WSP04477 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1063 -2- (4) In paragraph 5 of the Supplemental Memorandum it is stated that the water may be utilized for industrial uses and "purposes incidental thereto". Appropriate incidental purposes should be spelled out specifically in the memorandum. (5) No assurance is provided to the states that water marketed for industrial and incidental purposes will be utilized in accordance with applicable state laws and water rights. This assurance must be provided before the memorandum can be deemed acceptable. (6) Perhaps most important to the State of Nebraska is the absence throughout the Supplemental Memorandum of any procedure for the basin-wide coordination of the marketing scheme. In paragraph 5b, it is proposed that the contracting state have some role in determining that the proposed use of water for industrial purposes is a beneficial use which should take precedence over hydro-electric power generation. This does represent an improvement over the February 24, 1975 memorandum which provided that this decision would be made unilaterally by the Secretaries of Interior and Army. Paragraph 5b does not, however, recognize the vested interest of the other states in the hydro-electric power which is generated by the reservoir system. In fact, there is not even any assurance to the states that the marketing price will be sufficient to reimburse the basin account for revenues lost because of the reduction in power generation. In addition, no consideration is given to states currently receiving other benefits from the operation of the Missouri River system, including those accruing to navigation and fish and wildlife. It is not sufficient to respond that downstream states have no interest because the water would have been lost anyway in future irrigation projects. The fact remains that the depletions will nOw occur at an earlier date and under a cloud of legal uncertainty. Even assuming the accuracy of the projections and the actual development of all projected irrigation, downstream states will have lost at least 50 years worth of the benefits to be derived from the allegedly marketable water. In our opinion, it is also naive to assume that industrial consumption will be discontinued when such water is necessary for irrigation development. A much more realistic assessment would acknowledge that the water to be marketed is in addition to that which will be otherwise consumed. For the above stated reasons, the State of Nebraska does not believe that any marketing scheme can be properly implemented in the absence of an opportunity for all affected states to address the issues presented. Therefore, we strongly oppose efforts to eliminate any reference in the Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding to the states of Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota or Missouri or any other Missouri River Basin states. We also advise that the Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding provide that all contracts entered into in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding be conditional upon the presentation to and approval of such contracts by the Missouri River Basin Commission. At the December 3 meeting in Denver, there was obvious reluctance to consent to such a suggestion on the supposition that MRBC did not have authority for such responsibilities. In response to that we submit (1) that if the Departments of the Army and Interior have authority to determine whether water shall be marketed and to establish other conditions precedent to such marketing, they also have the authority to establish approval by the MRBC as a condition precedent, and (2) that if the