construction
Planning
Construction
Planning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Miscellaneous:
(N)
Small navigation projects not requiring specific legislation
costing up to $1,000,000 (sec. 107)
$2, 830, 000
$2, 830, 000
(N)
Mitigation of shore damages attributable to navigation
projects (sec. 111)
500, 000
(FC)
Emergency stream bank and shoreline protection
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
24
Recreation facilities, at completed projects
25, 000, 000
26, 000, 000
Fish and wildlife studies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
1, 800, 000
1, 800, 000
Aquatic plant control (1965 act)
1, 500, 000
1, 500, 000
Employees compensation
1, 870, 000
1, 870, 000
Reduction for anticipated savings and slippages
- 58, 894, 000
-
58, 894, 000
General reduction based on anticipated delays and carry-
over balances and other reductions
- 20, 997, 000
Grand total, Construction, General
909, 240, 000
$18, 260, 000
951, 224, 000
$22, 457, 000
(927, 500, 000)
(973, 681, 000)
25
Amendment No. 6: Changes "Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life" to "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
Lock and Dam No. 26, Mississippi River, Alton, Illinois and Mo.-
The Committee of Conference is agreed that the new replacement locks
are being designed for maximum efficient operation within the presently
authorized 9-foot navigation project on the Upper Mississippi River.
This design does not and cannot commit the Congress in any manner
to a 12-foot navigation project on the Upper Mississippi River.
Burlington Dam, North Dakota: The Conferees concur that the
Corps of Engineers shall re-examine and consider the matter of ob-
taining flowage easements in connection with this project.
Tocks Island Lake, Pa., N.J., and N.Y.: The Conferees are in
agreement that the funds allocated to the Tocks Island project shall
be made available for an impartial, comprehensive analysis, including
alternatives, and review of the project under the direction of the Corps
of Engineers and in cooperation with the Delaware River Basin Com-
mission. The Conferees direct that this investigation be completed,
and a final and definitive recommendation be submitted to the Com-
mittees within the next 12 months.
Lakeview Lake, Lorain, Ohio: Within available funds the Corps
may utilize $30,000 to proceed with the advance engineering and design
of the Lakeview Lake, Lorain, Ohio project.
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Amendment No. 7: Appropriates $161,948,000 instead of $150,000,-
000 as proposed by the House and $166,618,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The changes provided from the House bill are allocated as
follows:
General investigations:
Wolf and Loosahatchie Rivers, Tenn. and Miss
+50,000
Laconia Circle Area, Desha County, Ark
+20,000
Yazoo River Basin
+100,000
Subtotal, general investigations
+170,000
Construction and planning:
Mississippi River levees
+650,000
Channel improvement
+2,000,000
St. Francis Basin
+2,900,000
Tensas Basin:
Boeuf and Tensas Rivers
+1,000,000
Red River backwater
+500,000
Yazoo Basin:
Tributaries
+1,550,000
Yazoo backwater
+1,275,000
Atchafalaya Basin
+1,000,000
Teche Vermilion Basin
¹ + 153, 000
Eastern Rapides and South Central Avoyelles Parishes,
La
¹ +200, 000
Mississippi River, East Bank, Natchez area, Mississippi
(phase I)
1 +50,000
Subtotal, construction and planning
11, 278, 000
Operation and maintenance
+500,000 +
Total increase
11, 948, 000
1 Planning.
26
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Amendment No. 8: Appropriates $446,577,000 instead of $440,-
877,000 as proposed by the House and $455,877,000 as proposed by
the Senate. The increase over the House bill provides $5,000,000 for
the Southwest Pass Navigation channel leading from the Gulf of
Mexico to New Orleans, La.; and $700,000 for the Illinois-Mississippi
(Hennepin) Canal. The managers agree that $375,000 is included for
the Mississippi River between Missouri River and Minneapolis.
SPECIAL RECREATION USE FEES
Amendment No. 9: Appropriates $700,000 instead of $300,000 as
proposed by the House and $1,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 10: Corrects citation.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Amendment No. 11: Provides limitation on Capital of the revolving
fund of $228,000,000 as proposed by the House instead of $229,000,000
as proposed by the Senate.
The Committee on Conference is in agreement that the Corps should
proceed with the necessary modifications to the hopper dredge Pacific
which will permit the Corps to use this dredge to operate in inside
harbor and estuary areas, in addition to bar and entrance channel
areas as required for the most economical and safe use of the Pacific.
