« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
I have updated the ethanol map to show all of the ethanol plants in the nation. This includes both the ones in production and the ones which have been announced but not built.
If you already have Google Earth installed, you can open the overlay by visiting the
Google Earth Community and downloading the overlay.
If not, you will need to install Google Earth first (available at http://earth.google.com).
Nebraska must reduce Platte irrigated acres by 15% to 18%.
According to the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program - Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1, page 5-255 there were an average of 2.62 million irrigated acres in the Nebraska portion of the Platte River Basin during 1988 to 1997. See report. Nebraska has agreed to reduce the number of irrigated acres to the 1997. It can do this by eliminating the equivalent of all new acres or reducing the effect on the stream caused by all new acres by an equal amount.
According to the latest unofficial information released by the Governance committee on the Platte River Program, Nebraska has added 450,000 acres Platte River irrigated acres since 1997. See story on report to Water Policy Task Force.
This means the total irrigated acres in the Nebraska portion Republican River Basin is currently 3,059,680 acres. Nebraska must, because of the Memorandum of Understanding with Colorado and Wyoming and because of LB962, eliminate irrigation on all acres added since 1997. This would be about 450,000 acres or 15% of the total.
In addition, if Nebraska signs the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program then Nebraska will reduce another 0% to 3% of the irrigated acres in the Nebraska portion of the Platte River Basin depending on which of the suggested options are chosen.
If Nebraska decides to attempt to comply by reducing usage for everyone, then fewer acres would need to be shut off but yields would be less for everyone.
I have created a couple of Google Earth map overlays that will allow you to see where the ethanol plants are now and where they are planned.
If you already have Google Earth installed, you can open the overlay by
visiting the
Google Earth Community and downloading the overlay.
If not, you will need to install Google Earth first (available at http://earth.google.com).
As most know, there are a huge number of new ethanol plants that are being planned for Nebraska as well as some other corn belt states. I have created a Google Earth overlay that shows how many plants are in operation or are being planned for Nebraska. The icons are coded to indicate if plants are in production, under construction, or simply announced. They are also sized to indicate the size of the facility.
While many people worry that there will be a glut of ethanol plants, keep in mind that even if every bushel of corn in the nation were run through an ethanol plant, we will still produce less than 15% of the nations fuel needs.
There is enough corn production to meet the needs. If more corn is needed, more acres will shift from soybeans to corn.
In less than two years, Nebraska is projected from being a corn exporter to a corn importer. This will cause major changes in how the economy of Nebraska works. Foremost it will cause a change in where cattle are fed in the nation. There will be a shift from places like the panhandle of Texas to Kansas, Colorado, and western Nebraska. This change will add a significant amount of money to the economy. Cattle are a value added product which requires more labor.
Even though there is a large amount of corn in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, they have several things that make them less attractive as a place to raise cattle. The three I’s have a climate that is less favorable to weight gain. There are more people in the rural areas of the three I’s and as a result few places where feedlots can be placed. While the tax structure favors Texas, Nebraska will still gain from this change.
The only thing that threatens the entire ethanol shift is Nebraska water policy. Nebraska, on the Republican River Basin, must comply with an Interstate Compact Agreement. Nebraska is far out of compliance now and risks seeing a Federal judge take control of Nebraska water policy. This places about 1.2 million acres at risk of losing their access to water or seeing their access reduced by half.
Nebraska is also committed to removing 450,000 acres from irrigated production in the Platte River Basin or about 15% of the total Platte River irrigated acres.
EWhile many people worry that there will be a glut of ethanol plants, keep in mind that even if every bushel of corn in the nation were run through an ethanol plant, we will still produce less than 15% of the nations fuel needs.
There is enough corn production to meet the needs. If more corn is needed, more acres will shift from soybeans to corn.
In less than two years, Nebraska is projected from being a corn exporter to a corn importer. This will cause major changes in how the economy of Nebraska works. Foremost it will cause a change in where cattle are fed in the nation. There will be a shift from places like the panhandle of Texas to Kansas, Colorado, and western Nebraska. This change will add a significant amount of money to the economy. Cattle are a value added product which requires more labor.
Even though there is a large amount of corn in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, they have several things that make them less attractive as a place to raise cattle. The three I’s have a climate that is less favorable to weight gain. There are more people in the rural areas of the three I’s and as a result few places where feedlots can be placed. While the tax structure favors Texas, Nebraska will still gain from this change.
The only thing that threatens the entire ethanol shift is Nebraska water policy. Nebraska, on the Republican River Basin, must comply with an Interstate Compact Agreement. Nebraska is far out of compliance now and risks seeing a Federal judge take control of Nebraska water policy. This places about 1.2 million acres at risk of losing their access to water or seeing their access reduced by half.
Nebraska is also committed to removing 450,000 acres from irrigated production in the Platte River Basin or about 15% of the total Platte River irrigated acres.
Ethanol, cattle, corn, are all dependent on Nebraska water policy. Nebraska water policy is decided by the Governor, the Nebraska Attorney General’s office, The Department of Natural Resources and 23 local Natural Resource Districts. The election will play a large role in determining what Nebraska water policy will be and if the potential from ethanol is realized.
These are a couple of recent stories about some of the experiences farmers are having in Colorado.
What I find interesting is that there are a number of Nebraska water policy people that are saying that anyone that talks about a judge shutting down wells is an alarmist. Just keep these Coloado stories in mind when someone like Ann Bleed or Jasper Fanning says that we will trust in the mercy of Kansas rather than doing what we must do to protect our access to water.
