WaterClaim

The second transfer supported by WaterClaim is a move of water from the Sandhills into the Upper Republican NRD. This transfer solves most of Nebraska's water problems. It captures and uses water that is currently left to evaporate. It helps refill and keep Lake McConaughy full. It eliminates the over-appropriated status of the Platte River. It meets the Endangered Species Act requirements. It recharges the aquifer in the Republican River Basin. It restores stream flows on the Republican River. It satisfies the agreement with Kansas. It creates a large number of jobs, and keeps the economy of western Nebraska alive.

However, both of these transfers are opposed by most water policy makers. A variety of reasons are given, but the basic reason for the opposition is that the opponents believe it is a bad idea to modify nature. There is also an economic reason. Individuals along the Platte do not want any competition for the water they are currently using.
If water is not imported into the Republican River Basin, then the agreement made with Kansas will require the immediate shutdown of about 145,000 acres, assuming all of those acres come from within one mile of the streams. Because of the Lag Effect, additional acres will be shut down each year. According to the DNR, there must be a 1% reduction in usage each year. After 50 years, that means more than 60% of the irrigation will be gone. This would be an immediate shutdown of 10% of the land and then an additional 1% reduction each year thereafter.

Note that the 145,000 acre number is a WaterClaim estimate. The DNR will undoubtedly dispute this number yet will also refuse to produce an estimate of its own. The DNR is fond of calling our numbers misleading; but, the DNR will not make any estimates or official release of any numbers that the policy makers can rely on when making decisions. The reason the DNR has stopped making any statements about what is required is because its past statements have been very wrong. The DNR told the public in 2004 that a reduction in use by 5% and a shutdown of 50,000 acres would be enough to solve the problem with Kansas. In 2005, the DNR admitted that even shutting off all wells would not bring Nebraska into compliance. Now, the DNR will not make any estimates.

For Nebraska to stay in compliance, 145,000 specific acres must be denied access to water. Even with this number of acres shut off, Nebraska will still fail to meet the 2007 deadline; but it will be able to meet future requirements after paying damages for the 2007 failure. This damage payment will get a lot of press and will fuel the demand for a shutdown of irrigated acres. Many will argue that the damage payment is a reason for irrigation to be shut off without compensation, strengthening the hands of those wanting to put more restrictions on water use across the State, even in areas that are not affected by the problems in the Republican.

How does the shutdown happen? If you are the current user of the water, how are you persuaded to stop using the water when your neighbor a mile a way can continue? The State must either use eminent domain type of rules or pay above-market rates to persuade all of the necessary acres to shut off. The eminent domain type rules are called Ground Water Management Plans. It allows the NRD to designate certain areas as subject to different rules. The water allocation can be set at 2 inches for this ground and 10 inches for other ground. Under this scenario, there is no compensation for the landowner.

The other way is to pay the landowner cash. CREP/EQIP type programs are currently trying to do this. The landowner is paid $125 an acre and, in exchange, stops using water for 10 or 15 years. So far, this is not enough money to persuade enough people to participate in the programs that are available. So, for a voluntary program to work, the amount paid per acre needs to be increased or the landowner must be forced to accept this amount.
To date, the existing water policy makers have been unwilling to pay to retire the necessary acres or to permit an importation of water. Because the existing policy makers are unwilling to do what must be done, it is likely that a Federal judge will make the decision for them in the year 2009 or 2010. Assuming a transfer mechanism has not been setup, the only option available to a judge will be the shutting down of irrigation wells. If no Groundwater Management Plan area has been created that separates the land near the streams from all of the rest of the land, then the judge will have limited options. The questions then become: which wells will be shut off, and what, if any, compensation is paid?

Mike Mosel, Dean Large and Jerry Kuenning (each on the Board of Directors of the Upper Republican NRD) believe that everyone in the district should be treated the same. "It is a matter of fairness." This means they prefer that all wells be restricted equally, even if they produce different results. They argue that the wells in Perkins County should be treated the same way as the wells next to the stream, even though the Perkins County wells have had almost no measurable effect on the Republican River after 40 years of pumping. These individuals represent the will of the community. As long as they remain in office, they speak for the people, and it is likely the judge will accept that the people want what their elected representatives say they do and has no reason to think otherwise. Shutdowns of irrigation are likely as long as the people living in the Republican River Basin have elected representatives who prefer this option.