Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Denver: Compiled and Summarieed by Othie McMurry, Director, <br />Io'waNatural Resources Council) <br /> <br />,-.) <br /> <br />~.. <br />~ <br />~ <br />:Jl <br /> <br />Most of the eleven states which responded made the same points: <br />they need to know how much water will be needed, where, and the <br />time schedule under which it will be needed; other points included <br />the following: The States want to insure that State water rights will <br />be followed; environmental concerns cannot be considered in a <br />vacuum because they are interrelated with the questions of efficiency, <br />competitiveness, and water quality deficiencies; the pricing of water for <br />energy can affect State programs and economy; States are concerned <br />over Federal expansion of the reservation doctrine and Federal <br />responsibilities. States emphasized that they woulo. like the opportunity <br />to review the Task Force report and to submit additional statements. <br /> <br />Atlanta: (Compiled and Summarized in Atlanta by Jack Pepper, State Water <br />Engineer, Mississippi Board of Water Commissioners. ) <br /> <br />Taking the issues one by one, the States indicated the following: <br /> <br />Water quality deficiencie,!: Thermal pollution was considered a <br />major problem and oil reserve States said that present trouble caused <br />by salt water would be increased as production increased. In ado.ition, <br />transportation, handling and refining petroleum can cause pollution <br />problems in any State. Water quality considerations can ,make power <br />plant siting very difficult. The matter of salt water intrusion where <br />large ground water withdrawals are made was of particular concern to <br />the Gulf States. <br /> <br />Water rights and institutional arrangements: Those States following <br />the riparian doctrine will face problems supplying water for energy <br />development. In addition, uncertain rights to store and utilize water <br />may prevent investment of the necessary funds. <br /> <br />Increased efficiency of water use: Everyone agreed efficiency was <br />a good idea but acceptance of specific methods produced something less <br />than consensus. For example, one State felt recycled waste water would <br />be useful while another felt the closed system would only cause greater <br />problems later when the water finally had to be changed. One State <br />indicated that stream flow regulation might cause the loss of some free- <br />flowing streams. <br /> <br />- 9 <br /> <br />