Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ.)786 <br /> <br />effectiveness in contributing to recovery" Therefore, Colorado's interest has been to <br />assure that Colorado water deliveries are adequately protected in Nebraska, and that <br />Nebraska mitigates the effect of new wells on the species" <br /> <br />Nebraska v. Wvoming. For the last 10 years or so, Nebraska and Wyoming have been <br />engaged in litigation in the U"S, Supreme Court, over whether Wyoming is in compliance <br />with a Supreme Court decree that equitably apportions the use of water in the North <br />Platte River between the two states, Colorado is an amicus party" In this litigation and in <br />other water use permitting actions in both Wyoming and Colorado, Nebraska has asserted <br />claims that more water should be delivered to Nebraska to enhance Nebraska's riparian <br />environment on the Platte River. Colorado and Wyoming have been concerned that these <br />claims are a thinly veiled attempt to produce more water to perpetuate unregulated well <br />development in Nebraska, Additionally, Colorado and Wyoming have been concerned <br />that we not enter into a cooperative program to enhance habitat in Nebraska, and have <br />Nebraska turn around and sue the other states, or assert habitat claims against permittees <br />in Colorado, for the very same habitat <br /> <br />The Target Flows. As part of the ESA consultations it has undertaken on the Kingsley <br />and Colorado permits, the FWS developed an analysis of the flows of water necessary, <br />and the times of the year for such flows, to restore and maintain the habitat in the Central <br />Platte Valley" Those flows are called the "target flows," The FWS then compared those <br />desired flows against actual flows that have occurred in the Platte River over the last <br />several decades" On an average basis, at some times of the year the actual river flow is <br />greater than the target flows ("periods of excess"), and at other times of the year is less <br />("periods of shortage")" Therefore, not all shortages must be met by developing "new" <br />water (WaterconseIVation or forgoing use)" Water may be reregulated by storage or <br />,groundW<lterrechargc.projects from periods of excess to periods of shortage" However, <br />according to the FWS, there is on an average annual basis a shortfall of 417,000 acre-feet <br />of water. This is a significant amount of water, in a river that today has an average <br />annual flow of about acre-feet <br /> <br />Color,ldQ,and the other states do _not accept the analysis behind the target flows as valid, <br />and even under the Program Agreement retain the right to challenge those flows, <br />However, the Program Agreement offers a basis for the states to avoid costly litigation <br />against the FWS on this issue, <br /> <br />The Land Element. Also as part of the Kingsley relicensing process, the FWS analyzed <br />the amount and type of land that should be restored to fully protect the listed species" <br />The FWS determined that about 29,000 acres of land, in ten restored and protected <br />"habitat complexes," are necessary. This aspect of the FWS's analysis is less <br />controversial" Nevertheless, Colorado believes that an appropriate balance should be <br />struck between the land elements, and water delivery and reregulation elements, <br /> <br />< <br />