Title: Memo re Conference on proposed agreement of Corps of Engineers
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00050741/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo re Conference on proposed agreement of Corps of Engineers
Alternate Title: Memo re Conference on proposed agreement of Corps of Engineers that more specifically delineates the method for local sponsors to provide matching funds for construction of federally authorized projects.
Physical Description: 2p.
Language: English
Publication Date: July 18 1972.
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 1, Folder 7 ( FUNDING WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS ), Item 43
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00050741
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text






July 18, 1972 'i

i JU~ 2 0 19

MEMORANDUM -

TO: Dale H. Twachtmann, Executive Director

FROM: Jake D. Varn, Attorney

RE: Conference on proposed agreement of Corps of Engineers that more
specifically delineates the method for local sponsors to provide
matching funds for construction of federally authorized projects


1. Those attending:
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District
Mr. R. Padrick, Chairman, Board of Governors
Mr. Clark, Member, Board of Governors
Mr. Dail, Executive Director
Mr. Schwartz, Attorney
Corps of Engineers
Mr. Garland
Department of 'Natural Resources
Senator Hodges, Executive Director
Mr. J. Pierce, Attorney
Mr. C. Saunders, Division of Interior Resources
Others
Mr. W. Henderson, Division of Budget, Department of Administration
Mr. E. Revel, Division of Budget, Department of Administration
Mr. F. Waldinger, Senate Natural Resources Committee
Mr. H. Elton, Senate Ways and Means Committee

2. Initially, efforts were made to inform all how the Districts have provided the
matching funds in the past and how the proposed document will effect this procedure.
Mr. Garland was never able to explain matters so that everyone understood and in
those instances where he almost had ii explained, someone would ask an irrelevant
question and lead him off on a tangent.

3. The first half of the meeting everyone was attacking the document for one reason
or another. For example:
a. Mr. Henderson said he wouldn't sign the contract unless "contract
feature" was defined.
b. Mr. Padrick said that he didn't understand the basis for the Corps of
Engineers wanting such an agreement when there was no federal legisla-
tion requiring such.

4. Finally, I explained what happened at our Board's meeting and why. I told








Memorandum
July 18, 1972
Page Two


the group that our Board agreed to execute the document, subject to Basin Board
approval. Mr. Gibbons, the Board's attorney, advised that it was his opinion that
the Board was already obligated because of its original assurances as the local
sponsor and the proposed contract only went into more detail than the original
agreement.

I went on to explain that all of the discussion thus far was somewhat pointless
because they were not addressing themselves to the point of main concern -- what
will happen if the Legislature fails to appropriate WRDA funds for continuing con-
tracts. The existing problem is between the Districts and the Corps of Engineers;
the State is not involved because you cannot obligate the Legislature to appropriate
funds.

5. Towards the end of the meeting Senator Hodges, when asked by Mr. Padrick if
he would sign to agreement, said that he would, based on the action by SWFWMD.
Mr. Padrick later said that he could not recommend to his Board that it enter such
an agreement.

6. Other points made by Mr. Garland:
a. The Jacksonville District Office is the only office that operates
under the arrangements we presently use for continuing contracts.
b. Failure to execute the agreement immediately will jeopardize
FY 73-74 federal appropriations. South Atlantic Division was imme-
diately notified of our Board's action on Wednesday.



Observations, Conclusions and Opinions

1. CSFFCD evidently had talked with Mr. W. Henderson about its problem and he
was trying to assist them in its fight not to execute the document.
2. In the end CSFFCD only alienated Mr. Garland because of the criticism about
the Corps voiced by CSFFCD and others at the meeting.
3. We were able to make some points with Mr. Garland because of our Board's
action. We were his best defense.
4. We accomplished nothing by taking the problem to Tallahassee. The State
couldn't resolve the problem because it wasn't involved. If anything, we only
caused more problems. We publicize the problems we are having with the Corps
of Engineers and we educate those who would like to halt or curtail the construc-
tion of our projects.
5. CSFFCD is really afraid that it will face a more difficult task this coming
session in obtaining WRDA funds.


JDV:nlk




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs