Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"'-..... ' <br /> <br />against the division of wat'3r for use in another stete. These lAws 'Pill prevent <br /> <br />worthwhile proj ects unle ss modi fied by the compA c t. <br />Proposal II. <br />"The United StAtes, any state, pny perscn or any entity shell hAve the <br />right to acquire mC0ssary property rights in an upper stAte by purche S0, or <br />through the 0xerci S0 of the pow0r of eminent domain, for the construction, <br /> <br />cperation and maint'lnance of storage reservoirs, appurtenant works, canal, oon- <br /> <br />"uits, diversion works end hydro-electric gen'orAting plants, required for the en- <br /> <br />:]oyment of the privibges grAnted by (Propose! I above); provided, however, that <br />';;1:3 grantees of such rights shAll pay to the political subdivisions of th0 stab <br />in whi ch such "'orks are located, eAch And ev.ery year during which such rights <br /> <br />are enjoyed for such purpos3s, A sum of money equivA13nt to the average annual <br /> <br />amount of taxes 8 ssesssd egeinst the lam s and improvements during the ten years <br /> <br />preceding the uss of such lem s, in reimbursement fo r too loss of taxes to such <br /> <br />political subdivisions of the state." <br />Comment s. <br />This suggestion comes from the Republican River Compact. Its desirability <br />should be self-evid9nt. The provision for peyments in lieu of tAxes lost seems <br />very fair. No provision for the loss of potential taxes is included. <br />Proposal III. <br />"Should any faci li ty be construc ted in a stAte under the pro vi sions of <br />(Proposal I hereof). th'3 construction, repeir, rep1e,cement. mainbnance and opera- <br /> <br /> <br />tion of such facility shell be subject to the laws of the state in which the <br /> <br /> <br />facility is located axcept that (1) diversions in one stAte for the use in another <br /> <br /> <br />state shall tab their plAce in the priority sch'3dule appliCAble to the stream, <br /> <br />2093 <br /> <br />-12- <br />