WaterClaim Open Letter Regarding the Cooperative Agreement
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.