My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00486
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00486
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:26:15 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:47:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.470
Description
Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/27/1978
Author
PSIAC
Title
Minutes of the 78-3 Meeting - November 27-28 1978
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />agencies have responsibilities, and I don't think those responsi- <br />bilities necessarily have to be inconsistent. One of the things I <br />think was highlighted by the a.nI:\ouncement of the National Water <br />Policy and some of the preliminary discussions on it was the role <br />of the states collectively. The states have been invited to partici- <br />pate in the formulation of the polioy, and we have partioipated to <br />the extent we possibly oould. I think that when some of the initial <br />announcements Were made they shooked the states so muoh that we got <br />together through the National Governors Conference and had the <br />National Governors Water Committee under the direction of Governor <br />Matheson of Utah develop what really beoame the basis of some of the <br />points in the National Water Policy. I don't want to be quoted as <br />s~ing that the states developed the basis for the National Water <br />Polioy -- I don't mean that at all. But what I do mean is that state <br />effort, which waJ:tnanimous position by the 50 states, really prodded <br />the national administration to get on with the development of some <br />speoifics. This is not to s~ that we really agreed with all the <br />resulting speoifics, but I do think that it was an inoentive for us <br />colleotively, the states and federal agencies, to move forward with <br />this thing. I don't remember any other such oonoerted effort on <br />behalf of all the states. The olosest time we ever came to it was <br />when Walter Kuchel was passing out a bill on federal reserve water <br />rights. Some of you ma;y remember. And the states really rebelled <br />at that time, but even then we didn't have the 50 states' pooling <br />of ideas and consensus. <br /> <br />I think the other major conoern of the states is the matter of imple- <br />mentation. How does this national policy, whatever it turns out to <br />be, get implemented, ~d what is the states' role going to be in that. <br />I know that the federal people are extremely sincere in wanting to <br />involve the states and the local people in the developing of the <br />polioy and its implementation. Whenever possible, Guy Martin and <br />Keith Higginson and some other people have appeared at I don't know <br />how many meetings in Idaho and other states to explain what was going <br />on. John is here to~ for that purpose, and I think any time you <br />ask one of these people to come here they are glad to do it. But the <br />timing again is the critical thing. A good example of this is a <br />letter, about a month ago as I reoall, from Seoretary Andrus to all <br />the Western Governors which asked their comments on about nine or <br />ten points that deal with the federal reserve and Indian reserve <br />water rights question. As I reoall, the time schedule was a oouple <br />of weeks to respond. Well you might s~ that after all the states <br />have been through in trying to address this question of federal and <br />Indian reserve water rights, they ought to be able to respond in a <br />couple of weeks. But I don't know how many cases we have going <br />right here in Nevada, and all of you know that many of these ques- <br />tions to be addressed in that letter are the subjeot of litigation. <br />So a two-week turn-around time, or even a month turn-around time, <br />would be extremely short. One of the conoerns of the states was <br /> <br />0-16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.