Problems with a Two-State Agreement

Home Browse Search

require a separate environmental impact assessment because the impacts of the water projects on the North Platte and the settlement itself would be reviewed as part of the EIS for the Cooperative Agreement. With the three-state Cooperative Agreement in doubt, it is not clear whether and how that assessment will occur. Congressional extensions of several irrigation contracts, such as those for Glendo Reservoir in Wyoming, have been premised on their being part of a three-state Cooperative Agreement. US Forest Service forest management plans have been approved by the courts, reasoning that the proper forum for resolving issues with respect to water yield from the National Forests was the three-state Cooperative Agreement. In these and other cases, the dissolution of the three-state Cooperative Agreement would insert legal uncertainty and complexity into those situations. Scope and Scale of a Proposed Program Preliminary discussions seemed to indicate that Nebraska and Wyoming are contemplating that the basis for a two-state agreement would involve both states offering a level of commitment similar to their proposed commitment under the three-state proposed program (presumably cash, water, and commitments with respect to protecting river flows through New Depletion plans) The following assumes that basis for a two-state agreement, and further assumes that the federal government would be willing to provide half of the funding, as it proposed to do under the original Cooperative Agreement. (Keep in mind, however, that the original Cooperative Agreement contemplated a$75 million commitment, while current estimates for the cost of the Proposed Program are close to $150 million. Though there has been no agreement on dividing up the $150 million, federal officials have consistently said they are willing to provide half the funding based on the higher program cost estimates, but not more). These assumptions are critical to the following assessment. Under the 1997 CA, Colorado was to provide 20°Io of Program costs. Eliminating this Colorado cash contribution, and the federal match for the Colorado contribution, implies that just 60% of the budget for a three-state agreement would be available for a Wyoming-Nebraska Cooperative Agreement. We see no likelihood that federal officials would be willing to fund a larger percentage of a two-state CA than a three-state CA, because federal agencies would be faced (under a two-state CA scenario) with both the costs of the 2- state recovery plan and the costs of Section 7 consultations for Colorado projects. Relative Contribution of Colorado A key to the federal government's requirements for mitigation of Colorado water projects (and, for our purposes, for the FWS assessment of the relative contribution of Nebraska and Wyoming projects that would need to be mitigated under a two-state CA) is the federal assessment of Colorado's relative contribution to the problem. Certainly, defining that contribution to the problem solely as consumptive water use would imply that Colorado has a substantial responsibility for the problem. In reality, the assignment of relative contribution is much more complex than that, because land use changes in the habitat area (drained wetlands, converted wet meadows, Draft - June 3 version - Draft