Response to Smith

Dear Editor,

Mr. (Steve) Smith commented that the State and the NRD's didn't purchase as much water as possible ("NRDs should keep big picture in view," Dec. 18, 2007).

To my recollection at the period of time it was purchased, the only water that wasn't purchased was a little out of Swanson Lake and Red Willow Lake. If it were purchased it would have been difficult to get the water from Trenton to Culbertson because of the growth in the river and it would not have been counted until it got to Harlan County Dam.

In a normal year, it would have seeped away before it reached the dam because the water in the federal lakes are held in storage for release to irrigation district during the growing season. I also think they purchased 8,000 acre feet from the Irrigation District on the Frenchman River and received over 60,000 acre feet at the point where it ran into the Republican.

It is also a fact that even though water has been purchased for the last two years and there was abnormally large runoff last year, the state has been in violation every year. After what little flood waters from last year rains are drained from the lakes west of where the Medicine Creek joins the Republican, where is there going to be water to purchase outside of the Medicine Creek Dam?

It took about 6 years to get what little water there is in the lakes and the over pumping has depleted stream flow to almost no flow.

In regard to purchasing surface water for the 2008 period, the present law will make the water more expensive, because the grain prices are considerably higher then last year at this time and irrigators that have wells will have to restrict their pumping by the amount sold, it is doubtful because of the way the law is now written if the irrigator would even vote to sell it.

What troubles me, is why is it ok to continue to deplete the aquifer and feel everyone has to pay so those who have depleted the water, can continue to deplete the aquifer by pumping more then what is sustainable? There have been tens of thousands of acres of surface water irrigated land and a lot of wells dried up in the southern counties of the basin because of over pumping. That seems to be OK. By state statute, everybody should share equally in the shortage.

Colorado is not forcing the shutoff of wells. Colorado set up what they call the "Republican River Water Conservation District." It has assessed every irrigated acre in the basin $5.50 and is thinking about a charge for the amount pumped.

Using that money for CREP and EQUIP along with FSA and other funds they are permanently retiring irrigated acres. Colorado's CREP and EQUIP pay considerably more then Nebraska and retire the irrigation acres permanently. Even though it was proposed in years they are over 5,000 feet from compliance, it will not be used to shut down irrigation near the river. Instead they are buying enough water rights from irrigated acres to equal the consumptive use of 15,000 acre-feet of water per year.

They will pump only what is needed (around 12,000 acre feet) and discharge it into the Republican River. According to the manager of the Republican River Water Conservation District there are no intentions to shut off any irrigator without compensation. It is a voluntary program. Colorado is focusing their money and efforts toward a permanent solution, not a year-to-year bandage.

Their initial cost to procure the irrigation right from the landowner and construction is estimated at over 70 million. The water is shallow and it is down hill so the pumping cost is low. The pipe is less then 15 miles long, 36 inches in diameter and will discharge into the river at the border.

Ironically, Central Platte and Irrigation is furnishing water from the mound for a water credit for the Republican River that is almost equal to what Colorado will be pumping to be in compliance with Kansas and to date have not cost anything.

Another factor is until the basin becomes sustainable the lag effect will keep compounding and make the requirements larger.

As far as not being in compliance, when the settlement was made, the NRD's added thousand of new acres that was totally against what Roger Patterson, the DNR Director recommended and would not do what Roger requested. He could only make request by state statutes to the NRD's and not require anything. He finally gave in to them after over two years of trying and then quit the position. A NRD board member even put an article in the paper about how they had negotiated more allotment over time.

In the URNRD from their own public records their average use per year from 1993-1977 was 398,000 acre-feet for 455,100 certified acres and in those years they had excluded the irrigated acres south of the river.

Now, the Department of Natural resource has determined the pumping volume for the 1998-2002 period for the URNRD to be 531,763 acre-feet on 448,000 acres of certified acres, most likely because of satellite pivots.

This will allow them to pump 425,000 acre feet which is an increase in depletion to the aquifer of more then 27,000 acre feet over what they pumped in the 1993-1977 period. The MRNRD and the LRNRD allowed the adding of thousands of new irrigated acres after the settlement. Is this how we get into compliance?

Distortions and misleading statements have a lot to do with where we are. Check out what is being said. There is generally another side or view and this water issue is very complex.

Claude L Cappel,

McCook