Strange

The Upper Republican NRD agreed to accept 44% of the responsibility for any reductions the State might require if the State is over its allocation with Kansas.  This percentage was based on the share of water the URNRD pumped from the ground in relation to two of the other three Republican NRDs.

Prior to this agreement, WaterClaim strongly objected to this percentage as being based on the wrong set of data.

The URNRD’s percentage of responsibility for failure to comply with the Kansas Agreement should not be determined by pumping but, instead, by the effect the URNRD has on the stream.  Pumping only affects the stream flow when the pumping is close to the stream and within the alluvial basin.  Pumping that is far from the stream has less than 1% effect within our lifetime.  Pumping far from the stream affects the aquifer, not the stream -- at least that is what the official computer simulation shows.

It took us two years to finally obtain the data that shows the effect each NRD has on the stream.  To obtain the data, we asked the DNR.  When they refused, we asked the Governor.  When the Governor ignored us, we went to the Attorney General.   We tried to get the NRD to ask for basic information, but they repeatedly refused.  We went to the USGS.  And, we read a large number of technical documents. 

After much effort, we discovered that the URNRD causes, at most, 27% of the depletions to the stream.  But, the URNRD agreed to be responsible for 44%. 

Why?  

The URNRD went into closed session repeatedly during the negotiations with the DNR that determined the percentage.  WaterClaim asked for these sessions to be open.  The NRD refused.  So, WaterClaim asked the judge if the sessions should be open.  The district judge has twice ordered the URNRD to answer WaterClaim questions.  The URNRD refuses to do so.  In fact, the URNRD has decided to go directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court, saying that it is so important to the State that the NRD be permitted to hide what it did that the Supreme Court should reverse the two district judges who ruled against them and, later, fined them for ignoring the order.

WaterClaim repeatedly offered to drop the question, if the URNRD would agree to open up the process and permit the public to participate.

The URNRD has said under oath that it had to go into closed sessions to protect the DNR since the DNR gave different promises to the different NRDs and that if the public knew what the head of the DNR said, this person’s reputation would be hurt. The URNRD has also said that the Attorney General’s office has encouraged the NRD to ignore the judge’s order to answer court-ordered questions.

It seems like something strange is going on.  Water policy affects the entire community.  According to the law, public policy such as this is supposed to be made in the open. 

We don’t know why the URNRD agreed to accept responsibility for a much greater depletion to the stream than what we cause.  We do not know why the URNRD has decided that it is so important to avoid questions that it gets fined by the judge for failing to show up.  Why has the URNRD gone to the Supreme Court?

We posed a simple question.  Should public policy be made in public?  Why spend thousands of tax dollars trying to hide what has already been done and why it was done?