In the News
CAPA Annual Meeting will be scheduled within
the next month
(additional information coming soon)
Kansas Spent $17 Million Meant For Water Lawsuit
Against Colo.
TOPEKA, Kan. -- Kansas lawmakers
accidentally spent $17 million set aside to finance litigation aimed
at forcing Colorado and Nebraska to abide by water compacts, state
officials said Monday. The embarrassing miscue committed in 2007 set
off alarm bells in the Senate Ways and Means Committee, with some
senators insisting upon reform in the method of writing
appropriations bills and others demanding better tracking of money
earmarked for specific purposes.
"I would suggest we need to take a look at our accounting
procedures," said Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka.
Kansas' successful lawsuit against Colorado over violations of the
Arkansas River Compact resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decree
requiring Colorado to reduce its groundwater pumping and to pay
Kansas about $34 million in damages and interest. The payment
allowed establishment of a fund in Kansas to continue legal work on
water issues with border states.
"So, we took Colorado's money and blew it?" asked Sen. Janis Lee,
D-Kensington.
Sen. Jay Emler, a Louisburg Republican and chairman of the Senate
budget committee, said the original intent was to place the
litigation funding in an account beyond the grasp of legislators. A
House-Senate conference committee inadvertently slid the whole $17
million into an appropriations bill at the end of the session.
"When we have a lockbox, we also have a key,"
Emler said.
The money was spent on general state government expenses.
The Legislature voted and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed the bill
cleaning out the water litigation fund. The oversight wasn't
revealed to legislators until the attorney general's office
requested financing for legal work on water issues for 2010 and
2011.
Michael Leitch, deputy attorney general, said $680,000 was requested
for this year and $1 million for next year. Without the supplemental
appropriations, he said, the attorney general's office could run out
of money while engaged in two disputes with Colorado over the
Supreme Court's decree.Sen. Mark Taddiken, R-Clifton, said replacing
the money with general tax revenue would be difficult. The state's
deficit in the current fiscal year is unknown but rising. The
projected deficit in the upcoming fiscal year could exceed $400
million.
"This is a huge issue for me," Taddiken said. "Is there a way to
rewrite budget bills so people know what's really going on?
"Meanwhile, the Senate committee received an update on activity tied
to a legal settlement among tobacco manufacturing companies, Kansas
and 45 other states. Tobacco companies are contesting payments made
to Kansas in 2003, 2004 and 2005 based on a claim Kansas didn't
adequately enforce provisions of the agreement.
"There are many potential outcomes to this litigation," said Patrick
Broxterman, an assistant attorney general. "which include everything
from losing no money to losing the full $167 million Kansas received
for the years."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22409523/detail.html
| Locals
behind state water legislation |
|
|
|
|
Written by By Marianne Goodland
|
| Thursday, 28
January 2010 |
The 2010 General Assembly
is now in the second week of its 120-day session. During the
next four months, legislators will tackle issues such as
ground water boundaries, vehicle registration and illegal
diversion of surface water.
The first water bill of the 2010 session got its first
hearing last Thursday, January 21. The Senate Agriculture
and Natural Resources Committee voted 6-1 to approve SB
10-52, which would make it clear that a final permit for
ground water wells in a designated basin is final.
It is on the Senate calendar for further debate in the
Senate this week. SB 52 is sponsored by Sen. Greg Brophy,
R-Wray and Rep. Kathleen Curry, I-Gunnison.
Brophy said this week that SB 52 is designed to provide assurance for
people who own large capacity ground water wells that those
wells cannot be pulled out of the designated basin area.
Under SB 52, the Ground Water Commission, which manages the
eight designated basins along the eastern plains and the
Front Range, could revise the basin’s boundaries to remove
previously-included areas only if the area does not include
wells that have had final permits issued.
Brophy said that in 40 years since the boundaries were
designated, no one has challenged either the maps or the
engineering. Without changes in the law, “the risk is a
[surface] water user would sue and pull your well out and
shut it down.” If SB 52 is signed into law, “you will know
the wells are safe, and the banks who lend you money for the
wells will know they are safe,” Brophy said.
Michael Shimmin, a Boulder water rights attorney who
represents water management districts within one of the
basin areas and the ground water commission, testified
Thursday that there are more than 7,000 high capacity wells
in the eight basins. They provide irrigation for
agricultural uses and serve industrial or municipal uses.
Ground water is the only water source available and there is
no meaningful connection to surface water, Shimmin said.
The need for SB 52 is based on whether the decision to
create these designated basins was ever final. Shimmin said
that in 2006 the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted state
law to say that they were never final — the commission could
always come back and either add to or subtract from the
boundaries. That case, Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water
Commission, is currently awaiting a final outcome in court.
The bill exempts any lawsuit that was in place as of January
1, 2010 and would exempt the Gallegos case, according to
Shimmin.
A second lawsuit on the issue, involving the Republican River in Yuma
County, was brought by surface water users. That case was
settled out of court last year when the Yuma County Water
Authority spent $20 million to buy the surface water rights.
Robin Wiley, a Yuma County farmer and chair of the Yuma
County Water Authority, said a small group of surface water
owners petitioned the commission to redraw the boundaries
and curtail high capacity wells that were within 20 miles of
the North Fork of the Republican River. This would have
affected more than 1,300 wells, Wiley said. The Yuma County
Water Authority asked voters for approval to buy the surface
water rights; voters approved the settlement and that
stopped the litigation. But without changes in the law, “the
potential is still out there,” Wiley said.
P. Andrew Jones, a Boulder water rights attorney who represented the well
owners in the Gallegos lawsuit, said senior surface water
rights owners have a right to certainty regarding the
permits, but so do the ground water well users. “You
need to protect what’s already been established,” he told
the committee.
Several businesses that serve agricultural users also
testified to the need for the bill. Terry Hall, general
manager of Y-W Electric Association of Akron, testified
irrigation takes up the largest part of the utility’s system
load, representing 55 percent of its revenue and 80 percent
of its peak load. “It’s crucial to the financial
viability of Y-W to continue to serve irrigation wells,” he
said. Shutting down the wells would result in a 35 to 40
percent rate hike for the rest of the electric consumers.
Craig Soehner, senior vice president of Wray State Bank,
said they rely on the value of irrigated land.
“We have lent money on that irrigated land,” Soehner said.
“...without certainty that those permits will stay in
existence, Wray State Bank and other financial institutions
would have to reduce lending in that area.”
The majority of those testifying Thursday were ground water
well owners, but a few surface water rights holders spoke
against the bill. Mark Lengel of Burlington, whose family
has held those water rights for more than 100 years, said
the bill would take away protection for his senior water
rights. “I won’t have any recourse if the bill passes,” he
said.
Michael Bohnen of Bethune testified that his family’s
surface water rights on the Republican River date back to
1904 and likened the bill to eminent domain.
“Well users can pump the river dry,” he said. “Every well in
the basin affects the flow of the river.” However, when
questioned by Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus, both said
they or their families did not object when the original
boundaries were drawn back in the 1960s and 1970s.
Steve Sims, former water counsel for the attorney general
and now with Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, testified that
senior water rights in the basin are not based on flowing
streams and there would be no quantifiable injury to those
surface water rights holders.
SB 52 also provides strong language on the intent of the
legislature regarding challenges to ground water well
permits. The bill says that after a certain amount of time
has passed, any request to pull out a well for which a
permit has been issued should be considered a “collateral
attack” on the original designation of the basin. However,
the bill does not specify how long that time should be. |
Martha
Pagel Selected to Arbitrate Compact Compliance Pipeline Issue
Due to delays in
Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska choosing an arbitrator and
additional delays by Nebraska insisting in an in-person
interview with potential arbitrators before they could agree on
an arbitrator, Peter Ampe of the Colorado Attorney General’s
Office, invoked section VII.C.2 of the Final Settlement
Stipulation and requested CDR Associates of Boulder, Colorado,
to select the arbitrator. They have done so.
Three CDR staff
members reviewed the resumes, two that have worked on Republican
River issues, and one independent reviewer. All concurred with
a recommendation that Martha Pagel should be the arbitrator for
Republican River Compact issues. Her experience with
groundwater, as former Director of the Oregon Water Resources
Department and background as a lawyer and making decisions on
technical groundwater issues qualify her for the position.
Click here to view her Biography
Bonny Reservoir Information from the Bureau of Reclamation
| Governor
wants Republican Basin compliance plan done by December
|
|
|
|
|
By Nate Jenkins
Associated Press Writer
KEARNEY (AP) —A new plan to keep
Nebraska in compliance with the Republican River compact is
on the fast track.
On Monday, Gov. Dave Heineman told natural resources
district officials, including those from the Republican
River basin, that he wants the plan to be completed by early
December.
One of the options being considered is an irrigation
shutdown in parts of Nebraska’s part of the basin during dry
years.
Heineman didn’t mention that option when speaking to water
officials gathered at a meeting of the resources districts’
association Monday. But, he said, “Everything’s on the
table.’’
Heineman reached out to the water officials, some of whom
have been upset over his administration’s support for such a
shutdown during dry years. The governor said he was “very,
very confident that well-meaning and commonsense
Nebraskans’’ can reach agreement on a compliance plan.
Water use from the Republican River is governed by a 2003
decree from the U.S. Supreme Court, which approved a
settlement—among Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado—of a lawsuit
filed by Kansas in 1998.
Officials are looking for another compliance plan after an
arbitrator’s decision this summer.
In July, Colorado-based arbitrator Karl Dreher said Nebraska
owed Kansas $10,000 for overusing river water in 2005 and
2006—a fraction of the $9 million Kansas demanded—but that
Nebraska’s plan for future compliance with the compact was
insufficient. Dreher didn’t suggest a solution.
State water officials told hundreds of Nebraska farmers
earlier this month that an irrigation shutdown during
so-called water-short years—defined as years when Harlan
County Lake, near the Kansas border, is less than about
one-third full—would be a last resort in a compliance plan
that could have several other options.
They include pumping groundwater into the river to bolster
flows, and buying surface water—basically paying farmers not
to use the water that is mainly stored in reservoirs—so that
it flows down the river and can go to Kansas instead of
being spread on farmers’ fields.
Some managers of Republican River resources districts are
expressing mild support for an irrigation-shutdown option,
saying it could be less painful, and more financially
feasible, than other options.
“If a little regulation would be required to be in
compliance, it would be hard to justify’’ other actions such
as spending tens of millions of dollars on a pipeline to
send water to the river, said Jasper Fanning, manager of the
Upper Republican Natural Resources District.
“You have to have regulations on the table so you know what
you’re comparing them to,’’ he said.
Boards of the area’s natural resources districts will have
to vote on a compliance plan that may include the
irrigation-shutdown option.
Officials say they haven’t yet determined which areas might
be off-limits to irrigation during water-short years. Early
estimates provided to The Associated Press last month showed
that more than 330,000 acres could be affected.
Officials have said water-short years occur 25 percent to 33
percent of the time. Barring an extreme drought, there
probably won’t be another one for least two years, because
Harlan County Lake is full.
Fanning comments on issue
Editor’s Note: In visiting with Fanning this week on the
context of his statement, he noted that if only a handful of
wells would need to be shut down to stay in compliance, that
could be more effective than spending millions on other
compliance projects.
However, until that number is known, things remain up in the
air, he added.
As to the governor’s December deadline, Fanning said
crafting a plan that works for the district and basin is
more important than adopting a plan for the sake of a
deadline.
He said he’s seen a preliminary map of the possible
shut-down areas. It appears the Department of Natural
Resources has squeezed down the area known as the quick
response area.
Rather than regulate an area, he said the state is modelling
actual wells to determine the most benefit in the case of a
shut down.
He said every basin district will take a big hit and some
irrigators will take an unbearable hit under the proposal.
He said it’s key the districts find some type of funding
mechanism to enact other alternatives.
|
Colorado Division of Water Resources New
Services
The Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) has
a number of new services available. Users can now obtain
well permit information online, as well as retrieve
information on water diversion records. These are both ‘big
steps’ for the Division and ones they hope the public will
utilize. To obtain information on either of these and/or
other CDWR data, visit their website at
www.water.state.co.us.
|
Written by Tony Rayl |
| September 18, 2009 |
The time frame shows Wednesday, September 16, as the
last date for the states to meet and agree on an
arbitrator (or arbitrators). Dick Wolfe, state engineer
for Colorado, reported late last week that an arbitrator
had not been selected yet, meaning the states likely
will take it to the deadline. While the arbitration is
classified as “fast track” it still will be more than
five months before an arbitrator issues a decision,
which, on the time frame supplied by Wolfe, is March 1,
2010. The fall and early winter will be the “discovery
period,” such as submitting bries and responses to those
briefs on legal issues, as well as disclosing experts,
witness lists, expert reports and exhibits. The trial
itself is set for February 1-5, 2010. A location has not
been set yet. However, in his notice to his counterparts
in Kansas (David Barfield) and Nebraska (Brian Dunnigan)
that Colorado was invoking arbitration in regards to the
pipeline issue, Wolfe again reiterated his desire to
keep working with the other states to reach a mutually
acceptable resolution.
Republican River
Compact Administration Meeting Report
Lincoln,
NE August 11-12,
2009
Pipeline-
Colorado proposed a 4,000 ac/ft minimum annual
delivery to the RRCA, Nebraska voted no because they are concerned
about the users on and below the Haigler/Pioneer Ditch, they have
salinity problems and shallow wells.
They asked CO to run the pipeline to the Pioneer ditch.
Kansas voted no because of the South Fork
issue and went so far as to suggest that CO should run the pipeline
all the way down to the South Fork.
Stan Murphy commented in pubic comment that in CO 4,000 wells
are paying a per acre fee of $14.50 and he asked the states of KS &
NE to put in writing exactly why they are opposing CO’s pipeline so
the people of the basin can see it first hand.
He also said he was sick of the political “tap dance” and
said we are making a good faith effort to come into compliance and
they are not allowing us to do so.
After speaking with Coryell and Ampe after the meeting Ampe
said that CO would be filing for Fast Track Non-binding Arbitration
within the month.
Bonny Resolution
CO did present the Bonny accounting resolution
in the engineering meeting on Tuesday, however it was not brought up
in the annual meeting.
KS claimed they did not have enough time to
evaluate the proposal (received the Friday before)
and didn’t want to be
expected to vote on it during the annual meeting the following day.
NE spent plenty of time evaluating it and acknowledged that
there was a problem with the accounting on Bonny but felt the
accounting changes that CO made would make the model even more
inaccurate even though it lowered the amount of water that all three
states had to provide.
NE’s William (NE’s smartest guy on the RR Compact) disagreed
publicly with his own engineer.
The next day at the Annual Meeting CO did not bring the
Bonny Resolution.
NE’s Proposal on fines-
Handouts were not made available to the public
but the basis of their proposal was if a state was found out of
compliance and forced to pay a fine for a year that once they pay
that fine their debt for said year would be credited back so it did
not damage future years in the five year rolling average system.
CO found this concept interesting but voted no at the time
because they needed more time to evaluate the formulas used to
create the credit back.
KS questioned if it was even a matter for the RRCA to be considering
as no where in the compact mentions any type of compensation or
fines and also voted no.
Other-
KS said they appreciate CO’s efforts to come
into compliance however they urged CO to take “firm action” to
ensure compliance.
Conservation Study-
No overall comprehensive results have been
developed yet. They are
expecting to have the full report completed by June 1, 2010.
The study looked into two factors: reservoirs and terraces.
The study was expected to cost $1 million but since they were
unable to get terrace information from NRCS it ran over budget and
it is though it will end up costing $1.2 million.
It is believed that there is a total of 716
reserviors basin wide.
The study took an in depth look at 32 reservoirs.
There are 14 different levels of seepage and plant uses 93%
of seepage from reservoirs is “deep seepage”
There is roughly 2.3 million acres of terraces
in the basin. The study
closely monitored 5 terraces.
15% of land in the basin is terraced.
90% of water caught in terraces is used by ET.
The higher clay content of the soil means the higher ET loss
due to decreased ability of deep peculation.
|
|
Stream flow
|
Ground Water Recharge
|
ET
|
|
Before
|
488
|
848
|
64
|
|
After Terraces
|
244
|
974
|
282
|
|
After T & R
|
183
|
1031
|
296
|
Water loss per mile of river travel in a flood
event:
1970’s study estimated a 2% loss
August 2008 7% loss
October ? 2008 3.5% loss
The arbitrator made 12 recommendations based on the 53
conclusions and 159 findings that he reached. The ruling
leaves many important issues unresolved.
The arbitrator ruled that Nebraska cannot shift all of
the evaporation losses to Kansas as it has tried to do. As a
result, the Kansas estimates on how much Nebraska has been
over are more correct than Nebraska's. The arbitrator
rejected Nebraska's suggested solution to one of the the
demonstrated errors in the Model. However, he did recommend
that the technical committee carefully review the problem
and suggest a correction. He rejected most of the Nebraska
suggestions regarding measurement points with the exception
that he did accept the idea that the measurement point on
the North Fork of the Republican be moved to the
Nebraska/Colorado border. That will make it more difficult
for Nebraska to comply in the future as Nebraska will have
to stop the water Colorado dumps at the State line from
disappearing before it reaches the next stream gage.
The ruling rejected the dollar amounts suggested by all
States as being unsupported. So the ruling suggests a
nominal award from Nebraska to Kansas of $10,000 (ten
thousand dollars) until Kansas "proves" an actual amount in
damages.
The ruling rejects the Kansas suggestion that all wells
within 2.5 miles of either side of the stream be shut off as
being more than necessary due to the reduced pumping
Nebraska has already imposed on irrigation. However, he
rejects Nebraska's position that the current Integrated
Management Plans are adequate and recommends that additional
reductions in allocations be made and that Nebraska should
secure long term access to surface water rights. No
specifics are given. The ruling says that Kansas has the
right to seek injunctive relief should Nebraska fail to stay
within the allocations and that Nebraska may be sanctioned
such that it is incentivized to comply. However, no details
are provided as to what that relief might be or what the
sanctions might be. Additionally, the arbitrator has
recommended that no River Master be appointed.
The arbitrator left a lot of things open for others to
decide. He has deferred many of the specifics. No dollar
amounts are given. He agrees that there are technical
problems found in the Model but leaves it to the States to
resolve. He has rejected both parties proposed solutions but
has not said what the solution should be. He does suggest
that the IMPs are ineffective in keeping Nebraska in
compliance because of the time it takes for the IMPs to have
any effect. He says Nebraska needs to find better ways to
stay in compliance but leaves it up to the State as to how
to do that. He says that if Nebraska fails that Kansas can
force compliance but also leaves it open as to what it can
specifically do. In the short term there are few financial
costs. However, Kansas is given the opportunity to prove
actual costs which the arbitrator says may result in
millions of dollars.
Link to full ruling:
http://www.waterclaim.org/legal/finalarbitration.pdf
| Water being released from
Bonny |
|
|
|
|
Written by Tony Rayl |
| Friday, 26
June 2009 |
A release of water from
Bonny Reservoir that began June 17 continued until 5 p.m. on
Sunday, June 28.
