Bigger problem than most want to admit
The DNR announced today that Nebraska is over its 2005 Republican River allocation by 42,000 acre feet and that the accumulated overage for this accounting period is 104,000 acre feet. What the DNR does not report is how many acre feet credit Nebraska expects to receive for all of the surface water purchases made in 2006 or what benefits are expected from the reduced allocations farmers have been given. The DNR says that the drought is the primary cause of the greatest overage in Nebraska history. Yet, the Republican River Basin received 98% of normal precipitation in 2005. So far, 2006 is dryer than 2002, which was the driest year in history.
Year Precip % of Normal
1999 104%
2000 87%
2001 104%
2002 63%
2003 85%
2004 106%
2005 98%
The “drought” does not cause the problem in the year it happens. It has a delayed effect. To make the point, look at the following graph. Look at the precipitation line and use it to predict what the allocation line will do the following year. According to the DNR, the allocation line is going down because the precipitation line is going down.
In reality, the lack of precipitation will cause a lower allocation in the future. A drop of rain falling away from the river or a well pumping away from the river does not cause a change in stream flow in the year it happens. How it affects the river is dependent on geology, conservation practices, distance from river, time of year it falls, and a number of other factors.
Because of the delayed effect precipitation and pumping have, it is possible for the DNR to make highly accurate predictions of what future overages will be, even if we don’t know how much rain we will get.
Note that Nebraska is 104,000 acre feet over its allocation. We have an unknown credit for the surface water purchases. We still have 2006 and 2007 overages that have to be added in. It is possible that the 2006 and 2007 numbers will be positive, but we have been averaging 35,000 acre feet over for the last three years. So, we use that average for budgeting purposes.
Year Overage
2003 (25,420)
2004 (36,640)
2005 (42,029)
2006 (35,000)
2007 (35,000)
------------
Total (174,089)
3 Yr Avg (34,696)
Nebraska will receive credits in acre feet of approximately:
Year Credit Description
2006 1,500 CREP/EQIP
2007 2,500 CREP/EQIP
2006 35,000 Surface water purchase
--------
Total 39,000
174,000 in overages minus 39,000 in credits equals 135,000 in net overage at the end of the deadline.
Shutting off all 1,200,000 irrigated acres in the Basin for one year would give Nebraska about 23,000 acre feet of credit in the first year. If the wells were to stay off a second year, Nebraska would receive another 45,000 in credits. As can be seen, the wells have to stay off for several years to eliminate the existing overages. About 98% of the credits come from the wells within 2 miles of the stream. So, one could get nearly the same benefits by turning off just the wells close to the stream. True, these landowners would feel discriminated against, but the cost savings are huge. Yet, there are 334,000 acres close to the streams. Each of those acres provides about $250 of net economic activity to the local community. Shutting off only those acres would remove about $83 million dollars a year from the Republican River Basin, with half of that being in the Lower Republican NRD.
To our knowledge, the State has no plans on how to deal with this problem. The State will not talk about how it will resolve the issue of the decade. Many hope the problem will just go away. But, the problem is much bigger than the drought. Even if it starts to rain, this problem will persist. Irrigation is under assault. In Colorado, 400 irrigation wells were ordered turned off this spring, even though seed was already in the ground. There does not appear to be any plans to compensate the losers. Two surface irrigation districts in Northeast Colorado have sued, asking Colorado courts to force the shutdown of all irrigation until the streams return to normal. Even if the wells are turned off, the streams will not return to normal for several hundred years. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has also filed suit, asking the Colorado Courts to force the shutdown of all irrigation wells until the streams return to normal. Surface irrigators, ranchers, environmentalists, and conservationists are demanding that there be less or no irrigation. Some of these groups are willing to go to court to force the issue.
The Agreement that Nebraska made with Kansas requires Nebraska to stop Republican River stream flow declines and hold it at the 2002 level. Because of the Lag Effect (the delayed results of past pumping), Nebraska will be forced to shut off more irrigated acres each year until most irrigation ceases in the Basin. This is on top of the current overage problem.
At present, most are in denial that irrigation in Nebraska is at serious risk. Most trust their government to protect them and provide a solution. Most believe that the corn produced is too important for the government to allow a shutdown to happen. The smart/rich people wouldn’t be investing millions into ethanol plants if irrigation was truly at risk, right? Some farmers believe what they are doing is okay; it is just the farmers in the other District or other Basin who are giving everyone a bad name. If the other guy would just behave responsibly, the problems would go away. Many farmers and rural communities refuse to recognize that their way of life will probably end sooner than they realize. It isn’t that we are running out of water; instead our society is choosing to stop using it in the same way we have over the last 60 years. Such a decision will change the demographics and economy of much of western Nebraska.
WaterClaim accurately predicted the 2005 depletions. We estimated they would be 200,000 AF. The DNR reports today that they were 199,420.
WaterClaim is the only group to have a suggestion on the table for how to solve the problem. The State and NRDs refuse to make any public proposals on how to prevent the economic destruction of the region. While some claim the WaterClaim ideas are politically unacceptable, the idea of shutting off 300,000 to 1.2 million acres is also politically unacceptable. Ask yourself. What would be a politically acceptable solution that might even come close to solving the problem.