Letter to the Editor

Water history

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Dear Editor,

After reading the article in Monday's Gazette on the Kansas water meeting, I feel it is time to let the public know some of the things that led up to this point.

In the early 1980s, Kansas requested (that) Nebraska ... curtail well drilling and while Kansas and Colorado put on a moratorium, Nebraska's Legislature passed LB375, which took all protection of the aquifer and surface water away from the state and gave it to the NRDs.

Lee Orton, representing the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, testified at the hearing on the bill that "We think the proposal right now mandates a goal and that goal is an actual depletion of the aquifer. I'm not certain that is what everybody wants."

The NRD's written goals until recently were for depletion of the aquifer, even though studies showed almost precisely what was going to happen.

In approximately 1994, Gov. Nelson appointed various water people from the whole basin to be on a Governors Republican Ad-visory Committee. Van Korell, Ron Friehe and I were appointed from this area. As I remember, there were three NRD people from each of the four NRD districts on the board also.

In the 1994 to 1996 period, an agreement was reach between Nebraska representatives and Kansas representatives, but when that agreement was presented to the committee, several felt it was too harsh on Nebraska and not severe enough on Kansas.

When it was turned down by Nebraska, Kansas said they were going to sue and they did.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Special Master in 2000 made his first ruling which showed that Nebraska was made aware when the Compact was made, of the limitations and that all water, ground water and surface water, were the same, and Nebraska was definitely in violation of the compact. After another unfavorable ruling, Nebraska got Colorado included in the suit. The Judge gave the states an opportunity in late 2001 to work on coming to an agreement, which did result in the settlement on Dec. 16, 2002.

Roger Patterson, director of DNR, had told the group and requested that the NRDs set the allotment based on the acres irrigated at least once during the 1998 thru 2002 period, and no operator should be permitted to irrigate land that had not been irrigated at least once during the 1998 through 2002 period. There was also a request for a reduction of 5 to 10 percent in pumping and an additional reduction of 5 to 10 % in water short years. DNR can only request and not require the NRDs to do anything.

After the settlement the MRNRD allowed over 30,000 acres to be added above what was requested, in the way they adopted their rules. The LRNRD allowed hundred of wells and thousand of acres to be added. The URNRD had pumped an average of 10.5 inches in the 1993-1997 period. In the 2000-2004 period they pumped an average of 14.86 inches. The URNRD had allowed satellite pivots in or about 1998 that were not certified acres and likely more than doubled the depletion of the aquifer in their district. These actions in turn took almost all the water appropriated to the irrigation districts by 2002. It has also taken the water needed for the compact.

To show what has happened, the river flow into Harlan County Dam, measured near Orleans, for the 1971 through 1980 had an average flow of 188.44 cubic feet per second. From 1988 thru 1997 the average flow was 172.26 cubic feet per second. During these two periods there were in excess of 50,000 acres of surface water irrigation receiving water from the river and being irrigated also. From 1998 through 2006, the average flow was 70.43 cubic feet per second, with 2004 being the low year with 10.8 cubic feet per second. From 2002 on there have been very few acres that had surface water available for irrigation, with almost all of that being from Medicine Creek, which is also declining on a average. In the last two years water has been purchased from the irrigation districts and delivered to Harlan County Dam to get a higher inflow to meet the compact.

It seems OK to have shut off irrigation of surface water acres with no compensation, but not require ground water to cut back to what is sustainable for the aquifer. Some of those irrigators who are in areas pumping more then what is sustainable and have taken the water necessary for prior appropriated surface water irrigation and compact requirements, have gotten a property tax put on everyone including those who no longer have water for their livelihood, so they can continue to pump more then what is sustainable and take what surface water is left. My opinion is, it will mean the quick response area will have to curtail their pumping in an expanding area in order to get water for the compact. This will basically take irrigation out of the southern counties in the basin. It has become apparent that the State does not care where the water comes from for the compact or who is going to get shut down in the basin, but the closer to the river the better.

Claude L Cappel

McCook

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: