Laserfiche WebLink
<br />) <br /> <br />'\ <br />~, <br /> <br />cfik-v. ~ ~ -.!!p~ <br /> <br />Missouri River Basin CommissioD <br /> <br />John W. Neuberger <br />Chairman <br />William C. Brabham, Iowa <br />Vice~ChBirmBn <br /> <br />Suite 403 . 10050 Regency Circle . Omaha. Nebraska 68114 <br />"A Presidential State-Federal River Basin Commillllion" <br /> <br />August 26, 1974 <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />Rc-CE/VEf) <br /> <br />4/){J 2 f) 1974 <br />GaL ' <br />CONSER 0, il'A TER <br />~A TION BOA <br />, liD <br /> <br />Mr. Warren D. Fairchild <br />Director <br />Water Resources Council <br />2120 L Street, N.W. <br />Washington, D.C. 20037 <br /> <br />Dea r Wa rren : <br /> <br />Your letter of July 30, 1974, relating to the 1975 Assessment advises that we <br />may assume that a total of $200,000 will be available for Specific Problem Analysis <br />activities in the Missouri Region. The purpose of this letter is to request that <br />an additional $86,000 be allocated to the MRBC to undertake and carry. out the <br />assessment efforts that are required for this re9ion. This increase is reflected <br />in the final FY 1976 operating and study management budgets of the MRBC, transmitted <br />by letter dated August 23, 1974. <br /> <br />The Missouri River Basin is a vast region, comprIsIng about one-sixth the <br />land area of the conterminous U.S. and embracing all Dr parts of ten states. Most <br />of this region lies west of the 98th meridian, where careful multidisciplinary, <br />multiobjective p1annin9 of scarce water resources is relatively more important and <br />complex than in many other regions of the U.S. <br /> <br />In order for the National Assessment to have maximum value to users, the <br />states will have to have major roles in the assessment efforts. It should be <br />noted that the states will be asked to commit substantial manpower and funds to an <br />assessment mandated at the Federal level, for which no state appropriations have <br />programmed. Specifically, the substantial efforts required from each of the ten <br />states must involve extensive intrastate as well as interstate coordination among <br />each of the states to complete the following major items of work: <br /> <br />. Establishment of state goals, objectives and desires with regard to <br />national, economic and regional development, growth, environmental <br />quality and social well-being of the state's population. <br /> <br />. Determination of the preferred alternative future for the state and <br />of its relation to the central case of the Nationwide Analysis 1 <br />(Series E alternative future), after ana1vzing socio-economic factors-- 392 <br />such as population, income, employment and land and water use--for <br />each subarea within the state and aggregating the results on a <br />regionally-consistent basis. (These factors vary widely from state <br /> <br />to state). COMMISSION MEMBERS <br /> <br />State - Federal <br /> <br />Colorado <br />Atomic Energy Commission <br />Iowa <br />Department of Commerce <br />Kansas <br />Department of Agriculture <br />Minnesota <br />Department of Arm!1 <br /> <br />Missouri <br />Department of Health <br />Education and Welfare <br />Montana <br />Department of H Dusing <br />and Urban Development <br />Nebraska <br />Department of Interior <br /> <br />North Dakota <br />Department <br />of Transportation <br />South Dakota <br />Environmental <br />Protection Agency <br />WyomIng <br />Federal Power Commission <br />