NRDs Threatened

The NRDs of the Republican River Basin are under incredible pressure from the State of Nebraska to reduce water usage.  The boards are being told that, unless they find a way to make the adjustments the State needs to comply with the KS/NE Settlement, the NRDs may lose their power.

  1. The Settlement Agreement requires Nebraska, not the NRDs, to comply with the water restrictions.  This is a very important distinction.  There is nothing in the Settlement Agreement that places the burden on the NRD.  It is placed on the State.
  2. The State must comply with State law as it works to comply with the Federal mandate giving Kansas the water it requires.  State law in 46-715 (2) (d) states that 

Nothing in the integrated management plan for a fully appropriated river basin, subbasin, or reach shall require a natural resources district to regulate ground water uses in place at the time of the department's preliminary determination that the river basin, subbasin, or reach is fully appropriated, but a natural resources district may voluntarily adopt such regulations. 

Nebraska law does not give the DNR or the Attorney General authority to transfer compliance activities to the NRD.  The State may encourage, plead, arm twist, threaten and request that the NRD help the State in its need.  However, it may not force the NRD to reduce water uses that were in place prior to May 20, 2003. 

  1. The State must comply with the Settlement, even if the NRDs do not make enough changes to meet the requirements of the Settlement.  The State has several ways of doing this.
    1. Remove enough trees to increase the virgin water supply in order to come into compliance.  According to DNR numbers, removal of invasive plant species to the level they were at prior to dam construction would provide more than double the amount of water necessary to comply with the Settlement.
    2. Renegotiate the Compact division of water.  The Compact allows the three states ( Colorado , Nebraska , and Kansas ) to renegotiate the division of water to adjust for any changes in stream flow.  When the Special Master declared the aquifer to be a part of the stream flow, the percentages for each state changed from 11%, 49% and 40% to something very different.  Nebraska has a much larger percentage of the aquifer than Kansas and, hence, the share of the water due each state should be modified to reflect this change.  As the State is responsible for compliance, it has a strong incentive to renegotiate these percentages to reflect the new reality.
    3. Persuade land owners to retire their irrigation rights through financial incentives.  This may be administered through the NRD, if it wishes to assist.

For the NRD to lose its power and have its authority taken over by the State, Nebraska law must be changed.  While it is very possible for law to be changed, most in the state realize that retaining control at the local level is essential. 

The DNR may threaten to take control of the NRD board if it does not make the changes the DNR wants; however, the DNR does not have this authority – it rests with the legislature.  An NRD board that keeps its citizens well informed of the facts can stand up to such threats. 

The DNR should be asking the NRDs for assistance in finding ways to reduce water usage without attempting to force its version of compliance.  The NRDs know what can be done to save water without destroying the economy.  They know what tools are essential to the survival of the community.

The next time you hear someone say that the NRD must make a change because the Settlement or the State requires it, politely point out that it is more accurate to say that the Settlement requires Nebraska to comply and that the NRDs may voluntarily assist in that compliance.   There are other ways to comply with the Settlement that make much more economic sense than what the DNR is attempting to impose.