Republican River Compact Meeting in Colby

The Republican River Compact Administration (RRCA) will hold it's Annual Meeting in Colby, Kansas tomorrow and Thursday.  Tomorrow's meeting will be for the technical committees from each state.  The agenda is: 

1. Welcome and introductions
2. WaterSmart Basin Study update and discussion
3. Status of annual reports and transcripts
4. Meaning of Colorado’s water-short year requirement
5. Harlan County Lake evaporation accounting for Compact year 2013
6. Monitoring of non-federal reservoirs in Kansas
7. Engineering Committee report
  a. Active Items
      i. Data exchange status
      ii. Ground and surface water irrigation recharge and return flows
      iii. Principia Mathematica contract
      iv. Nebraska proposal for relocation of Guide Rock stream gage and accounting procedure
      v. Adoption of revised area-capacity tables for Bonny Reservoir
      vi. Applied PRISM procedure for missing precipitation data for 2008-2010
      vii. Finalizing accounting data for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
      viii. Issues preventing agreement on final accounting for 2006-2011
  b. Items tabled for future
      i. User Manual
      ii. 5 year accounting spreadsheet
8. Review and finalize agenda for RRCA annual meeting

This meeting will be in our (GMD 4) new office facilities at 1290 W 4th - beginning at 2:00 PM CST.

The formal annual meeting of the RRCA will be held Thursday in the Colby Community Center, 285 E 5th Street, beginning at 9:00 AM.  This agenda is:

1. Introductions
2. Adoption of the Agenda
3. Status of Report and Transcripts for 2012 Annual Meeting and subsequent Special Meetings
4. Status of Previous Annual and Special Meetings Reports and Transcripts
5. Report of Chairman and Commissioners’ Reports
   a. Kansas
   b. Colorado
   c. Nebraska
6. Federal Reports
   a. Bureau of Reclamation
   b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   c. U.S. Geological Survey
7. Committee Reports
   a. Engineering Committee
      i. Assignments from 2012 Annual Meeting
      ii. Committee Recommendations to RRCA
      iii. Recommended assignments for Engineering Committee
8. Old Business
   a. Status of unapproved previous accounting
9. New Business and Assignments to Compact Committees
   a. Issues raised by the States
      i. Nebraska
         1. Article IX of the Compact
         2. Harlan County Lake evaporation accounting for Compact year 2013
         3. Monitoring of non-federal reservoirs
      ii. Kansas
         1. Beaver Creek allocations during Water Short Years
      iii. Colorado
   b. Action on Engineering Committee Report and assignments
   c. Resolution honoring Scott Ross
10. Remarks from the Public
11. Future Meeting Arrangements
12. Adjournment

These should be interesting meetings and I'm looking forward to attending both.  More later.  

Republican River Compact Proposal Heard

In a special meeting of the Republican River Compact Administration (RRCA) held telephonically on December 11, 2012, the three commissioners (Dick Wolfe, Colorado; Brian Dunnigan, Nebraska; and David Barfield, Kansas) considered an augmentation proposal at the request of Nebraska Commissioner Dunnigan.

The Nebraska group laid out the proposal in conceptual form and asked if the other commissioners had any concerns at this early juncture - before much more time and effort is spent on the rest of the proposal.  They were clear to announce that the concepts being presented yesterday had already included all the concerns expressed by Kansas months ago as the concept was being prepped to place on paper.

The proposal included converting 15,800 acres of irrigated land (all but 800 acres or so of which lay in the Republican River basin indicated by the yellow basin boundary line) and then pumping some amount of groundwater into Medicine Creek to flow directly into the Republican River and on to Harland Reservoir - a key element of the entire compact accounting scheme.  Nebraska claimed this proposal was a water transfer solution bringing Platte River water into the basin, which is authorized by the Final Settlement Stipulation (FSS), while Kansas kept characterizing it as an augmentation plan since 95% of the donor land, and likely all the donor wells, are and would be in the Republican basin.

It will be interesting how this gets resolved, because the project area sits clearly within the recognized groundwater "mound" area created by long-term surface irrigation in the Republican and Platte River basins by Platte River water.

Kansas and Colorado both asked for more clarification on why Nebraska feels this solution is authorized by the FSS, and lamented that the proposal was just received the day before the meeting.  Kansas also didn't believe it had addressed all the concerns expressed months ago.  Both states asked for more time which seemed to disappoint Nebraska who kept stating that "..time was of the essence.." as they needed to get the project completed in the next 6-8 months.

Things were left as many of the issues regarding this contentious compact have been left before - too little agreement on the important issues and very cautious approaches on everything else.  I suppose this issue will get settled one of these days.

