Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~.J <br /> <br />#4. In order to meet "energy water requirements," certain alternative <br />solutions may be proposed at the Federal level, including: <br /> <br />~ <br />to <br />~ <br /> <br />a. Interbasin Transfers. <br />b. Federal jurisdiction over water rights. <br />c. Reallocation of Existing Storage (redefinition of project <br />objectives) <br /> <br />Denver: ,(Compiled and Summarized in Denver by Ray Rigby, Governor's <br />Representative, Western States Water Council, Idaho) <br /> <br />The States interpreted question #4 to mean that the Federal Government <br />was considering the above -mentioned possibilities as likelihoods, Many <br />States held the following views: 1) The issues are complex and controver- <br />sial and should not be undertaken by the Federal Government without <br />thorough study first of the need for such action and second of alternative <br />ways to meet that need. It was considered to be much too early for any <br />legislative proposals. 2) Interbasin transfers are illega1. 3) Existing <br />interstate compacts should be used. 4) Nothing should be done without <br />protecting present and potential water rights. States' maximum use <br />should be given first consideration and in any event nothing should be done <br />without just,compensation. 5) Everyone agreed that the present system <br />is working satisfactorily and current and future problems should be' <br />addressed within the existing framework" <br /> <br />On the question of water rights, most States felt that the Federal <br />Government should stay out of the issue. The States have the capability <br />to handle the problems. It would be politically and legally impractical <br />for the Federal Government to come in. Self-sufficiency would be <br />impeded because law suits would take time, Federal assumption would <br />be chaotic and, in fact, Congress should pass a law to assure the States <br />that water rights granted under State law would be protected. <br /> <br />Response to the reallocation question showed some flexibility. <br />Reallocation of surplus water could be considered if existing water rights <br />were protected and if proper negotiations and just compensation were <br />assured. <br /> <br />Atlanta: (Compiled and SummarizE;d in Atlanta by Jim Fish, Edman and <br />and Associates, Consultant to ICWP) <br /> <br />The States were basically opposed to interbasin transfers but felt <br />that if the issue were considered at all it should be fully considered includ- <br />ing the following criteria: Whatever is to be transferred must clearly be <br />surplus; there must be comprehensive planning and analysis; actions must <br />be consistent with state laws; interstate compacts should be used; and all <br />affected states must approve, - <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />