WSP00486 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002881 . that we wanted to come back with some sort of a position that would not be fragmented so we could be constructive to Secretary Andrus in trying to help him address these questions. For this has been one of the complaints of the states -- that is that although there is interest in having us participate, the time allowed is extremely limiting. And John said with 19 task forces meeting in Washington, D.C., to address 19 or so different issues, I don't think,that the State of Nevada or the State of New Mexico or the State of Arizona can send 19 people back there. The Western States Water Council will be represented back there and that individual will come back and report to us. In that way we will be provided something that will help us to develop a position. This again is really not in- tended as criticism, but it is just a practical consideration. To get down to some specifics. You know I said at the outset that there are a lot of positive things about the National Water Policy. One of the more positive things that we see is the concept of cost sharing. I know that not all of the states share this feeling. We felt that the principle of some participation in the financing of these water projects by the states, with the intent being that the states would then help establish some priori ties on the construction of projects, is a very meritorious concept. The details of how much participation is going to have to be worked out -- what percentages, the capacity to pay, the ability to pay -- all these things are going to have to be considered. I don't think you can penalize some state that doesn't have the revenue, and say o.k., you have to come up with the bucks for your share or therefore you are going to go clear to the end of the line. There are going to have to be some adjustments there. One of the other dangers I see in it is that we don't want to get into a bidding process where better equipped states, as far as money is concerned, outbid some of the other states. We do think that the concept of cost sharing, particularly if it is going to result in some state determination of priori ties on projects, has some real merit. A thing that really concerns the State of Nevada is the idea of another level of review at the Water Resources Council of proposed federal projects. It just makes no sense at all to me personally, and I think that view is shared by most of the state people. By the time a project gets through the development, the design, the review, the environmental impact statement, certainly the OMS reviews, and the congressional reviews, and everything else, we just don't see, and have not really been convinced, of the necessity of another review by the Water Resources Council. Another very critical item and probably the most critical at this time, is the question the National Water Policy raises in connection with federal reserve claims on water. The thrust of the national policy seems to be that this is a problem, and we are glad that that's finally recognized. There seems to be a real willingness to try to C-17