Letter to the Editor

NRDs conspiring with the state

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The State of Nebraska and the Republican River Basin (RRB) NRDs have been holding policy discussions in executive session secret sub-committee meetings again. Shortly after the Arbitrator ruled on June 30th that Nebraska was not doing enough to keep itself in compliance, the RRB NRD managers were summoned to Lincoln to hold discussions with the Governor's representatives and with the Attorney General's office. One of the ideas floated was the prospect of shutting off all irrigation wells within a five mile wide swath of every stream and tributary in the RRB. The managers then informed a few members of their boards, usually the executive committees. These few individuals then talked to their personal friends and, anonymously, to some of the people in the press. Then on August 20, the AG's office met with the full board of each of the NRDs to inform them of the idea and said that they would need to add it into their 2010 Integrated Management Plans. The board members were informed by the AG's office that if they talked to the public about this idea, they would not be permitted to attend any future executive sessions.

The Attorney General's office justified this discussion of public policy behind closed doors by saying that this was "just an idea." And, since it was an idea that Kansas could use against Nebraska in its ongoing case, this permitted the discussion to be held in secret. The fact that this idea was first proposed by Kansas seems to escape the State's chief law enforcement office. The idea that all wells close to the stream might be forced to be shut off is no secret and how Nebraska responds to this idea is of public interest and, therefore, the discussion should be public.

However, when the office that is responsible for enforcing the law is encouraging people to ignore the law, it makes things difficult for the NRDs and the public. This isn't the first time the AG's office has employed such tactics. I believe that the AG's office has repeatedly encouraged the NRDs to conduct policy discussions in secret and has provided legal advice to the NRDs on how to avoid public discussions of policy.

The AG's office is heavily involved in making Nebraska water policy. The AG's office attends nearly all water discussions by the various NRDs and also lobbies Legislators, encouraging them to adopt or reject various language in water-related legislation.

During the executive session held on the 20th, the NRDs were informed that if they did not adopt the new water restrictions on wells close to the stream, that issue would be taken to the Interrelated Water Review Board (which the NRDs fear because all of its members are appointed by the Governor) and that their authority would be taken from them on this matter. In other words, "Shoot your neighbor, or we will do it for you and you will lose your influence on other things you care about as well."

Why does the State want to hide this? Why do the NRDs cooperate with this abuse? Obviously, a few executive board members decided the Governor and Attorney General were wrong to try and force this without informing the public, so they leaked the information. They did so anonymously for fear of retaliation by the State.

Now that the State's position is public, it is possible that the State will take a harder line with the NRDs. The State had argued that if the NRDs had offered up something a bit less than a total shut off of wells close to the stream, then the full shut down might not be required. But, since someone on an NRD board is pointing the finger at the State and making the State look like the bad guy, then "the gloves come off." Will the NRDs and the people of the Republican River Basin suffer for revealing the State's position?

In my opinion, the best defense the NRDs have is to put everything said on public record. Make public every demand and every threat made by the State. Let the public see what is at stake. Let the public see why some unpopular decisions will be made. Let the public see that the State has been playing one NRD against the other. Let it be known that the information given by the State in public and in private is not always the same. The public needs to know what options the NRDs are considering in response to the demands and threats. The idea that the NRDs need to conspire with the State to make good policy is false, and it has led to the adoption of a flawed computer simulation, among other things. It has caused the NRDs to accept things like the definition of Quick Response, even though there is no legal basis nor authority for the State to impose its definition.

The NRDs need to make a decision. Will they continue to conspire with the State in secret policy meetings to implement a flawed computer simulation, thinking that by cooperating they can gain more than they can by keeping the people they were elected to represent informed?

It is my opinion that the public will rally to the defense of the NRD, if the NRD is honest and open with the public. Helping the State hide its position only alienates the public from the NRD and creates a cynical public that is less likely to accept workable solutions. An ignored and cynical public is more likely to file lawsuits removing the issue from the hands of the politicians and putting it in the hands of the Courts. Peaceful resolutions are more likely when the public is included in the solution.

-- Steve Smith is executive director of WaterClaim.org with headquarters in Imperial.

Comments
View 2 comments
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.
  • I think that the NRD's are a joke. Near as I can tell it is mostly a bunch of irrigators trying to find a way to keep raping a resource. How do you KNOW that the computer simulation is flawed? The fact remains that something needs to be done to curb the loss to the aquifer or our water will go the way of the bison.

    -- Posted by plainsman on Wed, Aug 26, 2009, at 4:14 PM
  • Ok everyone read the first post. Wow, was there really the need to use the word 'raping'? At any rate 'KNOW[ING]' that the model is flawed is about the process of discovery, common sense and a dose of logic. Some things just don't add up. While I will never claim my education has fully prepared me to 'know all' I do trust the methodology that this group takes. They are open to criticism, open to debate, willing to find solutions and think outside of the box.

    Some may claim that they (Waterclaim)/he (Steve Smith) plays with the numbers ... I don't buy that. This is also the same guy who reported errors in an election process costing him an elected seat. That kind of honesty and devotion to the democratic system builds my faith in the statements him and this organization provides.

    Lastly, yes ... it would be nice to limit the use of the aquifer. However, do it gradually, proportionately and within defendable limits. NRD's are charged with managing change over time, so give them time ... either through their actions or via the courts. I just want an honest discussion and have public officials held accountable.

    In the end, it peeves me off to think that the AG could be this big of a bully. I want answers!

    -- Posted by CoL on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, at 8:31 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: