Notes from AMD 872 Hearing, April 2007
These come from hand written notes taken during testimony. They are not exact quotes but are pretty close to what they said.
Jody Gittins introduces bill and gives a summary of what it does
Dan Smith – MRNRD manager – speaks as expert testifier.
Nebraska Water User Coalition and Nebraska State Irrigation Association also support bill
There is about 20,000 AF more water in Harlan than anticipated
It is possible to lease all surface water supplies
A $10 per acre fee would allow the purchase of water from four irrigation districts
The existing water controls on groundwater users would continue
The purchase would gain about 49,000 AF.
Sen Christensen:
It was my understanding that there would be a limit of the equivalent of $10 an acre fee. I see the language in the amendment allows for the $10 per acre fee and the $0.10 mil levy.
Dan Smith:
Yes. We do not need both but they may be necessary in the short term.
Sen Christensen:
Is there any kind of limit on the number of bonds allowed?
Dan Smith:
((unintelligible))
Sen. Kopplin:
What is banked water?
Dan Smith:
It is water saved by a farmer that has been provided an incentive to use less water. If he has an allocation and does not use all of it, then he can bank the water and use it in a future year.
Sen. Carlson:
What can be done in the next 12 months?
Dan Smith:
We have a project.
Sen Carlson:
What do you need?
Dan Smith:
We need bonding authority.
Sen. Carlson:
For surface water purchases?
Dan Smith:
Yes.
Sen Carlson:
For permanent purchases?
Dan Smith:
((Vague answer – neither a yes or no.))
Sen. Fischer:
This amendment allows for property taxes, bonding, an occupation tax. When the NRDs are given this power – what are you going to do besides buy surface water? What are the benefits to the people of the Basin of all these taxes and fees? What is the economic impact?
Dan Smith:
We are looking for long-term stability. We want 3 to 5 year allocations so we can plan. The only tool available now is to limit acres or limit allocations. If we do nothing now, we could lose irrigation on more than 200,000 acres.
Sen. F:
You’re speaking of impact to producers. There’s authority here to increase levy, so everyone is affected. The NRDs will be affecting all of the District in this manner. How do you address those people who don’t feel this affects them in any way except the charge?
DS:
By reducing the impact on producers, the community benefits because the producers buy more supplies from the community. Dryland with terraces has an impact. The homeowner benefits by services being available.
Sen. Hudkins:
Section 24 (p. 45) of the amendment. There’s new language on corn and grain sorghum check-off. Why not on sugar beets, beans, etc.?
DS:
That’s the Governor’s addition, trying to generate more dollars than can be brought in from general funds.
Sen. H:
If the water is taken away, there’s an authority to tax, yields are not there, and the property taxes go up, how does this benefit the people? With no irrigation, how will they have the income to pay without the water?
DS:
Occupation tax permits a stable allocation so farmers can have ideas for future planning.
Sen. H:
In the grand scheme of things, how important is vegetation management?
DS:
We have not been able to quantify the benefits yet. We don’t know. There are 200 miles of river above Harlan County Reservoir. We have a grant to do studies that will give us information on what the benefits are.
-----------------------
Mike Clements:
MRNRD manager- Cautiously optimistic about amendment. In 2004, the DNR told the NRD how much water it could pump. The NRD pumped 17% less than allowed in 2005 and 14% less than allowed in 2006. Meters have been installed on all wells. But management controls do not respond fast enough. The LRNRD is willing to do its part and will help. The Governor’s cash fund is necessary. Feels the vegetation portion of the bill is helpful. Has concerns about Section 19 where there’s no appeal process. Wants the appeal process. And doesn’t like language in Section 28 where it talks about the DNR being able to undertake measures to increase stipulations. Feels that’s vague on the department’s intent, so language should be more specific on what is meant.
Sen. Christensen:
Do you favor a long-term buyout of surface water?
Mike C:
We’re concerned with 2007 right now. We have no intentions toward long-term at this time.
Sen. C:
I have problems with putting in long term funding abilities without any long term solutions being in place. My intent was to allow money for a long term solution. Vegetation management and augmentation – both are never-ending. There’s no long-term plan. How do you address this?
Mike C:
We’re concerned with 2007 right now. We could be in compliance if Mother Nature cooperates. We want flexibility. It is a good tool to have to buy some surface now. We don’t know how surface irrigators will react long-term. We might look at long term. My board will look at it.
Sen. C:
There’s no sunset. How do we get accountability from the NRDs? Cuts will kill the District. How will we guarantee compliance?
Mike C:
We must get into compliance. We have to. We need to work together with other districts. We want flexibility. We’re looking at an augmentation project right now. A long-term (3-5 year) lease of surface is being looked at. We want options.
Sen. C:
What kind of augmentation is being looked at? Are you looking at inter-basin or intra-basin transfers?
