Problems and Solutions Analysis
Written by WaterClaim, November 2005
www.waterclaim.org
The Problem
The Cause of the Problem
Agreement Requirements
Suggested Solutions by
Entity
Review of Possible Solutions
The Only Viable Options
The Problem
The Cause of the Problem
In 1943,
While the case was being
argued before the Court, the Nebraska Attorney General’s office recommended to
the NRDs that they take no action to restrict pumping or restrict development
of irrigation. The NRDs wrote letters to
the Attorney General’s office, acknowledging the advice and indicating that the
NRDs would follow the recommendation of the State.
The negotiations between the
three States were conducted on behalf of
It is because of the
recommendations of the Nebraska Attorney General’s office that many NRD board
members feel that the State is responsible for the problem. The NRDs have copies of these letters showing
that, at the recommendation of the Attorney General’s office, they did not
restrict development or irrigation in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Nebraska LB962, which passed
in 2004, is often both praised and cursed.
The Settlement Agreement with
In the fall of 2004 and the
spring of 2005, the DNR used high pressure to coerce the NRDs into accepting
IMPs of the DNR’s design. The NRDs were
assured that, if the IMPs were adopted, compliance with the
It has now become apparent
that the Agreement with
It is often said that the
drought is the cause of the problem and that, if the drought had not happened,
there would not be a problem with
As can be seen from the
graphs, allocations and precipitation do not move in tandem. This is because precipitation far from the
stream typically does not increase the stream flow until years later. If enough precipitation is received, then run
off will occur and the stream will flow more water. However, all of the conservation practices
put in place over the last 40 years have significantly reduced the movement of
runoff to the stream. The
Average Nebraska
Allocation 291,000 acre feet
A full analysis can be found
on the WaterClaim web site but, in short, the drought is NOT the cause of the
current problem. Instead, the reduced
precipitation and the increased pumping will not result in a shortage to
The DNR says that it hopes
for a flood. But the accounting rules
set up by the DNR with
The DNR is the primary
entity responsible for the current problem.
- The DNR was the lead agency in making the flawed
agreement with
- The Agreement will result in the shut down of
the majority of irrigation in the
- The Agreement does not provide enough time for
fluctuations in supply and use.
When adjusting pumping has almost no immediate effect, then the
only way to comply is to supplement supply when needed.
- The computer simulation does not take into
consideration the effect of conservation practices mandated by the
Federal Government. According to
- The DNR provided false information to the
Governor, the Legislature, the NRDs and the public. For example, the effect a well has on
the stream was repeatedly misstated. This caused the NRDs to make policies
that do not result in solutions.
The DNR told key policy makers on the Natural Resources Committee,
as recently as August 2005, that no further action on the part of the
State was necessary.
- The DNR told the NRDs, as recently as July 2005,
that the reduced allocations, CREP, and EQIP would be sufficient to cause
- The DNR has withheld and continues to withhold
critical data from all policy makers.
The DNR is the sole source for computer simulation information, and
they make it very difficult to access this data.
The primary cause of the
problem is that the DNR and the Attorney General’s office in 2003, on behalf of
Agreement Requirements
By the end of 2007,
|
Year |
Basin Wide % of
|
Usage Over Allocation (in |
Estimate of water reducing |
|
|
WaterClaim Estimate, released July 2005 |
DNR Estimate, released Nov 2005 |
|||
|
2003 |
85% |
-25,420 |
|
|
|
2004 |
106% |
-36,640 |
|
|
|
2005 |
100% |
-42,000 |
|
|
|
2006 |
? |
? |
19,219 |
20,000 |
|
2007 |
? |
? |
34,592 |
? |
|
Accumulated |
|
-104,060 |
53,809 |
? |
According to the agreement
As can be seen above, usage exceeded
allocation in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The DNR could use the software to
estimate what compliance numbers will be for 2006 and 2007 with a high degree
of accuracy because current year pumping and precipitation have little effect
on current year compliance. These types of predictions are what the Model
was designed to make. Currently, the DNR does not choose to make these
estimates public.
As can also be seen in the table, even if
all 13,000+ irrigation wells were turned off in 2006 and 2007,
The requirement -
Publicly Suggested Solutions by Key Entities
DNR
– Hope for rain.
