We Found the Water
These are some of the effects of conservation.
« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
These are some of the effects of conservation.
Senator Mark Christensen plans to introduce a revised water bill on Monday, Feb 26.
This is a summary of what the revise bill will look like. Take a look at the full summary on the link at the left.
LB 701 is designed to address the water problem in the Republican River Basin. This version of the bill is to be introduced February 26 in response to the many comments and suggestions to the original version of the bill. This version does not have a Basin Administration Committee, any water transfer language, or property taxes. It has funding matching the Governor’s suggested amount, an equal groundwater allocation for both those close to and far from the stream, and a division of responsibility according to the cause of depletions to the stream.
Compliance on an annual basis is assured by requiring a reduction in water use by groundwater users in a control year of about 50%, a reduction in surface water use by 50%, and Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) activities that address stream depletions due to decades of uncontrolled vegetation growth and millions of acres of conservation activities that benefit water quality and flood control.
The Act deals with the Republican River Basin only.
WY Surface and Groundwater Users Join Forces to Fight State
This chart shows the Allocation for the Republican River Basin as compared to the Consumptive Use for the Basin.
As you will notice, the consumptive use has gone down, not up as some people would try to make you believe.
But the water allowance for the Basin has gone down even more.
What controls the allowance?
Precipitation.
The Virgin Water Supply is the total water to be divided to each State. It is made up of two components – run off to the stream and seepage from the aquifer, called baseflow.
The baseflow is calculated as if the aquifer is still at the predevelopment levels. Any lowering of the aquifer is counted as a depletion to the stream after. In other words, if there is a reduction in baseflow it doesn’t reduce the allocation. The allocation is calculated as if there is no baseflow reduction and then the actual reduction is charged against the groundwater irrigator.
What this means is that the reduction in the allocation is not a result of any change in the aquifer because that is calculated later. Instead the reduction in allocation is the direct result of a reduction in the amount of precipitation.
This chart shows the precipitation received at the 19 Nebraska Compact Precipitation Gages. It also graphs the allocation in acre feet on the secondary axis. The allocation tends to follow the precipitation fairly well until 2003 where the allocation fails to rebound as it has in the past. I don’ t know why there is no allocation bounce. Knowing the answer to that would probably be very informative as to what Nebraska needs to do to comply
Notice that if the allocation had bounced up as it normally does, that Nebraska would be in compliance.
The only way to get the answer to this question is to look at the computer simulation in detail. Only the DNR can do that. Persuading the DNR to do that is probably next to impossible but worth a try. Only several hundred million dollars resting on the answer.
Attempt to name aquifer a river basin fails first round.
I have put the response to the OWH attack in a word document for easy prrinting and reading.
It is in Microsoft Word
David Hendee is normally a pretty reasonable reporter. He tends to report the fact with limited amount of editorial content thrown into his reporting. But in his Sunday piece, all the rules of journalism are tossed aside and opions are stated as fact. Perhaps it was an editor that took his work and sliced and diced it but there are a number of problems with the attack on irrigation. Read to the end to see why I think the OWH decided to play dirty at this point in time.
My comments are in blue.
LINCOLN - Nowhere in America is there a freshwater sea as large as the aquifer under Nebraska. Nowhere in America is more water pumped from the ground for crops than in Nebraska. And no other Western state has waited until now to slow the drought-driven push by irrigation farmers - a tiny fraction of Nebraskans - to overuse groundwater.
The sentence that says farmers are pushing to overuse groundwater sets the tone for the remainder of the piece. This statement is an editorial comment inserted into a “news” piece.
A good water supply and good soil sustain farming with center-pivot irrigation. As a result, significant declines plague parts of Nebraska, rivers are being sapped, mighty Lake McConaughy is shrinking, and now all the state's taxpayers are being presented with a multimillion-dollar repair bill.
This paragraph contains factual statements; but because it follows the first paragraph, it strongly implies that all problems are caused by the bad farmer who has overused groundwater.
It was the year before Pearl Harbor when the Nebraska Supreme Court pointed out that the Legislature had legal gaps in groundwater regulation - gaps that later allowed this unregulated growth.
You’ll notice that bringing images of Pearl Harbor into a reader’s mind is stronger for the anti-irrigator case than to just specify the year.
The Legislature dallied for more than six decades before taking aggressive action.
Meanwhile, irrigators exploited the commonly owned aquifers under a system that rewarded those with the deepest wells.
Here the farmer is accused of exploiting the aquifer and further states that those with the deepest wells are the most guilty.
Nebraska waited so long that it faces a costly, painful process of rolling back water use where it exceeds natural or legal limits.
The sting and expense once were avoidable. Now they're not.
This strongly implies that groundwater irrigation is the only cause for the streams and reservoirs to have less water in them than they used to. That is not true, and the writer and editors of the story know it is not true. The primary reason for streamflow reduction is not groundwater irrigation, yet this article implies it is the only cause.
Gov. Dave Heineman wants to create a $128 million cash fund to address the state's water challenges. Lawmakers are considering a halt to new irrigation wells statewide and paying landowners to reduce irrigation.
The Governor says he wants to create a $128 million cash fund, but that dollar amount is multiplied by many years to get to that number. The real number is $3 million a year; which, after six years, it would increase to about $6 million a year.
The water exploitation evolved under the watch of influential farmers in the Legislature with a self-interest in promoting the rural economy.
This sentence says the farmers are guilty of exploiting the system, thatthey got themselves on the Legislature and then used the power of the State for their self-interest. That is a pretty slanderous accusation that assumes the worst about people.
