Laserfiche WebLink
once had been an agreement to provide 13 0, 000 acre feet of water and provide 10,000 <br />acres of habitat suddenly had the added ridiculous idea of adding thousands and <br />thousands tons of sand to the river each year. Notwithstanding that there was no peer- <br />review of the shoddy science that led to the faulty conclusion that this was necessary, the <br />Service pushed ahead with this deal because the "Program" they designed to help <br />endangered species, actually in their modeling seemed to harm the habitat because the <br />"new" water they were adding might remove sediment necessary for sandbars and affect <br />the channel of the river. Of course, no one thought to look at the implications of I -80 and <br />the hundreds of channel restricting measures constructed there, or the impacts of the <br />bridges crossing the river or of the many other diversions and structures placed in the <br />river. <br />There are major concerns hidden in the issues. Will the Service accept liability <br />for flood damage caused by water releases or sediment build -up? Who will accept the <br />consequences of these actions upon homes, farms and the infrastructure such as roads and <br />bridges? Have these issues even been considered? <br />Gentlemen, these are just an example of the types of issues that must be addressed <br />before the good theory of a Cooperative Agreement becomes a good program. <br />There are additional concerns, as well, that may not be a direct result of federal <br />activity but may reflect population growth and political power. From NWU's point of <br />view, there appears to be a distinct "growth bias" among the states. Colorado, in <br />particular, appears to be able to continue to use water for economic growth and for its <br />population, while just providing a few dollars to the program. Nebraska, on the other <br />hand, appears, as the downstream state, to be forced to give up the most water, forego any <br />