Ask
Pump 500 wells directly
into the stream
Governor
- No suggestions.
UNL
- None; The UNL Water Center
has not participated.
LRNRD
- No suggestions.
MRNRD
- No suggestions.
URNRD - Increase
irrigated property taxes 60% and use the money to shut down some irrigated
acres.
Review of Possible Solutions
Many ideas have been
considered. The DNR participated in the
first brainstorming session with the Republican NRDs on November 17, 2005. The recommendation from that session was to
purchase surface water from Bostwick and then let the DNR figure out how to
find the remaining needed water.
|
Solution |
Achieve
Compliance by 2007? |
Comments |
|
No |
Loss of
policy control to Federal judge. Large
damages owed Possible
penalties owed |
|
Possible |
Uncontrollable
and unlikely. |
|
No |
Damaging
to the economy. Reduces
aquifer depletion. |
|
No |
Destruction
of the economy. Reduces
aquifer depletion. |
|
No |
Damaging
to the economy. Reduces
aquifer depletion. |
|
No |
Depletes
the aquifer. |
|
Possible |
Increases
water in stream. Unacceptable
to many landowners. |
|
No |
Increased
flooding. Increased
erosion. Unacceptable
to most people. |
|
Possible |
Depletes
aquifer faster. Very
inefficient. Expensive. Violates
goal of Agreement. |
|
Possible |
Depletes
aquifer faster. Very
inefficient. Expensive. Violates
goal of Agreement. |
|
Possible, but
Rejected |
Very
expensive. High salt
content. Pollutes
land and water. |
|
No |
The
reservoirs are empty; there is insufficient water available. |
|
No |
Impossible
to drain enough. Insufficient
savings. |
|
No |
Does not
result in compliance. |
|
Possible,
but unlikely |
This
would require a new lawsuit on a settled issue. The Supreme
Court would have to agree to rehear the case. |
|
Possible |
Permits
continued aquifer use. Requires
2006 legislative action. |
Each option is explored
below in more detail. Some options are
considered in more detail because they are more feasible. Of the 16 possible solutions, six can
possibly result in compliance by the end of 2007. But, there are serious problems with most of
these possible solutions.
Option 1, Ignore the problem.
Based
on damages awarded to
The
first compliance numbers that
In
addition to cash owed
If
Option 2, Rain.
WaterClaim
explores the chances of rain solving the problem by the end of 2007 in an
article, titled “Can Rain Solve the Problem.” (http://tinyurl.com/8u4no) In summary, it is possible but also
beyond the control of man and, hence, very risky to rely on as the
solution.
The
DNR can provide predictions as to what the allocation and depletions will be
for 2006 and 2007 with a fair degree of accuracy because these two critical
numbers are largely dependent on precipitation and usage that happened in the
past. Because doing nothing and waiting
for rain is the most attractive solution, the least expensive, and the easiest
politically, many people want to choose it.
Therefore, the DNR should issue a report that estimates the probability
that rain will solve the problem.
Option 3, 4, and 5, Reduce the amount of
water pumped by each well or shut off wells via buyouts.
In
February 2005, the DNR quietly released data that showed that, even if every
irrigation well is turned off, depletions are not reduced by enough to bring
CREP
and EQIP will take about 7% of the land out of production, beginning in
2006. The amount of land taken out of
production may be as much as 10% as more CREP acres are moved from the
Therefore,
CREP, EQIP, and reduced allocations simply hurt the economy, cost the Federal
government money, and result in insignificant water savings.
Option 6, Pump it Dry
One
of the interesting things about the Model is that, as irrigation wells draw
down the aquifer, the stream and the aquifer disconnect from each other. Once the aquifer drops below a certain level,
the aquifer stops feeding the stream via springs. The stream is then dry, except when there is
runoff from precipitation to feed it.
The way the computer simulation treats this is to reduce the virgin
water supply and, hence, reduce the amount of water due to
This
means that the faster the aquifer is pumped out, the faster the streams go
semi-permanently dry and the less obligation that
This
is exactly the opposite result of what most people want. Almost no one wants to dry up the
streams. But, the Model does encourage
that.
