August 14, 2009

Dan Klaich, Chancellor
Nevada System Of Higher Education
2601 Enterprise Rd.
Reno, NV  89512

Dear Chancellor Klaich:

We are writing today to express concerns our organization has regarding the Walker River Acquisition Program and to inquire about the University System’s plans for going forward with the purchase of water rights in the Walker River Basin.

After spending some time reviewing and assessing the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), it has become quite clear that unless the University System plans to follow any of the alternatives that are outlined and analyzed by the DEIS, it would be a wasted effort to provide any meaningful input for that document. The BOR has determined to make no decision in the Walker River Acquisition Program or issue a final decision of record. Likewise, given the non-binding nature of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the University System, your decision will probably have little to do with whatever comments or final outcome of the DEIS.

What Is The Framework You Will Follow?

We are interested in learning the opportunities for public input (if any) for the continued process of the Walker River Acquisition Program.  Are there, or will there be, opportunities for providing recommendations for the decision-makers associated with this project?  If so, who are those decision-makers?  Will the Nevada Board of Regents have any oversight in further operations of this program?  

We would also like to know the relationship the University has or will have with the National Fish and Wildlife group that has recently surfaced as having some level of involvement in the Walker River project.  Will this group be managing the water you purchase?

Along these same lines, what other “yet to be announced” details are there regarding this project?

What is the proposed timeframe and who are the parties involved?

As part of your considerations, we strongly support a full range of mitigation measures to reduce what we believe will be significant agricultural consequences.  Beyond the stated intention of not removing more than one-third (1/3) of the productive agricultural lands from the targeted valleys/areas, we would strongly encourage even more public discussion and involvement in the decision process to lessen or offset the negative impacts.

Nevada Farm Bureau Encourages Lease Alternative:

Nevada Farm Bureau policy supports the approach of leasing water from willing participants to acquire water for advancement of the stated goals for Walker Lake.

We believe that it is noteworthy in the assessment of the DEIS, evaluating the advantages of leasing over purchase of water rights (using the available funds of $56 million), that this approach accomplished far greater benefits than purchase.

According to the DEIS assessment (Chapter 11), increased flows to Walker Lake, using the Lease alternative would cause the levels of the lake to rise by 10 to 13 feet.  Quoting directly from the DEIS (page 11-12), “With acquisitions from existing funds only, lake elevation is expected to rise 1 to 2 feet.”

Recent advancement of legislation could provide Walker River Irrigation District with $26 million for the implementation of a lease program.  A University System partnership, using existing funding, to match the Irrigation District’s funding, would greatly enhance the advantages for everyone’s efforts.  According to a 2003 Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension article, “Assessing Farmers’ Willingness To Participate In Water Banking: A Case Study”, by Dr. Loretta Singletary and Rangesan Narayanan (both associated with the University of Nevada System) – their research indicates the willingness of farmers and ranchers in the affected area to participate in a lease program.

Advantages For The University System In Leasing Partnership:

By utilizing the lease partnership approach, to more effectively spend the $56 million to benefit Walker Lake, the goodwill towards the University would be greater than purchasing the water rights and negatively impacting the agricultural communities where the purchases are made.  Adopting this approach that accomplishes more positive outcomes in these targeted areas is an advantage for the University System and will likely reduce the current negative public opinion.

Improved goodwill and an enhanced belief of cooperation could also reduce the level of possible challenges associated with the water right transfer process while getting water into Walker Lake quicker.

Summary:

We look forward to your response regarding the process as well as what future plans are already formulated for dealing with water right ownership.  Your favorable consideration for our recommendations would be greatly appreciated.  

We are very interested in working with you and others who support the use of the Lease Alternative.

Sincerely,

James, “Hank” Combs
President