Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> compared desired "target flows" against actual flows that have occurred in the Platte River <br /> over the last several decades. On an average basis, at some times of the year the actual river <br /> flow is greater than the target flows ("periods of excess"), and at other times of the year is less <br /> ("periods of shortage"). Therefore, not all shortages must be met by developing "new" water <br /> (water conservation or foregoing use). Water may be reregulated by storage or groundwater <br /> recharge projects from periods of excess to periods of shortage. However, according to the <br /> FWS, there is on an average annual basis a shortfall of 417,000 acre feet of water with respect <br /> to the target flows. This is a significant amount of water, in a river that today has an average <br /> annual flow of about 1.1 million acre feet as measured at the Grand Island gauge in Nebraska. <br /> Colorado and the other states do not accept the analysis behind the target flows as valid, and <br /> under the Program Agreement retain the right to challenge those flows. However,the Program <br /> Agreement offers a basis for the states to avoid costly litigation against the FWS on this issue, <br /> and the FWS has agreed to continue to study whether the target flows are appropriate. The <br /> Program Agreement specifically anticipates that the states and water users within their <br /> borders will undertake actions to offset 130,000 to 150,000 acre feet of shortages with respect <br /> to target flows. These actions will be undertaken in accordance with state law and the Program <br /> will respect the states' entitlements under interstate compact and decree. <br /> The Land Element. Also as part of the Kingsley relicensing process, the FWS analyzed the <br /> amount and type of land that should be restored to fully protect the listed species. The FWS <br /> determined that about 290,000 acres of land, in ten restored and protected "habitat <br /> complexes," are necessary.This aspect of the FWS's analysis is less controversial.Nevertheless, <br /> Colorado believes that an appropriate balance should be struck between the land elements, <br /> and water delivery and reregulation elements. <br /> The parties to the Program Agreement could not reach final agreement on a program, and <br /> begin its implementation. This is because the FWS is legally required to <br /> OUTLINE OF THE PROGRAM AGREEMENT <br /> Prior to the implementation of the program, the FWS is required to consult on the program <br /> under the ESA, and must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),which <br /> may require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement describing the <br /> program, alternatives to the program, and the environmental effects of those alternatives. <br /> Therefore, the Program Agreement represents the agreement of the states and Interior on <br /> what will constitute the "proposed alternative" for the purposes of the NEPA analysis. This <br /> will allow for a full review of the proposed program,with opportunities for public input. It will <br /> also allow the states and Interior to undertake studies and actions necessary to get the program <br /> up and running. <br /> Interior expects the NEPA process will take about three years to complete. Therefore, as <br /> negotiations unfolded, the parties recognize the need to create a mechanism to allow existing <br />