Problems with a Two-State Agreement

Home Browse Search

bridges that narrow the channel) appear to be largely unrelated to Colorado actions and responsibilities. In addition, the influx of non-basin water, primarily due to water projects in Colorado, complicates the assessment. Furthermore, the physical transformation of the North Platte (measured in terms of total storage v. average annual flow) has been greater than it has in the South Platte. Finally, many of the changes (the construction of Bureau of Reclamation dams, subsidies for other dams and hydro facilities, federal dollars used to construct highway bridges, federal farm subsidies that drive land use decisions) were all funded by the federal government, implying a substantial federal responsibility that is not measured by consumptive water use. Certainly, Colorado water projects contribute to a substantial share of the habitat degradation problems in the Central Platte. The relative share is open to substantial debate, and the allocation of 20% of funding to Colorado under the 1997 Cooperative Agreement was expressly a political agreement, and not one that any of the parties recognized as a reflection of any state's relative responsibility. Keep in mind that, in the absence of the incremental approach outlined in the CA, the Fish & Wildlife Service has said it will base contributions for future water projects (including those that are not part of the CA) on the original targets established by the FWS for the species: 417,000 acre feet of additional water benefit at the habitat, and 29,000 acres of habitat. Note that because of the timing of Section 7 consultations, and uncertainty concerning the timing and resulting mitigation requirements in those consultations, it would not be reasonable to assume that Colorado projects could meet their obligations by providing supplemental funding or "buying in" to a two-state Cooperative Agreement program. For those same reasons, it would not be sensible, for example, to plan or budget for a two-state program that assumes financial or other contributions from Colorado projects. Note also that, should some Colorado water entities undertake projects that involve a federal nexis, and thus are required to provide mitigation far water use allowed under the interstate compact governing the South Platte, the result could be a further disruption of the irrigated agricultural economy of Northeast Colorado. Denver Water and other water users have indicated that, should they be required to provide mitigation for water projects, they would likely turn to the purchase of ag water rights to meet those obligations, as they have done in the past. Two-State Cooperative Agreement Scenarios The following assessment examines a potential two-state CA scenario for purposes of analysis only. It assumes that the two states and federal government would fund 60% of the $150 million current Proposed Program estimate, or roughly $96 million (counting the $15 million being spent to develop the Proposed Program as a sunk cost). As is discussed above and below, a two-state CA at that level is clearly unacceptable to conservation groups. This 60°Io scenario is contrasted to the current Proposed Program. Water Action Plan The three initial water projects agreed to and the Water Action Plan itself include Draft - June 3 version - Draft