On Tuesday, May 4, Kansas returned to the United States Supreme Court and asked the Court to find Nebraska in contempt and to appoint a River Master to enforce the claims Kansas has made against Nebraska.
Kansas has asked that all wells within a couple of miles of either side of the stream (about 1/3 of the wells in the Basin) be shut off in water short years. Nebraska argues that this is overkill and will give Kansas much more water than it is entitled to.
Pumping data is taken from the official 2006 Model run. Precipitation data is average for County taken from US Weather Service.
Total water used is pumping plus average precipitation.
Efficiency is based on the difference between average water use by all irrigators in the Basin and the total water used by irrigators in a particular county. Frontier County uses less total water than any other County while Nuckolls uses the most.
The County that pumps the most water per irrigated acre is Lincoln County in the Middle Republican NRD. The second highest using County is Dundy County in the Upper Republican NRD. Nuckolls pumps the least amount of water but uses more total water than any other County.
WaterClaim has obtained via an Open Records request the data that has permitted us to create Google Earth compatible files that show which wells are affected by the State's proposed shut down options.
These are clips of the files you can see if you are a WaterClaim member. They show whose wells are affected and how much of an affect on the stream the DNR says each well has. The map is zoomable and the transparancy levels are adjustable so you can look at your farm or at the overall picture.
Contact us if you are interested in becoming a member. WaterClaim provides frequent email updates on the water situation.
The State of Nebraska is presenting the NRDs with three options of which it wants the NRDs to adopt one at their December board meetings.
How much of the water in a stream comes from the aquifer and how much from recent precipitation? The method used has a large influence on whether Nebraska is in compliance with the Compact or not.
Effects of Conservation on the stream
Conservation is a tool. It is like fire. Used properly it is beneficial. But even beneficial things have effects. Fire produces heat and if that is what we want that is a good thing. But it also consumes fuel. Which do I value more, the fuel or the heat? Conservation protects the soil, water and air. Those are good things. But is also slows or stops some water from getting to the stream. It produces more vegetation. That may or may not be a good thing. Saying that conservation is only good and has no side effects is inaccurate. To be fair and honest all effects should be measured.
Looking for crazy ideas? While this may not be an economically viable solution, it is something that could work. It would save more water than the CREP program and cost less, so maybe it isn't as crazy as it first looks.
By my estimates, it would take about $140 million dollars and take about 800 million balls to cover Harlan County Reservoir. Perhaps white balls? Could you water ski through this?
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Director Brian Dunnigan said this morning he couldn't discuss details of any proposals still under consideration, but he told the Hub that plans were being made for a Sept. 17 public meeting somewhere in the Republican Basin to discuss possible compact compliance options.
In a statement this morning, Heineman said he met last week with officials of the Lower, Middle and Upper Republican NRDs.
"They told me that they are working with the Department of Natural Resources to develop integrated management plans that would be in compliance with the three-state compact during water-short years," Heineman said. "The general managers of the NRDs, Mike Clements, Dan Smith and Jasper Fanning, indicated they thought they would have mutually agreeable plans by Dec. 1."
Note that Government officials no longer even attempt to hide that many policy discussions have been happening in secret. It should not surprise them when many of those plans are challenged in Court because they have ignored the people they are attempting to impose the plans on object. Failure to involve people in the development of the solution is good formula to lose their support.
The arbitrator made 12 recommendations based on the 53 conclusions and 159 findings that he reached. The ruling leaves many important issues unresolved.
The arbitrator ruled that Nebraska cannot shift all of the evaporation losses to Kansas as it has tried to do. As a result, the Kansas estimates on how much Nebraska has been over are more correct than Nebraska's. The arbitrator rejected Nebraska's suggested solution to one of the the demonstrated errors in the Model. However, he did recommend that the technical committee carefully review the problem and suggest a correction. He rejected most of the Nebraska suggestions regarding measurement points with the exception that he did accept the idea that the measurement point on the North Fork of the Republican be moved to the Nebraska/Colorado border. That will make it more difficult for Nebraska to comply in the future as Nebraska will have to stop the water Colorado dumps at the State line from disappearing before it reaches the next stream gage.
The ruling rejected the dollar amounts suggested by all States as being unsupported. So the ruling suggests a nominal award from Nebraska to Kansas of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) until Kansas "proves" an actual amount in damages.
The ruling rejects the Kansas suggestion that all wells within 2.5 miles of either side of the stream be shut off as being more than necessary due to the reduced pumping Nebraska has already imposed on irrigation. However, he rejects Nebraska's position that the current Integrated Management Plans are adequate and recommends that additional reductions in allocations be made and that Nebraska should secure long term access to surface water rights. No specifics are given. The ruling says that Kansas has the right to seek injunctive relief should Nebraska fail to stay within the allocations and that Nebraska may be sanctioned such that it is incentivized to comply. However, no details are provided as to what that relief might be or what the sanctions might be. Additionally, the arbitrator has recommended that no River Master be appointed.
The arbitrator left a lot of things open for others to decide. He has deferred many of the specifics. No dollar amounts are given. He agrees that there are technical problems found in the Model but leaves it to the States to resolve. He has rejected both parties proposed solutions but has not said what the solution should be. He does suggest that the IMPs are ineffective in keeping Nebraska in compliance because of the time it takes for the IMPs to have any effect. He says Nebraska needs to find better ways to stay in compliance but leaves it up to the State as to how to do that. He says that if Nebraska fails that Kansas can force compliance but also leaves it open as to what it can specifically do. In the short term there are few financial costs. However, Kansas is given the opportunity to prove actual costs which the arbitrator says may result in millions of dollars.
The ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court that the State is responsible for Compact compliance seriously weakens the ability of the NRDs to protect the region’s economy. Because the NRDs do not now have a way to financially influence the outcome, the area is dependent on the goodwill of the State to solve the compliance issue without hurting the economy of the region.
The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the responsibility for Compact compliance on the Republican River Basin is a State responsibility and hence the property taxes raised locally to pay the State's bill violate the Nebraska Constitution.
A copy of the ruling is here.
This ruling is much more damaging to LB 701 than the District Court ruling. The ball is now in the State's hands as to how to keep the area in compliance.
The Arbitrator on the Republican River dispute between Kansas and Nebraska and Colorado has issued a preliminary set of decisions.
Summary of the rulings
View the Arbitrator's ruling
What are the consequences of the District Court ruling parts of LB701 unconstitutional? In the short term – not much.
The State has already loaned the NRDs the money to pay for the 2007 water purchase, with repayment due when the Court approves the law.
The NRDs have no water purchases in mind nor any public augmentation plans in place for 2008. As a result, there is no immediate need for money. Because of the large rains in 2007, the State expects that it will be in compliance for 2008, even if it doesn’t do anything. That happens because the rains of 2007 will not be credited to Nebraska until the water is released from the reservoirs in 2008.
On May 20, Judge Merritt ruled LB 701 unconstitutional. He ruled that the provision that caused the tax to apply only to three of the Republican River Basin NRDs violated the closed class section of the Nebraska Constitution. He also imposed an injunction on the collection of the property tax portion of the bill. The occupational tax, which is the bulk of the money, remains in place.
There were three primary questions the Court addressed.
The first dealt with - is the tax a State obligation that the State should fund and not the tax payers of the Republican River Basin? The Court ruled that it was acceptable to place the tax on the property tax payers of the Basin because it was of primary benefit to the local people while at the same time it happened to help the State in its obligation.
The second dealt with - is the transfer of tax obligation from the State to the local district legal? The Court ruled that it is legal.
The third dealt with - is the limit on who can be taxed constitutional? The tax was only placed on the property tax payers and the irrigated land of three NRDs to the exclusion of all others. The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional as it unfairly targeted one segment of the population.
The Court has ruled that the tax on the irrigated land is acceptable but any tax on non-irrigated property in the Basin is not acceptable.
PDF File
Kansas has initiated the legal procedures as allowed under the Final Settlement Agreement. These procedures are outlined in Section VII of the Final Settlement.
An arbitrator will be chosen by CDR Associates of Boulder. One of the CDR associates is Jonathan Bartsch, who currently acts as facilitator for the Nebraska Water Policy Task Force.
On April 22, 2008, Kansas sent a letter to Nebraska detailing what it felt the damages should be for Nebraska's overuse. This was an estimate that Nebraska requested that Kansas make.
Attachment 1 - Estimated Cost of Compliance
Attachment 2 - Analysis of Measures Required for Compliance
Attachment 3 - Analysis of Shutdown Effects
The $72 million that Kansas is requesting covers the damages caused by Nebraska being out of compliance in 2005 and 2006. It does not include the costs Kansas will estimate at a later date for the 2007 overage or the 2003-2007 overages.
Now that Ann Bleed has resigned, we have renewed our effort to get some of the problems in the computer simulation regulating the Republican River corrected. As Bleed was a part of the negotiating team and technical staff that created the Model and adopted it, she had little incentive to correct the problems. Doing so could have been seen as an acknowledgment that some errors had been made in creation of the simulation.
Now that Bleed is gone there in a new opportunity to get a fresh set of eyes to look at the problems in the simulation and perhaps correct the most egregious.
This is a copy of the letter Nebraska sent to Kansas regarding the Republican River Basin
Links to the briefs filed with the Lancaster District Court regarding LB 701.
Updated to include the reply briefs.
The files are in PDF format.
What can the Legislature do to help fix the Republican River Basin water problem?
Most of the money necessary for these things is already in place if the price paid for the surface water is at or near market value.
If the Legislature takes no action, then it is very likely that:
There are many excuses given by those who don’t want a solution as to why this or that can’t happen. And, unfortunately, some of those who say they want a solution are actively blocking any idea that will actually work. But, a solution is doable if the Legislature causes it to happen.
Just resolving payment on the 2007 water purchase, which is currently being blocked by a lawsuit by the Friends of the River, which includes several surface irrigators, will not solve the problem. The IMPs passed by the NRDs at the request of the State and being touted by the State as a solution will not be nearly enough.
You can listen to a NET Radio interview with David Aiken on the water issue by Sarah McCammon
David Aiken, a water law expert at UNL, says the State is in a weak position.
“We have no leg to stand on. We are out of compliance. And there is no excuse for being out of compliance except that we didn’t want to do it. So, Kansas is holding all of the high cards.”
Aiken says he expects land values to take a hit and irrigated farm land to be taken out of production at least for a time. He thinks the State will be forced to clamp down on irrigation to avoid a Court battle with Kansas which would be even costlier. He says there is a silver lining, at least for some farmers.
“The bright spot is that at least corn prices are high; so even if pumping is cut back dramatically, corn farmers in the Republican River Basin will make more money for at least the next couple of years, even with dramatically less water than they have made for a long time in the past.”
________________
What Mr. Aiken fails to note is that along with the huge jump in commodity prices there has also been a huge jump in input costs. Ask any farm banker. He will tell you that the risk to the farmer has jumped dramatically because of the huge run up in costs that have accompanied the jump in crop prices. So his statement that farmers will make more money even with less water is not correct.
Attached is a copy of the letter Kansas has sent to Nebraska and Colorado, which initiates the legal process that may return the issue to the US Supreme Court.
Remember this is not a new lawsuit but simply the enforcement process of an existing judgment.
The steps Kansas must go through are:
1. Call for an administrative review by the RRCA, which this letter causes to happen.
2. Ask for non-binding arbitration.
3. Ask the US Supreme Court to take control.
This is for Chase County only as I only have access to all of the data I need for Chase County. It would be helpful to have this type of thing for other counties as well.
MRNRD sets 5 year allocation McCook Gazette
NRDs do not know how to pay for surface water purchase McCook Gazette
Stream Augmentation Nebraska Net Radio
A group of individuals have filed suit attempting to block the property taxes allowed by LB 701. They are not attempting to block the occupation tax that is on irrigated acres.
Colorado proposes to shut groundwater irrigation on all wells within three miles of all Republican River Basin streams in Yuma and Kit Carson counties.
Copy of the rules are suppose to be posted before the meetings at:
Meetings with representatives from Colorado Division of Water Resources will be in the following locations:
Holyoke: October 3 Peerless Theater 2:00 pm
Wray: October 3 Wray City Hall 7:00 pm
Yuma: October 4 Church of Nazarene 9:00 am
Idalia: October 4 Homestead Hall 2:00 pm
Burlington: October 4 Community and Education Center 7:00 pm
Copy of the rules are suppose to be posted before the meetings at:
Web Site
The Rocky Mountain News has a story about what the Colorado Governor's Water Task Force recommend regarding irrigation.
It seems that the favorite suggestion of every task force is to ask for more money for more studies, funded by the people they are studying. I wonder if it has something to do with the people that are chosen for the Task Forces in the first place.
Few Colorado farmers will take comfort in their recommendations.
Farmers have adopted a "live and let live" attitude. As a result, there is no organized resistance to those who have decided to take the water for their own purposes.
The Wall Street Journal has a story on ethanol and water that quotes Mike Clements of the Lower Republican NRD
The Friends of the River are challenging the constitutionality of the property tax being levied for Compact compliance with Kansas regarding the Republican River. They are basing this challenge on the idea that the Nebraska Constitution prohibits the use of property tax dollars for State purposes. Most agree that Compact compliance is a State responsibility. This seems to imply that the use of property tax dollars, as permitted in LB 701, is unconstitutional.
However, Article VII, Section 1 of the Nebraska Constitution says:
The Legislature shall provide for the free instruction in the common schools of this state of all persons between the ages of five and twenty-one years. The Legislature may provide for the education of other persons in educational institutions owned and controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof.
From Nebraska Statutes
Section 46-719
Interrelated Water Review Board; created; members; powers and duties.
(1)(a) The Interrelated Water Review Board is created for the purposes stated in subsections (2) through (5) of this section. The board shall consist of five members. The board, when appointed and convened, shall continue in existence only until it has resolved a dispute referred to it pursuant to such subsections. The Governor shall appoint and convene the board within forty-five days of being notified of the need to resolve a dispute. The board shall be chaired by the Governor or his or her designee, which designee shall be knowledgeable concerning surface water and ground water issues.
Continue reading "Interrelated Water Review Board Procedures" »
The MRNRD will hold a hearing on water allocations at the City Auditorium at West 5th and C Street in McCook, Nebraska on August 30th 2007 at 7:00 PM.
The NRD will take testimony on what the allocation should be. Reportedly the MRNRD will propose setting the allocation at 60 inches over 5 years. Which works out to 12 inches a year.
The full notice can be seen on the MRNRD web site.
Understanding Nebraska’s Obligations in the Republican River Compact
by Attorney General Jon Bruning
Recent comments by Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison at the Republican River Compact meeting have created some concern in Nebraska about the future. Keeping in mind that no one can predict the future, here is the history of the compact and the legal landscape as it exists today.
The Governor's agent says Nebraska has no plans on how to comply with the Republican River agreement requirements. She says this in spite Basin NRD plans that would keep the State in compliance.
The Basin NRDs released a statement in response.
It is good to see the NRDs publicly call the DNR on the games it is playing. If the NRDs remain united on requiring accurate information and consistent policy from the DNR, it will go a long way to solving the fundamental problem. Our only complaint with the NRDs is that until now they had allowed the DNR to tell different stories to different people and change the "facts" as they went along.
Republican River Compact Administration Meeting
Held in Junction City Kansas Conference Center
The web site for the center is http://www.junctioncitycourtyard.com/meetingsevents.aspx
The motel is reportedly full so if you plan on staying overnight you may need to find other accommodations.
The purpose of the meeting is for the three States to meet and discuss Compact Compliance.
The meeting and workshop are open to the public
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
The system used to measure compliance with the Republican River agreement with Kansas has some serious problems.
This is the information WaterClaim presented at the Legislative Hearing held on July 31, 2007.
Two articles by the McCook Gazette on the MRNRD tax plans
This turned out to be a re-announcement of what was done in May. Kind of like holding your Grand Opening a year after you really opened. Just a publicity stunt.
The Beatrice Sun reports an AP story that there has been another purchase of surface water from the same people that water was purchased from just a few weeks ago.
The story is a bit contradictory as it reports that the State made the purchase but also notes that only the NRDs have the authority to levy the taxes to make the purchase.
The McCook Gazette reports the same story but gives a different impression.
The Sterling Journal has a rather blunt report on the State of Colorado plans to force the shutdown of irrigation wells in the Republican Basin.
For more information on Harlan County Reservoir visit the Bureau of Reclamation web site.
The people who negotiated the agreement with Kansas decided that flood water should not count as credit towards Nebraska's compliance with the Republican River Compact. The definition of flood flows is given below.
One of the key players in the Republican River Basin dispute is resigning.
KHAS TV story on efforts by an RC&D to persuade landowners to allow the government to enter private property to kill Russian Olives and Salt Cedar.
First let me say that the trees on the Republican River do need to be managed. There is a very big need to remove much of the overgrowth. Before that happens, I think it would be very wise of the NRDs to think long and hard before that take on the responsibility of removing that vegetation. However, it appears that the NRDs are eager to not only manage tree removal but to pay for it with taxes on groundwater irrigators.
The Bureau of Reclamation did a study that reported that the trees exist because the dams were put in and stopped the floods. They didn't mention prairie fires also being eliminated but between the elimination of floods and fires, the trees took off and now overwhelm the river.
LB 701 provides $2 million dollars in 2007 and another $2 million in 2008 of State money for doing vegetation management studies. Only weed management entities and NRDs can apply for the vegetation removal grants and they must contribute 40% in matching funds. While I am all in favor of managing trees, I am concerned about the NRDs choosing to accept financial responsibility for managing what will be a multi-decade and multi-million dollar solution with no end in sight. My napkin method of estimating the cost of removing enough trees to do what is necessary is about $100 million over the next 10 years.
LB 701 does not obligate the NRDs to accept the responsibility for something they did not cause. Before they take that responsibility, I encourage them to look very closely at what the costs to the local tax payers will be, especially when the State funding disappears in two years. Measure that against the benefits of cleaning up a problem caused by someone other than the NRDs. Perhaps it is worth it but I suspect that our current NRDs boards are making some commitments that are going to haunt us in the future.
What happens if the NRDs don’t apply for the grant from the State? Nothing. Is that a good thing? Or are we better off establishing the idea that the NRDs should use taxes from groundwater irrigators to remove trees along the river?
Chris Thom has sent out an email showing the effects of terraces. This is the spring overflight.
A winter overflight can be seen at this previous post.
A thank you to the Thoms of T&L Irrigation for providing the images that speak much louder than words.
The McCook Gazette carries a letter to the editor from Dan Smith, manager of the Middle Republican NRD
The Beatrice Sun is reporting that the State is offering Bostwick Irrigation District $5.6 million dollars to not irrigate with surface water. Those with both groundwater and surface water will be able to continue to irrigate with the groundwater for 2007. If another deal is made in 2008, the new law would prohibit the irrigation via any method if the surface water was purchased. The NRDs oppose this clause in the law because they believe it will raise the price of water.
The price paid per acre foot of water is twice as much in 2007 as compared to 2006. $320 an acre foot as compared to $167 an acre foot last year. As the NRDs and DNR have chosen to ignore any alternative ways of staying in compliance the surface irrigation districts are in a position to set the price at whatever rate they please. The only risk they run by setting too high of a price is that the NRDs choose not to pay and hence running the risk that the State will fail to comply and that they would be shut off. So far, the NRDs have indicated that they are willing to pay much more than the surface irrigation districts are demanding.
The surface irrigators don't want to make a permanent sale and hence kill their golden goose. The State doesn't want to force the sale. As a result the NRDs will pick up the check for whatever the surface irrigators decide to set the price of water at. The NRDs have the authority to raise much more money than what is required by the surface irrigators at this time meaning that they can set the rate higher next year if more water is needed and there is little the groundwater irrigator can do other than pay.
A story out of the Denver Post about how Colorado plans to comply.
The Rocky Mountain News reports the same story but one could get a very different impression of the same facts.
LB 701 creates a vegetation management task force. The task force will set policy on how vegetation is managed in the Republican and Platte river basins. They will determine which plants are removed, how they are removed, and how much is paid to remove them. If you want to be one of the decision makers, you should apply for a seat on the task force.
McCook Gazette report on Middle Republican NRD board meeting
H.R. 1025: Lower Republican River Basin Study Act
A bill originally introduced by Tom Osborne, then carried by Jerry Moran and cosponsored by Adrian Smith.
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project to improve water supply reliability, increase the capacity of water storage, and improve water management efficiency in the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas.
What I think the market in the Republican River Basin will do in reaction to LB 701.
Web page with details of surface water lease
Ag Journal Story on Colorado plans. It appears that Colorado is hoping for more time and that more people might sign up for CREP and EQIP. There is nothing in the story that suggests that Colorado has any realistic plans on how comply. Reducing pumping in Colorado works the same way as it does in Nebraska. It will not result in compliance. WaterClaim has posted multiple reports showing that a change in pumping is of very little benefit. There seems to be a lack of comprehension of how the computer simulation works that controls the entire thing. Because it is complicated, too many pubic officials have ignored their responsibility to become experts on behalf of the people they represent.
Colorado regulators might want to review the HINDERLIDER v. LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK DITCH CO., 304 U.S. case.
I expect that Colorado will do what Nebraska is doing. Take all available surface water and put it in the stream. That means draining Bonny Reservoir. The Hinderlider case demonstrates that can be done without compensation.
It looks like Colorado may take the same approach as Nebraska to satisfy Kansas.
I find it strange that policy makers prefer to take the drastic actions they are rather than take a look at a couple of problems we have found in the Model or to import water.
A study of why our water policy makers all chose to jump off the cliff when other options were available should be an interesting read for a future generation that wants to avoid the same mistakes this one is making.
Gov. Heineman Signs Landmark Water Legislation Into Law
(Lincoln, Neb.) Gov. Dave Heineman signed LB 701 into law today, which provides for the funding of the state’s water-related priorities and includes the creation of a Water Resources Cash Fund (WRCF).
“LB 701 will help our state make substantial progress in our goal of achieving sustainable water use throughout Nebraska,” Gov. Heineman said. “I want to applaud the work of our State Senators, in particular the leadership of Speaker Mike Flood, Senator Mark Christensen and Senator LeRoy Louden. This bill addresses both our short-term issues in the Republican River Basin and creates a framework for addressing our long-term water challenges.
Heineman to Sign Christensen Tax Increase Today, May 1
This headline came from a web site controlled by Senator Christensen's opponent in the election. Keep that in mind when you read the comments. Even so, what it says is accurate.
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.
The reason that I have been saying LB 701 does not fix the fundamental problem is that just buying surface water alone is not enough. To keep the State in compliance, surface irrigators cannot divert water out of the stream when allocations are low, and the stream must be supplemented with extra water during the worst of times.
WaterClaim has long advocated the transfer of water from the Platte to the Republican River Basin as being the most cost-effective. However, it is possible to achieve similar results by drilling wells within the Republican River Basin and pumping that water into the stream. It just depends on where those wells are placed. There are signs that the NRDs and the DNR are realizing that is what needs to be done.
A public statement by the NRDs of what they now intend to do would go a long way toward relieving some of the fears and would help their own public relations. Perhaps they will do that someday. Once they provide the details, they might find that we, the people -- their employers -- can support what they are doing.
WaterClaim has long said that Nebraska must act to protect the State and the Basin from the consequences of a bad agreement with Kansas. The Legislature’s response was to give the NRDs a blank check that can be written on the account of the residents of the Basin. We hope this money will be spent in a way that protects the State and the Basin. We are concerned that some of the planned projects will be an ineffective use of the money. There are still some major problems with the agreement and the computer simulation that the policy makers need to consider before they make a multi-year and multi-million dollar commitment on behalf of the taxpayers.
LB 701 does not solve the problem nor does it put in place the mechanisms that will make sure Nebraska stays in compliance in the future. Unless the water allocations allowed to Nebraska increase via either increased precipitation or corrections in the computer simulation, the Republican River Basin will continue to have a water crisis that is largely political in nature.
(Lincoln, Neb.) Gov. Dave Heineman issued the following comment regarding the Legislature’s passage of LB 701. The bill provides for the funding of the state’s water-related priorities and includes the creation of a Water Resources Cash Fund.
Gov. Heineman said, “I’m pleased to see that the Legislature has passed this comprehensive water legislation and I look forward to signing this bill into law. LB 701 will help our state make substantial progress in our goal of achieving sustainable water use throughout Nebraska.
“I want to applaud the work of our State Senators. By addressing both our short-term issues in the Republican River Basin and by creating a framework addressing our long-term water challenges, this legislation will help our state move forward as we work to become better stewards of our most valuable natural resource.”
The Governor is scheduled to hold a bill signing ceremony on Tuesday, May 1.
LB 701
The Legislature voted to suspend its rules which require any bill which impacts the budget to pass after the budget bill is approved.
Speaker Flood said the reason for the immediate passage of LB 701 is to, “Inch us closer to compliance and to show good faith to Kansas.”
The Bill passed the Legislature at 10:22am Thursday April 26, 2007, on a vote of 43 for and 6 not voting.
Unless the Governor vetoes this bill it becomes law. It was passed as emergency legislation which means it takes effect immediately.
There has been a lot of rain in the Republican River Basin in the recent weeks. This chart shows what the inflows to Harlan Reservoir are so far this year. The 2007 number will increase as the year goes by. But this is where we are at so far.
Inflows into Harlan for most of April have been about 300 acre feet a day. On the 24th they jumped to 1,129 for the day. That increased inflow will probably stay high for a while.
Dear Senator
You are about to pass LB 701. There is one huge item the bill does not address that is of great importance to the guy at the end of the line.
A lot of people assume that the new water bill is something that WaterClaim supports or caused to happen because we supported Mark Christensen in his election bid and because Mark Christensen was an employee of WaterClaim.
WaterClaim did support Mark Christensen in his successful election bid. We did pay Mark a salary, both before and after the election. We did draft the first two versions of the water bill, LB 701.
However, Mark Christensen is no longer an employee of WaterClaim. He resigned from WaterClaim on April 1st.
A story in the Sterling Journal Advocate reports that buying out irrigation acres will not be enough in Colorado.
WaterClaim has been reporting that buyouts alone will not work in Nebraska either. Nebraska has the luxury of being able to do things that Colorado cannot. The question is, will the NRDs do more than just buyout surface irrigation? If not, then the problem will persist.
This is a very long write up but the very short version of how water policy was made. Someday, I may write up more of the details of exactly how the process works and what some of the motivations behind those decisions might be. I will try to avoid names.
Continue reading "How Nebraska Water Policy Decisions Are Made" »
Mark Christensen's water bill LB 701 passed the second round today on a voice vote. It must also pass final reading and be accepted by the Governor but both of those things are highly likely to happen.
The Amendment
Point 1 tries to make it clear that the Legislature has no intention of having this set a precedent regarding compensation for reductions in water allocations. This is economic aid only and is not done because it is required. It is an act of support only.
About seventeen Senators met today to go over the water bill and discuss how the debate will proceed on Thursday. The Thursday debate on water will likely be of everyone complementing everyone on how hard they worked to put the compromise together.
The Upper Republican NRD (URNRD) has, for years, encouraged water conservation by allowing something called, “carryover.” The idea is that a farmer will use less water in total if he knows he is rewarded for saving water. The reward is the ability to access that water when it is needed.
This is a word document that you can download and read. I will try to get it up in a PDF format sometime as well. It is a long write up but if you take the time to read it you will probably have a pretty good idea of what has to be done to fix the problem and what allocations for the farms will need to be to make things work. You may need to zoom in to read the graphs.
This is the official copy of the hearing testimony
It may seem obvious to most people that the amount of water pumped from the ground by an irrigator is related to how much rain fails. However, you will often hear someone complimenting the irrigators for how much they have done to reduce usage, how they are doing their part. They should actually be thanking the good Lord. Farmers pump the water they need, nothing more. It is too expensive to waste water. The amount of water that was pumped in the last three years was down because there was more rain at the time the crop was growing. If there is less rain in future years when the crop is growing, there will be more water pumped and that doesn't mean the farmer is or isn't doing his part to help. The amount of water needed is controlled by the weather.
There is an excellent blog called PagingPower. I am impressed by the work they do. I encourage you to visit their web site.
Paging Power captured and spliced clips of Ernie Chambers on the subject of water. It is worth listening to.
This presents a different way of looking at how much trouble Nebraska is in. Notice that there were multiple years that saw a large enough allocation to eliminate the existing accumulated overages.
It is very important to note that the drought is blamed for the existing drop in allocation but consider this chart carefully before you make that conclusion.
The Blue Valley Sun reports on Kansas Attorney General comments on the Republican River
You will often hear a 200,000 acre feet number quoted in the press about how much Nebraska is or might be over by end of the 2007. The below numbers are more accurate.
Amount Nebraska is over its allocation
LB 701 was voted on today and passed the first step. It goes from General File to Select File. There are two more steps. These are Select File and then Final Reading. If it passes those next two steps and the Governor does not veto it, then it becomes law.
Senator Flood and Christensen said on the floor today that they expected amendments to deal with accountability, co-mingled wells, the price paid for surface water, and a clear statement of what the Legislature intends to do and to point out that the State could take the water without compensation but that it is providing or allowing compensation because it wants to help keep southwest and south central Nebraska alive.
Tuesday – The water debate began.
Mark Christensen did not vote for LB 701 to come out of committee because he felt that the things he needed to be in the bill were not in it. On Tuesday, he proposed an amendment to address his concerns. The Legislature voted to adopt his amendment 957 today. This amendment includes everything that Mark says he needs to be satisfied with the bill. Amendment 957 says that the NRDs cannot issue new bonds after the year 2023.
This is a copy of what WaterClaim has given to the Senators for their consideration.
On Tuesday, the Legislature takes up the debate on water Legislation. The Speaker has set aside up to eight hours for debate of the issue. There may be a number of amendments. There may not be. There are a large number of new Senators with almost no experience in water issues. Most have not even seen the Bill nor the Amendment until Easter weekend. Most will read the Bill and amendments on the floor during debate.
One of the first things 49 Senators will do is vote to decide whether they should adopt the Committee Amendment. The focus will be on Senator Mark Christensen. He didn’t vote for the Amendment as it came out of Committee, and everyone will want to know why. They will want to know what he wants in order to make the Bill acceptable.
For those that want to know what was said during the second hearing on LB 701.
WaterClaim believes that there needs to be several significant revisions to Amendment 938 to Senator Mark Christensen’s water bill LB 701 before we can support it. WaterClaim will work with the Senators to find adjustments that can make the amendment workable. Amendment 938 is a committee amendment and was written by the DNR and NRDs. The amendment was adopted by the Natural Resources Committee on April 4. Senator Christensen did not vote for this amendment and will work to change and improve this amendment that he did not write.
On Tuesday morning, April 10, the Legislature will begin to debate LB 701. You can watch the debate online via webcast. Session starts at 10am central time. You cannot start watching early.
For those of you that have the time, I expect it will be very interesting. Hopefully, the State's servers can provide a stream to everyone that wants to watch.
WaterClaim believes that there needs to be several significant revisions to Amendment 872 to Senator Mark Christensen’s water bill LB 701 before we can support it. WaterClaim will work with the Senators on the committee to point out those problems and will work to find adjustments that can make the Amendment workable. Amendment 872 was written by the DNR and NRDs and being proposed under senator Louden's name.
In general, the problems with the Amendment include the following:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Continue reading "Where Imports Are Measured At - updated" »
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”.
The problem
Nebraska uses more water than it is allowed.
Benefit to stream by distance from stream
We wish there were more than two distance analyzed. The Platte River has estimated depletion by cell. The Republican could generate that data but the NRDs do not request the information and the DNR does not generate it. It is a number that would help us identify the least expensive solution. However, we haven't found a water official yet that wants to know the answer to that question.
There is a significant difference in the acres the NRDs and the DNR both say there are.
Kansas has written a letter to Nebraska about the Republican River.
Preliminary 2006 Net Nebraska Consumptive Use
-32,400 acre feet
2003 -25,420
2004 -36,640
2005 -41,785
2006 -32,400
2007
Tot -136,245
Nebraska reduced its use by 26,000 acre feet but the allowance dropped by 16,120 to an all time low of 182,800 acre feet. The average Nebraska allowance is about 300,000 acre feet. The allowance is low because of drought, conservation, and uncontrolled vegetation.
I have placed on one page the vegetation studies that I have found so far.
It is on the left hand side under Studies.
Nebraska owes Kansas $30 million to $300 million in damages. At least that is what a few people in Kansas think. The article says that they will take the money or water.
The Republican River Basin has a well known problem. Nebraska is using more water than it is allowed. Most of the water policy makers in the State believe the solution is to shut off irrigation wells, even though they know this will cause economic upheaval. WaterClaim has pointed out that this economic ruin can be averted by importing water into the Republican River Basin. There are a number of objections to this idea. “You can’t move water unless you do x, y, and z.” So, Senator Mark Christensen built a legislative bill to include protection for everything the objectors ask for. They were still not satisfied. This reveals their true objection. A water import will permit irrigation to continue. Those who oppose water transfers want less irrigation. All of the other objections were simply excuses.
The hearing date for LB 701 is February 28 at 1:30 pm. It will be in Lincoln at the State Capitol. Please take a look at the bill which you can find on the left under studies. Please plan to attend the hearing.
The Governor has said that the reason he is using twelve years as the multiplier for his water budget numbers is that is the number of budget years that cover the first phase of the Cooperative Agreement on the Platte River. The $2.7 million in State General Funds that he is proposing are for all of the State water issues but primarily for the Platte and Rebublican River Basins.
He is also counting a portion of the DNR operating budget ($3 million a year) as a contribution to solving the problem. This is his estimate of how much of the DNR's time is spent on Platte and Rebublican Basin water issues. The total DNR budget is $8.7 million a year so by his estimate about a third of the DNR's time is spent on regulating these two Basins.
On the 13th we mentioned that we were having troubles understanding how the Governor was able to total $128 million towards the water problems. Today learned where the missing $36 is.
It is the $3 million a year for 12 years that the Governor expects it will take the DNR to manage and regulate the Republican River Basin. So part of the DNR operations budget is what the Governor is counting towards the money he is taking credit for contributing to the solution.
We still are not sure why everything was multipled by 12.
Following the State of the State speach the Governor toured the State promoting his budget plan. (McCook Gazette story) In his comments he has said he is providing $128 million for water issues. We have prepared an Excel worksheet that looks at his numbers in more detail. We are having trouble making his numbers match what he is saying.
Excel worksheet comparing Governor's numbers
Corn Growers Express Concern Over Governor’s Water Plan
The Nebraska Corn Growers Association (NeCGA) is expressing “grave concerns” over Governor Dave Heineman’s proposal to use corn checkoff dollars to help fund a water resources fund.
Heineman announced his plan to create the new Water Resources Cash Fund in his annual State of the State address. In addition to using state general funds and soliciting federal dollars, Heineman wants to channel a half-cent of the current corn checkoff into the fund, beginning in 2013.
Today we have posted the latest draft of the water bill that Senator Mark Christensen is about to introduce. There will be modification to it before it is introduced. The change will be regarding who can collect the local share of the taxes. Instead of what you see on the bill now we will move the tax collection to the NRD. This is for legal reasons. We will post a new update when that is back from the bill drafters.
Click on the Draft Water Bill under the Studies section.
Heineman proposed establishing a water resources cash fund with annual allocations of
$2.7 million in state funds
$300,000 potential annual contributions from the Environmental Trust Fund
$1 million from the federal government.
The funding would be used to pay for conservation programming.
"We cannot wait for a federal judge to decide our fate in the Republican River basin," he said.
In addition to the state and federal funds, the governor said he would propose using one-half cent from the current corn checkoff fee beginning in 2013 to help fund the conservation programs.
The 2006 crop is projected to be 1.23 billion bushels and a 1/2 per bushel tax would result in about $6.125 million dollars a year. The Governor is suggesting taking some of the money currently dedicated to ethanol activities and redirecting that to water issues.
Dan Smith, manager of the Middle Republican NRD, writes a letter regarding water. A good read.
The Midwest Producer ran a story on water and the Republcian River Basin. The story extensively quotes WaterClaim. It was a well done article.
There are two points I would like to clarify though.
At the water conferences we distributed booklets that covered the problem, reviewd the options, and made suggestions. This is a color version of the document which includes a couple of extra charts.
In the future, you will be able to find it on the left side under Studies.
This is a map showing the area that the DNR says should have its allocation reduced to 2.5 to 5 inches per acre.
Note: It is my understanding that only the NRD has the authority to establish Ground Water Management Area borders. Now, under current law, the DNR can force the issue by taking the NRD to the Interrelated Water Review Board. The IWRB then determines whose borders to use. The NRDs do not trust the IWRB because it is the Governor that chooses who will sit on the Board.
On an icy night in Holdrege, 55 people participated in a water conference hosted by WaterClaim. Four of the people in attendance were WaterClaim members. The cost to attend the conference was $100. According to Steve Smith, director of WaterClaim, the reason for the fee was to encourage only those who were serious about finding solutions. Four State Senators were in attendance, with another two unable to attend because of closed roads. Senators Flood, Christensen, Carlson, and Wightman participated and expressed their desire to help resolve the water issue. Each indicated that it would be necessary to communicate the needs of the Republican and Platte River Basins to the people who live in the urban areas.
MCCOOK MEETING -- Cancelled.
HOLDREGE MEETING -- We will hold the meeting
6:00 PM Holdrege
Super 8
Look at the links to the right for details.
If you shut off a group of irrigation wells in the Republican River Basin how much water ends up in the stream and when does it happen?
Don't forget to register for the WaterClaim water conferences. See details on the right.
A couple of maps to show who gets hurt.
It is interesting to compare various media operations and how they report the story. There is a significant difference in quality. You can read the summary of what each person said on the WaterClaim site and then compare that to how each media outlet reported it so you can see what the media chose to report and to ignore. There will be several more reports posted over the next week. But this is what exists so far.
WaterClaim A person by person summary of statements made
McCook Gazette Of the stories posted, Connie Jo Discoe's gives the best summary of the events.
NET Radio Covers the keys points in 120 seconds
Omaha World Herald Registration required. Story does not include the reaction of most of the attendees.
AP by Nate Jenkins carried by multiple publications
KHAS TV Fails to report most of the story
Suggested allocations
URNRD upland 11.3 QR 2.8 to 5.7
MRNRD upland 9.0 QR 2.7 to 5.3
LRNRD upland 9.6 QR 2.4 to 4.8
Senator Tom Hanson from North Platte says
This solution will take out the dark hairs (meaning the younger generation)
COOPs will die
Schools will die
These communities are fragile
Cities are the eaters and we are the producers
Ethanol dependent on water
Important that things done right on the Republican because the Platte will be next
Don’t cut Agriculture’s throat
This is a summary of the Governor's presentation to the Water Round Table in Lincoln on December 13th. He references both the Republican River Basin and the Platte River Basin
On December 15, Governor Heineman, the DNR, all of the Republican River Basin NRD board members and managers, are likely to be in attendance at a water meeting in McCook. The Governor has the floor beginning at 10:00 AM until about 2:00 PM, central time. It is a public meeting. It will be held at the Republican Valley Event Center, (old Elk’s Club) at 905 7th St. E, McCook. MAP
There will be enough people in attendance that the audience will be allowed very limited if any participation.
The purpose of the meetings is for the elected officials to discuss possible solutions to the Republican River Basin water issue. It is hoped that the Governor will reveal his suggestions on how to solve the problem. At minimum, he is expected to listen to ideas from the NRDs.
Dan Smith, manager of the Middle Republican NRD appears to be acting as host for the event. His number is 308 367-4281
WaterClaim will host a series of water conferences.
Senators Christensen, Hansen, and Wightman will be in attendance
at one site or more; others also invited and will attend.
Help us formulate water policy recommendations.
Governor Heineman opposes any kind of incrase in the sales tax and opposes a fee on irrigators to pay for water solutions.
How does he plan to pay the bills?
The governor says it's premature to tip his hand now but that he is looking at a variety of options.
Chad Smith, a member of the state's Water Policy Task Force, says State lawmakers “will be left to their own devices. “That’s a problem,” Smith said. “We should’ve made sure we had something in front of them.”
Real Property taxes go to the local community for things like schools, roads, and NRDs. In the 44th Legislative District 67% of the real property taxes come from agricultural property. 11% come from commercial property with the majority of that being related to agriculture. The remaining 23% of the taxes come from residential property.
Irrigated land makes up 41% of the land values. This varies significantly by county.
If Red Willow County is excluded, then numbers are 74% directly related to agricultural land, 9% commercial and 17% residential.
You can review more detailed information on WaterClaim charts.
WaterClaim supported candidates have great success
Mark Christensen - wins 44th District Legislative seat
Jeff Wallin - President of WaterClaim wins Upper Republican NRD at-large seat
Total sweep of all Middle Repbulican NRD seats
Marty Shurr
Benjie Loomis
Dan Nelsen
Josh Friesen
Brad Randel
Kevin Fornoff
Matt Harrison - Lower Republican, only seat with competing candidates.
There is a tie for the 10th sub-district in the URNRD. Brett Bullock and Greg Pelster each received 151 votes. Provissional ballots are yet to be counted.
Kansas elects a new Attorney General. D-Paul Morrison.
Part of Morrison's campaign focused on the water dispute with Nebraska. He promised to do more to force Nebraska to reduce water usage.
Water has become an issue in the Kansas race for Attorney General. Phill Kline is the sitting Attorney General. He is being challenged by Paul Morrison. The race is close.
Morrison said he was concerned Kline hadn't done enough to push Nebraska toward compliance of the compact settlement.
But Kline said water has been a key focus and that he would continue to be "aggressive and pro-active" in assuring water compact enforcement.
In the Imperial Republican, Nebraska Governor Heineman is quoted as saying, if the state is not successful, especially because of the extended drought, he feels that Kansas will still work with Nebraska.
WaterClaim has a political action arm that is supporting candidates for several water policy positions. These are the NRD races on which WaterClaim PEC has taken a position:
For the Upper Republican NRD, WaterClaim PEC supports
Jeff Wallin
Steve Jussel
Brett Bullock
Jarrat Malmkar
Tim Schilke
For the Middle Republican NRD WaterClaim PEC supports
Josh Friesen
Dan Nelsen
Benjie Loomis
Marty Schurr
Kevin Fornoff
Brad Randel
For the Lower Republican NRD WaterClaim PEC supports
Matt Harrison
I just love the headlines and editorials that the big city newspapers use. For example, the Denver Post says there is a need to "Root out Defiant Farmers" like these people are weeds that need to be destroyed.
Or the Omaha World Herald editorial that hopes farmers don't use shotguns to defend themselves when their water is taken away from them.
Obviously these are not words that are likely to help build trust or facilitate solutions but the people that write the headlines and editorials don't seem to realize the damage they are doing.
This seems like an appropriate quote for the situation.
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kearney Hub - It may take two to three years to see benefits. But what Kansas sees is not enough.
Net Radio - Unwise to believe Kansas will discontinue its efforts to get its share of the water.
Net Radio - Kansas will not look the other way.
State Paper - We want our water.
NTV - Kansas made it clear that his state intends to push Nebraska to meet it's obligations
KOLN/KGIN - Barfield declined to say what action Kansas might take.
Kansas City Star - Nebraska is "eating someone else's piece" of the pie when it comes to water.
David Barfield was very patient and politely responded to all questions. However, over half of the questions asked of Barfield were more statements than questions. Many were attempts to shift the blame to Kansas and in effect say, Kansas can’t complain about the low river because Kansas is just as guilty as Nebraska in drying up streams. There were many variations on this idea but many of the people in the audience were in denial that Kansas is in a position to force a shut down of Nebraska’s irrigation wells.
Barfield responded politely by pointing out that the US Supreme Court sided with Kansas and that it would be unwise for Nebraska to think Kansas won’t pursue all options available to obtain its water.
The meeting was useful if for no other reason than to make it clear to the farmers in southwest Nebraska that Kansas expects further reductions in allocations and the retirement of more acres and that it is not wise to ignore this demand.
“We want our water” said Mr. Barfield of the Kansas Department of Agriculture and Manager of Interstate Compact Agreements for Kansas.
“Nothing encourages us about 2007 or the coming years.”
“It is unwise to believe we will discontinue our efforts to get our water.”
David Barfield - Kansas Water Official responsible for interstate water compacts.
Meeting Date is Thursday, October 19th, 7:30pm in Imperial. Location is Imperial Inn at the corner of Hwy 61 and 12th Street. Free to the public. David Barfield will take questions.
Ron Milner was the manager of the Upper Republican NRD board for 25 years. Ron is the individual most responsible for developing allocations and moratoriums on wells. The Upper Republican NRD has been lauded as having some of the most progressive water policies in the nation. The policies limiting acres and restricting the amount of water that can be used are now the model for the rest of the State.
Even though Ron had been retired for many years, he volunteered to fill a vacancy on the NRD board in 2005. Ron brought a great deal of experience to the board. He has dealt personally with many of the water policy makers through Nebraska and Kansas.
Continue reading "Ron Milner Resigns in Protest from URNRD Board" »
Sarah McCammon with Nebraska Net Radio reports on a water meeting being put together by Roger Harmon of Imperial, Nebraska. Roger is not satisfied with the lack of answers coming from the DNR and would like to get the story straight from Kansas.
Ann Bleed says that until the State sits down with the NRDs and other stakeholders , that the State cannot answer the question of how it will deal with Nebraska being out of compliance. It is because the DNR continues to evade the question of how Nebraska can protect itself that a farmer is going directly to Kansas and seeking their perspective.
Meeting Date is Thursday, October 19th, 7:30pm in Imperial. Location is Imperial Inn at the corner of Hwy 61 and 12th Street. Free to the public. David Barfield will take questions.
In late August, another group of Colorado irrigation wells were ordered turned off. These wells were within a few miles of the Nebraska Colorado border. The crops still needed water. One of the well owners went out to turn the well on and found this notice taped to his control panel.
Many of us have heard variations of the following quotes from the DNR and from several NRD board members and managers.
* “We expect Kansas to have a bit of mercy – we have tried hard to comply.”
* “Kansas buys a lot of corn from Nebraska and they don’t want to shut us down.”
* “We have done a lot – moratoriums, reduced allocations, CREP, EQIP, surface water buyouts, and then there is the drought, Kansas will understand and we shouldn’t panic.”
These are a couple of recent stories about some of the experiences farmers are having in Colorado.
What I find interesting is that there are a number of Nebraska water policy people that are saying that anyone that talks about a judge shutting down wells is an alarmist. Just keep these Coloado stories in mind when someone like Ann Bleed or Jasper Fanning says that we will trust in the mercy of Kansas rather than doing what we must do to protect our access to water.
One of the things the Attorney General of Nebraska is charged with is defending the State of Nebraska against lawsuits. On August 23, 2006, the Nebraska Attorney General’s office told the Water Policy Task Force that the Task Force would not discuss the Republican River Basin or the value of water.
There is one reason for this demand by the Attorney General’s office. It believes Nebraska will return to Court on the Kansas issue and its job is to minimize the damage to Nebraska. Any discussion by an official body of the State is likely to be used by Kansas against Nebraska. The AGs office will try to minimize the value of water and the economic report given to the Task Force by Ray Supalla undermines this effort.
The problem with the State’s position is it ignores reality. The State’s position is naked and very obvious to Kansas and anyone else who cares to look.
On Tuesday August 22, 2006 representatives from the NRDs and irrigation districts in the Republican River Basin discussed transferring water from one river basin to another with in the State. The group made two motions and passed both. The first was to ask the Tri Basin NRD what type of reports and evidence it would like to have when it considering a request to permit a transfer of groundwater. The second was to appoint a committee to delineate what it is the group would like to do.
The committee is made up of Mike Clements, manager of the Lower Republican NRD; Jasper Fanning, manager of the Upper Republican NRD; Mike Delka, manager of the Bostwick Irrigation District.
Continue reading "Basin NRDs and Irrigation Districts Take Action on Water Imports" »
Kansas points out that Nebraska and Colorado are failing to abide with the agreement made with Kansas. Nebraska officials have repeatedly suggeted that Kansas will have sympathy for the efforts to reduce water use and will perhaps not return to the Supreme Court on this issue. This article doesn't really say what Kansas will do.
Ray Supalla and others have released a report showing the economic costs of shutting down some of the irrigation in the Platte and Republican River Basins. The document is in MS Word. I have not reviewed it yet.
Claude Cappel is frustrated with water policy. He lives in the McCook area and has given me permission to post a letter he received from a law firm that he has consulted regarding a suit agains the DNR and NRDs. Claude is on the Nebraska Water Policy Task Force, a long time surface irrigator, and very active in water politics. The law firm that Claude has consulted with is the same firm that is representing the Pioneer and Laird irrigation ditches in Colorado. They have filed a lawsuit asking that all groundwater irrigation in the Colorado portion of the Republican River Basin be shut off until their stream flows again like it used to. Claude's arguement is based on the same principle.
His permission is contingent on me quoting him in context so I am posting an email exchange he and I have had. Jerda Garey is the former mayor of McCook and has been involved in the discussion.
If a water transfer between the Platte and the Republican does not happen then Nebraska must shut off at least 180,000 irrigated acres. The reason for the "at least" part is that Ann Bleed with the DNR doesn't think we should shut down the wells that give the most bang for the buck but instead thinks that to be fair that everyone should feel the pain. That is what she said in Imperial, on July 13th. That means more acres have to be shut down to get the required results.
One of the primary objections to any transfer focuses on the consumptive use in the Holdrege area. We have completed a major new study on the subject. You can find it as a link on the left under Presentations. It is called Holdrege Consumptive Use.
What is the consumptive use of corn in Nebraska? The number varies from year to year and from location to location. ET is the total amount of water that evaporates from the plant. Consumptive Use (CU) is the amount of water that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into crops or products, and consumed by humans and livestock. Precipitation falls. Some of the precipitation stays in the root zone where a plant can get to it. However, to maximize the yield, a farmer usually needs to supplement the plant with additional water via irrigation. The plant only takes the water that it needs. If the farmer applies more water than needed, then the excess water either runs off into the stream or seeps into the aquifer. Only the portion that is used by the plant is considered consumptive use or that is evaporated off of the lakes. In dry years, CU is higher and so is ET. Dry air with high temps increases the evaporation from the plant. The higher the humidity, the lower the ET rate. High ET levels usually translate into high CU. In the following chart, CU is about the same as NIR. However, the less efficient the delivery system, the higher the irrigation requirement is. If the plant used 100% of the water supplied, NIR would equal IR.
Keep in mind that the Model does not consider water used by a dryland crop or water used by trees and grass as consumptive use.
Apparently there is a rumor going around that WaterClaim would support a 15% reduction in allocation if water transfers were permitted.
False.
WaterClaim has long said that reductions in allocations are nearly meaningless. They cause the farmer a lot of pain but have little benefit to the stream. WaterClaim does not support symbolic gestures that fail to address the issue. Cutting allocations by 5%, 10%, 50% or even 100% will not solve the current overage. We were the first to point that out in late spring of 2005. Even the DNR acknowledges that shutting off all of the wells will not solve the problem so why does the DNR suggest a 15% reduction beyond what has already been done?
The Lower Republican NRD voted on July 13, 2006 to begin the process of applying for a permit to import water into the Republican River Basin. This is a significant development. The LRNRD has decided to proceed with this process because the alternatives are less attractive.
The State has put the NRDs in an impossible position. The State of Nebraska negotiated a Settlement Agreement with Kansas that commits the NRDs to reducing usage. The NRD’s were excluded from these negotiations but are being made responsible for complying with the results.
