Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />else. These are some of the things that I am not sure all the <br />people in the East understand and I don't mean neoessarily to segre- <br />gate them out. But I think most of their problems so far, and you <br />oan tell me if I am right about this, are related to water quality <br />rather than quantity. The two overlap of course. <br /> <br />I would like at this moment to address another thing that concerns <br />the states and that is the thrust of the policy to put limits on <br />federal funds and grants oontingent on water conservation issues. <br />And again, this ma;y not necessarily be all bad. For example, in <br />Reno there is a state law that prohibits the installation of water <br />meters on individual home take-outs, We can see where Reno, apply- <br />ing for a federal grant to develop a sewage plant under the National <br />Water Policy, might have to go to the state legislature and sa;y we <br />have to have water meters on all the uses in the Reno-Sparks area. <br />Again, ma;ybe this would be a positive aspect of it, but politioally <br />it is dynamite. One of the fellows who ran for the state senate on <br />that idea was not successful this time. But the faults that IIl!q be <br />attached to the federal grants is of some conoern, but on the other <br />hand we reoognize the positive aspects of that too. <br /> <br />There is a proposal in the National Water Policy to make some $25 <br />million available for conservation measures. And again, I don't <br />think the rules and regulations for how this policy is to be adminis- <br />tered have been established yet, but I would hope that they would be <br />forthcoming. Again, one of the things I can assure you the states <br />are going to be looking at is what sort of strings are attached to <br />those monies. It kind of bothers me when we hear people sa;y let's go <br />out and apply for that grant and let's grab those federal funds, <br />they're free. But again you also hear those who sa;y that's taxpa;yers' <br />money, you mow, whether they are federal or state or other funds. <br />These are our pocket books that 'they are biting into. <br /> <br />Another principle of the proposed National Water Polioy that is a <br />ooncern from the negative standpoint is the idea that oontracts for <br />the yield of reservoirs should be renegotiated every five years. I <br />just don't think that is a feasible or praotical thing to do. Since <br />it takes so many years to get a projeot authorized, why should you go <br />baok through the processes and renegotiate it every five years? <br />Again, I realize that there is some merit in that, but it seems to me <br />that it would be better to establish a sliding scale when the projeot <br />is built rather than to renegotiate it every five years. <br /> <br />One of the things many of you have been interested in through the <br />years is the Water Resouroes Council grants for water planning. The <br />National Water Policy proposes, as you all mow, increasing the grant <br />to $25 million. Again I think one of the practioal considerations of <br />that is that there are many states which frankly are not going to have <br />the money it takes to match that $25 million. I hate to see this as <br /> <br />C-20 <br />