Are we really thinking through the economic consequences of the very real possibility of increased state or federal regulation if we do not have the right local funding mechanisms in place in LB701? We need to step back and look at the whole picture.

Let us think about what might happen economically if we were to lose, because of increased regulation, a large portion of the basin's irrigated farming, and it changed over to dry land farming. We can apply a generally accepted farming principle that says; to make the same income from dryland as from irrigated land, you would need to farm around three times the amount of acres as you did with irrigation. For example, even one of the members of Friends of the River told me that he would have to farm over three times the amount of land that he is currently farming irrigated to make the same income dryland farming. The number of farmers who could make a living by farming that same number of acres would have to decrease by possibly two thirds. This would have a huge economic impact for our area.

How else would such a scenario affect our area? The valuation of land that was once irrigated land would decrease when switched over to dry land. This would be a large decrease in revenue for our public schools and local governments. Like I mentioned earlier, since dry land farming requires more acres per farmer to come out ahead, it would require fewer farmers and fewer hired help, meaning fewer people in our area. This in turn would mean fewer families who could make a living and fewer of their children in our schools. It would also mean fewer people buying goods, buying supplies, banking and buying services in town.

This is the connection not recognized by some, the connection between irrigated farming and the economic well being of communities across the basin. Take away a large portion of irrigation through increased regulation and you take away one of the basin's key economic drivers, if not the main economic driver, throughout most of the communities in Southwest Nebraska.

Is this the direction we want to take in the Republican River Basin? Do we want to turn over our economic future to a set of unknown factors and a group of people that do not live in the area? I do not believe that is the wisest choice.

I do not blame many of you for being frustrated about the NRDs' increased taxes brought about by the expanded authority given them from the Legislature. Higher taxes was not what I wanted either. On the other hand, when faced with certain political realities I chose to give our area a better opportunity to control our economic future then the unknown future of increased regulation from the state, or at the hand of a federal judge. A local funding mechanism gives the local taxpayer, at least, a more direct influence in the NRD activities than the other options. Levies could be decreased or be eliminated in the future, as needs change during water surplus periods, through local accountability.

We can close our eyes to the current political reality or come together as communities and a basin. We can unite by working with the NRDs and the Legislature for optimistic and hopeful solutions for moving our area forward economically. On the other hand, we can get caught up in irrigator vs. dry lander, taxpayer vs. NRD, and farmers vs. city folk filing lawsuits and losing sight of the big economic picture. We all contribute to, and benefit from others in our local economy, and I believe it does us no good to pit ourselves against each other.

If you have ideas, questions, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.