Water woes from corn farming

[Bruce]

Frome Newsweek magazine.


Mike Adamson remembers when water wasn't such a problem. As a kid growing up on his family's cattle feedlot along the Colorado-Kansas border, "you could dig a post hole and see water runnin' in the bottom," he recalls. Today, Adamson is 48 and in charge of the family business, Adamson Brothers and Sons Feedlot, a holding ranch for cattle as they go to market. And the water, he says, is disappearing. "The lakes are gone. The wetlands are gone." In fact, Adamson adds, entire stretches of the nearby Republican River are gone.

In the arid regions of the American West, water has always been a precious, liquid gold. But in Adamson's home of Yuma County, Colorado, two hours east of Denver, the stakes just got higher. Thanks to the boom in ethanol production spurred by green-energy concerns, corn farmers in Yuma County—one of the top three corn-producing counties in the country—are enjoying a new prosperity.

But the green-fuel boom touted as a clean, eco-friendly alternative to gasoline is proving to have its own dirty costs. Growing corn demands lots of water, and, in eastern Colorado, this means intensive irrigation from an already stressed water table, the great Ogallala Aquifer. One sign of trouble: in just the past two decades, farmers tapping into the local aquifers have helped to shorten the North Fork of the Republican River, which starts in Yuma County, by 10 miles. The ethanol boom will only hasten the drop further, say scientist and engineers studying the aquifers. The region's water shortage has pitted water-hungry farmers against one another. And lurking in the cornrows: lawsuits and interstate water squabbles could shut down eastern Colorado's estimated $500 million annual ethanol bonanza with the swing of a judge's gavel. Collectively, "[ethanol] is clearly not sustainable," says Jerald Schnoor, a professor of engineering at the University of Iowa and co-chairman of an October 2007 National Research Council study for Congress that was critical of ethanol. "Production will have serious impacts in water-stressed regions." And in eastern Colorado, there's lots of water stress.

Still, with so much money growing in the fields, the current problems haven't stopped anyone on Colorado's plains. "Finally, here's the alternative market that farmers have been working toward for decades," said Mark Sponsler, executive director of the Colorado Corn Growers Association. The state's farmers planted a near-record acreage of corn in 2007, up nearly 20 percent from the year before. It's not hard to see why. After hovering around $2 a bushel for nearly 50 years, corn is trading at about $4.50 today. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has called for ethanol to displace 15 percent of the nation's gasoline supply by 2015, double that by 2030. And Yuma is preparing. The state's two ethanol plants have been built nearby in just the past few years, with a third on the way. "It sure is a good time," says Byron Weathers, a farmer with 2,500 acres of corn. "It's definitely been a big plus for our state. The whole nation, really."

But the effort to keep the good times rolling locally has actually fueled a bitter Hatfield-vs.-McCoy atmosphere in these parts. "There's definitely tension between families," one long-time Yuma corn farmer said, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation. Here's the trouble: eastern Colorado is painfully dry, but it sits on top of one of the world's largest underground freshwater oceans—the Ogallala Aquifer, which stretches from Montana to New Mexico. Seepage from the Ogallala in eastern Colorado creates the headwaters for the North Fork of the Republican River, which flows past the Adamson family farm and into Nebraska and Kansas. But before the Republican reaches the border, 4,000 groundwater wells tap the Ogallala, which depletes the river further and faster than rain or winter runoff can recharge it. Near Yuma County, the water table has dropped more than 100 feet in the past few decades, drying out Adamson's post holes.

In Yuma County, the battle is between farmers who irrigate 400,000 corn acres with groundwater against those who draw surface water from the river using drainage ditches, like Adamson. (Adamson uses the water to grow less-water-intensive crops, like wheat, that he can feed to the cattle). As the wells draw down the water table, the river flow drops, too. So, when the valves are opened, the water barely trickles into irrigation ditches, like Adamson's, whose family's right to draw that water according to state law dates back to the 1800s. "We're the canary in the coal mine," Adamson said. If there's little water in his ditches, the river is running low.

To be sure, scientists have been watching the depletion of the Ogallala for decades. Years of drought haven't helped either. But the corn-based ethanol boom has added pressure, and money, to keep the tap on. So to save the river and their water, Adamson and a group of surface water-right holders sued in 2005 to shut off the wells. A hearing is set for June. If they win, hundreds, maybe thousands of groundwater wells irrigating corn could be shut off instantly. "It would devastate the economy," says Doug Sanderson, the city manager of Yuma, the county seat.

Yuma County farmers face another water threat, this one from neighboring Kansas. The downstream state has struggled for decades to get its fair share of the Republican's waters. Tensions peaked eight years ago when Kansas brought a lawsuit against Colorado and Nebraska to the U.S. Supreme Court—and won. Today, the two states still owe Kansas enough water to supply a small city for a year. But, like a shopaholic with credit cards, Colorado's groundwater wells keep pumping. "We're at a junction with the interstate compact," says Dave Barfield, chief engineer for Kansas. "[Kansas] farmers are being hurt. They are telling me to go get 'em …. And we are." Last month, Kansas demanded its water, suggesting Colorado and Nebraska shut down groundwater wells. If things get worse, the Supreme Court could order it. The threat has sent Colorado's politicians, farmers and others scrambling, and proposed solutions are as perplexing as the problems.

To send Kansas its water—and keep the Colorado well on--a state legislator is pushing to drain the Bonny Reservoir, a popular border lake called the "crown jewel" of eastern Colorado. It's a key stopping point for migratory birds, a fishery maintained by the state, and leased by Colorado from the federal government, who are not likely to let the water go. Still, the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Greg Brophy of Yuma, has made the message clear: "We can't value fish over farmers."

Yuma corn farmers have come up with their own idea. Last month, the local Republic River Water Conservation District, a board responsible for keeping Colorado in water compliance with Kansas, approved the funding for a multi-million dollar pipeline that will pump water into the Republican River from a farm willing to retire 6,000 acres. Water will flow to Kansas. Problem solved. The source of that water? The Ogallala Aquifer. It's an idea some have called robbing Peter to pay Paul. "It is to a degree," says Ken Knox, Colorado's chief deputy state engineer. "But we're trying to maintain the entire social-economic production in this part of Colorado."

What's becoming clear is that the price to keep ethanol profitable is not cheap. The purchase of those wells will cost more than $50 million—a market-maker price tag that's even catching the eye of the surface-water right owners. "You know, money is an enticing thing," Adamson said. "It's great to be noble. Sometimes it's hard to be noble. But you've got to take care of your family." One attorney close to the case is more succinct: "[Surface-water owners] are probably just waiting for the right price." Should the right price come along, Ogallala's groundwater will be left uncontested, at least in Colorado, a likely scenario. As for the Republican River? "We know we have a finite resource. We know it won't last forever," says Yuma city manager Sanderson. "But we certainly don't respect the resource more than we respect the people."

Scientists and engineers say there's a clear lesson from the Republican River saga: water and energy are inextricably linked. "They will be the two driving forces of the future," says Knox. "And we're starting to see the future in this region." Professor Schnoor calls ethanol simply "a bridge fuel" to undiscovered and truly environmentally friendly technology. Meanwhile, with warm months just around the corner and a meeting with state officials in Denver to discuss the pipeline that he opposes, Adamson is frustrated. "Trying to solve problems by using the same old techniques doesn't solve the problem," Adamson says. "We're going to make the area a desert. It's going to be uninhabitable." And that would be a high price to pay.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

[dougl33]

This just keeps getting better and better.

[In Memory Walter K]

I think I may have been the guy that caused Patrick to start a separate thread on the subject a few years ago. Seems all this was discussed that long ago...now it's coming home to roost. And now we come to a nominating process for a new President with ONLY ONE potential candidate with the guts to be against corn subsides! The Corn issue is at the base of our inflation. It has driven up the price of every form of food American consumers buy. Corn fed our livestock, now it's too expensive to do so. It's decimated the grain industry, no one wants to grow anything else...pays too well. Pillaged our farmland, now ruining our water supply and water table. Ethanol has lowered the MPG of your vehicles by 10% to say nothing about what it's done to older engines of every sort. If this wasn't so tragic, it would be humerous that we as a nation have been so duped. We're going to be using oil for our cars and heating for the next 10-15 years at least. Wake up America. Power generation has to go Atomic. Where the hell do you think you're going to get the power to plug your electric car into for an overnight charge? Gas generators? Walter

[Harv]

Never mind what we have been saying for the past couple of years.
Another factor not being realized is the amount of drought this country has been experiencing the last few years as well.
Recent events about Atlanta running out of it's municiple water supply.
I was watching Bassmaster tournament on ESPN this morning from a lake in N Carolina. Water levels there are down about 6 feet due to drought.
Now, just saw a news item on the weather channel that at present rates of growth and consumption, Lake Mead could dry up by the year 2021. We are definitely talking severe water shortage problems in the years ahead.

[In Memory Walter K]

Harv-Most of America is walking around with a bottle of water in their hands that cost them far more per gallon than the gasoline we're complaining about. The solution to dealing with a drought situation is not by creating a greater demand for it. We hear all about Global warming, the RISING water level that's going to flood our cities as a result of melting glaciers and Ice caps. You hear NOTHING about the drought. NOTHING about Lake Meade. NOTHING about the destruction of our rivers and streams by the Farmers and Cattlemen of America as a result of this situation...just higher prices for every foodstuff. Guess it's not sensational enough...or not politically correct as all energies seem to revolve around not being beholding to Arab countries for Oil. I really believe the advance of the medical profession has done us a disservice. In the world of Survival of the Fittest, they've saved too many idiots and the gene pool is going down the sewer. Vic's addage "The enemy of good is better" seems to fit here. A lot of the solutions are simple. It's the lobbies and the politicians and people like the ACLU that have complicated things. The rivers of this country would be in better health today if they had been left alone. But NOOOO we built dams for power...today, we're discovering that was a bad idea...now come the legal fights when we try to take them down. The Gulf Coast would have been far less devastated from Katrina had we left the marshlands alone, but NOOOO progress demands land development. For a sophisticated world, with so much technology at our fingertips, we seem to learn very slowly. I've taken on a far greater respect for the Native American Indian and his knowledge and respect for Mother Earth. They really knew what they were doing until we came along to teach them "better" ways. I apologize for my rant. Walter