Further, as replacement of the auxiliary electrical power system of
the hopper dredge Comber is urgently needed to maintain this vessel's
reliability and performance, the Corps should proceed immediately
with the work they have recommended for the Comber.
In addition, following the completion of the dredge study the Com-
mittee of Conference authorizes the Corps of Engineers to proceed
with such modification and modernization of existing Corps' hopper
dredges in a scheduled and orderly manner as the Corps deems ap-
propriate in the public interest.
It is the further recommendation of the Conferees that the Corps
endeavor to utilize the services of private contractors and permit or
authorize bidding on pipeline dredging work by private industry
when feasible, practical and economical as deemed necessary and
desirable in the public interest.
The Conferees direct the Corps of Engineers to continue to report
on the hopper dredge modifications and work performed by private
industry to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate annually.
TITLE III-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Amendment No. 12: Appropriates $19,427,000 instead of $18,536,000
as proposed by the House and $19,651,000 as proposed by the Senate.
27
The increase provided over the House bill amount includes the
following:
Gallup, N. Mex
$225,000
New Mexico State water plan
50,000
Yakima Indian Reservation, Wash
40,000
Colorado River water quality improvement program
426,000
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act studies
150,000
The Committee of Conference directs the Bureau to undertake,
together with other appropriate agencies and the Colvilles, a study
to determine the requirements for a bridge or ferry on the Columbia
River to meet the needs of the Colville Indians. In the interim, the
Bureau is to take action, through other agencies if necessary, to
identify and secure means for providing emergency health service to
reservation residents.
Amendment No. 13: Approves limitation of $400,000 to be trans-
ferred to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service instead of $250,000 as pro-
posed by the House and $450,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 14: Changes "Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life" to "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION
Amendment No. 15: Appropriates $244,123,000 instead of $261,-
160,000 as proposed by the House and $247,490,000 as proposed by
the Senate. The changes from the House bill include a decrease of
$21,450,000 for work on the Coachellla Canal in California associated
with the Colorado River Salinity Control program which is now con-
sidered under a new appropriation title, "Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Projects", and other changes in the House bill amount
as follows:
Westlands distribution system, Central Valley project, California
+1,663,000
San Luis Drain, San Luis Unit, Central Valley project, California
+800,000
San Luis Valley, Closed Basin Division, Colorado
-100,000
Upper Snake River project, Salmon Falls Division, Idaho
+50,000
Southern Nevada Water Project, (phase II) Nevada
+500,000
Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota
+1,500,000
The Committee of Conference directs that the funds previously
appropriated for the Bacon Siphon and Tunnel No. 2, $1,055,000, be
utilized for the purposes the funds were originally provided and the
Conferees specifically prohibit the proposed transfer of these funds
for any other purpose. Additional funds required for other aspects of
the Columbia Basin, Washington project should be requested of the
Congress if needed.
UPPER COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT
Amendment No. 16: Appropriates $24,621,000 instead of $24,251,000
as proposed by the House and $24,771,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The increase over the House bill provides $220,000 for the Central
Utah project, Upalco Unit, and $150,000 for the Lyman, Wyoming
project.
Amendment No. 17: Approves limitation of $22,967,000 instead of
$22,597,000 as proposed by the House and $23,117,000 as proposed
by the Senate for the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
28
COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT
Amendment No. 18: Appropriates $55,800,000 instead of $60,800,-
000 as proposed by the House and $55,400,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The managers are agreed that not to exceed $400,000 is
provided for the acquisition of Indian lands.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS
Amendment No. 19: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede and
concur in the amendment of the Senate appropriating $27,650,000
for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Projects authorized
by Public Law 93-320, enacted June 24, 1974.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Amendment No. 20: Provides a limitation as proposed by the
Senate providing that no part of the funds appropriated under
operation and maintenance shall be used directly or indirectly for the
operation of the Newlands Reclamation project in the State of Nevada.
This action is recommended pending the final determination of a
court case.
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Amendment No. 21: Changes "Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life" to "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION
Amendment No. 22: Appropriates $128,000,000 instead of $108,-
000,000 as proposed by the House and $129,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate. The Committee of Conference is agreed that not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be used for the Hot Springs-Bell transmission line
within the funds provided.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The conferees agree that, under emergency conditions, the Adminis-
trator of the Bonneville Power Administration may utilize funds ap-
propriated to "operation and maintenance" for the purchase of power
for delivery to BPA to the extent funds are available.
