August 6, 2005
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Roger Patterson, Director
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68509-4676
Subject: Input to DNR hearing of August 11, 2005 in Kearney, Nebraska
I am a landowner in the Central Platte River Valley who is likely to be adversely impacted
by this proposed rule. I specifically ask that it not be approved.
This letter shall serve as a legal substitute for personal attendance and testimony at the
stated hearing as provided for in the legal notice of said hearing.
The proposed use of a 50 year and 10% depletion criteria for application as the standard
that would constitute any boundary for regulation is clearly inappropriate and
unacceptable. The understanding in all matters over the years has been expected to be 28%
in 40 years based on the following applications of this standard:
1. The 1981 Missouri River Basin States Association Study
2. The concept used in the Nebraska v. Wyoming case as the
boundary
3. The 28% in 40 years line used in the extensive
discussions in the development of Nebraska's New Depletion Plan for the Platte River
Cooperative Agreement and in fact is the boundary used in that plan
4. Natural Resources Districts have used the 28% in 40 years
line for temporary well drilling suspensions
5. The 28% in 40 years line was used by the Department of
Natural Resources for the boundary of the over-appropriated area of the Platte River
The Department of Natural Resources has completely failed to honor previous understandings
by making this unacceptable proposal. Furthermore, there has been no sound and
scientifically supportable data presented to support even a 28/40 criteria, let alone a
10/50 criteria as being appropriate or necessary. DNR has obviously based this proposal on
political - and not scientific considerations. By doing so it is going to cause grave harm
to the entire state of Nebraska. Such an action is absolutely unacceptable and is
completely without basis.
Additionally, there are other aspects of this proposal and the hearing process which make
it obvious that DNR is NOT acting with the proper objectivity and good faith as is the
intent of the laws and regulations in such matters. Let me enumerate a few of these other
obviously unacceptable factors:
1. The hearing is held at a time of the year during which those most affected - the
agriculture producers and businesses simply do not have time available as they are tending
their irrigation to bring a good and profitable crop to maturity. Hearings on this matter
should be held during the period of December through February - and NOT at the peak
workload time of year. This is inappropriate.
2. There is only ONE hearing being held. This is unacceptable. When decisions need to be
made on such important matters, there need to be several hearings located around the state
so that people will be able to attend.
3. Such a decision should simply not be made by a Director who will be leaving the
position within 8 days of the August 11 date. There needs to be accountability which this
scheduling completely precludes.
4. Furthermore, it is obvious that the current DNR Director is simply "checking a
box". His mind is already made up and he simply won't be confused by the facts. That
was blatantly obvious by his reportedly defiant actions during a recent meeting between
irrigators and Governor Heineman.
This process is nothing more than a pure "SHAM"! It clearly violates the full
intent of any and all Nebraska laws and regulations which are intended to force an open,
objective, and sound process which truly considers the facts of such matters before such
critical decisions are made. These decisions absolutely MUST be made in a sound fashion in
the best interests of the entire State.
This is a blatantly unethical set of actions that should simply not be allowed to occur.
This proposed rule needs to be rejected. And, the actions of the DNR should be examined by
the Nebraska Attorney General for legal action against the individuals and department
employees who have created this SHAM of a process .