Given the thin margins of farming and longstanding political realities, federal support is simply part of modern production agriculture. With these cautions in mind, three initiatives could help ease pressure on farmers to keep expanding production. The U. With new provisions, the program could reduce water use by prohibiting expansion of irrigated acreage, permanently retiring marginal lands and linking subsidies to production of less water-intensive crops.
These initiatives could be implemented through the federal farm bill , which also sets funding levels for nonfarm subsidies such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , or SNAP. Increasing these payments and adding financial assistance to local communities could offset lower tax revenues that result from from farming less acreage.
Amending federal farm credit rates could also slow the treadmill. Generous terms promote borrowing for irrigation equipment; to pay that debt, borrowers farm more land. Offering lower rates for equipment that reduces water use and withholding loans for standard, wasteful equipment could nudge farmers toward conservation.
The most powerful tool is the tax code. Currently, farmers receive deductions for declining groundwater levels and can write off depreciation on irrigation equipment. Replacing these perks with a tax credit for stabilizing groundwater and substituting a depreciation schedule favoring more efficient irrigation equipment could provide strong incentives to conserve water.
Water rights are mostly determined by state law, so reforming state water policies is crucial. Case law demonstrates that simply owning water rights does not grant the legal right to waste water. Using these precedents, state water agencies could designate thirsty crops, such as rice, cotton or corn, as wasteful in certain regions. Regulations preventing unreasonable water use are not unconstitutional.
Allowing farmers some flexibility will maximize profits, as long as they stabilize overall water use. If they irrigate less — or not at all — in years with low market prices, rules could allow more irrigation in better years.
Ultimately, many farmers — and their bankers — are willing to exchange lower annual yields for a longer water supply.
As our research has shown, the vast majority of farmers in the region want to save groundwater. The chief engineer has exercised that power several times in the last few decades, but Kansas state officials are often reluctant to do so. We would like to see groups of irrigators come together and work out a solution.
These plans are then subject to approval by the state. Once approved, the plan becomes legally binding. One group of farmers has set up a ninety-nine square mile conservation zone where they agreed to a twenty percent reduction in irrigation for five years. After four years, they have steadily achieved their twenty percent reduction rate while, significantly, not seeing a reduction in profits. Some of their success has also been due in part to the implementation of drip irrigation and more sophisticated irrigation water management.
While that is a step in the right direction, this group of farmers is still the only group that has submitted a plan in Kansas. This arrangement has proven its potential for success, but the question remains on whether it is scalable for the rest of the state. The fact that only one group has formed is likely due to how difficult it is to create one—here, talks lasted three years before boundaries were agreed upon, and members of the group said they had to change their whole mindset and culture to come to an agreement.
Nebraska has taken a tougher stance than Kansas, and consequently has had more success in combating aquifer depletion. Nebraska has also compromised with farmers, adopting a system like Kansas that empowers farmers and gives them control—so long as they come up with a plan to reduce use of the aquifer. The approach the state has taken has allowed Nebraska to sustain water levels—or at least slow depletion—in the Ogallala Aquifer better than most other High Plains states.
Despite their success, however, the aquifer in Nebraska is still continuously depleting, and annual allocations to farmers have been steadily decreasing.
Interstate compacts—created and enforced through federal law—have played a critical role in driving state efforts to curtail groundwater use. For example, part of the reason Nebraska has taken such a tough stance on groundwater pumping is because of their obligations to Kansas under the Republic River Compact. As the Ogallala aquifer feeds into the Republican River, Nebraska has had to limit its use of the aquifer to comply with the Compact, which has resulted in a more sustainable use of the aquifer but also lowers crop yields for farmers.
The federal government itself has addressed the issue of the depleting Ogallala by instituting the Ogallala Aquifer Initiative. The Initiative works by providing technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to implement conservation practices that use less water, improve water quality, and keep croplands productive.
The Initiative benefits agricultural producers by cutting costs for water, cutting costs for energy to power irrigation systems, and increasing crop yields. Extending the life of the aquifer also benefits the public at large, as the public directly benefits from irrigation with Ogallala water. In New Mexico, circumstances are more critical, prompting the federal government to take a more drastic approach.
In eastern New Mexico specifically, the Ogallala aquifer has depleted to the point of crisis. To make matters worse, alternative sources of water in the area are primarily located along the border with Texas, where oil and gas development dominates water use. For its part, New Mexico has started reviewing hydrological information before renewing or approving new access to drill wells that involve using Ogallala water. The federal government has also stepped in, investing in a pipeline project called the Ute pipeline, which has recently required an additional investment of five million dollars.
The project is designed to eventually bring billions of gallons of drinking water to eastern New Mexico from nearby Ute Lake. However, it is important to remember to contextualize this success; it is only one group in an area less than one hundred square miles, meaning that the Ogallala is far from saved. And while there is value in allowing farmers to voluntarily take the reins in conserving the Ogallala, it is clear that they are not jumping at the opportunity to do so.
Throughout much of the aquifer, groundwater withdrawals exceed the amount of recharge, and water levels have declined fairly consistently through time. Although water level declines in excess of feet have occurred in several areas over the last 50 to 60 years, the rate of decline has slowed, and water levels have risen in a few areas.
Federal Flood Funds Reporting. Workshops Workshops.
0コメント