|
Response to Story
on water by North Platte Telegraph
I appreciate the
story on water done by Diane Wetzel on April 2, 2006 in the
North Platte Telegraph. However, there are several factual errors
that need to be corrected.
-
The Platte River west of Elm
Creek is over-appropriated. The entire Republican River is
fully-appropriated. There is a legal distinction between the
two.
-
The High Plains aquifer is very
large. It is under much of Nebraska. Parts of it are full;
this includes much of the sandhills and the area south of the
Platte River in central Nebraska. There are also three areas
where there have been significant reductions in the aquifer.
This includes Perkins, Chase, and Dundy counties in southwest
Nebraska and Box Butte and Filmore counties.
-
The story says that about 89
million acre feet have been removed from the Republican River
Basin since 1918. The actual quote is that about 90 million
acre feet of water fall on Nebraska each year in the form of
precipitation. The reference to the 125 million and 41 million
acre feet are not related to anything that I am aware of.
-
I did not say that if we turn
off all of the wells in the Republican River Basin, the aquifer
will return to its peak in 50 years. Remember, much of the
aquifer has not declined -- even with many decades of pumping.
The soil geology determines how quickly an aquifer can
recharge. In some areas, this may be 10 years and for others,
it could be a 1,000 years.
-
Tom Osborne has said that
irrigation brings in approximately $7 billion a year to the
economy. However, the correct number is closer to $4.5 billion
in a dry year.
The gist of the story is correct.
There is a major difference of opinion on how Nebraska should deal
with water over the next few years. Since January, I have had the
privilege of talking for multiple hours about water with each of the
Republican candidates for Governor. There are significant
differences in how each will deal with the issue.
Nebraska has three choices in how
it deals with the situation:
-
Continue as we are, leading to
loud but meaningless fights.
-
The slow shutdown and phase out
of irrigation. This is a path that many believe is
inevitable. It pays farmers to quit farming and encourages them
to do more hunting and agri-tourism. I believe that Dave
Heineman and Tom Osborne are both on this path. Current policy
will require the shutdown of an additional 1% of the irrigation
each year.
-
Do as Central Nebraska Public
Power and Irrigation District has demonstrated -- that is,
recharge the aquifers via water projects. I believe that only
Dave Nabity is willing to pursue this path.
Tom Osborne did say, in the
Gubernatorial debate in Lincoln, that “someone has to quit
irrigating in order to come into compliance. We have areas where
more water is going out than is coming in, so somebody has to stop
farming.”
And, each of us fears that that
someone is us. I have asked Mr. Osborne to clarify his statement,
and he stands by his position that we must reduce irrigation to
balance the system.
One in 3 jobs in Nebraska is
directly dependent on agriculture. All of agriculture is dependent
on water. If we stop using it, then many of us lose our jobs.
WaterClaim believes that we must
follow the example set by CNPPID. We should create water projects
that satisfy Kansas, recharge our aquifers, replenish our streams,
and permit irrigation to continue. We believe this can be done and
must be done, if we don’t want to depopulate western Nebraska. We
can protect the environment, the aquifers, and the economy all at
the same time, if we choose to do so.
The voters will choose this May
which policy they prefer and, by their vote, determine which path
the State will choose.
Thank you for the opportunity to
clarify the facts.
Steve Smith, Director
WaterClaim
PO Box 698
Imperial, NE 69033
308 882 3020
www.waterclaim.org |
