WaterClaim

I get a bit weary of the University of Nebraska thinking the farmers of Nebraska need more education on how to farm. Over the years UNL has spent a lot of time and money telling farmers how to do this or do that. The latest fad is to get a grant to tell farmers how to make more money using less water. The fact is, the cost of pumping water is high enough that almost no one can afford to use any more water than is required to produce a crop.

In my opinion, it is the guys behind the desk in Lincoln that need an education not the farmer who has a lifetiem of experience dealing with limited allocations and droughts. The farmers in the Upper Republican River Basin have lived with strict allocations for over 20 years. They know how to manage water. They rotate crops; capture precipitation; utilize low pressure sprinkers with drops; and use soil blocks, automatic shutoffs when it rains, and a myriad of other things.

But the University apparently thinks it needs $885,000 dollars to find out which crops use more or less water and to write a software program that will help a farmer figure it all out. I hope they consult a farmer as they write the software. They might discover the farmer already knows more than they do. It isn't any secret which crops use a large amount of water and which don't. The data already exists.

Oh, I happen to know someone that can write the software and enter the existing data for a few hundred thousand less. Perhaps UNL can use the extra money to write another grant.

Story about the grant at KNEB.

Posted by Steve Smith at 08:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sarah McCammon with Nebraska Net Radio reports on a water meeting being put together by Roger Harmon of Imperial, Nebraska. Roger is not satisfied with the lack of answers coming from the DNR and would like to get the story straight from Kansas.

Ann Bleed says that until the State sits down with the NRDs and other stakeholders , that the State cannot answer the question of how it will deal with Nebraska being out of compliance. It is because the DNR continues to evade the question of how Nebraska can protect itself that a farmer is going directly to Kansas and seeking their perspective.

Listen to the story

Meeting Date is Thursday, October 19th, 7:30pm in Imperial. Location is Imperial Inn at the corner of Hwy 61 and 12th Street. Free to the public. David Barfield will take questions.

Posted by Steve Smith at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rocky Mountain News reports that the Department of the Interior signs the Cooperative Agreement.

Posted by Steve Smith at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In late August, another group of Colorado irrigation wells were ordered turned off. These wells were within a few miles of the Nebraska Colorado border. The crops still needed water. One of the well owners went out to turn the well on and found this notice taped to his control panel.

About 90% of the irrigation in Nebraska is done with groundwater. About half of the irrigation on the Platte is done with surface water as opposed to groundwater irrigation. Surface irrigation is represented by irrigation districts and the DNR. Groundwater has little representation. NRDs regulate groundwater but are elected by the public at large and represents everyone, not just groundwater irrigators.

The Cooperative Agreement the Governor is considering signing is supported by surface irrigators, the DNR, and environmental groups. The supporters of the Cooperative Agreement talk about the cost of implementing the Agreement but almost never talk about the pre-Agreement costs that will be at least 10 times as large. It is kind of like talking about the payments on the new house as being $50 a month but not mentioning that to get that rate we had to make a down payment of 90% of the value.

Here is a story by the Grand Island Independent about the recent hearing on the Cooperative Agreement. (Registration required) Just keep in mind that most of the groundwater irrigators in the State are not represented by anyone and as a result are not choosing to defend themselves.

Posted by Steve Smith at 05:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Many of us have heard variations of the following quotes from the DNR and from several NRD board members and managers.

* “We expect Kansas to have a bit of mercy – we have tried hard to comply.”

* “Kansas buys a lot of corn from Nebraska and they don’t want to shut us down.”

* “We have done a lot – moratoriums, reduced allocations, CREP, EQIP, surface water buyouts, and then there is the drought, Kansas will understand and we shouldn’t panic.”

* “Its complicated, we are working on it. Trust us. Kansas has indicated privately that they may not push us too hard on this.”

Nebraska will fail to honor its agreement with Kansas on Dec 31, 2007. The primary question for this area is what happens when we fail? Will Kansas return to Court and force some or all the irrigation wells off?

For two years WaterClaim has been raising the alarm saying there is a problem, all of the things we have been doing are not nearly enough, and that we think there is a high risk that communities in the Republican River Basin will be turned into ghost towns if Kansas forces the issue.

Currently water policy makers at first denied that there was a problem and now hope that Kansas will accept our failure. The official line is that we have tried hard and Kansas has indicated that they appreciate what we have done. So don’t worry, everything is under control.

There is just one little problem with the official line. On September 20, 2006, the Topeka Capital Journal reported that “State attorneys and agriculture officials Tuesday urged legislators to prepare for expensive legal wrangling to force Nebraska and Colorado to comply with court-ordered agreements on water consumption.”

