« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
Benefit to stream by distance from stream
We wish there were more than two distance analyzed. The Platte River has estimated depletion by cell. The Republican could generate that data but the NRDs do not request the information and the DNR does not generate it. It is a number that would help us identify the least expensive solution. However, we haven't found a water official yet that wants to know the answer to that question.
Over the years, many elected public officials have decided that the information they have and the decisions they make should be done without the public knowing all of the details. The usual analogy provided is that if you were buying a car or piece of land, you wouldn’t go out and announce the price you were willing to pay. This concept is frequently used to justify closed door sessions and the withholding of studies, reports, and letters.
The Open Records Act and the Open Meetings Act were both written to curb the worst abuses. But, abuses are common, even by people who are trying to do their best for the community.
In Lincoln, Senator Ernie Chambers asks of most Legislative Bills, “Senator, who wrote this?” Just last week, Senator Chambers asked a senator who wrote the bill. The sponsoring senator said, “I did.” Chambers replied by saying, “I don’t believe you. You couldn’t have written this bill.” While rude, Senator Chambers is correct that most Legislation is authored by someone other than a Senator. Much of the Legislation introduced in the Legislature is not written by a Senator but is written by someone who wants a law changed, added, or deleted. Then, they take that idea around and try to find a Senator who will sponsor the idea. Some ideas are very good. Senator Chambers believes the public has a right to know who is behind the ideas the Legislature considers. He tends to oppose ideas where the Senator won’t tell who helped put them together in a coherent form.
So, why do elected public officials -- our neighbors -- prefer to withhold information and decide policy when the door is closed? It is my belief that many do this because public input causes two problems. One, it slows everything down. A lot of people don’t pay attention until the end then want everything explained to them personally. After explaining the same thing repeatedly, it gets kind of tedious. It is just easier to ignore the public. Second, it isn’t any fun getting second-guessed. You do your best. You try hard to make good decisions, then someone comes along and points out something that makes you look stupid. Some believe questions are a form of challenge. “If you ask me a question, it must mean you don’t accept my view of the problem. One or two questions might be OK, but a bunch of questions means you are hostile, even if they are valid.” Most humans just don’t want to have to deal with that. As a result, they start holding information and trying to make policy when people are not around.
I contend that society is best off when all public policy is open and when the process in making it is completely open, in spite of the hassles. The Natural Resources Districts often argued that they were negotiating against each other or against Kansas and, hence, they had to hide what they do in order to be successful. I disagree. I believe the best policy is to reveal everything. That means every report the Department of Natural Resources produces, every promise or threat made, every argument for or against an idea -- all these things should be made public. This reduces deceit; it encourages public participation; and it creates trust in the system and in the people making the decisions.
The reason the DNR has been able to bully the NRDs is because the DNR has played the NRDs against each other. The strategy has worked well. The best way to defeat this is to be open about everything. Right now, the NRDs are losing the public relations battle. In Lincoln, the policymakers believe the NRDs are the problem. When the NRDs fight each other, they lose. When the NRDs choose to limit what they say -- to hide what they do and know, they lose. This means the enemies of the NRDs are able to portray them as they wish. The best defense is openness.
If every NRD said, “Anything said to us or anything given to us is public,” then the DNR would be much more careful about making sure its story is consistent.
Our government is comprised of elected representatives. These representatives are there to speak for and to protect the people who elected them. They do not answer to their fellow elected officials; they answer to the people who elected them.
I believe most information given to an elected official should be public. The giver of that information should expect it to be shared with the people that elected person represents. The only exception is if the information threatens public safety. Elected officials oversee our law enforcement and military forces. This oversight requires some information to be held in order to protect the public safety. In all other cases, the system should be open.
Over the years, I have been given a lot of information that elected representatives or the DNR have not wanted the public to see. With the few exceptions listed in the law,it is my contention that our society is better off if everyone has access to all facts.
Central Platte NRD approves Water Bank
Open Policy
Someone isn’t happy that a letter they gave to the public’s representatives was posted on the WaterClaim site. Telling the public’s representatives they can’t share what they know with the public they represent is a bad idea.
It is my belief that all information about water policy should be open to the public and available for review. Any time the DNR meets with the NRDs, anytime NRD board members report back to the full NRD board, anytime there is a letter from Kansas, anytime the NRD board makes policy, etc. it should be public.
Ask yourself what the consequences would be if all information was public? Some have suggested that it would be difficult to take advantage of other NRDs. Some have suggested that it would be more difficult to take advantage of other States. I will argue that trying to take an unfair advantage of another group of people will cause more problems than it is worth. Kansas has access to the same computer simulation, they have access to the same data, they have agents at each of the Republican River Basin NRD meetings. I will argue that Kansas knows more about what is happening than do most of the people in Nebraska. So who are we kidding when we hide information? I will argue that we are only hurting ourselves.
When information is hidden only a few people make the decisions. It is very difficult to find errors in data or to find unintended consequences in policy. There is a great opportunity for abuse. When only a few know what is happening they have advance knowledge of policy changes that will have big effects on the market and give them and their friends an opportunity denied to the public.
If all information is public, then those that care about what is happening can review the facts, review the data and catch errors and mistakes. They can think of more ideas. An open system harnesses the full power of everyone involved, it eliminates abuse, and it reduces the probability of error.
Part of the reason we are having the water problems we are is because the door has been closed too many times. I encourage every water policy maker to make the commitment to make public every document, every promise, every threat, all data, and to make their decisions in the open. Often a small group can get a lot more done but it is important that the small group report their discussions and findings to the full board in public. It helps everyone – the State, the NRDs, and the public interest.
There is a significant difference in the acres the NRDs and the DNR both say there are.
Kansas has written a letter to Nebraska about the Republican River.
Preliminary 2006 Net Nebraska Consumptive Use
-32,400 acre feet
2003 -25,420
2004 -36,640
2005 -41,785
2006 -32,400
2007
Tot -136,245
Nebraska reduced its use by 26,000 acre feet but the allowance dropped by 16,120 to an all time low of 182,800 acre feet. The average Nebraska allowance is about 300,000 acre feet. The allowance is low because of drought, conservation, and uncontrolled vegetation.
I have placed on one page the vegetation studies that I have found so far.
It is on the left hand side under Studies.
Nebraska owes Kansas $30 million to $300 million in damages. At least that is what a few people in Kansas think. The article says that they will take the money or water.
The Republican River Basin has a well known problem. Nebraska is using more water than it is allowed. Most of the water policy makers in the State believe the solution is to shut off irrigation wells, even though they know this will cause economic upheaval. WaterClaim has pointed out that this economic ruin can be averted by importing water into the Republican River Basin. There are a number of objections to this idea. “You can’t move water unless you do x, y, and z.” So, Senator Mark Christensen built a legislative bill to include protection for everything the objectors ask for. They were still not satisfied. This reveals their true objection. A water import will permit irrigation to continue. Those who oppose water transfers want less irrigation. All of the other objections were simply excuses.
There is a sizable group of people who want substantially less irrigation regardless of the economic consequences. Over the last several weeks, WaterClaim has met with a large number of water policy officials. They acknowledge that water transfers, as we have designed them will not cause a problem to the Platte or the community from which we lease the water. Their real objection is they believe there has been too much development in the Republican River Basin and that the only acceptable answer is to reduce the number of irrigated acres. They feel sympathy for the people this will hurt, but not enough to do anything to help avert the pain.
More than 50% of the reduction in flows are caused by conservation. The drought has reduced the water available by more than 100,000 acre feet a year from normal. Vegetation has been uncontrolled for decades. The computer simulation that measures compliance has intentionally excluded the effects of conservation and vegetation. The State has provided inconsistent data, given false assurances, and pitted NRDs against each other, and a host of other problems. Yet these are not relevant in the minds of those that want less irrigation. Less irrigation is desired and the lawsuit by Kansas provides the means of execution.
On Tuesday, January 23, the Governor stood before the assembled representatives of the State’s NRDs and asked them point blank. “Do you support water transfers from the Platte to the Republican? Raise your hands, if you do.” Few did. The collective wisdom of the NRDs across the State is that transfers are a bad idea. Sixteen NRDs oppose transfers while seven support them. If you are the Governor and you ask the NRDs, which are made up of a lot of farmers, and they say, “we believe the Republican River Basin should shut off however much irrigation it takes regardless of the economic effect,” would you choose to explain to them why it is important to solve the problem in a way that allows the Republican River Basin to survive? Or, would you accept their advice and say, “Sorry, Republican River Basin you have too many irrigated acres. All of those conservation, vegetation, false DNR reports, etc. are not relevant. You have to take the heart out of your communities and pit neighbor against neighbor.”
Obviously, Nebraska needs a leader who can step in and say, “This is the right thing to do.” Standing aside and allowing those with an agenda to control the outcome will result in the Republican River Basin being sacrificed.
Ann Bleed, director of the DNR, says, “the State will support allowing irrigation to continue if the majority of the NRDs will support that; but since they don’t, the only acceptable solution is to reduce acres.” She says that this can be done with little economic impact. The logic is that since few jobs were added when irrigation entered the area, then few jobs will be lost when irrigation is removed.
This is the reality facing the State and the Republican River Basin. If the Republican River Basin is going to survive the next few years, it is going to have to do so by protecting itself in the face of opposition from most of the water policy makers across the State (who have a desire and a plan to force this reduction, regardless of the facts.)
The question now is, “Do the people of the Republican River Basin want to do what is necessary to survive, or will we choose to allow others to decide our fate?” The State is now sounding the alarm and telling the area bluntly what is coming. As the Governor said, “In the past, State officials have been too optimistic. I have decided to not sugar coat it.”
The hearing date for LB 701 is February 28 at 1:30 pm. It will be in Lincoln at the State Capitol. Please take a look at the bill which you can find on the left under studies. Please plan to attend the hearing.
The Governor has said that the reason he is using twelve years as the multiplier for his water budget numbers is that is the number of budget years that cover the first phase of the Cooperative Agreement on the Platte River. The $2.7 million in State General Funds that he is proposing are for all of the State water issues but primarily for the Platte and Rebublican River Basins.
He is also counting a portion of the DNR operating budget ($3 million a year) as a contribution to solving the problem. This is his estimate of how much of the DNR's time is spent on Platte and Rebublican Basin water issues. The total DNR budget is $8.7 million a year so by his estimate about a third of the DNR's time is spent on regulating these two Basins.
The Lower Platte is the probable area to be declared fully appropriated meaning no new wells or development.
Wyoming irrigators on the North Platte are likely to lose their access to water this year.
On the 13th we mentioned that we were having troubles understanding how the Governor was able to total $128 million towards the water problems. Today learned where the missing $36 is.
It is the $3 million a year for 12 years that the Governor expects it will take the DNR to manage and regulate the Republican River Basin. So part of the DNR operations budget is what the Governor is counting towards the money he is taking credit for contributing to the solution.
We still are not sure why everything was multipled by 12.
Senator Tom Carlson introduced a bill today to manage vegetation. LB 458
The groundwater irrigators that had their wells shut in Colorado last year are trying to get Colorado to recognize the aquifer as a seperate basin.
Following the State of the State speach the Governor toured the State promoting his budget plan. (McCook Gazette story) In his comments he has said he is providing $128 million for water issues. We have prepared an Excel worksheet that looks at his numbers in more detail. We are having trouble making his numbers match what he is saying.
Excel worksheet comparing Governor's numbers
Corn Growers Express Concern Over Governor’s Water Plan
The Nebraska Corn Growers Association (NeCGA) is expressing “grave concerns” over Governor Dave Heineman’s proposal to use corn checkoff dollars to help fund a water resources fund.
Heineman announced his plan to create the new Water Resources Cash Fund in his annual State of the State address. In addition to using state general funds and soliciting federal dollars, Heineman wants to channel a half-cent of the current corn checkoff into the fund, beginning in 2013.
“We agree that water issues will be one of the greatest challenges Nebraskan’s will face in the future, and agriculture certainly needs to be involved in the search for answers,” said Randy Uhrmacher of Juniata, president of NeCGA. “The governor’s proposal to create a Water Resources Cash Fund may start to address part of this problem. However, our organization has grave concerns regarding the proposed funding of this program as presented.”
One concern, Uhrmacher said, is whether responsibility for funding the plan is being fairly distributed. “As proposed, we think corn producers would bear an disproportionate share of the financial burden,” Uhrmacher said. “Secondly, NeCGA has a philosophical concern with a checkoff program being used to create general fund revenue. The creation of Nebraska checkoff
(MORE)
programs, as clearly outlined by their statutory authority, is to provide resources to invest in market development, research, and education. We believe the proposed use of checkoff in this proposal is in direct conflict with its purpose and sets a precedence which was never intended.”
Heineman also discussed ethanol in his speech. To meet an expected shortfall in the state’s Ethanol Production Incentive Cash Fund, he proposed investing another $15.5 million in general funds, and extending the current ethanol checkoff on corn producers through 2012.
