Laserfiche WebLink
constituents; and guide the direction of the process and influence decisions because this <br />Program could dictate the future of Platte Valley resources. <br />Our principle concerns include the following: <br />USFWS Target flows- The states do not believe, nor do they accept as accurate, the target <br />flows demanded by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Platte River. <br />We here in Nebraska have good reason not to believe the FWS target flow numbers. <br />Some of those same flow numbers were used by the Nebraska Game & Parks <br />Commission in an instream flow water rights application before the State's Department <br />of Water Resources and FWS employees were brought in to provide the evidence to <br />support those numbers. The water rights hearing was conducted like a district court trial, <br />utilizing the rules of evidence and other courtroom procedures. This process allowed us <br />and the other parties, through depositions, examination, and cross examination, to explore <br />the "science" behind the FWS numbers. As one example of how FWS numbers held up, <br />after reviewing all the evidence and testimony including the testimony of a FWS <br />"expert", the State of Nebraska rejected the FWS target flow of 2400 cfs for Whooping <br />Cranes and instead established a flow of 1350 cfs (44% less) as the flow needed to <br />provide optimum habitat for migrating Whooping Crane. Nevertheless the original 2400 <br />cfs for Whooping Crane flows is still being demanded by FWS in the Platte River <br />Cooperative Agreement. <br />Nebraska's obligations as part of the CA, and those of all involved, must be based on <br />independently peer reviewed and scientifically sound determinations of actual species <br />needs for each of the FWS's target flows. Just as Central Platte NRD's and Nebraska <br />Game & Parks' applications for instream flow water rights on the central Platte River <br />underwent extensive scrutiny before the Nebraska Department of Water Resources, the <br />FWS must submit it's target flows for independent scrutiny and independent, scientific <br />peer review. <br />Direct and third party costs — The CA and proposed Program documents originally <br />estimated first Increment Program costs at $75 million. Current estimates have risen to in <br />excess of $146,000,000.00. Who will be burdened with paying this amount is still <br />unresolved. <br />These costs are only the "program" costs and do not include all the costs associated with <br />the restriction and limitation of Nebraska's right to use ground and surface water. These <br />direct and third party costs must be analyzed to determine the impacts and costs of such <br />regulatory control upon potential water users. Such actions could substantially curtail or <br />eliminate economic development opportunities in our NRD and across central and <br />western Nebraska. The increased costs attributable to changes required in water use and <br />Nebraska law, to changes required in the operation and activities on Nebraska political <br />subdivisions, and the cost of lost economic development opportunities must be <br />determined and weighed against the real benefits of the proposed Program. <br />2 <br />