You can read the full story online at Topeka Capital Journal. You will have to register to read the story. It is worth registering to read. The story refutes Nebraska’s official line. There are a number of statements made by various Kansas officials that affirm the WaterClaim warnings.

The following are some of the key quotes. Please read the full story in context at the Capital Journal site linked to above. Decide for yourself if Kansas will have mercy while we fail to comply.

“Staff members with the Kansas attorney general's office and the state Department of Agriculture told a joint House-Senate committee it may be necessary to return to federal court to make certain the neighboring states abide by pacts on water flow into Kansas.”

"We must be vigilant to protect the victories we won in court," said David Davies, deputy attorney general.

Constantine Cotsoradis, assistant agriculture secretary, said drought in the Midwest made it difficult for states to comply with water flow arrangements. However, he said, maneuvering by irrigators in Nebraska and Colorado contributed to shortages that left some Kansans "little or no water" for crops.

"This is an ongoing battle," Cotsoradis said. "I don't use that term loosely."

Sen. Mark Taddiken, R-Clifton, and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Kansas must aggressively defend its water rights.

"Water is like gold," he said. "It's an economic lifeline."

Posted by Steve Smith at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As you read through the list, notice who represents the Nebraska groundwater irrigators. Keep in mind the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources has the authority to regulate surface water for Nebraska. It does not have authority to regulate groundwater. In Nebraska, the NRDs regulate groundwater, and the DNR defends the State’s surface water rights.

The Cooperative Agreement is designed to protect surface water flows. Nebraska groundwater irrigation was not represented; yet the Agreement will have a major impact on groundwater irrigation, if it is implemented. The decision on whether to implement the plan is in the hands of the Governor of Nebraska. He alone decides if this proposal is good for Nebraska.

The Governance Committee is a group set up to draft the Cooperative Agreement. The number of votes each group gets is in parentheses.
 
Primary
  • (1) Director, Wyoming Water Development Office
  • (1) Goshen Irrigation District
  • (1) Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
  • (1) Nebraska Public Power District
  • (1) Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture
  • (1) Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
  • (2) U.S. Department of the Interior
          • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
          • Bureau of Reclamation
  • (2) Environmental Groups
          • National Audubon Society
          • The Platte River Whooping Crane Trust
          • National Wildlife Federation
          • Nebraska Wildlife Federation
          • American Rivers

Alternates
  • Wyoming State Engineer
  • Pathfinder Irrigation District
  • Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
  • Denver Water Department
 
The first Cooperative Agreement was signed in 1997 by Governor Ben Nelson. He committed the State of Nebraska to develop a Platte River Basin plan to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The signing of the 1997 Agreement allowed NPPD and CNPPID to obtain licenses to operate hydroelectric facilities on the Platte.
 
Recently, two of the members of this Governance Committee have made public announcements (making headline news) that they support what they themselves helped write.
 
 

Posted by Steve Smith at 07:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kearney Hub story on surface water support for the Cooperative Agreement.

Remember the groups listed here as supporting the agreement helped write it.

Posted by Steve Smith at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Omaha World Herald Editorial position on water is no secret. They believe there is too much irrigaton happening.

Read their position for yourself.

Protests all wet

Remember they hide their opinion behind a registration page.

Posted by Steve Smith at 04:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Perhaps one of you knows, can the Governor commit the State to a multiyear interstate agreement that potentially costs Nebraska hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars without the consent of the Legislature? The President of the United States cannot commit the nation to multi-country treaties without the consent of Congress. Does Nebraska require more than one person to make the decision?

Posted by Steve Smith at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Links to three newspaper pieces. Each site requires registration to read. (Contact me if you cannot access the items) In essense, each says the same thing. The Cooperative Agreement commits Nebraska to a very large, unknown cost that has had no discussion. That cost should be identified before Nebraska signs the blank check.

Midland Voices - Steve Smith - WaterClaim also posted here.

Midland Voices - Don Blankenau

Grand Island Independent - Central Platte NRD

Posted by Steve Smith at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WaterClaim has prepared a Fact Sheet regarding the Cooperative Agreement. You can look at the report in MS Word by clicking on the download file. You may find reading it easier in word than here.

Download file

For those of you that don't have Word or that just want to start reading I have also posted it here for your consideration. This Fact Sheet was prepared after reading the proposed Cooperative Agreement and after talking with Jim Cook of the DNR and Chad Smith of American Rivers.

Fact Sheet Regarding

The Cooperative Agreement of 1997

The Cooperative Agreement of 2006

The Over-Appropriated Designation by LB962

By WaterClaim

1. The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a permit to anyone who removes water from any river in the nation where endangered species might be. 

2. The Platte River has been determined to have four endangered species:  the piping plover, the least tern, the pallid sturgeon, and the whooping crane. 

3. In order to obtain Federal licenses to operate facilities such as the hydroelectric plant at Kingsley Dam, the State of Nebraska signed a Cooperative Agreement in 1997 promising that it would not make any new developments that would remove water from the Platte and that, if it did, it would compensate for those effects.  We call this the CA97 (Cooperative Agreement of 1997).

4. In 2004, the Nebraska Legislature passed LB962, which allowed the Department of Natural Resources to designate parts of Nebraska’s rivers as over-appropriated.  Any portion of a river, so designated, must create an Integrated Management Plan between the DNR and the NRDs that will reduce water usage to a fully appropriated status.  The DNR is still trying to decide what this means in acres or acre feet.  Rumor has the required reduction to be around 500,000 acres.  There are no official statements on the subject.  This is a very similar number to the increase in irrigated acres since 1997.

5. In August of 2006, the State of Nebraska determined that about 505,000 new irrigated acres were added to the Platte River Basin.  Nebraska had promised either to not allow these acres or to compensate for their effect.

6. The Cooperative Agreement of 2006 (CA06) assumes that the effects caused by the new uses since 1997 will already be addressed.  CA06 addresses the pre-1997 effects.  CA06 calls for about 417,000 acre feet of water to be added to the river and says that this water will be added to the river in the spring and fall. 

7. The COHYST computer model was developed for the purpose of determining the effect on the stream of each irrigated acre  during any given time period.  A well close to the stream will have a greater effect than a well far from the stream.  The COHYST model will determine how many irrigated acres must be taken out of production or what the allocation can be limited to for everyone so as to yield 417,000 acre feet.  The official results of the COHYST model have not yet been released.  They were due during the summer of 2006. 

8. CA06 calls for the 417,000 acre foot addition to the stream to happen over three 13-year phases.  The first phase requires no cash from Nebraska and 70,000 acre feet of reductions over what it has already made.  The next two phases require Nebraska to make much larger reductions that will have a dramatic effect on the economy of the State.

9. In total, Nebraska must eliminate

                                            i.      The effect of 505,000 new post-1997 acres as the effects occur.  These effects are small during the first few years but the effects on the stream grow rapidly with each passing year.

                                          ii.      70,000 acre feet in effects within 13 years.

                                        iii.      Another 180,000 acre feet in effects 13 to 39 years from now.

The conversion of acre feet into acres requires the use of the COHYST model that has not been released yet.  For example, if a well has a 33% depletion effect on the stream after 40 years then to increase the stream flow by 70,000 acre feet, one would need to stop irrigation on 70,000 divided by 0.33 to find the number of acres.  This example would result in 212,000 acres needing to be shut off to yield the desired increase in flow.  However, the same results could be achieved with many fewer acres by targeting the wells within one mile of the stream.  Wells within a mile of the stream may have a depletion factor as high as 90%, and wells 10 miles from the stream may have a depletion factor of only 1%.  The CA06 lays out the costs and number of acres required, depending on which of several various scenarios are chosen.

It is important to note that the increase of 505,000 irrigated acres has a minimal effect now; but over the next several decades, this effect will increase dramatically.  This effect and the consequences of how we adjust for these new acres has not been talked about by the public.

10. The CA06 changes when the river flows.  The change does not restore the stream to a historical flow but rather creates a new flow pattern that some believe will favor the fish and wildlife along the river.

11. When comparing the Platte River flows of the last 17 years with the 17 years prior to the construction of Kingsley Dam, one finds that:

                                            i.      Total stream flow during the most recent seventeen years is nearly 50% more than the flow of the seventeen years between 1935 and 1952.

                                          ii.      The dam has eliminated 90% of the dry stream days. Prior to the dam, the stream at Grand Island was dry 17% of the time. During the most recent seventeen years, the stream has only been dry 2% of the time.

                                        iii.      There have been more floods/stream surge days in the most recent seventeen years as compared to the seventeen pre-dam years.

12. The Platte River Basin had about 2,620,000 irrigated acres in 1997.  By the end of 2005, the Basin had increased its acreage to 3,125,000 acres.  These numbers are produced by The Governance Committee of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and the State of Nebraska.  Has the number of bushels of corn increased to match the increase in acres or has the reporting simply identified acres that were already in production but not on the records?

13. The average Platte River flow at Grand Island for 1935 through 2003 was 1,113,000 acre feet a year.  From 1994 through 2003, the river averaged 1,349,000 acre feet. The CA06 asks that 417,000 more acre feet be put in the river because this is how much the river has been shorted.  If we add 417,000 to the current average flow of 1.35 million acre feet we will have nearly twice the 68 year average flow in the river.   Even with the drought reduced flows of 2001, 2002, and 2003, the last 10 years are still above average on their flows. 