The only authority the NRDs have is to control the amount of water each landowner can use. But even if the NRD’s order everyone to stop using water for the next 4 years, they still fail to live within the obligation the State has everyone committed to.
Continue reading "Lower Republican Votes to Seek Interbasin Transfer Permit" »
There is a new EQIP program for the pernament retirement of irrigated acres. $800,000 from the Federal government, $300,000 from the Republican River NRDs, and $600,000 from the DNR. This money will be used to buy the irrigation rights from landowners on about 2,400 acres. This equals about $675 per acre for the water rights.
The market value of water is about $1,000 an acre. In other words dryland goes for an average of $800 an acre. Most irrigated land goes for more then $1,800 an acre. If you have something worth $1,000 would you agree to sell it for $675?
Continue reading "$1.6 million to do less than 1% of what is needed" »
Crops needs water. There have been several studies that look at what happens to yields when the crop receives less water than it needs. We looked at a report done by Gary Hergert and others published in the Journal of Production Agriculture, Oct-Dec 1993, and another published by KState - Department of Economics by Dumler, and a third that was published in the American Society of Agricultural Engineers by Schneekloth, Kocke, Hergert, Martin, and Clark. If anyone wants to look at their research, just contact me and I can point you in the right direction.
Based on their data and research (and then I updated to reflect current yields), we have produced the Crop Response to Water chart. This chart is for corn. Click on the image to enlarge.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife and Wildlife Commission (CDOW) has withdrawn its appeal of the Colorado Ground Water Commission decision to dismiss the complaint by the Pioneer and Laird Ditch
CDOW orginally filed its appeal on June 14, 2006
CDOW withdrew its appeal on July 7, 2006
The threat to ground water irrigaton remains because the oringial complaint from the original plaintiffs still stands.
CDOW simply brought additional resources to the table however the primary plaintiffs have enough resources to pursue the issue without CDOW help.
The following is an open letter Kim Killin, Republican River Water Conservation District board member
KNOP-TV did a story on WaterClaim's concerns.
Scott Richrath, the Republican River program manager in the Colorado Division of Water Resources said, farmers are being paid between $1,700 and $3,000 per acre to stop using their wells.
Approximately 70 of the more than 4,000 irrigation wells in the Colorado portion of the Republican River Basin have been shut off since 2004.
Colorado raises $2.8 million per year by assessing fees on all the water users within the basin. Well irrigators are assessed $5.50 per acre per year, while surface irrigators annually pay $5.10 per acre foot and municipal and commercial users pay $4.40 per acre foot
Read more of the story in the Sterling Journal Advocate
CREP stands for Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. It is a tool the State of Nebraska asked the Federal Government to make available to help take land out of production. I contacted the FSA office and obtained current enrollment numbers. Only 40% of the available acres have been enrolled. Congressman Tom Osborne suggested that if people did not like the program they didn't have to sign up for it.
Continue reading for see the details.
About 2% of all groundwater depletions result from pumping in the year the pumping occurs. According to the DNR, the other 98% of the water we pump from the ground will cause future year depletions to the stream.
Some of the directors on the Middle Republican NRD publicly wondered why, when they cut water usage by 25%, they get so little credit. The reason is that pumping has a very delayed effect on the stream. How much water we use in any one year will not show up in the numbers until years later.
Jasper Fanning says that the water transfers proposed by WaterClaim may be politically unacceptable. But what is the alternative? The other option is telling landowners they have to shut off irrigation wells. That, too, may be politically unacceptable. So, what happens when all of the options are unacceptable? Politicians wait and let someone else make the decision.
Even the DNR admits that shutting off all of the irrigation wells will not solve the problem. That means proposals to reduce usage by 5% or 15% won't solve the problem either. So, why suggest the symbolic gestures of reduction? They hope that such sacrifices make it look like we are trying. The politicians have decided that, since moving water or shutting off water will offend too many people, they will simply put on a good show and hope that Kansas has mercy.
On June 16, the Colorado Division of Wildlife appealed a Colorado Groundwater Commission ruling. The CDOW joined the Pioneer and Laird Irrigation Districts in seeking a reduction of water use by groundwater irrigators. This adds State dollars and resources to the lawsuit. CDOW is similar to the Nebraska Game and Parks and CGC is similar to the Nebraska Deparment of Natural Resources.
The CDOW asks the Court to order the CGC to declare that all groundwater that contributes to streamflow is a is a tributary of the stream and therefore subject to surface water rules. What is not said by the CDOW is what percentage of the groundwater is considered a contributor to the streamflow but we know that the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, which worked out the groundwater accounting procedures on the Republican River in cooperation with Kansas and Colorado, believes that 100% of all groundwater is a part of the streamflow.
Continue reading "Colorado Division of Wildlife sues to shutdown groundwater irrigation" »
The DNR announced today that Nebraska is over its 2005 Republican River allocation by 42,000 acre feet and that the accumulated overage for this accounting period is 104,000 acre feet. What the DNR does not report is how many acre feet credit Nebraska expects to receive for all of the surface water purchases made in 2006 or what benefits are expected from the reduced allocations farmers have been given. The DNR says that the drought is the primary cause of the greatest overage in Nebraska history. Yet, the Republican River Basin received 98% of normal precipitation in 2005. So far, 2006 is dryer than 2002, which was the driest year in history.
Since the DNR release is very wordy, I will summarize the important parts of what they say.
Nebraska used 42,029 AF more than is 2005 Republican River Basin allocation. This puts the accumulated overage at 104,089. The drought is the primary cause of the problem.
The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has completed its preliminary calculations for the Republican River Compact in 2005. These DNR calculations show that while the continuing conservation efforts by farmers, irrigation districts and natural resource districts the state are making a positive impact, years of ongoing drought continue to strain the Nebraska allocation of water for consumptive use from the Compact.
At the end of 2007, Nebraska will fail to honor the agreement it has made with Kansas regarding Republican River water. The NRDs do not have the legal authority to solve the problem, nor are they the primary cause of the problem. Our question is this – how does Nebraska plan to protect itself economically when it fails to honor the agreement?
The Republican River Basin has two options -- begin shutting down irrigation or importing water. WaterClaim has supported two different transfers. One is a small short term transfer that moves water from the Platte to the Republican Basin just west of Holdrege. This permits the Republican River Basin to continue to irrigate while staying in compliance with the agreement made with Kansas. This transfer, however, does not solve the basic problem of declining streamflows and a declining aquifer in the Upper Republican NRD.
Alcorn Energy of Troy Michigan has announced they will build Nebraska's largest ethanol plant exactly in the area that the Republican River Basin would like to source water for a transfer. This is between Bertrand and Loomis on highway 23. The effect of the ethanol plant will be to increase the value of the land in the immediate area and will increase the confidence of the landowners that there will be more demand for their corn. As a result, the area landowner will want substantially more money for their water than they would have wanted before the ethanol plant was announced. Even if someone can pay more money than what the corn sold to the plant will produce, the confidence in the economy of the area will substantially inflate the market. This will raise the cost for any transfer project and also raise the cost to the PRRIP program which is funded by the Federal Government, Colorado, and Wyoming for the purpose of putting more water into the Platte River through irrigation shutdown programs. In other words, the demand for water is growing and therefore the price of access to water is going up.
In 2004, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) held a series of public meetings telling the audience that Nebraska needed to reduce pumping in the Republican River Basin by a simulated 40,000 acre feet of water each year.
It also told the audience that an irrigated acre within one mile of the stream, if shut off, would result in 0.3
acre feet more water being in the stream. Quick math would show that this means 160,000 acres of irrigated land near the stream must be shut off to comply.
In reality, there are three problems: