Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />DepJf!ment oi N.atUfal Resources <br />! 3 , J Sherman Street. Room i16 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 13031 866.3311 <br />TOo: 13031 866-35.13 <br />fJx: (3031 866-21' 5 <br /> <br />March 4, 1999 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLOAADO <br /> <br />~ <br />DEP!\R.Tl'v!EJW ( <br />NATURA <br />RESOURCE <br /> <br />OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR <br /> <br />The Honorable Steve Johnson <br />Colorado House of Representatives <br />State Capitol <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />Dea~oS~ ,- <br /> <br /> <br />Thank you for your letter of February 8, 1999 regarding the endangered species program <br />that is taking shape in the Platte River Basin ("Program"). Your letter outlined concerns regarding <br />the land protection component of the Program. You emphasized the importance of protecting <br />Colorado's ability to recover its investment in the Program in the event it does not provide the <br />anticipated long-term regulatory compliance benefits for Colorado water users. You also indicated <br />your strong concern about a proposal to use state or federal funds to mitigate so-called "third party <br />impacts" some Nebraska residents claim could result from land protection activities. <br /> <br />Bill Owens <br />Covernor <br /> <br />Creg c. Walcher <br />Executive Oirec!or <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I strongly agree with both points. Should the Program ever fail to deliver long-term <br />regulatory certainty under the Endangered Species Act for Colorado water users, the State must be <br />able to recover its investment quickly with the lowest possible associated transaction costs. Perhaps <br />the most straightforward way to achieve this objective is for Colorado to acquire and hold title to <br />any lands protected with Colorado funds. If the Program no longer produces expected benefits, the <br />assets quickly could be sold and the proceeds returned to the state. There also may be other <br />approaches to meeting this objective. A study recently approved by the Platte River Governance <br />Committee may shed light on other land ownership models that would allow Colorado to protect its <br />investment while still meeting the Program's land protection goals. Once this study is complete, I <br />look forward to working with the General Assembly to define the best option for Colorado. <br /> <br />I also am extremely skeptical about Nebraska's proposal that the Program would mitigate <br />"third party impacts" associated with land protection actions. As I understand it, "third party <br />impacts" might include anything from the increased costs of infrastructure maintenance caused by <br />more visitors coming to central Nebraska during the wildlife viewing season to revenue losses at <br />local farm implement dealerships due to fewer farmers purchasing tractors or combines. While <br />there may be some legitimate on-going costs associated with owning land for Program purposes in <br />Nebraska, such as payment of property taxes and managing land responsibly, I am frrmly <br />committed to the principle that Colorado will not agree to "mitigate" frivolous, unsubstantiated, or <br />excessive claims. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss those costs <br />associated with land protection that may be are legitimate and those that are not. <br /> <br />Thank you for your leadership in helping to move these important issues forward. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />Board of land Commissioners. Division oi Minerals & Geology/Geological Survey <br />Oil & Cas Consef\lation Commission. Cofor<1do Stare Parks. Soil Conservarion Board <br />Water Conservation Board. DiVISion or\V.:ner Resources. Division or Wildlire <br />