Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br />. <br /> <br />.\ <br />, <br /> <br />1044 <br /> <br />Wyoming <br /> <br />Wyoming remains concerned about what are Federal water rights and <br />State water rights with regard to main stem water. The MOU should speci- <br />fically state that no valid existing water rights should be affected or <br />modified by the MOU. <br /> <br />Nebraska <br /> <br />Nebraska representatives again raised the point that they did not feel <br />there existed any authorization for Army and Interior to market water to <br />industrial users. Nebraska is opposed to any direct Federal marketing role <br />with industrial users. This role should remain with the States. The MOU <br />should contain a statement requiring that all State laws and regulations be <br />adhered to. <br /> <br />Nebraska emphasized that there is presently no basinwide coordination <br />of the water marketing program and suggested that all water marketing contracts <br />and subcontracts be submitted to the Missouri River Basin Commission for <br />approval. <br /> <br />Iowa <br /> <br />Iowa stated that it basically agrees with the Nebraska position--that <br />the Missouri River Basin Commission with its 10-State membership is in a <br />position to resolve the interstate problems that arise. It's up to each of <br />the States to make the Commission a forum for coordination and resolution <br />of critical ~ater issues and problems. <br /> <br />Questions were raised as follows: <br /> <br />Brig. Gen. Bill Read asked if we could agree on the definition of <br />"industrial water use," since he did not believe everyone had the same thing <br />in mind. He pointed out that the February 1975 MOU referred to water for <br />energy industry whereas this supplemental MOU was silent on the relation to <br />energy. This was borne out by the comments by Mr. Horton who said Montana <br />is contemplating subcontracting to such activities as a fertilizer plant, <br />while Vern Butler for South Dakota explained that he interpreted the 300,000 <br />acre-feet his State was contracting to be for energy-related industry and <br />that domestic or M&I water required by South Dakota would be in addition to <br />or outside of that amount. <br /> <br />A number of States raised questions concerning water rights and objected <br />to specific recognition of Indian water rights as opposed to all other valid <br />water rights. <br /> <br />Bob McPhail raised a concern over the State depletions data that were <br />going into the MRBC Regional Assessment. He referred to some sizable increases <br />in new irrigation requirements in upper basin States and predicted that if <br />the MRBC gave its approval to some of the new data he's heard of, it would <br />definitely increase hydro-electric power rates. It was pointed out by <br />Chairman Neuberger that these differences were being surfaced at the staff <br />level and that the problem of State projection for depletions and its impact <br />on hydro-power rates could be handled and discussed in the Assessment and <br />CCJP process. <br /> <br />-3- <br />