NRD numbers are certified 2006 acres
DNR numbers are used by the Model to calculate compliance
| NRD | DNR | ||
| Certified | Model | Acre | |
| Acres | Acres | Difference | |
| URNRD Upland | 358,588 | 405,929 | 47,341 |
| URNRD QR | 88,212 | 68,490 | (19,722) |
| URNRD Total | 446,800 | 474,419 | 27,619 |
| MRNRD Upland | 204,972 | 161,343 | (43,629) |
| MRNRD QR | 108,226 | 84,839 | (23,387) |
| MRNRD Total | 313,197 | 246,182 | (67,015) |
| LRNRD Upland | 189,058 | 153,565 | (35,493) |
| LRNRD QR | 137,529 | 127,294 | (10,235) |
| LRNRD Total | 326,587 | 280,859 | (45,728) |
| Total Upland | 752,618 | 720,837 | (31,781) |
| Total QR | 333,967 | 280,623 | (53,344) |
| Total Total | 1,086,584 | 1,001,460 | (85,124) |
Use of the NRD numbers would result in Nebraska being further out of compliance than it is.
Use of the DNR numbers would require individual farmers to lose their allocation in order to match what the State says the numbers are.
It is my belief that the total NRD numbers are actual and that the DNR is using NASS estimates instead of the numbers that the NRDs have supplied. This is likely to create a significant problem for Nebraska as it nullifies the entire CREP/EQIP program.
The discrepancy regarding the Quick Reponses acres is most important. I have no idea who is right regarding the QR acres. As the DNR will not release the data it has, it is impossible to compare it to the NRD data and see who is correct. I have seen the maps the NRDs use and suspect that they are correct.
Assuming the NRDs are correct, then Nebraska has a serious problem. It means that bother current and past numbers understate the problem. The problem results from NASS numbers. Nebraska made the Agreement with Kansas without knowing what it was agreeing to because it didn't have data. All it has was NASS estimates. The estimates have turned out to underestimate the acres by a significant margin. The DNR responded by saying the acres were new acres. They were not. They were simply acres that had never been properly registered in the first place.
Only the URNRD had good data. After the agreement was made, the State then required people to register their acres or lose their access to water. The registrations came in much greater than the estimates. There really isn't any good reason for the DNR to have ignored the URNRD numbers.
The proper thing to happen now is for the State to incorporate the correct numbers into the Model and deal with reality. The State should not complain about the acres being greater than expected. It is the State that makes the rules and made the Agreement with Kansas. The State is responsible for not having the information it should have when it made the Agreement.