Traditions made inaction easy. Nebraska has a history of rural independence. The state constitution gives farmers reasonable use of water under their land. Timely wet years and confidence about the state's groundwater wealth lulled farmers and legislators into complacency.
Now the farmer is accused of the opposite – first, the farmers exploited the Legislature. Now, in this paragraph, farmers and their agents in the Legislature are said to be lulled and complacent.
Indeed, Nebraskans have barely tapped the High Plains Aquifer, an eight-state system of underground water. But what irrigators take off the top often depletes rivers, streams and reservoirs - and that drives the current crisis. If nothing were done, isolated pockets of Nebraska could mirror parts of Kansas and Texas where it's too expensive or impossible to drill deep enough to reach the water.
Here, at least, is an admission that the aquifer decline is isolated to small parts of the State. Yet, the accusation is still made that all farmers using aquifer water are guilty of depleting the rivers, streams and reservoirs. A comparison is made to Kansas and Texas to make an alarmist comparison. If the aquifer is not going down -- which it is not in the vast majority of the State -- then it would appear that the accusations made by the article are overly broad and misleading.
Nebraska's estimated 17,000 irrigated farms represent a third of its total farms. They irrigate roughly 43 percent of the state's harvested cropland, watering corn, soybeans, wheat, sugar beets, potatoes, dry edible beans, alfalfa and other crops.
Irrigators make up only about 1 percent of the state's population but use about 94 percent of its groundwater and two-thirds of all its water each year.
If read quickly enough or only once, the wording structure of this sentence could imply to the layman reader that irrigators are guilty of depleting two-thirds of Nebraska’s water supply.
Irrigators range from mom and pop farms, whose operators pump one well and work in town to pay the bills, to megafarms with dozens of wells, whose owners are among the farming elite. The state's average irrigated farm has 462 irrigated acres.
True, and if the water was not used, it would end up in the Gulf of Mexico as salt water. , Apparently, if you farm a lot of acres, that makes you part of farming’s elite. I don’t know for sure what the writer is trying to insinuate with the use of “elite,” but its use is possibly an attempt to get the reader to image greedy, selfish people who get rich while stomping on all the hard-working, family farms most prevalent in nostalgic thoughts of Nebraska’s homesteading past.
But others also want water: growing cities, the ethanol industry, recreation and wildlife.
Now you have the cause of the controversy. Someone wants what someone else has.
Lawmakers put off action for decades, despite court urgings, conflicts among water users, significant shortages plaguing other High Plains Aquifer states and mounting scientific evidence that groundwater use often affects surface water levels.
Until the most recent drought, which began in 1999, the Legislature rarely displayed urgency to regulate groundwater.
In 1940, the Nebraska Supreme Court noted that 500 irrigation pumps in Dawson County created huge losses of flowing water in the Platte River.
The Supreme Court did not say that irrigation wells caused huge losses. That was the accusation of surface irrigators that wanted groundwater wells turned off so they could have more water. This citation comes not from the Supreme Court but rather from Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, and Central is making a similar argument 65 years later. The Supreme Court didn’t buy that argument in 1940 or in 2005.
In 1994, the court explicitly said in a Platte River case: "It is to the Legislature that Wyoming must direct its argument regarding future groundwater depletion."
But it wasn't until 2004 that Nebraska passed a significant law, Legislative Bill 962, creating a proactive approach involving both local and state agencies to resolve long-standing water issues.
Even in 2005, the court, in a case involving the Spear T Ranch near Bridgeport, noted legal confusion for dealing with groundwater and surface water.
"Ideally, the Legislature would develop a comprehensive administrative appropriation system . . . to adjudicate direct conflicts between groundwater and surface water users in Nebraska. This would be consistent with how most legislatures in Western states have addressed conflicts between water users," the court said.
Legal confusion? There isn’t any legal confusion. The Courts have said, “This is how it works. If you want it to work differently, then talk to the Legislature.” Here, the author is putting words in the mouth of the Supreme Court to imply that the Court doesn’t know what to do. It isn’t the Court that has a problem. The Court has said what the procedure is for resolving conflict between ground and surface water users. The Court has said that it might be better to set up an administrative system to do that.
The reason for inaction is clear, said Michael Klein, a Holdrege attorney who represents the state's largest irrigation district and its surface water users.
"The Legislature has only in small ways come to grips with the unsustainable use of the resource," Klein said. "You can speculate all day, but it's pretty clear that the reason they didn't is pure politics."
Michael Klein is a colorful and intelligent speaker. He is an agent for surface water irrigation and does not hide his desire to see less groundwater irrigation. This article by Hendee obviously uses many of the ideas that opponents of groundwater irrigation advocate. Just remember as you read that Mr. Klein has a desire to reduce the amount of groundwater irrigation and is on record saying that he wants the irrigation wells west of Lake McConaughy turned off.
Irrigation has made thousands of square miles of this semi-arid state landscape more productive, bringing prosperity to irrigators and their communities and making Nebraska the world's center-pivot equipment capital.
Nearly 8 million acres of groundwater-irrigated cropland create a big political hurdle, Klein said, when lawmakers ponder bills perceived to regulate or restrict groundwater use.
Paul Hutchison, who has three pivots on his farm west of Sidney, said farsighted laws a few decades ago would have prevented obvious damage that groundwater irrigators did to aquifers.
"But . . . they weren't breaking the law," he said. "If LB 962 had been in effect 30 years ago, then there could have been something done."
Self-interest kept the Legislature from taking bolder steps during the boom years, said former State Sen. Loran Schmit of Bellwood, an irrigator.
