Farmers are depleting the Ogallala Aquifer because the government pays them
to do it
November 9, 2020 8.13am EST
Authors
Matthew R Sanderson
Professor of Sociology and Professor of Geography and Geospatial Sciences,
Kansas State University
Burke Griggs
Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University
Jacob A. Miller
PhD Student in Sociology, Kansas State University
Disclosure statement
Matthew R Sanderson has received funding from the U.S. National Science
Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Burke W. Griggs has received funding from the National Science Foundation
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Jacob A. Miller has received funding from the National Science Foundation.
The Conversation
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative
Commons license.
A slow-moving crisis threatens the U.S. Central Plains, which grow a quarter
of the nation's crops. Underground, the region's lifeblood - water - is
disappearing, placing one of the world's major food-producing regions at
risk.
The Ogallala-High Plains Aquifer is one of the world's largest groundwater
sources, extending from South Dakota down through the Texas Panhandle across
portions of eight states. Its water supports US$35 billion in crop
production each year.
But farmers are pulling water out of the Ogallala faster than rain and snow
can recharge it. Between 1900 and 2008 they drained some 89 trillion gallons
from the aquifer - equivalent to two-thirds of Lake Erie. Depletion is
threatening drinking water supplies and undermining local communities
already struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid crisis, hospital
closures, soaring farm losses and rising suicide rates.
Map showing changing Ogallala Aquifer water levels over the past century
Changes in Ogallala water levels from before the aquifer was tapped in the
early 20th century to 2015. Gray indicates no significant change. Water
levels have risen in some areas, especially Nebraska, but are mostly in
decline. NCA 2018
In Kansas, "Day Zero" - the day wells run dry - has arrived for about 30% of
the aquifer. Within 50 years, the entire aquifer is expected be 70%
depleted.
Some observers blame this situation on periodic drought. Others point to
farmers, since irrigation accounts for 90% of Ogallala groundwater
withdrawals. But our research, which focuses on social and legal aspects of
water use in agricultural communities, shows that farmers are draining the
Ogallala because state and federal policies encourage them to do it.
A production treadmill
At first glance, farmers on the Plains appear to be doing well in 2020. Crop
production increased this year. Corn, the largest crop in the U.S., had a
near-record year, and farm incomes increased by 5.7% over 2019.
But those figures hide massive government payments to farmers. Federal
subsidies increased by a remarkable 65% this year, totaling $37.2 billion.
This sum includes money for lost exports from escalating trade wars, as well
as COVID-19-related relief payments. Corn prices were too low to cover the
cost of growing it this year, with federal subsidies making up the
difference.
Our research finds that subsidies put farmers on a treadmill, working harder
to produce more while draining the resource that supports their livelihood.
Government payments create a vicious cycle of overproduction that
intensifies water use. Subsidies encourage farmers to expand and buy
expensive equipment to irrigate larger areas.
Irrigation pump in field
Irrigation pump in Haskell County, Kansas. Matthew Sanderson/Kansas State
University, CC BY-ND
With low market prices for many crops, production does not cover expenses on
most farms. To stay afloat, many farmers buy or lease more acres. Growing
larger amounts floods the market, further reducing crop prices and farm
incomes. Subsidies support this cycle.
Few benefit, especially small and midsized operations. In a 2019 study of
the region's 234 counties from 1980 to 2010, we found that larger irrigated
acreage failed to increase incomes or improve education or health outcomes
for residents.
Focus on policy, not farmers
Four decades of federal, state and local conservation efforts have mainly
targeted individual farmers, providing ways for them to voluntarily reduce
water use or adopt more water-efficient technologies.
While these initiatives are important, they haven't stemmed the aquifer's
decline. In our view, what the Ogallala Aquifer region really needs is
policy change.
A lot can be done at the federal level, but the first principle should be
"do no harm." Whenever federal agencies have tried to regulate groundwater,
the backlash has been swift and intense, with farm states' congressional
representatives repudiating federal jurisdiction over groundwater.
Nor should Congress propose to eliminate agricultural subsidies, as some
environmental organizations and free-market advocates have proposed. 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.S. Department of Agriculture's
Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers to allow environmentally sensitive
farmland to lie fallow for at least 10 years. 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. SNAP payments, which increase needy
families' food budgets, are an important tool for addressing poverty.
Increasing these payments and adding financial assistance to local
communities could offset lower tax revenues that result from from farming
less acreage.
A 40-year sequence of false-color satellite images shows the spread of
center-pivot irrigation around Dalhart, Texas from 1972 to 2011. The
equipment creates circular patterns as a sprinkler rotates around a well
pivot.
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.
Rewriting state water laws
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. For more than a century
courts have upheld state restrictions on waste, with rulings that allow for
adaptation by modifying the definitions of "beneficial use" and "waste" over
time.
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.
[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
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. They will need help from policymakers to do it. Forty
years is long enough to learn that the Ogallala Aquifer's decline is not
driven by weather or by individual farmers' preferences. Depletion is a
structural problem embedded in agricultural policies. Groundwater depletion
is a policy choice made by federal, state and local officials.