TITLE IV-INDEPENDENT OFFICES
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
Amendment No. 23: Appropriates $9,775,000 as proposed by the
House instead of $10,175,000 as proposed by the Senate.
29
Amendment No. 24: Provides limitation of $2,183,000 as proposed
by the House instead of $2,583,000 as proposed by the Senate for
preparation of assessments and management plans.
TITLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Amendment No. 25: Deletes limitation proposed by Senate
CONFERENCE TOTAL-WITH COMPARISONS
The total new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 1975
recommended by the Committee of Conference with comparison to
fiscal year 1974 amount, to the 1975 budget estimate and to the
House and Senate bills for 1975 follows:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1974
$3, 942, 898, 000
Budget estimate of new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal
year 1975
4, 526, 826, 000
House Bill, fiscal year 1975
4, 475, 410, 000
Senate Bill, fiscal year 1975
4, 568, 203, 000
Conference agreement, fiscal year 1975
4, 505, 472, 000
Conference agreement compared with new budget (obligational)
authority, fiscal year, 1974
+ 562, 574, 000
Budget estimate of new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal
year 1975
- 21, 354, 000
House bill, fiscal year 1975
+ 30, 062, 000
Senate bill, fiscal year 1975
- 62, 731, 000
JOE L. EVINS,
EDWARD P. BOLAND,
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
JOHN M. SLACK,
OTTo E. PASSMAN,
GEORGE MAHON,
GLENN R. DAVIS (except
amendment No. 7 and
report language re
amendment No. 11)
HOWARD W. ROBISON,
JOHN T. MYERS,
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG,
Managers on the Part of the House.
JOHN C. STENNIS,
JOHN L. McCLELLAN,
WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
ALAN BIBLE,
ROBERT C. BYRD,
JOHN O. PASTORE,
MARK O. HATFIELD,
MILTON R. YOUNG,
ROMAN L. HRUSKA,
CLIFFORD P. CASE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Tom Bany f Co
H.R. 15155
Ainety-third Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty-first day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four
An Act
Making appropriations for public works for water and power development,
including the Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Bonneville Power Administration and other power agencies of the Depart-
ment of the Interior, the Appalachian regional development programs, the
Federal Power Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic
Energy Commission, and related independent agencies and commissions for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following
sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, for public
works for water and power development, including the Corps of
Engineers-Civil, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power
Administration and other power agencies of the Department of the
Interior, the Appalachian regional development programs, the Fed-
eral Power Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic
Energy Commission, and related independent agencies and commis-
sions, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
OPERATING EXPENSES
For necessary operating expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, including
the employment of aliens; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; publication and dissemination
of atomic information; purchase, repair and cleaning of uniforms;
official entertainment expenses (not to exceed $30,000) ; reimburse-
ment of the General Services Administration for security guard serv-
ices; hire of passenger motor vehicles; $1,411,960,000 and any moneys
(except sums received from disposal of property under the Atomic
Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2301))
received by the Commission, notwithstanding the provisions of section
3617 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 484), to remain available until
expended Provided, That the amount appropriated for "Operating
expenses" in the Special Energy Research and Development Appro-
priation Act, 1975, shall be merged, without limitation, with this
appropriation: Provided further, That from this appropriation trans-
fers of sums may be made to other agencies of the Government for the
GERALD R. FORD
performance of the work for which this appropriation is made, and in
such cases the sums so transferred may be merged with the appropri-
ation to which transferred.
PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
For expenses of the Commission, as authorized by law, in connection
with the purchase and construction of plant and the acquisition of
capital equipment and other expenses incidental thereto necessary in
carrying out the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, including the acquisition or condemnation of any real prop-
erty or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion; purchase of not to exceed three hundred and ninety-five
for replacement only, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; purchase
of three for replacement only, and hire of aircraft; $330,705,000 to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount appro-
priated for "Plant and capital equipment" in the Special Energy
H. R. 15155-3
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood control, and
rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance of flood control proj-
ects threatened or destroyed by flood, as authorized by law (33 U.S.C.
