NRDs' IMPs fail to solve problems

Dear Editor,

I just reread Mr. Smith's "Misrepresentations" and Mr. Nelson's "Solve Problems" in the opinion section of the Gazette. They offered an amended integrated management plan (IMP).

Nowhere did I see any reductions in allocations for those outside the quick response area, just the shut down. Both said the added rules will be studied in the next couple of months. Mr. Smith, "The rules will probably set up a procedure where all allocations are reduced in dry years, not for just a few."

What changes in a couple of months? The elections? Why not now? They had other options to consider. Has anyone heard of equal treatment?

All the IMP's, along with this latest attempt (this includes those in the Upper Republican, the biggest abuser of water), have not been satisfactory for the compliance with the compact agreement. The last arbitrator, Mr. Dreher's decision, (stated) "Nebraska and the NRD's should make further reductions in consumptive ground water withdrawals beyond what is required in current IMP's." Likewise, Mr. Dreher concluded, "Nebraska's problem in complying with the compact is ground water (consumption) not surface water." I believe these conclusions should be taken seriously and not ignored. They have been by both Nebraska and the NRD's. Kansas has returned to the U.S. Supreme Court and they may well be the ultimate decision maker.

Mr. Nelson wants to use a five-year rolling average allocation. If the IMPs permit more pumping than the current water supply, where will we get the water? Just continue the same old practice of mining water, taking more than is replaced?

Mr. Smith has been directed by his board to develop rules and programs that keep the NRD within our share of allocated supply. That may be difficult. All those boards approved water transfers, well transfers, questionable development of new land for irrigation and water sales may have caused a problem.

While reading the recent three state report (R.R.C.A.) the allocations above Guide Rock were exceeded in 2009. Was that a dry year? My memory is bad, but I'd swear we had way above average rainfall.

Face it, the IMP's are not working and a five-year rolling average isn't going to cure anything.

Mr. Smith is no doubt correct with his summation that sustainability of those many entities mentioned in his article is impossible under the present conditions. Mr. Smith likes to make rules to follow, but he has forgotten one old rule that hasn't changed ... NE statute 46-715, which states "IMP's should include clear goals and objectives with the purpose of sustaining the balance between water uses and water supplies for both the near-term and the long-term."

The recently passed unclear IMP doesn't come close. It the quick response area which is approximately 70 percent of the irrigated acres in Red Willow and Hitchcock Counties. This includes the surface water that didn't receive much attention. If just ground water is considered, this drops to 63 percent. That number is considerably greater than the 22 percent in the northern tier of counties. Talk about the "Economic Impact."

Mr. Smith and Mr. Nelson are calling for some type of all-work-together within the basin. Mr. Smith has told us for years "Surface water users have no rights." Mr. Nelson was a very vocal opposer of a variance request for some relief by surface water users after six years of no water. We lost on a 5-5 tie. My fixed costs were $50,000 extra for the six years. Now work together?

We need change of direction -- the upcoming election can accomplish this. Red Willow, Hitchcock and sure part of Frontier Counties need to remember the six Board members that voted for this flawed document. That includes towns, recreation, ranchers and farmers.

Equal treatment under the law should prevail.

Tom Kiplinger,

McCook