Laserfiche WebLink
<br />{' .. <br /> <br />-.- ----. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />nonfedcral operating au'thority is [0 he chosen rather than a fedcralauth6rity. <br />These are mentioned briefly in this s\Jmmary, <br /> <br />Should the WOSA water itlcremcnt.bc aUoc,ated to lise, within the states <br />inwhich it is created? <br /> <br />What type. of operalingauthority would bcst serve. the pO'ssible wafer <br />markers'? <br /> <br />How' is a non federal operating ~llIthoritY to be. protected frOIll federal <br />preemption of its marketS? <br /> <br />Row arc the ~"'ater markets to be structured so that existing feden~l in- <br />vestme!ltS in storage and distribution faciliticsare not to'be jeopardized <br />by a nonfederal operating authority? <br /> <br />Another relevant policy issue concerns the delegation ofauthodty by any <br />of the four alternativcoperuting authorities. E.<stablishing the power to delegate <br />operating authority ,greatly affect., the f1exibilily with which other ,policy issues <br />maybe dealt. On the other hand, practical and policy 'constraints limit l,he <br />range of available choic~s for d~1cgat:ing authorities. <br />If one of the three nonfedcral operating authorities is, authorized to <br />operate the WOSA program; a number. of existing federal interests \'lould be <br />affc<:ted. The important policy implication is that these intcrests would be <br />forced to accommodate to a policy of developing a nonfcderaIfy operated <br />source of water supply augmentati<)fi. Some. of the more important federal <br />inten.~t'ithat would oeafIccted are: <br /> <br />The target areas forWOSA are predominantly federal lands. <br /> <br />The federal government has It vas,t jnvcstIUent in water storage 'and <br />distribution works in the basin thatjs tied toa schedule of rcimbursc- <br />me.nt by water users. <br /> <br />A nation;tl interest e;<istswithrespect to sati.sry:ing the Mexican Water <br />Treaty obligation. <br /> <br />The fcd,cral governmcnt has a continuingjnvestrncnt in weather modi- <br />fication rese~rch and experimentation leading to an open\tional \VaSA <br />program in the UppcrBasin. . <br /> <br />S~ate interests must also bl;: laken into aCColmt in any choice Qf a non- <br />federal ,operating authority. The impact On state Jaw and the altcmativ~s. for <br />addressl~g that impact will vary with the potential pper'ating authOrity. <br />By consid(.,Ting how different pplicy issucs bear Qn the chokt;;. among the <br />three nolifederat operating authorities, t.ne relative effectiveness of the altcrn~l- <br />tives cari bc determined. Smile of these issues arc contr.olled by the technicaJ <br />facts' of an operational program. Some are cOlltrqlled by public policy Con- <br />siderations arising frolll national, regio'nal, and local attitudes 'toward the pro- <br />gram. Other iss,ue.<; relate strictly-to problems of form and precedent as legal <br />and institutional matt(~rs. <br />The advantage of enabling the staLes to be operating authority is that it <br /> <br />xxiv <br /> <br />~~- z <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />~ <br />i <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />I <br />II <br />I: <br />! <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />3 <br />v <br />t, <br />F <br /> <br />l <br />b <br />r <br />V <br />d <br />" <br /> <br />h <br />Ii <br />P <br />il <br />a <br /> <br />t: <br /> <br />s; <br />U <br />51 <br />U <br />'" <br />b <br />S( <br /> <br />po <br /> <br />Pi <br />p' <br />ill <br />te <br />pi <br />lc <br />