Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br />, <br /> <br />.\ <br />, <br /> <br />1043 <br /> <br />Victor Veysey, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Army, said he <br />was in total accord with the Department of the Interior, and hopefully the <br />States as well in trying to solve amenably a problem that has been of some <br />concern for quite a while. He said Army agreed in the general approach of <br />a temporary extension of the MOU to give the new administration an oppor- <br />tunity to get its procedures and policies together. He said he was most <br />anxious to hear from the States today and to learn of their inputs. <br /> <br />Veysey indicated that he had a number of suggestions that had come from <br />the Corps of Engineers to the supplemental memorandum transmitted to the State <br />members by Chairman Neuberger November 22, 1976. Chairman Neuberger noted <br />there had been other suggested changes to the November 22 draft agreement and <br />that it would be most useful, considering the limitation of time, to work <br />from the draft incorporating most of the Army comments. This approach was <br />used. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger suggested that the State members express their views <br />on the suggested supplemental MOU issue and submit in writing their additional <br />comments to him after they had had a sufficient time to further study the MOU <br />proposal as well as submit any other comments for the record concerning the <br />water marketing issue. These comments would be included in a report for the <br />new administration's consideration for action in 1977. <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF INITIAL STATE VIEWS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY WRITTEN COMMENTS <br /> <br />South Dakota <br /> <br />Mr. Butler prefaced his remarks with a statement that the State still <br />perceives the MOD as an infringement of internal State matters. It was stated <br />that any water contract between South Dakota and the United States requires <br />the approval of the South Dakota Legislature. Action on the present 300,000 <br />acre-feet contract with the Department of the Interior could be taken during <br />the next session of the State Legislature in 1977. <br /> <br />South Dakota did not favor an indefinite extension of the current MOU <br />but would support an interim extension of four to five months. Based on pre- <br />vious congressional action, it was South nakota's view that any consumptive <br />use is a beneficial use in South Dakota. It was further expressed that the <br />Bureau of Reclamation should pick up not only the costs of hydro-electric <br />power lost due to increased industrial uses, but also the costs of purchasing <br />replacement energy. <br /> <br />(Note: <br />to approval <br /> <br />The South Dakota contract was signed on January II, 1977, subject <br />of the State Legislature.) <br /> <br />North Dakota <br /> <br />North Dakota basically views the MOU issue as one which is to determine <br />which Federal agency will actually serve as the marketing agent and not a <br />document which should incorporate State positions or rights. There still is <br />no agreement nor has there been a determination as to who controls what waters <br />in the main stem reservoirs. It was stated that an MOU cannot meet all the <br />unique situations and rights of the States and therefore should address only <br />the agreed on Federal policy and procedures between the Departments of the <br />Army and the Interior. <br /> <br />-2- <br />