Where are imports credited at? Again
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.