|
Comply, Or Else This is one of the primary reasons given for voting for the IMP. Let’s say there is some merit to the State’s threat. What are the mechanics of a take over or an imposition of much harsher regulations? Who has the authority to crack the whip and punish the NRD for failing to do as the DNR demands? The first question needing answered is how much of a reduction does the DNR need for the URNRD to make? This answer is surprisingly difficult to find. Please go to www.waterclaim.org and look at the article and graphs on “URNRD Allowance and Depletions” for a detailed discussion. The Settlement requires a reduction whenever the Depletions are greater than the Allowance. Assuming the Tri Basin NRD maintains its current usage level and that 60,000 quick response acres sign up for CREP and EQIP, then the DNR needs the URNRD to make about a 5% reduction in consumptive use in 4 of the next 40 years to stay in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. This assumes the weather for the next 40 years is somewhat close to normal. In other words, to comply with the Settlement, only minor reductions are needed. Any other reductions are being done because someone has a personal agenda to slow aquifer depletions rather than helping the State comply with the Settlement. An IMP is still required; but to satisfy the State
and State law currently protects existing water uses that were in place prior to May of 2003. The NRD does not have to impose any new regulations on these uses, though it may voluntarily do so. Some argue that this law is meaningless, as the Settlement Agreement trumps State law. False. There are ways for the State to comply with the Settlement Agreement without violating its own laws and, hence, nothing in the Agreement nullifies the exemption provided for water uses in place prior to May 2003. Legislature: For us to lose this exemption for existing water uses, the Nebraska Legislature would have to modify State law. That is possible, but it is not a given that the Legislature will choose this route. It is not on the legislative agenda this year. The Legislature cannot pass laws that are discriminatory against one group of people. The URNRD Board has done nothing to protect this clause. In fact, they have argued that the protection is meaningless. The Board wants to be seen as being forced to make changes. They do not want the public to know it is voluntary. The URNRD should ask its lobbyist to guard this
clause. The URNRD should
attend the Water Task Force to argue against the DNR’s request to
change this protection for existing uses.
The URNRD should explain to the public what is at stake so the
public can help lobby for it.
The URNRD does none of this.
Why? Most of the
Board members want to make a usage reduction.
They want this because it will help slow the aquifer decline,
even though this has little to do with keeping It is possible for the State to comply with the Settlement without shutting down access to water. In fact, it is far easier and less expensive for the State to choose a water transfer in water short years than it is to force the shut down of the region’s economy. Interrelated Water Review Board: The Legislature set up a 5 member board appointed by the Governor from a list that the NRDs can influence. This Review Board is subject to the same laws and limitations as the DNR. It cannot force the NRD to impose regulations on water uses that were in place prior to May 2003. The NRD has been told that if it does not comply with the DNR demands, this IWRB will punish the NRD by eliminating carryover and pooling as well as lowering the allocation even more. First, the IWRB does not have the authority to do this, unless State law is changed. Secondly, three of the five members on the IWRB are selected by the Natural Resource Commission. The members of the Natural Resource Commission are chosen by the NRDs. Most of the URNRD board voted for Robert Ambrosek, even after he lost his seat on the URNRD. If Ambrosek had made it onto the NRC, then the URNRD would have additional reasons to worry. But, even then, the IWRB cannot impose any new restrictions on existing water uses unless the law is changed. Other questions: Why would the majority of the URNRD vote to put Ambrosek in a position where he can help select the judges in any dispute? Why does the URNRD Board say they want to keep Ambrosek on the Water Policy Task Force when Ambrosek is asking the Task Force to set the allocation for the URNRD at 6 inches? The URNRD Board is bowing down to threats that the law will be changed in the future. Yet, they are doing nothing to prevent that change. Even more important is the discovery that the
amount of water consumption that the Board must reduce in order to
comply with Settlement is far less than we have
been led to believe. Most
of the water reductions that are being asked for are not to satisfy |