"Who lobbied? Those of us who had (irrigation) interests - we understood the interests," he said.
Loran Schmit is the individual who accuses himself and his fellow farmers of exploiting the system for themselves. The problem is that the writer has decided to treat the Schmit opinion as fact for all.
David Aiken, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln water law expert, pointed to the belief among the state's movers and shakers in the supremacy of irrigation.
"When push came to shove, irrigation was No. 1, and we couldn't do anything to get in the way of groundwater irrigation because that was Nebraska's future," Aiken said.
David Aiken is a long time advocate of less groundwater irrigation.
Former State Sen. Ed Schrock of Elm Creek, a farmer who helped push through LB 962, said he understood his predecessors' hesitancy to act.
Nebraska has the continent's largest and deepest pool of accessible groundwater.
"It was a resource that we thought was inexhaustible," he said. "And Nebraskans are pretty independent-minded people. We don't like regulations."
Irrigation was a moral crusade for senators who lived through the Dust Bowl.
Ed Schrock has said that it has been the policy of the State to irrigate and use irrigation for the good of the State. But, by putting his comments in an anti-irrigation piece, it makes it look like he opposes irrigation, which he does not.
The late State Sen. Maurice Kremer, an Aurora farmer, once told Schmit the 1930s drought motivated his work to develop water for irrigation.
"He'd come in from the field and lift his baby son from the crib and find that so much fine dust had filtered into the house that he could see the outline of the baby on the sheet where it was lying," Schmit said.
"Maury Kremer's interest in irrigation was created by that gut experience."
Irrigation was seen as a tool to deal with droughts by the farmers who were irrigators and the State itself. “Bad people. Didn’t they know droughts are natural and should be expected; that irrigation is a morally wrong way of altering nature?”
As early as 1940, shortly after the Dust Bowl ended and when irrigation was in its infancy, Nebraskans were warned about future water conflicts and shortages and heard calls for state control of the resource.
John C. Page, a native of Nebraska who directed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, warned Nebraskans that unregulated groundwater use could cause declining water tables and weaken rural communities.
It is easy to find people that warned against everything. If we, as a people, would just learn to listen to every person who ever warns about anything we could bring life to a halt. Wouldn’t that be better?
The state has managed surface water since 1895. But across most of Nebraska, throughout the 20th century, groundwater pumping was guided only by individual decisions.
Not until 1957 did the Legislature pass its first law regulating groundwater - and that simply required registering and spacing wells and set preferences for using groundwater.
The use of the word “simply” implies that nothing much was done with this law, but the legislation made it possible for controls to be set on groundwater use.
As irrigation boomed in the 1960s and 1970s, awareness and research grew about how groundwater pumping can sap streams and rivers. Nebraska water law wasn't ready for the resulting number of conflicts among water users.
Kremer and other irrigators were creating what he called "a new Nebraska" of prosperity. But he also acknowledged during that period that "maybe we've gone too far."
Kremer joined the Legislature in 1963, the year water-law experts warned of the danger of shrinking aquifers contributing less water to the stream flows. The experts predicted an inevitable collision between groundwater and surface water irrigators.
Kremer was a father of the state's natural resources districts. They were formed in 1972 to consolidate 154 tiny resource and conservation districts into about two dozen larger agencies to manage soil and groundwater.
Over the next three decades, the Legislature limited the districts' authority to manage groundwater, doling it out piecemeal.
This implies the opposite of what happened. The State didn’t constrict the authority of the NRDs. It broadened it over the years. For many years, the NRDs were prohibited from restricting groundwater use. That was a policy decision by the State of Nebraska made by those “conspiring, evil farmers who controlled the Legislature.” Strange how those farmers have been able to outwit the urban guys for decades.
For example, the Legislature, led by Kremer, passed its first groundwater law in 1975. The law authorized the NRDs to propose restrictions on irrigators who were mining water - drawing more from the ground than annual precipitation could restore.
But such restrictions required approval by state water managers and were rarely imposed.
Meanwhile, the pressure to irrigate was great. Soviet Union grain purchases, which began in 1971, depleted U.S. reserves.
Grain prices soared. Farmers with center-pivot irrigation watched their land values leap from a few hundred dollars an acre to $2,000 to $3,000 an acre.
Irrigated agriculture ensured the ranking of lightly populated Nebraska as a leading agribusiness state. Cash receipts from farm marketing contribute about $12 billion a year to Nebraska's economy. Farmers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes.
So, money is the cause of the problem. If farmers weren’t so greedy, there wouldn’t be problem. Maybe if we ban the ability to make money, there will be more water in the rivers.
By the mid-1980s, science-based information about the connection between groundwater and surface water was widespread, water tables were falling and rivers were vanishing.
We were warned about it in the 1940s, yet it took 40 years before the information became widespread? This sentence also implies that the water tables are falling across the State. That isn’t true; in fact, there was more water in the aquifer in the 1980s than there was in the 1940s.
But groundwater was the heavyweight champion in state water politics, UNL's Aiken said.
That's where the money was, he said. "Any farmer worth his salt had an irrigation well."
Among farmers, he said, "irrigators were the leadership. You didn't want to mess with them."
If the reader takes both the quoted sections and the unquoted sections into account, Aiken seems to be accusing groundwater irrigators of being bullies -- people who will go out and hurt you if you don’t agree with them. The fact that there is no record of this type of thing happening in the 65 years the irrigation has been happening apparently doesn’t matter to the Omaha World Herald. The tactic seems to be to accuse your political enemy of the worst motives possible, then let them defend themselves. I guess accusing past irrigators of being bullies means that they aren’t slandering anyone today. Or are today’s irrigators slandered by association?
