Laserfiche WebLink
<br />_.~;.:-~ <br />",,"'~ <br />-'";-~~$' <br /> <br />O. n~ ~~'\- <br />u.,..0 'c" .! <br /> <br />. (Ff;; <br />.$~~}:~ <br /><-,;.;:~::~- <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />.. 3 .. <br /> <br />has these responsibilities. In Wyoming there is also an independent <br />state engineer. In Kansas, major responsibilities are divided between <br />an independent board and a division of a larger natural resource agency. <br />If in the four states (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota) where a <br />separate geological survey has water resource data functions, the surveys <br />are viewed along with the agencies mentioned above, a quite complete <br />picture of the broad, general water resource organization and programs of <br />the states can be obtained. <br /> <br />Total funds available to these general water resource agencies <br />in each state for the current fiscal year (1957-l958) range from $971,830 <br />in Colorado to $133,500 in South Dakota. Total professional personnel <br />administering these programs vary from 33 in Kansas and Montana to less <br />than 10 in Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota. <br /> <br />The programs administered by these agencies cover a wide range <br />of activities. In practically every state they include: water rights <br />administration, the collection and analysis of basic hydrologic data, the <br />regulation and supervision of water control structures, the formation and <br />some supervision of special districts, and the review of federal project <br />proposals. Federal aid for watershed protection and flood control projects, <br />municipal sewage plant construction and small irrigation projects require <br />approval of these agencies, and in some cases, they also provide state aid <br />and supervision. In some states, they conduct research projects in addi- <br />tion to their data-gathering activities. In Montana and North Dakota, <br />state agencies in cooperation with local units construct, operate and <br />maintain small projects for water control and supply. In Minnesota some <br />water control structures are state operated, and in Wyoming, loans are <br />available for water project constructions. However, despite this range <br />of activities, in only six of the Missouri Basin States did these agencies <br />report that over-all planning for water resources development was among <br />their responsibilities. <br /> <br />Pollution Control <br /> <br />Recent legislation in a number of Missouri Basin States has es- <br />tablished the legal and administrative base for a strengthened pollution <br />control program. Only Colorado now lacks comprehensive legislation re- <br />lating pollution to all legitimate water uses -- not just public supply <br />or fish and wildlife -- as was frequently the case in the recent past. <br />In Colorado, Kansas and Iowa, the state health department is responsible <br />for administering the pollution control program of the state as well as <br />supervising purity of public supplies, including standards of plant con- <br />struction and operation. Although the North Dakota State Department of <br />Health has primary responsibility for enforcing the pollution control <br />laws of the state, it shares joint responsibility for the supervision of <br />public water supplies and pollution control in regard to municipalities <br />and industries with the Water Conservation Commission. The Wyoming Health <br />Department is advised in the development of a comprehensive program by <br />the Stream Advisory Council. In Minnesota, Montana and South Dakota, <br />primary over-all responsibility for controlling water pollution rests <br />with a water pollution board. However, the state department of health <br />in each case administers the program, acting as agent for the board. In <br />addition, primary responsibility for public water supplies and sewage <br />