White Paper: Options for Managing the Land Protection Component of the PRRIP

• Description: Prepared for the Governance Committee and Land Committee of the Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Research ‎(aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)‎
• State: CO
• State: NE
• State: WY
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 11/30/1999
• Author: Marty Zeller, Conservation Partners and Mary Jane Graham
• Title: White Paper: Options for Managing the Land Protection Component of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

Land Entity White Paper
November 30, 1999
such tasks to a "Land Oversight Committee," which would in turn work with contractors
to implement defined tasks.
The White Paper considers six alternative structures for the Land Entity itself (1)
a Joint Land Program (JLP) formed by existing state and federal agencies; (2) the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF); (3) a new federal public corporation; (4)
an existing non - profit corporation; (5) a new non - profit corporation; (6) a Platte River
Land Conservancy formed with Federal /State Participation. The range of alternatives,
varying from different governmental and quasi - governmental entities to a variety of non-
profit organizations, are considered in terms of whether they are likely to meet the
demands of the tasks and responsibilities assigned to the entity, while remaining
sufficiently responsive to the Governance Committee, governmental funding entities and
local interests.
The issue of local representation is considered through options addressing
membership in the Governance Committee, in a Land Oversight Committee, if formed,
or on the board of a non - profit Land Entity.
The decision about how to structure a Land Entity will require accommodation of
multiple needs and interests. Decisions about one question change the advantages and
disadvantages of other choices. For example, a strong Land Entity approach may be
highly efficient and effective but may require a more highly defined system of
accountability to the Governance Committee. This type of approach may be better suited
to a single existing or created non - profit or public corporation, than to options involving
a group of parties working in concert. An active Governance Committee model, on the
other hand, may require less formal reporting/ accountability and be better suited to
multi -group cooperative structures.
In addition to the three major decisions addressed in the body of the white paper,
there are several other decisions to be made about how to handle specific land - related
tasks. Concerns about how these tasks will be carried out underlie participants' views of
the advantages and disadvantages of the Land Entity options available to them. They are:
the type of land interests that might be acquired; land negotiation options; land
management and restoration options; options for holding land; and options on dissolution
of a Program. These issues are addressed in Appendices B -F by exploring the range of
alternatives available to resolve each issue.
III. Functions and Tasks of a Land Program Which Could Potentially Be
Assigned to a Land Entity
Through interviews with the parties to the Cooperative Agreement and
participating interest groups, and through review of the Cooperative Agreement and
proposed Program, key functions involved in carrying out the land component of a
Program have been identified and listed below. Most go beyond carrying out land - related
3