When Schmit joined the Legislature in 1969, rural senators needed little help from urban colleagues to ensure a majority of votes on water issues. Of the 49 members, 24 were farmers, ranchers, or irrigation and grain company managers.
When Schmit left in 1993, the number of ag senators had dwindled to 15, and new voices were heard.
So is the Omaha World Herald saying ranchers are also guilty? The OWH is also saying the problem is caused by people who are elected by the voters of the State; that all farmers must have agreed with each other and been able to dupe non-farmers for many years. They say that farmers make up only one percent of the residents of the State. Somehow, they manage to control the other 99 percent?
Key among them was Chris Beutler of Lincoln, who became chairman of the Natural Resources Committee in 1993. Beutler questioned the wisdom of unfettered groundwater development.
Rural Nebraskans branded him Public Enemy No. 1.
For a news reporter writing an article outside the Editorial section, a statement like, “Rural Nebraskans branded him Public Enemy No. 1” sounds very opinionated. Would this be all rural Nebraskans that thought this? Would it be a majority? Would anyone presuming to speak for all rural Nebraskans have credibility?
He worked to address the predictable deterioration of water quantity and quality that followed drilling booms in some areas.
One of his biggest water policy successes was LB 108, approved in 1996 over well-organized irrigator opposition. LB 108 turned Nebraska water law on its head by recognizing the connection between surface water and groundwater.
So the well-organized irrigators failed to stop LB 108. First question, what ground water irrigation organizations existed? In 1996, only Nebraskans First existed. While they are an active organization, they have one director, a newsletter, and several hundred members. I am not trying to diminish what the organization does, but farmers never have been organized in some big, powerful force. To say irrigators are well organized is a big stretch of the imagination. But, I suppose in the eyes of the writer, it would make irrigators look bad if they were organized. I wonder if organized irrigators would be any more evil than organized seniors or teachers or bank tellers or cancer survivors or dentists or....
But the law was cumbersome and poorly funded.
Most of his attempts at legislative changes failed. Beutler left the resources committee in 1999, frustrated with the apathy of most urban senators over water issues. And few rural senators, he said, understood the big picture of water policy.
"They are tenacious," he said. "Their key belief is that water needs to be protected for agriculture at all costs."
So would those same rural senators that Beutler says don’t understand the big picture be the same rural senators who conspired to outsmart and outwit all of those urban senators?
Klein, the Holdrege attorney, said it remains difficult for lawmakers to tackle water issues because their actions would affect more than just irrigators.
Each irrigation well plugs into an economic infrastructure of Main Street businesses that sell seed, pesticide, fertilizer, fuel and machinery to grow, harvest and market the crop.
"The greater the economic productivity based on irrigation, the more difficult it is for politicians to come to grips with the reality that we have unsustainable (water) use. The demand exceeds the supply," he said.
"It's easy for the Legislature to sit and do nothing. It's a tough political problem."
So it isn’t just irrigators who have conspired to exploit the water resources of the State. Now it is every person on rural Main Street as well. The conspiracy widens.
Beutler said legislators should have reined in unregulated irrigation development in the 1970s, before it put aquifers at risk.
Now some farmers with irrigation wells are paid tax dollars not to irrigate, as part of a solution to prevent falling water tables and dwindling rivers.
"It makes me sick," he said. "The Legislature let it happen."
Beutler got sick. The greedy irrigator is the cause of all of the problems. The problem has been going on for decades. It is all the Legislature’s fault. It’s just a bad, bad situation. Do you get the idea that this piece was written to try and shame the Legislature into doing something the Omaha World Herald wants the Legislature to do? This piece is an attack editorial masquerading as a news story. It interviews only those who are on one side of the argument. It adopts their opinions and states them as facts. There will be several more issues that will come out. They will look at other elements in the story. As you read those, take note to see if the opinions of the other side are ever presented as facts or just self-interested defenders of a special interest? Ask yourself, “Why is this series of water stories coming out now? Who are they trying to influence? What do they want?” The Omaha World Herald has long been advocating their opinion. Usually, those opinions stay on the editorial page. But, now, they have jumped and violated several of the principles of responsible journalism.
We have placed some of the DNR well database well locations on Google Earth so you can see where the CREP eligible wells are. This cooresponds closely to the Quick Response area that the DNR has proposed receive a reduction in water allocations down to as low as 2.4 inches per year.
If you already have Google Earth installed on your machine then just to go this web site and clik on View in Google Earth.
If you don't have Google Earth installed then go here.
The reason I keep writing about this is because it is important and because the DNR is telling the NRDs something that is not correct. If you are an NRD board member, it is hard to believe me when you have someone with a PhD telling you something different. That is understandable.
So I have posted the actual language of the agreement the three States signed. I have provided links to the documents that are online so you can read them in context. I have highlighted the key sections.
In my opinion, the documents clearly state the rules regarding imports and clearly indicate that imports are credited west of Harlan County Reservoir. The Republican River Settlement Stipulation – Appendix C clearly says that the imports are computed separately for each reach. A reach is a portion of a tributary or stream.
Take Spring Creek for example. It is a reach. There are no stream gages on Spring Creek, yet the Agreement that Kansas signed clearly states that imports will be computed separately for each reach. So how do you compute something without a gage for each reach?
Imports are happening now. They are natural underground and above ground flows coming from the Platte. They are computed for Medicine Creek, Turkey Creek, Spring Creek, and several others. The way these are counted is not with a gage but, as the Stipulation says, via a calculation done with a computer simulation.
The computer simulation says there is x precipitation, y soil type, z head, a pumping, b underground outflow, etc, for each cell. Based on all of these various variables, the simulation says it thinks there is an increase or decrease in the water supply for each cell for each second. (That's right, it calculates it from second to second). At the bottom of the reach, the net increase or decrease is counted and added to the main stem. This happens for each reach. Most of the reaches do not have gages, yet the simulation still measures imports (and, for that matter, Basin compliance) without them.
Gages are simply input locations for data. The entire model is based on estimates. For example, it is not possible to measure precipitation on every square mile in the Basin. There are not enough rain gages. So the system uses 34 rain gages and then guesses what the precipitation is at each of the 25,000 cells based on those 34 gages. If it is known that it rained more or less at a particular group of cells, it is possible to tell the simulation that on a cell by cell basis. The precipitation database is altered to include the updated information.
Now all three States need to have the same information so each of their copies of the database say the same thing. Any one State could refuse to recognize the additional information. They could say, "yes, I know you installed rain gages on every square mile; and yes, we know that the data is much better than we had before, but we refuse to recognize it anyway."
At that point in time, the dispute resolution procedure kicks in. The three States put their water person in a room and they try to agree. If that fails, it goes to non-binding arbitration. If that fails, then it returns to the US Supreme Court. If our water person, Ann Bleed, doesn’t want to argue that more accurate information should be used, then it probably won’t be used.
It is my opinion that the State relying on actual data as compared to estimated data is likely to win the argument. If the effect on the end result is significant enough, it may be a fight that is worth having. I believe we can improve the accuracy of the Model by providing it with measured data rather than estimates.
I will argue that on the subject of importing of water into the basin, the Model counts imports on a cell by cell basis. Total imports and total compliance are measured at selected stream cells. Those selected stream cells are above and below every reservoir and at the point where every major tributary joins the main stem.
The Agreement with Kansas clearly allows the import to be counted at selected stream cells, of which one is between the bottom of Spring Creek and above Harlan County Reservoir. However, if Ann Bleed doesn’t want to count the water there, it doesn’t get counted. It really is up to the Governor. Will he choose to direct his appointee to work to count water at the place the agreement allows it to be counted, or will he permit his appointee to ignore the opportunity? The first step is to get his appointee to accurately present the facts to the NRDs.
AP story quoting Bleed, Fanning, Pelster.
Bleed says putting water in the stream and controlling vegetation are not the types of things that have to be done to keep Kansas happy.
Fanning says he is willing to support reduced irrigation as a long term solution.
The Upper Republican NRD is pushing a plan that bring the Basin Republican River Basin into annual compliance by requiring surface water and alluvial wells to be turned off. The landowners would be compensated at a rate of somewhere around $120 an acre. The money would come from a change in tax laws so that irrigated land in the Republican River Basin could be taxed at $10 an acre.
According a Kearney Hub story, the Tri Basin NRD at their Feb 13th board meeting has rejected the per acre fee idea as proposed by the Upper Republican NRD.
The same evening the Middle Republican NRD voted 10 to 1 to support Senator Mark Christensen's LB 701.
Senator Christensen's bill, which can be seen on the link on the left, creates a seven member basin committee that sets the amount of water that each NRD and the DNR can use in a year. This would not set the amount the individual farmer can use - that is still controlled by the regulatory agency. It would only set the amount the entire agency could work with. The idea is to have a neutral party set the allowance so as to reduce the blame game that has paralyzed progress towards a solution.
The second thing the basin administration committee does it takes a proactive approach to do things that the agencies cannot do alone. It creates a group that looks to treat the cause rather than just the symptoms. Today the NRDs have only one option. That is to reduce pumping through regulations. And even if they reduced pumping to 0 they would fail.
LB 701 says lets look at the bigger picture. Let’s look at things that will actually work and let’s provide a mechanism that causes the DNR and the NRDs to work with each other instead of against each other.
It is obvious that the current structure has failed. The DNR has failed to provide reliable information or leadership and the NRDs have simply attempted to grab what they can so that when the end comes they die with the most.
The good news is that the Middle Republican and the Lower Republican are taking action to support LB 701 and a Basin wide approach to a solution.
This is an update to a post a couple of weeks ago. it is updated to include a couple more sections in the Agreement with Kansas about how and where water imports are credited at. The Agreement made with Kansas which Kansas has already agreed to and has been approved by the US Supreme Court specifies where and how imports are credited. You can read the documents for yourself. What the official documents say differs from what the DNR is telling the NRDs. I think the Supreme Court trumps the DNR.
Measurement
Point of Imported Water
Excerpts from the
III.A.3
3. Imported Water Supply Credit Calculation:
The amount of Imported Water Supply Credit shall be
determined by the RRCA Groundwater Model. The Imported Water Supply Credit of a
State shall not be included in the Virgin Water Supply and shall be counted as
a credit/offset against the Computed Beneficial Consumptive Use of water
allocated to that State. Currently, the Imported Water Supply Credits shall be
determined using two runs of the RRCA Groundwater Model:
a. The “base” run shall be
the run with all groundwater pumping, groundwater pumping recharge, and surface
water recharge within the model study boundary for the period 1940 to the
current accounting year turned “on.” This will be the same “base” run used to
determine groundwater Computed Beneficial Consumptive Uses.
b. The “no NE import” run
shall be the run with the same model inputs as the base run with the exception
that surface water recharge associated with
Nebraska’s Imported Water Supply shall be turned “off.”