702a, 702g-1), $161,948,000, to remain available until expended Pro-
vided, That not less than $250,000 shall be available for bank stabiliza-
tion measures as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be advisable
for the control of bank erosion of streams in the Yazoo Basin, includ-
ing the foothill area, and where necessary such measures shall com-
plement similar works planned and constructed by the Soil Conser-
vation Service and be limited to the areas of responsibility mutually
agreeable to the District Engineer and the State Conservationist.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, maintenance,
and care of existing river and harbor, flood control, and related works,
including such sums as may be necessary for the maintenance of harbor
channels provided by a State, municipality or other public agency,
outside of harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general com-
merce and navigation; administration of laws pertaining to preser-
vation of navigable waters; surveys and charting of northern and
north western lakes and connecting waters; clearing and straightening
channels; and removal of obstructions to navigation; $446,577,000,
to remain available until expended.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
For expenses necessary for emergency flood control, hurricane, and
shore protection activities, as authorized by section 5 of the Flood
Control Act, approved August 18, 1941, as amended, $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
GENERAL EXPENSES
For expenses necessary for general administration and related
functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and offices of the
Division Engineers; activities of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors and the Coastal Engineering Research Center; com-
mercial statistics; and miscellaneous investigations; $38,800,000.
SPECIAL RECREATION USE FEES
For construction, operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation
facilities, including collection of special recreation use fees, to remain
available until expended, $700,000, to be derived from the special
account established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601) : Provided, That not more than 40 per
centum of the foregoing amount shall be available for the enhance-
ment of the fee collection system established by section 4 of such Act,
including the promotion and enforcement thereof.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Appropriations in this title shall be available for expenses of attend-
ance by military personnel at meetings in the manner authorized by
5 U.S.C. 4110, uniforms, and allowances therefor, as authorized by law
(5 U.S.C. 5901-5902), and for printing, either during a recess or ses-
H. R. 15155-4
sion of Congress, of survey reports authorized by law, and such survey
reports as may be printed during a recess of Congress shall be printed,
with illustrations, as documents of the next succeeding session of Con-
gress; and during the current fiscal year the revolving fund, Corps of
Engineers, shall be available for purchase (not to exceed two hundred
and forty-three for replacement only), and hire of passenger motor
vehicles: Provided, That the total capital of the revolving fund shall
not exceed $228,000,000.
TITLE ILI-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
For carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation as
provided in the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32
Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto) and
other Acts applicable to that Bureau, as follows:
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
For engineering and economic investigations of proposed Federal
reclamation projects and studies of water conservation and develop-
ment plans and activities preliminary to the reconstruction, rehabili-
tation and betterment, financial adjustment, or extension of existing
projects, to remain available until expended, $19,427,000 : Provided,
That none of this appropriation shall be used for more than one-half
of the cost of an investigation requested by a State, municipality, or
other interest: Provided further, That $400,000 of this appropriation
shall be transferred to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
for studies, investigations, and reports thereon as required by the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 563-565) to provide
that wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration and be
coordinated with other features of water-resource development pro-
grams of the Bureau of Reclamation.
CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION
For construction and rehabilitation of authorized reclamation
projects or parts thereof (including power transmission facilities)
and for other related activities, as authorized by law, to remain avail-
able until expended, $244,123,000, of which $115,000,000 shall be
derived from the reclamation fund: Provided, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to initiate the construction of transmission
facilities within those areas covered by power wheeling service con-
tracts which include provision for service to Federal establishments
and preferred customers, except those transmission facilities for which
construction funds have been heretofore appropriated, those facilities
which are necessary to carry out the terms of such contracts or those
facilities for which the Secretary of the Interior finds the wheeling
agency is unable or unwilling to provide for the integration of Fed-
eral projects or for service to a Federal establishment or preferred
customer: Provided further, That the final point of discharge for the
interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit shall not be determined until
development by the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Cali-
fornia of a plan, which shall conform with the water quality stand-
ards of the State of California as approved by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, to minimize any detrimental
effect of the San Luis drainage waters.
H. R. 15155-5
UPPER COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT
For the Upper Colorado River Storage Project, as authorized by
the Act of April 11, 1956, as amended (43 U.S.C. 620d), to remain
available until expended, $24,621,000, of which $22,967,000 shall be
available for the "Upper Colorado River Basin Fund" authorized by
section 5 of said Act of April 11, 1956, and $1,654,000 shall be available
for construction of recreational and fish and wildlife facilities author-
ized by section 8 thereof, and may be expended by bureaus of the
Department through or in cooperation with State or other Federal
agencies, and advances to such Federal agencies are hereby authorized
Provided, That no part of the funds herein approved shall be available
for construction or operation of facilities to prevent waters of Lake
Powell from entering any national monument.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT
For advances to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund, as authorized by section 403 of the Act of September 30, 1968
(82 Stat. 894), for the construction, operation, and maintenance of
projects authorized by title III of said Act, to remain available until
expended $55,800,000, of which $32,800,000 is for liquidation of con-
tract authority provided by section 303 (b) of said Act.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS
For construction, operation and maintenance of projects authorized
by the Act of June 24, 1974, Public Law 93-320, to remain available
until expended, $27,650,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or parts
thereof and other facilities, as authorized by law; and for a soil and
moisture conservation program on lands under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to law, $97,000,000, of which
$80,730,000 shall be derived from the reclamation fund and $3,218,000
shall be derived from the Colorado River Dam fund Provided, That
funds advanced by water users for operation and maintenance of
reclamation projects or parts thereof shall be deposited to the credit
of this appropriation and may be expended for the same objects and
in the same manner as sums appropriated herein may be expended,
and the unexpended balances of such advances shall be credited to the
appropriation for the next succeeding fiscal year: Provided further,
That no part of the funds appropriated herein shall be used directly
or indirectly for the operation of the Newlands Reclamation project
in the State of Nevada.
LOAN PROGRAM
For loans to irrigation districts and other public agencies for con-
struction of distribution systems on authorized Federal reclamation
projects, and for loans and grants to non-Federal agencies for con-
struction of projects, as authorized by the Acts of July 4, 1955, as
amended (43 U.S.C. 421a-421d), and August 6, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422k), as amended, including expenses necessary for carrying out the
program, $13,825,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That any contract under the Act of July 4, 1955 (69 Stat. 244), as
amended, not yet executed by the Secretary, which calls for the mak-
H. R. 15155-6
ing of loans beyond the fiscal year in which the contract is entered into
shall be made only on the same conditions as those prescribed in section
12 of the Act of August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187, 1197).
EMERGENCY FUND
For an additional amount for the "Emergency fund", as authorized
by the Act of June 26, 1948 (43 U.S.C. 502), to remain available until
expended for the purposes specified in said Act, $600,000, to be derived
from the reclamation fund.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
For necessary expenses of general administration and related func-
tions in the offices of the Commissioner of Reclamation and in the
regional offices of the Bureau of Reclamation, $20,300,000, to be derived
from the reclamation fund and to be nonreimbursable pursuant to the
Act of April 19, 1945 (43 U.S.C. 377) : Provided, That no part of any
other appropriation in this Act shall be available for activities or
functions budgeted for the current fiscal year as general administrative
expenses.
SPECIAL FUNDS
Sums herein referred to as being derived from the Reclamation
fund, the Colorado River Dam Fund, or the Colorado River develop-
ment fund, are appropriated from the special funds in the Treasury
created by the Act of June 17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391), the Act of
December 21, 1928 (43 U.S.C. 617a), and the Act of July 19, 1940 (43
U.S.C. 618a) respectively. Such sums shall be transferred, upon request
of the Secretary, to be merged with and expended under the heads
herein specified; and the unexpended balances of sums transferred for
expenditure under the heads "Operation and Maintenance" and "Gen-
eral Administrative Expenses" shall revert and be credited to the
special fund from which derived.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Appropriations to the Bureau of Reclamation shall be available
for purchase of not to exceed thirty-four passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; purchase of one aircraft for replacement only;
payment of claims for damages to or loss of property, personal injury,
or death arising out of activities of the Bureau of Reclamation; pay-
ment, except as otherwise provided for, of compensation and expenses
of persons on the rolls of the Bureau of Reclamation appointed as
authorized by law to represent the United States in the negotiations
and administration of interstate compacts without reimbursement or
return under the reclamation laws; rewards for information or evi-
dence concerning violations of law involving property under the juris-
diction of the Bureau of Reclamation; performance of the functions
specified under the head "Operation and Maintenance Administra-
tion", Bureau of Reclamation, in the Interior Department Appropria-
tion Act, 1945 preparation and dissemination of useful information
including recordings, photographs, and photographic prints; and
studies of recreational uses of reservoir areas, and investigation and
recovery of archeological and paleontological remains in such areas
in the same manner as provided for in the Act of August 21, 1935 (16
U.S.C. 461-467) : Provided, That no part of any appropriation made
herein shall be available pursuant to the Act of April 19, 1945 (43
H. R. 15155-7
U.S.C. 377), for expenses other than those incurred on behalf of
specific reclamation projects except "General Administrative Expen-
ses" and amounts provided for reconnaissance, basin surveys, and
general engineering and research under the head "General Investiga-
tions".