Mike C:
Interbasin is supported. For a few months now, an engineering firm has been looking at projects within the Basin for augmentation. Looking at the cost benefits of it.
Sen. C:
Brought up timing issue. Don’t we double the problem in 10 years?
Mike C:
Depletions may be small percentage. There’s no single fix, but this brings more tools into the tool box that will help toward compliance.
Sen. C:
Without long-term surface buy-out… it is Russian roulette.
Mike C:
We can’t control surface water usage. If they don’t want to sell, we cannot buy. If they agree to sell, great. We will look at all options available.
Sen. Kopplin:
What is a satellite well?
Mike C:
I will defer to Jasper, as that is something that exists in the Upper.
Senator Carlson:
Thanks for being good stewards. You’ve had less allowance than other districts. Are you comfortable with long-term buyout based on a simple majority vote?
Mike C:
I can’t tell you. It would depend on the spread.
Sen. Carlson:
You illustrate my point. I am uncomfortable. If it is a 6 to 5 vote to put property tax on the District, that’s huge.
Mike C:
Need some sort of help because need to do something toward compliance. The alternatives are unacceptable.
-----------------------------
Jasper Fanning:
URNRD manager – The point we are missing so far isn’t how much irrigation there will be but if there will be any irrigation. Are we going to be able to irrigate in the future? Kansas sues, then no irrigation in the entire Basin. Amendment -- This is a legislative compromise. Everyone got everything they had to have. Numerous parties involved.
Groundwater is an inefficient means to supplement streamflow. Must have funding to have solutions. Augmentation preliminary numbers from study. Funding needed so can get into compliance and continue to irrigate. Without funding, we cannot comply. We can discuss funding shares; but at the end of the day, we need funding. I have not heard farmers opposing $10 an acre fee. Businesses say they can pass the property taxes on to the customers. This will raise $9 million to buy surface water. Plus, the irrigators will be reducing allocations more.
Sen. Kopplin:
What is a satellite well?
JF:
One well putting water on two pivots. Same amount of water, only spread out over more acres.
Sen. K:
This banked water. If you have 200 inches of banked water, how do you control its use?
JF:
We know the DNR and AG are concerned about banked water, but we are using no more than we are allowed every year. We have demonstrated we have used less than the allocation. If we lower allocations and farmers begin to use their banked water more, then we will have to step in and take measures to control that.
Sen. Fischer:
Has confusion. DNR will be able to determine maximum water allowed to be depleted from streamflow? Does this not infringe on the rights of the NRDs? Do you have faith in Model used?
JF:
Possibility this is an infringement. The RRCA Model would be used. It depends on the assumptions that go into the Model . If you use a drought scenario, then reduced pumping is required. Joint involvement of NRDs should occur, but the DNR decides.
Sen. Fischer:
Should be more accountable if have taxing authority.
JF:
Agreed.
Sen. Christensen:
We had an agreement that the DNR loses its ability to set the allocation without challenge. Why is that not here? Do you intend to do a long term buyout?
JF:
Yes. Would agree with adding such language.
Sen C.:
Beating around the bush, Jasper. Do you have an intent toward a long-term buyout?
JF:
Yes.
Sen C.:
What about a freeze on conservation?
JF:
Not sure that’s wise. Need a good decision. Need science.
Sen. C.:
But you agree that it affects streamflow?
JF:
Yes.
Sen. C:
Do you think more Model runs would be beneficial?
JF:
Yes.
Sen. Carlson:
On a long-term buy-out, are you comfortable with a simple majority vote?
JF:
That is determined by the irrigation district’s bylaws.
Senator Wallman:
Has the aquifer where you are dropped in the last 15 years?
JF:
As much as 50 feet in some areas but some areas have as much as 500 feet of water.
Senator Wallman:
No wells developed since?
JF:
We have had a moratorium. We required well spacing in 1978, a moratorium on some parts of the district for many years, and a total moratorium in 1998.
--------------------------
John Hile: bond counsel -
Speaking on behalf of NARD and bond financing. With the new type of tax (per acre fee), there’s no track record on which to base financing. So that’s why you have language of the amendment that allows for both property tax and per acre fee. The number of acres could vary.
Sen Christensen:
What would be the effect of a sunset of 2-3 years if there’s no long-term plan in place?
JH:
The bonds that would have been issued would not be affected.
Sen. C:
There’s no effect?
JH:
Bond will comply with restrictions in place.
Sen. C:
Let’s say you have a 20 year bond and it gets renewed at year 19, the bond will never end?
JH:
True, as long as the legislature allows it.