This
is a moot point because it would take many years to deplete the aquifer and to
dry up the streams, and this is not an option to achieve compliance by the end
of 2007.
But,
it is important to note that turning off wells that are close to the stream will
eventually increase the amount of water in the stream and also the virgin water
supply. This would increase the
obligation to
Option 7, Tree management.
Tree
management is necessary, but it will not result in an adequate increase in
supply by the end of 2007. The
Settlement Agreement recognizes that trees use water, but it assumes a 1950
measurement of water consumed by trees.
In the last 55 years, there has been a large increase in the number of
trees in the Basin. In fact, the NRDs
have aggressive tree planting programs, though most of these are away from the
stream. The dry lakebeds have seen
millions of trees grow.
Management
of undesired trees would decrease the evapotranspiration of trees and increase
the stream flow. Some estimates indicate
that the removal of all trees would result in a stream flow increase of over
400,000 acre feet each year. In theory,
then, the removal of 50% of the trees would result in a stream flow increase by
200,000 acre feet and be enough to satisfy
The
biggest challenge in managing trees is determining which trees to remove. Most of the trees are on private property and
valued by the landowner for aesthetic reasons.
Tree
management should be a part of
Option 8, Removal of conservation practices.
According to a study (http://tinyurl.com/9fsks) issued by
The
fact that conservation programs play such a major role in the reduction in
stream flow provides a strong argument to adjust the 1943 Compact Agreement to
reflect the major change in how the Basin calculates supply. The Compact permits this renegotiation.
Option 9 and 10, Pump wells into the stream.
If the new wells
live by the same pumping restrictions and spacing requirements that existing
wells live by, then we have to pump approximately 416,000 acre feet of water to
compensate for how much Kansas owns and to make up for the seepage loss.
There are about
13,000 wells in the
The DNR proposes
doing this within 45 days at a cost of $425,000.
Another major
problem is identifying the water pumped from these supplemental wells. As the water is commingled with the natural
stream, the surface irrigator will attempt to claim the right to use this water
for the irrigation of his field. If a
This option is
worse than doing nothing, as it wastes a lot of money while still accomplishing
the same thing as doing nothing. We
would explore this option in more detail, if we believed it was practical or
affordable.
Option 11, Drill new wells into the Dakota Aquifer.
Beneath
the Ogallala aquifer lays the Dakota Aquifer.
It has a higher salinity rate. It
is possible to drill deep wells and use the Dakota Aquifer in order to increase
the water supply. Because
Option 12, Buy water from surface irrigators and flow
it into
This
is a commonly suggested solution. The
water stored in reservoirs is private property and owned by surface
irrigators. The water is managed by the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corp of Engineers. For
In
2004,
The
If
Option 13, Drain the reservoirs to reduce
evaporation.
Removing
the dams or breaching the dams would require Congressional authorization. It would also forfeit the flood control and
all surface irrigation benefits. This
simply isn’t an option.
Option 14, Purchase
This
does not remove the obligation of
Option 15, Renegotiate the Agreement with
This is a political
decision. It would require the Governor to direct the Attorney General to
act. It would also require the
Legislature to approve funds to pursue the idea.
Tom
Osborne has suggested this as a solution. For this to happen,
Therefore,
the only likely way to force a renegotiation of the terms of the Agreement is
to return to court. This would require
action by the Nebraska Attorney General.
It would also require the same people who negotiated the original
Agreement to return to the court and argue that they made a bad agreement. It would be difficult to persuade the Court
to reopen the case, and it would be difficult for the
While
the idea is attractive, it requires politicians with considerable courage and
determination. At present, it is
unlikely that
Option 16, Transfer water from the
Emergency Spring Creek Plan. – In November of 2004, WaterClaim identified this as being the most feasible and the least
costly option. This proposal was
distributed to the Upper, Middle and Lower Republican NRD board members, the
DNR, the Attorney General’s office, and to Senator Schrock, chair of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Responsibility for the idea was given to the Nebraska Republican River
Management Districts Association, which voted to consider the idea. Roger Patterson with the DNR also promised to
take action on the plan.
