*4.6. Accessible Conflict Resolution*

The GWMPA provides for conflict resolution as a two-step process. If the parties reach agreemen<sup>t</sup> on the plan, then the NeDNR and the NRD adopt it (§46-715 (1)(a)). If NeDNR and NRDs are in dispute, the matter may be taken to the Interrelated Water Review Board (§46-719(2)). Interviewees expressed a range of opinions about the accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms through the current plan structure. Not surprisingly, perceptions of conflict resolution mechanisms varied depending on an interviewee's overall perceptions of how well the plan advanced either individual interests, or the overall goals of the IMP to reduce over-appropriation. For example, there was general agreemen<sup>t</sup> that the conjunctive managemen<sup>t</sup> approach of the IMP was beneficial, and that individual actions taken under the plan were successful.

**Mandatory IMP Interviewee #1.** "I think it's going very well. It's nice to see everyone being very conscientious about what the plan says, and how to be in compliance with that plan. (Name of NRD redacted) has been making grea<sup>t</sup> strides to ge<sup>t</sup> all those conjunctive managemen<sup>t</sup> pieces in place. When they started the process, they purchased a lot of easements and buying out groundwater and surface water rights and retiring them. So, they have been a leader in Platte NRDs in implementing various types of practices in getting us to where we need to be".

**Mandatory IMP Interviewee #7.** "Often, we are in disagreement in terms of whether they have actually set something that will actually meet their objective. But it sounds like their objective, their intent, in areas that are not ye<sup>t</sup> fully appropriated ... try and identify where they will occur, try and head them off. That's good. But that's not really our area. Our concern is they are not really directly trying to resolve the conflict that was already created. We think that there is an obligation to try to do that".

However, there were distinct criticisms about the scope of the plan's mandate as well as a perceived absence of a mechanism to resolve issues before the ten-year increment ends. Interviewees who represented surface water users indicated that although current conjunctive managemen<sup>t</sup> practices under the IMP were generally positive, the GWMPA does not adequately address perceived inequities between ground and surface water purveyors that existed prior to the enactment of the 2004 GWMPA amendments, because the law calls only for voluntary efforts, subject to the availability of funds, to offset depletions to streamflow dating back prior to 1997 (§46-715(5)(d)(i). Another criticism was that the plan's ten-year incremental structure does not provide an adequate means to resolve conflict that would happen in the interim period before the first ten-year phase would end.

**Mandatory IMP Interviewee #2.** "What is the best way to achieve results then? Is it to ge<sup>t</sup> things out there, or just wait 10 years until they ge<sup>t</sup> new plans done and then hope we potentially see some change? Then you see lower lake levels. Do you just have to say, 'I will keep quiet and wait my ten years because that is the only option that is out there?' We are disappointed in those options".

Both stakeholders and decision makers voiced concern that conflict managemen<sup>t</sup> under the current GWMPA statute—and IMPs derived from its requirements—were not sufficient. For example, the Interrelated Water Review Board has never been convened, nor does it review disputes that a stakeholder may have in regard to the Plan. On the contrary, the statute and Plan allow for the NeDNR and NRD to move forward with the plan regardless of whether all stakeholders impacted by it are supportive:

**Mandatory IMP Interviewee #1.** "Well there is the Interrelated Water Review Board. Yeah, that is not if the stakeholders can't agree, but if the department and the NRD can't agree what the plan should be. As we go through the stakeholder process even with the consultation and collaboration the statutes clearly say that DNR and NRD can go back and say, 'OK you guys couldn't agree, so we are going to see if we are going to agree,' and so that is where we ended up. We could agree, so we could move forward with that plan even though not all the stakeholders were on board with it".

## *4.7. Recognition of Local Rules*

The GWMPA establishes a joint decision-making process between state and local officials, and the NeDNR facilitates the planning process and approves local IMP plans.
