Water transfer idea exposes irrigation flaws:

May 27, 2005 Grand Island Independent Talk Editorial (Reprinted in the
Omaha
World Herald)

One acre-foot of water, which would cover an acre of farmland to a depth of
12 inches, equals 325,581 gallons.
Most farmers who irrigate in the semi-arid western half of Nebraska say
they need 15 inches of water per acre to produce a corn crop of up to 200
bushels per acre.
Fifteen inches of water equals 407,313 gallons for each acre. Divide that
by 200 -- which is an excellent corn yield -- and you end up with this:
It takes 2,036 gallons of water to produce a single bushel of corn. It
takes more if the yield is less than 200 bushels an acre, which is usually the
case. That's the math, plain and simple.
Now tell me that groundwater-irrigated, subsidized overproduction of corn
on mostly dry land is not the biggest agricultural travesty ever.
We're not done yet.
Some folks in western Nebraska want to further drain the Ogallala Aquifer
and divert that water into reservoirs and river basins so -- in part, at
least -- those same people can maintain their counterproductive culture of
irrigating $1.90-a-bushel corn.
(If you think we need to irrigate dry land to produce more corn for more
ethanol, think again. In a few years we'll be making ethanol out of grasses
and other materials which require much, much less water and chemicals than
corn.)
This legacy has been allowed to proliferate by a Legislature
disproportionately influenced by traditional ag interests, NRDs dominated
by irrigation partisans, and too many Nebraskans who continue to deny any
geological link between groundwater and surface water.
And many will keep denying it as rural Nebraska ceaselessly depopulates,
partly because we misuse our natural rural resources -- water being the
most precious.
Farmers in the Texas panhandle and western Kansas have already sucked the
aquifer dry in many places. Although Nebraska has more of the aquifer than
any other state, it makes perfect sense to manage that water as wisely as
possible.
In 1984, Nebraska irrigated 3.4 million acres of crops, according to USDA
Ag Statistics. In just 11 short years, by 1995, that figure had increased by
120 percent to nearly 7.5 million acres. Now we're up to 8.1 million acres.
According to many researchers -- including John Opie, who has performed
groundwater studies at Kansas State University -- the useful life
expectancy of the Ogallala Aquifer may now be less than 50 years. The aquifer's water
levels, even during wet cycles, decline at three to 10 times the recharge,
Opie said.
What's really sad about this entire scenario is the incredulous lack of
foresight on the part of the Nebraskans who serve us in government. Why
have so few people stepped up and spoken out about this? Why do we always allow
irrigation interests to rule our NRDs, county boards, even the Legislature?
Take, for example, the Water Policy Task Force appointed by former Gov.
Mike Johanns. Of its 49 members, 38 are farm irrigators or have been politically
sympathetic to irrigated agriculture. Only three have environmental
interests; only two represent recreation, one of whom is sensitive to
irrigators; and only five represent municipalities, two of whom also have
ties to irrigation.
Despite that convincing data, Steve Smith of Imperial -- founder and
director of WaterClaim, the group of irrigators and business interests that
has floated the idea of the huge inter-basin water transfer -- claims that
Nebraska has an anti-irrigation climate?
According to Colorado State researcher Melvin Skold, groundwater-irrigated
corn production in the semi-arid Great Plains -- generally the area west of
the 100th meridian -- accounts for less than 13 percent of all the maize
grown in the United States. In this region, there is absolutely no reason
to consume such large quantities of our valuable groundwater to grow something
we already have too much of.
Agriculture uses up 95 percent of Nebraska's water. If we want our
communities to survive, and if we want to preserve our natural resources,
that figure must be more representative of the state's overall interests --
which must include municipalities, wildlife and recreation.
And about that water transfer? You'll be intrigued to know that most of the
members of WaterClaim, the group proposing the idea, are residents of
Perkins, Chase and Dundy counties in extreme southwest Nebraska.
The University of Nebraska has monitored groundwater changes in the state
from the earliest irrigation days to the present. It has pinpointed the
counties which have experienced the greatest groundwater declines.
Three of the top four are Perkins, Chase and Dundy.

Pete Letheby is associate editor for The Independent.


Grand Island Independent Editorial Sep 30, 2005
Conservation agencies, boards short of vision

Independent Talk

Nebraska has several governing and advisory agencies, boards and councils
in place to safeguard our natural resources and look out for our environmental
best interests.
If you believe that, I have a couple mountain cabins in Blaine County to
sell you real cheap.
A good part of the reason why Nebraska is only reluctantly entering the
21st century of conservation thinking is that the state has, as they say, too
many foxes guarding the environmental henhouse.
Here are some of the realities:
Nebraska's Environmental Quality Council, 17 members strong, includes
representatives of the livestock industry, ag processing, crop production,
power generation, chemical industry, petroleum industry, heavy industry,
food products manufacturing, labor, engineering and government. It would be
nearly a total whitewash if not for the recent appointment of Lawrence
Bradley, a UNO teacher with a strong conservation bent.
Nebraska's Water Policy Task Force, 49 members strong, includes 20
irrigators, although a few, admittedly, are conservation-oriented. There
are more members from power interests (4) than environmental groups (3). The
task force's three agricultural reps hail from the Farm Bureau, Nebraska
Cattlemen and Nebraska Corn Growers, three groups that consistently oppose
common-sense environmental regulations. Its two legislative members have
not distinguished themselves as conservation leaders in the Nebraska
Unicameral.

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality -- because of a lack of
resources and/or a lack of resolve -- is increasingly under fire for
failing to protect the public's interests in water and air quality. Industrial-type
farms are despoiling the state's waters, soil and air with near impunity.
Last, but certainly not least, many of the state's 23 Natural Resource
District boards are utterly dominated by irrigation interests.
According to the Web site of the Nebraska Association of Resource
Districts, the mission of NRDs is to "conserve, sustain and improve our natural
resources and environment ... for future prosperity."
Despite those words, it is ironic that some NRDs have campaigned against,
and even removed, board members who proposed greater stewardship of those
resources. There are a few NRD boards in western and southwest Nebraska
that are dangerously close to being 100 percent in the hands of irrigation
interests.
Just last week the Central Platte NRD board haggled over the naming of a
new member because the panel is split between moderate interests and the
interests of Nebraskans First, a pro-groundwater irrigation group whose
views are increasingly considered extremist by a majority of Nebraskans.
Authors Jeffrey Ashley and Zachary Smith had the problem correctly pegged
in their 1999 book, "Groundwater Management in the West":
"... Many feel that agriculture is very powerful (if not the most powerful)
interest group (or, more accurately, collection of interests and groups) in
the state and that NRDs are largely controlled by rural agricultural
interests. This control is so strong that some have referred to NRDs as
'irrigator clubs.' "
So what about the "public trust"? The Public Trust Doctrine, which dates
back 15 centuries and is covered in the Magna Carta, requires government to
act in the citizens' best interests in the management of our natural
resources.
The Center for Environmental Protection at Washington State University says
the Public Trust Doctrine may become the most important mechanism to defend
our rivers and other waters from overdevelopment.
"Its general premise," the center says, "is that a state's natural
resources are held in the public trust and even senior, appropriated water users do
not have the right to destroy the public's natural resources."
If Nebraska's agencies, boards and councils aren't more vigilant in looking
out for the state's natural resources -- and that means fewer foxes
guarding the henhouse and NRDs breaking the grip of "irrigator clubs" -- then we may
indeed see the day when the public trust is invoked to do the job right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Letheby is associate editor at The Independent. He can be reached by
e-mail at [email protected].