CRS-7 would be paid in good crop years, and less in poor years. Although Congressman White during the House debate on H.R. 6984 did state that "(w)e are dealing here with the whole problem of reclamation, and we are revising the law," his statement went on to explain that the purpose of the bill was to introduce the necessary flexibility into repayment schedules. Nowhere in the House or Senate debates on H.R. 6984, or in the reports of the committees on the bill, do we find any reference to an intent to éliminate the conditions imposed by the 1920 act on the entering of water supply contracts for non-irrigation uses. H.R. 6773 was not reported from committee, and there was no floor action on it. Neither do we find any discussion of section 16 of the bill in these materials. H.R. 6984 was reported in the House in H.R. Rep. No. 995 76th, Cong. 1st Sess., and was reported in the Senate in S. Rep. No. 758. The conference report was H. Rep. No. 1252. Debate over passage of the bill appears in 84 Cong. Rec. 8737-8743, 9368-9371, 10206, 10219-10226 (1939). At least at one time, the Department of Interior apparently took the position that contracts for sale of project water could be entered pursuant to either the 1920 act or section 9 (c) of the 1939 act. The following annotation of the 1920 act, summarizing an associate solicitor's memorandum in 1956, appears in the U.S.D.I. publication entitled Federal Reclamation and Related Laws Annotated (G.P.O. 1972), vol. 1, p. 251. 3. Industrial use A contract to permit the Public Service Company of Colorado to divert water from a canal of the Grand Valley project for cooling purposes may be entered into pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920 or under section 9(c) or section 10 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Revenues arising from the furnishing of water for this purpose should be credited as a tail end reduction of the water users organizations repayment obligation for construction and rehabilitation and betterment costs. Memorandum of Associate Solicitor Fisher, October 26, 1956. CRS-8 Having only this summary, we do not know upon what the opinion expressed in the memorandum was based. Such a position, that either act could be applied, would seem to be inconsistent with any claim that the two acts apply to different and mutually exclusive projects or waters. The 1920 act authorizes sale of "water from any project irrigation system"; section 9(c) of the 1939 act authorizes the Secretary to "enter into contracts to furnish water for municipal water supply or miscellaneous purposes." Because the complaint in the 'action brought by the Environmental Defense Fund cites both the 1920 and 1939 acts, it is possible that a decision in that case will clarify the relationship of the two acts; in any event, a decision on the merits would determine the applicability of the two acts to sales of water from Boysen and Yellowtail Reservoirs. Your second question is where, in the statutes you name, "are authorizations for the sale of water from the Upper Missouri Basin for industrial purposes." The 1920 and 1939 acts discussed above serve as such authority. The Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. $390b, authorizes planning and construction of reservoirs to include storage of water for municipal or industrial uses, and provides that "no payment need be made with respect to storage for future water supply until such supply is first used." This could constitute implicit authority for sale of such water for municipal or industrial uses. In addition, section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 33 U.S.C. $708 provides: CRS-9 $708. Sale of surplus waters for domestic and indus- The Secretary of the Army is authorized to make Your third question is whether any of the named laws "require the Department of Interior to determine rights of existing water users, availability for future agricultural needs in the region and to determine the availability of alternative water supplies prior to entry into contracts related to use of water in the Upper Missouri System." Both the 1920 and 1939 laws require a finding to the effect that the contracts for municipal or other non-irrigation purposes will not impair the water service for irrigation (agricultural) purposes. The 1920 law also expressly requires a determination of existing rights and a determination that "there is no other practicable source of water supply for the purpose" for which the contract will provide water. Your fourth question is "what provisions exist in the above named laws to require industrial water users to employ the best available water conservation techniques to analyze alternative energy supply, and to promote environmental protection." Implicit in the 1920 act's condition that CRS-10 The con no contract be entered into absent "a showing that there is no other practicable source of water supply for the purpose" is some concern over wasteful practices, although the requirement relates to alternative sources of water and not directly to amount of water withdrawn from the project. ditions imposed to protect the water supply for irrigation uses might be generally characterized as conservation measures. The National Environmental Policy Act, in addition to requiring all agencies of the Federal Government to prepare and file an environmental impact statement, requires all agencies to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. $4332 (2) (D). NEPA also provides that "to the fullest extent possible ... the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter." 42 U.S.C. $4332 (1). These duties are imposed on federal agencies, not on those contracting for water supply, although of course the conservation techniques of the water user might be taken into account by the agency in determining whether to enter into a contract. Your fifth question is "what provisions exist in the above named laws to promote alternative courses of action other than maximum U.S. Government promotion and subsidy of maximum industrial and energy development in the North Central Plains." No such objectives are expressed in any of the laws. The Water Supply Act, supra, which authorizes the planning and construction of projects for storage of water for sale for municipal and industrial uses, as well as for reclamation, flood control, and other CRS-11 uses previously authorized, contains the following statement of policy: (a) Declaration of policy. It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water supplies in connection with the construction, maintenance, and operation of Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, or multiple purpose projects. The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 provided: That for the purpose of providing for United States reclamation projects a feasible and comprehensive plan for an economical and equitable treatment of repayment problems and for variable payments of construction charges which can be met regularly and fully from year to year during periods of decline in agricultural income and unsatisfactory conditions of agriculture as well as during periods of prosperity and good prices for agricultural products, and which will protect ade-: quately the financial interest of the United States in said projects, obligations to pay construction charges may be revised or undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The Act of Feb. 25, 1920 contains no stated purpose or policy, but clearly subordinates supplying water for non-irrigation purposes to supplying it for irrigation. The Yellowstone River Compact acknowledges "the great importance of water for irrigation," and also expresses the desire of the state parties "to provide for an equitable division and apportionment and to encourage the beneficial use and development" of the Yellowstone's waters. The Reclamation Act of 1902 contains no statement of purpose or policy. The policy expressed in the Flood Control Act of 1944 was: ... |