« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
The Denver Post reports that irrigators are blaming their local equivalent to an NRD for failing to address the problem. The Central Colorado Water Conservancy District has been pointing the figure at the cities that have forced a shut down of irrigation wells.
Water has become an issue in the Kansas race for Attorney General. Phill Kline is the sitting Attorney General. He is being challenged by Paul Morrison. The race is close.
Morrison said he was concerned Kline hadn't done enough to push Nebraska toward compliance of the compact settlement.
But Kline said water has been a key focus and that he would continue to be "aggressive and pro-active" in assuring water compact enforcement.
In the Imperial Republican, Nebraska Governor Heineman is quoted as saying, if the state is not successful, especially because of the extended drought, he feels that Kansas will still work with Nebraska.
WaterClaim has a political action arm that is supporting candidates for several water policy positions. These are the NRD races on which WaterClaim PEC has taken a position:
For the Upper Republican NRD, WaterClaim PEC supports
Jeff Wallin
Steve Jussel
Brett Bullock
Jarrat Malmkar
Tim Schilke
For the Middle Republican NRD WaterClaim PEC supports
Josh Friesen
Dan Nelsen
Benjie Loomis
Marty Schurr
Kevin Fornoff
Brad Randel
For the Lower Republican NRD WaterClaim PEC supports
Matt Harrison
John Thorburn - Manager of the Tri Basin NRD named as a finalist for the position of Exuctive Director of the State Environmental Trust.
Jody Gittins is also named. She has been the legal counsel for Senator Ed Schrock.
Story in the Lincoln Journal
I just love the headlines and editorials that the big city newspapers use. For example, the Denver Post says there is a need to "Root out Defiant Farmers" like these people are weeds that need to be destroyed.
Or the Omaha World Herald editorial that hopes farmers don't use shotguns to defend themselves when their water is taken away from them.
Obviously these are not words that are likely to help build trust or facilitate solutions but the people that write the headlines and editorials don't seem to realize the damage they are doing.
This seems like an appropriate quote for the situation.
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kearney Hub - It may take two to three years to see benefits. But what Kansas sees is not enough.
Net Radio - Unwise to believe Kansas will discontinue its efforts to get its share of the water.
Net Radio - Kansas will not look the other way.
State Paper - We want our water.
NTV - Kansas made it clear that his state intends to push Nebraska to meet it's obligations
KOLN/KGIN - Barfield declined to say what action Kansas might take.
Kansas City Star - Nebraska is "eating someone else's piece" of the pie when it comes to water.
David Barfield was very patient and politely responded to all questions. However, over half of the questions asked of Barfield were more statements than questions. Many were attempts to shift the blame to Kansas and in effect say, Kansas can’t complain about the low river because Kansas is just as guilty as Nebraska in drying up streams. There were many variations on this idea but many of the people in the audience were in denial that Kansas is in a position to force a shut down of Nebraska’s irrigation wells.
Barfield responded politely by pointing out that the US Supreme Court sided with Kansas and that it would be unwise for Nebraska to think Kansas won’t pursue all options available to obtain its water.
The meeting was useful if for no other reason than to make it clear to the farmers in southwest Nebraska that Kansas expects further reductions in allocations and the retirement of more acres and that it is not wise to ignore this demand.
“We want our water” said Mr. Barfield of the Kansas Department of Agriculture and Manager of Interstate Compact Agreements for Kansas.
“Nothing encourages us about 2007 or the coming years.”
“It is unwise to believe we will discontinue our efforts to get our water.”
Each of these were statements made by Mr. Barfield. The statements contrast sharply with comments made by Ann Bleed of the Nebraska DNR and Jasper Fanning of the Upper Republican NRD. Bleed and Fanning have both said that we should not panic; that we have done much to try and comply and that Kansas has privately indicated that it appreciates what Nebraska has done and that perhaps it will not force the issue.
So why do the Nebraska water officials try to downplay the threat? Nebraska knows that it will fail to comply with the agreement yet chooses to take only symbolic actions. It is almost as if the DNR wants Nebraska to fail. The suggestion is strongly refuted but actions speak much louder than words.
So far Nebraska has done the following things in an attempt to erase the 104,000 acre foot overage. Numbers are benefits in acre feet to Nebraska by the end of 2007.
* CREP/EQIP – 10,000
* Moratorium on wells – 0
* Reduced allocations – 0
* Purchase of surface water – 30,000 ? No official number or estimate
This leaves Nebraska very far out of compliance and with no other announced actions, almost certain to fail. Nor are there any announced or suggested plans that will keep Nebraska in compliance in the future.
So again, why does Nebraska knowingly take insufficient actions?
One theory, and it is only a theory, is that the DNR wants less irrigation in the Republican River Basin but lacks the political strength to cause this to happen. By failing, the issue is turned over to a Federal Judge who then orders what the DNR wants without the DNR taking the blame. The DNR simply points the finger at the judge and lets the Court be the bad guy.
What are some other reasons the DNR might fail to do its job? Incompetence? Indifference? Are these better answers than deliberate inaction?
Not only is the DNR doing nothing that will result in compliance now or the future, it is also discouraging the actions by others that would result in compliance. The NRDs have said they have not pursued inter-basin transfers because the DNR has discouraged them from doing so. The DNR has also refused to release to the public, even after open records requests, estimates of how many wells might need to be shut off in order to achieve compliance. The DNR has only confirmed that all wells would have to be shut off for at least 5 years before we come back into compliance.
Can you think of any other reason for the DNR to not only fail to protect the State but to also obstruct others from doing what is necessary? Please let us know if you can think of a more pleasant answer.
David Barfield - Kansas Water Official responsible for interstate water compacts.
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.
It is interesting that a large number of those expressing support for the Cooperative Agreement use the words, "Move Forward". "Nebraska needs to move forward." "Let's move forward." "... finally to move forward."
You would think that someone had written a talking points memo on what to say. Either that or the phrase has become an overused cliché that has lost its meaning, much like "How are you doing."
There are several legitimate reasons to sign the Cooperative Agreement. One is it permits surface water users to continue to divert over a million acre feet out of the Platte River and into canals. It permits hydroelectric power generation to obtain licenses to permit their continued operation (assuming there is enough water to turn the turbines.) It removes a lot of uncertainty. Moving forward isn't one of the persuasive reasons; the phrase is too nebulous to mean anything.
There are a lot of reasons to not sign the agreement. One is that it involves a Federal agency in groundwater management. Surface irrigators desperately want groundwater irrigation curtailed and would love the help of the US Fish and Wildlife in reducing irrigation by some of their neighbors.
Another reason is cost. It will cost Nebraska a fortune to comply with the Agreement. One question that hasn’t been asked is, will the Legislature fund the shutdown requirements and if it doesn’t, what happens? I predict that the people demanding the Agreement be signed will then condemn the Legislature if it doesn’t fund the shutdown or say that there should not be any compensation for those losing their access to water.
This is likely to be one of the most controversial subjects in Nebraska for many years.
The environmentalists and the surface irrigators support the Cooperative Agreement. As a general rule, those who use groundwater irrigation oppose the Cooperative Agreement. Of the NRDs, only the North Platte NRD supports the Cooperative Agreement but that is because they represent a large number or surface irrigators.
The Cooperative Agreement permits the Panhandle surface irrigators to continue to divert water from the Platte but requires the Central Platte area to put water back into the stream to make up for some of the upstream diversions.
This is a link to the WaterClaim testimony.
The Upper Big Blue issues a statement.
For the past seven years, the entire state of Nebraska has experienced— and by all indications will most likely continue to experience—a severe drought. In fact, every state west of the Missouri River has had drought conditions that range from moderate to severe over the past several years. The drought is directly correlated with changes in the regional and global climate related to temperature trends in the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, among other factors. Drought conditions have caused decline of water levels at Lake McConaughy and Harlan County reservoirs, as well as low stream flows in the majority of the rivers that pass through Nebraska.
Lower than normal snowfall along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, in Wyoming and Colorado, has produced lower than normal spring runoff into streams with headwaters in these states. Texas, Arizona, California, Wyoming and the Panhandle of Nebraska have been witness to wildfires that rage out of control due to below normal precipitation. We have even seen the grass, shrubs and trees in our own lawns struggle against the drought. The fact is that nature works in ebbs and flows and experiences ups and downs. Nature is not necessarily consistent, and it certainly does not discriminate…Nature is simply what it is…nature.
Some scientists believe that we are currently facing drought conditions that are not only reminiscent of the Dust Bowl era of the 1930’s, but even worse. Although we don’t see the tumbling tumble-weeds and throat choking dust as famously immortalized in the black and white era photographs of Dorthea Lange, we can take assurance in the fact that we are in better shape today to handle droughts because of technology and research that gives us the tools to better manage the soil and water that we depend upon to sustain our Nebraska economy. With this in mind, the Upper Big Blue Natural Resources District has implemented proactive rules and regulations to mitigate some of the hardship brought on by drought.
The drought issue is not exclusive to the State of Nebraska. Colorado in particular is shutting down water use for irrigators as the Eastern part of that state is experiencing problems with meeting a growing urban demand for water during the drought. Colorado’s problems with meeting urban water demand are magnified during drought when coupled with a growing commercial and industrial demand for water.
Without question, we are stewards of the land and water that we are privileged to use. However, completely eliminating the use of water for irrigation, either surface water or ground water, would be short-sighted. The Upper Big Blue NRD’s focus in the decision making process is to use the technology at-hand, and to act in both a proactive and protective way to manage the abundant supply of groundwater available. With this in mind, the Upper Big Blue NRD Board of Directors first established its Ground Water Management Area during 1977-78 to prepare for the conditions that we are facing today.
The initial goal of the management area regulations in 1979 was to hold the rate of decline in the Upper Big Blue NRD’s Average Ground Water Level to 0.50 feet per year. The Upper Big Blue NRD’s Observation Well Program includes a network of over 500 wells within the NRD that are measured each year to calculate the average ground water level. Through the conservation efforts of ground water users, and because of an extended period of above average rainfall in the 1980s and 1990s, the Average Ground Water Level in the Upper Big Blue NRD rose significantly to a level in the year 2000 that was approximately seven feet higher than the 1961 level, and fourteen feet higher than the low level of 1976 to 1981. In 1990, the Upper Big Blue NRD established the goal of holding the Average Ground Water Level to above the 1978 level.
In January 2004 the Upper Big Blue NRD changed Rule #5 of the Ground Water Management Area Rules and Regulations, which now requires that producers will be responsible for installing flow meters on existing wells if the average ground water level declines to the allocation level. Once the allocation level is reached, producers must install meters. If the allocation level is reached, and if producers and other users have not installed flow meters by the next calendar year, then those ground water users will not be allowed to pump ground water until a flow meter is installed. As of March 1, 2004, all new wells and replacement wells installed in the Upper Big Blue NRD are required to have a flow meter.
In the spring of 2006, the Upper Big Blue NRD measured ground water levels at 511 observation wells throughout the NRD. These measurements were then used to compute the Spring 2006 Average Ground Water Level within the NRD. The findings show that the Spring 2006 Average Ground Water Level in the Upper Big Blue NRD is 0.52 feet below the reporting level, and 2.48 feet above the allocation level. Observation wells are measured in the spring of each year, allowing the water table to rebound from the previous irrigation season. Therefore, the reporting level set forth by the Upper Big Blue NRD Rules & Regulations has now been reached. As a result, ground water users in the Upper Big Blue NRD are now required to report annual ground water use to the Upper Big Blue NRD and to certify their irrigated acres in 2007. If the Average Ground Water Level in the Upper Big Blue NRD falls below the 1978 level, the use of flow meters will be required and ground water allocation will begin. It is important for producers to check with their county assessors to see that all of their irrigated lands are being assessed as irrigated. These assessors’ records will establish the base of irrigated lands.
Overall, the Spring 2006 groundwater level change shows an average decline of 0.87 feet from the Spring of 2005. This compares with a Upper Big Blue NRD-wide decline of 0.79 feet between the Spring of 2004 and the Spring of 2005. Over the last six years (Spring 2000 to Spring 2006) the total decline is 11.39 feet below the peak groundwater level of 2000.
The Upper Big Blue NRD is in the process of sending well registration information packets and special reporting forms to water users regarding the 2007 reporting requirements. Municipal, commercial, and industrial users were sent this notification in September, and irrigators will be sent the notification in mid-October. This notification has already appeared in all newspapers located in the Upper Big Blue NRD in accordance with NRD Rules & Regulations. Also, contained in the letter to landowners will be the well registration information and number of irrigated acres that the Upper Big Blue NRD has on file for that landowner. It is the landowner’s responsibility to verify with the Upper Big Blue NRD whether or not the number of irrigated acres and well registration information is correct, and if the landowner is also the operator. [It is critical that this information is correct in case the Upper Big Blue NRD begins allocating ground water in the future].
It is imperative that landowners report their irrigated acres to their County Assessor. If the Upper Big Blue NRD begins allocation of ground water, and landowners have not reported the number of acres that they intend to irrigate, then they may not be allowed to irrigate those acres during the allocation period. If drought conditions continue, the Upper Big Blue NRD expects that ground water levels will continue to drop. When the drought ends, and normal to wetter than normal conditions return, the NRD expects that ground water levels will rise. The amount of recharge to the aquifer is directly dependent upon the amount of precipitation across the Upper Big Blue NRD. Irrigators in the NRD have voluntarily cut back on irrigation due to higher fuel costs to pump the water. The Upper Big Blue NRD which encompasses all or parts of nine counties (Adams, Butler, Clay, Fillmore, Hamilton, Polk, Saline, Seward and York Counties) has also seen a greater number of producers implementing minimum tillage or reduced tillage practices, and replacing gravity irrigation with the more efficient center pivot irrigation systems, which reduce the amount of irrigation water needed to raise a crop. The Upper Big Blue NRD offers a cost-share program to assist producers with the purchase of more efficient, less wasteful irrigation equipment such center pivots, sub-surface drip irrigation systems, low pressure nozzles, surge valves and water flow meters. The Upper Big Blue NRD has also been working with producers for saving water based on the NRD’s experimental research field known as CROP-TIP. The Upper Big Blue NRD has been aware of the current drought situation and has had Ground Water Management Area plans in place for nearly thirty years.
###
If you would like information on any of the services that the Upper Big Blue NRD provides, or have any questions please feel free to contact:
CONTACT:
Scott Snell, Public Relations
105 N. Lincoln Avenue
York, NE 68467
(402)-362-6601
UPPER BIG BLUE NRD
Ron Milner was the manager of the Upper Republican NRD board for 25 years. Ron is the individual most responsible for developing allocations and moratoriums on wells. The Upper Republican NRD has been lauded as having some of the most progressive water policies in the nation. The policies limiting acres and restricting the amount of water that can be used are now the model for the rest of the State.
Even though Ron had been retired for many years, he volunteered to fill a vacancy on the NRD board in 2005. Ron brought a great deal of experience to the board. He has dealt personally with many of the water policy makers through Nebraska and Kansas.
Ron has just resigned from the URNRD. He has done so out of frustration and anger at what has become of the URNRD. His primary complaint is that things have changed since he was manager. Now the Upper Republican NRD is making decisions without involving the public. He feels this is wrong and will fail to gain the crucial support of the community.
WaterClaim has also been frustrated by the attitude of the Upper Republican NRD. Over the last couple of years, we have found the URNRD to be hostile to questions and suggestions. WaterClaim has repeatedly complained about what we believe are illegal closed sessions and have asked a judge to open the process. Ron’s resignation and the reason for his resignation should cause the URNRD to reconsider how it treats the public.
The following is an open letter signed by Ron.
October 5, 2006
My name is Ron Milner. I was manager of the Upper Republican NRD for 25 years. I helped create the rules that slowed the aquifer decline and are considered the model for the State. Even though the rules were controversial, all of the rules were made in the open and with full debate. An informed public choose to place restrictions on ourselves to responsibly manage the aquifer.
I was recently appointed to the NRD board to fill a vacant seat. Things have changed since I was manager. Now all important decisions are made by the Executive Board – a subset of the full board. The full board then approves whatever the Executive Board does without public discussion.
The current NRD board has become arrogant and intolerant of public input. I have tried to change this. It isn’t right.
In protest, I have submitted my resignation from the NRD board - effective immediately.
The decisions made by the NRD are too important to be made without public involvement. The only way I can see to remedy the problem is to vote for new blood. It is time to change how things work. The public must be involved if we are to have water policy that the community can support.
Sincerely,
Ron Milner
The Conservation and Survey Division has released some new groundwater maps. Click here to see the maps. The Omaha paper focuses on the 2000 to 2005 map. That is the one that they think maps their point most dramatically. Take a look at all of the maps for yourself.
If you look at the long term maps, there are several areas that are seeing a decline even without the effects of the drought. If we want those declines to stop, we must either stop irrigation or create water projects.
There are a number of people that prefer to stop irrigation. This group of naysayers says it isn't possible to do water projects anymore. At least they hope they can't be done and they do whatever they can to make sure their prediction is true.
WaterClaim believes we must create water projects that stablize the aquifer and maintain the streams, if we want to keep irrigated agriculture. We prefer the wise management of water instead of the shutdown of irrigation.