Final Minutes
Water Action Plan Committee Meeting
Kearney, Nebraska
The Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) meeting began at 8 a.m. in Kearney, Nebraska. All members of the WAPC members were present. Dan Luecke participated in the meeting via the telephone. The minutes of the September 16, 1999, WAPC meeting were approved as revised.
The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) Manager, Curt Brown, reviewed the Boyle alternatives provided by the WAPC for evaluation using the EIS models. The evaluation for four of the alternatives has been completed. The alternatives for which the evaluations were completed included: a 4,800Acre-Foot (AF) Plum Creek Reservoir; Power Interference; 80 % enlarged Tamarack; and Grayrocks Reservoir Instream Flows allocated to the Lake McConaughy Environmental Account (EA). The remaining alternatives are still being evaluated or require the South Platte Model for evaluation. The South Platte Model is anticipated to be available for use in November.
Mark Butler reviewed the results of the analyses performed by the EIS Staff shown on the handout entitled, Comparison of EIS Opstudy and Boyle Study dated October 14, 1999. The information provided in the handout is for illustrative purposes only and shows how the Boyle alternatives evaluated scored when modeled with the existing 3-state project. The EIS model runs attempted to simulate the Boyle analyses to the extent possible. No analysis of the alternatives potential effects to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Peak Flow recommendations was performed. It was noted the table comparing the EIS model results with the Boyle Study used the "without diversion loss" Boyle score, with the exception of the enlarged Tamarack alternative, which used the "with diversion loss" Boyle score. In addition, the table shows the existing 3-state plans are scored at 76,000 AF. This increase was attributed to the use of a refined table of excess at Grand Island generated by model runs.
The comparison table also shows that as more alternatives are modeled, competition for water drives the combined yield lower than the yields modeled individually. Other output results regarding these evaluations will be provided upon request. Mr. Butler identified the need to talk with the Boyle Team regarding their formulation of some alternatives. Direct discussion with the Boyle Team is appropriate, but the WAPC Chair asked to be informed of any meetings so consideration could be given to Boyle's contract expenditures. Any additional alternatives for evaluation by the EIS Staff should be provided to the WAPC Chair by October 22, 1999.
Individually prepared water action plan proposals were presented by Wyoming, Dan Luecke, and Nebraska. These proposals are summarized below.
Wyoming's "incentive based" proposal offered a means to establish prices for water in each of the nineteen (19) reaches within the Platte River Basin based on the principles of least cost and affordability. The proposal showed hypothetical examples of pricing procedures that considers the value of the water in terms of reductions in shortage at the habitat for two different assumed budgets. The prices assume that there is a one-time payment for the use of the water for thirteen (13) years via leasing arrangements with willing participants. This approach assumes the budget established in the Cooperative Agreement cannot be exceeded.
Mr. Luecke's proposal consisted of four (4) examples of potential Water Action Plans using constrained least cost with a $10 million water trust fund. The examples identified different combinations of specific and/or representative projects presented in the draft Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study Report ("Boyle Report"). The examples focused on achieving 70,000 acre feet of target flow shortage reductions by combining the projects identified in the draft Boyle Report using different criteria governing each state's participation. The proposed $10 million trust fund would be administered through the Governance Committee to:
1) implement additional Action Plan projects, if the projects identified did not perform as expected;
2) compensate for depletion plan cost differentials that may result from Action Plan projects implementation;
3) achieve greater shortage reduction than 70,000 acre feet; and
4) achieve target flow reduction purposes the Governance Committee may define. This approach assumes the budget established in the Cooperative Agreement is not a constraint.
Nebraska's proposal identified an outline of potential principles for a Water Action Plan. The potential principles included: program water should be protected from diversions; the Governance Committee should establish a process to select what appears to be viable projects and produce reliable information on costs, yields, and third party impacts of those projects prior to endorsing specific projects as part of a Water Action Plan; Nebraska would commit to no less than 16,000 acre feet and Colorado and Wyoming would commit to no less than 24,000 acre feet, for a goal of 70,000 acre feet; additional water required to meet a goal of 70,000 acre feet would be secured in any of the three states using least cost and other criteria; each state would be responsible for proposing terms and conditions relating to the implementation of proposed water projects in state; the state where a project was located would have the opportunity to either reserve up front or later reclaim a portion (e.g., 25 to 50%) of a project's yield for offsetting new depletions; and should the program fail, each state should have the opportunity to "buy out" any federal or other state interest in a program water project in that state.
Concerns expressed regarding these proposals included: a Water Action Plan needs to include projects that extend beyond 13 years (first increment of the program); what is the budgetary constraint for the Water Action Plan; the idea of proportionality with respect to a fair share of water from each state should be included in a Water Action Plan; cannot commit to any set quantities of water from a state until the level of willing participation is known; lost opportunities to develop water for new depletions plans; development of a Water Action Plan that identifies specific projects with appropriate level of detail to meet the current time schedule; and specific projects identified in a Water Action Plan should include reliable costs, yields, and third party effects information. The discussion that pursued indicated the level of detail required is established by Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements rather than the EIS. Further clarification regarding the level of detail required under the ESA is needed from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The WAPC Chair summarized the issues that must be resolved before the WAPC can move forward with the formulation of a draft Water Action Plan. These issues included:
1) cost restrictions (what is the budget for the Water Action Plan?);
2) proportionality;
3) level of detail for the Water Action Plan; and
4) consistent definition and use of the term "Incentive Based Program" by the WAPC.
The creation of a subgroup to resolve the four (4) issues identified above was discussed. The WAPC Chair was asked to discuss the issue of budget constraints with the Governance Committee. A conference call will be held among the states to discuss these issues. Jim Cook will take the lead to arrange for the conference call.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
For further information about the Partnership,
contact any Governance Committee member.For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607