BOARD01284

• Board Meeting Date: 9/21/1998
• Description: Platte River Basin Issues - Status of Platte River Species Cooperative Agreement Implementation
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

C\\'(,'B :-'lcmbers
Status of Platte River Cooperative. ,.l,greement Implementation
September 21, 1998

TY. Other water mntters outside the pUr\'ie\\" of the 'Vater sub-committee:

. Shortly, I will re,kindle discuSSlOns \\'lth Colorado users of'\'orth Platte \vater regarding
whether and how these water users want possible future depletions addressed through the
program. By agreement, Colorado's Tamarack Plan and "fair share" financial commitment
outlined in the Cooperative _.l,greement would provide the ESA compliance mechamsm for all
existing depletions in ~orth Park

.

. Through two grants to the South Platte Lower River Group, Inc. (SPLRG), the CWCB has
catalyzed efforts to begin managed groundwater re,regulation projects on the lower South
Platte River between Sterling and the state, line, C\VCB funds have been elTectively
leveraged through the contributions of many other parties, Two wells have been installed at
the DOW-owned Tamarack Ranch and Pony Express state wildlife areas, and additional well
development is pending. A draft Environmental Assessment for the installation of additional
wells at state wildlife areas has been prepared, A draft contract between DOW, SPLRG, and
possibly the C\VCB defining operational procedures, long-term ownership and operation and
maintenance responsibilities, and allocation of recharge credits, is under review.

,

V, Land Committee: This sub-committee's primal}' purpose over the next several months is to
fill in gaps in the proposed program's land protection measures so that the }':'EPA process can
fully analyze it as the preferred alternative.

Background: During negotiations on the Cooperative Agreement, the parties agreed relatively
quickly to a land protection goal during the first 13 to 16 year increment of 10,000 acres.
Thereafier, negotiators focu~ed almost exclusively on water management questions and on
ljuestions centered on the equitable di\'ision of responsibility for the program, As a result, the
Cooperati\'e Agreement does not specifically address which lands to protect or how protection is
to be accomplished.

With "passive" approval of the Governance Committee, several interested parties in Nebraska
asswned the responsibility for addressing these outstanding questions, and devised a
sub-committee decision,making process in whIch anyone who sho\wd up at a meeting u
infoffiled or otherwise u could participate in its deliberations and vote. Since last winter, Dan
Luecke, Alan Berryman and I repeatedly voiced concern that this wlstructured, ad hoc structure
would not likely produce results in which all the parties could have conlidence. We have been
assured that this approach is necessary to achiew widespread understanding and "buy-in" among
Nebraska land O\\TIers,

Issues"- De\'~lopments:

. . I am acting as the State of Colorado's representative to the Land sub-committee, Brad Wind.
an employee of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, is acting as the Colorado
\~ter usas' representative, and is being supported by Ste\'e Deugherty, a private consulting