Laserfiche WebLink
intimately knowledgeable about the daily ex perience of groundwater irrigation. Their <br />lack of solidarity on many issues pointed to the individualistic ch aracter of groundwater <br />use at the time. While surface-water user s had been associated with cooperative <br />endeavors since practically the beginning of irrigation – ditch companies, irrigation <br />districts, reclamation project s – groundwater users had no su ch ties, needing only to bore <br />a shaft through their own land and install a pump. This i ndividualism reflected the <br />cacophony of opinions captured by researchers’ interviews. <br />Despite a lack of agreement on many point s, certain refrains rang clear. While <br />researchers focused mainly on resource de pletion, many farmers saw underground water <br />as part of an economic investment. “The land is worthless without the water,” one said. <br />“We have paid so much for what’s on top,” echoed another, “we need what’s underneath <br />to make a decent living.” Similar language r ecurred throughout the interviews: “I bought <br />the land because the water was there, and I gave the price for not one, but both.” In all, 70 <br />64 <br />percent said landowners should cont rol the water undern eath their soil. This attitude <br />was not simply a manifestation of ignorance or insatiable greed. Groundwater irrigation <br />was a costly enterprise that often required substantial credit to initiate. For many farmers, <br />loss of groundwater would mean insurmountable debt and financial ruin. Loss of control <br />over their wells would amount to losing a job and a home all at once, while being saddled <br />with mountainous debt on top. In contrast to scientists who advocated collective <br />management to prevent resource depletion, farm ers more often concep tualized the control <br />of groundwater as the lynchpin to their investments and livelihoods. <br />Most tellingly, groundwater us ers in the Bijou Basin em phasized a broad diversity <br />of local conditions, not easily reduced to unif orm rules or regulations. Intimately familiar <br />64 <br /> Farmer, 101-105. <br />22 <br />