Laserfiche WebLink
compliance or just tracking and accounting. If water verification is referring to the need to track <br />and account water then this task is done, if it means something else then more work is needed. <br />John asked for clarification. Mike Besson suggested that the topic be covered when the Program <br />structure is defined. The WMC also asked for clarification regarding Institutional Protection as <br />posed by the Drafting Committee before they address the topic. John reported that the WMC <br />feels that they have no unresolved Cooperative Agreement tasks unless more is needed to address <br />the above topics. There will not be a WMC in August but John will report to Margot Zallen <br />regarding the Drafting Committee's request. <br />John Lawson, WAPC Chair, reported that the meeting held June 28 started with a discussion of <br />the draft Water Action Plan (WAP) used for state meetings. Nebraska reported that fair share, <br />schedule, and general ESA concerns were major issues raised at their 11 state meetings. <br />Colorado and Wyoming reported that they did not conduct formal informational meetings and <br />are waiting until the draft EIS is available. <br />At the WAPC meeting Jim Cook from Nebraska provided an outline of Nebraska is willing to <br />consider for inclusion in the WAP. Jim Cook addressed the GC and said that the presentation <br />was made based on concerns of many Nebraskans and that they were trying to work at reducing <br />these concerns so that the Program could be a success. There were three issues raised during the <br />presentation 1) change mix of water projects for consideration in WAP, 2) incentives for <br />development of water beyond a certain level, and 3) some basic principles utilizing Nebraska's <br />water resources. Jim reported that as a result of the State's Meeting after the WAPC meeting on <br />June 28 all projects are back into the mix of projects for consideration with some changes in the <br />yield available to the Program. Jim indicated that there are still many issues that need to be <br />resolved. <br />John Lawson reported that Nebraska also provided an edited copy of the Process section in the <br />WAP. The committee deferred review the revisions to the subgroup of Jim Cook, Mike Besson, <br />and Wendy Weiss. <br />Concern was raised over using the schedule of water projects in the draft WAP as the first <br />increment water milestones. The suggestion was made that quantity of water and not projects <br />should be used. John reported that the WAPC also addressed the points assigned to them on the <br />"heads -up list" provided by Margot Zallen at the last GC meeting (WAP completion, Process, <br />and implementation). John noted that the state's new depletion plans were submitted to the EIS <br />Team for analysis but that they are not yet ready for GC review and acceptance. <br />State Meeting <br />Mike Besson reported that the meeting consisted mostly of discussion of issues raised by <br />Nebraska during the WAPC meeting. The states also discussed how they envisioned federal <br />water projects being covered or not being covered under the state's new depletion plans. Mike <br />noted that the states agreed that the projects will be reviewed on a case by case bases in <br />consultation with the federal entity. The states also discussed fair share, TC activities, and <br />schedule. Margot Zallen asked for clarification on how the states were anticipating handling <br />federal future depletions. Mike Besson responded that for Wyoming they would look at the <br />This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different <br />if corrections are made by the committee before approval. Page 4 of 8 <br />