Rumors
Apparently there is a rumor going around that WaterClaim would support a 15% reduction in allocation if water transfers were permitted.
False.
WaterClaim has long said that reductions in allocations are nearly meaningless. They cause the farmer a lot of pain but have little benefit to the stream. WaterClaim does not support symbolic gestures that fail to address the issue. Cutting allocations by 5%, 10%, 50% or even 100% will not solve the current overage. We were the first to point that out in late spring of 2005. Even the DNR acknowledges that shutting off all of the wells will not solve the problem so why does the DNR suggest a 15% reduction beyond what has already been done?
We believe this is because the State has decided that making the cuts necessary are politically unacceptable and they don't want to import water so the best thing to do is try to reduce usage and hope that Kansas finds that to be acceptable. The idea seems to be that the more the Nebraska farmers yell and scream the better the show and hopefully the more convinced Kansas and a judge will be that the cuts are meaningful.
WaterClaim finds that logic to be unpersuasive. We prefer that the Agreement with Kansas be modified to include conservation uses. We are convinced that the numbers the State agreed to use are intentionally missing key elements. When those elements are correctly accounted for then proper responsibility can be assigned. The current Agreement, wrongly places all of the blame on groundwater irrigators.
WaterClaim realizes that it will take time and political force to cause this change to happen. In the meantime we believe we can comply with the agreement with Kansas by importing water into the Basin. We are not willing to make meaningless allocation reductions just to get a transfer in place.
Water imports are likely to happen. They are likely because the alternative is shutting off so many irrigated acres that even the State cannot afford to pay the bill.