Loopholes and Excuses

 The Department of Natural Resources says that, according to the computer simulation that is used to determine compliance with Kansas , the allocation for each field does not matter.  We can pump 50 inches or 30 inches or 13.5 inches.  The Model assumes that the plant will use a set amount of water.  Each acre of cropland is assigned a set Consumptive Use amount regardless of actual pumping.  This number does not change for different types of crops.  Every field is assumed to have corn.

If you apply more water than what the corn plant needs, then the excess water is assumed to return to the aquifer or to run off the end of the field and into the stream.  If you apply less water than what the Model assumes, then the Model still assumes you used the fixed amount set in the Model.

All of the hype and noise about a 13.5 acre inch allocation is just that.  According to the Model, the only way to reduce consumptive use is to reduce the number of irrigated acres.  Adjusting the amount of water you put on each field is irrelevant.

According to the Model, corn in the western part of the Basin uses about 26 acre inches per acre minus the precipitation for the year.   The Model does not take into consideration in what month the precipitation occurs.  It assumes that precipitation in December is just as valuable as what arrives in July.  Actual consumptive use for corn at the Champion recording station, according to the High Plains Climate Center , is 28 inches.  As a result, the Model underestimates need by a couple of inches.  There are several other variances from reality that help compensate for this.  For example, the Model assumes that the URNRD has an equal mix of gravity-irrigated fields as the Middle and Lower Republican NRDs do.  As a result, we get more credit for aquifer recharge than probably really exists.  In other words, the “assumptions” might about balance out for and against us.

The Model also assumes that wells above the stream no longer cause a depletion to the stream.  For example, a well east of Champion causes a depletion to the stream because the stream is still flowing.  A well to the west of Champion does not cause a depletion to the stream because the stream no longer flows.  Thus, according to the Model, wells to the west of Champion do not cause Kansas to receive less water and, hence, the quantity of water they pump is almost irrelevant for Settlement purposes.  This is of great benefit to Colorado when the Model looks at their compliance accounting.  It also means that the more the streams dry up, the easier it is to comply with the Settlement requirements.

There are several “loopholes” in the Model that would allow a District or a State to pump what they wanted while still staying in compliance with Kansas .  That is not to say we should do this; but note that most of the rules that are being “forced” on us by the DNR are actually voluntary actions by our NRD Board that wants to slow aquifer depletion and, to do so, are using the DNR and the Settlement as an excuse. 

Most people want to preserve the aquifer.  Unfortunately, many of the people who sit on the NRD board do not trust the public to do the “right thing” and are, instead, blaming the DNR and the Settlement for things those entities are not requiring. 

Aquifer depletion is a separate issue from complying with the Settlement Agreement.  We believe this NRD should be courageous enough to present the facts accurately and let the public decide what we should do.  Satisfy Kansas as required by law.  Then, address aquifer depletion as an important but separate issue.