Death Knell 2007

Death Knell – 2007

Written by Steve Smith, WaterClaim, November 2004

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been telling everyone that it needs to reduce pumping by a Modeled 40,000 acre feet each year. According to the DNR, if a quick response well is retired, it is worth 0.3 AF for each acre retired. That means the area must retire three acres for every one acre feet of water “saved.”

CREP, will not be available for the 2005 irrigation season. Nor do the NRDs have authority to collect taxes (or “fees,” as they like to call them) to fund the retirement programs on their own. The URNRD and MRNRD have asked the legislature to allow them to collect up to $10 an acre. But, the legislature has not considered this idea yet, and the majority of the State’s 23 NRDs have declined to endorse the idea.

Nebraska is still left with the requirement to reduce water consumption. The total amount used between now and the end of 2007 cannot exceed the Nebraska share. What that amount is depends on a lot of factors -- one of the most important being the amount of rain. Under almost all scenarios, the winter of 2006 looks to be very contentious. Nebraska will have to set up regulations that will restrict water usage for the 2007 irrigation season that are likely to be very unpopular and extremely damaging to the economy. For politicians, this is likely to be the single most important issue in their campaign. The promises they make will determine if they get elected. Even popular politicians will need to be careful what they say.

The 39 inch, three-year allocation with no additional restrictions on quick response acres recently adopted by the Middle Republican will result in 0 acre feet of water saved, compared to the 1998-2002 average usage. The reason for the lack of savings is a large acre increase in the last few years.

Even if the other two NRDs implemented similar regulations, the State would still fail to meet its requirements.

Assuming that the CREP retirement program comes into existence and assuming that enough farmers sign up for the program, the State is still short at least 20,000 AF of its stated goal. Plus, it is short any accumulated overages occurring prior to 2007.

For the State to comply with the Settlement requirements, it must eliminate surface water usage or reduce pumping in the quick response areas. The reductions must come from the Quick Response areas, according to the State because these are the only areas that affect the stream in the time frame within which we must work.

To reduce pumping in quick response areas, the land must either be rented by the State or the NRD and taken out of irrigated production, or they must reduce, without compensation, the allocation to those acres by an amount sufficient to generate the savings needed. The amount of the reduction depends on how much it rains between now and the end of 2006.

There are approximately 285,000 Quick Response acres in the Republican River Basin . There are 85,000 QR acres in the URNRD and about 100,000 QR acres in each the MRNRD and LRNRD. Assuming CREP is successful, it will take 50,000 acres out of production. This leaves 235,000 acres from which about 20,000 AF of modeled water must be removed. Plus, the State must compensate for whatever overage from 2003 through 2006 usage might exist. This was 36,000 AF for 2003 and somewhere between 15,000 and 36,000 AF for 2004. If you assume that 2005 and 2006 have no additional overages (big assumption), then quick response acres must reduce usage by 20,000 (Settlement agreement) + 36,000 (2003 overage) + 15,000 to 36,000 (2004 overage), equaling 71,000 to 96,000 AF. For the purpose of this exercise, assume a 96,000 AF reduction is required from quick response (QR) acres in 2007.

QR acres are only worth 33% of what is pumped, according to the ever-changing DNR numbers. Remember that it takes three times the acres to equal a one acre foot reduction. Multiply 96,000 acres by 3. That equals 288,000 acres that would have to be retired in 2007 in order to comply with the 2007 requirements.

That is about 50,000 acres more than what exists in the quick response areas in all three NRDs. So, even more reductions would be required from acres outside of the quick response areas, or almost all surface water usage would have to be eliminated.

Approximately 33% of all irrigated acres in the LRNRD are quick response acres. Approximately 33% of all irrigated acres in the MRNRD are quick response acres. Approximately 19% of all irrigated acres in the URNRD are quick response acres. Assuming it does not rain at least twice the normal amount in the next two years, the only way the State can see to comply with the Settlement agreement is to eliminate all quick response irrigation and surface irrigation in the year 2007.

The State will argue that if we make some reduction in 2006, then the 2007 reduction will be less drastic. We have provided you with enough numbers that you can do the math to see that spreading the pain over two years instead of one will make little difference to the survivability of the planned changes.

None of this takes into consideration the Lag Effect. The Lag Effect has the potential to make this look like a small problem. All pumping from all wells counts against the stream flow; it is simply a matter of when the accounting must take place. Since pumping is several times more than the stream flow, there is only one way to stop the decline of the stream – that is, to turn off almost every irrigation well. It is simply a question of when. So far, those with the numbers have not said when that will be.

So how do we pay for the 2007 crisis? The Federal and State governments may pay for the retirement of 50,000 acres. The other 238,000 acres, they are saying, must be paid for by the local people. The CREP program may pay $126 an acre; 238,000 acres at $126 an acres equals about $30,000,000 a year. There are about 1,000,000 irrigated acres in the Nebraska portion of the basin. If the cost were to be paid by these acres only, the cost would be about $30 an acre, assuming no administrative costs. This is on top of the $17 an acre tax that many landowners are paying now. The average farm makes about $10 to $20 an irrigated acre in profit. Since the cost is more than the profit, there is a serious problem for everyone in the area.

