« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
There is a new version of the water bill out. It was written jointly by the DNR, NRDs, and Jody Gittens. I call it LB 701 d
WaterClaim had nothing to do with the creation of this version other than to suggest that if they insist on doing a surface water purchase, that it be done on a permanent basis with a bond. They apparently liked that idea.
Links open in MS Word
Omaha World Herald on the water plan for the Republican River Basin
The $100 an acre should read $10 an acre.
I will give a more complete analysis in the near future. The OWH is missing a lot of information.
What is likely to happen regarding water in the Republican River Basin.
The Legislature will pass a set of bills that will permit the NRDs to levy taxes/fees on the Basin. The NRDs are asking for legal authority to collect an occupation tax of up to $10 an acre and the authority to levy a new $0.10 cents per one hundred dollars in valuation and a continuation of the existing $0.085 cents per one hundred dollars currently allowed. If the total amount requested were allowed and was collected, then the NRDs would have the ability to generate about $15 million a year on top of what they collect now. The NRDs are asking for the authority to use that money as each NRD sees fit.
From what I can tell, this puts 100% of the cost on the irrigators and tax payers of the Basin. The State is likely to authorize these requests because it costs the State almost nothing and because each NRD is requesting this tax be placed entirely on them.
This authorization could come within the next couple of weeks. Because the Legislation would be passed with the emergency clause it would take effect yet this spring.
I expect the NRDs will immediately take steps to implement the per acre fee. That means there is likely to be a fee assessed per irrigated acre this year. That money is likely to go towards the lease of surface water. The NRDs have already committed to buying water from Frenchman Cambridge irrigation district for about $7.8 million for 2007 only and have begun negotiations to lease the Bostwick Irrigation water.
The Upper Republican NRD has indicated that it might be better for the Upper to use its taxing authority to buy out groundwater irrigation near the stream. So it may use the money it collects towards surface water leases and then begin to retire groundwater irrigation in the future.
The NRDs argue that the State has completely failed to do its duty and therefore for the good of the Basin, it is necessary for the residents of the Basin to pay the entire bill.
Because the deadline is for compliance with Kansas is at the end of this year there is a tremendous amount of pressure for this to be done now. The NRDs have decided that it is better to assign full responsibility on groundwater irrigators rather than assign responsibility accurately. The reasoning is, irrigators cannot win the argument in time to save themselves so it is better to just pay everything and ignore the effects of conservation and the flaws in the model.
The good news is that if this solution should happen then the water crisis for the Republican River Basin should be well on its way towards a positive resolution. This should remove uncertainty from the market, it should allow land prices to jump, it should allow people to plan.
The bad news about the plan is that it puts 100% of the cost on the Basin. It puts most of the responsibility, incorrectly, on groundwater irrigation. It ignores several major flaws in the Model. It ignores other solutions that would have been much less expensive. It will significantly raise the cost of operations for the farmer. In addition, I expect there will be a reduction in allocations for the 08-11 time period of somewhere around ˝ to 1 inch.
And Jasper and Dean, while you complain about this post, remember that everything said here you have already posted on your own web sites or you have said at public meetings.
The Imperial Republican has a story on the ruling by the Supreme Court on the suit by the URNRD against the District Court.
Russ Pankonin has an editorial on the subject.
drawn by Jake Stutzman of Hastings
The Omaha World Herald had an editorial today critical of those that say conservation has a significant effect on the stream.
The Omaha paper might want to take a look at this site for the multiple references to conservation, including the links to a conservation study done by James Koelliker from Kansas State as well as see statements made by more than one DNR director.
They might also look at this video on YouTube taken by the Thoms of T&L irrigation.
Why does the Omaha paper want to belittle the effects of conservation? Perhaps it is because if they acknowledge the effects of conservation, then it means the irrigators they have attempted to make into criminals might not be as guilty as they would like them to be. In my opinion, the Omaha paper is one of the primary distributors of the idea that irrigators are guilty of plundering "the people's property." The Omaha paper tends to report stories that support this idea and suppress stories that disagree with this idea. It is hard to trust or respect people who knowingly abuse their power in this way. Since they are willing to do this on this subject, what other subjects have their truths distorted? Scary.
McCook Gazette story on State plans to buy surface water and amend Senator Carlson or Christensen's bill to accomplish that.
Ann Bleed and Jasper Fanning attended the Appropriations Committee and suggested that Nebraska purchase surface water. This AP story made the front page of the Lincoln Journal Star on Tuesday. This is the same story published in the Wichita Eagle
KOTA reports that Ann Bleed said in Gering today that the State needs water for the Platte but doesn't own any water and does't have any money to buy water.
The Natural Resources Committee killed LB594 that would have prohitied well drilling for two years.
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District threatens lawsuit to shut down groundwater irrigation. Central believes that out of the approximately one million acre feet the river is short of water that about 100,000 of that shortage is caused by groundwater irrigation. The remaining shortage is presumably caused by the drought and conservation.
Nebraska Supreme Court Ruling Regarding URNRD Suit Against the District Court
On Friday, March 2, 2007, the Nebraska Supreme Court entered a ruling regarding the Open Meetings lawsuit the Upper Republican NRD filed against the District Court. The URNRD action was in response to a March 22, 2006, District Court order requiring the URNRD to answer questions about the executive sessions it held in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The URNRD disputed the District Court order and asked the Nebraska Supreme Court to block the requirement they answer questions about the closed sessions.
The URNRD made three arguments:
1. The Open Meetings Act protects the URNRD.
2. Attorneys were present, so what was said is confidential.
3. The closed door sessions were about State secrets, so are protected.
On March 2, 2007, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on the three arguments.
The Court ruled against the URNRD on the first argument that the Open Meetings Act protected them. This was the primary argument members of the URNRD used as an excuse for blocking public access to information about its discussions with the DNR when setting up water allocations for 2005 through 2007.
The Court ruled “maybe” on argument two. It said that just because an attorney is present, it doesn’t protect the URNRD. But, there might be things that are protected, so the District Court has a ministerial duty to allow the URNRD to show the judge evidence that would support their claim. The Supreme Court says this is best done in camera.
“In camera” is Latin for "in chambers."
“A legal proceeding is ’in camera’ when a hearing is held before the judge in her private chambers or when the public is excluded from the courtroom. Proceedings are often held in camera to protect victims and witnesses from public exposure, especially if the victim or witness is a child. There is still, however, a record made of the proceeding, typically by a court stenographer. The judge may decide to seal this record if the material is extremely sensitive or likely to prejudice one side or the other.” From www.nolo.com
Regarding the URNRD claim that State secrets were discussed in closed session, the Court said, “You never used this argument before now so we will not address it now.”
So what happens now? The matter returns to the District Court. The URNRD will be required to appear before the District Court Judge, in his chambers, and is allowed to present evidence about which, if any, of the close door communications qualify as attorney-client privilege. The Judge will then permit questions about whatever might not be privileged to help determine if the URNRD illegally excluded the public from the formation of public policy.
You can read the Supreme Court ruling at: http://tinyurl.com/yu4mfw.
Kansas man drops water lawsuit due to pressure from neighbors
Kansas City KCTV story on irrigation that quotes WaterClaim
Grand Island Independent story on Hagel and Nelson introducing Legislation to provide funding for the Platte River Cooperative Agreement. Registration required.