Senator Mark Christensen outlined his bill during the hearing. Steve Smith of Imperial, right, followed with testimony to support the bill. (Republican photo)

    By Russ Pankonin
    The Imperial Republican
     More than 200 people from throughout the Republican River Basin packed a pair of legislative hearing rooms at the state capitol in Lincoln Wednesday, Feb. 28.
     They came to testify on a pair of bills that seek to address compliance issues in the basin necessitated by the 2002 Republican River Compact Settlement with Kansas.
     The Natural Resources Committee took testimony on Imperial Senator Mark Christensen's water bill, LB 701, and Holdrege Sen. Tom Carlson's LB 458 to control vegetation in the Republican River channel.
     Both senators are members of the Natural Resources Committee and testified in support of their bills.
     The committee first took nearly two hours of testimony on Carlson's vegetation bill, followed by nearly three hours of testimony on Christensen's water bill.
    Water bill amended before hearing
     To open his testimony, Christensen explained that he amended his original bill early last week to remove several sections that were disliked.
     These included specific transfer language, creation of a basin administration committee (BAC) and property taxes to fund the bill.
     He said the primary goal of the bill is to bring Nebraska into compliance with the RRCS.
     His amended bill would freeze allocations at 2006-07 levels in the basin, except in water short years.
     The plan would require no new taxes while adding the ability to transfer water within one's own farm, and to buy water from a neighbor, provided it was no closer to a basin stream or river.
     Christensen said he was willing to add parts back to the bill if that's what people in the basin want.
     "It's easy to disagree. It's much harder to bring forth a solution," he told the committee. "Let's take this challenge head on to meet compliance."
    Smith's testimony supports bill
     Steve Smith of Imperial, founder and director of WaterClaim, a water advocacy group, offered the expert testimony to support Christensen's bill.
     Smith told the committee that people say irrigators have exploited water resources. Yet, he noted that consumptive use by irrigators in the state has already declined through reductions in surface water and groundwater use.
     He said the original bill included the BAC as a way to determine and set allocations. However, the amended version of LB 701 asks for surface water and groundwater irrigators to make some "painful and significant reductions."
     The state would then make up for variables, such as conservation and vegetation, that irrigators have no control over.
     The bill would allow groundwater irrigators about 60-70 percent of the necessary water to grow a crop of corn.
     Surface water irrigators would forfeit 25 percent of the allocation as their effort toward compliance.
     He noted this would only occur in water-short years.
     Smith said a lot of people don't like these reductions, but said it provides proof to the Legislature that irrigators are willing to play a role in compliance and that the state needs to step up its role in funding for compliance efforts.
     He echoed Christensen, saying the bill would benefit Nebraska by getting the state in annual compliance with the settlement.
     In water-short years, water throughout the basin would be allocated based on the amount of water needed to grow a crop, taking precipitation into account.
     This would give upper parts of the basin more allocation since it typically receives less rain that the lower parts of the basin. Allocations would range from 11 to six inches, depending on location.
     Sen. Carlson said right up front that he opposed that method of calculation. He preferred "share and share alike," meaning everyone in the basin gets an equal allocation, regardless of precipitation for their area.
     He said he would pursue committee amendments to address these issues. "I just want to be up front with you," Sen. Carlson said.
     While he supports the bill, Smith said he did have concerns with the Legislature setting allocations, as outlined in the bill.
     Committee member Sen. Carol Hudkins of Malcolm, who farms with her husband, said she doesn't want Omaha senators, who don't understand water, making decisions for the farmers in the basin.
    Conservation effects
     Smith also raised the issue of how conservation efforts have played a key role in reducing the amount of water that reaches streams and rivers in the basin.
     He showed several recent aerial photos of miles of terraces in Kansas holding back runoff water. It was suggested that perhaps Kansas needs to realize that some of the stream depletion occurs within its own borders.
     Several others said during testimony that the effects of conservation on stream flow depletion in both Nebraska and Kansas need to be addressed and taken into account when determining compliance.
    Locals testify in favor of the bill
     During the hearing, a total of 16 individuals testified in favor of the bill. Of those, seven were from Chase County.
     Scot German of Imperial said he supported the bill as an attempt to save his way of life. "If the state can take one inch of my water, they could take all of it. If they can take my water, they can take anyone's water," he warned.
     Gregg Smith of Imperial said he's a fourth generation farmer in Chase County. He said farmers in the basin just want some sustainability with their water, which won't be possible without access to outside water sources, such as transfers.
     A reduction in irrigation will only shrink future growth, he told the committee.
     Liz Mollendor of Lamar issued an emotional plea to the committee on the social impacts being faced by farmers.
     "I would just ask that you would seriously consider the lives of those of us in southwest Nebraska as you make decisions that will affect our farms, our families and future generations," she said.
     Sharing this legacy with our families will not be possible if water allocations are cut drastically, she added.
     College student Kurt Elder, who grew up in Imperial, said he wants to return to Imperial in the future and supported the bill in an effort to create a stable Republican River basin.
     Steve Grams of Imperial said he thought Christensen was offering a plan that is fair and emphasized that Christensen wants to help find a solution to water issues in the basin.
     Terry Anderson of Lamar urged lawmakers to look at what Colorado is doing to augment its streams and to be open to transfers.
     Jeff Wallin of Imperial, who is also on the Upper Republican NRD board, spoke on his own behalf.
     He said the Republican River issue is a state issue, since the state agreed to the settlement.
     He said irrigators have not only shouldered the blame but have shouldered all the economic burden. Further cuts will cause economic hardship, if not devastation, he warned.
     Chase County Schools Superintendent Matt Fisher, who testified in a neutral position, said the financial implications to the community, school and region are huge and could have a devastating outcome.
     "It's incumbent on this committee to put something together to get to the floor for discussion," he said.
    URNRD goes on record as opposed
     Dean Edson, executive director of the Nebraska Association of Resource Districts, submitted written testimony on behalf of URNRD Manager Jasper Fanning and the URNRD as being opposed to the amended LB 701.
     During a special meeting early last week, the board reviewed the contents of the newly amended bill.
     While the board supported the funding options in the original LB 701, the newly amended bill did not provide for any funding options to NRDs and would result in a loss of local control in setting allocations.
     Based on the discussion and uncertainty of the amended bill, Fanning asked for direction from the board. "Tell me if this isn't what you want me to do," he asked of the board.
     "With respect to this amendment, I would say that we're opposed to it," he said, noting the board would work with Christensen on forging a bill the whole basin could work with, while remaining in support of the funding options in the first draft of the bill.
     After the hearing, Wallin noted concern about the board's testimony, saying there was never any official action on a position.
     This week, Fanning said he was following the direction discussed at the special meeting, noting there was no opposition voiced at that time about taking a position against the amended bill.
     Jerry Kuenning of Imperial, testifying on behalf of the Nebraska Cattlemen, said the organization opposed the bill.
     While they see compliance as a matter of "dire urgency," the organization opposes the BAC, which they believe is more bureaucracy.
     He said the organization is "adamantly opposed" to transfers, as well as the buying and selling of water. He added the amended bill doesn't address funding needed for compliance issues.
     Ten individuals or organizations testified against the bill.
     Claude Cappel of McCook, who is a surface water irrigator, said the state should not be able to take the water rights away from surface irrigators.