Dennis Schilz farms near Brule, but for years his attention has been 200 miles west and the population boom around Denver.”They just keep building projects and storing more water,” Schilz said.He’s concerned about what that will mean for the future of his 4,500 acres of farmland most of which is irrigated.”If we don’t do something, we won’t have water,” Schilz said.Gov. Pete Ricketts wants to act now and dust off a 100-year-old water agreement with Colorado.It guarantees rights during irrigation season but it also allows Nebraska to claim an additional 500 cubic feet per second along the South Platte River during the winter.But to do that, Nebraska would have to complete the abandoned Perkins County Canal near Julesburg. And then develop a reservoir system to store water for irrigationThe price tag is $500 million.”The cost of not doing this is way greater. Because it’s going to be putting the future prosperity of our state at risk,” Ricketts said.It’s something Ken Miller of the Twin Platte Natural Resources District has been calling for, for nearly three decades.”If Nebraska doesn’t take the opportunity to use this water, Colorado is going to continue to develop projects along the front range,” Miller said.Miller says there are over 280 Colorado projects that if built would reduce South Platte River flows into Nebraska by 90%.”They are working to dry the South Platte River up at the Nebraska state line,” Miller said.Across the border, Don Ament is scratching his head.”I don’t understand this at all,” Ament said.He is Colorado’s former ag commissioner.He said farmers in the lower Platte are fighting the same battle with urban growth.”Denver can’t take that water away from me as farmer Don,” Ament said.He said Colorado law keeps the flows coming to them and in turn to Nebraska.”We’re doing a better job getting that water down the river to Nebraska than trying to run it through some canal,” Ament saidHe believes Nebraska’s claim of winter water would put the squeeze on farmers.The part of Colorado that will be most impacted is the agriculture piece of Colorado and not Denver,” Ament said.Joe Frank, the general manager of the Lower Platte River Conservancy District in Colorado said the old agreement only affects the lower part of the river. Denver and the front range is located in the upper part of the river where Nebraska has no authority to claim water. “It wouldn’t have too much of an impact on the front range or the growth that’s occurring and any of the development of water upstream of us,” Frank said.He said many of the projects return water to the river and keep flows year-round. “The likelihood of reduction of 90% flows at the state line is pretty improbable,” Frank said.He said Nebraska’s canal could affect the pumping of water for ag use during the winter month.Small ponds dot the rural landscape near the river. They are filled during the winter. Then during the summer months, farmers will draw from those ponds to irrigate.Ament said it creates a balance to keep water flowing in the river.”Then it keeps all the water rights whole including our compact water downstream,” Ament said. But there is another concern according to University Law professor Anthony Schutz.”There is some benefit maybe, to building the canal and diversion in Colorado now,” Schutz said.He said that is because farmers in Lower South Platte could sell their senior water rights to municipalities upstream.”Because we don’t have an appropriation in the basin, because we don’t have that canal we don’t fit the class of people that would be protected (under Colorado law) in the event of a transfer of a water right to the upper part of the basin,” Schutz said.But Schutz said it could come down to what a court decides.”How much protection could we get? How much water could we get? And then what would be the benefits that we would get out of using it,” Schutz said.Ament said Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming are also obligated under Federal agreements to provide flows to protect habitat for endangered species near Kearney and Grand Island.”This is going to amount to a lot of money to our lawyers and not improving the management of water,” Ament said.Across the border, Schilz agreed.”Well, I’m hoping it’s not a war. I’m hoping that Nebraska can sit down with Colorado and they could come to an agreement,” Schilz said.
Dennis Schilz farms near Brule, but for years his attention has been 200 miles west and the population boom around Denver.
“They just keep building projects and storing more water,” Schilz said.
He’s concerned about what that will mean for the future of his 4,500 acres of farmland most of which is irrigated.
“If we don’t do something, we won’t have water,” Schilz said.
Gov. Pete Ricketts wants to act now and dust off a 100-year-old water agreement with Colorado.
It guarantees rights during irrigation season but it also allows Nebraska to claim an additional 500 cubic feet per second along the South Platte River during the winter.
But to do that, Nebraska would have to complete the abandoned Perkins County Canal near Julesburg.
And then develop a reservoir system to store water for irrigation
The price tag is $500 million.
“The cost of not doing this is way greater. Because it’s going to be putting the future prosperity of our state at risk,” Ricketts said.
It’s something Ken Miller of the Twin Platte Natural Resources District has been calling for, for nearly three decades.
“If Nebraska doesn’t take the opportunity to use this water, Colorado is going to continue to develop projects along the front range,” Miller said.
Miller says there are over 280 Colorado projects that if built would reduce South Platte River flows into Nebraska by 90%.
“They are working to dry the South Platte River up at the Nebraska state line,” Miller said.
Across the border, Don Ament is scratching his head.
“I don’t understand this at all,” Ament said.
He is Colorado’s former ag commissioner.
He said farmers in the lower Platte are fighting the same battle with urban growth.
“Denver can’t take that water away from me as farmer Don,” Ament said.
He said Colorado law keeps the flows coming to them and in turn to Nebraska.
“We’re doing a better job getting that water down the river to Nebraska than trying to run it through some canal,” Ament said
He believes Nebraska’s claim of winter water would put the squeeze on farmers.
The part of Colorado that will be most impacted is the agriculture piece of Colorado and not Denver,” Ament said.
Joe Frank, the general manager of the Lower Platte River Conservancy District in Colorado said the old agreement only affects the lower part of the river.
Denver and the front range is located in the upper part of the river where Nebraska has no authority to claim water.
“It wouldn’t have too much of an impact on the front range or the growth that’s occurring and any of the development of water upstream of us,” Frank said.
He said many of the projects return water to the river and keep flows year-round.
“The likelihood of reduction of 90% flows at the state line is pretty improbable,” Frank said.
He said Nebraska’s canal could affect the pumping of water for ag use during the winter month.
Small ponds dot the rural landscape near the river. They are filled during the winter. Then during the summer months, farmers will draw from those ponds to irrigate.
Ament said it creates a balance to keep water flowing in the river.
“Then it keeps all the water rights whole including our compact water downstream,” Ament said.
But there is another concern according to University Law professor Anthony Schutz.
“There is some benefit maybe, to building the canal and diversion in Colorado now,” Schutz said.
He said that is because farmers in Lower South Platte could sell their senior water rights to municipalities upstream.
“Because we don’t have an appropriation in the basin, because we don’t have that canal we don’t fit the class of people that would be protected (under Colorado law) in the event of a transfer of a water right to the upper part of the basin,” Schutz said.
But Schutz said it could come down to what a court decides.
“How much protection could we get? How much water could we get? And then what would be the benefits that we would get out of using it,” Schutz said.
Ament said Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming are also obligated under Federal agreements to provide flows to protect habitat for endangered species near Kearney and Grand Island.
“This is going to amount to a lot of money to our lawyers and not improving the management of water,” Ament said.
Across the border, Schilz agreed.
“Well, I’m hoping it’s not a war. I’m hoping that Nebraska can sit down with Colorado and they could come to an agreement,” Schilz said.
