Difference between revisions of "The Republican River Compact"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Community or organized citizens | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Community or organized citizens | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |Key Questions= | + | |Key Questions={{Key Question |
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=How can mutual trust amongst riparians be nurtured? What actions erode that trust? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=Many actions can erode trust amongst riparians. In the Republican River Compact three key actions can be identified: (1) a riparian repeatedly voices concerns that are disregarded or ignored by the other compact parties, (2) a riparian violates the terms of the compact in a manner that is perceived to be intentional, (3) riparians engage in arbitration or litigation to resolve their disputes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Recent efforts in the basin demonstrate how trust can be nurtured or rebuilt. In the Republican River Compact three key actions can be identified: (1) the compact administration committed to meeting more frequently to better understand the concerns and interests of each state, (2) Nebraska thoroughly explained the steps and mechanisms it had put in place to avoid overuse in water short years to ease Kansas’ concerns about future noncompliance, and (3) the recently negotiated agreements are temporary, allowing for time to test new options without a binding commitment and continue negotiating a long-term agreement that works for everyone. | ||
| + | }} | ||
|Water Feature= | |Water Feature= | ||
|Riparian= | |Riparian= | ||
Revision as of 12:44, 20 December 2015
| Geolocation: | 40° 2' 41.8677", -101° 33' 31.2843" |
|---|---|
| Total Area | 64,79064,790 km² 25,015.419 mi² km2 |
| Climate Descriptors | Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) |
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | agricultural- cropland and pasture |
| Important Uses of Water | Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Livestock, Recreation or Tourism |
Contents
Summary
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Issues and Stakeholders
How will the water allocations defined under the compact be enforced and how should non-compliance be penalized?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Governance, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Community or organized citizens
Stakeholders: State governments of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska; natural resource groundwater management districts; federal surface irrigation districts; local surface and ground water irrigators; local communities; and the Bureau of Reclamation (federal government agency)
Stakeholders are concerned about the ability of states to comply with the compact given past violations and growing stress on the virgin water supply. Water users in Kansas, who have been deprived of their entitlement in the past, want to see stronger enforcement of the compact and strict repercussions for non-compliance such as compensation for damages and disgorgement of gains to other users that result from overusing water in the basin. Upstream water users in Colorado and Nebraska are concerned that compliance efforts or non-compliance penalties will essentially halt irrigated agriculture in the area and in turn harm farmers and entire communities that are dependent on the agriculture sector. They are also concerned that they do not receive enough advanced notice about the implementation of compliance mechanisms to adjust and plan for water short years.The compact was written in an era of substantially different conditions and less pressing concern about water scarcity. How can flexibility be built into the compact and the administrative structure to enable the agreement to evolve in response to changing conditions?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Governance, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Community or organized citizens
Stakeholders: State governments of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska; natural resource groundwater management districts; local surface and ground water irrigators; federal surface irrigation districts; and the Bureau of Reclamation (federal government agency)
During the compact disputes of the past 20 years, there has been limited effort to amend the compact so that it can better address current concerns. The states have been hesitant to consider any actions that may cause the water accounting books not being strictly balanced and therefore result in allegations of non-compliance. Working within the strict interpretation of the original compact and water accounting procedures limits the ability to consider creative options to better meet all parties’ needs.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreASI:The Importance of Trust in the Republican River Compact
The history of the Republican River basin is characterized by periodic conflict. The presence and absence of mutual trust plays an essential role in both the successes and failings of the Republican River Compact to address this conflict. What role does trust play in transboundary water agreements and what actions can nurture or erode this trust?(read the full article... )
Contributed by: Ashley M. (last edit: 20 December 2015)
Key Questions
Transboundary Water Issues: How can mutual trust amongst riparians be nurtured? What actions erode that trust?
Many actions can erode trust amongst riparians. In the Republican River Compact three key actions can be identified: (1) a riparian repeatedly voices concerns that are disregarded or ignored by the other compact parties, (2) a riparian violates the terms of the compact in a manner that is perceived to be intentional, (3) riparians engage in arbitration or litigation to resolve their disputes.
Recent efforts in the basin demonstrate how trust can be nurtured or rebuilt. In the Republican River Compact three key actions can be identified: (1) the compact administration committed to meeting more frequently to better understand the concerns and interests of each state, (2) Nebraska thoroughly explained the steps and mechanisms it had put in place to avoid overuse in water short years to ease Kansas’ concerns about future noncompliance, and (3) the recently negotiated agreements are temporary, allowing for time to test new options without a binding commitment and continue negotiating a long-term agreement that works for everyone.
