Menu
Status of state's water
Dear Editor,
Nebraska is in violation of the Final Settlement Agreement regarding the Republican River. Nebraska doesn't know what is required until a year after it has already acted. As a result, Nebraska must guess what it has to do each year to stay within its allowance. Because the benefits gained via reduced usage take years to occur, it makes sense to set usage at a reasonable level and then use other methods to account for the huge variations in allowance that occur from year to year.
There have been several positive developments recently, such as the NRDs setting five year allocations and the state making sure the surface irrigators were paid for the water that was bought from them in 2007. However, there are several things we should keep in mind.
First, the five year allocations can be changed at any time. The NRDs can change the allocations or a judge can order them changed or the state can pressure the NRDs to change them. The URNRD has already negated one five year allocation period in mid-stream and there is nothing to stop it from happening again at any NRD.
Second, the state apparently has no plans in place or under consideration on how to eliminate the current overage that was accumulated between 2002 and 2007. There is enough water in the reservoirs to eliminate the debt to Kansas, but Nebraska appears to be planning on using this water on Nebraska fields instead. This increases the probability that Kansas will return to court to demand not just cash but also water. The fact that Nebraska could eliminate the water debt but chooses not to will increase the probability that a federal court will take over the decision-making process from the state and NRDs.
Third, surface irrigation districts have the legal right to divert any water the NRDs place in the stream. Until this is addressed, there is no incentive for the NRDs to reduce usage, participate in CREP or EQIP, augment the stream, or buy limited amounts of surface water. Any money spent by the NRDs on any of these projects is a waste of money until it is possible to limit surface diversions. As long as any group has the ability to divert "saved" water before it gets to Kansas, there is no incentive to "save" any water. The only practical way to limit these diversions is to buy the surface irrigation rights.
Two of the small surface districts want to sell, but the key districts do not. Until the amount of water these districts can divert from the stream is controlled, any NRD efforts provide only political value rather than any practical value.
Fourth, the Colorado pipeline is likely to make it more difficult for Nebraska to comply. If the water Colorado delivers to Nebraska fails to get to Kansas for any reason, then it is assumed that Nebraska used the water. This use would then be charged against Nebraska. This is true, even if a Nebraska surface irrigation district legally captures the water for one of their fields.
Fifth, there are several flaws in the computer simulation that are serious. If the agencies which negotiated the Agreement were to take the time to review the problems and then work to correct the flaws, it would make it possible to develop some solutions that would actually work. As long as those flaws remain in place, Nebraska will take actions that fail to gain the desired results. We detailed those problems in a letter to the governor, which you can see for yourself on our web site -- www.waterclaim.org
Nebraska and the NRDs are trying to sell the idea that as long as Nebraska complies on an annual basis from now on, it would be irresponsible for Kansas to push for any action on the accumulated overage or to seek any well shutdowns to assure future compliance. If Nebraska could always stay within the terms of the agreement, then this might be a reasonable theory. However, Nebraska cannot realistically or honestly make that promise without addressing the fundamental issues listed here.
Steve Smith,
Imperial