Laserfiche WebLink
Land Entity White Paper <br />November 30, 1999 <br />organizations to accomplish objectives. Other models for this structure include the <br />California Coastal Conservancy and the Trustees of Reservations in Massachusetts. <br />Advantages <br />• Links to Nebraska state government will enable the PRLC to have greater <br />influence over federal and state agencies than the non - profit and <br />non - governmental options. <br />• Could provide strong accountability 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 be required to establish the PRLC. <br />• Independence may make accountability to Governance 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 on the part of the local landowners to have <br />representation in whatever body is making decisions about local lands. If this concern is <br />to be addressed in some fashion, there are several options available: <br />1. Adding Representation at the Governance Committee <br />The ten - member Governance Committee presently has five stakeholder <br />representatives, two conservation seats and one water user from each of the three major <br />drainage areas of the Platte River Basin. It was generally assumed that the downstream <br />water user representative would represent the interests of landowners along the central <br />Platte River. Storage water irrigators at some distance from the river may have different <br />interests, however, than owners of potential habitat lands next to the river which do not <br />use surface water. <br />A single landowner or local community representative could be added to the <br />Governance Committee. If the veto and super - majority 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 to block a policy <br />vote without their state's agreement. As a practical matter, it is not likely that an issue so <br />broadly unacceptable within Nebraska would be supported by the state's representative, <br />and would be blocked anyway. In practice, this Governance Committee configuration <br />may be little different than current decision - making, given the consensus method of <br />decision - making now used and the current participation of Land Committee chairmen <br />and subcommittee chairmen in Governance Committee discussions. <br />U <br />