WSP04477 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1058 The federal definition of surplus waters, as stated by the federal agencies subcommittee departs from that generally taken by the states and certainly from the position of Kansas. As stated in the federal subcommittee report, surplus waters are those that are in eKcess of use as a result of "deferred proj ect purposes." We acknowledge that if a proj ect is deferred, there could be surplus water, particularly if the project originally carried an authorization providing for specific water storage. The question herein which the federal position ignores is the length of time the project use is deferred. A deferred status of one or two years may be acceptable, but a five, ten or perhaps twenty year deferral is not a reasonable period to retain deferred status. This would be analogous to the previously discussed situation relating to the Water Supply Act of 1958--43 USCA 8: 390 b (1964). If the deferred status directing that surplus waters is in perpetuity then certainly a change to M&I use under either Section 6 or Section 9(c) constitutes a major change in purpose, use and operation. It is difficult to find any legal support for the federal position. From the Kansas view point, we cannot agree to such a definition and strongly suggest that the federal agencies reexamine this matter. As a case in point, we refer to the Garrison Diversion Unit report of the Bureau of Reclamation. Numerous references are made in this report which undoubtedly sre part of the total justification of the project. Those references are to the effect that "A large source of additional water is a recognized need everywhere east of the Missouri River in the Dakotas. The Missouri is the only available source of such a supply." The statement is also made "The plan of development provides for delivery of water to 41 towns and cities and aSSumes that four large industrial areas will require additional supplies." Yet another statement says, "Almost all of the waters for the Garrison Diversion Unit will be diverted from the Missouri River."ll/ To apply the "deferred project purposes" in light of the above, is most difficult to comprehend. Diversion of an industrial use from the Garrison Reservoir would be generally to the western part of the state--not to the east aa indicated in the authorizing document. Such a diversion would have a depleting effect on the authorized irrigation project and ultimately on other uses that were to be serviced through the irrigation development. If this is the surplus water, then it can only be surplus at the expense of some other use which is already authorized. This, the State of Kansas believes, constitutes a major change and one which is beyond the authority of the two Secretaries to implement without Congressional approval. Such Congressional action would undoubtedly require reauthorization, deauthorization, and reallocstion of the costs. We submit that this same situation is applicable to any of the main stem reservoirs as well as the tributary storage projects where deferred project purpose status is being considered. Perhaps this is an action that is past due and a reexamination of the deferred projects should be undertaken in order to determine if the full potential of the basin's water supplies are being developed in the best interest of all concerned. Certainly it must be recognized that only by such an appraisal can the basin interests properly assess the question of surplus waters and its availability--both as to quantity and place. 6.