WaterClaim
proposed transferring 25,000 acre feet each year from the
The
transfer keeps the cash in
The
Settlement Agreement with
A
full detail of the plan can be found at Spring Creek Plan on the WaterClaim web site. (www.waterclaim.org)
The
plan is easy to implement. The transfer
point requires the installation of one gate in a canal. Cost is less than $20,000. Erosion control for the increased flow in an
existing waterway would be required. The
waterway does not disrupt any existing farmland. The full plan is more detailed; but, in
short, for this plan to work, the following has to happen:
a. The 2006 Legislature authorizes someone to oversee
the project, approves the transfer, and authorizes funding.
b. The DNR is directed to provide 2006 and 2007 water
need estimates.
c. A deal is negotiated with CNPPID, permitting the use
of its canals.
d. Landowners in the
e. Businesses affected by the reduction in irrigated
acres are compensated.
f.
Sufficient water
is transferred in 2006 and 2007 to bring
Post 2007 transfers
are smaller and jointly managed by the NRDs and State. Unlike CREP, where the retired irrigated
acres are completely taken out of production, this proposal will permit the
leased land to continue to be farmed dry.
The
cost for doing this is less than the cost of paying
Don
Stenberg, the Attorney General in office at the early stages of the
negotiations, points out that the Settlement specifically permits this type of
transfer and that it is the only economical solution available to the State.
So,
if this solution is easy to do, solves the problem, and is the least expensive
option, why hasn’t it happened?
Roger
Patterson with the DNR publicly supported the idea and said it would work. He spoke to each Republican River NRD board
manager in the presence of WaterClaim and encouraged them to pursue the
idea. However, Roger Patterson said,
“Because the DNR is the regulator and would have to authorize the idea, the DNR
could not also be the advocate. Therefore,
it is up to the NRDs to take the lead.”
The DNR made these statements in November 2004 and again in January and
February 2005.
WaterClaim
took the proposal to each NRD board and presented it at the individual Board
meetings. The Upper Republican NRD
voted to ask the Republican River Management Association to consider the idea. The Middle Republican directed management to
cooperate with any review. The manager
of the Middle Republican NRD is also the Chairman of the Republican River
Management Association. The Lower
Republican voted to consider the idea.
The
Republican River Management Association also includes the four surface
irrigation districts. In February 2005,
the Association voted to consider the transfer idea and any other ideas that
might help. WaterClaim then trusted the
Association to take the idea and give it fair consideration.
Then…nothing
happened.
Later,
Dan Smith, chair of the Association, said that the idea was not being
considered because it wouldn’t work.
Roger Patterson deferred to Dan Smith.
Even
though each NRD voted to review, study, and consider the transfer idea, that
didn’t actually happen. Why?
The
Association meets quarterly, and it has no budget.
The
DNR told the NRDs that the transfer was not necessary and that it was more
important to get the Integrated Management Plans in place than to work on the
transfer. The DNR continued to tell the
NRDs, at least until July 2005, that there was no problem. The DNR did not publicly admit until November
2005 that the IMPs were inadequate.
The
NRDs believed the DNR. The DNR holds all
of the data, and the NRDs are not in a position to know if what the DNR says is
true or not. WaterClaim was making a lot
of noise about serious problems with DNR numbers, but the NRDs chose to ignore
those warnings. The NRDs refused to
demand the data from the DNR so that they could verify if the warnings were
valid.
Many
of the Upper Republican NRD board members are opposed to the transfer because
it does nothing to slow the decline of the aquifer in the Upper.
The
Middle Republican has chosen to trust the DNR and defer to the wisdom of the
DNR in resolving issues.
The
Lower Republican supports the transfer but believes that the State has
repeatedly lied to the NRDs and should be responsible for paying all costs
associated with any solution. They are
correct in that the State has lied to the NRDs.
So,
the transfer idea has stalled because the DNR has distracted from it and
because the NRDs have trusted the DNR when the DNR said the transfer was not
necessary. No one from any of the NRDs
has taken the initiative to insure compliance.
