50 years down the road
About 2% of all groundwater depletions result from pumping in the year the pumping occurs. According to the DNR, the other 98% of the water we pump from the ground will cause future year depletions to the stream.
Some of the directors on the Middle Republican NRD publicly wondered why, when they cut water usage by 25%, they get so little credit. The reason is that pumping has a very delayed effect on the stream. How much water we use in any one year will not show up in the numbers until years later.
In 2005, groundwater irrigators pumped 1.15 million acre feet of water out of the ground. According to the DNR, the stream would have had 199,000 AF more water in it if groundwater irrigation had never happened. That 199,000 is the result of 70 years of pumping that is just now catching up with us. And, of the 199,000 AF that we are charged with using, only 21,000 AF was caused during 2005 pumping.
In other words, of the 1,150,000 AF pumped, only 21,000 AF of depletions were caused in the year the water was pumped. The other 1,129,000 AF pumped in 2005 will cause future depletions to the stream. Since the water has already been pumped, there is nothing we can do to stop the future effects.
Of the 21,000 AF that this year’s pumping caused, 99% of that is caused by wells within 2 miles of the stream. The wells further than 2 miles from the stream have a delayed effect that will haunt us in the future.
The 199,000 AF of depletions that we are charged with this year are the result of the accumulated pumping that has happened since irrigation began. In fact, even if every irrigation well is turned off today, the pumping from prior years will continue to cause depletions to the streams for many more centuries.
Ann Bleed from the DNR says that all water pumped from the ground since irrigation began in the 1930s would have eventually ended up in the stream. The DNR says that irrigators today and tomorrow will have to supplement the stream with water to make up for the effects of prior year pumping. So if 100 AF of water were removed from the ground in 1953, the DNR might estimate that 2 AF of those 100 AF would have been in the stream in 2007 if they had not been pumped in 1953. The Agreement with Kansas requires Nebraska to supplement the stream in 2007 with 2 AF to make up for the action of many years ago.
The DNR’s suggested way of compensating the stream for prior year effects is by shutting off irrigation that is close to the stream. It’s a timing game. It is similar to kiting checks. We write a check we don’t have enough money in the bank to cover. So, we start writing hot checks between banks and hope that we can keep ahead of the time it takes them to process the checks. At some point, the entire shell game collapses.
In the Republican River Basin, the wells close to the stream have effect within a few years while the wells far from the stream don’t have most of their effect until the next generation. So, by shutting off wells close to the stream, we can continue to pump the wells further away. But, each year we have to shut off more acres. Because of the Agreement Nebraska signed with Kansas, we will be forced to shut down most of the irrigation in the Republican River Basin within 50 years or come up with a different solution. First, it seems we will make symbolic allocation reductions for everyone. These are sacrifices that have almost no benefit to the stream. They sure are painful, but much easier to do than the actual shutdown or imports that are required.
Next, we will begin to shut down the wells close to the streams. Every few years, we will be forced to shut down more acres. The further we get from the stream, the less benefit we get from shutting them off. As a result, we will have to shut off more and more acres to get the credit we need.
The Feds are paying for the shutdown of 70,000 acres, but that will not be nearly enough. And, the Feds are saying they will not be putting more money in. Shutting down irrigated acres is not cheap, and the State will not choose to compensate all of the landowners who have their access to water denied, for it will require more money than the State can afford.
The alternative to uncompensated shutdowns is to import water into the Basin. But, for that to happen, the NRDs have to want it to happen. So far, only the Lower Republican NRD has supported imports. The other NRDs prefer to wait on the State to come up with a solution. The Upper Republican and Middle Republican NRDs have suggested increasing property taxes 60% for the purpose of raising funds to pay farmers to not irrigate. That idea was found to be politically unacceptable by the State. Right now, most people are simply in denial. The problem is too big to want to think about it.
The decision ultimately rests with the voters. It is the voter who chooses who will sit on the NRDs and in the Legislature. Regardless of how well informed the voter is, it is those of us who vote who will be choosing the people that make the water decisions. Personally, I hope we each take the time to find out if our candidate prefers to ignore the problem, see a progressive shut down of irrigation, import water into the Basin, or if can find another option that will actually work and not just sound good. Your choices are important to southwest Nebraska.