Agenda Item: Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement (3)

Home Browse Search

Later in June we saw Nebraska once again withdraw some of their preliminary water commitments. Nebraska indicated the desire to reserve two of their more promising water projects (management of the ground water mound and power interference) for use to offset future depletions. In addition, Nebraska presented a proposal under which they would be compensated for water contributions beyond what they consider a"fair share". The proposal suggested that Nebraska would not contribute to the cost of developing program water beyond a certain point, and they could receive 40 % of the yield of the "additional" project for future depletions or a direct payment equal to approximately 40 % of the cost to develop the "additional" project. Nebraska indicated that their proposal was precipitated by the need to create an incentive for Nebraska to participate in the program and to garner support from people who have been critical of the proposed program. In short, Colorado indicated that we do not feel the need to solve Nebraska's political problems and we disagree with how they are attempting to characterize "fair share". Colorado believes that the states agreed to a process to identify water for the program and that process is the water conservation and supply study (Boyle Report) not Nebraska's subjective opinion of "fair share". After "sleeping on it" Nebraska offered to allow water from the ground water mound and power interference to be eligible far the program providing that the projects yield more than a specified quantity. Colorado is not overly please with this compromise, and Nebraska believes we have not resolved their "fair share" issue. However, in the interest of completing a reconnaissance level water action plan that can be forwarded to the Governance Committee and the Environmental Impact Statement analysis team (the EIS team has been working with a preliminary draft water action plan for their initial analysis) the water action plan committee agreed to move forward. The preceding discussion illustrates the difficulties of dealing with multiple interests and competing agendas. Colarado continues to support the development of a three state agreement. We also believe it is critical to keep the development and implementation of our portion of the proposed program a high priority even in the face of significant conflicts. The Water Management Committee is close to completing their milestones. The last meeting focused on defining the future role of a water committee once a program is implemented. • The Land Committee completed a third party impact study. In general the study concludes that the proposed program will have minor local negative effects but overall the proposed program is expected to have a net positive economic effect. Many Nebraskans disagreed and continue to disagree with the study, which is causing delays. Several of the legal and logistical issues regarding land acquisition and management likely will not be resolved until an actual program is in place. However, Colorado needs to have the proper legal protections included in initial contracts and deeds should the program fail in the future. We are currently looking at this issue. The Technical Committee completed a review of an important draft document that was written by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The document attempted to identify the environmental and species parameters that should be measured/evaluated to determine if the program is having the desired effect. The technical committee provided extensive comment on the document. I response the Service agreed to modify the document to focus on data needs rather than background information and interpretation which is widely disputed. Although this compromise reduces the level of disagreement it may also inhibit resolution of some of the