University System Responds To Request For Information On Going Forward With Walker River Water Rights Acquisitions
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
On August 14th, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation President, James “Hank” Combs sent a letter to Dan Klaich, Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The letter was to express Farm Bureau concerns over the Walker River Acquisition Program and to inquire about the plans the University System had for going forward. This communication was highlighted in this blog post drawing attention to the need for interaction with the University since the Environmental Impact Statement process being carried out by the Bureau of Reclamation was only a ruse with no linkage to the decisions to be made by the University System.
Chancellor Klaich responded to the Farm Bureau letter on August 28th.
The Farm Bureau letter asked about the framework for the decisions to be carried out as well as opportunities for public input. Chancellor Klaich responded that the process the University System has been using has been following a very public process, holding about 20 meetings throughout the Walker Basin as well as before the Board of Regents.
Playing the “research” card, the letter explained that “the Nevada System of Higher Education’s role has been to conduct research to help decision makers preserve both Walker Lake and sustain the economy, including the agricultural community, which also relies on the Walker River.”
The “decision makers” are the folks within the operations of the Nevada System of Higher Education conducting the acquisition action and the question being asked was about whether there would be an opportunity to have input into the decisions being made.
The response also clearly states that the federal law they are operating under “mandates” the authority for the University System to acquire water rights. Somewhat defending the appropriateness of the University System being in the business of water purchases, Chancellor Klaich states…
Okay, figuring out the best course to follow on the basis of sound data and information is a solid approach, but let’s not forget that involvement isn’t one of being a disinterested third party or completely scientific mission. The University System is using around $56 million federal dollars, earmarked for their purchase of water rights. Let’s not also forget that along the way the University’s researchers and administration folks got their cut of the funds they allocated off the top for covering their costs.
In addition to pledging to stay involved with the project as long as necessary to ensure its integrity, the response also noted that the University System isn’t planning on maintaining an ownership role for the long-term. Although when asked at several public meetings about who was going to own the water, once acquired, and responding (according to my notes) that they didn’t completely know what the plan would be – Chancellor Klaich shares this statement in his letter…”it has not been our role or intention to own or manage the acquisition of water rights in this project in the long term.”
He continues by saying “That function is beyond our core competency.”
Sharing the language of a recent letter he sent to the Nevada Board of Regents, Chancellor Klaich wrote,
For those involved in searching to find an entity like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, they have been around since 1984, according to the information that’s been provided at the public meetings for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Perhaps, given the abilities that they have in conducting similar successful programs in the Columbia River area, they could have been tapped for this program’s operation all along…
(Oh wait, now we remember… the 2002 Farm Bill had language prohibiting the use of the “Desert Terminus Lake” funds to be used for purchases of land or water and the purpose for the $70 million University’s involvement was to create a world-class research facility.)
The Chancellor’s letter didn’t seem to indicate that in spite of the positive evidence provided in the DEIS for using the funds for leasing as opposed to purchases, that there was any intention to pursue a working partnership with the Walker River Irrigation District.
It seems that the University System decision makers have decided that they have the authority to buy water because that’s what the mandate of the law tells them they should do. Creative or flexible considerations for what might work are only in play after they (or whoever they decide should be involved in doing the buying/owning)have acquired the water they have the money to use.
On August 14th, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation President, James “Hank” Combs sent a letter to Dan Klaich, Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The letter was to express Farm Bureau concerns over the Walker River Acquisition Program and to inquire about the plans the University System had for going forward. This communication was highlighted in this blog post drawing attention to the need for interaction with the University since the Environmental Impact Statement process being carried out by the Bureau of Reclamation was only a ruse with no linkage to the decisions to be made by the University System.
Chancellor Klaich responded to the Farm Bureau letter on August 28th.
The Farm Bureau letter asked about the framework for the decisions to be carried out as well as opportunities for public input. Chancellor Klaich responded that the process the University System has been using has been following a very public process, holding about 20 meetings throughout the Walker Basin as well as before the Board of Regents.
Playing the “research” card, the letter explained that “the Nevada System of Higher Education’s role has been to conduct research to help decision makers preserve both Walker Lake and sustain the economy, including the agricultural community, which also relies on the Walker River.”
The “decision makers” are the folks within the operations of the Nevada System of Higher Education conducting the acquisition action and the question being asked was about whether there would be an opportunity to have input into the decisions being made.
The response also clearly states that the federal law they are operating under “mandates” the authority for the University System to acquire water rights. Somewhat defending the appropriateness of the University System being in the business of water purchases, Chancellor Klaich states…
“I think the participation by UNR and DRI is completely appropriate. Who better than our home State’s public higher education entities is there to understand and analyze these important issues that impact our lives.”
Okay, figuring out the best course to follow on the basis of sound data and information is a solid approach, but let’s not forget that involvement isn’t one of being a disinterested third party or completely scientific mission. The University System is using around $56 million federal dollars, earmarked for their purchase of water rights. Let’s not also forget that along the way the University’s researchers and administration folks got their cut of the funds they allocated off the top for covering their costs.
In addition to pledging to stay involved with the project as long as necessary to ensure its integrity, the response also noted that the University System isn’t planning on maintaining an ownership role for the long-term. Although when asked at several public meetings about who was going to own the water, once acquired, and responding (according to my notes) that they didn’t completely know what the plan would be – Chancellor Klaich shares this statement in his letter…”it has not been our role or intention to own or manage the acquisition of water rights in this project in the long term.”
He continues by saying “That function is beyond our core competency.”
Sharing the language of a recent letter he sent to the Nevada Board of Regents, Chancellor Klaich wrote,
“As we have indicated since this project began, it is not our goal for the System to ultimately be the party the holds and exercises the rights represented by the options. We have indicated that at the right time an appropriate entity that has a community element will be identified and used. That part of the project is also moving forward well. After a lot of searching by a lot of parties associated with this project we identified a potentially ideal partner in the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), a federally chartered non-profit. NFWF has run a very similar project with great success on the Columbia River. The NFWF Board has given its approval to an expanded involvement in the Walker Basin Restoration Program. Legislation which would pave the way for such and expanded role envisioned for NFWF is pending before Congress. Subject to approval of the legislation, NFWF is prepared to assume the leadership role in the water rights acquisition work, as well as administer other elements included in the proposed legislation.”
For those involved in searching to find an entity like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, they have been around since 1984, according to the information that’s been provided at the public meetings for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Perhaps, given the abilities that they have in conducting similar successful programs in the Columbia River area, they could have been tapped for this program’s operation all along…
(Oh wait, now we remember… the 2002 Farm Bill had language prohibiting the use of the “Desert Terminus Lake” funds to be used for purchases of land or water and the purpose for the $70 million University’s involvement was to create a world-class research facility.)
The Chancellor’s letter didn’t seem to indicate that in spite of the positive evidence provided in the DEIS for using the funds for leasing as opposed to purchases, that there was any intention to pursue a working partnership with the Walker River Irrigation District.
It seems that the University System decision makers have decided that they have the authority to buy water because that’s what the mandate of the law tells them they should do. Creative or flexible considerations for what might work are only in play after they (or whoever they decide should be involved in doing the buying/owning)have acquired the water they have the money to use.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 9/1/2009 2:42 PM 
Categories: Walker RIver
Tags: Walker River Basin Acquisition Nevada System of Higher Education
Categories: Walker RIver
Tags: Walker River Basin Acquisition Nevada System of Higher Education
Comments