[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 51°F  
High: 74°F ~ Low: 51°F
Friday, Apr. 18, 2014

NRD ups ante to retire acres

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

CURTIS, Nebraska -- The Middle Republican Natural Resources District Board of Directors has approved an increase in its portion of the payout to permanently retire acres in the district.

The board voted unanimously to increase the district's share of the payout for permanent retirement of acres from $150 to $250. Members also unanimously approved allowing an additional $500 per acre for anyone permanently retiring acres within the 48 percent and up depletion area. It would bring the total payout on permanent acres, within the 48 percent-and-up depletion area, to $1,700 per acre, with $950 being supplied by a federal program.

The deadline to file for retirement, temporary or permanent, is Friday.

The board defeated a motion to have all surface water project users be exempt from the occupation tax. The motion, made by James Uerling and seconded by Bill Hoyt, was defeated with only two favorable votes, from Steve Cappel and Uerling.

The discussion that followed the motion became heated as Uerling, trying to make his point, began pulling out letters and other materials and reading them verbatim. After reading his items, he said, "I believe the integrated management plan is crippling the surface water users."

Dan Smith, the MRNRD manager, Joseph Anderjaska, and Fornoff attempted to inform Uerling that the 2011 Occupation Tax has already been levied, but that decertification was still an option. "They can ask for decertification on a yearly basis, but no one has asked for [decertification] this year," said Smith. The deadline for decertification for the next MRNRD fiscal year is March 1."

"This is too late, [this motion] needs to be put on next year's budget," said Anderjaska.

The MRNRD runs on a fiscal year that operates from July to July.

Uerling followed up his first motion with a second one to have all surface water without supplemental water to be exempt. That motion was defeated 3-8, with only Cappel, Uerling, and Hoyt voting in favor.

"This is the wrong time frame. We need to bring it up for next year," said Anderjaska after the vote.

The board also looked at new legislation in Nebraska. State Senator Mark Christensen has introduced a new bill, LB655, that would allow for a flat rate or usage rate tax, known as an improvement project area tax.

"We could use an IPA [Improvement Project Area] to tax people who use the most water, but a good option would be a combination [of the IPA and occupation tax]," said Smith after the meeting.

The next item discussed during the meeting was the challenge by irrigators at the Department of Natural Resources, and whether the MRNRD board needed to intervene.

Uerling said, "I don't see why we need to intervene. The MRNRD needs to work with these farmers [filing the challenge] and not against them."

Dan Smith explained that in order for the board to be able to defend itself or even be able to be present during the hearing, a motion to intervene had to be filed with the DNR for this instance. The motion has been filed.

"This affects a lot of people in the district, why wouldn't we want to be there?" asked Anderjaska. "There is more than just one group of people in this district, and our job as a board is to represent everyone."

Uerling moved to de-fund the attorney representing the MRNRD Board of Directors at the intervention and it was seconded by Hoyt. Following more discussion, the motion was ratified to say that the MRNRD will quit funding the current legal representation for the intervention of the DNR hearing. The hearing involves the challenge by area irrigators to the current occupation tax. The motion was approved 7-4, with the dissenting votes being from Brad Randel, Rick Spencer, Anderjaska, and Fornoff.

The board will still be able to intervene for the hearing, but would have to hire a new attorney if they decide to file any motions with the DNR regarding the hearing.

--

Discussion continued about the occupation tax and IMP. Uerling began reading from additional letters and emails, including a letter he had received from Dave Domina, the attorney who wrote the Lower Republican Natural Resources District proposed IMP, about the meeting between himself and other members of the MRNRD board regarding the redrafting of the IMP.

Buck Haag asked if the MRNRD board would hire an attorney, wondering who could they hire who wasn't already involved. Smith responded saying he could make a list of attorneys for the board.

Uerling moved to have Smith make a list of attorneys who could help with redrafting the IMP. He also asked that Smith put Domina's name on the list as a courtesy despite his current involvement on the LRNRD's IMP.

