The proposal clearly states that we will purchase water from existing users.  There will be no new diversions and therefore no effect on the Platte that is not already happening.  The Platte River west of Elm Creek is designated as over appropriated.  This means that Platte River users must reduce use below the 1997 usage level.  One way to reduce Platte River usages is to create allocations like the Republican Basin lives with.  When an allocation is put in place, it requires center pivots to replace gravity irrigation to reduce water usage.  But not all fields are suitable to put a pivot on.  Those "odd" fields are the ideal candidates to lease water from.  We need about 25,000 acres on an annual basis.  We can source the water anywhere from Wyoming to Sutherland and then anywhere on the canal from Sutherland to Loomis near Holdrege. The idea is to go to the farmer that must put in a new pivot but for who that isn’t practical and offer that farmer at least $150 an acre for the use of his water.  The farmer can still continue to farm the land dry land and depending on where he is, that will be worth another $25 to $75 an acre.  For many that may be around $50 an acre.  This nets the farmer around $200 an acre.  This is more than the farmer can get from any other place and it saves him from making a conversion that he may not be able to make.  We already have multiple farmers that would like to lease us water at these rates.

Because we are only using water that is already being used, there are no new effects on the Platte.  Therefore there is no cause for concern regarding the Environmental Species Act. .  Nor are there reasons for any of the downstream communities to be concerned, because we are not talking any water that isn’t already being diverted.   No water is taken from the mound except what is already legally being used now by irrigators.  Technically, this is not considered mound water.  Again, we are leasing existing uses, not creating any new uses.

Nor are we taking all of the water that the current farmer takes.  Let’s assume a gravity irrigated field uses 20 inches of water.  We will divert as much of that as we can but we must leave some to compensate the basin for expected seepage.  The Model assumes that 20% of the water applied to a field seeps into the aquifer. Therefore, to make sure we do not cause any loss to the aquifer and to the stream, we limit what we take to 80% of what is currently used. The DNR indicates that we can move as much as what corn transporates.  Corn typically uses 28 inches of water.  Some of that comes via precipitation.  Roger Patterson suggested we use 12 inches per acre for our calculations.   That is less than what the model assumes, but it is within our ability to make work. 

The proposal actually does more environmental good than harm.  We are creating a new 30 mile river in Nebraska.  We think it would be an ideal place to create small lakes to create more seepage into the aquifer and parks for people to enjoy.  We hope to make it a demonstration project of how irrigation and the environment can work towards a common goal.  We believe this will increase the value of the land along the new river and create excellent economic opportunities for the people that live in the area.

Nebraska’s choice – shut down 250,000 plus acres in the Republican River Basin and break a lot of communities or transfer 25,000 acre feet of water down Spring Creek and keep the economy alive.  Cost for the shut down is unaffordable.  Nebraska will not pay compensation on 250,000 acres.  However, the transfer is within the ability of the State and region to make happen.  

If no action is taken, then Nebraska defaults to the shutdown option.   A federal judge will force compliance in the year 2009 or 2010.