Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Messrs. Horton and Ford <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />This would require that the losses sustained due to the reduced flows resulting <br />from water consumption by industrial users should be offset by industrial water <br />revenues. Based on federal technical work group papers and allied studies, it <br />is estimated that an industrial water service price to the States will be in <br />range from $3 to $25 per acre-foot of water withdrawn from the reservoir. Fur- <br />ther. State costs will be involved in determining total ,charges to the user. <br /> <br />In the course of the Committee's deliberations, it left unresolved the fol- <br />lowing matters which may require additional study and consultation within the <br />framework of existing coordination channels: <br /> <br />1. The States and the Federal agencies recognize that each within its own <br />sphere of governmental powers has certain rights to the flow of water into and <br />out of the main stem reservoirs. These rights were not defined or quantified. <br /> <br />2. No agreements were reached concerning water withdra~/n from tributary <br />reservoirs or from open river reaches between or below the main stem reservoirs. <br />However,. as. authorizing legislation varies, the marketing policy for municipal <br />and industrial water from the tributary reservoirs need not be the same as for <br />the main stem reservoirs. <br /> <br />3. Agreement was reached initially by the Federal Subcommittee that water <br />marketing from the main stem reservoirs should be by contract bet~/een the United <br />States of America acting as vendor through the Secretary of the Army as lead <br />agency with authorizations under Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, <br />with the Secretary of the Interior as concurring agency and with alternative <br />authorizations under Section g(c) of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and all <br />discussions with state representatives were on this basis. Subsequent divergence <br />of views leave recommendations regarding designation of the marketing agency <br />unresolved. Both the Dept. of Army and the Dept. of Interior agree that the <br />1958 \later Supply Act could be used by the Dept. of Army as the Congressional <br />authority for marketing industrial water from the main stem reservoirs, but the <br />employment of this Act would require major changes in the approved cost allocation <br />with serious impacts on present power rates, and is undesirable. If the surplus <br />water provisions of Section 6 of the 1944 Flood Control Act were used as the <br />authority for water marketing, the Dept. of Army would be the marketing agency. <br />If Section 9(c) of the 1944 Flood Control Act were applied, the Dept. of Interior <br />would market the water. However, collaborative action will be taken under either <br />course. There remains unresolved at this time the determination which of the two <br />~epartments should assume the lead role. <br /> <br />The Ad Hoc Committee has not been able to reach universal agreement on <br />several major water. marketing issues, namely the marketing agent, the marketing <br />authority, and the exact industrial water charges. However, progress has been <br />made in several areas and there is now a better overall, State-Federal under- <br />standing of the various problems and issues. Agreements have been reached on <br />the availability of water, the desirability of marketing industrial water through <br />the Sta~es, and the exercise of State control through the issuance of water <br />permits. These agreements should assist in resolving remaining issues through <br /> <br />~I <br />