The Imported Water Supply Credit shall
be the difference in stream flows between these two model runs. Differences in
stream flows shall be determined at the same locations as identified in
Subsection III.D.1.for the “no pumping” runs. Should another State import water into the Basin in
the future, the RRCA will develop a similar procedure to determine Imported
Water Supply Credits.
III.D.1
Calculation of Annual Computed Beneficial Consumptive
Use
1. Groundwater
Computed Beneficial Consumptive Use of groundwater
shall be determined by use of the RRCA Groundwater Model. The Computed
Beneficial Consumptive Use of groundwater for each State shall be determined as
the difference in streamflows using two runs of the
model:
The “base” run shall be the run with all groundwater
pumping, groundwater pumping recharge, and surface water recharge within the
model study boundary for the period 1940 to the current accounting year “on”.
The “no State pumping” run shall be the run with the
same model inputs as the base run with the exception that all groundwater
pumping and pumping recharge of that State shall be turned “off.”
An output of the model is baseflows at selected
stream cells. Changes in the baseflows
predicted by the model between the “base” run and the “no-Statepumping”
model run is assumed to be the depletions to streamflows.
i.e., groundwater computed beneficial consumptive use, due to State groundwater
pumping at that location. The values for each Sub-basin will include all
depletions and accretions upstream of the confluence with the Main Stem. The
values for the Main Stem will include all depletions and accretions in stream
reaches not otherwise accounted for in a Sub-basin. The values for the Main
Stem will be computed separately for the reach above Guide Rock, and the reach
below Guide Rock.
From
V. B. 2. a
a. During Water-Short Year Administration,
i. supplementing water for Nebraska Bostwick Irrigation
District by providing alternate supplies
from below Guide Rock or
from outside the Basin;
V. B. 2. b
From
I. Calculation of Imported
Water Supply Credits During Water-Short Year Administration
Years.
Imported Water Supply Credit during Water-Short Year
Administration years shall be calculated consistent with Subsection V.B.2.b. of
the Stipulation,
The following methodology shall be used to determine
the extent to which Imported Water Supply Credit, as calculated by the RRCA
Groundwater Model, can be credited to the State importing the water during
Water-Short Year Administration years.
1. Monthly Imported Water Supply Credits
The RRCA
Groundwater Model will be used to determine monthly Imported Water Supply Credits
by State in each Sub-basin and for the Main Stem. The values for each Sub-basin
will include all depletions and accretions upstream of the confluence with
the Main Stem. The values for the Main Stem will include all depletions and
accretions in stream reaches not otherwise accounted for in a Sub-basin.
The values for the Main Stem will be computed separately for the reach 1) above
During Water-Short Year Administration years,
2. Imported Water Supply Credits Above
Final Settlement Stipulation http://tinyurl.com/25z9ex
III.B.1.K
k. Wells acquired or constructed by a State for the
sole purpose of offsetting stream depletions in order to comply with its
Compact Allocations. Provided that, such Wells shall not
cause any new net depletion to stream flow either annually or long-term.
The determination of net depletions from these Wells will be computed by the
RRCA Groundwater Model and included in the State’s Computed Beneficial
Consumptive Use. Augmentation plans and related accounting procedures submitted
under this Subsection III.B.1.k. shall be approved by
the RRCA prior to implementation.
IV.H
Augmentation credit, as further described in
Subsection III.B.1.k., shall be calculated in accordance with the RRCA Accounting
Procedures and by using the RRCA Groundwater Model.
A revised version of LB 701 is now available for viewing. This is an amendment to LB 701 introduced by the sponsor Senator Mark Christensen. This probably becomes the document the Committee works from.
You can access the to be amended bill here. Its permanent link is on the left hand side under studies.
A revised summary by section is also available. Very helpful when trying to make sense of all the legalese.
All Natural Resource Committee members have a copy of the revised bill.
Where are water imports measured at? Ask the DNR and they will tell you a compact stream gage. Ask an opponent of water imports and they will say at the Kansas border.
Anyone that wants to know the facts can read the official documents. I have excerpted the key sections.
When you are done reading you should ask the question, where are the selected stream cells? Once you know the answer to that you will have the real answer.
I have a partial list of the “Selected Stream Cells”.
Excerpts from the Republican River Compact Administration Accounting Procedures
and Reporting Requirements
http://tinyurl.com/2hllro
III.A.3
3. Imported Water Supply Credit Calculation:
The amount of Imported Water Supply Credit shall be determined by the RRCA
Groundwater Model. The Imported Water Supply Credit of a State shall not be
included in the Virgin Water Supply and shall be counted as a credit/offset
against the Computed Beneficial Consumptive Use of water allocated to that
State. Currently, the Imported Water Supply Credits shall be determined using
two runs of the RRCA Groundwater Model:
a. The “base” run shall be the run with all groundwater pumping, groundwater
pumping recharge, and surface water recharge within the model study boundary for
the period 1940 to the current accounting year turned “on.” This will be the
same “base” run used to determine groundwater Computed Beneficial Consumptive
Uses.
b. The “no NE import” run shall be the run with the same model inputs as the
base run with the exception that surface water recharge associated with
Nebraska’s Imported Water Supply shall be turned “off.”
The Imported Water Supply Credit shall be the difference in stream flows between
these two model runs. Differences in stream flows shall be determined at the
same locations as identified in Subsection III.D.1.for the “no pumping” runs.
Should another State import water into the Basin in the future, the RRCA will
develop a similar procedure to determine Imported Water Supply Credits.
