|
Reality Check
What is required? What must be done to comply? The Republican River Settlement Agreement with Kansas requires Nebraska to live within its allocation. The following charts are for the Upper Republican NRD rather than the entire Basin because the DNR has not publicly released data for the other NRDs. Even so, what we report here is applicable to all NRDs in the Basin. We use DNR data for everything here. Just because we use DNR data doesn’t mean we believe the information is correct. However, since the Computer Model is what the State has agreed to live by, we show how it works using official data.
The current definition of a Quick Response well is any well within 2.5 miles of any currently flowing stream or tributary. Keep in mind that the DNR can change the definition for a Quick Response well and an Upland well at will. In 2004, their definition for a Quick Response well was any well within 1 mile of the stream. That definition did not bring the result the DNR wanted so, without a hearing and without any explanation, the definition was changed to any well within 2.5 miles of the stream. The NRDs, without questioning it, adopted this new definition.
Figure 1
The blue area in Figure 1 shows how much water would be pumped by all of the Quick Response wells in the URNRD over 40 years. The red area shows how much water would be in the stream, if the wells did not pump for those same 40 years. The numbers for Figure 1 are cumulative.
Figure 2 shows the same information as Figure 1 except for the wells further away from the stream. They use much more water, but they have much less effect on the stream because of their distance from the stream. In other words, shutting them off will have very little benefit to the stream until many years after they are shut off.
Figure 3 shows how much water is typically pumped by Quick Response wells vs. what the Model would show to Nebraska’s credit if those same wells did not pump. Note that about 80% of the water pumped is never counted against Nebraska. Also note that turning off a well yields a perpetual benefit of about 20% of what the well would have removed from the stream if it had been on. This is what the Model says will happen.
Figure 4 shows the delayed benefit of shutting off Quick Response wells. If you shut off a Quick Response well, the stream will see a benefit of about 7% of what that well would have pumped in the same year the well was turned off. The second year after it was shut off, there is about 10% of year 0 pumping that benefits the stream. For example, a well removes 100 acre feet from the ground. In the first year the well does not pump, 7 acre feet of water will show up in the stream because the well did not intercept it. In the second year after the well was turned off, another 10 acre feet show up in the stream. In year 3, another 13 acre feet shows up in the stream. You can follow the pattern. You will also note that, according to the Model, far more water will end up in the stream after 40 years than the well could have removed. Another way of saying this is, if a well removes 100 feet of water and that well doesn't pump any water then, according to the Model, the stream will eventually see about 24 acre feet more water on an annual basis forever. One thing to keep in mind is that the Model intentionally underestimates the effect of grass and trees while, at the same time, counts productive crops as a negative. In other words, if a field is planted to corn, then Nebraska is charged for all water the corn uses. But if the same piece of ground has grass and trees on it, then the Model assumes no water use -- even though grass and trees can often use more water than corn does. There is a built-in bias in the Model that discourages crop production and encourages more grass and trees.
According to current definition, Upland wells are those wells more than 2.5 miles from the stream. Shutting off an Upland well will have no measurable effect in year one. Even if the well had been off for 40 years, only 5% of what it pumped 40 years ago would be in the stream today. In other words, if a well pumped 100 acre feet in 1965 and it was then permanently shut off in 1966, then we would today see 5 acre feet show up in the stream because of what was done 40 years ago.
Figure 6 is for the Upper Republican NRD. The red area shows what is required of the URNRD in order to stay in compliance. The blue line shows the benefit of shutting off every Quick Response well in 2007. If 88,000 acres were taken out of production for 2007, 2008, and 2009, then the URNRD would be in compliance. This does nothing to make up for the large overages between 2003 and 2008. The red area above the blue line in 2003 through 2008 is approximately 59,000 acre feet of water debt the URNRD is responsible for. If that is valued at $145 an acre foot, then the URNRD would be responsible for about $8,500,000. The current URNRD revenue from property taxes is about $600,000 a year. Most of that goes to staff salaries. In the year 2010, some of the Quick Response wells could be turned back on. We estimate that about 20% to 30% of the wells could be turned on again and still stay in compliance. The number of wells that can be used will decrease over time, as the water obligation increases each year. As can be seen in the charts above, turning Upland wells off has such a delayed benefit that the option is not attractive. I believe a Federal judge will order the State to pay for the current overages. I expect that to cost the State between $0 and $25 million -- probably much closer to the $25 million number. However, the people in the Basin will be forced to stay in compliance in the future. This can be done via one of three ways:
Shut Off Quick Response Wells What is the cost of turning off 88,000 acres? Typical cash rent for an irrigated acre is between $125 and $140 an acre, with most getting $130 an acre. Typical dry land rent is $30 an acre. Therefore, if a landowner is compensated for the difference, someone needs to pay him $100 an acre. CREP and EQIP have already paid for the retirement of about 8,000 acres. That leaves 80,000 acres. That is $8,000,000 a year for the URNRD to retire the necessary acres. That is on top of the liability for the overages that occur before the benefits from shutting off wells happens. Remember, these numbers are just for the Upper Republican. Twenty percent (20%) of the land in the URNRD is Quick Response. Thirty-one percent (31%) of the Middle Republican acres are Quick Response. This is about 70,000 acres. In the Lower Republican, there are approximately 100,000 Quick Response acres, or 44% of the irrigated land. That means the pain for the Middle, and especially the Lower, will be much worse. For the Republican River Basin, there are about 250,000 Quick Response acres. To assure future compliance under this method, all of these wells have to be turned off for about three years and the State has to pay for overages that occur until this shutdown has enough of an effect to keep the State in compliance. This is a very expensive solution. Shut Off All Wells Another option, instead of retiring Quick Response acres, is to reduce everyone's allocation. Even though reductions in allocations on most Upland wells do not result in a benefit to the stream for several decades, some will argue that if everyone receives the same reduced allocation, there is no financial obligation to pay anyone. So while forcing the shutdown of all Quick Response wells might cost $100 an acre a year, a six-inch allocation for everyone might not cost anything each year. Guess which idea is more attractive to the people paying the bill. One of the problems with this idea is that a six-inch allocation for everyone leaves the State out of compliance for a longer period of time. This delay may be unacceptable to the Federal judge. He may instead require that everyone shuts down everything until we are in compliance. That would mean all wells off in the Basin for three years. Very few farms will survive that. Think of it as going without oxygen for ten minutes. After the ten minutes are up, you can have 75% of normal supply again. Does it matter that you get it back, if you are dead? Even if the six-inch allocation is what we go with, the economic hardship will break most farms. In addition, neither of these options provide any compensation or protection for anyone other than the landowner. The businesses that supply and depend on the landowners' business are ignored under both of these scenarios. That means that Co-ops, seed businesses, truckers, fertilizer and many other operations are at the mercy of what happens, and without any protection. Yet, drastically reducing the allocation or shutting off wells is the option that most people outside of the Republican River Basin prefer and a surprising number within the Basin prefer. The shutdown option is the preferred option by most of the URNRD Board and Senator Baker. (We can provide the proof if you want to see it.) The shutdown option may not cost the State any money other than the initial payment the Judge orders. However, it is an economic death penalty to the communities of the Basin. Increase Water Supply Another way to comply is to import water into the Basin. WaterClaim estimates that approximately 10,000 acre feet imported on an annual basis will keep the entire Basin in compliance for a number of years. The cost of importing the 10,000 acre feet will be about $4,000,000 a year. This does not make up for the current overage. We assume the current overage will result in a damage payment to Kansas by the State of Nebraska on behalf of the Basin. Then, future compliance can be assured via the importation of water. This is by far the least disruptive and least expensive option. However, the idea is opposed by the DNR and the current URNRD and MRNRD Boards. It is supported by the LRNRD. Even though the URNRD Board voted unanimously to support the import concept, most Middle and Upper Republican Board members reject the concept and say it cannot be done. The reasons given include:
Since these reasons are repeatedly given, even though it has been demonstrated that none of them are valid, we will repeat why they are not valid. Under the import proposal, no new water is removed from the Platte that is not already being used by farmers. The Model assumes that between 10% and 20% of the water a farmer uses seeps back into the aquifer. Therefore, the import concept purchases 100% of the water supply but only transfers 80% of the water. Therefore, there is no new consumptive use, and there is no effect on the Platte River or the aquifer in the area that is not already happening. Because there are no new effects on the existing aquifer or stream flows, there is no legitimate reason for the communities on the Platte to object. Their supply remains unaffected. The same is true for the Endangered Species Act. There is no effect that is not already occurring. Even though this point is repeatedly stressed, the opponents of the idea ignore the facts and continually repeat the same objection. One begins to wonder what the motivation of the objector is. Does the objector prefer a shut down of all Quick Response wells? Does the objector prefer the Judge order the shut down of all wells? Apparently so. The annual cost of importing water into the Basin is spread out over about 1,000,000 irrigated acres in the Republican River Basin. For $4 an acre, the Basin can, without the help of the State, assist the State to stay in compliance and avoid all of the problems associated with the shut down of all Quick Response acres or all irrigated acres. It is more than most want to pay; but when one looks at the alternative, it is the only option that does not result in serious economic problems for every community in the Basin. However, the Basin needs the tools that allow us to make the water transfer happen. What Has to Happen? If we want any outcome other than the shutdown of a large number of acres, then some of the current Board members on the URNRD and MRNRD need to be replaced with people who do not want the shut down of acres. In addition, a way needs to be found that will permit the Basin to import water. Permission for the transfer comes from the State, either the DNR or the Legislature. Permission to fund the project comes from the Legislature. If the Legislature does not permit these solutions or the NRDs refuse to implement the transfer, then there will be a large-scale elimination of irrigation in the Republican River Basin. WaterClaim has laid out detailed proposals that show how to manage the water so that the economy of the Basin is protected. If you want to protect the future of Nebraska and the future of the communities in the Republican River Basin, then you need to choose to be involved. There are many ways you can participate.
|