Water & the Feds

It's nothing new - the tug of war over who has what say over water.

One recent foray has been the Clean Water Restoration Act (earlier blog post) where Congress had been debating a seemingly small amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - that of merely changing the phrase "navigable waters" to "waters of the United States". To some, this small change would have significantly broadened EPA's regulatory control over water, and this is why EPA wanted it so bad.  It was a direct assault on the right of the states to control and manage their waters.  The other side argued the amendment simply corrected what had always been intended by Congress, so it wasn't really any expansion of EPA authority at all.  This bill had been a lightning rod in 2009 and 2010, and according to Thomas, it did not survive the 111th Congress.  Moreover, I haven't been able to find any version of this bill in the 112th Congress either.  It was introduced in 2009 by Senator Feingold, who did not survive the 2010 elections.

I have also been wary of other more subtle Federal activities regarding, not the direct control of water, but the direction of water policy at the federal level.  It almost appears as if the feds have taken the position that if you can't get control of the water itself, the next best thing is to tell everyone what the water policy is going to be.  Take a close look at the federally organized and appointed Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) (earlier blog post).  This is by no means a direct foray into water control, but seems headed toward being a subtle process to direct and impose various aspects of a desired federal water policy on the states.  The specific element I looked at related to a sustainable water use policy.  Warning, this is a very intricate arrangement of committees, subcommittees and programs reporting to programs, so it's really hard to follow.  One sub group sanctioned by WICP is the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI), which is organized into 8 sub committees - one of which is the sub committee on Sustainable Water - whose mission statement is:

"Serve as a forum to share information and perspectives that will promote better decision making in the U.S. regarding the sustainability of our nation's water resources."

Notice how this federally led group starts out their mission statement with a respectable and appropriate federal responsibility - that of discussing and sharing perspectives to promote better decision making - then seals the statement with what they think that policy should be - sustainable water resources.  If no one questions the mission statement this group simply has to point the train.  It's the classic approach of "hearts and minds", which eventually changes policy and law.  No federal group should be telling Kansas or any other state what their water policy should be, or is to be - even if it is a good policy.  My second post on this process.  If Kansans want a sustainable water resources policy, they'll make that happen.

The final example goes back to February, 1942 when the Republican River Compact was being debated by Congress as H.R. 5945.  By this time all three states (Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska) had ratified the compact.  Up steps the Federal Power Commission, who had not been party to the compact to date, with Compact amendments that were disturbing to at least Colorado.  Clifford Stone, Director of the Colorado Conservation Board was updating his board on the Legislative process and put it this way in his February 19, 1942 memo:

Apparently, the Federal Power Commission desires to reserve the right some time in the future to declare the river navigable in law, although not navigable in fact, in order that federal control and regulation may be interposed to prevent the control of consumptive uses for irrigation and other beneficial purposes under state law. This we do not believe to be the proper nor acceptable position toward western states which control water for irrigation under state laws. It represents the activity on the part of some federal bureaus and departments to disregard state laws under the fiction of "navigability in law".  If such a policy is carried too far, it will threaten the water rights on many streams of the West which, as you know, constitute property rights.

As it turned out, Congress did not adopt any of the Power Commission's amendments.  But, as a result, is it any wonder why non-federal entities cast wary eyes upon Washington?  I'd guess there must be hundreds of these kinds of activities if one had the time to research it enough.  But that takes a lot of effort and stamina. And it takes an almost equal effort to keep keeping up the vigil.

Sometimes I wish the federal government and its agencies would quit scheming and conniving over the control of water and introduce a clear and direct bill in Congress to take full control of the waters of the US, or mandate a sustainable water resource policy on all states and territories, or whatever it is they really want to do.  Then Congress can settle the water control issues once and for all and we can all get some productive work done.  Hey, that gives me an idea....

Only In The Dry West

Mostly when people and political factions discuss breaching a dam it is for fish or wildlife reasons - or their habitats and ability to survive.  Then there are the Bonny Reservoir discussions in NE Colorado - draining the lake to mitigate Republican River Compact issues. 

Bonny Reservoir was filled in 1951.  Today it is at it's lowest elevation since that time. During the last eight years it has averaged about a two and a half foot drop each year.  And this has been inspite of efforts at water conservation including a FY 07-08 effort to remove tamarisk trees from the park to increase base flows. 

One of Colorado's options under the Republican River Compact Settlement Stipulation is to drain Bonny Reservoir and return this portion of the Republican River back to it's natutral flow state.  Just having Bonny in place puts a significant draw on their compact account due to its natural evaporation.  There are other options, too, like reducing irrigated acres that are in the area - the irrigation of which is intercepting groundwater movements that would otherwise contribute to base flows; augmenting the intercepted groundwater with other sources; and a few others.  Farmers in the area are urging the drainage of Bonny to reduce the number of wells that will have to be shut off to comply with the compact.  The lake users are asking for any other resolution that retains the lake operation that is important to them.

