A good first step

In August, Nebraska issued an analysis of the accounting methods used to measure compliance on the Republican River. That analysis can be found at http://tinyurl.com/6ncf7v. The analysis condemns the accounting procedures that are used to calculate compliance with the US Supreme Court ruling. Page 20 of the analysis says, "Clearly at least one of the determinations of impact, and possibly many of the determinations of impact, are wrong. … Similarly the faulty assumptions on which the accounting procedures were based would cause the under-estimation of IWS [Imported Water Supply], and the over-estimation of the VWS [Virgin Water Supply]. The accounting procedures must be changed to permit a more equitable allocation of water supply and responsibility for depletions and accretions."

Nebraska agreed to these accounting procedures in 2002, but is now saying the procedures are faulty. Nebraska is careful to say that the computer simulation itself is good but what is done with the numbers coming from the simulation is where the problem is. The analysis was written in part by the people who created the Model, and they repeatedly point out that there is no problem with the Model.

Nebraska explains that the reason for its agreement to the accounting procedures in 2002 and its challenge today is due to a realization that when the stream goes dry, the accounting procedures clearly fail to balance. In effect, Nebraska is saying that the current accounting methods show that 1 +1 = 1 when everyone clearly knows that 1 + 1 = 2. So, something must be wrong with the method of calculating things.

Nebraska gives three examples of where there is clearly a problem with the math, provides an explanation of why the current method is wrong, and proposes a new method to calculate water use. And, they show, in a series of tables, what the difference would be between the two methods. Nebraska proposes running the computer simulation 16 times (instead of the current 5) to calculate the allocations and uses by each state and suggests that, when all calculations are done, the sum of the individual sections should equal the sum of all.

Nebraska makes a good case. If Nebraska were successful in persuading Kansas and Colorado to modify the method of calculation or persuade the Court to modify it, then Nebraska would reduce its overage between 2003 and 2006 from an approximate 136,000 acre feet to about 98,000 acre feet. Nebraska would still be over its allocation by a large amount, but by about 38,500 less than what it is showing now. However, the same method would see Colorado's overage increase by about 7,000 acre feet for the same period of time. Most of the charge against Colorado would come for what Nebraska shows to be an underestimation of the depletions caused by Colorado on the Frenchman Creek.

If I were an unbiased judge, I would rule in favor of Nebraska on the issue. I think Nebraska makes a good case and, I think, a reasonable proposal on how to correct the errors in the current method.

This analysis focuses on one of the problems with the system that regulates water use. However, there are several other serious errors that are yet unaddressed. It is the responsibility of the Governor, the DNR, our Legislators, and the NRDs to make sure the other serious flaws are also corrected. The Governor and the DNR have made a good first step in correcting one of the problems.

-- Smith is director of the WaterClaim.org advocacy group, headquartered in Imperial. More information is available at http://www.waterclaim.org