[Harv]

Walt,

no need to apologize, I agree with you completely. Your point about the American Indians reminds me of the commercial that was out many years ago, with the indian paddling his canoe down a river only to come to a "modern" city with all it's pollution in the water and tears rolling down his cheek at the end. If you watch any nature show or National Geographic about primitive tribes that still exist today, you notice how they always mention how the indiginous tribes always live in harmony with nature. There's no needless rape or pilaging of the resources. They take and plant what they need as they need. Unlike modern "civilized" man that uses in excess, kills needlessly, wastes for the sake of waste. Reminds me of the lines in the movie The Matrix, where Mr. Smith has Morpheous tied up in his office and says to him, "Humans are a disease, they spread out and consume all that is in the area and then move on. Only one other creature does this. A virus." Basically calling humans a cancer among the animal kingdom.

[Peter]

What this is about, all of it, from ethanol to cattle costs to the war in Iraq, is the failure of a free market system that is only backed by a fiat currency.

When the people in charge of economic policies, or policies that have severe economic impact, are free to print as much currency as they choose, then the winner in the end game is the "necessary service or commodity" produced at the least efficent manner. Because the service is "necessary" the government won't let them fail and would rather print money to pay them instead of letting them go bankrupt, as they should in a free market.

We are addicted to the concept that markups and profits should be a fair percentage of costs. If I am selling you a commodity that you cannot operate without (like gasoline, health care, or military defense contractors) then the best thing I can do is be as inefficent as possible. I show you how my costs are so terribly high, and how I only make a tiny percentage of that in profit. Nevermind that the tiny percent can be on the order of tens of billions of dollars.

Ranchers and farmers have been darlings of the American politics for a very long time. With all the give-aways and subsidies passed through legislature for the purpose of "helping the Ma and Pop farmer," is it any wonder that so many of our recent presidents have owned ranches or farms? Jhonson, Carter, Reagan, Bush come to mind. Do these guys really need a subsidy? Heck no, but they have the power to give it to themselves and their croneys and so they do.

Any reasonable economist will tell you that trade barriers and subsidies primarily serve to upset the balance of the free market. Stated another way, inefficiencies creep in. Inefficencies equal higher costs. But as long as there is a fiat curency that can be artificially printed and distributed to the economic system, higer costs for services considered essential result in bigger profits.

Wait. Stop. Get your head around that concept: Greater inefficeincies equals greater profits! Not exactly what they taught you in economics 101 is it? And yet it is the sorry truth as long as the government is willing to continue to print dollars in the basement and stick them into the economy under the guise of "necessary social programs," and "industry bailouts." Or more insidiosly, by transferring tax burdens from the inefficent companies to you, the citizen, it will be true. The guy with the higest cost makes the biggest profits as long as he is propped up by printed, fiat, currency.

The very efficient operator, the one who strives to maintain the lowest cost and price, doesn't make as big a profit as his inefficent competitor. The inefficent compettitor grows fat off of government subsidies and soon gobbles up his very efficent little brother!

The bigest long term offenders have been: militay; social entiltement programs; farming; and oil
Now you can add to that: alternative energy; education and the financial houses of Wall Street.

If we make every school in America teach every child who presents themselves at the front door at a certain performance level determined by their age and not their ability, we have created a completely inefficent model for education. Not that we should turn anyone away, but how about the various "levels" (what we now called grades) simply require a certain distribution of standard courses and a demonstrated level of expertise in those selected subjects. If it takes the Spanish speaking "English as a second language" student a little longer to pass because he takes a year to learn english. No shame. Who cares? In fact he can probably make it right back up by taking several advanced courses in Spanish language. And there is no foul in that either. Heck, he might be the school's next Spanish teacher, right?...Why do we feel the need to provide such a student special bi-lingual teachers and to slow the rest of the student body down to his speed? Conversely if a student can buzz through enough courses to graduate in two years, Bully for him! Why should we be holding him back?

The answer is that the inefficent get the most money, as long as they can convince the people that their service or commodity is necessary.

(Alternatively, the cynical side of me says that government officials want our education system to be so badly broken that the average American cannot figure out how big a billion dollars is. That way they can dupe 'em with stuff like Global Warming, and get the votes to pass themselves fat subsidies. Think I'm kidding? Ask any teenager how many zero's in 1 billion, and how many in a trillion, And how much money will he gross in his lifetime working 40 years at an average salary of $50, 000 per year.)

As the costs of alternative energy poilcies grow in terms of overall infaltion and environmental disruption, what do you suppose is going to happen?

The corn farmers who eventually must "buy" water at a higher prices to produce ethanol will show that they can't possibly supply this essential commodity without more subsidies. Who do you think is going to pay? And the rancher who can only raise a small herd on his land because he is now competeing with the corn farmer for the water will raise the price of his beef. Who is going to pay? And so forth and so on.

Peter