4.13.05
Midlands Voices: Groundwater issue must shift its focus
by Al Heuton, published in the Omaha World-HeraldThe writer, of Gering, Neb., is executive director of the Panhandle Area Development District and economic development representative on the North Platte Natural Resources District stakeholders group.
The headline on a March 28 editorial, "New law no answer," hit the nail on the head if it were turned and applied to Nebraska's new water law.
Nebraska's new law (approved last year as Legislative Bill 962) contains no answers, although several water conservation alternatives are mentioned.
These options, which are being discussed and implemented by natural resources districts, include education, monitoring, water allocation restrictions, payments to farmers not to irrigate and exacting baselines and allocations on cities.
Perhaps it is time the water discussion look beyond attempting to plug holes in the groundwater sieve. To do that, we must face up to a few simple facts:
· Our groundwater resource cannot support our agricultural economy as it exists today. The Upper Republican NRD has been implementing groundwater conservation efforts much longer than most NRDs.
At a recent meeting, the Upper Republican NRD stated that irrigators receive a 14.5-inch allocation of water. It also was stated that to reach a sustainable level of groundwater use, this allocation would need to drop to 8 inches. It appears we are managing the decline of a precious public resource and have not yet found a solution to the problem.
· Increased groundwater use by cities and industry is not the cause of the problem. Cities and industry use roughly 4 percent of the pumped groundwater each year. Irrigation agriculture uses about 96 percent of the pumped groundwater.
To further illustrate how little cities have impacted the groundwater situation, consider the change that has occurred in groundwater use during the last three decades.
From 1970 to 2000, the annual water use by cities in the 11-county Panhandle region increased by only an estimated 193 million gallons. By comparison, the amount of water used to irrigate the land associated with new 50-plus-gallons-per- minute irrigation wells in the Panhandle region increased by an estimated 164 billion gallons per year (applying a 1 acre-foot allocation).
The imbalance in water use at the expense of other water users has not been created by the cities. Furthermore, completely eliminating the cities would do little more than dent the water issue.
· All water users are not being treated equally in the proposed solutions. Proposed solutions, such as establishing baselines for water use by cities and then suggesting growth allocations, may be part of a larger solution.
However, these same rules do not apply to rural residents. Rural residents have no baselines, no restrictions and no meters, and this discussion is off the table. Why?
If the State Water Policy Task Force, the NRDs or both are viewed as a "court of first resort," should not their structure provide a mechanism that entitles the cities to a jury of their peers?
· Agriculture is and always will be an important part of our economy. But it is not producing a level of job creation that will sustain our population base. From 1970 to 2000, net non-farm employment in our region increased by 14,984 jobs. Net farm employment decreased by 1,918 jobs.
In 2002, the market value of all agricultural products sold in our region was $896 million. The 2002 revenue for Cabela's was listed by the Securities and Exchange Commission at $1.2 billion, nearly half again as much as the region's total agricultural sales.
New economic alternatives, both agricultural and nonagricultural, are desperately needed in rural Nebraska. Perhaps it is time we dispense with the urban-rural issue and put commerce and industry on equal footing with agriculture in Nebraska water law.
· We need real solutions, not corks. It seems clear that our agricultural economy must evolve. Yet research funding at our agricultural research stations is being cut, and positions are being eliminated.
At the same time, solutions, such as spending $150 million to pay farmers not to irrigate, are being proposed. The focus should be on creating a new rural economy capable of gen- erating growth.
The editorial was correct in stating that the water issue should not become an urban-rural battle. The state water issue is not urban or rural but, rather, urban and rural.
It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that our groundwater is a precious "public" commodity, that its use, misuse or both should not be taken lightly and that our future (both rural and urban) depends upon our ability to utilize groundwater in a manner that is sustainable from both a resource and economic perspective.