Now
that the DNR has reversed its position, there is a panic about how to resolve
the issue. The drought is being
blamed. The over development is blamed. The lack of State leadership is blamed. There are a lot of excuses and “if only”
comments. However, when one stops and
looks at what can be done now -- regardless of who is at fault -- there are few
options that will work.
The Only Viable Options
WaterClaim
believes that
Long
term,
For
the good of the State, the Legislature must act in the 2006 session and address
the immediate
.
Republican Compact Water Lease Program
January 2005 Draft
Revised November 2005
WaterClaim
308 882-3020
One Page Summary
The Problem: The
The Solution: Transfer water from the
This allows the import of
enough water to meet all of the Settlement requirements, even in the driest
years. There are several benefits:
- It
fulfills the requirements of the Settlement.
- It
helps Harlan County Reservoir remain full every year.
- It
provides the farmers in the entire basin with stable water policies.
- Water
short year triggers are eliminated, and farmers may continue to access the
water required to make a living.
- Cost
is substantially less than all alternative solutions.
- The
regional economy is grown rather than restricted.
The cost of this project is
paid by:
- NRDs - $2.0 million –
- State - $2.0 million –
Most believe the State has the obligation to pay the entire compliance
costs. This is a fraction of the
State’s responsibility.
- Bureau of Reclamation
– Guarantor of project loan and storage rights in Harlan County
Reservoir. The Bureau receives
water for their irrigation district and recreational customers.
- Federal - $2.0 million
– The project will create a 30-mile stream with parks, wildlife, and
recreational opportunities.
Total
collected: $6.0 million.
Because of how the Settlement
Model works, it is possible to count some of the water for more than one
beneficial use. This allows the area to
irrigate more and have more water available for recreation and environmental
benefits while still staying within Settlement compliance requirements. This solution is less expensive than current
plans, and creates economic activity rather than restricting it.
The complete plan can be seen at www.waterclaim.org
ROUGH DRAFT January 2005
Detailed Overview
Summary
The Problem: The
The Solution: Import water
from the
Any
water transferred into the
Water
used on 25,000 acres is sourced throughout the entire
Economic Review
These costs are below what each
interested party has already expressed a willingness to contribute to
alternative solutions. The import of
water will also reverse the estimated $80,000,000 to $100,000,000 annual reduction
in the regional economy, as estimated by Ray Supalla of the
The import of water will eliminate the entire economic loss that Supalla estimates and will, by our estimate, increase economic activity by at least $20,000,000 per year. This is because a stable water supply will increase land values and increase the number of visitors to the area for recreation, as shown by a Bureau of Reclamation study. A stable water supply will allow businesses that cater to the recreational and agricultural sectors to invest in and add more jobs to an area that is in great need.
The import of water will have, over a 25-year period, a net benefit of over $2.5 billion dollars.
Solution - Import water.
- It
fulfills the requirements of the Settlement.
For every
acre foot of water imported into the Basin, the Model allows a one-for-one
credit. This is a direct reduction of
The Department of Natural Resources states that we must compensate for something called the Lag Effect. The DNR estimates that this Lag Effect will, in time, require greater reductions each year in ground water pumping.
Combined with the already planned CREP program, the importation of up to approximately 25,000 acre feet can compensate for several decades of Modeled Lag Effect requirements.
- It
helps assure
Because the water we import is
not owed to
- It
provides the farmers in the entire basin with stable water policies.
Because we
are importing more water than the Model says we owe
- Water
short year triggers are eliminated, and farmers may continue to access the
water required to make a living.
Because we are not required to release the water from the reservoir, we can always be assured that the lake will not drop below the trigger level that will cause a Water Short Year according to the Settlement. It may take a number of years to refill the lake but bringing in water that is not obligated to irrigation will cause that to happen much more quickly.
Businesses that are reliant on the agricultural sector will have a stable customer base. The plans to retire acres and, hence, eliminate an agricultural businessman’s customer base will not happen. Because the water will be there, long-term investments can be made and the mainstay of small towns will continue to exist.
- The
regional economy is grown rather than restricted.
When the lake is always full, when the farmer has the water he needs to raise a crop (even in a drought), the region will prosper. Elimination of farmable acres eliminates jobs and the need for people, thus creating harmful economic impact. By adding water to the community, we allow more businesses to thrive, especially in the Harlan County Reservoir area.