-----------------------------
Kurt Friesen: chair of Upper Big Blue NRD –
Supports concept of what you’re trying to accomplish, but wants “any new water well” to be struck and replaced with “any new water usage.” Also wants industrial use language added. Opposes occupation tax. Opposes p. 37, Lines 8-18 (remove the language). Doesn’t like inability to appeal. The DNR shows inability to control and they are still issuing surface permits. State, as a whole, needs to bear more of the burden. Supports bill with recommended changes.
Senator Louden:
Talked about how LB 30 language is the Governor’s corn-check off part of the package, which already had a hearing of its own.
Senator Kopplin:
Nebraska has an agreement with Kansas regarding the Blue River system. Do you foresee the same problem coming?
KF:
Don’t think so. We aren’t fully appropriated, according to DNR, and will not be for a number of years.
Senator Carlson:
This is a State issue. Do I like to eat meat? It takes water. Do I like popcorn? It takes water. Keep that in mind as we think on this.
Senator Kopplin:
It is a two-way road. There’s a benefit to the farmer from the City, too.
-------------------------------------
John Thorburn:
Tri Basin NRD manager - Supports tools for NRDs. Expressed concern that State funds need prioritized, but don’t need 100 foot corridor language on the vegetation control. Believes that should be expanded to allow vegetation management in the 100 year flood plain. Opposes regulations on irrigation reuse; open pits don’t need to be classified as wells. We oppose p. 37, 8-18 re: DNR. With revisions, amendment may be okay.
Senator Kopplin:
You keep saying ‘tools.’ Are there any requirements to have anyone do anything in this amendment?
JT:
Existing rules are there for that.
Senator Kopplin:
So this is a money bill, then?
JT:
Yes, it can be characterized as that. This is consistent with local control, as is tradition in Nebraska.
Senator Christensen:
The printed version of this amendment does not have the language we agreed on regarding the DNR controlling the amount of water allowed to an NRD.
JT:
True. I support the compromise language.
Senator Fischer:
Would you elaborate in writing for us later, please?
JT:
Yes, I will do that.
---------------------------------------
Ann Bleed:
Bill is extremely helpful. Likes concept of vegetation task force. Adds tools to the tool box. Supports the bonding authority of the NRDs. The water cash fund is critical to make transition into water balance. Compliance is our primary concern. Regarding forecasting, amendment to Amendment 872 to connect consumptive use controls to funding Will submit amendment regarding forecasting. Whenever necessary to insure compliance, will work with NRDs toward compliance. Temporary stay on new wells prior to public hearing so stops well-drilling between announcement of moratorium hearing and actual moratorium. Frenchman Cambridge agreed to a buyout for 2007.
Sen. Christensen:
Have you encouraged the Governor to pay for more than 2 years? The Basin has committed to more than its fair share.
AB:
The water resources cash fund has given something that’ll be for more than 2 years.
Sen. C:
Other basins will need that money. Will the State step up for other Districts with future funds?
AB:
We’ve already asked the Governor to help with Republican Basin and he is.
Sen. Fischer:
What do you think on Section 19 about an appeals process?
AB:
Our department tries very hard to not make arbitrary decisions. If they disagree with forecast, the IMP program has an appeals process.
Sen. Fischer:
Why would we need an appeals process? If both agree, then why is there appeals language?
AB:
The IMP process toward compliance is a joint planning process. We still need to comply as a State, and the State may need to implement its version. The Integrated Management Review Board keeps both accountable.
Senator Wallman:
Everyone realizes that when the State provides funding, the State will have more control.
Senator Dubas:
Models aren’t always as accurate as hoped. How much credence do you put in the Model?
AB:
When special water master said ground water is accountable to the extent it affects stream flow, the Model was needed. It will be used to determine compliance. It isn’t perfect. But, is it one of the best tools? Yes. Are we looking at it for improvements? Yes. We need to always test and scrutinize.
Senator Dubas:
If the Model’s accuracy is bad, then what?
AB:
Then we bring the concern to the Compact Administration then there’s a determination if the Model needs corrected.
Senator Carlson:
On a long-term buyout of surface or an occupation tax, if there’s a simply majority vote, are you okay with that?
AB:
This is an elected Board. People can deal with their Board. A long-term buyout is not easy to do and we must deal with it in a 5-8 year time period, since many agencies [listed ones like Game & Parks and Bureau of Reclamation] are involved, and there might be EPA concerns. After we go through the process, then we may have enough information to consider a buyout.
-------------------------------
Keith Olsen (Perkins Co. Farmer President of Farm Bureau):
Conditional support. Before, the check-off fund was always used to stimulate product use. We’ve never had this use for it before. Cited study by Farm Bureau. Irrigation is a big benefit to the economy. 63% of irrigation benefits go to non-producers. 90% of the costs of LB 701 go to producers. What are regulatory costs to the producer? $49/acre. We as producers are already paying our share.
