Letter to the Editor

Another view on NRD

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Dear Editor,

Depletion of the aquifer has caused and will continue to cause more loss of surface water, plus an ever-increasing number of ground water wells going dry. Charts show on an average, since 1972 the river and stream flow has and will continue to decline without sustainability of the aquifer. This is especially harmful to those in the southern counties of the Republican Basin areas.

It depends if you are getting a benefit or harmed by NRDs action or lack of action. LB 701 taxes penalizes all the farmers who didn't drill a well or add additional irrigated acres after a statute was passed that made it known there should be no more wells drilled after January 1, 2001, or there was a possible restriction or shut down. LB 701 rewards the neighbor who went ahead and drilled a well and/or added irrigated acres at the expense of the ones who followed the intent of the statutes.

When it was known Kansas was going to sue in the '90s, even though there was a moratorium in place, the URNRD allowed satellite pivots as "irrigated acres" that are not "certified irrigated acres" on approximately additional 60,000 plus acres, to use up tremendous carryover allotments up from previous years from the certified acres. This accelerated the drying up of the Republican and Frenchmen River in the late 90's that furnished water for irrigation district and compact requirements. This reduces the surface flow and underground flow, affects the NRDs below them.

The MRNRD allowed 30,000 plus acres to be added to existing wells after the settlement on Dec. 16, 2002. Several requests were made to the MRNRD not do that and they were given data showing what the County Assessor and the FSA irrigated acres were for the district, to no avail. Board members got voted if they tried to do what DNR requested. Board members make or allowed special rules and regulations to hurt surface water irrigators and benefit their own personal interest.

The LRNRD evidently allowed wells and thousands of acres to be developed after the Dec. 16, 2002 settlement. Tri-Basin is still allowing new wells to be drilled.

The occupational tax is being used unjustly to tax surface water irrigators, trying to force them to give up their irrigation allotments. After 701 was passed at a MRNRD meeting they were informed that the surface water irrigators still have a State obligation to pay the O&M plus there is no option to get out of an irrigation district, when asked not put on the occupational tax on those who haven't received surface water since 2002, were told either pay it or give up your allotments.

If there is a need for funds for certain years of shortage, put the tax on each acre-foot of water an irrigator pumps for irrigation and not on every citizen or people which have already been harmed by the over pumping. Set the allotment at a sustainable level. There will not be much carryover in the year it is cropped. There are irrigators, especially in the quick response area that get by on half the water that other irrigators use. Those who lost a full water supply have learned they don't need as much water to be just as profitable. Their profit is reasonable, because they don't have as much input cost. Farming practices and rotation make a lot of difference in the amount of water used. The water would be used on the land most suited for irrigation. The quality of land has a lot to do with the amount of water it takes to produce a crop. Sandy land and hillsides take a lot more water and produce less. Surprisingly, when you have less water available, management increases and productivity per acre-inch of water applied goes up dramatically. You learn how to get by with what you have, when you have to.

A comment on taxes, the value of the land is why it pays more taxes, the same as a home, business or pastureland versus tillable land. Premium prices are paid for certain homes. Should everybody pay an equal tax?

Meeting the compact requirements is an obligation of the state. The State knowingly allowed the problems to occur in meeting compact requirements. The state statute is; every landowner shall be entitled to a reasonable and beneficial use of the ground water underlying his or her land, subject to the provisions of Chapter 46, article 6, and the correlative rights of other landowners when the ground water supply is insufficient for all users. Correlative rights are defined as everyone shares equal in time of shortage. Nebraska constitution says no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed. Surface water and ground water are now considered to be from the same source.

The NRDs could become sustainable in the basin, while meeting the compact requirement and all irrigators treated equal within an NRD. We would have rivers and streams in the future. That is what it appears the candidates from the McCook area seem to be targeting.

Claude Cappel,

McCook

Comments
View 1 comment
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • While I appreciate Mr. Cappel's viewpoint, I cannot help but see and point out some counter arguements. I will go paragraph by paragraph.

    Over the last 18 months charts show a dramatic increase in groundwater elevation. Charts also show an increase in streamflow from 2002-2008.

    If a state statute was passed in 2001 forbidding the drilling of irrigation wells I cannot find it, nor do I think any irrigator was rewarded by the irrigation tax of 701 except maybe those selling their surface water.

    The MRNRD board has no control over the actions of the Upper NRD board.

    If the MRNRD board allowed some additional acres after Dec 2002, it may be because the supreme court didn't approve the settlement until July of 2003 and they could have been concerned about an unlawful takings lawsuit. It also takes time to draft and adopt regulations of this magnitude.

    The MRNRD again has no athority (to my knowlege) over the Lower Republican or Tri basin NRDs.

    The Tax of 701 surely wasn't designed to "force" surface irrigators to give up allotment. The way it appears to me if you wanted to own irrigated land you paid the irrigated tax. Same goes for all the other property taxes. I would love to be able to duck the valuation on my property as well.

    I believe Mr. Cappel's land falls close to the river and doesn't require the water of his upland foes. When speaking of sustainability , how is it sustainable to irrigate ground that has less than 30 feet of water underneath it, but not sustainable to irrigate land with over 400 feet of water like we find in the more saturated parts of our district. Surely pumping 6 inches out of 30 feet every year is less sustainable than 12 inches out of 400 feet every year.

    I would remind everyone that there currently is no shortage of water in the Republican system. Kansas has been washed over and our Resevoirs are at above average levels. Harlan County Reservoir is currently flooded. Doom and gloom aside, I hope our NRD does protect the vital resource that is our water supply, while allowing it's landowners "reasonable and beneficial use of the ground water underlying his or her land."

    -- Posted by cowpoke on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:10 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: