Agenda Item: Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement

Home Browse Search

-2- essential step in deciding if 30, 2003). In general the m, concerns and voiced suppor and the Environmental inter they both very much suppor Following is a short • The GC must focus of those issues. • Since the signing information and un "choke point" on t must be made avai to the future. • "Excesses to target recognition of non- individual states. • Nebraska has said tl water users in Nebrz to be a Program. Compact. Agreeing Compact. Colorado or instream flow rec Water Law. :olorado could support extending the CA (currently the CA expires July etings where constructive and most of the parties agreed with our for Colorado. However, it is important to emphasize that the Service ;sts was very concerned that Colorado not leave the negotiations and a three state effort. of the Colorado's recommendations and key concerns: resolving critical issues and develop a specific timeline for resolution f the C.A., circumstances have changed significantly due to new tainties concerning the lack of sediment, attenuated peak flows, and the North Platte River. In response to these issues, - Lake McConaughy le to participate now, at the end of the Program's 1 st Increment, and in s" must be defined as they relate to the 1997 baseline, with proper tary and transbasin accretions and of subsequent depletions in the it must be compensated for impacts to Lake McConaughy and other i that might occur by water development in Colorado, if there is going lorado will not use this process to rewrite the South Platte River give Nebraska this type of "super" water right is not permitted by the ,s not support any claims of injury to Nebraska's surface right holders ements from administering water rights in Colorado under Colorado Colorado considers re-1997 surface water rights and augmentation plans for pre-1997 ground water rights ( equired by Colorado Water Law for the in-state administration of water rights), including po?lt-1997 re-regulation and storage, to be existing depletions and part of the 1997 baseline, so long as these depletions do not result in irrigating more acreage. The micro-examinat on of issues concerning the states' proposed water contributions, including Tamarack I and III, must stop. Development of the Program will become gridlocked if the stat s are not given the opportunity to succeed or fail with the plans they have proposed and p an to implement. Ultimately each state will have to demonstrate their plans success throug implementation and reporting. The C.A. and propo ed Program were predicated on FWS species and annual pulse flow criteria (target flows . More recently, the FWS has alleged that other flows may also be important. These re ently identified flow considerations could have an adverse affect on excesses needed for operation of Program water conservation/supply projects and future depletion plans, as ell as water available to states under equitable apportionment decrees and compacts. Flood Protect?on • Water Project Planning and Financing • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning