My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2013 3:47:00 PM
Creation date
2/27/2013 1:09:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)
State
NE
Basin
North Platte
Date
7/1/1998
Author
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Office of Hydropower Licensing
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Volume II, Appendix K, Part 1 - Kingsley Dam (FERC Project No. 1417) and North Platte/Keystone Dam (FERC Project No. 1835) Projects, Nebraska, FERC/FEIS-0063
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
551
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
COMMENTS OF CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />Nebraska to pay a disproportionate share among all others in <br />a multi -state drainage basin in order to satisfy a national <br />interest in enhancing conditions for endangered species <br />migrating through the area. As a matter of law, requiring a <br />disproportionate contribution to basin -wide programs would <br />constitute a "taking" of property without compensation in <br />violation of the Fifth Amendment. In the recently decided <br />Dolan v. City of Tigard, 61 the Supreme Court confirmed that <br />conditions imposed as part of a permit or license must be <br />"related both in nature and extent to the impact of the <br />development" in what the Court describes as a "rough <br />proportionality" test.b' In adopting this standard (called <br />7C the "reasonable relationship" test in many courts), the <br />w <br />Un Court quoted as an example of its "typical" application: <br />The distinction, therefore, which must be <br />made between an appropriate exercise of the police <br />power and an improper exercise of eminent domain <br />is whether the requirement has some reasonable <br />relationship or nexus to the use to which the <br />property is being made or is merely being used as <br />an excuse for taking property simply because at <br />that particular moment the landowner is asking the <br />city for some license or permit.63' <br />DOI has found it expedient to request a wildly <br />disproportionate share of regional enhancements from these <br />license applicants in this proceeding, simply because the <br />V 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). <br />Id,_ at 2319 -20. <br />0/ Z91. at 2319, (quoting Simpson v. North Platte, <br />292 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Neb. 1980)). <br />- 33 - <br />RESPONSES TO CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.