WMOD00281

• Title: The Impacts of Snow Enhancement - Technology Assessment of Winter Orographic Snowpack Augmentation in the Upper Colorado River Basin
• Date: 1/1/1974
• State: CO
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

~... *,

~-

I'

I ~
I

,
Ii,
I}I
\,
",~I
"'11
~J
'11
ill
~:I
'I
II,
II
Ii
I ~I
IlII
1'1
i ~~!

I,

..

t

,
~,
~

WQl)ld offer the least apparent conlli~t with state laws and i~stitutions. It would
appeartn b~ the best alternative of the three if nil the augmented water were
to be used exclusively by e~ch state for in-state purposes. The"disadvantage of
a state approach is most apparent if the water is destined for out-of-state use
or ~wen stah.~ use III a Joint pooling arrangement, In this case, an option by a
state not topartic:ipate could defeat lhe purpose of the program to create a
timt water supply. Other intergovernmental problems could 'arisein thc' allo-
cation of wuter markets to individual statc'. and in theccntraJized plai:1nir\g and
operation of the program.
The main advantage. (.>f the use. of the interstate compact as an operating
authority' is that it can iluthorize the progranl on a truly regional basis and
a~hicve the necessary interstate coordination to provide a firm :a~gmentcd
water supply. Thedisadvnntage of the interstate compact is that it is difficult
to Iorm and to chnnge if needed. The' prOCess of Conning an irltcrstate. com-
pact can take a long time.
The federally chartered corporation has..a Dumber of advantages over
the other two nonfedenil operating authQrities. These advalltagc'~ are related
to the flexibility of its forma'tion and terms. Thi$ allows theeorporate form
readily to deal e!fectively with the many policy problems of an operational
WOSA program. The main disadvantage of this alternative is that it can be
disruptive of existing state institutions, since hean be established by Congress
without the consent of thcst.ateJegislatllres:

c. Public Participation

A major concern that underlies all others is whether tile public will
have a voice in any of the decisions that detepuinc the extent ~o which their
Jives are affected by waSA. The second step of the two-step authorization
process 'for WOSA is to establish institutions that bring the affected publics
into the decisions. that determine how the detrimental impacts. are to be allevi-
ated. These are designated as implementing entities.. Thc,scentiticsare volun-
tary. None n,ced be 'cslabltshc9 to conduct an operational WOSA program.
Since the authority for (hcse entities is derived from' the operating authorities,
the specification of some operating authorities. will n~ake. it difficult or impos-
sible to establish these entities. For example, if the .Bureau of ReClamation is
the operating authority arid the waters produced or made available for use
within. the basin are aJJoi:ated. a~cording to the Law of the River, there will
be no revenues from the. sale of water.' Therefore, the entities that dew with
sodul com~erns tbat. require .some distribution of net revenues would Dot be
possible.
The first institutionaL entity discus.';ed concerns the social auitudes of the
ptople in the target area toward an operational \VaSA program.. The ap-
proach is to deal with these concerns so that the impacts arc fcltlndirectlyoT
are balanced b}r otfscttingbc.i:1efits so that a cQi1frontt)IJon of the national in-
· terc<;t v.rith the local intccest qail hopefully. be avoided. The :basis of this ap-
proach is infonnation exchange.. The first priority of such a progtum is to
learn. the concerns of the people; the second l)ri~rity is to iriforrn the public

xxv