------------------------------
Dale Helms (tenant irrigator):
Understands emergency nature of this. Opposed to Section 7 on p. 7. The DNR and NRDs can hurt me on my contracts. The DNR needs to work on the Model. An audit is needed. The RRCA data needs checked. The Final Settlement Stipulations call for a study. The operation study between the States. Why hasn’t that been done yet? Opposes permanent buyout of water. The irrigation district boards can decide whether to sell without consulting their members.
Senator Fischer: [asked for clarification]
Dale Helms: [Read Settlement Stipulation Part E.]
------------------------------
Jay Wolf (President of NE Cattlemen):
Appreciate that the vegetation management clause has been added. Will work with group to add changes. Requests that 46-601-01 Subsection B exclude livestock waste facilities.
Tom Schwarz – self –
Supports because it ties groundwater and surface water together under one management principle.
-----------------------------
Opponents
Don Adams – Nebraskans First –
State signed the Agreement – not the NRDs -- so State is responsible.
701 puts costs on Basin and irrigators.
Irrigators have already made big cuts.
Irrigated taxes are double what dry land taxes are. Are 3 times greater than KS.
Conservation and terraces were not present in 1943 but are the primary cause of depletions to the stream.
Shows pictures of terraces.
The river cannot flow because of conservation.
Implores the committee to deal with conservation.
Ann Bleed in Lincoln Journal Star says that, even with 701, it will not be enough. Irrigators will have to cut more.
Supports the vegetation controls in the bill.
Senator Fischer
What should be done?
Don Adams
This is a statewide issue. State should pay. The State helped with the Low Level Radioactive Waste problem. It helped Omaha with LB 775.
Senator Fischer
The State is putting in some money.
Don Adams
The lion’s share is being paid by the Basin.
Senator Louden
So you think we should file suit and reopen the 1943 compact? I do.
Don Adams
Deal with conservation. We can’t fill Harlan with water that can’t get here because of conservation.
Senator Louden
What amount of water used to flow from KS into NE?
Don Adams
Don’t know.
Senator Louden
What is the best way to go? Reopen Compact come hell or low water?
Don Adams
Compliance via regulation will not work.
-----------------------------
Barry Richards – self –
emotional appeal to not make anyone but irrigators pay.
-----------------------------
Steve Ebke (NE Corn Growers):
Opposed to LB 322 check-off being wrapped up into this Bill. Want to work toward more balanced funding solution.
------------------------------
Neutral
Jim Tierney (North Platte):
“I’m neutral but more of an opponent.” There’s new NRD power here. The water belongs to the whole State. Water is going into the Missouri on down. If this is all the State’s water, catch it. I call this my Catch 22 plan. Put 2 cents on all bills across the State so that there’s interest in catching the water, and $2/acre to irrigate. You think you can’t transfer water? The precedence is already set.
----------------------------
Don Kraus (CPPD):
Supports weed control part. Bonding is important option. We need certainty. Delegation to DNR to manage ground water may be good, but not sure this Bill does that. Doesn’t like that there’s 14 inch allocation for ground water while surface is restricted. Don’t forget Platte Basin.
----------------------------
Dave Cookson: Attorney General’s office
Talked about the study Dale Helms brought up and how they were unsuccessful on getting the Bill passed through Congress. 701 applies to Republican River Basin, but this is Open Class. Other Basins can have this apply to them. LB 962 & LB 1226 put forth restrictions/regulations.
Sen Christensen:
Brought up augmentation from within Basin and the timing issue. Mentioned spring creek transfer as option.
DC:
Intrabasin transfers can be done if far enough away to not affect stream in foreseeable future. Depends on site chosen.
Sen Christensen:
So there may be places we can augment the stream with limited negative effects?
DC
Potentially in the Mound but dependent on specific area choosen.
Sen Christensen
So it would be possible to pump water out of the ground in the spring creek area on the Republican River Basin side of the line and not have to replace that water?
DC
Yes/No – It depends on where.
-----------------------------
Claude Cappel:
The bond is probably the way to go. Lack of whole State legislation and now District is in trouble. If you shut off irrigation and the bonds are in place, it could be tough. Irrigators are responsible.
Sen. Carlson:
Equality of rights perspective is appreciated.
Sen. Christensen:
Four out of five jobs are based on agriculture. Irrigation benefits everyone in the community. Talked about conservation being major factor and doesn’t see that irrigators are causing the problem.
-----------------------------
Steve Smith – WaterClaim director –
Neutral. Could support bill if modified to include accountability, cooperation and other things on hand out. [Hand out given to Committee.]
-----------------------------
Matt Harrison:
Subsection 3, I am for. Section 4 is good. I’m opposed to Section 7, Parts 1 & 2. (bonding authority) There are two studies not complete yet on this. I feel we need the answers. I’m opposed to permanent buy-out. This isn’t a money issue. It is a people issue.
------------------------------