Healthy rainfall in the area led to State Engineer
Dick Wolfe to order a maximum release of inflow water.
According to information from Wolfe, the reason for
requesting this final level is to recognize there will be a
continued net increase in reservoir storage once the release
is stopped, for at least the next several days.
It is estimated that the net increase in storage will
be approximately 15 to 20 acre feet per day once the release
is stopped. During the release, outflow far exceeded inflow,
meaning the reservoir continued to drop during the release.
The released water flowed down the South Fork of the
Republican River, through northwest Kansas and into
Nebraska, where the water flow is measured by a gauge in
Benkelman.
Kansas has been making the case that Colorado has not
been meeting its sub-basin requirement along the South Fork
sub-basin. It is one of the sticking points in Colorado
seeking approval for its proposed compact compliance
pipeline from the Republican River Compact Administration.
Kansas argues Colorado cannot make up for its shortage on
the South Fork by sending it into the North Fork via the
pipeline.
Plus, Nebraska is arguing it does not want to have to
convey that water past its users and reservoirs into Kansas,
when it should arrive on the South Fork.
The last special meeting of the RRCA, which is
comprised of representatives from all three states, was in
May. That meeting was continued in hopes of the three states
reaching a settlement so the pipeline would be approved.
However, it never has been reconvened, and the annual RRCA
meeting is August 11-12 in Lincoln, Nebraska. |
| RRWCD closes on pipeline
water |
|
|
|
|
Written by Tony Rayl |
| Friday, 26
June 2009 |
The Republican River Water
Conservation District Water Activity Enterprise completed
the purchase of ground water rights for the Compact
Compliance Pipeline on Friday, June 19, using funds provided
from the Colorado Water Conservation Board's construction
loan fund.
The ground water rights will be leased back to the
sellers until the water is needed for delivery through the
pipeline.
Although the Republican River Compact Administration has
not yet approved a plan for augmentation and accounting
procedures for the pipeline project, the RRWCD Board of
Directors concluded that completing the purchase was prudent
in light of the State of Colorado's current budget
situation.
The State of Colorado is currently in negotiations with
the states of Kansas and Nebraska on terms and conditions
for approval of deliveries of water to the North Fork of the
Republican River to assist the State of Colorado with
compact compliance.
The RRWCD Board expects Colorado to propose a revised
resolution to approve terms and conditions for the pipeline
project at the annual RRCA meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska, on
August 11-12.
If the Kansas and Nebraska members do not approve the
revised resolution, the State of Colorado is expected to
seek arbitration under the provisions of the Final
Settlement Stipulation between the states.
Even with the delay in obtaining RRCA approval,
construction of the pipeline could begin in 2010 with
deliveries beginning in 2011. |
RRWCD did close on the Cure water on Friday June 19, 2009.
More information to follow soon.
| Pipeline talks
continue; RRWCD to close on groundwater |
|
|
|
|
Written by Tony Rayl |
| Thursday, 18
June 2009 |
The
closing on the $49.1 million purchase of the groundwater
rights by the Republican River Water Conservation District
from the Cure family is tentatively set for the end of this
week.
The groundwater, representing about 50 wells, will be
used for the proposed compact compliance pipeline, if
Colorado can get approval from Kansas and Nebraska through
the Republican River Compact Administration (RRCA).
Meanwhile, State Engineer
Dick Wolfe has stated the continuation of the Special RRCA
Meeting that began in May has not been scheduled yet as the
three states are continuing settlement negotiations in
regards to Colorado's proposed compact compliance pipeline.
Wolfe, in an e-mail to the Pioneer, reported the hope is
to set the date soon. However, he added Colorado did not
want to set the continuation until the state knows it has a
deal with Nebraska and Kansas, or that it is determined the
states definitely are at an impasse. At that point, a final
vote would be needed to initiate the arbitration process.
Last month the Republican River Water Conservation
District Board of Directors voted to move forward with the
$49.1 million purchase of the groundwater rights for the
pipeline. The board had previously held the stance it would
not move forward until the RRCA approved the pipeline. To
date, Kansas and Nebraska have withheld approval until its
concerns with the pipeline plan are satisfactorily
addressed.
However, concerns have arisen that the $60 million loan
from the Colorado Water Conservation Board could be taken
away in the near future as the State of Colorado grapples
with a severe budgetary crisis. The loan initially was
supposed to be available until some time in 2010. Those
concerns led to the RRWCD board changing its stance and
moving forward with the groundwater purchase.
Kansas' intentions
In response to questions raised in the Pioneer recently,
Wolfe wrote that Kansas has made its intentions and demands
very clear, and that the specific details were made public
some time ago.
He stated Kansas wants Colorado and Nebraska to comply
with the compact. In the case of the South Fork sub-basin
issue, Wolfe stated Kansas wants water — not money.
Kansas wants its allocation protected on the South Fork
and does not want delivery on the North Fork. Wolfe added
that Nebraska also does not want Kansas' delivery on the
North Fork, in regards to the South Fork, because it would
have to convey it downstream past its users and reservoirs.
Plus, Wolfe noted, delivery on the North Fork of what
should be going down the South Fork, does not provide water
on the South Fork upstream of Benkelman, Nebraska, in an
area where Kansas says surface and well users will be
impacted.
That portion of the South Fork through southwest Kansas
is considered upstream of Kansas, and any use by Kansas
residents is supposed to be credited to Colorado's
compliance efforts. The water from the South Fork still goes
into Nebraska and travels downstream before dropping back
into Kansas, where it is factored into Kansas receiving its
fair share of water as outlined in the Republican River
Compact.
David Robbins, an attorney for the RRWCD, has made the
case in past meetings that Colorado's responsibility in the
compact is to deliver water to Nebraska, not Kansas.
Photo's of Tree Removal
on the North Fork of the Republican
|
| RRWCD moves on $49.1
million water purchase |
|
|
|
| |
| Thursday, 28
May 2009 |
On Monday, May 18, the
Republican River Water Conservation District Board of
Directors voted to authorize closing on the $49.1 million
purchase and sale of the groundwater rights for the
Republican River Compact Compliance Pipeline.
The decision came even though the Republican River
Compact Administration has not yet approved the augmentation
plan and accounting procedures for the pipeline project.
After questioning Deputy State Engineer Mike Sullivan at
length and taking comments from the public, the RRWCD Board
of Directors voted to authorize the closing because of
concern that the $60 million loan funds from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board may not be available in the future
due to the state's current budget situation.
