Check the math

Dear Editor,

Accounting seems to be the invisible monster in this confusing mix for Republican River issues and is complicated at best. In a broad sense the State uses a formula to estimate the amount of water the surface irrigators may use and then divides the rest between the three primary NRDs, with the Upper Republican getting 44 percent, the Middle Republican getting 30 percent and the Lower Republican getting 26 percent. The flaw in this approach is that as water is taken from surface irrigators, due to depletions or curtailment, their share is not protected and goes closer to 0 percent. No compensation has been given for this taking or benefit. However, at least recently, the Republican River Basin Management Districts Association (an organization consisting of basin NRDs and irrigation Districts) recently passed a resolution to retain any credit or benefit of the curtailment to the area the curtailment occurred. This is a step in the right direction because the surface irrigation is not evenly dispersed in the basin and most is in the Lower Republican. This reflects the local impacts of less irrigation to local businesses, county government, schools and others. They postponed a vote on a resolution to support surface irrigation having a separate allocation with similar rights, entitlements and control as NRD's.

Many people consider this issue a fight between NRDs (ground water) and irrigation Districts (surface water). They forget NRD's control many small dams, do tree planting stream channel clearing and many other surface projects. Even though a majority of NRD boards are dominated by well irrigators, most of the voters are not farmers. lt is true we are an agriculture based economy but that is why we need sustainable water for all users regardless of type (irrigation, recreation, fish, wildlife, fauna, water quality) both now and in the future.

Remember, NRD's are funded by everyone and not just well irrigators. lt is difficult to be larger than a personal interest but it is necessary to try for the benefit of everyone.

More than one state employee have explained to me they are only required by statute to be in compliance with the inter-state compacts and not water sustainability. lt is frustrating to be on a team where some members are dedicated to perform at a lower level that will not allow a victory for the whole team. As was mentioned before, the state sets the allocations of the NRD's and makes the decision for a compact call. If it is the choice of the State to damage its citizens, then it should be their obligation to fund the damages.

The bottom line appears to be that surface irrigation was the first developed and the first sacrificed. They would rather have water than compensation for damages. The surface water would benefit not only irrigation but recreation, fish, wildlife, the local flora and water quality. lt is not necessary for the State to commit funding if they can commit to sustainability of the supply for all users and to some degree of parity of use. I am sure there are, at least, the owners and operators of the 100,000 impacted acres and local business and local governments that would like to have the current governor and governor candidates speak to this issue. I feel it deserves as much press as the inconvenience of a New Jersey freeway.

Respectfully,

Mike Delka,

Manager,

Bostwick Irrigation District,

Red Cloud, Nebraska