Laserfiche WebLink
with the land on which they farmed and liv ed, irrigators pointe d out incongruities not <br />accounted for by standardized le gal propositions. They especi ally emphasized differences <br />in crops and soils: “The sandhi ll farmer does not farm his land by choice, but by <br />necessity,” one commented. “He should not be penalized or otherwise discriminated <br />65 <br />against merely because he is on marginal land.” Similar objections were cited against <br />proposed rules for well-spacing: “Topography li mits well locations,” another said, “…a <br />66 <br />fair distance in one place would be unfair in another.” If regulations were inevitable, <br />most farmers favored at least some degr ee of local control “t o take account of <br />67 <br />dissimilarities.” In all, nearly 80 percent of respondents advocated purely local <br />administration of groundwater resources, and 94 percent wanted at least some local <br />68 <br />involvement. If regulation was necessary, farmers sought a flexible system that would <br />account for this diversity of natural conditions. <br /> But these attitudes did nothing to reverse groundwater depletions. By <br />conceptualizing the aquifer beneath them as a chain of individual investments, no matter <br />how critical to their economic survival, most farmers failed to account for its connections <br />to a larger hydrological system. Moreover, disparities in local conditions complicated any <br />search for equitable management. By enc ouraging pumping to continue in spite of <br />depletion, these attitudes threatened to upset the tentative balance between water use and <br />supply. Code predicted a “dark and discourag ing” future for regions where groundwater <br />65 <br /> Farmer, 96. <br />66 <br /> Farmer, 91. <br />67 <br /> Farmer, 98. <br />68 <br /> Farmer, 105. <br />23 <br />