Water alternative

Dear Editor,

The Jan. 12 McCook Gazette quoted State Sen. Baker: "'There's been a lot of talk about interbasin transfer,' Baker said. 'But not only would that option cause regulatory problems, it would be a difficult move based on the conservation restrictions on the Platte River Basin. In addition, the Platte River west of Elm Creek is already over-appropriated.'"

Readers, consider what happens if we do not do an interbasin transfer. Nebraska is over its allocation by 100,000 acre feet, and we have yet to account for two more years before Kansas can start to enforce the agreement they have with us.

The surface water purchase being considered reduces the overage by 20,000 AF. That still leaves us 80,000 AF over, plus whatever happens in 2006 and 2007. We also must be concerned about what future overages may be beyond 2007. Some years will be as painful as this year, about 42,000 AF over. Others will be under our allocation. WaterClaim estimates our overage to be about 25,000 AF each year.

If we have a well within 2.5 miles of the stream that pumps 100 AF each year and we turn that off, Nebraska will get credit for 7 AF in the first year and another 10 AF for the second year the well is off. After five years of the well being off, we get an average credit of 23 AF each year. 

Even if we shut off every irrigation well in 2006 and 2007, Nebraska does not get enough credit to make up the 80,000 AF we are currently over. In fact, we only get about 54,000 AF of credit while also creating economic havoc. 

So, let's say the state simply pays Kansas cash for whatever the overage is on December 2007. We still must stay in compliance in the future. The judge will not permit us to comply by just writing a check each year. He will demand we reduce usage or increase supply.

In order to reduce the annual average overage by 25,000 AF, Nebraska would have to take about 250,000 acres close to the stream out of production for 5 years. Then, we can turn about 30 percent of those back on. This large reduction and then ability to turn some back on is due to the delayed effect from shutting wells off. 

Nebraska, in 2003, and the NRDs, in 2005, agreed to do whatever is necessary to reduce usage, including shutting off wells if the agreement with Kansas requires it. The current overage and projected future overages would require the shut down of a large number of wells in order to honor the agreement made with Kansas.

Yet, instead of shutting off wells, we could increase the supply. The agreement specifically permits this option. For every acre foot we import, we get 1 acre foot credit. For each acre foot we shut down within the basin, we only get a 7 percent credit in the first year. As anyone doing the math can see, it is much less expensive to import water than it is to shut off wells.

Opponents to a transfer say it is too politically difficult to even ask to import water, saying, "We should just recognize that we have to reduce usage."

We are also told that the Platte doesn't have water to sell us and, even if they did, they wouldn't want to sell us any water at any price.

WaterClaim's water import proposal does not create any new uses on the Platte. It uses water that is already being used. We simply pay a farmer enough money to persuade him to let us put it in a canal instead of his field.

Therefore, there are no effects on the Platte, on the aquifer levels, or on the environment that are not already happening. We only purchase water that is already there and being used on a field. We already found farmers who have agreed to sell their water. Nebraska law currently permits the transfer. It is only a matter of financing it and filling out the proper state permits. In fact, there is an interbasin transfer happening in Nebraska now. So, the idea that it can't happen is incorrect. 

When you encounter someone giving reasons why a transfer can't be done, ask:  What are the consequences if we don't do the transfer?

Does the person opposing the transfer prefer a shutdown of a large number of acres? Do they intend to compensate those they shut off, or are they going to order the shutdown of wells without compensation? Do they have another idea that will result in Nebraska being in compliance? If so, let's hear it.

Ask for details on how the solution works and how much of the problem it solves.

Steve Smith,

WaterClaim

Imperial NE