The motion was approved 9-2, with Anderjaska and Fornoff dissenting.

The board also voted, 7-4, in favor of reconsidering their involvement in the Republican River Basin Coalition, and 8-3 in favor of reconsidering being a consultant with the RRBC.

"If we all want to work together, then this would be one way for us to work together," said Anderjaska speaking about the coalition could help the district stay in compliance with the compact.

--

Jason Bishop, of Midwest Electric Cooperation in Grant, Nebraska, gave a speech on how irrigators would be affected if the board chose to do an across the board cut to water allocations. He showed that the kilowatt hour cost would increase if usage was curtailed.

"For the start, this would only affect the irrigators kilowatt hour cost, but it could eventually affect the commercial and residential, driving up their rates," said Bishop. He also stated that a similar effect could happen at other electric companies throughout the area.

--

During the groundwater management discussion, Uerling again brought up his disdain for the IMP, saying, "[The IMP] says it will shutdown irrigators."

Fornoff pointed out that the board would have to vote to shut any irrigator down and then asked, "Who on this board would vote to shut anyone down?"

After more discussion on the same topic, the 30 or so people in attendance began to show their displeasure with the circular discussion. An unidentified person in the crowd said, "[Uerling] is acting like a five-year-old; he doesn't want a lawyer, but he does want one now." Responding to the crowd, Uerling continued to rant until Fornoff asked, "How long does it take to sink in?"

Uerling then addressed the crowd proposing the next meeting be held in McCook.

After the meeting, several members of the crowd said that it didn't matter where the meeting was they would still attend because "this is their livelihood."

--

Despite the delay caused by the heated discussion, the board eventually progressed to the next agenda item when Uerling moved and Hoyt seconded that the board submit two formal requests to the DNR. The first request would be to reevaluate the distribution of allotments to the districts for all water, surface and ground. The second request would seek clarification on what actions can be taken against Colorado for non-compliance.

"It may be only one or two percent but I want everything the MRNRD is supposed to have," said Uerling. The board voted 11-0 in favor of the reevaluation.

Afterward the vote, several board members pointed out that the filing could mean that the district could lose percentages instead of gaining them.

--

Other items approved in the meeting were the cost-share funds, financial report, minutes from the January meeting, and plans to help with range workshops.

The next board meeting is March 8, at 3 p.m., with an ad-judicatory hearing beginning at 1:30 p.m. The groundwater committee will meet during the morning prior to the hearing.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com 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.

Quoting Anderjaska, "There is more than 1 group of people in this district and our job as a board is to represent everyone". That is the problem in a nutshell. These new guys campaigned on an "us vs them" mentatilty accentuated by their limited campaign in only the McCook area. Do they care if the district covers 3,843 square miles within the counties of Lincoln, Hayes, Frontier, Hitchcock and Red Willow? Captain Obvious is right on that this is going to effect the entire region and when that car goes over the cliff, I hope everyone living in these Five counties and beyond remembers that it was McCook and its surrounding towns that elected these guys. How much business has McCook already lost because of these "local" spokesmen? I know quite a few people who already have purposely avoided doing business in McCook and it looks like things are just warming up.

-- Posted by farmchick on Wed, Feb 16, 2011, at 8:47 PM

Keep it up James. Your making the "old guard" board members nervous by making them justify their previous actions. In the past, they could just rubber stamp every plan that came up to a vote, only to find out some were unconstitutional, or illegal. You have my support!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Feb 16, 2011, at 9:28 PM

The number one problem with James and some of the new board members is all they want to do is change the decisions the past board made that they don't agree with. The Middle Republican Natural Resource District Board is an Institution. These new board members need to be focus on moving forward. They need to take a serious look at the economic consequences of their decisions and move forward with a plan that maximizes the economic output of groundwater irrigation for the entire district. All irrigators (surface and groundwater) to a degree, affect streamflow, some have been doing it since the 1880's some only in the past 10 years, the bottom line is they are all earn their livelihood from it and are entitled to representation and a benefit from their investment.

The previous board was always called the fox in the hen house, now the new board needs to prove that the voters were not mislead by a bunch of weasels.

-- Posted by omnibus on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 12:47 AM

With all due respect Chunky, if these guys had wanted justification from the "old guard" board members, why didn't they simply go to the previous meetings and ask their questions? I found the old board members well-informed and willing to talk about the reasoning behind their actions. But I suppose stirring up the coffee shop crowd with specultation and grumbling is way more exciting. These are serious issues that involve people's businesses, these guys are acting like the proverbial bulls in the china shop and we are all likely to pay for the damages.

-- Posted by farmchick on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM

anyone remember the results from the november election, the "old guard" was completely whipped. Uerling is simply fulfilling the campaign promises made during the election with a meeting room full of defeated and angry former mrnrd directors and their neighbors. If you throw out the obvious bias against Uerling by the Gazette writer it appears that most of the directors agree with him. Give the new directors a chance that was their second meeting.

-- Posted by rw county irrigator on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 2:42 PM

captain;

Uerling is no child he is the powerhouse who managed the election that ousted the children mismanaging the MRNRD.

-- Posted by rw county irrigator on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 4:12 PM

I would suggest the personal attack is childish. Make your case based on its merit. Making snide remarks from the audience is an indictment on the mud slinger not the elected.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 4:17 PM

So now I must hear from the cheerleader crowd that sits in the back of the meeting and jeers. They jeer because their inadequate and unfair policies are now being exposed. Go James, keep the fuel to the fire. The incompetence of the past board is being exposed!

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 4:53 PM

Enter discourse based on the facts, let the discussion begin. So far all I have seen is personal attack ... hate speak is not working together.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 5:09 PM

In 1935 flood waters raged through our communities. There was loss of life and property. We just had three of the best crops years in the history in this area. Prices are good are they not? Perhaps the water was over allocated but, in the interest of never having to experience another catastrophe like the 35 flood. What are our intentions.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 5:15 PM

The bottom line is that something has to be done to make sure we are in compliance with the 3 state compact while maximizing economic output of all irrigated lands in the basin. James is NOT a child, he is a 40 plus year old man who needs develop some rational leadership skills quick. He is ONE of ELEVEN board members who have the thankless task of continuing the work the NRD board has done in developing solutions for our water challenges. All eleven board members need to bring fresh ideas that BUILD on the PROGRESS that has been achieved over the past years. When the going gets tough and the opposition gets to your head, you can't get up and scold them. That's not leadership. The ag ecomony is on fire right now....record prices! Farmers and Ranchers have been waiting a long time for this and it couldn't come at a better time for our mainstreet businesses. The next few years look very prosperous, but what if it stops raining? What is the plan to maximize our water resources? What happens if the NRD is too late to get a sane plan in place? It all comes down to Leadership and Innovativeness in tough times.

-- Posted by omnibus on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 7:14 PM

OmniDNelson,

We can all see who you are and the sadness that your agenda is attempting to keep. The deep water pumpers continuing to suck the reserve water out of our aquifer and wish to penalize the irrigators who have been here for over 100 years. Your greed identifies you. You have no concern for the true conservation of water. You and your ilk, wives and excommunicated past members, will not stop the truth from being exposed. The people in the valleys were irrigating long before your greed caused you to drill 300 ft deep and then try and blame the valley farmers for the deficit. Greed should not be a motive for the shared resource. The irrigators on the bottom land have been using water for over 100 years while the upland deep water users have less than 20 years history. Shame on you. The people in the valleys have spoken. Quit trying through your multiple/family log-ins to change the facts

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 PM

Sounds like an old fashioned ambush. Still working the personal attack. Was the audience loaded with ex board members and their neighbors? What was that all about? Tell me how do you lead that?

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 7:40 PM

posture

in a heated debate the person who spews the verbal assult has lost the argument.

Kevin Fornoff to uerling "How long does it take to sink in?"

toward the back of the room ex director stan moore laughed, cheered and appladed fornoff's attack. others joined in, nuff said

-- Posted by rw county irrigator on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 8:03 PM

All you have to do is attend the meeting and you will see.

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 8:12 PM

rw county irrigator, was this meeting more or less filled with ex directors and their neighbors than usual? That is to say did it appear ex board members and their neighbors went out of their way to contact others to attend this personal attack on Uerling?

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 8:44 PM

Also, why is the Gazette involved in this personal attack? I mean why did they report what the heckler said verbatim and not what Uerling said verbatim about why he wanted to get rid of one attorney and replace him with another? Thanks for your help in making this discourse more civil.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 8:49 PM

That's because the writer, Justin Bass, is the ousted chairman's, Josh Freisen's brother-in-law.

How about that?

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 8:57 PM

Are you saying that Justin would bring false witness against another to all of his loyal readers because he has a vested interest?

Stunk would never have done such a thing. I'm going to make a forum archive of this in case it disappears.

The Gazette should send a different reporter to the next meeting.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:11 PM

Please answer the other question about loading the audience too.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:18 PM

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

It is time Bruce Crosby assigns a new unbiased reporter to the task of covering the meetings.

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:30 PM

You had better "screen shot" for an archive because the Gazette will censor and ban in a moment.

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:34 PM

Honestly, I can put up with internet anonymous internet posts only so long. RW irrigator (aka James Uerling) if you are anyone else I would really like you to tell me who. I knew who you were when you were spouting hate during the election. Obviously personally attacking and criticizing public servants then is ok, but not now. I am amazed that thruthseekerson knows everyone but you "the power house." I wonder who the plant is. Anyone who was at the meeting knows who acted inappropriately. I doubt anyone but RW irrigator that was there, would find any inconsistencies in this article.

- Josh Friesen

-- Posted by Familyfarmer on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:39 PM

My bottom line is "the greed of the upland water sucking farmers" is despicable. The losers of the election and their spouses are trying to dispel the truth. It makes me want to vomit. I hope all your greed serves you well... Please all of McCook...support our valley farmers!

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:41 PM

Well Mr familyfarmer aka Josh Frissen disgruntled ousted board member : is it not true that your bother-in-law is the gazette reporter, Justin Bass?

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:49 PM

Can you respond Joshie?

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:54 PM

Josh, your personal attack only means you lost the debate. In other words if you have to run others down to make your self look better. That is an indictment of you not the one you are running down.

-- Posted by posture on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:54 PM

Screen shots galore. No denial.

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 PM

Talk to me Dan-Josh and wives?

-- Posted by thruthseekerson on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 10:01 PM

thruthseekerson, please seek help soon. Your hatred and vitriol is very sad. Your delusions that you know who everyone is and what their motivations are is also very sad. I suppose you are attacking me as farmchick as being the wife of someone. Truth be told I am a wife but not of anyone you may think. If you want to disparage wives in general, I guess you have every right to add us to your list of "who to hate". Posture, if you want credibility with comments like "if you have to run others down to make yourself look better" you need to aim them at thruthseekerson as well. Showing a little integrity would go a long way in having a discussion.

The truth of the matter is that there are 2,459 acres in this district. The truth is that the district represents all of them. The truth is that if people work together to solve their problems they may actually get something done. This board needs to decide if their primary objective is to judge farmers in this district and take it upon themselves to choose whom to villify because they disagree with them personally or is their objective to represent the district and work with what the state has given us to find a solution for the entire district.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 8:58 AM

Farmchick, you say: "thruthseekerson, please seek help soon. Your hatred and vitriol is very sad. Your delusions that you know who everyone is and what their motivations are is also very sad. I suppose you are attacking me as farmchick as being the wife of someone. Truth be told I am a wife but not of anyone you may think. If you want to disparage wives in general, I guess you have every right to add us to your list of "who to hate". Posture, if you want credibility with comments like "if you have to run others down to make yourself look better" you need to aim them at thruthseekerson as well. Showing a little integrity would go a long way in having a discussion."

My comments are aimed at everyone. Try not to take them personal. I see all these personal attacks and know it is not healthy. Try to discuss the facts and leave out the broad generalization of the sky is falling. Be specific other wise it is nothing but hate speak.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:01 AM

It appears to me the State didn't want this on their table. The old divide ad conquer trick seems to be working well. Very sad. Stop the sick personal attack.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:06 AM

To all of the wives of former board members: I am deeply saddened to know that my position on this site has caused you to be castigated in such an unfair manner. Hopefully most people reading these exchanges will realize these statements as the bulleying tactics that they are. These men would like me to stop writing out of concern that they are attacking innocent people, or because they think I am the wife of a board member (as if that would nullify my right to an opinion), or maybe because I'm a woman who has tried to be informed about the issues that effect my way of life. Sorry guys, one should not back down to bullies. To all of the wives of present board members: it is my sincere wish that you never are attacked unjustly by anyone simply because of the positions that your husbands take while on or off the board.

I hope the authors of such condemnation will realize that this only hurts their credibility and does not advance their arguements.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:24 AM

farmchick, sorry I must say it appears the pot is calling the kettle black.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:28 AM

Posture, I'm sorry if I didn't understand that the comments you made after addressing "Josh" were aimed at "everyone". Since they were included in the same statement as the one you were making to Josh, I hope you can understand why someone might assume you were still talking to him and not addressing everyone. It might have been confusing since the statement I quoted directly followed the statement where you addressed him by name. Begining the 2nd statement with "in other words. . ." may have possibly added to the misconception that you were still addressing a single individual. But I'm glad we got that cleared up.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:41 AM

captain obvious, you say: The divide and conquer trick got the kids elected and DID work very well. They are now using the same tactic while controlling the board and as I have said before, the results will be to the lawyers from Kansas liking.

Demeaning and derogatory comments are childish. Please be specific in your comments other wise the conversation is delusional the sky falling hate speak.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:43 AM

Qoute Farmchick [Posture, I'm sorry if I didn't understand that the comments you made after addressing "Josh" were aimed at "everyone". Since they were included in the same statement as the one you were making to Josh, I hope you can understand why someone might assume you were still talking to him and not addressing everyone. It might have been confusing since the statement I quoted directly followed the statement where you addressed him by name. Begining the 2nd statement with "in other words. . ." may have possibly added to the misconception that you were still addressing a single individual. But I'm glad we got that cleared up.]

I've stated the same thing over and over in previous posts. Don't take it personal. Try to leave personal attacks out of the discourse it is very disturbing.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:46 AM

Posture, what part of my concern that the wives have been unfairly attacked and my concern that such a thing never happens to any of the wives at any time is the pot calling the kettle black? If attacking innocents with no basis of fact, is not bullying, please tell me what word you would apply to such unfair rhetoric? I speculate why anyone would discredit my right to speak based on some untrue assumption that I am a spouse of a board member. If any of this is unfair castigation, please enlighten me further.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:47 AM

Farmchick, sorry I didn't realize that you had not made a personal attack on others.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:52 AM

Farmchick, Who questioned your right to speak?

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 10:54 AM

I believe that truthseekerson's comment "you and your ilk, wives and excommunicated past members will not stop the truth from being exposed" and his later post, "talk to me Dan - Josh - wives" are attempts to intimidate the only known female writer, me. His assumption that I am a wife somehow accelerates his anger toward me. Not because of what I have said but because I am a "wife". Although it is indirect, I believe that mr. truthseekerson is indicating that my posts lack validity on those grounds. If that did not hold an element of truth, than why would mr. truthseekerson make such an issue over my "wifeness" and why even make such an assumption?

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:22 AM

Sorry posture, I missed one. truthseekerson: "The losers of the election and their spouses are trying to dispel the truth. It makes me want to vomit". It gets pretty close to that "hate speech" you were talking about.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:30 AM

I don't really see the connection but, you have a right to your opinion. As for underestimating a women that would be a mistake, especially a mother protecting her baby.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:33 AM

Why can't we talk about specifics and get past the she said he said. I would like to know what is going on here. What are the issues? I didn't see any of the topics of dispute mentioned or referenced in the article.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:35 AM

Farmchick, could you explain the dispute?

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:40 AM

captainobvious said quote [Farmchick. Just a word of advice. This posture person will never get it.

Alot of his ilk WILL get it and be ashamed of themselves when Kansas is rolling in our $$ and our property tax base has reverted to being primarily funded by dryland farm assessments.]

How would I ever get it? No one has discussed the issues. The article explains how a guy read some email and there was heated exchange but, no coverage of issues other than the one sided vote.

Please explain the issues. What is at risk? Why is there a division between valley and hill folks? What are the choices?

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:46 AM

Is someone going to explain the dispute to me? If not there is one obvious conclusion.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 11:47 AM

OK, I see well could someone please explain to me why the only viable option offered by the state was one that would drive a wedge between two of the greatest groups of people one earth? The folks who live a little farther from the tributaries and the folks who live a little closer. Fairly simple it would appear... to cause a divide. Why should we destroy each other like this? Why only three options and why handed down from the state. I don't like not having options. Why don't you all work together and hand it back up to the state. This is a government by the people for the people. Someone got it backwards. What is this top down stuff?

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 12:00 PM

sorry, posture, I had a family to feed and couldn't respond immediately. You are right when you indicate that the state has not given us good options. If we buck the state too hard they will pull the nrds out of local control and handle it on the state level. I don't know of anyone locally who believes that would be to our benefit. So when I look at the 3 options it appears that option 3, which the was what the old board picked after much work and education and discernment, I doubt anyone would say that they took that decision lightly. Option 1 gives us no carryover with a 4.8 inch cap and sends all the excess water down to Kansas. So Kansas is the big big winner there. I think the argument is that everyone will suffer but unfortunately everyone suffers every year and for no reason other than so that we can equally suffer. It may make sense to some people but it doesn't for me. Option 2 doesn't seem to restrict upland pumping which doesn't seem fair to me. Option 3 gives us a chance to save up some water and not make Kansas any better off than we have to. Any decision needs to be made with a strong desire to compensate those directly affected as best that we can. This works best when we, as a district, are working together. I think that working together also means that we share in the occupation tax. I think we should be open to things like where is LB655 going and I worry about burning bridges like severing involvement in the RRBC. I like the work that the upper has done, it seems quite proactive.

If I had a sense that Mr. Uerling was looking out for the entire district addressing the IMP issue, I wouldn't be as concerned but it seems there is a lot of anger out there with Mr. Uerling and some of the people on this site. They should be pleased not angry. Mr. Uerling has been placed in a very important position. People in important positions will be noticed. What they say and how they say it will be noticed. We should not be a divided people; we should be working together.

I would guess that now some people will pick this to shreds, which is certainly their right, and then challenge me to respond. However, I think I will just sit back for awhile.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 1:05 PM

captainobvious, not sure what you are talking about in handing it back up to the state. Who said the state had a right to offer just 3 options? Is it impossible to come up with a 4th option and set that as policy? Just asking.

I know enough about this to be dangerous. Sorry to say I believe even those with vastly more knowledge than me on the subject could say the same thing. It seems we are in uncharted territory and the state is making it up as they go. What is the threat of the state taking control and where did that come from? Is there a law on the books and could they take control with out legislation? NRD's are what I thought was suppose to be local control.

Is the state breaking it's own law which states ground water and surface water are commingled? How then did they separate the two again?

