Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />...--.--.,- <br />",j.j j - <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />The Commission adopted its first basinwide water management plan <br />reporl in August 1977. That report presented nearly 500 recommended <br />plan elements. conclusions. and recommendations for implementing <br />those plan elements. and a series of planning objectives to guide future <br />water management in the basin. The building blocks from which the <br />plan was assembled included the results of the 1975 National Water <br />Assessment; the framework report; Platte study results; completed <br />portions of the Yellowstone slUdy; and findings of Slate, federal. <br />Commiuion. and other relevant studies. The plan was divided into <br />nine components, one for each of the eight subbasins of the Missouri <br />River basin and one for those recommended adions that applied <br />to the entire basin. <br /> <br />The procedure used to formulate the plan for each subbasin and, thu.., <br />for the entire ba..in involved six ..tep..: (1) Commi....ion staff a....embled <br />all major ongoing and prospective water and related land resource <br />program..; (2) representatives of state and federal agencies compared <br />that li..t of programs with needs and problems identified during the <br />1975 National Water As..essment and other studies; (3) those represen- <br />tatives selected which programs to recommend; (4) ..tate governor.. <br />and federal department heads reviewed the recommended program.. <br />contained in the draft report; (5) Commission members revised and <br />adopted the plan; and (6) Commission ..taff transmitted the plan and <br />final report to the U.S. Water Resources Council and others. <br />The Commission adopted an updated version of the water management <br />plan in May 1980. Additional information available for the updated <br />plan included the completed Yellowstone study; results of the James <br />study; partial results of the Upper Mis..ouri study; and other relevant <br />state, federal, Commis..ion, and other studies completed since the <br />first water management plan reporl. <br />In addition to more current information avail.lble, there were notable <br />improvements in the planning process for the updated plan. The plan <br />took a more local focus through several meetings of subbasin planning <br />teams composed of state and federal agency representatives. These <br />teams prepared all sections of the plan including problems and needs, <br />planning objectives, plan overview, recommended programs, and <br />conclusion.. and additional recommendation... The report also con- <br />tained an as..essment of the potential environmental impacts of the <br />plan. <br />Aher completing the update of the water management plan, Com- <br />mission members conducted an in-house review of the comprehensive <br />planning process. Members recognized the needs and benefits of <br />comprehensive planning at an interstate or regional level, but were <br />concerned with the poor implementation of recommendations. <br />The message of "The Global 2000 Report to the President," publi..hed <br />in 1980, spurred the Commission to consider expanding its role as a <br />forum for di..cus..ing long. range water resource issues. An ad hoc <br />committee of Commission members and the Commission's Planning <br />Committee each met to recommend modifications to the Commis- <br />sion's planning process. <br />A major item considered for inclusion in the planning process was <br />an evaluation of how the Commi..sion's water management plan was <br />being implemented. No evaluation had been conducted following any <br />of the four Commission-led comprehen..ive studies or for the basin- <br />wide water management plan for the entire basin. <br />The Commission's comprehensive planning proceu was not changed <br />prior to termination of the Commission. <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br />.1 <br />