Take this LEMA and shove it

After sitting in something of a state of limbo for the past 45 days, directors of the St. John-based Big Bend Groundwater Management District No. 5 voted to embrace a self-developed plan aimed at restoring water to the nearby Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

The directors took their action despite a warning from the state's water czar that the plan simply doesn't go far enough in reducing the demand on the imperiled Rattlesnake Creek that supplies Quivira — and its hundreds of thousands of birds, many of them endangered.

In short, the GMD board essentially told David Barfield, chief engineer of the Division of Water Resources, to take their LEMA and shove it. Again, never mind that Barfield said the plan doesn't go far enough.

Heck, even lame duck Kansas Agriculture Secretary Jackie McClaskey quietly rushed out a letter in October telling the board to sit back and relax before doing anything hasty. The board didn't wait long, however.

Of course, you could tell the pressure was mounting to do something.

Letters from cities, school districts and ag-related entities were flowing in to the GMD, likely at their urging, telling Barfield and his DWR, along with the U.S. Fish and Widllife Service, which operates Quivira, to move ahead with the plan before them. Heck, letters were even sent to state political leaders and ethics-ravaged and soon-to-be former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

The LEMA proposed by GMD 5 first saw the light of day in August, sticking with its long-held proposal to require the removal of end guns from center pivots. That might save about 14,000 acre feet of water, they said.

They also proposed to reduce water use by about 4,000 acre feet in an area that has greatest effect on streamflow in the Rattlesnake.

Where that savings would come from, however, is anybody's guess. But the board hopes to find it somehow.

The biggest share of the "recovery" of Quivira water will come from augmentation — the drilling and pumping of yet additional wells for delivery of water from a proposed wellfield somewhere south of the refuge and then delivered to Rattlesnake Creek.

Exactly where this wellfield will go is still up in the air, however.

"The end gun program is not expected to fully reverse trends or to provide a complete offset of future streamflow losses; thus, the augmentation wells will serve to deliver flow sufficient to meet the objective for serviceable supply on this reach of Rattlesnake Creek," the LEMA plan states.

Now, the plan won't take effect until 2020, more than a year out. And the plan will only be evaluated twice in the first 10 years. It will exist in five-year terms.

What will all this mean for Barfield?

Last we left it, Barfield had dictated that additional reductions were needed, and his agency said there was a difference of about 10,000 acre feet. GMD 5 didn't like that idea at all, and that's when McClaskey wrote the letter essentially saying don't give up hope yet.

Of course, it's a little hard to tell where DWR is now, given they are slow to post information and don't provide much detail when they do. It's also tough to say if McClaskey pressured Barfield to back off.

Suffice it to say up front that Barfield can't change anything in the LEMA plan. He might be able to buy some time, but if the GMD wants to move ahead, he will have to set hearings. 

The law isn't a very good one, in that his hands are tied. Basically, he has to find some fault with it to reject it. Easy enough, of course, but, he can only reject it or accept it.

If it's rejected, he can make recommendations. If it's accepted, well, it likely will be going to court, especially considering it's already there on the most basic of reasons.

Suffice it to say it's another shining example that irrigators aren't at all willing to cut back. Despite all the talk about saving water, it hasn't happened. It likely won't until legislators force it.

Here, irrigators will lose end guns, but they never should have had them in the first place. They are truly wasting water, a violation of state law.

So, they don't want to do anything to reduce water use. In fact, they've already suggested some changes that will allow flexibility.

Next up will be to see how Barfield and his DWR crew responds.

This is gonna get ugly. It should.