Laserfiche WebLink
Members , CWCB <br /> June 1 , 1982 <br /> Page three <br /> The states also came to an agreement to disagree about legal <br /> and compact issues. There are substantial differences between <br /> the Upper and Lower Division states concerning the disposition of <br /> any water that might be produced by weather modification. <br /> Therefore , the states agreed to advise Broadbent that it was <br /> neither appropriate nor possible to resolve such issues prior to <br /> the initiation of CREST. Rather , the states have indicated to <br /> Broadbent that CREST would be, in part, a source of information <br /> which would have to be available before legal and compact issues <br /> concerning weather modification could be resolved. <br /> With respect to the Commissioner's request that there be a <br /> seven state organization to provide support for and advice on the <br /> program, Colorado suggested that existing entities, such as the <br /> Salinity Control Forum, could be expanded to serve that purpose . <br /> The Lower Division states, however, resisted that suggestion . <br /> The seven states have , for the moment , simply indicated to <br /> Broadbent that they need more time to consider the proper <br /> organizational structure for advising on CREST and considering <br /> the associated issues which it will raise. <br /> With respect to the matter of funding for CREST, all seven <br /> states agree that such funding should be a federal responsi- <br /> bility. However, in recognition of federal budgetary <br /> constraints, the other six states have expressed a willingness to <br /> use a 0 . 1 miii per kilowatt-hour charge on the electricity <br /> produced at CRSP units, Hoover , and Parker-Davis as a means of <br /> defraying part of the costs of CREST. Colorado has taken <br /> exception to that proposal for the reasons stated below. <br /> Colorado's Position <br /> Monte Pascoe and I have indicated to the other states, as <br /> well as to Broadbent, that Colorado finds unacceptable the <br /> imposition of an O&M surcharge on power users as a means of <br /> financing CREST. In addition, we have indicated that we have <br /> substantial reservations about the use of power revenues in any <br /> form to finance CREST. <br /> We have taken this position on two grounds. First, we have <br /> maintained that the funding of CREST is clearly a federal <br /> obligation. Secondly, we have indicated that there are a wide <br /> variety of issues related to the proposed use of power revenues <br /> which must be considered simultaneously before CREST moves <br /> forward with any component of its funding provided by power <br /> revenues. We have indicated that we do not expect all such <br /> issues to be resolved now and that we understand the need to <br /> break things down into smaller component pieces. We have <br /> indicated , however , that we do expect an approach and a forum for <br /> discussion which recognizes the relationships between issues. <br />