It's Colorado's decision how they will come back into compliance with the compact, but it's no simple answer no matter how they look at it.  Some would say the groundwater use is ultimately the cause of the compact shortfalls so why are the surface water users having to pay the price?  And Bonny always has been a good idea for the fish and wildlife and recreational uses of NE Colorado.  It may come down to who has the most political sway and can back up their points with economic bracing.  It is expected that the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Parks will recommend the lake be drained.  We'll all have to wait and see.

And most don't realize the choice of draining Bonny is not as easily done as said.  It is a federal dam, and Kansas wants it completely removed for compact compliance - arguing that any vestage of the structure will act as a dam of sorts.  Of course, Bonny was approved with flood control as one of it's multiple uses, so some structure has to remain as long as that purpose remains.  Colorado is also receiving some federal funds to keep the associated park up and running, which depends on the reservoir and fishing.  These funds will be lost if the lake is drained and the park is eliminated.  It looks like to me this is coming down to a fiscal issue for Colorado - how to provide Kansas its water at as little cost to the state as possible.  Could be wrong, tho...

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear KS Case

A U.S. Supreme Court decision last week will reopen a Kansas lawsuit against Nebraska on the Republican River.  At issue is the water use by Nebraska can and has exceeded the compact  - particularly in 2005 and 2006.  Kansas is arguing that Nebraska has not done enough to reduce its water use to stay within the compact every year.  Kansas agrees the compact has been met in the last 3 years, but only because of very wet conditions and lower irrigation demand.  In 2005 and 2006 the compact was exceeded, and it will be again as soon as normal or drier conditions return.

Meanwhile, Nebraska continues to implement water conservation efforts.  One example is the use of soil moisture sensors in the Lower Republican Natural Resource District (LRNRD) where it's been reported that 300 sets of these sensors have been sold so far - through a $780,000.00 cost-share program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative and the LRNRD. 

Soil moisture sensors can be used for several purposes.  One use is that they will tell the irrigators to stop pumping when their irrigation water gets to the bottom of the crop root zone, with the thinking that the extra water they had been applying (before the sensors) will be saved.  They can also be used to manage deficit irrigation water very accurately.  The problem is that the first use does not reduce consumptive water use while the second use will - to some degree.

In all fairness, Nebraska is implementing other conservation efforts as well - in various locations up and down the Republican River - and some of it designed to reduce consumptive water use.  I think Kansas' issue is not that nothing is being done, but that not enough real water conservation is being done compared to the possible Compact exceedences. 

In Compact compliance issues, the only relevent number is the consumptive use of the Nebraska irrigators.    Eliminating the inefficient water use = recharge (first use of soil moisture sensors) does not lessen the water being used by the crops.  The second use, will - depending on how much deficit irrigation takes place or is required.  I'm certain the Supreme Court will be aware of water conservation efforts that work for Compact compliance and those that don't.

Wait Just a Minute...

The Nebraska Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) in the Republican River Basin are just finishing up their development of required Integrated Management Plans (IMP's).  IMPs were required in the Republican Basin to ensure state compliance with the Republican River Compact and it's subsequent settlement agreement.  The Upper and Middle Republican NRDs have already completed their plans. It was just announced that the Lower Republican NRD sent their initial working draft in this morning. The press report can be seen here:   Kearney Hub Article

Within this press report it says:

That includes a proposal to reduce the current LRNRD groundwater irrigation allocation for all wells from 9 inches to 7.20 inches per acre in steps over five years for a total of 20 percent.

Clements said he knows the idea will concern irrigators, but it will be manageable given average irrigation water use since allocations were implemented in 2005. The range has been a high average of 7.6 inches in 2006 to a low of 5.18 inches in 2009.

Let me get this straight, the NRD is going to reduce the allocation - stepped down over 5 years - to the average (or just above the average?) of what has been getting used since 2005 and this represents a 20% reduction?

The good news is that annual carry over of unused water has been eliminated.  This should help, of course, but as long as the average historical use will still be available and usable, and actually more than this average can be used in the 4, intervening step-down years, I'm struggling to understand how this is a reduction of water use to meet Compact compliance?  Guess I'd better get a copy of the full IMP and take a look at it.  The full version (and a summary) is posted at:  http://www.lrnrd.org/.  As usual, this may simply be a problem with the reporting and not the report at all.  I'll try and follow up on this in a bit.