Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Platte River Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement - Status report <br />Marcb 26, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A Land Committee, with several subcommittees, has been established to develop options and <br />recommendations that would permit the Governance Committee to adopt policies and <br />procedures that flesh out the land protection program by this summer, and certainly by the end <br />of 1999. As with the efforts described aboveto identify additional water re-regulation <br />capability, this schedule is necessary to ensure the proposed program has been adequately <br />developed and described for purposes of reviewunder NEP A. <br /> <br />Several issues recently have developed in connection with the Land Committee's work. These <br />issues, ranked from the benign to the problematic, include: <br /> <br />(a) After a competitive selection process, Hazen and Sawyer, an economics consulting firm <br />based in Tampa with a Fort Collins Office, has been retained to conduct the "Third Party <br />Impacts Analysis." Colorado participated in the selection process and Hazen and Sawyer <br />was our first choice among the three fmiisthat bid. H & S will be conducting a series of <br />working session beginning April 8 in :Nebraska to gather information and data on both <br />positive and negative third party impacts associated with the proposed Platte River <br />program. We will be participating in all these sessions. <br /> <br />(b) At the request of the Land Committee, the Governance Committee has agreed to hire a <br />consulting team to prepare a white paper-on different models of a "land ownership and <br />management entity." Seventeen propos*'have been received and selection committee, on . <br />which I sit, will be meeting shortly. Oned 'this white paper has been prepared, a workshop <br />will be held in September to permit the Dirid Committee and others to develop specific <br />recommendations to the Governance Coljiliiittee on the form the entity should take. <br /> <br />. <j--, <br />(c) AD organization called Nebraska Firsth~' chosen to uSe the meetings of the Land <br />Committee to express their opposition t,{the proposed program. This organization <br />routinely packs Land Committee meetings with over one hundred people - mainly <br />Nebraska fanners - who are concerned about one aspect of the program or another. <br />Concerns include: revenue impacts to local governments should public ownership ofland <br />reduce property taxes; flooded basementsaJ)d fields due to increased river flows; regulation <br />of wells which currently does not occur in Nebraska; and so-called third party impacts that <br />may be associated with the proposed proi;:ram. Most people who come to the meetings are <br />willing to listen to information that addresses their concerns, though a small minority <br />simply are seeking to disrupt and discredit the entire effort. <br /> <br />(d) Recent concerns over the fiscal impact of the proposed program to local governments due <br />to possible reductions in property tax revcmues prompted the land committee co-chairs to <br />seek clarification from the Governance Committee about language in the Cooperative <br />Agreement regarding property taxes: TI1is precipitated considerable discussion within the <br />Governance Committee and here in Colorado about whether Colorado should support <br />payment of property taxes on land acquired for program purposes. Concerns in Colorado <br />have had less to do with the payment of property taxes than with the related issue of third <br />party impacts. After consultation with Republican Caucus Chairman Steve Johnson, <br />Senator Dave Wattenberg, and Representative Brad Young, the Department adopted a <br />position supporting payment of property taxes but opposed to payment of third party <br /> <br />. <br />