Water is the lifeblood of Nebraska whether you farm or ranch in the rural reaches of central and western Nebraska or live and work in Omaha or Lincoln. Our economy, quality of life, indeed our very existence depends on and is enhanced by the waters of this state.

The current drought has illustrated the importance of managing these water resources. Unfortunately, the drought also is being used to advance political agendas that may not be in the best interest of either the waters of this state or the people of Nebraska.

Steps are being taken in direct conflict with the state's own scientific evidence, the will of the people and the authority of local control, which was established through Nebraska's system of Natural Resources Districts.

Nebraska's 23 NRDs are the envy of every other state in the nation in that it provides for local control of our natural resources based on sound science and to the exclusion of outside political influences and agendas.

This system has come under attack from outside political interests utilizing one of our own state agencies, the Department of Natural Resources.

This process started with the director of the DNR holding a press conference in early September announcing that there would not be a statewide moratorium on new large capacity wells. Then, beginning on Sept. 12, the DNR began quietly meeting behind closed doors with the Central Platte, Twin Platte, South Platte, Tri-Basin, and

Upper Big Blue NRD's "urging" them to do exactly the opposite and pass moratoriums on new wells. While the DNR did not lie in its press release, its actions are certainly duplicitous if not deceitful.

During these meetings, the DNR's "urgings" included the ultimatum that if the NRD did not pass a moratorium on its own, the state (DNR) would take away local control. This threat has been conveyed to me by several of the NRD directors through personal interview.

Four public hearings were conducted during which 83 percent of the testimony and survey results were opposed to the moratorium versus slightly more than 11 percent in favor.

After the public hearings were concluded, an internal memo dated Nov. 13 advised the board members to disregard scientific evidence and instead rely on "is there reason to believe." It also stated that the case for a moratorium below Elm Creek was "poor or at least poorer."

So what scientific evidence is being ignored? Nebraska has spent $7 million (so far) on the Cooperative Hydraulic Study (COHYST). This study is a scientific outgrowth of the proposed Cooperative Agreement between Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Cooperative Agreement is a result of a lawsuit over critical habitat filed under the Endangered Species Act. While the COHYST study does

illustrate that there are connections between surface water and groundwater, it does not show that groundwater pumping is drying up the Platte River.

A staff hydrologist serving on the COHYST committee testified at an Oct. 23 water resources committee meeting that "as I've looked at all of the hydrology I've done the key component to changes in river flows and fluctuations is weather." When questioned further on data that shows groundwater pumping is significantly affecting stream

flows, his response was, "You will not see any trends in the flows data that showed significance of how groundwater pumping's did that."

At the risk of over simplifying, this can be explained as follows: In surface water flows, 2 million acre-feet of water flow into this state and 7 million acre-feet flow out during an average year. By comparison, 90 million acre-feet fall on this state in the form of rain and snow during an average year. It is this 90 million acre-feet that recharge our aquifers and provide a renewable resource for all Nebraskans.

Historical records also verify the scientific evidence and the hydrologist's testimony.

According to U.S. Geological Survey data, from 1934 to the end of that decade, the Platte was dry at the Grand Island gauging station a total of 838 days. This includes a 221-day period (over seven months) in 1934 alone. This was pre-development in terms of irrigation. In comparison, you would have to add together all of the zero-flow days from September 1960 through last year (latest data available) to equal the single year total of 1934.

Irrigated agriculture is not the villain here. Nebraska is experiencing a severe drought. This drought will end, as did the droughts of the 1930s, '50s and '70s. All of us as beneficiaries of our water resources must not allow our system of local control based on sound science to be compromised by our current, temporary situation.

Big government and outside political agendas are seeking to divide us into surface water users versus groundwater users, and agricultural interests versus municipal interests. This must not be allowed.

There is a wealth of information on this topic from the USGS, the Conservation and Survey Division, the Central Platte NRD and others. I urge every Nebraskan to conduct their own research, formulate their opinion based on fact and then demand accountability from our state officials not to compromise our access to this beneficial, renewable, Nebraska resource.

Michael M. Allen of Ayr is a farmer and agribusinessman from Adams County.