|
<br />made.68 The Compact was ratified by Nebraska
<br />in 1963 and Congress in 1969. To date, no such
<br />investigations have taken place.
<br />Reference is also made to groundwater in the
<br />Blue River Compact but only insofar as
<br />necessary to maintain surface flows at the
<br />Nebraska-Kansas state line at required compact
<br />levels.
<br />
<br />OTHER STATES ON WEATHER
<br />MODIFICATION
<br />
<br />Most interstate weather modification
<br />problems in the past have been resolved through
<br />cooperation instead of litigation. Local regula-
<br />tion of an activity like weather modification,
<br />which can have an interstate impact, inevitably
<br />produces some interstate problems. The potent-
<br />ial for conflict usually arises in attempting to
<br />adjust the rights and liabilities resulting from
<br />interstate cloud seeding impacts. For instance, a
<br />dispute arose in 1977 between the states of
<br />Washington and Idaho over a bill in the Washing-
<br />ton legislature which would have appropriated
<br />funds for drought relief cloud seeding in the
<br />Cascade mountain range. The Idaho Attorney
<br />General protested the bill and apparently
<br />announced that, "if the bill passed and it could be
<br />established that the seeding would cost Idaho
<br />water, he was prepared to file a suit in the United
<br />States Supreme Court seeking an injunction to
<br />stop the seeding.,,69 The alternative of interstate
<br />cooperation was selected instead with a pro-
<br />posal for regional coordination of cloud seeding
<br />efforts between Washington, Oregon, and
<br />Montana.70
<br />
<br />South Dakota was the first state to develop a
<br />statewide weather modification control program,
<br />later adding a county-state cost-sharing pro-
<br />gram.71 However, during the drought of the mid-
<br />1970's interest dwindled and support for funding
<br />was withdrawn.72 North Dakota has also devel-
<br />oped a statewide cloud seeding program model-
<br />ed after South Dakota's law.73 Even though state
<br />funding was cut off in South Dakota, border
<br />counties with North Dakota continue their own
<br />projects. North Dakota officials have shared
<br />radar equipment and provide other assistance to
<br />these counties for an interstate weather modifi-
<br />cation effort.74
<br />Some states have placed additional conditions
<br />on the "right" to conduct weather alteration
<br />activities. New Mexico and Colorado, for
<br />example, have laws similar in intent to the
<br />groundwater non-exportation statutes discuss-
<br />ed earlier. They stipulate that cloud seeding
<br />within the state for the benefit of another state
<br />whose laws prohibit such seeding for the benefit
<br />of New Mexico or Colorado is not permitted.75
<br />Utah, in contrast, requires that persons applying
<br />for a permit to conduct cloud seeding activities in
<br />Utah which have a planned impact in an adjoining
<br />state, comply with that state's law as a condition
<br />to receiving the Utah permit. 76
<br />In comparison, federal regulation of weather
<br />modification activities is relatively sparse, limited
<br />to a 1971 law requiring that such activities be
<br />reported to the National Oceanic and Atmos-
<br />pheric Administration.77 In addition, projects
<br />using federal funds must comply with NEPA
<br />regulations.
<br />
<br />FOOTNOTES
<br />
<br />1.
<br />
<br />Comment, "Federal Reserved Rights and
<br />the Interstate Allocation of Water," 13 Land
<br />& Water L. Rev. 813 (1978).
<br />Ladd, D. E., "Federal and Interstate Conflicts
<br />in Montana Water Law: Support for a State
<br />Water Plan," 42 Mont. L. Rev. 267, 313
<br />(1981).
<br />"Narrows Unit - Final Environmental State-
<br />ment," U.S. Department of Interior, May 14,
<br />1976, p.II-1.
<br />Legislative Res. 26, 87th Legislature, 1 st
<br />Session, Nebr. Legis. Jnl. 6734 (1981).
<br />Environmental Impact Statement on the
<br />Energy Transportation Systems, Inc. Coal
<br />Slurry Pipeline Transportation Project -
<br />Bureau of Land Management, July, 1981, p.
<br />1.
<br />
<br />2.
<br />
<br />3.
<br />
<br />4.
<br />
<br />5.
<br />
<br />2-10
<br />
<br />6. EIS, supra note 5 at 2.
<br />7. EIS, supra note 5 at 1-60.
<br />8. Section 6, Flood Control Act of 1944.
<br />9. Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).
<br />10. Comment, "Marketing of Surplus Waterfrom
<br />Federal Reservoirs," 13 Land & Water L.
<br />Rev. 835,842 (1978).
<br />Hutchins, WA, Water Rights Laws in the
<br />Nineteen Western States, Vol. III, U.S. De-
<br />partment of Ag. Misc. Pub. NO.1 206, 1977, p.
<br />26,34.
<br />Martz, C. O. and Grazis, S. L., "Interstate
<br />Transfers of Water and Water Rights - The
<br />Slurry Issue," 23 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst.
<br />33 (1977).
<br />13. City of EI Paso v. Reynolds, Civ. No. 730 M
<br />(D.N.M., filed September 5, 1980).
<br />
<br />11.
<br />
<br />12.
<br />
|