Sums appropriated herein which are expended in the performance
of reimbursable functions of the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
returnable to the extent and in the manner provided by law.
No part of any appropriation for the Bureau of Reclamation, con-
tained in this Act or in any prior Act, which represents amounts
earned under the terms of a contract but remaining unpaid, shall be
obligated for any other purpose, regardless of when such amounts are
to be paid Provided, That the incurring of any obligation prohibited
by this paragraph shall be deemed a violation of section 3679 of the
Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 665).
No funds appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation for operation
and maintenance, except those derived from advances by water users,
shall be used for the particular benefits of lands (a) within the
boundaries of an irrigation district, (b) of any member of a water
users' organization, or (c) of any individual when such district, orga-
nization, or individual is in arrears for more than twelve months in
the payment of charges due under a contract entered into with the
United States pursuant to laws administered by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Not to exceed $225,000 may be expended from the appropriation
"Construction and Rehabilitation" for work by force account on any
one project or Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program unit and then only
when such work is unsuitable for contract or no acceptable bid has been
received and, other than otherwise provided in this paragraph or as
may be necessary to meet local emergencies, not to exceed 12 per cen-
tum of the construction allotment for any project from the appro-
priation "Construction and Rehabilitation" contained in this Act,
shall be available for construction work by force account: Provided,
That this paragraph shall not apply to work performed under the
Rehabilitation and Betterment Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 724).
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
For engineering and economic investigations to promote the devel-
opment and utilization of the water, power, and related resources of
Alaska, $540,000, to remain available until expended : Provided, That
$10,000 of this appropriation shall be transferred to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service for studies, investigations, and reports
thereon, as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 563-565).
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of projects in
Alaska and of marketing electric power and energy, $760,000.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION
For construction and acquisition of transmission lines, substations,
and appurtenant facilities, as authorized by law, $128,000,000, to
remain available until expended Provided, That the amount appropri-
H. R. 15155-8
ated for "Construction" in the Special Energy Research and Devel-
opment Appropriation Act, 1975, shall be merged, without limitation,
with this appropriation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of the Bonne-
ville transmission system and of marketing electric power and energy,
$38,500,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Appropriations of the Bonneville Power Administration shall be
available to carry out all the duties imposed upon the Administrator
pursuant to law. Appropriations made herein to the Bonneville Power
Administration shall be available in one fund, except that the appro-
priation herein made for operation and maintenance shall be available
only for the service of the current fiscal year.
Other than as may be necessary to meet local emergencies, not to
exceed 12 per centum of the appropriation for construction herein
made for the Bonneville Power Administration shall be available for
construction work by force account or on a hired-labor basis.
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of power
transmission facilities and of marketing electric power and energy
pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power area,
$946,000.
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION
For construction and acquisition of transmission lines, substations,
and appurtenant facilities, and for administrative expenses connected
therewith, in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southwestern
power area, $620,000, to remain available until expended.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of power
transmission facilities and of marketing electric power and energy
pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southwestern power area,
including purchase of not to exceed one passenger motor vehicle for
replacement only, $5,795,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SEC. 301. Appropriations in this title shall be available for expendi-
ture or transfer (within each bureau or office), with the approval of
the Secretary, for the emergency reconstruction, replacement, or
repair of aircraft, buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other unavoidable
causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made available under this
authority until funds specifically made available to the Department of
the Interior for einergencies shall have been exhausted.
H. R. 15155-9
SEC. 302. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or transfer
(within each bureau or office) of any appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of the sev-
eral agencies, for the suppression or emergency prevention of forest
or range fires on or threatening lands under jurisdiction of the Depart-
ment of the Interior.
