Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. 'J 1- -, <br />,,; I ~ I <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE #27 (new ellernetlve): Amend <br />Section 37.435(3) and other Sections of the non- <br />game and Endangered Species Act so thai the <br />State ACllncludes an exemption process and is <br />otherwise consistent with the Federal Act. <br /> <br />The Commission recommends adoption of this alter- <br />native. While we recognize protection of endangered <br />species as apriority, we do not believe it should always <br />be an absolute priority. This amendment would allow <br />the stale 10 balance the benefits of a project against <br />unavoidable costs to endangered species. The amend. <br />ment would also bring the stale into more nearly com. <br />plete conformance with the federal law. <br />However. we do note that for most projecls the <br />federal endangered species law is also likely to apply. <br />This means that in most cases if Nebraska does grant <br />an exemption, a federal exemption will also need to be <br />obtained. The exceptions would be cases where a <br />threatened or endangered species is designated only <br />by the state, or where no federal funding or permits are <br />involved. This change in state law would apply directly <br />in those cases. <br /> <br />AL TERNA TIVE #28 (formerly '32): Dlrecl <br />IOme entity to develop a plan to obtain and use <br />supplemental water from the Missouri River. <br /> <br />The Commission supports adoption of this alter. <br />native. We recognize that large scale transfer schemes <br />studied to date are financially infeasible at current crop <br />prices. However, we believe that smaller scale irriga- <br />tion transfers and energy related transfers both hold <br />immediate promise. The electrical peaking facilities of <br />the Gregory project and South Dakota's sale of water <br />for the coal slurry pipeline are examples of potential <br />energy uses. We also believe that if crop prices rise <br />and interest rates drop the larger scale transfers could <br />hold promise. Therefore. we believe Nebraska should <br />more carefully examine its prospects for use of Missouri <br />River water. This might be accomplished in connection <br />with Alternative #/24 which implements the state pro- <br />ject planning and design portion of the State Water <br />Planning and Review Process. <br /> <br />AL TERNA TIVE #29 (formerly '33): Instllute <br />and fund a type of public works program that <br />would relieve unemployment and develop sup- <br />plemental water supply projects. <br /> <br />The Commission does not recommend adoption of <br />this alternative. We acknowledge the invaluable role <br />that the federal public works programs begun. in the <br />1930's played in water project development in <br />Nebraska. However, we do not believe that current con- <br />ditions warrant those types of programs. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE #30 (formerly 134): Estebllsh <br />a Water Development Advocacy Agency In <br />Nebraska. This would require the Nebraska <br />Legislature to create such an agency or <br />significantly "overhaul" an existing agency. <br /> <br />The Commission recommends that Alternative ;;24 <br />be implemented in place of this alternative. That atter- <br />native provides for implementation of the Commission's <br />"State Project Planning and Design Activity." We do <br />not believe that a new or substantially overhauled <br />agency is needed. We also believe that the Commis- <br />sion's ties to the local level at government make it the <br />logical agency in which to house a project planning <br />eHort. <br /> <br />IX <br />