]]>
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.
]]>
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.
]]>
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.
Option 1 – Set the allocation the same for everyone in an NRD. The allocations would be:
|
NRD |
Allocation |
|
URNRD |
3.6 |
|
MRNRD |
4.8 |
|
LRNRD |
5.9 |
|
TriNRD |
? |
Option 2 – Shut off water use to those close to the stream in water short years.
The number of acres shut off by NRD would be:
|
NRD |
Acres Lost |
|
URNRD |
44,500 |
|
MRNRD |
59,100 |
|
LRNRD |
76,900 |
|
TriNRD |
9,600 |
Total acres losing water under option 2 would be 190,100.
Option 3 – Shut off water use to fewer acres but require a 1% annual reduction in water use from all remaining users.
|
NRD |
Acres Lost |
|
URNRD |
22,700 |
|
MRNRD |
44,500 |
|
LRNRD |
45,800 |
|
TriNRD |
4,200 |
Total acres losing water under option 2 would be 110,000.
Allocations in acre inches
|
NRD |
Current |
10 years from now |
Current Average Use |
|
URNRD |
13 |
11.7 |
12.1 |
|
MRNRD |
12 |
10.8 |
8.9 |
|
LRNRD |
9 |
8.1 |
6.3 |
|
TriNRD |
- |
? |
? |
Questions about compensation to those losing the access to water are usually answered by saying that there is no funding available and that, "Yes, it is legal to discriminate where some keep their water and others lose it."
Options that are not being presented to the NRDs include:
Unfortunately, in the Republican River Basin, a decision has been made by the State to exclude one of the primary effects on the stream and not measure it. In the Republican River Basin, there are more than a million acres with two foot high dams which are designed to catch water and to slow or prevent that water from getting to the stream. To intentionally exclude this effect from the simulation creates an imbalance in the formulas. Then, to make the system balance, the missing water has to be assigned to some cause. Those making the simulation chose to say all missing water is used by groundwater irrigation, even though that is not true.
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, it 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 effect is inaccurate. To be fair and honest, all effects should be measured. Hiding some of the options is not honest. Falsely accusing one group in order to protect another is morally wrong.
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.
]]>Rather than focus on shutting off wells, Jasper focused on what they would do if they had money. They showed some images of how they would bring water into the basin that look very similar to what WaterClaim has been advocating.
Full reports by the Imperial Republican.
]]>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?
More images]]>
The NRD complains that when it attempts to access data that it receives only "evasive responses, feigned cooperation, shifting legal interpretations and flagrant stonewalling"
]]>The preferences are augmentation plans that are very similar to what WaterClaim has been suggesting for years, surface water purchases, and land retirement programs. If there is not enough money to do these programs, then the State has asked (required) the NRDs to include what are called “red box” clauses. These would require the NRDs to agree to shut off irrigation wells close to the stream in water short years.
]]>The Governor seems to want the problem to go away without the use of State money or any new taxes being created on his watch. If he gets his way, then the only alternative is the shutdown of irrigation for some, without compensation.
The politicians ask you to lobby the senators and Governor to support the occupation tax. However, the issue is being decided now by the Courts, not the politicians. Their request asks you to focus on the wrong thing.
The occupation tax has two problems. It targets a small group for the benefit of the State, and the tax is a form of a property tax, which cannot be collected for State purposes. It is my opinion that the Court will void the tax and, hence, there is no money, given the Governor’s position and the inability or unwillingness of the Senators to provide an alternative. The arguments on the occupation tax start in December 2009 with any decision expected to be appealed and hence take several years before it is resolved. In the meantime fingers point and no real solution is put in place.
No cash means the only thing left on the list is a shut down of some of the wells.
If the State follows its usual pattern, you can expect a reduction in the number of acres that they will ask to have shut off. Instead of the 334,000 acres they previously threatened, expect perhaps half that to be required. “Instead of asking you to cut off both legs, we will only ask for one leg. Isn’t that much better?”
Do we rush to accept the new offer, thinking how much worse it could have been? Do we sacrifice the people along the rivers and streams, saying that, “but for the grace of the State, there goes I?”
The solution to the problem does require cash. There are alternative financing possibilities. It is up to our State Senators to cause those to happen. If they are unable to persuade 26 Senators, then we need different Senators. While it is nice to be liked by your fellow senators, sometimes one’s duty to the people you represent requires that you use tactics that may not be popular. The State should pay the bill. The Court says the State is liable for the bill. The Governor doesn’t want to pay it and, worse, does not want to permit the people in the Basin to pay it either. Perhaps if enough people call out, the Governor can be persuaded to have a different opinion. Perhaps our Senators can be persuaded to do what is necessary to win 26 votes in the Legislature.
Another alternative is to correct some of the flaws in the computer simulation. If even some of those flaws were corrected, then much of the problem would also be corrected. It is the job of the Attorney General to cause this to happen. So far, this hasn’t happened.
There are other options available to solve the problem other than what the elected officials indicate. It is up to you to persuade the people you vote for to do what is necessary. The best way to do that is to organize and pool resources. Politicians tend to pay attention to groups that can help them or their opponents get elected. While individuals can make a difference, groups can make an even bigger difference.
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.