Laserfiche WebLink
• Having a seat at the table <br />Allowing the states, the water users and the environmental community to participate <br />in the decisionmaking process for the Platte river species will be beneficial to the species, <br />the USFWS, and the stakeholders in the basin. It will help soften fears about <br />implementation of the ESA, and the collective thinking that is employed will encourage <br />actions that are feasible, beneficial and more acceptable. <br />• Federal financial_ assistance to be provided <br />As discussed earlier the importance and appreciation of the basin and associated <br />species carries far beyond the borders of the three states. Federal agencies .own, have <br />control of, and/or manage lands and water usage facilities on the river and the recovery <br />program will be more expensive than could be borne by the states or by their water users <br />• Better opportunity to achieve equity among those contributing to habitat declines <br />Without a collaborative program, only those subject to federal jurisdiction would be <br />held responsible for taking the steps deemed necessary by the USFWS to recover the <br />species. This could place a disproportionately heavy burden on a few. The process <br />outlined in the Cooperative Agreement will provide the forum for a more equitable <br />distribution of that burden. <br />Important Considerations Prior to Nebraska's Acceptance of the Program <br />Final decisions by the states and by the Department of Interior are still a ways off and <br />each party likely will have its own set of considerations about the advantages and <br />disadvantages of the proposed program before it decides whether accepting the proposed <br />program is the right thing for it to do. For Nebraska, that decision will- depend upon a <br />number of factors including the following: <br />Achieving equity among the three states and the federal government <br />The significance of the Platte River, associated habitats and identified species extends <br />far beyond the borders of the state. Nebraska needs to believe that the burden of <br />protecting and restoring these habitats and species will be borne equitably among the <br />three states and the federal government. <br />• Having a better understanding of what will happen if no program is implemented <br />Nebraska needs a clear understanding of the implications of the "No Action" or no <br />Program alternative, so that we can determine the best choice for Nebraskans. For <br />example, how or would both present and future groundwater uses be treated in the <br />absence of a collaborative effort? <br />• The ability of Nebraska to develop and implement an acceptable "new depletion <br />plan" <br />The Nebraska New Depletions proposal summarized earlier in this testimony <br />demonstrates the difficulty of implementing a program that requires the integrated <br />management of groundwater and surface water where that has not previously been done <br />and in a hydrologic system as complex and extensive as is the Platte. It is important to <br />remember, however, that the need for groundwater management to protect streamflows <br />may exist in Nebraska whether or not Nebraska decides to participate in the proposed <br />program. The question may be whether the timeline for initiating the proposed program <br />is too short for the concept of integrated management to be first accepted and <br />implemented by Nebraskans. <br />-6- <br />