- Cost
is substantially less than alternative solutions.
Current plans
to take land out of production will reduce the local economy by $80,000,000 to
$100,000,000 per year. This is according
to the economic study done by Ray Supalla in 2004. The federal government has contributed over
$158,000,000, in the form of CREP money, for the removal of jobs in the
area. According to the DNR, even if we
shut off every irrigation well,
We estimate the annual costs of our solution at about $6,000,000 per year for 20 years. This investment maintains economic activity and actually grows the economy instead of eliminating jobs.
Where does the water come from?
The water
comes from a reduction in consumptive use in the
How is the water transferred?
The water is collected via the
Central Nebraska Public Power and
Impact on the State
The State is requiring the
To resolve the
Compare this to the other options being suggested.
CREP takes 100,000 acres out
of production. EQIP takes 20,000 acres
out of production. If compliance with
the Kansas Settlement is achieved via the shut down of acres close to the
stream, then about 200,000 acres or a little over 20% of the irrigated land in
the
Costs
The water can be sourced from
either surface users or groundwater users.
The short term costs are less if the water is sourced from surface
users. The long term costs are less if
the water is sourced from groundwater users.
The costs proposed in the next section assume the infrastructure costs
associated with accessing most of the water from groundwater users. A more detailed study can review the costs
and benefits of both options.
Cost of the Project
Infrastructure
|
Infrastructure Costs |
|
|
|
|
Engineering |
$
500,000 |
|
|
Collection
system |
$
5,082,000 |
|
|
Transfer
Station |
$
1,000,000 |
|
|
Erosion
Control |
$
100,000 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
$
6,682,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
Rate |
5.0% |
|
|
Periods |
20 |
|
|
Payments
on Infrastructure |
$
536,181 |
Annual Costs
|
Annual Costs |
|
|
|
|
Land
Rent |
$
3,600,000 |
|
|
|
$
250,000 |
|
|
Tax
on collection system |
$
340,000 |
|
|
Pumping
costs |
$
923,077 |
|
|
Repair
and Maintenance |
$
100,000 |
|
|
Administrative |
$
250,000 |
|
|
Annual
Infrastructure Costs |
$ 536,181 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
Total
Annual Costs |
$
5,999,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Reserves |
$
57,409 |
|
Where the money comes
from
|
Revenue Sources |
|
|
|
|
Basin Property Taxes |
$ 2,018,889 |
|
|
State Funds |
$ 2,018,889 |
|
|
Federal Funds |
$ 2,018,889 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
Total Revenues |
$ 6,056,667 |
Property taxes are increased $0.0425 per $100 in valuation to generate the local share of about two million a year.
Who gets the water? Water Model
Accounting.
Import up to 25,000 acre feet of water. Because of how the Model works, we may count some of the water uses multiple times.
Here, we show three of the many possible ways to divide the water.
We cannot use more water than we import. So, in all cases, total water disbursed cannot exceed total water imported.
The other constant is that credits toward Compliance must always equal or exceed Compliance Requirements.
Water that is
stored in Harlan is a credit toward compliance, as is any water delivered to
the stream or to the canal, as long as it is not used by a downstream
In-basin transfers are waters that are held in the reservoir or released to the stream but which can also be used by aquifer users elsewhere in the basin
We estimate
that approximately 50% of the water consumed by a
Under all
scenarios,
Because we
import more water into Harlan than we are required to release under existing
distribution agreements, it is possible to exchange this water for captures in
higher elevation reservoirs. These
captures can be offset by releases from the imported water. Over time, this will allow us to fill all
reservoirs in
Three possible water accounting scenarios.
