WSP01366 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\~Q... 1)1:1. ",J<>-...- v~ 1=<<...10. IG,I'\"IL\ Defending action in farm-water suit taps into foolishness "Newspapers oHen must lurn~. f..L: r., deaf ear when a politician says S:J~; '~'_ something stupid at the Colora- 11..,' ~. do Legislature. H 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 l" truly distinguished. himself in the legisla- tive circus. When a Cederal court ruled that Colorado farmers were consuming illegally large quantities of water from "tbe Arkansas River Valley, state SeD. Jim . Rizzulo was indignant. '. "All we do is lose cases anymore," said Rizzuto, whose southeastern Colorado district includes most of the farmers. "I'd In the past four decades, state regula- like to win one once." tors let farmers in the Arkansas River Fine whine, Mr~ Rizzuto. But some tal. Valley go on a well-drilling binge.:..J'rial payers also would like your constituents eVidence rndlcated that these farm wells ~._.~ stop breakiftl tbe law. ;took~.:!_bilIiEn gallons from the ri\'I!r- The legislature's unapologetic defense of this giant farm-water lawsuit has ex- acted a heavy toll on Colorado, both fi. . nancially and environmentally. . as much water as the entire city of Den- I ver uses in fpur years. . Unfortunately,' nobody bothered to check whether all that fann water con- swnption was legal. . . Much, wasn't. On Monday,. a federal . judge rUled that owners of 2,000 Colorado . ir;rigaUon.wells were guzzling' water that . Tlghtfully belonged to Kansas. Now the Kansas' attorney general says Colorado taxpayers owe $100 million in damages, a claim that stm is to be dete~. WHAT'S INFURIATING'is that this large mess was created by such a small group of farmers. In the nine years. since Kansas sued ColoradQ over Arkansas River nows., Riz- zuto and the legislature spent $8 million to bail out local fanners with a top-notch co~m_ defense. That workst?ut to a public expenditure of $4,000 for every law-breaking well owner. Why didn't tbose fanners pay more to fight their own legal battle? Even state . Attorney General Gale Norton concedes . the court ruling is unlik.ely to aHect wa- ter users outside the Arkansas River Val- lej. 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 tougb to ignore the environ- mental costs of some go-go Arkansas River agriculture. State records show on- ly one-fi.Uh 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 cymen. Such intensive irrigation has laden the land with alanning quantities of salts and pesticides. In Crowley County, thousands of acres were polluted' so heavily by rarmers 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 or buffalo. TO BE SURE, only a fool would try to kin fanning in the Arkansas River Val.- ley. But only a fool would defend aU 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 Obmasclk's environmental column appears on Saturday In t>>nver & The Wesl . "'- '. ' , . .. . -'. ' " . '. - . " . ~3....