WaterClaim

Amendment 938 combines several water related bills into one. It includes Senator Carlson’s vegetation bill, the DNR technical cleanup bill, permits surprise well moratoriums, and most importantly, bonding and taxing authority for the NRDs.

WaterClaim has proposed a number of feasible solutions that are less expensive and less disruptive than permanently buying surface water. Buying out surface water on a year to year basis may work but will be very expensive and could potentially fall short of achieving compliance. While WaterClaim does not like this solution because it puts almost the entire burden on the local basin and is much more expensive than the solutions WaterClaim has supported, it may be the only option that is politically acceptable at this time. The NRDs rejected the less expensive solutions which would have included much greater State financial support and required them to work together.

Amendment 938 is what each of the three Republican River Basin NRDs have voted to support. It gives the NRDs maximum flexibility and the ability to raise enough funds to potentially solve the problem without State support. They feel this is the best route because they do not believe we can trust the State of Nebraska to contribute any significant financial amount toward achieving compliance with the Settlement Agreement that Nebraska made with Kansas.
There are still many unknowns. The NRDs haven’t decided if they want to do a surface water purchase, pump water into the stream, cut down trees, or shut off irrigation close to the stream. The NRDs appear to prefer a year to year purchase of surface water, followed by the development of well fields within the Basin that could pump water into the stream – potentially lowering the aquifer in those areas and increasing the problem for a future generation. They call it retiming.

It is possible that the NRDs will choose to do a long term lease of surface water. At the moment, they are not sharing their intentions with the public so that they may more easily maintain all options.

The share of the financial contribution by each party depends on the time frame one looks at. Under the NRD amendment, in year one, the State would contribute 8 million and the Basin would contribute nothing; however the Basin would impose a tax to be collected in 2008 that could raise as much as $14 million. In year two, the State would contribute about $6 million and the Basin up to another $14 million. From then on, the Basin would contribute almost all of the money. If a long term, 20 year bond is floated, then the Basin would repay that bond with the per acre fees and property taxes they are allowed to collect, making the basin’s total contribution in the neighborhood of $200 million vs. Nebraska’s contribution of about $15 million. The NRDs will report about a $60 million dollar purchase, but that does not include twenty years of irrigation district operations and maintenance or interest or well field operational costs.

Some numbers that might help put this into perspective. If the NRDs collected the full taxes allowed, $10 an irrigated acre and $0.10 per one hundred on property taxes, then a 1,000 acre irrigated farm would pay about $12,000 new taxes. A 1,000 acre dryland farm would pay about $500 in new taxes. A $100,000 home would pay about $100 in new taxes.

WaterClaim believes that the State should pay a much higher percentage but realizes that it may be impossible to force the State to do that. It will be especially hard for Senator Christensen and Carlson to persuade the State to pay more when the Basin NRDs have offered to pay at such a high level. The NRDs wrote this amendment without the involvement of the Senators and did not let them see it until a week ago.

In defense of the NRDs, most of the farmers that irrigate have said they would be willing to pay the high taxes in exchange for seeing the problem go away. Indeed, irrigated farmers will pay far more than everyone else; however, there is no guarantee that the problem will go away. In fact, the DNR has said lower allocations will be required, even with these large scale projects. In order to get the bond, the people who are willing to write the check for $60 million say they will only accept payment from taxes collected via property taxes because they have never seen a per acre tax before and want at least two years of history of per acre fees before they will accept that form of payment.

WaterClaim has many concerns about the NRD amendment. One critical concern is that we think the NRDs must work together for the benefit of everyone in the Basin. The NRDs promise to do so but have a history of doing otherwise. We would like assurances that they will work as a team. We believe they must be accountable, and they need to demand written assurances that what they do will solve the problem long-term.

WaterClaim has found errors in the Model. We think there are several significant errors. We are asking for an audit by an independent party to look at the problems we have found. We are asking that conservation be addressed. We are asking for better reports and forecasts. The NRDs and DNR chose to exclude those things from their amendment.

The NRDs, the Governor, the DNR, the Attorney General’s office, and Farm Bureau are working together with multiple lobbyists to persuade the Legislature to adopt amendment 938. WaterClaim is lobbying for amendments to include some of the protections and assurances that would better represent the interests of the Republican River Basin.