Cut Analysis

The URNRD tells the farmer he should plan for a 13.5 acre inch allocation.  It is also reported that there will be a limit on the amount of carryover (water saved from prior conservation) that the farmer can use in a water short year.  The URNRD has detailed records available by field and by pool that allows us to identify the impact these cuts will have.

To keep things simple, we will use 2003 data (the latest year available): 

Certified acres in the URNRD                                                         448,865

Acre feet of water used                                                                    552,594

Average Acre/Inch per acre used                                                           14.2

Acres using more than the average of 14.2                                   274,212   or 61%

Acres using more than the 13.5 allocation                                     330,831   or 74%

The following shows how many acres will be affected if there is a cap on the total amount of water that can be used by a pool (group of fields) in a water short year.  Note that if the cap is by field and not by a group of fields, then the impact will be significantly greater than what we show here.  

There are two key numbers: the Base Allocation and the Allowed Carryover.  The lower the base allocation, the more difficult it will be for a farmer to conserve water.  The savings in a normal year will be less and, hence, there is less room for error or drought survival.  The other important number is the water short year carryover allowance.  This number is critical to a farmer surviving a drought.  The lower the allowance, the larger the impact on the community.    The percentages show what portion of the acres in the URNRD would have to adjust their operations.

Base Allocation

Allowed Carry-over

Total Allowed

Acres Making a Cut

Acres Making >=5% Cut

Acres Making
 >=10% Cut

Acres Making
 >=20% Cut

* Real Water Saved

Model Water Saved13.9%

13.5

0

13.5

330,831

74%

274,212

61%

203,571

45%

102,722

23%

70,485

133%

9,797

13.5

1.0

14.5

252,731

56%

190,999

43%

151,722

34%

45,686

10%

46,411

88%

6,451

13.5

2.0

15.5

178,307

40%

136,001

30%

78,259

17%

19,056

4%

28,758

54%

3,997

13.5

3.0

16.5

120,526

27%

68,915

15%

39,024

9%

6,956

2%

16,019

30%

2,227

13.5

4.0

17.5

63,143

14%

36,658

8%

19,056

4%

3,811

1%

8,315

16%

1,156

For many farmers, the carryover allowance in a water short year is more important than the base allocation.  This is the essential ingredient that allows a farmer to still raise a crop even when it does not rain. 

As the NRD board discusses various reduction options, the above table will help you identify the number of acres that would be affected.   For example, the URNRD is discussing a 13.5 base allocation and a water short carryover limit of 3 inches.  This is the row that is bolded and colored.  Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the acres in the URNRD would need a change in their farming operation, and 39,024 acres would lose access to more than 10% of the water they typically use.  This loss (and, thus, the impact) would be much greater, if the limit is applied to a field instead of a group of fields.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) states that the URNRD must reduce usage by 52,800 acre feet of real water or 17,424 acre feet of Modeled water. The NRD plan of 13.5 plus a hard 3 would allow a farmer to use 16.5 acre inches of water in a water short year.  This would result in a real water savings of 16,091 acre feet saved.  This is over 36,000 acre feet short of what the DNR is asking for.  However, this number can be reduced by the number of quick response wells that are no longer allowed to irrigate.  The more acres that are retired, the greater the impact on the local community.  So, we want to reduce the acres retired.  But, the fewer acres we retire, the more water each farmer has to cut.

* The percentages under the Real Water Saved column show the amount of compliance with the DNR requirements we would achieve by making the various reductions in allocation.

The point of all this is not to confuse but to point out that the plan being discussed by the URNRD falls well short of what the DNR says it requires.  Therefore, either the DNR will have to change the requirements or this NRD proposal is just the first of much bigger cuts to come.

There are other options that eliminate the need for any of the cuts that threaten our community.  However, the NRD board must choose to consider them before these other ideas can be implemented – ideas to preserve communities and the economy.