Laserfiche WebLink
A <br />Because Nebraska well users are perhaps one of their most powerful political lobbies, this <br />monumental task will also be a daunting one for Nebraska. <br />In this charged atmosphere, Nebraska has criticized Colorado's plan rather than addressing their <br />own water problems. They also take issue with Colorado's use of winter water for the Tamarack <br />recharge project. Nebraska claims, contrary to the terms of the agreements signed by our <br />respective states' governors and the South Platte Compact, that Colorado's operation of <br />Tamarack may injure existing water uses in Nebraska. Perhaps unhappy with the terms of the <br />compact, Nebraska seems to be attempting to renegotiate its terms through the back door. Such <br />renegotiations are completely unacceptable to Colorado. Under significant pressure from the <br />other states, Colorado has agreed to have its technical representatives work with Nebraska <br />water users to establish what effects Tamarack may have on their operations. Preliminary work <br />suggests Tamarack may in fact have a positive impact on Nebraska's water users. More <br />investigation will be done. <br />The sum total of the water supply projects put forward to date equals 54,600 acre feet. At our last <br />Water Action Plan Committee meeting, the environmental representatives threatened to withdraw <br />from the program and sue if the states didn't come up with more water than 60,000 acre feet. <br />Their reasoning is that some of the water projects proposed, particularly by <br />Wyoming and Nebraska, may not actually be developed. The Cooperative Agreement calls for <br />60,000 to 80,000 acre feet. Interestingly, Nebraska has decreased the amount of water they are <br />willing to contribute to the Water Action Plan. <br />Recently, Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming have held a series of ongoing "states-only" <br />meetings. At the last such meeting, the states agreed that meeting the program budget is <br />important for each state and that the federal government must contribute water to the program by <br />forest management. The federal contribution is put forth as 10,000 acre feet of water in the <br />system (unprotected from diversion). The states also believe non-flow habitat improvements <br />should be considered to meet the goals for the species. <br />Colorado continues to face many challenges with respect to the water portion of the proposed <br />program. We remain committed to meeting ESA compliance for our water users and citizens; but <br />not in such a way as to injure or impede existing and future water uses. We continue to work <br />closely with our water user constituents to ensure their interests and those of the State of <br />Colorado are protected. In many respects, Colorado is far ahead of the other states in these <br />negotiations. For example, neither Wyoming nor Nebraska have concrete proposals with <br />constituent or legislative support. Moreover, they are attempting to reserve up to 50% of their <br />water contribution to offset future depletions. In other words, only Colorado can say with <br />certainty what we are willing and able to do to meet our obligations. <br />2