The Omaha World Herald ran a story on April 12, 2006 on the Gubernatorial positions on the Republican River. The story can be found at: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1673&u_sid=2149534. Registration is required and it will disappear from their site so it will be difficult to get to the story.
The following quotes for each candidate are from the story. We simply took what each said and put it in one paragraph. Our reaction to them in blue.
Gov. Dave Heineman: "Water is the issue of the decade." "This is a complicated and difficult issue, and it will eventually impact the entire state the way it now impacts central and western Nebraska," he said. "This is not a one-time event."
Dave Heineman said "Water is the issue of the decade." He says that what he means is that the State will have to pay attention to this issue for the next 10 years. However, Mr. Heineman never suggests how we should deal with this very important issue. Every time I hear him say, "Water is the issue of the decade," I think of the Bible verse that says, "even the devil believes in God." Everyone believes water is an important issue; but if you don't do anything to find a solution, what difference does that belief make? We wish Mr. Heineman would do something besides repeat the two phases, "Water is the issue of the decade" and "This is a complicated and difficult issue." We agree that it is a difficult issue. Now, what are we going to do about it? You have our suggestions. Do you like them? Do you have something better? The Governor's unwillingness to address the issue is very frustrating. In other words, we don't know the Governor's position on water because he hasn't taken one, even though he is our leader. It is hard to follow a leader who won't lead.
U.S. Rep. Tom Osborne: "It's complex . . . anytime there's uncertainty, it causes anxiety." Osborne said the transfer is doable, but he is not convinced that either the water or the money is available. "If they can come up with the money and everybody's OK with it, it could be done," he said. "But it means that somebody somewhere is not using water, and that has an impact on that economy." Osborne said a land-idling program he shaped in Congress is a first-of-its-kind federal tool crafted for the state to use in solving its water problems. The $158 million program pays farmers to retire land from irrigation and crop production to save water. Critics say it hurts local economies because it takes farming dollars out of the mix. "I realize what it does," he said. "It's voluntary. Nobody has to sign up."Osborne noted, however, that state laws and interstate water compacts require Nebraska to bring its use of underground water into balance. "The only thing I can see to do is either take land out of irrigation or somewhere find water to import, but that means taking water away from somewhere else," he said. "So you've got to pay for it one way or another." Osborne said that Republican River irrigators did nothing wrong in drilling wells and pumping water to grow crops. "They followed the rules. They were told to reduce irrigation and meter their wells. They did. They put on (water) restrictions and then they were told they were going to . . . owe Kansas," he said.
The Osborne's position is a mixed bag. He believes the CREP program that he takes full credit for will solve the Republican River Basin problem. He acknowledges that it won't be enough by the first deadline at the end of 2007, but he believes that it will be enough to keep the State in compliance in the long term. He does not address in this story how he will deal with the current overage. However, in conversations we have had with him, he indicates that he would deal with the shortage of the next several years by purchasing water. We don't know where he would get the money nor from whom he would buy the water.
The data we have from the DNR is about half as optimistic as Mr. Osborne is on the long term numbers. He is convinced that CREP is enough to solve the problem and doesn't want to talk about what we will do if it isn't. In reaction to the WaterClaim suggestion that we import water into the region, he says that he "won't stand in the way" if we can figure out how to do it; but he doesn't think there is any water that can be found and doesn't know where we would get the money. We interpret this to mean that it is up to us to solve the problem and that we shouldn't expect him to do any more than what he has done with CREP. That position doesn't inspire us with confidence. The NRDs cannot legally take any action that will resolve the issue. Therefore, the State must be involved in any solution. Unfortunately, it is not clear how Mr. Osborne will deal with the issue if he is Governor. In the second debate, he said of water transfers, "It is possible. It is feasible. Geographically, we can do this thing. But, anyway, the other issue is the shortfall of people being driven out of farming. And, this is painful but somebody’s got to quit irrigating in order to come into compliance. We have two areas where more water is going out than it’s coming in. So, somebody has got to stop farming. So, we’re trying to compensate through agri-tourism, through hunting operations, other ways that you can use that CREP land. There are other things that you can do to still make a living. But, believe me, nobody wants to see irrigation go away any more than…I hate this thing." We believe there are other ways of resolving the issue, but Mr. Osborne seems to believe that the shut down of irrigated acres is preferred.
We are one of the critics of CREP. We believe that it is very damaging to rural communities. Paying a landlord $125 an acre to have him shut off his irrigation well and plant trees and grass in its place creates more problems than it solves. First, grass and trees use more water than corn. Therefore, no water is really saved. Second, the revenue loss to the local community is about $250 an acre. The payment to the landlord compensates for half of that. The other half would have been used to pay for labor in the local community, including seed salesmen, fertilizer sales and delivery, crop scouts, truck drivers, etc. These jobs are lost to the community, without compensation. Mr. Osborne knows this. His response is to tell the landlord not to take the money. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. The landlord is told by the State that if he doesn't take the money, he may lose his water without compensation. Yet, as each farmer or landlord takes CREP, the community dies in increments.
Dave Nabity: "How we manage our water will determine in great part what kind of economic health we have." Nabity has met with Smith and endorses the proposal as the only option that can affordably resolve the issue. He said there is surplus water in the Sand Hills and in the Holdrege area of central Nebraska, where seepage from decades of irrigation-canal operations created a rising water table. "A lot of people are pooh-poohing it," Nabity said of transferring water from one basin to another. "Cynics are a dime a dozen. I want people to come forward . . . to ask how we can make it work." Nabity said tens of millions of dollars from local, state and federal agencies are being spent in programs to retire irrigated land and lease water from irrigators.
WaterClaim likes the Dave Nabity position. Mr. Nabity has essentially taken the WaterClaim ideas, reviewed them, run them past other people, and said, "Hey, this works. It solves the problem in the least expensive way possible." Most of the opposition to the WatarClaim idea comes from people who prefer a significant reduction in the amount of irrigation that happens in the State. These are usually environmentalists or conservationists who just don't think humans should affect the environment. What is surprising is how many farmers are willing to quit farming if someone will just pay them to quit.
WaterClaim believes the State has several options:
Do nothing more and let a Federal judge decide how things will work.
Shut down a large number of irrigated acres, with or without compensation.
Import a small amount of water into the Basin.
We believe that both Heineman and Osborne are choosing the "easiest" option -- doing nothing more and letting a Federal judge take control. We believe that Nabity is choosing Option 3. Perhaps after the election, Heineman or Osborne will decide this is an issue that must be dealt with. Nabity, however, has already said what he will do. With him, we know where we stand.