Report on the Platte River Basin, Nebraska Level B Study

Home Browse Search

costs far outweighed social, environmental, or water resource concerns. A majority of those interviewed did not expect most water resource problems to have an important impact on their personal lives. Also they felt that the population in general is affected only "somewhat" by water resource problems. Consistent with the perception of the low priority given water resource problems, the majority of the residents interviewed in all subbasins felt water related needs are being met "fairly well" or "very well ". They rated Nebraska's water supply as at least adequate. While most residents interviewed preferred a rather constant population level, they supported some economic development, especially of outdoor recreational opportunities and the establishment of small industry. They indicated that provision of water for future development is important and supported limited regulation of ground water withdrawal. The expressed opinion was that water resource planning should be primarily a local function. Of the solutions presented to reduce flood damages, reservoirs were preferred. The issue of "transbasin diversion" did not evoke either a strong positive or negative response. Most felt the costs of improving water quality should be borne by the polluters themselves, and business and industry more than the individual or government. A large majority in all subbasins favored a tax supported "state water fund" to be used for the development of water resources and the solution to water resource problems. Respondents in the Elkhorn, Loup, and Upper Platte Subbasins identified irrigation as the most pressing water resource need while Lower Platte residents identified recreation needs as most im- portant. Overall, however, irrigation ranked first and "No Problem" or "Don't Know" ranked second on the list of water resource needs. PLATTE RIVER BASIN PLANNING BOARD The planning board was responsible for techni- cal supervision of the study and assisted the Study Director in its management. Planning board membership and the relationship to other organ- izational elements are shown in Figure 2. Each board member was responsible for the activities of one or more task forces that provided technical input to the study. Policy decisions and problem resolution were provided by the board. The board members comprised the plan formulation task force shown in Figure 2, and were responsible for final selection of the elements for the National Econom- ic Development, Environmental Quality, and Rec- ommended Plans by utilizing input from the other task forces. PLANNING TEAM A planning team was formed to accomplish the basic work and to assist the planning board in the process of plan formulation. This team consisted of representatives with several disciplines from the Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, Office of Planning and Programming, and Game and Parks Commission; and from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Soil Conservation Service. The team was responsible for the original development and evaluation of alternatives prepared for each of the subbasin plans. Team members participated in the discussions and assisted the planning board in development of the draft Recommended Plan, though final decisions and responsibility rested with the planning board. TASK FORCES Fourteen task forces as shown on Figure 2 were established to perform various assignments which ranged from an inventory of resources and prob- lems to the evaluation of plan elements. Each task force prepared a technical paper which provided the results of its assigned study task. These were used by the planning board and other study participants to formulate plans and prepare study recommendations. Technical papers were dis- tributed on a limited basis. Task force members were state and federal agency representatives assigned by their agency to participate in the study. Leadership of each task force was assigned to an agency having expertise in the area being analyzed. Four were led by state representatives and 10 by federal participants. Two or more task forces were assigned to a planning board member who was responsible for maintaining the work scheduling and completion. In addition to the state and federal participants, one member and alternate from each subbasin citizens' advisory committee was as- signed to each task force. The Plan Formulation Task Force consisted of the planning board, plan- ning team, and citizen advisors. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEES Public involvement in the study was accom- plished partially through Citizens' Advisory Com- mittees. Four committees were organized —one for each of the subbasins. Membership on the com- mittees was provided by representatives from the 13 interest groups shown on Figure 2. Meetings were held with each of the committees at regular intervals to advise them of study progress and to receive their suggestions regarding local interests, concerns, or proposals. They viewed and commented on the alternat