The board recognized that Colorado is exceeding its
statewide Compact allocations and that the pipeline project
is needed to avoid an action by Nebraska or Kansas for an
injunction against Colorado to halt well pumping in the
district until Colorado is in compliance with its compact
allocations.
The RRWCD Board also recognized that Kansas believes
that Colorado is impairing Kansas' ability to use its South
Fork sub-basin allocation within the South Fork sub-basin.
The RRWCD Board has requested assurances from the State of
Colorado that if the board goes forward with the pipeline
project, Colorado will drain Bonny Reservoir or take other
actions equivalent to draining Bonny Reservoir if Kansas is
correct regarding its interpretation of the Final Settlement
Stipulation between the states.
Although the State of Colorado has not provided the
assurances sought by the board, the board concluded that the
only feasible way to comply with Kansas' view of the
sub-basin non-impairment requirement in the South Fork
sub-basin is to drain Bonny Reservoir.
The State of Colorado is continuing negotiations with
Nebraska and Kansas in an effort to get the Republican River
Compact Administration's approval of the augmentation plan
and accounting procedures for the pipeline project. If the
negotiations are not successful, the State of Colorado will
pursue the dispute resolution process established in the
Final Settlement Stipulation, which includes non-binding
arbitration of disputes.
|
Here’s a
recap of the special board meeting held on Monday for
the Republican River Water Conservation District, from Tony
Rayl writing for the Yuma Pioneer. From the article:
Mike Sullivan, who was promoted to deputy state
engineer last October, was in attendance at the special
meeting, held at the Church of the Nazarene. He told the
board the state has revamped a settlement agreement that
is hopefully agreeable to all three states. Colorado’s
leaders are having a private meeting with counterparts
from Kansas and Nebraska today, May 21. He said Colorado
will see if the other two states will accept what’s
being offered. It possibly will be decided then when to
continue the Republican River Compact Administration
meeting that was continued from April 28, when Kansas
and Nebraska representatives both stated they would
continue to vote against the compact compliance pipeline
due to issues the states cannot agree on. Sullivan said
he feels good about a settlement eventually being
reached, because Kansas and Nebraska cannot be
unreasonable in their opposition to Colorado’s plans for
coming into compliance with the Republican River
Compact. A sticking point in Kansas approving the
pipeline is the claim Colorado does not pass the
“sub-basin” test on the South Fork of the Republican,
and that a pipeline sending water into the North Fork
will not satisfy the South Fork issue…
The RRWCD has taken the stance it will not move
forward with the pipeline if the South Fork still
remains a problem. Plus, there is the fact irrigated
farmers along the South Fork are paying the same
assessment fee as everyone else to pay for the pipeline,
but could end up having their wells curtailed because of
the sub-basin issue. If the wells in the South Fork
sub-basin are shut down, which account for approximately
one-half of Colorado’s wells in the Republican River
Basin, that means the remaining well users will have to
take on an even greater burden of paying for the
pipeline project…
District engineer Jim Slattery said Monday draining
Bonny is the only way to come into compliance on the
South Fork — if Kansas is right in its assertion that
the South Fork shortfall cannot be made up by the North
Fork pipeline. Even, it would take years before Colorado
would be in compliance on the South Fork. Sullivan said
draining Bonny would help with the sub-basin test, but
not on overall compliance. Board member Jack Dowell of
Yuma told Sullivan that the state could recoup the
revenue it loses from Bonny from other sources in the
state, but that the farmers and communities in the
region would be left high and dry with no chance to
recoup losses if the wells are shut down so Bonny can
remain open. Sullivan noted loans and grants have been
used for work done at Bonny, and the state needs to make
sure it does not hinder future efforts to receive
federal funds before closing down Bonny…
Board President Dennis Coryell expressed frustrations
that the RRWCD’s pipeline project has been delayed by
nearly one year now because of the South Fork issue.
Meanwhile, all irrigators are paying the new $14.50 per
acre assessment fee for a pipeline that is not being
built. He also noted the people in the basin are not
getting much information from the state regarding the
pipeline negotiations. He urged the state be as
transparent as possible in the process so the locals can
be informed…
Other discussion included options besides draining
Bonny Reservoir. Sullivan said the only other is the
“nuclear” option — shutting down all wells. (It has been
shown even doing that would not get Colorado into
compliance.) Reopening the compact also was brought up.
Sullivan said doing so would mean it would have to be
open to all parties, meaning even more entities could
step in asking for a portion of the water. RRWCD legal
counsel David Robbins said Colorado getting more water
out of a renegotiated compact would mean convincing
Kansas and Nebraska to give up water. He said Colorado
would run the fundamental risk of ending up with even
less water because the upstream states already are using
all they are entitled to, and could very well seek more
water out of a new compact…
Coryell noted that in an ag-driven economy, issues at
Bonny Reservoir do not speak loudly. “It is not going to
be a pretty thing if the South Fork wells are curtailed
in order to keep open a facility that has seen its
better days,” he said.
May 22, 2009
From
the Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):
[State Engineer Dick] Wolfe ordered
the release on May 4, and then ordered
it stopped on May 11. About 900 acre
feet was released during that time into
the South Fork of the Republican River.
The board was told at its regular
meeting in April that there was an extra
3,992 acre feet of storage in Bonny.
Therefore, many were left scratching
their heads last week when the release
was stopped while there was 3,000 acre
feet left to drain. “We wanted to see
what kind of response we got out of that
(initial release),” Wolfe said. He
explained the state did not want to
release all the extra water only to find
out it was not reaching the gage at
Benkelman. It turns out that it was. In
fact, approximately 50 percent of the
released water was reaching Benkleman,
which Wolfe said was very good…
Wolfe said it takes about two weeks
to fully measure the impact the release
is having a the gage. He said his office
will meet with the Bureau of Reclamation
on June 3 to evaluate the May 4-11
release and then decide when and if to
release more of the “out of priority”
water in Bonny…
He said the state could, conceivably,
be in compliance with the Republican
River Compact if the water released from
Bonny keeps getting to Benkelman.
However, he said there are a lot of
factors to consider, noting that if
Colorado experiences a wet year, the
extra storage in Bonny would not be
needed, and a lot of people would be
questioning why the water was released.
As for the RRWCD’s call to drain Bonny,
Wolfe said “There are a lot of issues on
the table to decide what to do long-term
with Bonny.”
Kansas and Nebraska formally rejected
Colorado’s plans for a compact
compliance pipeline, Tuesday morning,
but it appears there is hope the states
are getting closer to resolving their
various issues. That is due to the fact
that, instead of Colorado immediately
calling for arbitration after Tuesday’s
vote, State Engineer Dick Wolfe called
for a continuation of the special
meeting to a yet-determined date in two
to three weeks. Kansas and Nebraska each
agreed to the continuation. Tuesday’s
telephone gathering was an official
meeting of the Republican River Compact
Administration (RRCA). Wolfe is
Colorado’s commissioner on the RRCA. His
counterparts in Kansas and Nebraska,
David Barfield and Brian Dunningan,
respectively, are the other
commissioners…
In the end, it came down to the three
state engineers. Dunningan of Nebraska
said the state supports Colorado’s
efforts to receive approval. However,
Nebraska still has issues with
protecting the surface water users along
the Haigler Canal, and limiting the
volume of water delivered by the
pipeline as Nebraska then is responsible
for sending on the water to Kansas, and
there will be evaporation in the
process. Barfield recognized Colorado’s
“significant” efforts to get into
compliance. However, significant
concerns remain for Kansas, particularly
in regards to sub-basin compliance along
the South Fork of the Republican River.
“For this reason, Kansas will be voting
‘No’,” Barfield said. He added, though,
that Kansas believes the states can
continue to find a resolution for the
pipeline plan…
Wolfe said Colorado recognizes there
are issues still not resolved, but
Colorado was ready to entertain a motion
to approve the pipeline. Barfield
approved the motion, then he and
Dunningan voted against, while Wolfe
voted in favor. Wolfe then requested the
meeting be continued for two to three
weeks, with the states continuing
negotiations in the interim. Kansas and
Nebraska agreed to the continuation. The
specific date will be announced at a
later date, after the parties involved
can coordinate when all three will be
available.
RRWCD has a launched it's redesigned website.
Information includes budgets, audits, minutes and press releases.
Click the logo to visit site
No significant progress, in regards
to getting Kansas and Nebraska to
approve the [compliance pipeline]
project, has been made in the past few
months, it was reported during the
Republican River Water Conservation
District Board of Directors regular
quarterly meeting, last Thursday, April
9, in Yuma. A teleconference with Kansas
and Nebraska is set for Tuesday, April
28, for a special RRCA meeting. Colorado
will ask for approval for the proposed
compact compliance pipeline. If Kansas
and Nebraska reject it, as expected,
Colorado will move to the arbitration
stage.
If not approved, the next step would
be arbitration. The system is set up so
it is “non-binding” arbitration, meaning
the states do not have to adhere to the
ruling. It is a step taken, though, in
an effort to resolve the issue without
going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Colorado, though, is willing to take the
pipeline to binding arbitration, meaning
the arbitrator’s decision carries
weight. “We have offered binding
arbitration but Kansas has rejected it,
at least initially,” [Alexandra Davis,
the assistant director for water for the
Department of Natural Resources] said.
“We were willing to go to binding
arbitration.”[...]
The Republican River Water
Conservation District continues to lay
the groundwork for the pipeline, while
waiting for RRCA approval. Engineer Jim
Slattery told the board last Thursday
that work continues on easements, an
application for a permit from the Corps
of Engineers has been submitted, and the
district also is dealing with a minor
issue with the Colorado Ground Water
Commission in regards to “co-mingling”
wells. Slattery told the board he has
been told bidding among contractors is
still competitive due to a slowdown in
projects, but it might not last much
longer.
The district itself is not moving too
far ahead until issues are resolved
between the three states. The RRWCD is
taking the stance that it developed the
pipeline project on the assumption that
delivering water to the North Fork would
bring Colorado into compliance with the
pipeline. However, Kansas asserts
Colorado is not in compliance in the
South Fork sub-basin, and the pipeline
to the North Fork will not address that.
Therefore, the district definitely wants
that issue resolved, and approval from
the RRCA, before building the pipeline.
The RRWCD also has requested assurances
from state officials that Colroado will
drain Bonny Reservoir, or take other
actions equivalent to draining Bonny, if
Kansas is found to be correct in its
interpretation of the South Fork issue.
Also, the Sandhills Groundwater
Management District, where the wells for
the pipeline are located, has stated it
will not hold a hearing on the RRWCD’s
request to export water from the
management district until the RRCA has
approved the augmentation plan.
A $60,000 million, 2-percent interest
loan from the Colorado Water
Conservation Board was approved by the
Colorado Legislature last year, to the
RRWCD for the pipeline. The RRWCD does
not want to take the risk of borrowing
that money until it is certain the
pipeline is a go for all parties.
Technically, the RRWCD has two years
from the date of the loan contract to
borrow and complete the project,
according to legal representation. The
CWCB staff has told the RRWCD it could
obtain further time if necessary.
However, in light of the budget crisis,
the district would like to get going
before the end of the year.
More
coverage of the meeting from the Yuma
Pioneer (Tony Rayl):
The water level at Bonny Reservoir
continues to be an issue with the
Republican River Water Conservation
District. Dave Keeler, the state’s water
commissioner for the Republican River
Basin, gave a Bonny update to the RRWCD
Board during its regular quarterly
meeting, last Thursday in Yuma. He said
measurements show that currently there
is an extra 3,992 acre feet of storage
in Bonny, which is considered “out of
priority” water. As to when that water
will be released, Keeler referred to
State Engineer Dick Wolfe. Among the
main considerations in releasing the
water is the ability to maximize the
amount released getting to the gage in
Benkleman, Nebraska. It sounds like
there will not be a release until the
fall. However, there is a live stream
flow in the South Fork of the Republican
River reaching the Benkelman gage, and
there is little irrigation right now.
Board Member Eugene Bauerle said the
district should consider asking the
state to make a release now, since
conditions are good for the water
getting to the gage.
More Coyote Gulch coverage
here and
here.
From the Houston Chronicle: “The
U.S. Geological Survey says in a report
issued Tuesday that by 2007, the aquifer has
dropped a foot on average in Nebraska since
the early 1950s…The aquifer supplies about
30 percent of the nation’s groundwater used
for irrigation. And the USGS says the
aquifer provides drinking water to more than
80 percent of the people who live above it.”
From the McCook Daily Gazette:
…it’s easy to forget just how big,
and important, the aquifer is, and to
take it for granted. Covering 174,000
square miles under Nebraska, Kansas,
Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas and Wyoming, The High
Plains Aquifer is the primary source of
drinking water for most of us and
provides the life-giving liquid that
makes one fourth of the United States
agricultural production possible.
Although extensive irrigation has caused
the aquifer to decline, some of the same
technology that made irrigation
possible, such as the highly efficient
systems produced by Valmont right here
in McCook, is making the most efficient
use of the valuable resource of water.
A complete copy of the report is
available at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5019/
and an abbreviated version is at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3005/
More
coverage from the Omaha World-Herald:
The total amount of drainable water
in the aquifer in 2007 was about 2.9
billion acre-feet, a decline of about
270 million acre-feet since before
development, the U.S. Geological Survey
said in a report Tuesday…The High Plains
aquifer, also popularly known as the
Ogallala Aquifer, is a nationally
important water resource that likes
under some 174,000 square miles in parts
of eight western states—Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming.
| Pipeline talks reach
an impasse |
|
|
|
|
Written by Tony Rayl |
| Thursday, 08 January 2009
|
 The
veil of secrecy shrouding Colorado's negotiations with
Kansas and Nebraska on the proposed compact compliance
pipeline has been lifted. Revealed is the fact the
three states remain at odds on three issues.
Also made clear is that Monday, January 26, is an important
day.
Leaders from all three states will meet that day, via
telephone, with Colorado asking for a decision on the
proposed pipeline by the Republican River Compact
Administration. If the answer is “yes,” then it will be time
to get busy on the pipeline. However, Colorado's
leaders fully expect a “No” answer. In that case, Colorado
then will invoke a call for “fast track arbitration” that
must be completed in six months. If the arbitration works
out in Colorado's favor, but Kansas and Nebraska still balk
at approving the pipeline project (the arbitration is
non-binding), then the state will take the issue to the
United States Supreme Court.
There is no guarantee the Supreme Court would hear the case,
and even if it did, it could be quite a while before it
appears on the court's docket.
That is the situation as it was laid out by Alex Davis of
the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, State Engineer
Dick Wolf, and Peter Ampe with the Colorado Attorney
General's Office, during a public meeting held Tuesday
morning in the Yuma Ambulance Service building.
Approximately 60 people attended the meeting, which was
announced less than one week earlier.
Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska have been discussing the
pipeline project since early last year. Davis said Kansas
insisted the conversations remain confidential so the states
could talk openly and frankly, exploring all ideas and
options without worry of public backlash.
However, Davis said it became apparent to the Colorado
delegation in recent weeks that it was time to go public so
it could get some feedback. Kansas and Nebraska agreed one
week ago to lift the confidentiality agreement.
4 issues, 3 insurmountable
Davis said four major issues have come to the forefront
during the discussions.
One is rather easy to resolve. Kansas stated it did not want
Colorado to use the pipeline — which would be located at the
east end of Yuma County and discharge directly into the
North Fork of the Republican River at the Colorado-Nebraska
state line — to, for example, pump 40,000 acre feet into the
river over the course of four months and then state they are
in compact compliance for five years.
That was never the intention of the Republican River Water Conservation
District, the entity doing the pipeline, which plans on
pumping the amount needed each year to meet Colorado's
obligations to the Republican River Compact. Therefore,
Colorado is going to come up with some kind of agreement on
pipeline usage that satisfies Kansas, and also gives
Colorado some leeway for overage credit if it pumps a bit
too much during a wet year.No big deal.
However, there are three other issues that Davis said are
“insurmountable.”
One has to do with a credit involving water above Swanson
Reservoir in Nebraska. The states could not come to an
agreement on how to handle that credit.
Another issue is Nebraska wanting assurances the Haigler
Canal would not be shorted. Davis said research showed it
actually is a Colorado water right that is administered in
Nebraska. She said Colorado offered to make sure water is in
the canal, only if it runs dry because of reasons beyond the
Nebraska users' control. Davis said Colorado was not going
to supply water if the canal went low because the Nebraska
users were not utilizing it correctly. The offer was
rebuffed.
The third insurmountable issue is the one most are aware of
— Kansas' argument that Colorado needs to meet compliance in
each sub-basin, the North Fork, South Fork and Arikaree
River, rather than basinwide compliance. In other words,
Kansas has taken the stance Colorado cannot use the pipeline
to the North Fork to make up for shortages on the South Fork
and Arikaree. Colorado's interpretation of the final
settlement reached between the three states early this
decade, is that it allows Colorado to meet compliance
basinwide, not in each sub-basin.
Davis said Colorado wants to let the courts decide that
issue, but Kansas has insisted on tying its approval of the
pipeline to Colorado agreeing to the sub-basin test.
Davis said Colorado has to litigate that issue, so it became
apparent recently that the state was not going to be able to
cut a deal for the pipeline.
An advisory committee, representing local entities involved
in the compact issue, told the Colorado delegation that the
three “insurmountable” issues really have nothing to do with
the pipeline and augmentation plans, but rather with
problems the states have with the computer model used for
compact compliance and the accounting methods used.
However, Colorado cannot push the pipeline issue to
arbitration until the Republican River Compact
Administration — the RRCA, whose purpose is to administer
the compact, is comprised of one member each from the states
of Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska — formally rejects the
proposal.
Thus, Colorado's plan to ask for formal acceptance on
January 26, after which, if it is denied, the state will
immediately begin the fast track arbitration process.
Wells safe during process
State Engineer Dick Wolfe stressed during Tuesday morning's
presentation that the state will not take any curtailment
action on irrigation wells while working out the pipeline
presentation.
In fact, he and Davis both said Colorado will look at all
possible options to get into compact compliance without
mandating the forced shutdown of wells. Wolfe said the state
is looking into more conservation measures, CREP and EQIP
continue to pay for wells taken out of production,
measurement rules are going into effect this year, and the
fate of Bonny Reservoir is still on the table.
Harris Sherman, the executive director of the Department of
Natural Resources, is formulating a letter that will go out
to irrigators assuring them the state will do all it can
before ever resorting to well curtailment.
The mention of Bonny opened the door for more discussion on
that issue.
Funding for pipeline
Delays on the RRCA approving the pipeline has left the RRWCD hanging for
the time being on the estimated $71 million pipeline project
— $50 million for well purchases and $21 million to
construct the approximately 12-mile pipeline.
RRWCD representatives said Tuesday morning they are
maintaining close communications with the sellers, whose
wells will be used for the pipeline, to ensure the purchase
will go through as planned when everything finally is in
place.
