Integrated Management of Surface and Ground Water in Dawson and Buffalo Counties

1. Integrated Management of Surface and Ground Waterin Dawson and Buffalo Counties

2. Major Stakeholders • Ground Water Irrigators • Surface Water Irrigators • Municipal & Industrial Suppliers

3. The Development of Ground Water and Surface Water Irrigation has provided positive benefits for the Area

4. Nebraska ranks second among the States with respect to the area of irrigated acreage and the quantity of water used for irrigation.

5. The irrigation water comes from both ground-water and surface-water sources. Dots are irrigation wells.

6. Background • Irrigation Development in Dawson & Western Buffalo County areas started in Nebraska in late 1800’s • Surface Water irrigation began with development of canals & lateral system • 7 irrigation companies: • 3 are owned/operated by NPPD (Gothenburg, Dawson Co. & Kearney) • Thirty Mile Canal • Six Mile Canal • Cozad Canal • Orchard-Alfalfa Canal • Supplies approximately 83,160 acres • Long term average annual water diversion to the lands are around 230,000 AF

8. Ground Water irrigation initially began during drought of 1930’s • Developed well drilling & irrigation pump technology • By June 2001 well registration records show 2900 wells have a permit to irrigate 300,000 acres • The Ground Water Aquifer has a average saturated thickness of 390 feet and with a total storage capacity of approximately 29,400,000 Acre-feet

10. Water Budget

11. Benefits • Improve reliability of water supply • Maintain quality of water supply • Maintain a balance between water quantity and quality and major stakeholders

12. The use of both ground water and surface water for irrigation in Nebraska has resulted in significant rises and declines in ground-water levels in different parts of the State from 2002 US Geological Circular 1139.

13. Who • Entities presently involved with the investigation: • Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) • Central Platte Natural Resource District (CPNRD) • Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) • Lee Wilson and Associates

14. Project Development • Phase I Reconnicense • Phase II Feasibility • Phase III Implementation • A Management / Origanziation • B Construction

15. Funding • Phase I -- $120,000 • Phase II --$300,000 • Phase III -- $500,000

16. Time ScheduleSpring 2004 • Prepare existing conditions report. • General description of land & water use conditions • Focus on irrigation • Include maps & tables to summarize uses of surface & ground water

17. Time Schedule Spring 2004 • Develop Meta-data base • Organize resource data that quantify the aspect of water budget and/or irrigation activity • Maps or table formats • Part of data collection activities of NDNR, CPNRD, NPPD or federal agencies • Issues & objectives • Identify leadership from NDNR, CPNRD, NPPD and others • Identify objectives to be achieved by water management

18. Time Schedule Spring 2004 • Survey of users • Interview those with an intent to cancel their surface water contract • Interview those who have not cancelled their surface water contract • Understand what considerations are influencing farmer decisions • Interview ground water users • Interview domestic/municipal users

19. Time Schedule Spring 2004 • Institutional analysis • Summary of existing management authorities and programs of the 3 agencies. • Characterize regulatory and incentive programs available

20. Time ScheduleSummer 2004 • Synoptic data survey • Collect a set of surface water flow measurements • Entire spatial range of NPPD irrigation system • Specific and narrow time frame • Preferably when irrigation facilities are fully functional

21. Time Schedule Summer 2004 • Valley water budget • Utilize data to quantify regional water budget • Define the relative importance of surface water • Time and space variations • Differences in west, “normal” and dry periods • Differences where surface water use does and does not occur • Demonstrate how surface and ground water uses compliment each other because of conjunctive management.

22. Time Schedule Summer 2004 • Case studies • Summary of successful conjunctive management programs in western United States • Study conjunctive management programs that have not succeeded and what caused the failure

23. Time ScheduleFall 2004 • Existing models • Evaluate existing analytical tools • COHYST ground water model • OPSTUDY surface water model • Conceptual models • Workshop on information gained • Outline preferred model or models

24. Benefit Recap Results/Outcomes • Assessment of work products • Implement recommendations • Monitor the effectiveness of the program

25. Purpose • Develop comprehensive conjunctive management system for this area. • A reconnaissance level study to check existing & potential irrigation of lands • Study how surface & ground water to irrigate existing lands compliment each other in a conjunctive management type of system. • Analyze social & political environment • Anticipate implementation of a phased approach

26. Purpose Continued • Evaluate operating entity to do integrated management • Account for existing water budget • Layout existing cost to provide irrigation water to producers • Develop alternatives to better manage a conjunctive use system & provide irrigation water supply at reasonable costs. • Optimize existing potential water use & manage for both surface & ground water quality. • Reduce demands on Lake McConaughy

27. Scope of Work • Locate qualified firms & individuals • Levels of applicable experience • Familiarity with Nebraska hydrology • Time frames/schedules • Inventory of acres irrigated from water supply (SW & GW), water supply information, precipitation considerations, groundwater levels, number of wells, crop productions data, various crop water needs, etc. needed for conjunctive plan.

28. Scope of Work Continued • Develop hydrology area of existing surface and ground water use into a water budget for area. • Consider any organizational requirements. • Consider any necessary policies or procedures. • Consider any necessary monitoring or data requirements. • Obtain input from local water users. • Develop alternatives for managing the water supply.

29. Scope of Work Continued • Identify specific operating costs for recommended alternatives. • Consider the long-term sustainability water quantity and quality. • Identify physical changes or additions including reservoirs or canals. • Identify changes in cropping patterns, types of crops, and cropping opportunities that would maximize the water availability.

30. Scope of Work Continued • Identify impacts to producers, sponsors, or third parties. • Identify possible funding opportunities for conjunctive management alternatives. • Identify an alternative or alternatives to be recommended for a feasibility level study. • Develop a communication plan.