Is Buying Surface Water Alone Enough?
The red line, in this Chart, shows that Nebraska would have been in compliance each year since 1981 if it eliminated all surface irrigation in critical years. The critical years were 1991, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and probably 2006. In order for Nebraska to get full credit for the elimination of consumptive use caused by surface irrigation, it must purchase or lease all surface water from any particular reservoir. One reason is that between 33% and 50% of the surface water consumptive use is caused by evaporation from the reservoirs. Nebraska believes that it can pass all of the costs of evaporation to Kansas if Nebraska uses none of the surface water.
Considerations:
• Consumptive Use caused by groundwater pumping is increasing at a rate of about 2,000 acre feet a year.
• Surface water consumptive use ranges between 39,000 acre feet and 140,000 acre feet each year.
• About half of the irrigation ditches have had water during the driest of the last several years.
• Eliminating surface water consumptive use would be enough to keep Nebraska in compliance on an annual basis if groundwater consumptive use does not grow and/or the allocation increases.
• Purchasing or leasing all of the surface water in 2007 will not eliminate the existing accumulated overages.
Conclusion
The purchase or lease of surface irrigation rights are necessary. Control of the surface water rights will usually keep Nebraska in compliance. However, during periods with very low allocations, as we have had during 2000 through 2006, it will probably be necessary to supplement the stream with additional water. This is because depletions caused by groundwater will continue to grow unless there is a significant reduction of irrigation near the stream from groundwater wells in addition to control of all surface irrigation. Small reductions in allocations have a very limited benefit according to the computer simulation
LB 701 gives the NRDs the authority to raise funds to make long-term purchases or leases of surface water or quick response wells. The price it pays for those rights will be negotiated with the owners. The total cost and, hence, the cost to the taxpayers is dependent on the rates negotiated by the NRDs. Those negotiations between the NRDs and the irrigation districts are legitimate uses of the closed session provisions of the open meetings act.
If the NRDs can successfully control surface water, if Kansas agrees to eliminate evaporation as a charge to Nebraska, if the NRDs put in place a way to augment the stream in case of prolonged dry periods, then groundwater irrigation in the Republican River Basin should be able to continue with no reductions in allocations to the individual irrigators. However, the Upper Republican NRD is likely to cause lower groundwater allocations because of concerns over the aquifer, even though such reductions will have very minimal benefit to the stream. Permanent control of surface water rights is probably much less expensive than year to year control. However, there are a number of surface water users that do not want to transfer that control on a permanent basis even if they are paid a significant premium.
As an alternative to augmenting the stream during prolonged dry periods, the NRDs could choose to reduce pumping by the wells close to the stream. Because of the delayed effect of such reductions, the NRDs would have to overcompensate. The conservationist-oriented board members will prefer the reduction in allocation approach rather than the augmentation approach. Those that want a stronger economy and to use all water that can be legally used will prefer the augmentation approach. The conservationist approach will cause large amounts of water to be unused in wet years, and that water will go to Kansas with no benefit to Nebraska.
Because of huge economic ramifications of these policy decisions, the NRDs are now the primary managers of the economy of the Basin.