Maximizing Stream Flow, A Billion Dollar Solution

According to the DNR, shutting off irrigation wells will cause the stream flow to increase.  The Upper Republican NRD asked the DNR to run a computer Model to show how much the flow in the stream would increase, if all irrigation wells were turned off.  The first graph below shows the results of the DNR study.  The model projects the flow for 40 years if the wells were turned off in the year 2001.  It assumes the weather of 1980 through 2000 repeats itself twice.  WaterClaim has estimated what the flow would be due to CREP acres being retired in Chase County.  For this particular study, we assume 1,750 acres were retired by CREP in the Frenchman Creek watershed..

There are 448,700 irrigated acres in the Upper Republican NRD.  The DNR estimates flows for Frenchman Creek would be the yellow plus the red plus the blue plus the black area if every irrigation well in the URNRD were turned off.  Of the 448,700 irrigated acres, the DNR has classified 88,000 of them as Quick Response, meaning they are within 2.5 miles of the river. Turning off every Quick Response well would result in an average increased flow of the Frenchman Creek of 13,465 acre feet each year.  

The economic cost of increasing the stream flow to less than pre-irrigation levels would be huge.  If the wells were turned off over a few years, it would result in a depopulation of the area (as the economy could not transition that quickly).  If there were no payments to the landowners or the businesses in the towns, it would break many in the community.  If the landowners were paid the difference between irrigated and dry land rates, it would cost someone about $500 million dollars to make the landowner to compensate for the loss in property value.  This does not include any compensation for loss of future income from the property, however.  This would still break most businesses in the community.  If every business owner were compensated at market value, the total compensation for landowners and businesses would be about $1 billion dollars. 

If you visit the Nebraska Game and Parks forum or the University online forum, you will find that many of the people who frequent the sites suggest that irrigation should cease.  They claim it is a terrible waste and abuse of a natural resource to produce a crop receiving government welfare payments for a product that is in surplus.  Many of the policy makers in the State use the same language.  Most of these people think that since the farmer "wrongly" developed the land, there should be no compensation for returning it to dryland status.  And why should they compensate the landowner and business when some of the local people are willing to give away their access to water without any compensation?  

When irrigation started, it was because the Nebraska and federal governments encouraged irrigation for crops and land development.  Drastically changing their policies in midstream is like telling your child he should go to college then demanding he not pursue the career for which he got his degree. 

There are 88,000 Quick Response acres in the URNRD.   They pump about 90,000 acre feet from the aquifer per year.  According to the DNR, if you shut off every one of these, the Nebraska streams would see an average increased flow of 20,500 acre feet per year.  That means the average depletion of a well within the Quick Response area "maxes out" at 23%.  In other words, if a well pumps 100 acre feet, then 23 acre feet would have been in the stream.  The other 77 acre feet would never have moved to the stream.  Note that this is very different than what the DNR states at every meeting where it makes presentations.  DNR statements and data do not match.  At informational  meetings, the DNR states that all pumping eventually affects the stream flow.  They also state that the first year's depletion is 33% for quick response wells and that this grows within three years to be 100% of the pumping.  If this is true, then shutting off all Quick Response wells would result in an increase to stream flow by about 90,000 acre feet per year three years after shutting off all of the Quick Response wells.  Such statements are used to justify the need to put new restrictions in place.  But, the DNR data and the DNR statements cannot both be true.  When the local NRD does not require all information available to be put on the table, it enables the DNR to use whatever argument it thinks is most likely to get it what it wants, even if the arguments contradict other statements it has made. 

Yes, it is possible to increase stream flow by shutting off wells.  But, to have a significant impact, you have to shut off most wells.  The cost of doing that is huge, if the affected parties are compensated.  Those who argue that the stream should be restored to historical flows must answer how to do that while immediately maintaining the economy.  If they want to restore historical flows via shutting off irrigation, they need to realize what that means and come up with viable solutions for the after effects.  As some propose, we can concentrate on replacing agriculture with recreation and tourism, but there is a transition period where those relying on irrigation and agriculture can easily be harmed.  Recreation and tourism will not support as many people. People will be put out of work -- the only work they've known all their lives, in many cases.  If they must change to dryland farming, will the income be enough?  If not, what do they do?  Where do they go?   If our society wants to cease irrigation, then we all need to think of the consequences and come up with solutions to make sure the least amount of damage is done, both short-term and long-term.