Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />1054 <br /> <br />subsequent acts establishes conclusively that Congtess envisioned a development <br />program for the Missouri Basin--the main stem as well as the tributaries. <br />Through this legislation and the supporting project reports and documents, <br />Congress set forth policies and principles that have guided the development <br />of the water resources. <br /> <br />A review of the specific projects and the authorizing legislation reveals the <br />concept Congress had regarding the development of the water resources. The <br />Fort Peck project was "...for the purpose of improving navigation on the <br />MiSsouri River, and for other purposes incidental thereto."'.!:../ It would seem <br />to follow that the phrase "other purposes" covered flood control, hydro power, <br />and irrigation. The "Pick-Sloan Plan"ll, subsequently authorized by Congress, <br />included these same functions. The 1960 report of the Missouri Basin Survey <br />Commission states "...The overall program is designated to control 110 M.A.F. <br />of water and put it to work to curb widespread major floods; to bring irrigation <br />water for 5~ million added acres; to develop some 13 billion kilowatt hours of <br />electric power annually for use in industry, on the farm, and in the home; to <br />stabilize the flow of water in the Missouri River for navigation, water supply, <br />and sanitation purposes; and to open new fields for recreation and for the <br />preservation 'of fish and wildlife. "!!,/ A similar comment was included in a <br />report by the Bureau of Reclamation which states, "A separate generalized plan, <br />purporting to be comprehensive of flood control, irrigation, power, navigation, <br />and incidental uses, was prepared by the Bureau during the 78th Congress in <br />Senate Document 191 (the Sloan Plan) and by the Corps in House Document 475 <br />(the Pick Plan). "'1.1 <br /> <br />The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri Basin program were all encompassing. However, <br />the specific authorization was not as generous and, as in the case of Fort Peck <br />Reservoir, the specific functions recognized for servicing from the main stem <br />structures omitted any reference to M&I except as sn incidental purpose associated <br />with irrigation. As noted in the discussion of the Missouri Basin Survey <br />Commission report, <br /> <br />These six reservoirs--Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort <br />Randall, and Gavins Point--will provide 74,680,000 acre-feet <br />of storage. Of this gross storage, 15,415,000 acre-feet are <br />to be reserved for flood control storage; 42,810,000 acre-feet <br />for multipurpose uses such as power, irrigation, and recreation; <br />and 16,455,000 acre-feet for dead storage.~1 <br /> <br />In the absence of a specific reference in the authorizing legislation for the <br />inclusion of municipal and industrial water supply, it is difficult to follow <br />the rationale set forth by the federal agencies. We certainly find this <br />incongruous with the recommendation of the federal agencies' subcommittee <br />that "The Secretaries of the Army and Interior may jointly agree that a <br />block of main stem reservoir water may be used for M&I under the PSMBP." <br />Without better and more factual and substantiating documentation in the <br />federal statutes, we do not accept the extrapolations of the authority which <br />the federal agencies would like us to believe they have. Only by specific <br />direction of Congress can such an agreement be consumated. <br /> <br />2. <br />