The RRWCD also has a $60 million loan from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board for the project. The loan was
approved by the Colorado Legislature last spring. RRWCD
leaders were going to confirm it, but it is believed the
loan is on the table for one year and that the RRWCD could
ask for an extension of up to two years. However, assessment
fees increasing from $5.50 per irrigated acre to $14.50 — to
pay for the pipeline debt over 20 years — will be paid by
irrigators on this year's tax bill, even though the pipeline
is in a holding pattern for the moment. |
| |
Arbitrators Preliminary Ruling
The Arbitrator on the
Republican River dispute between Kansas and Nebraska and Colorado
has issued a preliminary set of decisions.
Summary of the rulings
provided by Water Claim:
-
Decision 1 permits Nebraska to challenge one
of the major flaws in the Model.
-
Decision 2 will increase the amount of water
Nebraska will have to account for.
-
Decision 3 is good for Nebraska and Colorado
short term but will have a major negative effect for Nebraska
and Colorado in the future and will make surface water purchases
less helpful. Evaporation off of Harlan is about 40,000 acre
feet a year. The arbitrator says that when Nebraska uses no
surface water that Kansas is charged all evaporative losses. But
the arbitrator feels that is not proper and should be changed so
that Nebraska is charged some evaporation even if it doesn’t use
surface water. By extension this will apply to Bonny Reservoir
in Colorado as well.
-
Decision 4 will in theory reduce the damages
Nebraska owes to Kansas as the damages will be limited to what
Kansas actually is hurt by not how much Nebraska benefited.
-
Decision 5 means that the Court can consider
the Kansas proposed remedy.
-
Decision 6 means that damages will be decided
after more information is collected but the Kansas suggested
method will not be used.\
See full copy of preliminary decision
Click here
| Arbitrator rules for
Nebraska on key compact issues |
|
|
|
|
Written by By Russ Pankonin, Imperial
Republican |
| Wednesday, 31 December
2008 |
Talk about a Christmas gift!
That’s what irrigators in the Republican River Basin got
with the preliminary decisions from the arbitrator on
compact disputes between Nebraska and Kansas.
In preliminary rulings by arbitrator Karl J. Dreher,
Nebraska and its irrigators got two key rulings in their
favor.
The two rulings addressed damages due Kansas by
Nebraska’s non-compliance with the compact in 2005 and 2006,
and the accounting methods used to determine compliance.
Attorney General Jon Bruning, who released the findings
late Monday, said the ruling on damages due Kansas
represents the most important decision by the arbitrator.
Kansas wanted damages based on the gain Nebraska got
from it alleged overuse of water. Estimates as high as $75
million has been tossed out by Kansas.
What Dreher ruled is that Kansas is limited only to
actual damages it suffered.
He said the 2003 compact settlement, like the 1943
compact itself, is a contract between the two states. As a
result, damage awards are limited to actual damage suffered
by Kansas.
Bruning said Kansas was putting forth a theory of unjust
enrichment to Nebraska by having water that, in Kansas’
opinion, should have been sent to them.
“Our contention the whole time is that Kansas had
enough water to grow a crop,” Bruning said.
Any excess water they didn’t use would have just flowed
downstream to New Orleans, Bruning said.
Bruning said actual damages versus unjust enrichment is
what the state believes to be fair.
“We’ve asked Kansas for their actual damages for some
time and they’ve never responded,” Bruning said. “The reason
for that is because they’re going to be significantly
smaller in terms of dollars than unjust enrichment would
have been.”
To receive damages for water-short years 2006 and the
preceding year of 2005, Kansas will have to show actual
damages, the arbitrator said.
Dave Cookson, chief deputy attorney general, said the
damages the state may face for those two years will be much
less.
Estimates in the $5-10 million range have been
previously discussed.
Cookson said he hopes the decisions will bring Kansas
back to the discussion table and “we can work something
out.”
Arbitration is non-binding
While this can be considered a victory for the state and
its irrigators in the Republican Basin, it still remains
just one win in a long battle.
The compact settlement specified that if Nebraska,
Kansas or Colorado had disputes, they must first bring them
before the compact administration.
If the disputes are not resolved to all states’
satisfaction, any state can call for non-binding
arbitration.
Kansas filed the official notice for arbitration on
October, 2008. Nebraska then added issues that it felt
needed to be addressed by arbitration.
The arbitrator’s decision is non-binding upon the three
states, which means any state can file suit with the U.S.
Supreme Court over the disputes.
Cookson didn’t speculate whether Kansas would seek
further remedy in the Supreme Court.
While the arbitration is non-binding, Cookson felt the
rulings in Nebraska’s favor should carry some significant
weight if Kansas decides to pursue the matter at a higher
level.
However, he said there’s still no way to tell how a
special master for the Supreme Court would rule.
Ruling on accounting dispute
Bruning said Dreher’s ruling allowing the compact
accounting methods to be corrected if errors are found is
another key win for the state.
The Department of Natural Resources has indicated they
have found flaws in the computer groundwater models used to
determine compliance.
WaterClaim founder Steve Smith of Imperial has long
contended the models used by the states to be inaccurate and
that changes need to be made.
Dreher said the compact can’t be adequately enforced
without accurate accounting. As a result, he said any errors
found are open for resolution by the compact members.
Dreher found in favor of both states on several issues,
clarifying such things as accounting for reservoir
evaporation and proposed remedies.
Two of the disputed issues dealt with evaporation in
Harlan County Dam and non-federal dams below Harlan.
Dreher said that even when Nebraska Bostwick Irrigation
District sells their water to the state instead of taking
delivery, the state must share in the evaporation loss.
He also said the evaporation loss in dams below Harlan
must be shared by both states in figuring compliance.
In a letter from Kansas in December, 2007, they issued a
list of demands that Nebraska comply to. These included
shutting down all irrigation wells within 2.5 miles of any
stream or tributary as well as wells drilled after 2000.
While Dreher said these proposed remedies by Kansas can
be part of the arbitration process, he said Kansas can’t
mandate those remedies.
He said further hearings on Nebraska’s alleged compact
violations and proposed methods for future compliance could
be held.
After those hearings, only then would the arbitrator
recommend actions necessary for future compliance.
A full PDF version of the preliminary decisions by
Dreher is available at
http://www.imperialrepublican.com.
|
<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/animated
water/hello_there_012/Progress pictures/water-1.gif?o=266"
target="_blank"><img src="http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s348/hello_there_012/Progress%20pictures/water-1.gif"
border="0"></a>
New
2008 Archive click here to view 2008 major stories
