Whole Aquifer Management - The Ogallala

Over the span of my 35 year career the issue of an aquifer-wide Ogallala management plan has come up three times.  The most serious effort was begun in 1995 under the wing of the Great Plains Foundation (GPF) which was formed in 1995 and whose first 5 years in existence was to be dedicated to water.  The director was Lori Triplett from Overland Park, KS and her vision was large, but clearly promoting the development of a multi-state, Master Management Plan for the Ogallala Aquifer.

The first meeting was a large affair held at the University of Missouri-Kansas City on March 2 and 3, 1995.  Thirteen states were represented and just about everyone who was anyone (in the water world of the Ogallala) was there.  It's was the first time (and last time) I had seen most of the state engineers in one place discussing the Ogallala Aquifer.

After two days of fairly direct, moderated conversation, the decision was that there might be a role for a Master Plan, but it would be limited in scope to data and information sharing and research coordination.  There would be no groundwater management and/or regulatory elements even attempted.  And the decision was unanimous by the state representatives.     

I have been against an Ogallala Master Plan each time it's come up, for a number of reasons, a few of which remain:

1)  Each state has drastically different water laws;
2)  The extent and degree of the decline problems vary so widely;
3)  Groundwater movement is slow and more localized attention is required; and
4)  The impending increased Federal presence and role.


Oh, the GPF.  The Foundation went on to conduct four more annual symposia on the Ogallala as planned originally - 1996 at Colby Community College; 1997 at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln; 1998 at Texas Tech University and 1999 in Oklahoma City (hosted by Oklahoma State University).  I attended all the sessions and have copies of the proceedings if anyone is interested.  The Foundation still exists, but I have lost contact with it since their Ogallala groundwater series ended.  The management of the Ogallala Aquifer, whether by local GMD, the state, some cooperative super-entity or the federal government, will remain controversial I'm fairly certain.

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.

UN Resolution on Transboundary Aquifers

I have just read the UN's recently adopted resolution RE: Transboundary Aquifers - underlying two or more states or countries.  If we were to fully comply with this resolution for the Ogallala Aquifer, Kansas would be:  1) granted sovereignty over its portion of the aquifer; 2) obligated to use the aquifer in an equitable and reasonable and sustainable manner that maximizes the long-term benefits; and 3) required to develop a utilization plan factoring in population, social and economic needs, natural aquifer conditions, alternative supplies and the ecosystem -  any of which can be weighted - so long as special regard is given to vital human needs.

Kansas would also be required to:  1) prevent harm to other states in its use of the aquifer or to the discharge zones located in other states; 2) take all steps to eliminate such harm to other states if occuring - in consultation with the affected states(s); 3) cooperate on the basis of sovereign equality with other states to attain equitable aquifer utilization and protection - establishing joint mechanisms for cooperation; and 4)  exchange all relevant data and information - generating such data and information if not already known.

Kansas would be:  1) encouraged to enter into regional agreements with other state(s) for management purposes; 2) obligated to prevent and control pollution that may affect another state; 3) required to monitor our aquifer to accepatble standards (jointly with other states when possible);  and 4) required to develop a management plan - jointly where appropariate.

Whenever Kansas does any activity that may affect another state, it must assess that activity, notify the affected state(s) and when disagreement occurs, consult with or negotiate eqitable solutions.  This is especially vital in cases of emergencies - natural or human induced activities which will immently affect another state(s) - or when vital human needs are affected.  All states would be bound by international law to protect the aquifer in cases of armed conflict. (IMHO not even the Texans would resort to this!) :)

Whew.  It's not clear how in the US the encouraged cooperative agreements between states would be done.  This sounds more like an interstate compact to me, but I guess less formal MOA's between states would not be precluded.  I asked about such an informal agreement with our neighboring GMD in Colorado once early in my career and was told definitively that it would require an interstate compact - only possible with the consent of Congress.

Anyway, lots of good ideas in the resolution, but...  I wonder how closely the agreement between Utah and Nevada on the Snake Valley Aquifer follows this UN roadmap?