Laserfiche WebLink
Land Entity White Paper <br />November 34, 3999 <br />organizatians to accomplish objectives. Other models for this structure include the <br />Califomia Coastal Conservancy and the Trustees of Resmations in Massachusetts. <br />Advarttages <br />Links to Nebraska state government will enable the PRLC ta have greater <br />influence over federal and state agencies than the non-profit and <br />non-governmental options. <br />Could provide strong accountabiiity to a variety of stakeholders. <br />Has a clear purpose and single-minded focus to implement the Program. <br />Disadvantages <br />• Federal enabling legislation will he required to establish the PRLC. <br />• Independence may make accountability to Govemance Committee problematic. <br />• Colorado and Wyoming water users are reluctant to have a Nebraska state entity <br />as the Land Entity. <br />C. Local Representation <br />There is clearly a strong desire an the part af the local Landowriers to have <br />representation in whatever body is making decisions about local lands. If this concem is <br />to be addressed in some fashion, there are several optians available: <br />1. Adding leepresentacinn at the Governance Committee <br />The ten-member Govemance Committee presently has five stakeholder <br />representatives, two canservation seats and ane water user from each ofthe three major <br />dxainage areas of the Platte River Basin. It was generally asswned that the dawnstream <br />water user representative would represent the interests of landowners alang the central <br />Piatte River. Storage water irrigators at some distance from the river may have different <br />interests, however, than owners of potential habitat Iands next to the river which do not <br />use surface water. <br />A single landowner or local community representative eould be added to the <br />Govemance Committee. If the veto and super-majarity requirements were unchanged, <br />decisions would require an additional positive vote. In theory, a Nebraska water user <br />representative and Nebraska land representative could team together ta block a policy <br />vote without their state's agreement. As a practical matter, it is not Eikely that an issue sa <br />hroadly unacceptable within Nebraska wauld be supported by the state's representative, <br />and wozild be blocked anyway. In practice, this Governance Committee configuration <br />may be little different than current decision-making, giv$n ttze consensus rnethod af <br />decision-making now used and the current participation of Land Committee chairmen <br />and subcommittee chairmen in Govemance Cornmittee discussions. <br />74