The Ogallala Aquifer Summit took place in Liberal last month. About 200 stakeholders gathered to hear discussions about the future of irrigated agriculture in those areas that overlay the Ogallala. Given publicity about the decline of the water levels in the Ogallala, one might have surmised that a consensus would be apparent about the severity of the decline and the reality that inaction is not a solution.
Various “white papers” were presented from organizations in the states that overlay the Ogallala. Two results stood out when I reviewed the fine print.
In one survey of 206 producers from throughout the Ogallala area, the report noted that “a majority of producers do not feel personally responsible for groundwater depletion and do not believe they need to minimize or reduce their groundwater use.” (Emphasis added.) Further, in late 2023, a survey was done among 51 agriculture producers in the Oklahoma Panhandle. One of the conclusions from the survey was that only 60% of respondents believe that groundwater decline was a “serious problem.”
The difficult reality is that continuing the status quo regarding use of the Ogallala is unsustainable.
One impression that an outside observer might draw from what I just noted is that some kind of alternate reality must be at play. The numbers do not lie. The decline of the Ogallala is well documented. How is one to save it when there are attitudes of doubt?
As a fifth-generation farmer, I have seen many changes in agriculture in my lifetime. What remains little changed, however, is an attitude of independence and resistance to “outsiders” making decisions that affect one’s farm. My comment is not intended as some kind of personal criticism of farmers. Almost to a person, they have a love for the land and clear desire for self-determination.
All of this said, we are in a changing world. Ten years ago, there was little talk about climate change. Social, economic and environmental factors have transformed the landscape faced by most farmers. We live in a world where farm-level decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. Instead, we must consider their impact on the bigger picture.
The difficult reality is that continuing the status quo regarding use of the Ogallala is unsustainable.
There cannot be any doubt about that. When a large portion of the economy at local and state levels is built on premises that no longer mesh with reality, there are really only two types of solution. First, it can be top down, where change is imposed by higher levels of government. Second, it can come from a combination of local and state input.
In other words, a collaborative effort. Even though someone living in Lawrence might think that what happens in Tribune does not have any impact, the reality is that it does. The entire state of Kansas will suffer if the Ogallala continues to decline.
Several of the white papers presented in Liberal suggested that the adoption of technology to measure, and manage, water has been slow in many areas. Anecdotal evidence from my own network in the High Plains region is in line with those studies.
That is astonishing! I suspect the reason is that farmers are geared toward production, production, production. Of the many lessons learned over the years, one of the top five is that the highest crop yield does not automatically translate into the highest profit. What really matters is how efficient one can be with the available resources. What level of production yields the most sustainable result?
The mentality has to change.
In summary, acknowledging reality and making changes are tough when a pattern has prevailed for generations. To my way of thinking, there are some benchmarks along the path to preserving the Ogallala:
• Financial incentives from state and other government entities to use water-saving technology.
