Opinion ID: 339236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Water Supply Act of 1958

Text: 20 SOIL's final contention is that the Corps has failed to comply with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. 43 U.S.C. § 390, et seq. Section 390b declares it to be the policy of the Congress to recognize that the primary responsibility for developing water supplies for local domestic use rests on the States and local interests. In furtherance of this policy § 390b(b) provides that prior to the construction of any federal project which includes water supply provisions for present demands, State or local interests shall agree to pay for the cost of such provisions. As regarding future water demands, that same section further provides that a certain per cent of the total estimated cost of any project may be allocated to anticipated future demands when the State or local interests give reasonable assurance, and there is reasonable evidence, that such demands for the use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project. 21 As mentioned at the outset, one of the purposes of the Hillsdale Dam is to store water for domestic use by the surrounding communities. It is agreed by the parties that, insofar as present demand is concerned, there is an existing contract between the United States and the State of Kansas acting through the Kansas Water Resource Board which requires state and local interests to pay for the cost of storage to meet such present demand. 22 The dispute here is over whether the State and local interests have given the Corps reasonable assurances as to anticipated future demand, and whether there is reasonable evidence on the basis of which the Corps could conclude that demands will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the allocated costs within the life of the project. This particular matter was fully explored at the trial of this matter, and the trial court concluded, in effect, if not in so many words, that the Corps did have reasonable assurances, and that there was reasonable evidence that there would be such future demand. SOIL suggests that this finding is not supported by the record and is indeed clearly erroneous. We do not agree. 23 As indicated, it is agreed that State and local interests have contractually agreed to pay for the project insofar as present demand is concerned. We think the record indicates that the Corps was also given  reasonable assurances by these same State and local interests that there will be a future demand for water which will permit paying out the allocated costs within the life of the project, and that there was reasonable evidence to indicate that there would be such demand. In this regard we refer to the letter from the Kansas Water Resource Board, dated August 2, 1973, wherein the Board advised the Corps that it would have need for the project's anticipated water supply. That letter itself sets forth data which establishes the factual basis for the prediction. Moreover, a contract was later entered into between the State and local interests and the United States concerning both present and future water supply, and the payment thereof. All things considered, then, the record shows compliance with the Water Supply Act of 1958. 24 Judgment affirmed.