SEC. 303. Appropriations in this title shall be available for opera-
tion of warehouses, garages, shops, and similar facilities, wherever
consolidation of activities will contribute to efficiency, or economy,
and said appropriations shall be reimbursed for services rendered to
any other activity in the same manner as authorized by the Act of
June 30, 1932 (31 U.S.C. 686) : Provided, That reimbursements for
costs of supplies, materials, and equipment, and for services rendered
may be credited to the appropriation current at the time such reim-
bursements are received.
SEC. 304. No part of any funds made available by this Act to the
Southwestern Power Administration may be made available to any
other agency, bureau, or office for any purposes other than for services
rendered pursuant to law to the Southwestern Power Administration.
TITLE IV-INDEPENDENT OFFICES
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For necessary expenses of the Federal Cochairman and his alternate
on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for payment of the
Federal share of the administrative expenses of the commission,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire of pas-
senger motor vehicles, $1,740,000.
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized by the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended, except
expenses authorized by section 105 of said Act, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, to
remain available until expended, $293,500,000, of which $160,000,000
shall be available for the Appalachian Development Highway System,
but no part of any appropriation in this Act shall be available for
expenses in connection with commitments for contracts or grants for
the Appalachian Development Highway System in excess of the total
amount herein and heretofore appropriated.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the United
States member of the Delaware River Basin Commission, as author-
ized by law (75 Stat. 716), $77,500.
CONTRIBUTION TO DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
For payment of the United States share of the current expenses of
the Delaware River Basin Commission, as authorized by law (75 Stat.
706, 707), $238,000.
H. R. 15155-10
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For expenses necessary for the work of the Commission, as author-
ized by law, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $1,000 for official recep-
tion and representation expenses, $32,100,000.
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
CONTRIBUTION TO INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay in advance to the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin the Federal con-
tribution toward the expenses of the Commission during the current
fiscal year in the administration of its business in the conservancy dis-
trict established pursuant to the Act of July 11, 1940 (54 Stat. 748),
as amended by the Act of September 25, 1970 (Public Law 91-407),
$52,000.
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the United
States member of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, as
authorized by law (84 Stat. 1541), $77,500.
CONTRIBUTION TO SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
For payment of the United States share of the current expenses of
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, as authorized by law (84
Stat. 1530, 1531), $150,000.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
PAYMENT TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND
For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C., ch. 12A),
including hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft, and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, $77,400,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That this appropriation and other funds avail-
able to the Tennessee Valley Authority shall be available for the pur-
chase of not to exceed one aircraft for replacement only, and the
purchase of not to exceed two hundred and twenty-four passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only.
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962-1962d-3), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates not to exceed $100
per diem for individuals (42 U.S.C. 1962a-4(5)), and hire of pas-
senger motor vehicles (42 U.S.C. 1962a-4(6)), $9,775,000, to remain
available until expended, including $1,242,000, for carrying out the
H. R. 15155-2
Research and Development Appropriation Act, 1975, shall be merged,
without limitation, with this appropriation.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. Not to exceed 5 per centum of appropriations made avail-
able for the current fiscal year for "Operating expenses" and "Plant
and capital equipment" may be transferred between such appropria-
tions, but neither such appropriation, except as otherwise provided
herein, shall be increased by more than 5 per centum by any such
transfers, and any such transfers shall be reported promptly to the
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate.
TITLE II-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL
The following appropriations shall be expended under the direction
of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of
Engineers for authorized civil functions of the Department of the
Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion,
and related purposes:
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
For expenses necessary for the collection and study of basic infor-
mation pertaining to river and harbor, flood control, shore protection,
and related projects, restudy of authorized projects, and when author-
ized by law, surveys and studies of projects prior to authorization for
construction, $65,284,000, to remain available until expended: Pro-
vided, That $1,490,000 of this appropriation shall be transferred to
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for studies, investiga-
tions, and reports thereon as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 563-565), to provide that wildlife
conservation shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated
with other features of water-resource development programs of the
Department of the Army.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore pro-
tection, and related projects authorized by law; and detailed studies,
and plans and specifications, of projects (including those for develop-
ment with participation or under consideration for participation by
States, local governments, or private groups) authorized or made
eligible for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction) : $973,681,000, to
remain available until expended Provided, That no part of this appro-
priation shall be used for projects not authorized by law or which are
authorized by law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor,
except as may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter
authorized to be appropriated: Provided further, That $1,800,000 of
this appropriation shall be transferred to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service for studies, investigations, and reports thereon as
required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
563-565) to provide that wildlife conservation shall receive equal con-
sideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource
development programs of the Department of the Army.
