Water. I campaigned on it. I've been dealing with the issue daily here in Lincoln. There are so many opinions on every aspect of it, and so many are logical in their assessments. I see where each person is coming from and why they are thinking what they are. Should the irrigators pay for all or the majority of a solution? Should the cities take part in paying? Should there be no payment from the Basin? How much should the State pay? Is the problem mainly with water being used by grasses on pasture land? Is it a problem with pumping too much? Is the problem mainly with terraces built on both irrigated and dry land?
Is it a problem with water evaporating from reservoirs and ponds? What happens with the ethanol plants?
There are so many questions beyond this. We cannot deny that our District depends on agriculture and access to water. How to address the issue is a minefield of options in every direction.
In thinking through all this, we must consider that 65 percent of the depletion in streamflow is a result of conservation (a good thing in many respects, so removal is not a great option).
And, 15 percent of streamflow depletion is due to riparian vegetation growth.
Also, people love for the reservoirs to be full for recreation (I love boating, too), but should we think about how dams have kept water from flowing on down the stream? There are so many factors to consider beyond just these things.
I feel that finding the fairest solution for the Basin's sake as a whole has got to be the focus of the Legislature. As always, keep on communicating.
Let the Natural Resources Committee know what you think, too: Senators LeRoy Louden (Chair), Tom Carlson, me, Annette Dubas, Deb Fischer, Carol Hudkins, Gail Kopplin, and Norm Wallman. Thank you.


