Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002880 <br /> <br />"The National Water Policy - A state View" <br /> <br />By Roland Westergard <br />State lihgineer, Nevada <br /> <br />I was looking forward to coming down here because I !mew that I would <br />learn something. You can't -- well I guess ma;y-be you can -- under- <br />stand the frustrations I have had through the years with that pump <br />station case regardless of what your position really is. The ridicu- <br />lous part is I can't figure out how in the world we lost it. Tod.a;v <br />J learned that if we had had some points raised on the pump station, <br />ma;y-be we would have had better luck with the supreme court. Next <br />time around we will try that. <br /> <br />Gene, I don't !mow who made up the program and designated the title <br />"National Water Policy - A State View." I think maybe you had a hand <br />in it because of your association with the Western State Engineers <br />throughout the years. You !mow through that association that it is <br />hard for any one state engineer to speak for any other state engineer. <br />So "A State View" is probably appropriate. <br /> <br />One of the primary things that has been of real concern to the states <br />can best be illustrated by one of John Frost's earlier comments. He <br />commented that there were some 19 Water Policy Implementation task <br />forces. I think the words John used were the "diverse functions of <br />those 19 task forces." I think it is time for the people from the <br />federal level, as well as from the state level, to really keep up with <br />all that is going on. I think one of the basic problems at the outset <br />was that there was no specific determination made -- and subsequently <br />there has been no specific determination made -- as to just exactly <br />what the federal role ought to be in water resources. I think all the <br />announced policies, and SO forth, point in that direction. I think one <br />of the confusing items is that the federal administration had never <br />actually sat down and said what they think the federal role ought to <br />be in the general field of water resources. From the state level, of <br />course, we think that involvement is fine so long as they leave the <br />administration and management to the designated state authority. We do <br />think that there should be a continuing role of the federal government <br />in things like design, construction, and financing, like it has been <br />historically. <br /> <br />This gets us to a second point that has been enunciated by federal <br />representatives and state representatives, and federal representatives <br />all the wa;y- up to the President himself. That point is the necessity <br />and the importance of maintaining the state authority and jurisdiction. <br />One of our continuing concerns (and I don't mean it critically) is that <br />there will be a recognition of state authority and jurisdiction. When <br />I sa;y- that, I recognize that each one of you who represents federal <br /> <br />c-15 <br /> <br />