Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />T <br />I <br />I <br />f <br /> ! <br /> a <br /> n <br /> b <br /> \' <br /> II <br /> 0 <br /> if <br /> c <br /> d I <br /> a I <br /> I <br /> Ii <br /> a <br /> rl <br /> t <br /> r <br /> t <br /> ( <br /> i <br />II " <br />" <br />II ( <br />II 1 <br /> ,I <br /> I, t <br /> t <br /> ~ ! <br /> I <br /> : <br /> I <br /> I- <br /> I. <br /> , <br /> <br />'file policy issue of-the minimum federal interest as developed for this <br />application of weather modi/lc.Hion (WOSA, in the Upper Colorado River <br />BMin) is the same in all-weather modification activities. Therefore, theregu- <br />latqry powers listed below as .the minimum foml of fcdenilpowcr are applicable <br />to all forms of weather modification: <br /> <br />Power to license oper.alors to cnsllr:e r~ponsib1c agents -for carrying out <br />the program in ac~ord<inte. with minimum federal requirements. <br /> <br />Power to establish mininium operational criteria for the health and <br />safety.of people living in the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />Power to. license the technology of weather modification, including <br />the materials andagentsi.1.~d:l. <br /> <br />Power to deny C9tltinuation of the oper:ationa1 program or to require <br />itssub_stantial mqdiftcalion as a condition of its further continuation. <br /> <br />Power to set environmental and ecological-standards that are to be met. <br /> <br />. Power to require. research and monitoring, both as a condition' of: oper- <br />ations,.and as a right of participation in connection wilb the authoriza- <br />tion of operations. <br /> <br />Power to require contributions to federal or state disaster fund... <br /> <br />b. OperatingAut:bority <br /> <br />Federa'l r~gu.1ation of weather modification activities will certainly not <br />interfere with tile possible rangco[ institutional alternativeS for authori7lng a <br />WOSA program. Tn fact, because it ensures that a minimum level of program <br />safeguards is met;, the Tange of choices will be enhanc.cd. 111 devc10ping the. <br />range of alternative aulborities, a two.step policy decision process involving <br />different publics in each of the decisions was chosen. The first step is the choice <br />of the best alternative operating authorities. Within the limits of operating <br />.authorities, the second step is the choice of an implementing alternative that <br />bestsuit~ the needs of the public.thnt would be affected by the additional snow <br />an9 the augmented water suppJy. <br />Although thi:t; twoostep. proc;ess allows great flexi~i1ity, it is important to <br />recognize tha~ there are ,definable institutional and legal bounds within 'which <br />the public can e_xerci~c policy decisions. <br />For the lirst step of the policy decision process, fOUl' feasible alternative <br />operating ~aUlhorities were considered: (I) th.e fCgeral govcnlinent; (2) the <br />states of Colorado, Utah, aod Wyoming. indi viduaIJy; ( 3) the- states of Colo- <br />rado~ Utah,and Wyo,ningby iilterstate compact; and (4)a federally ch.ar- <br />tered Snowpack Augmentation Corporation for t.he states of Colorado, Utah, <br />and Wyoming. Major legal. instjtutional, and ~ractkal considerations bear 011 <br />the choiCe of anyofthest alternatives. These arc SlIffill)arizcd in the following <br />paragraplls. <br />If any other entity than the federal government is to be the operating <br /><lUthority, Congress must legislate on the water rights. <br /> <br />xxii <br /> <br />\.\ <br />1 <br /> <br />~--'''''''-'-~-- '- <br />