My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HoleInTheRiverHistoryOfGroundwater
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
HoleInTheRiverHistoryOfGroundwater
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:17:39 PM
Creation date
10/8/2007 9:36:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8420.500
Description
South Platte River Basin Task Force
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Date
7/12/2007
Author
Nicolai A. Kryloff
Title
Hole In the River Draft Report Submitted to SPTF
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
But human conceptions of water’s meaning and purpose also influenced <br />groundwater use in the South Platte valley. The interplay of opposing perspectives <br />shaped attitudes about groundw ater’s proper use and management. In the 1930s, drought- <br />stricken farmers, scrambling to save th eir crops, tapped common underground supplies <br />with little restrain t or regulation. By the 1950s, however, as depletions became <br />undeniable in many places, most western states sought to control groundwater in order to <br />conserve it. In Colorado, sc ientists and engineers regard ed groundwater as a vulnerable <br />resource that required protection to prolong its use, and they were among the first to call <br />for state regulation. But while scientists saw primarily a physical resource in need of <br />conservation, lawmakers encountered an abst ract web of overlapp ing property rights – <br />both groundwater rights that required recogni tion and definition, and established surface- <br />water rights that demanded legal protection. Ca ught between these exte rnal perspectives <br />were farmers, many of whom perceived ac cess to groundwater in terms of economic <br />survival. To produce irrigated cash crops such as sugar beets and corn, they sought to <br />achieve local control over this vital part of their enterpri se, while also recognizing the <br />wide diversity of local conditions that st andardized management constraints would <br />overlook. They saw groundwater primarily as an economic necessity and sought to <br />altered substantially by people, its natural character also endured. Likewise, Mark Fiege has argued that <br />people could not eradicate nature from western agricu ltural landscapes despite their intensive efforts at <br />environmental mastery. Both studies emphasized the blurred boundaries between people and their natural <br />surroundings, illustrating that society and environment do not function in isolation but rather in dialogue, <br />each reshaping the other. See Fiege, Irrigated Eden: The Making of an Agricultural Landscape in the <br />American West (Seattle: University of Washin gton Press, 1999); and White, The Organic Machine: The <br />Remaking of the Columbia River (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995). For histories of groundwater in <br />confined aquifers, see Geoff Cunfer, On the Great Plains (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, <br />( <br />2005); John Opie, Ogallalla : Water for a Dry Land Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993); <br />Theodore Steinberg, Slide Mountain, or the Folly of Owning Nature ( Berkeley: University of California <br />Press, 1995), 82-105. For a comparison of groundwate r law across the west, see Robert G. Dunbar, “The <br />Adaptation of Groundwater Control Institutions to the Arid West,” Agricultural History 51 (1977): 677. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.