10 Reasons Why Water Transfers Cannot Be Done

If moving water from one Basin to another will solve the problem, then why isn’t it happening?

The following are reasons that are normally given, in order of frequency.  The comments are usually prefaced by the statement, “I support transfers, but…”

1. The Platte River is over-appropriated now.  There isn’t any water available.

Yes, the Platte is over-appropriated west of Elm Creek.  This means the Platte must reduce usage.  However, there is still a very large amount of irrigation going on in the Platte River Basin.  Water can be purchased from landowners who are currently using water.  Instead of this water being put on the individual’s field, it is physically moved to the Republican River Basin.  Since there are no new uses, the over-appropriated status of the Platte is not relevant.  If the Platte River Basin has to reduce usage 5%, then the allocation is reduced 5%, meaning that water will need to be sourced from a few more acres.

2. The Endangered Species Act will make it very difficult to happen -- so difficult, in fact, that a transfer shouldn’t even be tried.

The ESA is not a factor because zero new uses are created, and there is no effect on the aquifer or the Platte that is not already occuring, The ESA is not relevant.  Any ESA objection would then also object to all existing irrigation activity.  This clearly isn’t happening.

3. The downstream communities won’t let a transfer happen.

If the amount of water in the aquifer and in the Platte is unchanged, the downstream communities have no legitimate reason to object to the transfer. 

4. Central Platte NRD will stop any transfer.

Central Platte NRD – same answer as number 3 above.

5. The canal isn’t large enough to move the amount you need, or the canal isn’t available during the irrigation season and there isn’t any water in it in off-season.

The existing canal can move 100 cfs.  That is 74,000 acre feet a year, if it ran full time. It does not run full time now.  About 15,000 acre feet is needed each year.  There are ways of doing the transfer that do not use the canal.  In the long run, these other transfer methods are less costly and provide more control.  The canal is helpful, but not required; however, in the short term, it may be most economical to use it.  When the canal is available is not a problem.  If the water is to be delivered to a field on the left side of the canal but is instead transferred to another Basin via a gate on the right side of the canal, then the same canal can be used during irrigation season.   If water is needed outside of irrigation season, then a sufficient amount has to be transferred to make it worthwhile using the canal.  As mentioned earlier, the canal is just one delivery mechanism.  Other mechanisms are available, so timing of canal use is not an issue.

6. The farmers in the area will not sell you the water.

The farmer is offered enough of a premium that landowners are already asking where they can sign up.  Finding farmers who want to sell the use of the water at the price that is being offered is not a problem.

7. You are just transferring the problem to another area.

The problem is a Nebraska-wide issue.  To resolve the issue, Consumptive Use must be reduced.  One can do this by eliminating irrigation to 200,000 acres in one area or 15,000 acres in another.  It makes economic sense to minimize the number of acres that need to be eliminated.  The people who lose their access to water should be well compensated.  Paying 15,000 acres $300 an acre is much less expensive and much more acceptable to everyone than paying 200,000 acres at $125 an acre. 

8. It doesn’t do anything to address aquifer depletion.

True.

9. Transfers are illegal.

False.  Transfers from one field to another, from one NRD to another, and from one Basin to another are happening now and are specifically permitted in both Nebraska statute and in the Settlement Agreement with Kansas.

10. The drought will end.  There won’t be a need to do transfers. 

This is a popular comment of politicians and NRD board members.  The DNR is estimating Nebraska will experience water short years 25% to 33% of the time.  To assure compliance via acreage reduction, about 20% of the irrigated land in the Republican River Basin must be taken out of production.  A transfer permits all of that land to stay in production.

Sometimes these objections are innocent and made because the person doesn’t know all of the facts.  As people discover that there are no new consumptive uses made, almost all legitimate objections disappear.