14. 90% of the reason Lake McConaughy is low is because of a drought in Wyoming.  Even Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District acknowledges that ground water irrigation is causing at most 100,000 acre feet of depletion compared to the 900,000 acre feet the drought has caused.   Shutting off all of the groundwater irrigation wells west of McConaughy will cause at most an increase in flow of 100,000 acre feet after 40 years.  This is compared to the 68 year average flow of 1,113,000 acre feet.  It is frustrating when there is a shortage of water but it is important to base long term policy decisions on the facts and not on passion.

Posted by Steve Smith at 03:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WaterClaim is a non-profit water policy research group representing groundwater irrigation.

Is the Cooperative Agreement a good deal?

WaterClaim says the answer is ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ The answer is ‘yes’ because it creates a framework that protects surface irrigation and the environment. The answer is ‘no’ because: 1) It does not go far enough in addressing the new acres since 1997; 2) It changes when the river flows. The river never has flowed the way it is now proposed to make it flow; 3) Long term, the proposal will force the shutdown of over a third of the current groundwater irrigation wells in the Platte River Basin; and, 4) Nothing in the Agreement addresses the costs associated with the 505,000 acres added since 1997. It only addresses the pre-1997 costs.

Should the Agreement be signed? Perhaps, but not until all of the costs -- not just the pre-1997 ones -- are identified.

Who is responsible for paying for the cost of eliminating post-1997 development effects? Discussion of this responsibility has never happened in public. There are no cost estimates for eliminating 505,000 irrigated acres. They are not a part of the Cooperative Agreement. Do we eliminate them all now, or do we only address the cost of the small impact they have today and let a future generation deal with the much larger effect they will have 20 years from now? I can assure you that the next generation will condemn this one for creating a water debt and obligating our children to pay most of the costs.

In 1997, Nebraska agreed to not allow any new water uses yet did nothing to stop development. Many of the people who invested thousands and millions of dollars didn’t even know the State had made an Agreement about their activities.

Is changing when the river flows a good idea? Perhaps, but the plan does not restore the river to something it used to be. It creates something new. You can look at the data for yourself at www.waterclaim.org Look at the Platte River at Grand Island study.

On top of the requirements of the Cooperative Agreement, Nebraska is committed to reducing the effect of 505,000 groundwater acres. And, there is no discussion on who will pay the bill. We are committed because of an Agreement made in 1997 and because LB962 passed in 2004.

The Cooperative Agreement assumes that Nebraska will, at Nebraska’s expense, deal with the effects of the post-1997 acres as these effects happen and simultaneously implement the additional requirements of the Cooperative Agreement.

Signing the new Cooperative Agreement provides for Federal enforcement mechanisms, changes when the river flows, eliminates additional groundwater irrigation acres over and above the effects of the post-1997 acres, and gives some additional protection for surface irrigation. Should we sign this new Agreement? Perhaps, but know that it is just a part of a very large economic commitment, most of which there has been no discussion about in public.

Posted by Steve Smith at 03:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Cooperative Agreement, Is it good for Nebraska? A hearing was held in Gering today to get public input on the question. Here is the Omaha World Herald story on the subject.

Keep in mind that most of the costs are not talked about in the Cooperative Agreement. The cost of taking back to 1997 are pre-Cooperative Agreement costs that Nebraska has to pay before the costs of the Cooperative Agreement kick in. These costs are usually only vaguely refered to by the supporters of the Cooperative Agreement.

Posted by Steve Smith at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A story by the World Herald on the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District decision on 2007 irrigation releases.

Notice the decision by CNPPID to not yet file suit against groundwater irrigators.

Posted by Steve Smith at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The State of Nebraska will soon decide on whether to sign a Cooperative Agreement that changes how much water is in the Platte and when the water is in the Platte. There is a great deal of confusion regarding some of the specifics of what is required.

There are two sets of requirements. One is what Nebraska must do to compensate for the new acres added since 1997. The other is what must be done to compensate for the acres added prior to 1997. The comments you hear and the numbers that are often used mix the two requirements together and it quickly gets confusing. In fact, even after several discussions with various water policy officials I am confused as to the requirements. Is it 500,000 acres, 450,000 acres, 72,000 acres. The answers vary depending on who is answering the question. Soon, I hope to be able to put names to answers so we can hopefully at least get the facts straight as we make policy decisions.

Also note, that the Cooperative Agreement calls for an increase in the stream flow each year by 450,000 acre feet. You should read the Platte River Study and keep that number in mind.

Posted by Steve Smith at 04:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)