|
Why the problems persist? There really isn't any one person who is responsible for the persistence of the problems in the system. There are a number of people who could cause the problems to be addressed. See end of document for abbreviations key. Who can tell who what to do? · The Governor has direct control of the DNR. Ann Bleed, the current DNR director, frequently says that she does and says nothing without the direct approval of the Governor. · The DNR can control surface water policy and can encourage and use financial incentives to cause the NRDs to take certain actions. · The Attorney General's office can choose to take legal action to correct problems. Their primary job is to protect the State as a whole and, then, the individual needs. · The NRDs now have money and can use that money to conduct various projects. · The Legislature’s Natural Resource Committee is responsible for setting broad policy positions for everyone. The NRC has the authority to cause anyone to answer questions and to encourage certain actions by controlling their access to money. · The voters, as a group, can choose who makes policy. · The individual can call on the Court, if all of the above fail. The DNR is in the best position to correct the problems. It has the data; it has the budget; it has the authority to make many of the corrections or at least argue persuasively for those changes. The DNR is aware of the problem and is responsible for the existence of most of those I list. The Governor controls the DNR, can replace the head of the DNR at will and can direct DNR policy positions. The Attorney General's office could force changes in the Model via action in the courts or threatening legal action. The Natural Resources Committee of the Legislature is charged with overseeing the DNR and the NRDs. The NRC can access any information it wants, can set policy, and has broad budget control of the agencies it empowers. The NRDs can insist that their cooperation is contingent on full and accurate information being provided by the DNR. Now for the very dangerous part. Why do each of these groups or individuals do what they do? No one likes to talk about their motives or, worse, have anyone else talk about them. But, since their motives affect so many people, I believe it is fair to look at what their reasons might be. They are welcome to send me an email that states their motives, and I will post it. Since few of the decision makers are willing to communicate what they are doing, let alone their motives, it is difficult for the average person to understand what is happening to them and why. So, here goes. The Governor is aware of some of the problems with the Model but has said he will wait to correct those problems until after Nebraska is in compliance with a system that is broken. This will result in significant financial damage to individuals while they wait. One of the problems he is aware of is conservation. He is probably not aware of many of the other problems that call the entire Model into question. Those that created the Model and that work for the Governor have little reason to tell him. I apologize for the bluntness of this paragraph, but there is no nice way to say this. The head of the DNR is a person who believes there is too much irrigation by groundwater wells in the State. Several of the key statements made by the Director of the DNR are factually wrong. Advocating something that is not true after it has been brought to your attention causes serious problems when this is done by a person in a position of great responsibility. The DNR played a critical role in crafting the Agreement and computer simulation that controls the Republican River Basin. The DNR is in the best place to correct the problems in the system. Yet, the DNR works to protect the flaws, rather than correct them. Why? Does the DNR want less irrigation? Apparently so, and it says so. But, the willingness to use incorrect data, incomplete data, and formulas that are intentionally designed to shift responsibility from favored activities to undesired activities seems to place a personal philosophy above the facts. The Attorney General has turned over all water-related questions to a Special Counsel. The Special Counsel helped negotiate the Agreement and is familiar with many of the details of the Model. He is also aware of many of the problems. Yet, he chooses to permit the problems to remain. Why? I have personally heard him say to individuals that there is too much irrigation in the Republican River Basin. Since the current errors in the system cause there to be less irrigation, perhaps he allows the system he helped negotiate to continue to have the errors because it results in the end result he wants - less irrigation. As he helped negotiate the Agreement, it would now be difficult for him to question the deal he helped make. The Upper Republican NRD is the leader of the NRDs in the Republican Basin. It is opposed to forcing the system to have accurate information. The reasons vary from Board member to Board member. But, as a group, most of them believe that it is wiser to go along with the will of the State, even though they are very aware of some of the problems. They seem to believe it is better to appease the powerful and hope to be allowed to live rather than challenge the system and risk being destroyed by those who want to reduce or eliminate irrigation. Another reason is that many of the Board members do not like the decline in the aquifer and are willing to tolerate bad data because it helps them advance their personal agenda of forcing a reduction in allocations that help reduce the rate in the decline in the aquifer in the URNRD. The Natural Resource Committee of the Legislature is aware of the problems with the Model. However, they are very busy with a large number of issues and they tend to rely on the DNR and NRDs to answer their questions. Four of the eight committee members are new. Six of the eight committee members do not come from the Republican River Basin, so they defer to the two that do (both being new Senators). This places a special burden on these two senators, as nearly all Senators rely on them and all citizens of the Republican River Basin rely on their actions. The voters have only one way to affect the process, and that is to vote. The challenge they have is knowing what kind of person they are voting for. A lot of people are disappointed because they feel the person they voted for in the campaign is not the person they see after the election. For most positions, the voters can only act every four years. Between those elections, there is little they can do. The individual has almost no ability to affect change unless they can persuade some of the policy officials or enough voters. Their only other option is the courts. Because of the nature of this challenge and because the entire resources of the State would be challenged, this would be a very expensive and drawn out process. So, the problem persists -- not because we were out-lawyered, but because several of the people sitting in key positions want there to be less groundwater irrigation and because the others that are in a position to act choose to allow this idea to become the policy of the State. Abbreviations Used:
Who can tell who what to do?
|