Problems with a Two-State Agreement

Home Browse Search

Problems With a Two-State Platte River Cooperative Agreement The Conservation Perspective Recent difficulties in discussions among parties to the three-state Platte River Cooperative Agreement have resulted in some representatives openly contemplating a two-state Cooperative Agreement, involving Nebraska, Wyoming, and the Department of Interior. After careful review and analysis of this option, the conservation groups involvedl have concluded that the difficulties inherent in a two-state Cooperative Agreement are so substantial that such an Agreement is unlikely to be put in place. If put in place, such a two-state Cooperative Agreement Program would be unlikely to succeed in the ultimate goal of restoring the habitat. In Brief Conservation groups believe that a two-state Cooperative Agreement is inadequate, and therefore unacceptable, for the following reasons: • Re-negotiation of a two-state Proposed Program would add substantial delay to a process that is already well past deadline, likely eliminating any possibility that a Final EIS and ROD could be issued by the end of 2004. • Adopting a two-state CA approach would not eliminate any of the water delivery issues dividing Colorado and Nebraska on the South Platte. It would instead make it more difficult to solve the problems associated with these issues, because they would need to be resolved in a purely adversarial environment. • A two-state approach would result in a loss of coordination in the purchase and management of habitat, and in the delivery of water to the habitat, putting at risk the species benefits anticipated. • A two-state CA introduces substantial new uncertainty that the land, water and other benefits needed by the species will be provided. That uncertainty requires that the goals for the Program be raised, not lowered. • A two-state CA puts at risk the commitment made by conservation groups that their land can be counted towards the goal of 29,000 acres of habitat protected and maintained long-term. • Demise of the three-state CA would inject legal uncertainty into agreements premised on a three-state CA, including the Kingsley/Keystone Dam FERC licenses, the settlement in Nebraska v. Wyoming, National Forest plans, and Congressional extensions of Glendo and other reservoir agreements. • A two-state approach makes it unlikely that water benefits will be available related to Colorado water projects during the First Increment. Should some of that mitigation occur for federal nexis projects, the result would be substantial disruption of existing irrigated agriculture in Northeast Colorado. 1 Cunently, the conservation organizations actively involved in Cooperative Agreement discussions are the Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Trust, the Nebraska Wildlife Federation, Audubon Nebraska, and the National Wildlife Federation, all of whom contributed to this analysis. The Colorado Wildlife Federation and Wyoming Wildlife Federation are also actively involved in Platte River issues in their states. Draft - June 3 version - Draft