WSP06696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ALTERNATIVE #21 (formerly #25): Projects that include the development of large-size storage facilities would be given preference in the Resources Development Fund. There are currently no Development Fund criteria working against large-scale projects. In fact, present priority criteria gives a slight advantage to large projects. The Commission will ask the Development Fund Advisory Board to consider whether such a criteria should be given more weight. ALTERNATIVE #22 (formerly #25): Projects which can physically include integrated manage- ment as a purpose would be given preference in the Resources Development Fund. This would re- quire developing a clear method of assessing benefits from groundwater recharge and other aspects of integrated management. The Commission believes that development of a clear method of assessing benefits from groundwater recharge and other aspects of integrated management would be a major help in assessing projects. We cer- tainly feel that those benefits should be considered when assessing a project. However, we will ask our Development Fund Advisory Board to consider whether a preference should be given to projects incorporating integrated management. ALTERNATIVE #23 (formerly #27): In ad- ministering the Nebraska Soil and Water Conser- vation Fund, the Natural Resources Commission could require that Natural Resources Districts place a priority of projects and practices to be funded which would offset the need for sup- plemental water supply by improving ground- water recharge potential. This change could also be mandated by the Nebraska legislature. (Amendment to Neb. Rev. Stat. 92-1579) The Commission supports enactment of this alter- native. Conservation of water must be an extremely im- portant element of any state effort to manage our water resources. Our upcoming Policy Issue Study on Water Use Efficiency will examine water use practices that conserve water more closely. ALTERNATIVE #24 (formerly #29): Direct through legislative intent that NRC Implement the State Project Plennlng and Design portion of its legislation and provide specific appropriations to NRC for this purpose. The Commission recommends that this alternative be adopted and we have included it as part of our funding package. This activity has not been im- plemented to date due to low budgetary levels and a VIII lack of specific funding commitment or direction from the legislature. At this time we believe a program should be initiated to begin state planning and design of projects. Because of its grassroots ties to local Natural Resources Districts, we believe that the Natural Resources Commission is the logical agency to initiate such a program. ALTERNATIVE #25 (formerly #30): Strengthen the polley of the state engineer (Director, Nebraska Department of Roads) to con- struct road structures which can be Incorporated into the design of water impoundment structures. The Commission does not recommend adoption of this alternative. The state currently has a law requiring the Department of Roads and County Boards to con- sult with the Natural Resources District before construc- tion of a bridge or culvert. The Department of Roads has indicated that it complies with this statute and that it only has a very small number of new road miles scheduled for construction. We have not been able to determine whether all county boards comply with this consultation requirement. However, we believe the pre- sent consultation requirement to be appropriate and urge the Department of Roads, the county boards, and natural resources districts to strictly comply with it and to utilize it as intended - as a meaningful mechanism to take advantage of multi-purpose opportunities when they are presented. ALTERNATIVE #26 (formerly #31): Authorize local governments to collect payments In lieu of taxes for land which Is used by the construction of supplemental water projects. The amount of these payments In lieu of taxes could be adjusted in accordance with property assessments as re- quired by the Nebraska Department of Revenue. This would require an Amendment to Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-651.01 for public power districts and a constitutional amendment and new legislation for other water project development entities. The Commission recommends a limited adoption of this alternative. We advocate payment of in lieu of taxes to offset a net tax loss due to project development. However, we only advocate that payment so long as the tax loss to the governmental unit has not been off- set by local tax revenues generated by increased economic activity due to the project. This would help governmental units which had land removed from tax roles due to construction but which received few im- mediate project benefits such as project irrigation land, economic activity from recreation, or flood control. While we recognize that this would add to project costs in some cases, we believe that local governments should not be unfairly burdened.