One of the things the Attorney General of Nebraska is charged with is defending the State of Nebraska against lawsuits. On August 23, 2006, the Nebraska Attorney General’s office told the Water Policy Task Force that the Task Force would not discuss the Republican River Basin or the value of water.
There is one reason for this demand by the Attorney General’s office. It believes Nebraska will return to Court on the Kansas issue and its job is to minimize the damage to Nebraska. Any discussion by an official body of the State is likely to be used by Kansas against Nebraska. The AGs office will try to minimize the value of water and the economic report given to the Task Force by Ray Supalla undermines this effort.
The problem with the State’s position is it ignores reality. The State’s position is naked and very obvious to Kansas and anyone else who cares to look.
Kansas has access to the same information that Nebraska has. It has the exact same data. It knows how much water Nebraska uses. It uses the same software model and can make the same analysis and predictions that Nebraska can. Kansas has economists that are capable of computing the value of water. The State of Nebraska’s attempt to hide the facts is a failure.
The DNR, the Attorney General’s office, the NRDs, and the Governor’s office are public entities that represent the public. The decisions they make have broad consequences. Tthe public these offices represent have a right to know what the facts are, what the possible solutions are, and what the ramifications of those decisions are. Hiding the information will not lessen Nebraska’s legal responsibilities.
The official State position on the Republican River Basin issue is no comment. Privately, representatives from the DNR, the AG, the Governor’s office, and the NRDs say that there are indications from Kansas that Kansas will not force the issue and that the public shouldn’t be concerned. In spite of numerous closed meetings between the Governor’s office, the DNR, and the NRDs, there is no plan in place -- no solution that the public can look to for keeping Nebraska in compliance with the Agreement it made with Kansas.
The question you should ask yourself is, do you think Kansas will ask the Court to enforce the judgment it already has against Nebraska? If you think Kansas will have mercy on Nebraska, then sleep well. If you think Nebraska should act to comply with the Court order instead of relying on the good will of Kansas, then your only option is to elect new NRD board members and a State Legislator, as they will be the only people you can choose that will be in a position to do what is necessary.
On Tuesday, August 23, The State of Nebraska announced that farmers in the Platte River Basin had added 450,000 irrigated acres since 1997. The problem is that Nebraska promised Colorado and Wyoming that it would, at Nebraska’s expense, reverse the effect of these acres on the river.
There are two ways Nebraska can accomplish this. One is to take 450,000 acres out of production. To not have any effect on the river, it needs to be wells with a similar impact on the stream as the ones that have been added.
The other way to comply is to reduce usage for everyone to accommodate the new acres. The distance from the river influences the effect any one well causes on the stream in a given time period.
The Cohyst Model has been created which is able to report the amount of credit Nebraska receives for shutting off any particular well.
The individual who has made the investment in developing a piece of ground for irrigation has done so with permission from the State of Nebraska. When Nebraska made the pledge to Colorado and Wyoming to stop all development at the 1997 level but then did nothing to actually restrict development activity it created a huge liability for itself.
Right now the discussion is about who is going to be liable and how much the individual will be compensated when his access to water is taken away. If you are an landowner in the Platte or Republican River Basins you should pay close attention because the State is in the process of deciding how much to compensate you for your asset.
Take a look at http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=2229209 for additional information.
On Tuesday August 22, 2006 representatives from the NRDs and irrigation districts in the Republican River Basin discussed transferring water from one river basin to another with in the State. The group made two motions and passed both. The first was to ask the Tri Basin NRD what type of reports and evidence it would like to have when it considering a request to permit a transfer of groundwater. The second was to appoint a committee to delineate what it is the group would like to do.
The committee is made up of Mike Clements, manager of the Lower Republican NRD; Jasper Fanning, manager of the Upper Republican NRD; Mike Delka, manager of the Bostwick Irrigation District.
I get the impression that the idea is to create a detailed plan such as what WaterClaim has already done. Only this time the details will be put together by three water managers. Jasper told the group that he believes, the E65 canal and Spring Creek are the best places to do any transfers. This matches what WaterClaim identified in 2004 and proposed. It is nice to see that Jasper agrees.
Jasper Fanning provided the group with a document showing all of the wells within one mile of the E65 canal and a list of all of the landowners. So a bit of background research has been done.
Over the next few weeks, I expect the committee will get together and decide the details of how a transfer might work. How much water is needed? Should it be groundwater or surface water or a combination of both? Should the water be sourced across a large area or a small area? How much water per acre can be accessed? How much might this project cost? How might it be paid for?
WaterClaim has placed its suggestions on how these questions might be answered on the table. The group will bring its experience to the discussion and perhaps find better answers.
WaterClaim will cooperate with the group and assist it in every way possible. WaterClaim believes that the transfer is the most economical solution for the State and the Basin. It is also the only way that the region is not forced to make major reductions.
Kansas points out that Nebraska and Colorado are failing to abide with the agreement made with Kansas. Nebraska officials have repeatedly suggeted that Kansas will have sympathy for the efforts to reduce water use and will perhaps not return to the Supreme Court on this issue. This article doesn't really say what Kansas will do.
Ray Supalla and others have released a report showing the economic costs of shutting down some of the irrigation in the Platte and Republican River Basins. The document is in MS Word. I have not reviewed it yet.