Short-term solution

Dear Editor,

I have been a board member of the MRNRD for almost 30 years, serving many of those as chairman. I am proud of the many accomplishments in conservation and natural resource stewardship that were made by the MRNRD board and staff over that period. Unfortunately, I am certainly less proud of how in recent years fiscal restraint has weakened and the focus has turned from long-term goals and projects to short bursts of "how-do-we-buy-our-way-out-of-this-year's-problem?"

The transformation into short-term thinking was enabled by the passage of LB701. This legislation was asked for by local NRD managers and legislators and allowed all residents of the basin to be taxed for what was perceived as a basin problem. The state was more than willing to allow district residents to take on the burden. LB701 certainly wasn't written or implemented as part of a comprehensive program, rather just a means to buy overpriced water on a year-to-year basis to meet the compact while avoiding the need for meaningful changes in water management policy at both the state and NRD levels. Compact compliance was met in 2007 thanks to our own version of a bailout, and 2008 will likely be met thanks to above normal precipitation (record in some cases). These two years are hardly good evidence that current programs are sufficient.

The MRNRD board continues to take actions which increase consumptive use and further add to the compliance problem through allowing irresponsible water transfers. At the September board meeting after a motion denying a transfer failed, a motion in favor of the transfer passed even though the well has no history of use, a direct violation of our published rules. The continual issuance of transfers allows the pumpage of water which would have never been pumped otherwise due to well limitations or other issues.

A water policy driven from the fear that a reduction in irrigation will cause the economy of the basin to collapse is false. Contrary to popular opinion the economy of the area is not totally reliant on irrigation. Without a doubt irrigated agriculture plays a large role, however it's important to note that a complete shutdown of irrigation is not being proposed by anybody except possibly by Kansas in the event of a court ruling. Reasonable compliance plans include a reduction in irrigation, not a complete stop. An economic study by Supalla at UNL stated "In the late 1990's irrigated acreage in the Republican Basin increased by about 15 percent, which is approximately the level of decrease that may be needed, yet employment, population and income was not noticeably effected." He further concluded that a 15 percent reduction would have virtually no effect on the communities. Larger reductions may have an effect; however what is the potential cost of doing nothing, or the cost of maintaining business as usual? Economic studies also often assume that management and technology will not change with time. That is certainly not the case, as has been proven by some of the irrigators in this basin who have made great strides in better management of their water. It's rather foolish to believe that further gains in irrigation scheduling, reducing tillage, using crop rotations, biotechnology, etc. cannot be realized and will minimize or eliminate the impact of reduced irrigation.

At no point in time have irrigators been offered a structured way (survey, vote, etc.) to indicate their preference among management strategies. It has always been assumed by policy makers that any reduction in allocation or placing taxes and fees on irrigated land is intolerable by constituents. Maybe it's time for an honest discussion about what irrigators are willing to do for access to water rather than just assuming.

In one possible scenario, irrigators would have options, take a lower allocation which will ensure compliance, and if desired buy additional water. Those who choose to buy up to a higher allocation level will provide the funds necessary to purchase other rights to ensure compliance. This system rewards producers who choose to operate with less water and has a way for those who choose to use more water to obtain it and pay for it.

Hopefully the new board will openly investigate all options to reach true compliance. True compliance does not include schemes of piping water to the river or buying surface water each year at extortionist prices. True compliance rather is a balanced policy which maintains compliance while fairly distributing its cost proportionate to its benefits.

The results of a policy enabling status quo pumping at all cost are evident in Stanton County, Kansas where wells that once pumped 1,500 gallons are being abandoned, and in areas of West Texas where eight 25 gallon wells are tied together to run a drip tape system. As much as people like to blame Kansas, the compact, and the lawsuit, there is still a much larger issue to be considered. That issue is how do we develop a balanced approach to natural resource management that provides economic benefit for our area not just today, but tomorrow as well. I believe that MRNRD board candidates Coady, McConville, Uerling, and Haag are capable of initiating that balanced approach.

Sincerely

Gayle D. Haag

MRNRD Board Member