Defending Action in Farm-Water Suit Taps into Foolishness: Denver Post

Home Browse Search

rieaao�j' ..._ 7 .. .,.. Defending action in farm-water suit taps into foolishness Newspapers often must' turn a deaf ear when a politician says something stupid at the Colora- do Legislature. If you had to print a story every time a lawmaker looked silly, there would be no room left' to publish a comics page. This week, though, one state senator. truly distinguished. himself in the legisla- tive circus. When a federal court ruled that Colorado farmers were consuming illegally large quantities of water from the Arkansas River Valley, state Sen. Jim Rizzuto was indignant. "All we do is lose cases anymore," said Rizzuto, whose southeastern Colorado district includes most of the farmers. "I'd like to win one once." Fine whine, Mr. Rizzuto. But some tax - payers also would like your constituents to stop breakiV the law. The legislature's unapologetic defense of this giant farm -water lawsuit has ex- acted a heavy toll on Colorado, both fi- nancially and environmentally. In the past four decades, state regula- tors let farmers in the Arkansas River Valley, go on a well- drilling binge. Trial evidence indicated that these farm wells -.took 159 billion gallons from the ri Lr as much water as the entire city of Den- ver uses in four years. - Unfortunately, nobody bothered to check whether all that farm water con - sumption was legal. Much wasn't. On Monday, a federal judgerruled that owners of 2,000 Colorado irrigation wells were guzzling water that rightfully belonged to Kansas. Now the Kansas attorney general says Colorado taxpayers owe $100 million in damage's, a claim that still is to be determined. WHAT'S INFURIATING is that this large mess was created by such a small group of farmers. In the nine years since Kansas sued Colorado over Arkansas River flows, Riz- zuto and the legislature spent $8 million ,;to bail out local fanners with a top -notch courtroom defense. That works ,put to a public expenditure of $4,000 for every law- breaking well owner. Why didn't those farmers pay more to fight their own legal battle? Even state Attorney General Gale Norton concedes the court ruling is unlikely to affect wa- ter users outside the Arkansas.River Val- ley. Yet the whole cost of the court bill — and any resulting financial penalties — 'will be borne by all Colorado taxpayers. It's a sweet deal when farmers can harvest all the economic benefits of ille- gal water use but then foist the expensive consequences onto other taxpayers. It also is tough to ignore the environ- mental costs of some ego -go Arkansas River agricultuae. State records show on- ly one -fifth of the Water that.starts flow- ing in the river ever reaches the state line; the rest is diverted and consumed along the way, mainly by farmers. Such intensive irrigation has laden the land with alarming quantities of salts and pesticides. In Crowley County, thousands of acres were polluted so heavily by farmers that government land, managers have struggled mightily to get something, anything, to grow on. it without using chemicals or unnatural flows of water. This, in prairie land that once was rich enough to support vast herds of buffalo. TO BE SURE, orAy a fool would Ulhto kill farming in the Arkansas River Val- ley. But only a fool would defend all of it at any cost. Instead of spending so much time and money complaining that the state is los- ing big farm -water lawsuits; legislators should start to consider why. Mark Obmascik's environmental column appears on Saturday in DAnver & The West.,* T