Analysis of the Governor's plans

In a letter dated January 9, 2006, the Governor gives us a hint of how he intends to manage the water crisis. 

The good news:

• The Governor acknowledges that the State has told the NRDs, when they signed the IMPs, that they have done enough to assure compliance.

The bad news:

• The Governor adds a caveat to his statement.  He says that the State only deemed the IMPs sufficient under average climatic conditions.  There is no such caveat in the signed documents.  In fact, the DNR and the NRDs were repeatedly asked by the citizens what happens if the IMPs are not enough.  The answer, "The 5% reduction in allocation and the implementation of CREP will be enough. So, just sign the IMP in spite of the opposition which says it is inadequate."

The good news:

• The Governor acknowledges that the NRDs have used less water than the allocations permit.

The bad news:

• The NRDs almost always use less than their allocation.  This is documented fact for the URNRD and estimated true for the Middle and Lower Republican NRDs as well.  It doesn't matter if the NRDs live within their allocation in any one year, as the over or under usage of water does not affect Nebraska's compliance with the Agreement until years after the fact.

The good news:

• The Governor recognizes that the existing IMPs are binding contracts.

The bad news:

• The Governor asks that the next round of IMP negotiations change how the current agreement works so that the NRDs are committed to greater reductions during droughts.  Droughts are not the cause of the problem, and an NRD cannot adjust pumping and expect to achieve compliance as a result. 

The good news:

• The Governor recognizes that reducing surface water usage will result in the quickest positive result.

The bad news:

• The Governor does not recognize the importation of water as part of the short term solution.  He lists this as part of a long term solution.  Surface usage is at a minimum now due to the surface users being unable to access water.  Surface reductions are inadequate to achieve compliance.

The good news:

• The Governor's request for further cooperation is a request that does not commit the NRDs to any particular action.

The bad news:

• The Governor says he wants the NRDs to make rules that will effectively reduce consumptive use by all water users.  There is only one way to do this.  That is by taking land out of crop production.  He does not mention increasing the water supply as an option that the NRDs will be asked to consider.

So, why does the Governor require the NRDs to sign the letter and threaten that, if they do not, he will not include money in his budget for purchasing surface water?  He seems to think that if the NRDs agree to sign this letter, it will provide him with political cover.  Based on statements by Ann Bleed, Senator Ed Schrock and Jasper Fanning, WaterClaim believes that the State will attempt to declare the purchase of surface water the best that can be done this year.  This partial solution will be declared a solution with perhaps a bit more being required next year.

The problem with this declaration of victory in spite of obvious facts is that it leaves the State and the communities exposed.  It is a solution crafted by a politician hoping to put off a difficult decision until after an election.  Unfortunately, while the politicians posture for an election, an entire year is lost, since the Legislature will be out of session when the critical May election happens.  Therefore, nothing will be done until mid 2007, with a December 2007 deadline for Nebraska to comply.   That is a recipe for failure.  The politicians have one way of escaping failure:  a certain combination of very unlikely rain events.

If Nebraska is out of compliance at the end of 2007, it is because Governor Heineman has chosen this path.  His alternative is not easy, but we believe the Governor should at least ask the Legislature to put in place the mechanism that will permit future compliance. 

What happens if the NRDs sign this letter?  Probably not much.  It doesn't obligate the NRDs to do anything except work with the State to develop rules and regulations that will effectively reduces irrigators' consumptive use.  Why would an NRD promise to take acres out of production and ignore other options?  There isn't really a good reason except to help a Governor declare victory and help one candidate over another.  Wouldn't it be better to simply state the facts and let the politicians figure out how to deal with reality?