Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />00048 ~_ <br /> <br />Nevada Comments on <br />Proposed OlTstream Storage Rule <br />April 3, 1998 <br /> <br />Within these limits, the specification of acceptable measures for the creation of unused <br />apportionment can readily be contained in the Interstate Storage Agreeme.nt that governs a <br />particular transaction and that is subject to approval of the Secretary. <br /> <br />2. Verification <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />A significant issue raised by California at the March 27, 1998, public meeting was the <br />matter of verification. Clearly, intentionally created unused apportionment must be verifiable. <br />The appropriate method of verification, however, may well vary according to the transaction and <br />the mechanism employed to create the unused apportionment. For example, Arizona law <br />presently makes the pumping of stored water the exclusive mechanism. We suggest an addition <br />to the rule that would require the Interstate Storage Agreement "to specify a procedure for <br />verification of the intentional creation of unused apportionment appropriate to the manner by <br />which it is created". . <br /> <br />F. Clarification of role of Secretary <br /> <br />At one juncture only, in the part of the preamble entitled "Purpose of this Rule" (62 <br />Federal Register 68493), reference is made to the Secretary "approving and administering <br />interstate agreements" (emphasis added). The Secretary, by taking the four actions identified <br />above, will be "facilitating". Use of the term "administering" could be misconstrued to mean <br />general authority over implementation of what dominantly is a business transaction between state- <br />related entities. . <br /> <br />G. The proposed rule is ambiguous or imprecise in a few other respects. <br /> <br />If the final rule truly is to facilitate the complex commercial transactions that interstate <br />off stream banking will involve, it is important that the rule be clear and unambiguous in all <br />respects. Several elements of the proposed rule, however, appear ambiguous and imprecise. The <br />major elements that present this problem are discussed below and our suggestions for specific <br />language changes are contained in our version of the rule, attached. <br /> <br />1. The Concept of "Storage Credit" is not consistently used in the <br />proposed rule. <br /> <br />We understand the Arizona Water Banking Authority is commenting on the po.ssible <br />confusion between the concept of "storage credits" for purposes of the proposed rule and the <br />concept of "storage credits" under the Arizona banking legislation. We endorse Arizona's <br />suggestion that the final rule use a term other than "storage credits," <br /> <br />6 . <br /> <br />.:210155.4 <br />