|
|
A |
B |
C |
|
Imported Water |
20 |
20 |
20 |
|
Actual Water Uses |
|
|
|
|
Water Stored for Compliance |
10 |
- |
- |
|
Instream Flow Count toward Compliance |
6 |
20 |
- |
|
In-Basin Transfer (stored or streamed) |
- |
- |
2 |
|
NE
Surface Use |
- |
- |
8 |
|
KS
Surface Use |
4 |
- |
10 |
|
|
------- |
------- |
------- |
|
Total Water Disbursed |
|
|
|
|
(must equal Imported Water) |
20 |
20 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
These lines count against compliance |
|
|
|
|
In-Basin Transfers |
- |
- |
2 |
|
50%
of NE Surface Use |
- |
- |
4 |
|
|
------ |
------ |
------ |
|
Debits Against Compliance |
- |
- |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
These lines count towards compliance |
|
|
|
|
Water Stored for Compliance |
10 |
- |
- |
|
Game & Parks Instream |
6 |
20 |
- |
|
50%
of NE Surface Use |
- |
- |
4 |
|
KS
Surface Use |
4 |
- |
10 |
|
|
------ |
------ |
------ |
|
Credits towards Compliance |
20 |
20 |
14 |
|
(must be = or > compliance requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance Requirements |
20 |
20 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carryover towards next year |
- |
- |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
Basin Consumption actually KS receives
|
- |
- |
2 |
|
Actual imported water entering |
10 |
20 |
12 |
Parties to this Agreement
The details of the water distribution must be agreed to by all parties to the Agreement. This includes:
- Department of Natural Resources
- Tri Basin Natural Resource District
- The Army Corp of Engineers
- The Bureau of Reclamation
- The various Irrigation Districts
- The Upper, Middle and Lower Republican Natural Resource Districts
The Agreement must incorporate the following elements to be acceptable to all parties:
- Comply with all existing agreements between various users of water captured in Harlan County Reservoir.
- Not interfere with the Tri Basin NRD aquifer users that neighbor the well field.
- Allow a sufficient
quantity of basin-transferred water to be unconsumed by
- Allow a sufficient quantity of water to remain in Harlan County Reservoir to always keep the reservoir above the water short year trigger.
- To permit other above-Harlan reservoirs to capture water and, over a number of years, to maintain all reservoirs to their active level.
- Agreement from each of the parties to supply their agreed-upon financial contribution to the project.
Benefits to
stakeholders
Farmers:
Groundwater Users
o Continued access to sufficient water to raise a crop and make a living.
o Elimination of water short year restrictions that would severely damage the financial viability of many farms.
o An increase in the water table for land below the reservoirs. This helps replenish the aquifer.
Surface Users
o Increased canal flows, meaning the farmers have an increased ability to raise a crop and meet their financial obligations.
Businesses:
· Ag supply businesses now have a stable customer base. By maintaining the number of irrigated acres and the availability of water, demand for inputs and grain movement should remain strong. This means the businesses supplying these resources retain their employees and contribute to the community.
· Businesses around the reservoirs thrive. As we are able to maintain the reservoir levels at their optimum recreational level, the number of people using the lakes jumps, as indicated in the study done by the Bureau of Reclamation (Technical Report For the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Republican River Basin Nebraska and Kansas Long-Term Water Supply). This allows new and existing businesses to cater to this increase in customers.
· Financial compensation for the use of their canals.
NRDs:
The
Republican NRDs are being asked by the State to make cuts in water usage. The
While ground water must still be managed, these plans can now be created outside a world of fear and panic. Time can be taken to create policies that protect the environment and the economy at the same time.
Specifically, the NRDs benefit from:
· The maintenance of Harlan County Reservoir above the 119,000 acre foot level.
· No acreage retirement programs are necessary.
· A lower tax than alternative plans.
· Water available for business development.
· An increase in community activity rather than a decrease.
Irrigation Districts:
· Bostwick Division – This set of canals sees a substantial increase in available water. The farmers on these canals are one the major beneficiaries of the plan.
· Other canals, such as the Frenchman-Cambridge, will also benefit. We catch more water at higher elevation reservoirs and benefit all canal users.
· The districts make their money by distributing water. If there is no water, then the district is still liable for the debt it has incurred. The water we bring to the basin will help keep the districts viable.
State of
The State of
Even if the
State manages to transfer the direct costs to the people of south central and
southwest
However, by participating in this transfer of water, all of these costs are avoided.
The prime benefits to the State are economic and social. Not only does the State avoid huge annual costs, but it also helps provide the essential ingredient to the survival of an entire region of the state.