III.D.1
Calculation of Annual Computed Beneficial Consumptive Use
1. Groundwater
Computed Beneficial Consumptive Use of groundwater shall be determined by use of
the RRCA Groundwater Model. The Computed Beneficial Consumptive Use of
groundwater for each State shall be determined as the difference in streamflows
using two runs of the model:
The “base” run shall be the run with all groundwater pumping, groundwater
pumping recharge, and surface water recharge within the model study boundary for
the period 1940 to the current accounting year “on”.
The “no State pumping” run shall be the run with the same model inputs as the
base run with the exception that all groundwater pumping and pumping recharge of
that State shall be turned “off.”
An output of the model is baseflows at selected stream cells. Changes in the
baseflows predicted by the model between the “base” run and the
“no-Statepumping” model run is assumed to be the depletions to streamflows.
i.e., groundwater computed beneficial consumptive use, due to State groundwater
pumping at that location. The values for each Sub-basin will include all
depletions and accretions upstream of the confluence with the Main Stem. The
values for the Main Stem will include all depletions and accretions in stream
reaches not otherwise accounted for in a Sub-basin. The values for the Main Stem
will be computed separately for the reach above Guide Rock, and the reach below
Guide Rock.
Final Settlement Stipulation
http://tinyurl.com/25z9ex
III.B.1.K
k. Wells acquired or constructed by a State for the sole purpose of offsetting
stream depletions in order to comply with its Compact Allocations. Provided
that, such Wells shall not cause any new net depletion to stream flow either
annually or long-term. The determination of net depletions from these Wells will
be computed by the RRCA Groundwater Model and included in the State’s Computed
Beneficial Consumptive Use. Augmentation plans and related accounting procedures
submitted under this Subsection III.B.1.k. shall be approved by the RRCA prior
to implementation.
IV.H
Augmentation credit, as further described in Subsection III.B.1.k., shall be
calculated in accordance with the RRCA Accounting Procedures and by using the
RRCA Groundwater Model.
I have a partial list of the “Selected Stream Cells”.
Fourty Five day trial begins in Colorado regarding the shut down of groundwater irrigation wells.
WaterClaim provides several levels of information.
Public - Information that is shown here on the web site.
Members - We provide a great deal more information to our members than what is shown on the web site. Members get frequent email updates.
Executive Members - Executive members get all of the regular email plus the more sensitive information such as the who behind various activities. They also determine the direction of WaterClaim.
If you continue to read below, you will see one of the recent emails that went out to members. It shows information that you will find no where else. This particular report is a summary of what Ann Bleed said at her confirmation hearing. It reports what the DNR has told the Senators it intends to do.
If you are a member you get this type of information on a frequent basis. Below is a summary and notes on what each person said.
February 2, 2007
Ann Bleed confirmation hearing notes
Short Summary: Ann Bleed says that the goal is to bring the Republican River Basin into compliance with the annual needs within 5 years. The 2006 overage is about 32,000 acre feet. So the goal would be to reduce usage slowly so that by 2012 the annual overage is zero.
The way this would be done is to reduce usage in the Quick Response areas. It isn’t fair and it will be very difficult. She hopes to have those plans in place and agreed to by the NRDs by the summer of 2007. Once those plans are in place, then she will go to the Governor and ask for compensation for the Quick Response landowners. She will also ask the Legislature. This compensation should come from the State and the local communities.
A complete transcript will be available from the Clerk of the Legislature.
Opening Statement
Ann Bleed: Promised an open process with water management community and water users.
Reviewed credentials, two PhDs, one in industrial systems with an emphasis in hydrology and natural resources.
Taught classes at the Natural Resources school
Degree in civil engineering
Acting administrator of DNR for 16 months
Was, with Roger Patterson, negotiator of the Cooperative Agreement.
Was also very involved in the Republican River Basin Settlement Agreement
Is trained as a dispute mediator
How she will approach the job.
S Open communications with NRD, surface, power, and environmentalists
S Fair allocation of water
S Help Nebraska manage water now and in the future
S Help overcome antagonism between surface and ground water users
LB 962 is a very good bill
It preserves local control.
However, the DNR not only regulates surface water use but helps develop IMPs. The law requires that the IMPs protect surface water users and groundwater users whose water is recharged by surface water use.
LB 962 is an involved decision making process that brings people together. It is a good process even though it is difficult.
Dealing with the overappropriated areas will be very difficult – especially in the Republican River Basin. (she says the Republican River Basin is overappropriated even though it is officially fully appropriated.)
Must help Basins go from over to fully appropriated
This means more restrictions and regulations in the Republican River Basin. Controls must be put in place that restrict Quick Response areas. They don’t have to be continued long term but are required for short term compliance.
Funding is necessary. It must be fair.
State and local are both responsible, both must fund.
Chairman Louden then opened the hearing to questions from Senators.
Senator Louden: How long have you been acting director?
Ann Bleed: 16 months.
Senator Christensen: You mentioned good communications. Will you provide the senators copy of whatever you give the NRDs and how long will it take you to answer requests for information?
Ann Bleed: Will be happy to provide the senators copy of all NRD packets and will also have information on the web site. Along with DVD of data and FTP site. There is more information on the DNR web site than most people realize. Too much some say.
Senator Dubas: Communications is important, how will you do that?
Ann Bleed: Talk to stakeholders, a long list of how many different groups she had been to see just this week. Twin Platte, North Platte, Republican River Basin, etc, etc,
Will respond to requests for information as quick as possible. Groundwater modeling requests can take time though.
Records are open
Will provide as much information as possible.
Senator Carlson: What are the top two or three challenges for 2007?
Ann Bleed: 1. Do what we must in the Republican River Basin. 2. Develop and finalize the IMPs on the other basins.
