LINCOLN, Neb.—State lawmakers are debating whether the state should keep paying to clear vegetation from the Republican and Platte river basins. It would cost $2 million each of the next two years, but some senators say it could save the state much more by increasing the amount of water that flows into Kansas.
Riverfront landowners are supposed to keep the river clear, but weren’t doing so consistently, so the Legislature passed a law in 2007 allowing the state to pay for it until June 2009.
Officials say the trees and vegetation share some of the blame for depletion of Republican River flows into Kansas.
An arbitrator is deciding how much money Nebraska owes Kansas for overusing river water under a 1943 compact that allocates the annual water supply in the Republican basin.
Kansas filed a lawsuit in 1998, arguing that Nebraska breached the compact by allowing the proliferation and use of thousands of wells connected to the river and its tributaries along the state’s southern border.
After being changed by an amendment that passed Friday, the bill would extend the vegetation removal by four years.
But Sen. Tom White of Omaha said the state shouldn’t have to bail out landowners who made huge profits using water from the river but aren’t following the rules that require them to keep it clear.
“They’ve ignored their legal obligation to keep those riverbanks clear,” White said.
If the state is going to step in where they’ve failed, “Why aren’t you going to pay for the cost of mowing my yard?” White asked.
He introduced an amendment that would divide the cost of clearing the river among riverfront landowners. Senators discussed the bill (LB98) from Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege and White’s amendment Friday but did not vote on either.
Rural lawmakers were divided.
Sen. Ken Schilz of Ogallala said it’s such a headache to clear the river, some farmers don’t do it. They can be liable if a chemical used to spray weeds affects water downstream, he said, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers limits what can be done to remove vegetation mechanically.
Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial said when he tried to clear the river near family land on the Republican River, he was told by U.S. Game and Wildlife not to, because it would destroy wildlife habitat.
Christensen said the state should revisit whose responsibility it is to clear the river.
“If vegetation removal is for the state benefit, shouldn’t the state pay for it?” Christensen said.
Sen. Norm Wallman of Cortland said he’s a farmer, and it’s hard to acknowledge farmers are partly at fault for problems on the river.
“I’m sorry for what we’re doing to the aquifer,” Wallman said. “I’m sorry we’re not controlling the weeds.”
He abstained from voting on the original law.
“Is that being a coward? Probably,” Wallman said.
But he said farmers need to work harder to take care of the river.
“As you get older, you think about your grandkids, you think about your relatives, you want them to have a healthy lifestyle coming up down the road.”
———
On the Net:
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources:
Kansas Department of Agriculture:
Nebraska Legislature:
