By Russ Pankonin
    The Imperial Republican
    
     When it comes to setting irrigations allocations for the next allocation period, it appears there's no resolution between the Department of Natural Resources and the Upper Republican Natural Resource District.
     Members of the URNRD board met with DNR Director Ann Bleed and staff during a special meeting in Imperial Friday.
     The purpose of the meeting was to allow a full discussion between the two entities on various topics including allocations and how long to set them, along with efforts to reach compliance with the Republican River Compact Settlement with Kansas.
     "There was no resolution and I'm not sure there will be," URNRD Manager Jasper Fanning said Tuesday.
     One thing became clear during Friday's meeting: even with allocation reductions, it will not be possible to come into compliance with the compact.
     When questioned about the impact of shutting down all irrigation in the basin for one to two years, DNR officials said even that would not bring Nebraska into compliance.
     As a result, board members and farmers remain frustrated with further proposals by DNR to reduce groundwater allocations.
     Under DNR's initial proposal, the URNRD would only receive an allocation of 5.5 inches per year during dry years and only 8.5 inches in an average year.
     The Lower Republican NRD has proposed an 11-inch district-wide allocation for five years.
     The Middle Republican NRD is seeking 12 inches for the next five years, compared to the present allocation of 13 inches.
     Presently, the URNRD allocation stands at 13.5 inches. No new proposal has been made.
     In a letter to the Water Task Force, Gov. Dave Heineman said Monday that lower groundwater allocations than what's been publicly discussed will likely be needed for compliance.
     Given what other districts have proposed, Fanning asked Bleed if a half-inch reduction in the allocation would be sufficient.
     "I am not willing to say what is or isn't sufficient," she replied, noting DNR would have to see the total package being proposed.
     The NRDs in the basin are considering further surface water purchases and possible stream augmentation.
    Farmers want and need to know what future allocations will be
     The NRD is wanting to get an allocation set so its farmers can make cropping plans. The board wants to have a proposal ready for the Aug. 7 meeting.
     Bleed suggested either a base allocation that wouldn't go down but could go up in a given year or a set allocation over a number of years that could be subject to going down if needed for compliance measures.
     Fanning explained to Bleed a one-year increase in allocation would do little to help farmers because of the crop rotations they maintain.
     They need that information far sooner than saying they can have more water this year, he noted.
     In terms of what additional plans the NRD has to seek compliance, he said these things can't be carried out in a month and two, adding DNR would have to have some flexibility because of that.
    Bernhardt: plan that can
    change annually is no plan at all
     Board Member Kerry Bernhardt said a three- to five-year allocation plan where the allocation can be changed annually is no plan at all.
     "You can't plan. When we put a deal together for these people, it's got to stick," he said.
     He said farmers can't have a plan that can change every year. He said he couldn't run his operation like that and doubted other farmers could either.
     He scolded Bleed, agreeing with earlier comments by Lamar farmer Bob Mollendor who said the state hasn't done anything on water management for 60 years.
     "We've done all we've done and what has it got us. We're setting here looking at a three- to five-year plan that we don't know where we're going to be because the state of Nebraska has done nothing," Bernhardt said.
     "What are the options?" Bleed asked Bernhardt.
     "You tell me. We've done our part of the deal. This is a state of Nebraska problem, not an NRD board problem," he said.
     Bleed replied there are many in the state who would disagree with that statement.
     "I don't want to have that argument. I just want to find out what our options are and what is best for this NRD and the basin," she said.
     Bernhardt told Bleed, "You're gonna break us and kill us. Three years ago you drove the stake into our heart. Now you've got the gun to our head."
    Water created for compliance must be protected, board says
     Another difference between the board and DNR involves the protection of any increased stream flows by efforts in the URNRD.
     Board Chair Greg Pelster told DNR officials if compliance efforts by the URNRD result in more stream flow, then that water should be protected for compliance use only.
     Instead, Bleed said surface water users would have access to use that water, up to the point of their allocation.
     Pelster repeated that if URNRD compliance efforts generated that water, it should be used for compliance purposes only, not surface water irrigation downstream.
     Bleed said she would protect any surface water that the district may lease or buy, but not new stream flow generated by compliance efforts.
     Fanning said Tuesday that water put back into the stream by regulations and/or acreage retirement in the district for compact compliance should be saved for compliance.
     Allowing this water to be used for irrigation undermines what we're doing to reach compliance, he said.
     Until compliance is the priority for the state, it will be impossible for NRDs in the basin to be in compliance, he said.