Senator Carlson: The statistics that I see show Nebraska to be over its allowance for 2006 by 32,000 acre feet. What is a reasonable gain on this number for 2007?
Ann Bleed: It depends on your point of view. We are working with the NRDs to balance. Plan to have plan that we suggested in McCook by August.
Goal is to reduce our annual overage to 0 within 5 years.
Senator Carlson: Where is the line of positive control on vegetation. (how far back from the center of the stream must vegetation be removed)
Ann Bleed: Vegetation uses water. We need to control it. Especially below the reservoirs. When we purchased surface water and released it last year it caused flooding. We need to remove the trees that are blocking flow. Talking with Bureau and Army Corp. Dealing with Steve Chick who is coordinating all of the activities in the State. The stream is being blocked by non-invasive species.
Senator Fischer: What should the Legislature do?
Ann Bleed:
Pass the DNR cleanup bill.
Decide how to regulate Quick Response areas
In time set the allocations the same for both Quick Response and Upland wells but not now as we don’t need to do that on the upland and they can contribute to the economy.
The restrictions on the Quick Response wells are going to affect the people that drilled wells to replace their surface irrigation water that dried up so they get hit twice.
How we do this fairly is the challenge.
Compensate the Quick Response people for their loss after the IMPs are put in place.
Senator Fischer: What are the Federal issues?
Ann Bleed: The Endangered Species act on the Platte. If Fish and Wildlife start going in a bad direction then we are at the table to help stop that.
Senator Christensen: You mentioned compensation. Will the DNR have suggestions on that.
Ann Bleed: Yes, we are working with the NRDs on the compensation issue. If we come up with viable plans for restricting use that balance the annual overage within 5 years. Then I will go to the Governor and ask for money to compensate the Quick Response people. The Legislature, of course, decides.
Senator Carlson: Augmentation. What is it? Hoes does it work?
Chairman Louden: This is more than your three.
Ann Bleed: 2 ways. One is trans-basin. I have heard about Loup, Elkhorn, and Platte river ideas. If the source area is fully or over appropriated then a groundwater transfer must have the permission of the source and destination NRDs. I hear that Tri Basin is holding a hearing regarding allowing transfers. Funding is not cheap. There are water quality issues that have to be addressed.
The other is retiming. It involves pumping water into the stream from wells close by. When the area is hydrologically connected as all of the Republican River Basin is then the Agreement with Kansas requires that we cannot have an effect on the stream in either the short term or the long term. This is expensive but doable.
No more questions from the Senators.
Proponents: None
Opponents: Letter from Ron Klein
Neutral: Steve Smith, WaterClaim representing irrigators and businesses that care about water. Since the Natural Resources Committee has oversight of the DNR, we ask that the Committee help obtain information from the DNR. Over the last three years WaterClaim has had an extremely difficult time obtaining the information that the area needs to make good decisions. Please use the oversight powers of the Committee to help ensure information is accessible.
Notice what Colorado State House Representative David Balmer from Arapahoe County says about water. He is the assistant House Republican leader
The problem
Nebraska uses more water than it is allowed.
The Cause
A combination of factors
The Options
There are two sets of options. Option A keeps Nebraska in compliance but does not solve the underlying problem. In fact, it permits the underlying causes to continue. Option B solves the underlying problems but creates new ones.
Option A (one or some combination of the following):
Option B
- Permanently shut off most of the alluvial wells.
- Cut down a large percentage of the trees in the Republican River Basin. The trees must be replaced with something that uses a minimal amount of water.
- Remove most of the conservation practices.
- Import water into the Republican River Basin from the Platte River Basin.
- Eliminate most irrigation, remove most trees via natural means suchs as fires and floods, remove most of the humans, and keep the conservation. Return to the way things were before most of the settlers arrived.
Comments
Those are the options. WaterClaim believes the best option is A4. We believe this costs the least, causes the fewest disruptions, and permits the communities to continue to operate as normal.
I personally believe that once we have eliminated the immediate threat, we must, as a region, sit down and decide how we are going to deal with the long term problem of a declining aquifer in three counties and how we want to deal with reduced stream flows. There are a lot of options on how to deal with these problems. There are many disagreements on which are the correct choices. The choices will have a profound effect on the communities. But, it is a decision that we need to make once we have dealt with the immediate threat.
Some want that decision made now. They want that decision to be A1 and a partial B1. Some rejoice that a judge may step in and force a shutdown or a partial shutdown of irrigation. There are some that are working hard to block A4 because they don’t believe the community will ever make the hard decisions if there is no requirement to do so. Perhaps their fears are correct. But ask them if it is worth wreaking economic havoc to make sure.
Disclaimer: There are 23 NRDs, each with a distinct personality and style. This obviously applies to some more than others and to some individuals much more than others. This is a generalization.
Ann Bleed has made a number of phone calls complaining that the letter from Kansas that she gave to a group of elected representatives ended up on the WaterClaim site. The NRDs are not happy that the letter was published, and they sure don’t like being chewed out by their lobbyists and the Director of the DNR. Kansas accused the NRDs of not doing enough, and the NRDs are afraid people are going to believe the accusation. Better to just hide the letter and maybe no one will think about it.
Sorry, everyone. The letter was from one public official to another. It was given to a group of elected officials. It concerns one of the most important issues facing Nebraska. The public has a right to know the concerns Kansas has. It is my opinion that the better the public understands the complaint, the more understanding they will be on why things are going to change.
I could have obtained the letter via an open records request, but I shouldn’t have to. The public has a right and a need