H. R. 15155-11
provisions of title I and administering the provisions of titles II, III,
and IV of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d(b)), $2,183,000, for preparation
of assessments and management of plans (42 U.S.C. 1962d(c)
$1,350,000, for expenses of river basin commissions under title II of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d(a)), and $5,000,000 for grants to States
under title III of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1962c(a)) : Provided, That the
share of the expenses of any river basin commission borne by the
Federal Government pursuant to title II of the Act shall not exceed
$250,000 annually for recurring operating expenses, including the
salary and expenses of the chairman.
TITLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless
expressly so provided herein.
SEC. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall
be available for paying to the Administrator of the General Services
Administration in excess of 90 per centum of the standard level user
charge established pursuant to section 210(j) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, for space and
services.
This Act may be cited as the "Public Works for Water and Power
Development and Atomic Energy Commmission Appropriation Act,
1975".
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
(OMB/Coyne)DG
August 27, 1974
VORO
SUGGESTED SIGNING STATEMENT: PUBLIC WORKS BILL
I am today signing H.R. 15155, a public works appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1975 providing funds for water and power develop-
ment, the Atomic Energy Commission, and related agencies and
commissions.
The bill raises for one of the first times the question of how
well the executive and legislative branches can cooperate in carrying
out the new Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under that act, a
President who signs an appropriations bill but wishes to avoid spending
all of the funds may either seek a recission of the appropriations or
seek a deferral. In either case, the President's action requires the
concurrence of the Congress.
This public works bill is troublesome because it would increase
the 1975 outlays by $80 million above the budget and would commit
us to major outlay increases in future years. I am strongly opposed
to those increases because they would intensify our number one
problem -- inflation.
-2-
Nonetheless, I also recognize that this bill is the product
of much hard work and deliberation and contains funds for many
worthy projects. A veto would commit us to the time-consuming
process of reformulating a public works appropriations bill at a time
when our energies should be focused on more pressing matters.
After discussions with Congressional leaders, I have therefore
decided to sign this bill with the hope and expectation that under the
budget act, the Congress will work in cooperation with the executive
branch to defer for one full year the expenditure of that amount
of appropriated funds which would contribute excessively to inflationary
governmental spending.
I am totally committed to close cooperation between the Congress
and the Executive, and I know that this spirit will continue to prevail
as we work together to halt the inflationary spiral.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 29, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have signed H.R. 15155, a public works appropriations bill for fiscal year
1975 providing funds for water and power development, the Atomic Energy
Commission, and related agencies and commissions.
The bill raises for one of the first times the question of how well the executive
and legislative branches can cooperate in carrying out the new Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. Under that act, a President who signs an appropriations
bill but wishes to avoid spending all of the funds may either seek a recision of
appropriations or seek a deferral. In either case, the President's action
"
requires the concurrence of the Congress.
This public works bill is troublesome because it would increase the 1975
outlays by $80 million above the budget and would commit us tomajor outlay
increases in future years. I am strongly opposed to those increases because
they would intensify our number one problem -- inflation.
Nonetheless, I also recognize that this bill is the product of much hard work
and deliberation and contains funds for many worthy projects. A veto would
commit us to the time-consuming process of reformulating a public works
appropriations bill at a time when our energies should be focused on more
pressing matters.
After discussions with Congressional leaders, I have therefore decided to sign
this bill with the hope and expectation that under the budget act, the Congress
will work in cooperation with the executive branch to defer for one full year
the expenditure of that amount of appropriated funds which would contribute
excessively to inflationary governmental spending.
I am totally committed to close cooperation between the Congress and the
Executive, and I know that this spirit will continue to prevail as we work
together to halt the inflationary spiral.
#
#
#
August 16, 1974
Dear Mr. Director:
The following bills were received at the White
House on August 16th:
H.R. 15155
H.R. 15405
H.R. 15544
Please let the President have reports and
recommendations as to the approval of these
bills as seen as possible.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Linder
Chief Executive Clerk
The Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC.