Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Fair Share <br /> <br />Over the last year the states have been unified over several issues (i,e" channel morphology, species <br />and habitat baseline, species needs etc,), however with the assembling of the various program <br />elements the focus will now shift to differences that may exist between states, One of the most <br />significant issues that must be resolved has been termed "Fair Share", Broadly speaking the concept <br />of fair share may include how each state will contribute and be credited for money, water and land, <br />What makes this issue especially controversial is how this concept may apply to future water related <br />activities, <br /> <br />The Board will recall that in simple terms the CA addresses both past water development and future <br />water development. The commitment of 130,000-150,000 acre feet of water (Colorado's share via <br />the Tamarack Plan is 27,000 acre feet) is for mitigation related to past water development. In <br />determining fair share the concept is that the combined value of water and money should be <br />equitable and that as water is developed for the program it should not increase the mitigation <br />responsibility of another state, <br /> <br />Each state and the federal govenunent is also responsible for developing and implementing a future <br />depletions plan, The future depletions plans layout how impacts to species and habitat target flows <br />will be avoided or mitigated, Nebraska in particular believes that the concept of fair share should <br />include how and how much water each state is allowed to develop in the future, This interpretation <br />could create inconsistencies with the South Platte Compact. <br /> <br />. Budget <br /> <br />The program budget continues to be a major problem and fair share also has relevance in terms of <br />the equitable distribution paid to the program collectively by the states versus the federal <br />government. The CA was based on a 50-50 split for program costs between the states and the <br />federal govenunent. With the cost of the progrillll increasing from the estimated $75 million to as <br />much as $150 million this cost distribution may need to be reassessed, <br /> <br />Pallid Sturgeon <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />One final issue I would like the Board to be awilfe of is how the program may address the Pallid <br />Sturgeon, The Pallid Sturgeon is a large river fish that has primarily been associated with the <br />Missouri River, There is limited capture and/or documentation of the use of the Platte River by the <br />Pallid Sturgeon, Nevertheless, the Service has indicated that they have issued jeopardy opinions in <br />the past for water development on the Platte system, and that some form of a reasonable and prudent <br />alternative may be needed, We have talked in some detail with several water users regarding <br />whether the proposed program is the proper venue to address the Pallid Sturgeon, A reasonable <br />argument can be made to not include the Pallid Sturgeon in the proposed program but that likely <br />would necessitate either individual mitigation for the Pallid or some other joint program to address <br />mitigation, The states have asked for more detail regarding what information needs to be collected <br />for the Pallid, when, and how this information sbould be coordinated with other Pallid Sturgeon <br />initiatives on the Lower Platte and Missouri River before we decide how to address this species, <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />