My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04519
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04519
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:50 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:24:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.285
Description
Wild and Scenic - General
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
5/22/1978
Author
US GAO
Title
Federal Protection and Preservation of Wild and Scenic Rivers is Slow and Costly - By the Comptroller General - Report to the Congress of the United States
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />000408 <br /> <br />considered by the Secretary tor dcsignJtion in the nJtj.on~l <br />system. Most of the States we contnc:l:cd indicated thdt <br />reluctance to seek nQtional d0s~1ndtiorl of State rivers was <br />due to concerllS over State ahility to fund the develop~ent <br />and administrative costs of d national river. 1/ <br /> <br />In two instances, the SU\lannee River in Florida and <br />Georgia and the Upper Iowa River in Iowa, BOR river studies <br />recommended that the rivers be included into thc national <br />system wit!. administration by the States. The three States <br />havp not sought secretarial designation because of concern <br />with acquisition and administrative costs. Several symposia <br />and studies have also recognized this concern as the primary <br />reason States do not seek national designation for their wild <br />and scenic rivers. <br /> <br />Several States we contacted noted that national desig- <br />na~ion for a State wild and scenic river carries no addi- <br />tion?l protection except for the prohibition against con- <br />struction of federally funded, assisted, or licensed water <br />projects. The States believe this advantage is outw~ighed <br />by the disadvantages that can result from national designa- <br />tion. Some State offic,als uelieve that the national <br />atte~tion focused on a river 3Eter national designation <br />leads to dramatically increased use, with attendant prob- <br />lems or deterioration of scenic values and increased <br />udministrative costs. <br /> <br />Secretarial desiqnation process <br />contains a basic inCOnqrUlt~ <br /> <br />^ provision in the act re~arding the secretarial <br />designation process has curtailed State pacticipation in <br />development of the national system. The problem involves <br />the requirement that rivers so designated be administered <br />by the State,without expense to the United States. <br /> <br />In 1971 the State of Oregon requested that the Secre- <br />tary of the Interior give national designation to six ril'ers <br />in th~ Oregon scenic waterways slstem. The Secretary decided <br />not to exercise his designation authority and declined to <br /> <br />l(Fi;'lanc:al assistance no.. provided to the States is limit ,d <br />- to land dcquisitioll and/or development matching gr~nts <br />from the land and water conservation fund, whetl)er or not <br />they seek nation~l designation. <br /> <br />1U <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.