Upper Republican NRD Integrated Management Plan

WaterClaim opposes the URNRD IMP as written.  We oppose it for the following reasons:

  1. Rule 9.0.1 is a blank check.  This rule states, in part, the following:  “The Board shall consider and adopt any additional action necessary to meet the District’s proportional share of its responsibility to maintain compliance with the Republican River Compact Settlement Agreement.

Under the background section, it is implied that the Proportional Share mentioned in rule 9.0.1 is a set water volume for each the Lower and Middle Republican NRDs.  The Middle and Lower NRDs have not agreed to these volumes of water and the Lower threatens to challenge the DNR number for the Lower’s volume in court.

The proportional share does not include any provision for the Tri Basin NRD or for the surface water users.   Surface irrigation use varies by as much as 70,000 acre feet, for which the URNRD is committing to reduce usage in the URNRD for up to 49% of any additional usage by surface users or Tri Basin usage.  The assumption is that if surface usage goes up, it went up because it rained more and, hence, the virgin water supply went up proportionally.  That is not necessarily true, and the URNRD is agreeing to hold the bag for 49% of any overages by any group in the basin.  Note, flood waters do not count towards the virgin water supply and Nebraska does not get credit for flood water.

These “any necessary” actions must come from the quick response wells, according to the DNR.  How are those reductions paid for?  With a tax on whom?  Or, is the water simply taken illegally without compensation? 

The DNR and the URNRD both acknowledge that additional reductions will be required of quick response acres in water short years.  Year 2006 will be water short unless there is a major flood.  The DNR predicts water short years will occur 1 out of every 3 years, with those years coming in groups.   

  1. The URNRD acceptance of 49% of the responsibility is much larger than the URNRD’s effect on the stream.  Wells close to the stream have a much larger effect on the stream than other wells.  The Model shows that the URNRD share of the effect is approximately 30% because other districts have a much larger percentage of their wells very close to the stream. By agreeing to the numbers that it has in the IMP, the URNRD board is accepting responsibility for far more than the District’s share of the cause.  By agreeing to make these reductions from wells that have less effect per well, our Board is causing the District to make larger reductions than the other Districts in order to get the same effect.
  2. For most water users, the reduction in allocation from 14.5 inches over five years to 13.5 inches over three years is a symbolic effect only.  Those wells more than five miles from the stream have almost no effect on the stream.   Reducing the allocation on these wells has almost no benefit to the Settlement agreement. 
  3. The DNR has refused to provide the URNRD with accurate or sufficient data for the URNRD to verify the DNR’s claims of need.  Some of the data that has been provided and that is being relied upon is incorrect.
  4. Each NRD has been threatened by the DNR and told that if it does not agree to the IMP, the State will take over the NRDs.  This would require a change in the law by the Legislature and would change water policy across the entire State for every NRD.  The Nebraska Supreme Court in its ruling on the Spear T case indicated that it supported the authority of the NRD to regulate ground water use.  The DNR threat is being used as an excuse by some board members to take water away. 

If the URNRD feels that it must adopt an IMP based on threats and incorrect, and  insufficient data, then we propose the IMP be modified to remove the blank check and instead offer to support and participate in the Platte to Republican River Basin transfer, as supported by the Nebraska Republican River Districts Management Association as well as permit and encourage the transfer of virtual water allocations from quick response wells to upland wells.

These two items would meet the needs of the State while protecting the economy of the District.  If the DNR does not accept this modification, then the issue could go to the Interrelated Water Review Board.   State law controls what the IWRB may and may not do.  Today, State law protects the URNRD’s authority.

There are viable alternatives on the table that protect this District from the unknown and from the dangers of a blank check.   We encourage you to influence each URNRD board member and to watch carefully how each votes as their choice should affect your vote in the next election.