“NeCGA is committed to the obligations made to ethanol producers through the Ethanol Production Incentive Cash Fund,” Uhrmacher said. “The pending shortfall of the fund is still an uncertain number due to variables and the structure of the fund. As this shortfall amount becomes more clear, we look forward to working with the governor and legislature to find a balanced revenue source.”
Uhrmacher said NeCGA appreciates the governor’s efforts to address the challenges facing the state. “His focus on education and economic growth, while still controlling state spending, should be applauded,” said Urhmacher. “We were hoping to see more emphasis placed on direct property tax reduction. However, in theory, the governor’s proposal to fully fund the state aid to education formula should help create property tax relief at the local level. This continues to be an important issue for all farmers and ranchers.”
NeCGA is a grassroots commodity organization that works to enhance the profitability of corn producers. Now in its 35th year of service to its members, NeCGA has over 1,500 dues paying members in Nebraska. NeCGA is affiliated with the National Corn Growers Association, which has more than 31,000 dues paying members nationwide.
Today we have posted the latest draft of the water bill that Senator Mark Christensen is about to introduce. There will be modification to it before it is introduced. The change will be regarding who can collect the local share of the taxes. Instead of what you see on the bill now we will move the tax collection to the NRD. This is for legal reasons. We will post a new update when that is back from the bill drafters.
Click on the Draft Water Bill under the Studies section.
Heineman proposed establishing a water resources cash fund with annual allocations of
$2.7 million in state funds
$300,000 potential annual contributions from the Environmental Trust Fund
$1 million from the federal government.
The funding would be used to pay for conservation programming.
"We cannot wait for a federal judge to decide our fate in the Republican River basin," he said.
In addition to the state and federal funds, the governor said he would propose using one-half cent from the current corn checkoff fee beginning in 2013 to help fund the conservation programs.
The 2006 crop is projected to be 1.23 billion bushels and a 1/2 per bushel tax would result in about $6.125 million dollars a year. The Governor is suggesting taking some of the money currently dedicated to ethanol activities and redirecting that to water issues.
Dan Smith, manager of the Middle Republican NRD, writes a letter regarding water. A good read.
The Water Policy Task Force has decided to assign itself a new mission. The Task Force feels that it is being ignored by the Legislature that created it and the Governor's office that appointed them. And they are right. In fact, several Task Force members feel like they should disband themselves. But instead they have decided to change their focus.
Omaha World Herald Story on their new self assigned mission. Registration required. Basically they propose to study the problem and tell the Legislature what is wrong and then let the Legislature figure out how to fund it.
We can save them a bit of trouble. Much of the work they want a coupole of million dollars to do has already been done by WaterClaim and is available for free here on this web site.
Governor Heineman appointed Ann Bleed as director of the DNR today. I believe he did so because Ann faithfully follows and implements the Governor's policies.
The Midwest Producer ran a story on water and the Republcian River Basin. The story extensively quotes WaterClaim. It was a well done article.
There are two points I would like to clarify though.
1. The draft legislation we are proposing creates not combine the existing agencies into one office as the article implies. Instead the bill takes the interested parties from the area and gets them together and lets this group quantify the responsibility that each agency has. The DNR is trying to impose the DNRs version on the NRDs now but the bill says it is better to have a neutral party do it.
2. WaterClaim is not advocating that the State pay 100%. While we believe they should, we don’t think it is politically possible so we are advocating a sharing of the expense.
Follow the draft of the water bill on the WaterClaim main site.
100 employees
4 employees dedicated to keeping the State in compliance with interstate compacts
86 employees dedicated to expanding conservation
Conservation reduces the amount of water getting to the stream. This is a good thing because it reduces floods and soil erosion, and it increases the amount of water available to the land where the precipitation falls.
However, conservation also reduces stream flow. The DNR states publicly that conservation causes between 50% and 85% of the stream flow reductions.
Conservation is intentionally excluded from the computer simulations used to determine whether or not Nebraska is in compliance with the Republican River Basin Compact. The negotiators did not want conservation regulated.
Miles of terraces installed
2003-2004 216,856
2004-2005 142,424
2005-2006 149,242
Republican River Basin
1.2 million irrigated acres
2.0 million acres with conservation practices – terraces, retention ponds, grassed waterways, minimum tillage, etc.