BOARD00595

• Board Meeting Date: 7/28/2003
• Description: CF Section - Platte River Cooperative Agreement Update
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

- 2-

essential step in deciding if Colorado could support exteriding the CA (currently the CA expires July .
30,2003), In general the meetings where constructive arid most of the parties agreed with our
concerns and voiced support for Colorado. However, it i~ important to emphasize that the Service
and the Environmental interests was very concerned that Colorado not leave the negotiations and
they both very much support a three state effort,

Following is a short summary of the Colorado's recommendations and key concerns:

. The GC must focus on resolving critical issues and develop a specific timeline for resolution
of those issues,

. Since the signing of the C,A., circumstances have changed significantly due to new
information and uncertainties concerning the lack of sediment, attenuated peak flows, and the
"choke point" on the North Platte River, In response to these issues, - Lake McConaughy
must be made available to participate now, at the end of the Program's 1st Increment, and in
to the future,

. "Excesses to target flows" must be defined as tlley relate to the 1997 baseline, with proper
recognition of non-tributary and transbasin accretions and of subsequent depletions in the
individual states, '

. Nebraska has said that it must be compensated for impacts to Lake McConaughy and other
water users in Nebraska that might occur by water development in Colorado, if there is going .
to be a Program, Colorado will not use this: process to rewrite the South Platte River
Compact. Agreeing to give Nebraska this type Of "super" water right is not permitted by the
Compact, Colorado does not support any claims: ofinjury to Nebraska's surface right holders
or instream flow requirements from administering water rights in Colorado under Colorado
Water Law.

. Colorado considers pre-1997 surface water rights and augmentation plans for pre-1997
ground water rights (required by Colorado Water Law for the in-state administration of water
rights), including post-1997 re-regulation and storage, to be existing depletions and part of
the-1997 baseline, so long as these depletions do; not fesulfin imgatlng more acreage,

. The micro-examination of issues concerning: the states' proposed water contributions,
including Tamarack I and III, must stop, Development of the Program will become
gridlocked if the states are not given theoppoitunity to succeed or fail with the plans they
have proposed and plan to implement. Ultimately each state will have to demonstrate their
plans success through implementation and reporting,
i

. The C.A. and proposed Program were predicllted on FWS species and annual pulse flow
criteria (target flows), More recently, the FWS has alleged that other flows may also be
important. These recently identified flow corisiderations could have an adverse affect on
excesses needed for operation of Program water conservation/supply projects and future
depletion plans, as well as water available to states under equitable apportionment decrees .
and compacts,

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and F$ncing. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. ConServation Planning