WSP08207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002..~,)l; v....." {~1Jj ~;~t . - 9 - j such a decision can be made only on the basis ofa consideration of its impact on the rest of the state water programs -~ irrigation, fish propa- gation, recreational areas, etc. In .the management of a reservoir or lake, the primary aim may be to maintain supply for municipal and irriga- tion uses, and yet it may be desirable or necessary to release water to dilute pollution,to maintain levels for navigation, or to prepare for heavy rains that might otherwise flood surrounding areas. State governments are given the opportunity to review and com- ! ment on proposals for federal projects within their borders. The major '\ effect of such comments is gained by a strong representation before the Congressional committee which considers the proposal. If several state agencies, acting independently, present conflicting views, the likelihood of any significant response is remote. ~ One of the effective methods of achieving the coordination of the various programs and agencies is through an active state water plan- ning program. Federal commission reports have emphasized the need for more active participation of the states in the development of water project plans. The Missouri Basin Survey COD1lllission felt that: "It is now imperative that the states exert a conscious effort to coordinate and integrate their planning activities in order to give direction and coherence to their resource programs," and to enable them to participate more actively in the planning of federal projects. The Commission on ' Intergovernmental Relations cites the confusion caused by duplication at both state and national levels, stating that .IINeither level can offer anything that would pass for a unified policy. II They then recommend that "",each state designate an existing agency or establish a natural re- source advisory council to coordinate state policies and administration and to facilitate cooperation with federal agencies in planning, build- ing and operating na.tural resource projects. II Finally, the presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy recommends that the states give serious consideration to providing administrative and financial means by which a staff can be employed on a continuing basis to partici- pate at all stages of water resources planning. They further state that "The state and local interests that are directly affected by water re- source developments have a great interest. The national interest is often indirect." State study commissions have likewise stressed the need for co- ordinated planning of state water programs and policy. It has frequently been proposed that a water resources board be established, responsible for coordinated plans and policy for the development and conservation of water resources. Although departmental and program or project planning is, of course, a regular part of various separate water agencies' activities, attempts at coordinated or comprehensive water resource planning in the states has been at best sporadic and of limited scope. Of the major general state water agencies in the Missouri Basin, only six indicated that this was among their activities in reply to the Council's question- naire. Moreover, with one exception, these agencies have additional duties which may limit their planning activities. From time to time, various state agencies not primarily concerned with water, such as the