WSP04477 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1055 A further review of this matter would lead one to consider the relation of Title III, the Federal Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended,11 to a change in the basic and primary purposes heretofore ascribed to the main stem reservoirs. Of particular importance to this subject and of which note should be taken is the last paragraph of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. It states, Modifications of a reservoir project heretofore authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed to include storage as provided in subsection (b) of this section which would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or which would involve major structural or operational changes shall be made only upon the approval of Congress as now provided by law.~1 This provision cannot be capriciously ignored by the federal agencies. The State of Kansas contends that an arbitrary agreement between the Secretaries for a block of storage, constitutes a modification of the purposes of the project; would seriously affect other authorized purposes; and, would certainly involve a major operational change. We believe the federal position as stated in the position papers is a flagrant violation of Congressional authority and an erosion of the legislative process. This certainly is not in keeping with the oft announced position of the two Departments thst they are servants of the public and carry out the wishes and desires of the public as expressed through Congressional action. The State of Kansas does not find supporting statutory evidence giving the federal agencies authority to arbitrarily initiate a change in the so-called PSMBP or the Missouri Basin program. PART II - Allocation snd Costs for M&I Water Supply The basic question involved with the allocation and cost for an M&I function is dependent to a great extent upon the decision embodied in Part I above. If the State of Kansas' position prevails, then this concern becomes moot. Certainly a recognition by Congress for M&I use would undoubtedly require a reanalysis of the cost allocation. As proposed by the federal task force, the allocation of costs to the reservoirs would be retained in a "status quo" condition and the costs for water supply developed on a negotiated basis. Insofar as Kansas' interests are concerned, we feel that this approach is not in accord with existing federal policy or law. If there is a valid question as to the suthority for an M&I functional use, it would seem equally valid to question the authority for a negotiated cost that would differ from an established legislative procedure. From the information made available to the states to date, we cannot concur that this right has been delegated to the federal agencies. It is our position that Title III provisions apply for M&I water use. Part III - Disposition of Revenues We note in the federal subcommittee reports that self-determined agency responsibilities seem to be taking shape. We do not accept the statement that the Department of the Interior is the sole proprietor of the fiscal respon- sibilities for the Missouri Basin. We cannot even accept this self-appointed 3.