Specifically, the State benefits via:
o Relief from a much greater financial obligation to buy out acres.
o Relief from the political fallout caused by forcing parts of the state to assume the obligation of the State.
o Relief
from
o Increased Hunting, Fishing, Recreation.
o Increased Business Activity.
o Increased Tax Revenue.
o Decreased State Aid Needs.
o Increased
Use of Water Resources within
o Employ more people during project construction.
o Continued employment of the people who would have left due to the loss of access to sufficient water.
Game and Parks:
This plan provides:
·
Increased stream flows in the
·
Increased lake level in all reservoirs in the
· Increase in recreational opportunities, thus more visitors and greater revenue from sales to those visitors.
Graphic Source: http://www.usbr.gov/gp/nepa/rep_riv/coe_rep/chapter3.htm
The average number of visitors to Harlan County Reservoir over a 10-year period is 422,000 people. This number is highly dependent on the amount of water in the reservoir. When the lake is high, the number of visitors is high. When the lake is low, the number of visitors decreases.
Bureau of Reclamation:
The increase in the water supply helps the Bureau provide water to its customers. The viability of its customers is of great benefit to the Bureau.
Army Corps of Engineers:
The increase in the water supply helps the Corps provide water to its customers. The viability of its customers is of great benefit to the Corps.
Federal:
· Keeping about 100,000 acres of land in production.
· Maintaining sufficient water supplies to one million acres of ground water irrigated land.
·
Improving the water supplies to over 100,000
acres of surface irrigated land both in
Well Field Landowners:
· Above market rate financial compensation for the land.
· Probable ability to continue to operate the land.
Action Plan
This is not a water problem or a technical problem. It is a political issue, and the solution can be provided by the policy makers.
For this to work, we ask each party to take the following actions.
Farmers:
· Agree to limit development to long-term water availability.
· Support a $0.0425 per $100 increase on property taxes on all Basin property.
Businesses:
· Support a $0.0425 per $100 increase on property taxes on all Basin property.
· Lease off-season canal usage to the project
NRDs:
· Impose and collect a $0.0425 per $100 increase on property taxes for the project period.
· Dedicate all of the proceeds of these taxes toward project payments. If valuations go up and additional revenues are generated, those additional fees will go toward paying down project costs faster.
· Put allocations in place that will maintain the volume of water usage at present levels.
o Further reductions from current usage will not be required unless Harlan County Reservoir falls below the Settlement trigger level of 119,000 acre feet.
o Additional allocations of water from current usage will not be permitted unless the increase is offset by water made available to the NRD or landowner from imported project water.
· Create rules for the transfer of water from one allocation holder to another that encourages the conservation of water but does not restrict the free trade of these allocations as long as the Settlement Model reports less consumptive use within the next 40 years because of the transfer.
· Maintain on file a record of how much each acre is allocated, uses, and contributes to the consumptive use according to the Settlement Model, as well as who controls this allocation.
Irrigation Districts:
·
Permit the imported water to remain in storage
and separate from the consensus agreements that are in place now. The primary purpose of the water is to comply
with the needs of the State of
· Negotiate a supplemental consensus agreement that distributes this imported water between the needs of those paying for the water.
State of
· Permit the basin-to-basin transfer.
· Permit the transfer of water to another State.
· Implement legislation that allows the NRD to increase the taxes.
· Commit to the State’s financial share of this project.
Game and Parks:
·
Permit the transfer of Mound water to the
· Help create and then manage the parks and trails along the enhanced stream that is created.
Bureau of Reclamation:
· Allow imported water to remain in storage and separate from existing consensus agreements.
· Negotiate a supplemental consensus agreement that distributes this imported water between the needs of those paying for the water.
·
Permit the use of storage rights in the reservoirs
throughout the
Army Corp of Engineers:
· Allow imported water to remain in storage and separate from existing consensus agreements.
· Negotiate a supplemental consensus agreement that distributes this imported water between the needs of those paying for the water.
·
Permit the use of storage rights in the
reservoirs throughout the
Federal:
· Support the project.
Well Field Landowners:
· Allow the land to be sold or used for a well field.