WSPC02897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ( 001563 Members, CWCB June 1, 1982 Page three The states also callie to an agreement to disagree about legal and compact issues. There are substantial differences between the Upper and Lower Division states concerning the disposition of any water that might be produced by weather modification. Therefore, the states agreed to advise Broadbent that it was neither appropriate nor possible to resolve such issues prior to the initiation of CREST. Rather, the states have indicated to Broadbent that CREST would be, in part, a source of information which would have to be available before legal and compact issues concerning weather modification could be resolved. with respect to the Commissioner's request that there be a seven state organization to provide support for and advice on the program, Colorado suggested that existing entities, such as the Salinity Control Forum, could be expanded to serve that purpose. The Lower Division states, however, resisted that suggestion. The seven states have, for the moment, siloply indicated to Broadbent that they need more time to consider the proper organizational structure for advising on CREST and considering the associated issues which it will raise. With respect to the matter of funding for CREST, all seven states agree that such funding should be a federal responsi- bility. However, in recognition of federal budgetary constraints, the other six states have expressed a willingness to use a 0.1 mill per kilowatt-hour charge on the electricity produced at CRS? units, Hoover, and parker-Davis as a means of defraying part of the costs of CREST. Colorado has taken exception to that proposal for the reasons stated below. ColoradO's Position Monte Pasco~ and I have indicated to the other states, as well as to Broadbent, that Colorado finds unacceptable the imposition of an O&M surcharge on power users as a means of financing CREST. In addition, we have indicated that we have substantial reservations about the use of power revenues in any form to finance CREST. We have taken this position on two grounds. First, we have maintained that the funding of CREST is clearly a federal obligation. Secondly, we have indicated that there are a wide variety of issues related to the proposed use of power revenues which must be considered simultaneously before CREST moves forward with any component of its funding provided by power revenues. We have ind icated that we do not expect all such issues to be resolved now and that we understand the need to break things down into smaller component pieces. We have indicated, however, that we do expect an approach and a forum for discussion which recognizes the relationships between issues.