WMOD00281 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'l .. ~."'_~~~:':1I'_:'"'~~ ~ ~- :1 II , 'I :1 !i ,! , ~ ~ il ~ :, &..L In general, the cap,itul and operating C{)~ts of the program would be paid .by the.operatingaulhorlty. a.nd the revenues from the,sale ofaugJ1lcntedwat~rs would accrue to that authnrity, For it non federal 9pCr~\ting autllority, policy decisions are required with respect to prorating- costs incurred by the federal government for its services related to both theWOSA program and the storage. ilnd distribution of augmented waters. There. me similar poliCy decisions with respect to prorating benefits (other than rcvenucfrom water.saks) generated by the augnlclltc,d wat~rs. Th~ possibility {If offsetting Some of the fedenilcosts with thesebenefiis should be explored (IS a matter or policy. The nonfedcral authorities need some lega'l meehariislll for deterrhining the amount of water produced annually by tl1.e WOSA program. If the Bureau of Rcc.lam<ition were. the opctating authority, there would probably be no need to detenninc the~nnual WPSA runoff for water allocation purposes. To l)re~ elude intra- and intergovernmental conflict and direct conflicts tif interest in determining tht:. amount of augmented water, it is recorllmcn~kd th.at this authority be placed in an independent body.such a.s the Federal Weather ,Modi. ficationRegulatoryBoard. The policy cluestions concerned with the need for the augmented water are important and are. approached differently foX'.the fE:deral :as ()pposi;<.i to the nonfcderal operating authority for' \VaSA. :The issue that is most relevant to the federal operating authority is whethcr there is a shortage of. watcr in the river. For the nonfcderal alternative operating authorities, ,the important ques- tion is whether there is a demand for the wat~r at a price at which it can be delivered. The fcder~l govct'nIilent can." as <l matter of national policy, invest in water supply <lll.!,'luentation us a way of creating future long term demand for water in the basin. These i.nve.stment decisions areba.se.d on policy decisions concerning the growth of the, nation and the region. The implications of this to the choicc of a federal operating 'duthorityfor WQSA is whether this po- tential for augmenting the water supply is to be regarded a's a llleans for con- tinui ng federal invesunents in future water needs in accordance. with long~tcrrll gr~)\I)th projections f~r the basin. The choic~ofn nonfcderal operating authorIty. on the other hand, pre- sents an opportunity both for testing those Iuture water needs and at the same time postponing the need for a dec!siOli (lna majqr means of augmentatioll to meet those needs. Two element'i w()uld :lssistin s<;)lving the current public policy dilemma over the problem of whelllo ,authorize a major augmentation project for the basin.. if at all. First, cMtrolled marketability of the available ,augmented water supply would provide ~ill incremcnt~l method of 11rCcting gwwingshortages Qv~r time until the need for major augmentation becomes appari.:nt. This would reduce the risk of a major future shortage resu'lting from the failure to authorize a major menus of augmentation in tirile. Second, the authorizatioll,!f the WaSA pr(jgram would, through the. creation ()f controlled competing jJ)t~rests,lend to place the cominuillg(luestion of shortage in a more objective light than is now the case. ' Several policy questions con:cerning water use Illust be. addressed if :i xxiii