Laserfiche WebLink
Testimony of Donald D. Kraus <br />February 16, 2002 <br />also committed to involving local land and water users in Nebraska, to working with only <br />willing participants, to paying taxes on Program lands and to acting as a good neighbor. <br />These aspects of the proposed Program were critical to reaching agreement but are also <br />the most difficult to analyze and to carry into specific planning. As a result, they have <br />been revisited over and over again. I want to commend Ralph Morgenweck, the Director <br />of the Denver office of the Fish and Wildlife Service on adopting this innovative <br />approach in lieu of command and control, and on his hard work to find and keep a <br />difficult balance between certainty and flexibility. It has clearly been a struggle both <br />within his organization and with stakeholders to find the right balance, and that struggle <br />is not yet over. But Ralph's willingness to use creativity has been essential and will <br />continue to be needed for the Program to succeed. <br />Central supports the proposed Program because it beats the alternative. Bluntly, if the <br />Cooperative Agreement does not lead to a Program, or the Program fails, the FERC <br />proceedings could be reopened and further measures imposed on the Districts. Other <br />"federal nexus" water related activities, such as the irrigation projects in the Nebraska <br />panhandle that receive water from federal reservoirs in Wyoming, also have strong <br />incentives to participate. <br />But for new water users without a clear federal nexus, the Program's new depletions plan <br />is difficult to swallow. Program benefits to these water users are limited and mitigation <br />water will be costly — probably beyond their willingness to pay. In Nebraska, <br />development of a new depletions plan may involved statutory changes, and addressing <br />surface vs. ground water issues that have not fully matured. In addition, some <br />Nebraskans are very disturbed at inviting the federal government into decisions about <br />private property. For a Program to be adopted, it must be in the interests of the state as a <br />whole. The state has and will continue to need to commit substantial resources to address <br />the new depletions issues. <br />Unfortunately, a greater commitment of resources is needed elsewhere as well. When the <br />Cooperative Agreement was signed, total costs of the first ten- to thirteen -year increment <br />were estimated to be $75 million, not including the costs of new depletions programs. At <br />this point, estimates have risen to $150 million, and are not final. There are several <br />reasons for the increase. Land prices have risen sharply as groups began buying river <br />lands for hunting. Experience has shown that some land restoration costs were not <br />correct. A study of water supply and conservation options showed that water will be <br />more difficult and expensive to obtain than anticipated. In addition, about a year and a <br />half ago, the Department of the Interior raised issues about sediment transport and <br />vegetation control based on preliminary studies for the environmental impact statement. <br />After coordination with outside consultants, we agreed to expand our research in this <br />area, including small -scale exploration of potential sediment and vegetation control <br />measures on Program lands, and then to apply successful measures as appropriate on <br />other Program lands. These activities increased both research and restoration costs. The <br />sediment and vegetation issues and efforts to define Program success also made us look <br />hard at the research and monitoring program, to be sure it will give us the data and <br />3 <br />