WSP07158 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000+ ~..,... Comments and Recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission The Commission believes that development of supplemental water supplies is an important investment in Nebraska's future. The funding and construction of economically feasible water supply prOjects represents one of Iwo methods by which the slate may achieve a more thorough use of one 01 our mosl valuable resources. The other method is water use efficiency, which will be addressed In an upcommg policy issue study. In general the Commission recognizes a higher leveJ of state funding as the major element m any state effort to expedite the development of supplemental water supply prOJects. A number of alternative funding mechanisms are presented in this report. Although we prefer some methods to others, we believe the question of what funding method to use is secondary to the objective of actually providing increased funding. Many of our other recommendations would have diminished impact if additional monies are not provided. Because we believe water project funding is a key issue we are dividing these comments and recom- mendations into two sections. The first section presents a specific project funding package. This represents our best judgement of the manner In which the state shouJd approach its future water project funding needs. We strongly endorse adoption of this package. The second section presents our comments and recommendations on each alternative contained in the Policy Issue Study on Supplemental Water Supplies. SECTION 1 THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED WATER PROJECT FUNDING PACKAGE From its experience as the official state water plan- ning agency and the admmistering agency for the Resources Development Fund, the Commission has arrived at the following conclusions about the financ- ing of water projects in the state: 1} Greater state financial input into water resources project development is essential. but the magnitude of the need is not known because: (a) the status of lederal cost-sharing (for both planning and construction) is unresolved; and (b) - the number and cost of feasible Nebraska pro- jects is not known. 2) Appropriation 01 large sums now for project development cannot reasonably be expected when the needs can't be quantified. 3) Sponsors of potential projects are not willing to commit large expenditures to project planning when Ihere is no assurance that funds wilt be available for construction when planning is done and feasibIlity determined. This is a problem on non-federal projects and may be a problem for federal projects if cost.sharing for federal pro-- jects if cost-sharing for federal planning becomes common. Developed in response to these conclusions, our sug- gested funding program has several major com- ponents. including: an increased funding level for the Resources Development Fund and a sinking fund for aiding local projects, funding and implementation of a state project planning and design program, modifica- tion and then adoption of La 545 (88th Legislature), and authorizing the issuance or guarantee of general obliga- tJon bonds for waler projects. Our specific funding recommendations are as follows: COMPONENT #1 Fund and Implement the project planning and design component of the state water planning and review process. The $62,200 requested for this activity for the FY 85 budget should be considered a minimum. Priority will be placed upon scoping and designing this component in FY 84 even though no funds were specifically apppropriated therefore. Dollar needs for fiscal years subsequenlto FY 85 wilt have to be deter- mined atter the component is designed. This compo- nent might need to include provision of cash to satisfy federal cost-sharing requirements for planning. COMPONENT #2 Immediately Increase the level at appropriation to the Resources Development Fund (total appropria- tion of 10 million per year suggested) and obtain III -