Another possibility is that the quick response acres receive no allocation and no compensation. This solution would break most of those with quick response acres as well as break many of the businesses in the community. It would, however, leave alive the farms with upland wells.

Another possibility, and one which is supported by some of the URNRD board members, is to force everyone to use less water. Even though the Model shows that upland well pumping has almost no effect on the stream, some believe it is important that everyone lose their access to water in sympathy with those whom the Model says must be turned off. According to the Model, all quick response wells and most surface water usage must still stop. Any cuts from upland wells would be a symbolic gesture only.

This scenario takes about 28% of all ground water irrigated land out of production and between 50% and 100% of all surface water irrigated land out of production in 2007. In addition, it suggests a tax on the remaining acres that is impossible to pay.

The Supalla economic report says that for each acre taken out of production, that at least $350 an acre is removed from the economy. Take 288,000 acres times $350. That is a $100,800,000 dollar loss to the business community on top of the other losses he estimates from water reductions on the remaining acres. It does not take into consideration what happens to the population of the area and the resulting effect on the businesses and schools. The current planned proposals will break the area in 2007.

The reduction in allocation to non-quick response wells has almost no effect on the stream. You can reduce pumping from upland wells by 100%, and the State will still fail to comply with the Settlement. According to the DNR, the only way to comply by 2007 is to eliminate pumping on quick response wells.

What happens in 2008? That largely depends on the amount of precipitation. But, let’s say that 2005, 2006, 2007 are normal years but we are still in a water short trigger year. That means we would still need to “save” 20,000 Modeled acre feet in 2008. That is 60,000 acre feet of real water and is over and above the CREP retired acres. Sixty thousand (60,000) acres at $126 an acre is $7,500,000. Spread out over 1.0 million acres, it would require $7.50 an acre plus administrative cuts to buy enough water to comply. Any time there is a water short year, these reductions would have to be made. Or the 235,000 quick response acres would have to reduce pumping by an additional 3 acre inches from what the DNR says is average usage. Note that the DNR says average usage is 14 inches for the URNRD, 13 inches for the MRNRD, and 9 inches for the LRNRD.

The DNR says water short trigger years are expected one out of every three years. There may be a number of years in a row, and there may not be any drought years for several years as well. The DNR is telling us this is a problem that is not going to go away. Some years may be better than others, but we should expect frequent interruptions in our farming and business practices. This will make it very difficult to retain equipment, hired help, or the cash flow necessary to make the economy work.

The State is marshalling a lot of forces to cause this to happen. The University is contributing research that says we can raise a corn crop with 7 inches of irrigation water and that all of the cuts will not hurt. While no farmers believe this, it is being accepted by the policy makers. Johanns, Osborne, and much of the legislature have accepted this idea. Consultants who argued that shutting down timber and fishing industries did not hurt the economy are being brought in to argue that shutting down irrigation is a good thing and that the State will be stronger for it. The Game and Parks and Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation district, along with other canal systems, are arguing that ground water irrigation should be severely restricted. Today, the Omaha World Herald and most of the politicians who are responsible for making the decisions agree that the farmer needs to use much less water.

Those in power are offering CREP as their contribution. But, as you can see, CREP is a small portion of what is needed. Unfortunately, CREP actually hurts the area’s economy as it takes land out of production and, at the same time, it does nothing to help put water in the stream. Cottonwood trees and grass use more water than corn does. CREP actually makes the problem worse rather than better.

Some possible solutions:

Modify the Compact to reflect the changed percentages due each State.
Re-examine the Model and confirm it requires the changes that the DNR is calling for.
Persuade the DNR that what it presents as requirements are overstating the problem.
Reduce the number of trees along the river to pre-development levels.
Import water into the area from either the Mound, the Loup or Missouri rivers.
Persuade Kansas to extend the compliance time.
Fail to comply and delay the inevitable restrictions for the couple of years it takes to get through the court system.
Sell your land or business and move before everyone else does. (While it may be politically incorrect to talk about it, it is something that even the most loyal people consider.)

So far, the people in charge of making the decisions have refused to consider tree management, the importation of water or a renegotiation of the Compact or Settlement. The only option they are looking at is the retirement of acres. Alternatives have been presented to politicians at every level.

They need to be persuaded by you to consider these other ideas.

Yes, this all sounds alarmist. But when someone tries to calm your fears, ask them to explain to you which of the numbers are wrong. Ask them if they will guarantee your income in 2007 or guarantee you a job. We are only repeating what has been said at numerous public meetings. Each one of the numbers and statements we make here can be documented.

This is a political problem, not a water problem. The State actually has a surplus of water and more than enough to meet all of the needs for well over a hundred years. There are better answers than reductions in water allocations and the retirement of acres.

Demand these answers from all of our representatives – Governor, Senators, Regents, and NRDs. Your ability to live in the area is dependent on the decisions these people make.