Laserfiche WebLink
program won't work for the species or the people who live on the land. On private lands, incentives <br />and involvement makes a lot more sense than regulations and resentment. <br />Others in the state share this view. This was demonstrated several years ago when we participated in a <br />diverse group of Nebraskans convened by Senator Bob Kerrey to find common ground on <br />reauthorization of the ESA. There was more consensus than some might imagine, and all agreed that <br />the ESA could be improved with: <br />• Greater stakeholder and public involvement in the process; <br />• Decisions based on good science and peer review; <br />• Emphasis on recovery planning crafted to reduce conflict with economic activities; <br />• Financial incentives for landowners; <br />• An educational and technical assistance program for the public and landowners; and <br />• Increased appropriations for impacted federal agencies. <br />These ESA improvements that were envisioned five years ago could be used to describe the goals of <br />the Platte River Cooperative Agreement today. <br />Stakeholder involvement should be at the top of any conservation agenda, and it has certainly been a <br />priority of the Cooperative Agreement. This involvement is formally recognized on the agreement's <br />Governance Committee, which includes state, federal, water, and conservation interests on a ten - <br />member board that requires nine votes to act. Involvement is further magnified through Governance <br />Committee meetings, sub - committees, state advisory groups, education, and communication among the <br />various participants and their peers. The Cooperative Agreement may be lacking in some things, but <br />stakeholders and their opinions are not among them! <br />This is a strength because the outcome can only be a program with a solid scientific foundation that is <br />crafted to reduce economic conflicts. There is recognition that the Platte's loss of habitat and flows <br />must be reversed, but any program should be voluntary, with financial incentives for the conservation <br />of water and land. There is also an agreement to minimize adverse third -party impacts that can be <br />readily identified. Any action under the program will be measured for its benefits to the species, and as <br />better science becomes available, management will adapt accordingly to maximize the results for each <br />dollar spent. <br />This is the way the ESA should work, and it is worth pursuing because the stakes are so high. To <br />understand what is at stake, I would remind you that it took over 13 years and more than $30 million to <br />relicense Kingsley Dam. If the Cooperative Agreement fails, not only would Kingsley's license be <br />subject to further review, every project in the basin could be subjected to proportional scrutiny and <br />costs, which means that lawyers would do very well at the expense of the water users and wildlife. <br />While there is much to lose if this effort fails, the payoff from success will be equally dramatic. ESA <br />conflicts that have persisted on the Platte for 20 years would finally be resolved throughout the entire <br />basin, bringing some much needed regulatory certainty to those involved. In addition to enhancing <br />