BOARD01775

• Board Meeting Date: 3/20/2000
• Description: Platte River Basin Issues - Platte River Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement - Water Action Plan Committee Update
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

'-~~ .,.

Because Nebraska well users are perhaps one of their most powerful political lobbies, this
monumental task will also be a daunting one for Nebraska,

.

In this charged atmosphere, Nebraska has criticized Colorado's plan rather than addressing their
own water problems, They also take issue with Colorado's use of winter water for the Tamarack
recharge project, Nebraska claims, contrary to the tenus of the agreements signed by our
respective states' governors and the South Platte Compact, that Colorado's operation of
Tamarack may injure existing water uses in Nebraska, Perhaps unhappy with the tenus of the
compact, Nebraska seems to be attempting to renegotiate its tenus through the back door, Such
renegotiations are 'completely unacceptable to Colorado, Under significant pressure from the
other states, Colorado has agreed to have its technical representatives work with Nebraska
, water users to establish what effects Tamarack may have on their operations, Preliminary work
suggests Tamarack may in fact have a positive, impact on Nebraska's water users, More
investigation will be done,

The sum total of the water supply projects put forward to date equals 54,600 acre feet. At our last
Water Action Plan Committee meeting, the environmental representatives threatened to withdraw
from the program and sue if the states didn't come up with more water than 60,000 acre feet.
Their reasoning is that some of the water projects proposed, particularly by
Wyoming and Nebraska, may not actually be developed. The Cooperative Agreement calls for
60,000 to 80,000 acre feet. Interestingly, Nebraska has decreased the amount of water they are
willing to contribute to the Water Action Plan,

Recently, Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming have held a series of ongoing "states-only"
meetings, At the last such meeting, the states agreed that meeting the program budget is
important for each state and that the federal government must contribute water to the program by
forest management. The federal contribution is put forth as 10,000 acre feet of water in the
system (unprotected from diversion), The states also believe non-flow habitat improvements
should be considered to meet the goals for the.species, '

.;;

Colorado continues to face many challenges with respect to the water portion of the proposed
program. We remain committed to meeting ESA compliance for our water users and citizens; but
not in such a way as to injure or impede existing and future water uses, We continue to work
closely with our water user constituents to ensure their interests and those of the State of
Colorado are protected, In many respects, Colorado is far ahead of the other states in these
negotiations, For example, neither Wyoming nor Nebraska have concrete proposals with
constituent or legislative support, Moreover, they are attempting to reserve up to 50% of their
water contribution to offset future depletions, In other words, only Colorado can say with
certainty what we are willing and able to do to meet oui' obligations,

.

2

L_.
l,- -

~i~"I6o",-~'j