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 2:21 PM

If I get this right the state then blackmailed ya'll to drive a wedge between those wonderful folks close to the tributaries and those wonderful people not so close to the tributaries by threatening to take away local control. Looks like a sick form of cock fighting implemented by Caesar. All the personal attack is sick, very sick not human and not civil. Although it is by far more civil than the fake civility demonstrated by state officials.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 2:32 PM

captainobvious, do you mind if I ask, did you go to a lot of state sponsored seminars on this? They seemed to have you hammering certain talking points over and over.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 3:29 PM

Okay, one more thought before leaving, posture, it isn't really too hard to see. The state has the power to take nrd's out of local control. They have already indicated they would do it. You don't have to have been at state sponsored seminars to understand that. I'm surprised someone as intutive as yourself is having a hard time with that. I hope you will continue to try to educate yourself on these matters. We all have a lot to learn. Just be glad you're not on the board because the pressure to understand this issue at that level would be enormous. It's okay to be upset at the state, but, we have to be realistic about what we can and what we can't do within the perimiters we have.

-- Posted by farmchick on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 4:11 PM

farmerchick, you said quote [The state has the power to take nrd's out of local control. They have already indicated they would do it. You don't have to have been at state sponsored seminars to understand that. I'm surprised someone as intutive as yourself is having a hard time with that.]

farmerchick sayonara, keep it civil, remember you will be measured out the same mercy you show others. Enough with the blood sport of personal attack. The dividing out of one and chastisement. You are all farmers, ranchers and together you stand divided you fall. Might want to try to view it from both sides.

-- Posted by posture on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 4:45 PM

We don't have these problems in Hawaii.....

-- Posted by P21620 on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 5:09 PM

posture, I'm sorry if the word intuitive is offensive to you. In reading your posts, it appeared that you were able to instintively understand much of the concepts for someone who was just learning about the issues as we are all working our way through these uncharted waters. But you were struggling with this concept of the state taking over. I believe you may looking for insult and chastisement where they don't exist. I was trying to tell you that the state position isn't that complicated and encouraging you to look at it from that level. Just a thought but weren't you the one who was telling everyone not to take things so personally? If you look for insult in every word, you are going to miss out on a lot of opportunity to exchange ideas. Yes, people tend to level personal insults which isn't good but accusing other people of being uncivil and unmerciful and engaging in blood sport could be seen as its own brand of attack and chastisement. I hope you don't take this as uncivil discourse or personal attack, but as a gentle reminder, I've always heard that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

-- Posted by farmchick on Sat, Feb 19, 2011, at 8:54 AM

farmerchick, what are you talking about? It appears you read something I didn't post.

-- Posted by posture on Sat, Feb 19, 2011, at 9:18 AM

farmerchick, loads of drama here I'm not sure how you are coming up with your conclusions.

If you care to discuss the topic let me know otherwise this soap opera stuff is getting old.

-- Posted by posture on Sat, Feb 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM

farmchick

If us folks from McCook agree to stop pumping our irrigation wells, drain our lakes to send water to Kansas and throw our area NRD reps. under the bus will you please, please, please come and shop in McCook. We are so weak and you are so strong.

-- Posted by bullydog on Sat, Feb 19, 2011, at 12:25 PM

The original compact is flawed; those stream flows were an aberration based on the in bank reservoir of the 1935 flood. The proof is in the pudding. Why would stream flows not include the same number of years in the dry years before the flood?

If any of the state officials had experience the 1935 flood they would not suggest giving our senior water rights to the juniors.

-- Posted by posture on Sat, Feb 19, 2011, at 3:16 PM

Captain-dimwit, the original compact clearly states that if the virgin water supply changes more than 10 percent the acre foot allotment toward Colorado, Nebraska and Kansass would be adjusted accordingly. They blew it.

State officials do not wish to have their rear end kissed by you. It just kind of makes them sick to have your nose up there all the time.

-- Posted by posture on Sun, Feb 20, 2011, at 6:37 AM

Captain-dimwit, so now your a soothsayer, do you also practice witchcraft and voodoo?

-- Posted by bullydog on Tue, Feb 22, 2011, at 8:00 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Related subjects