[EXCERPT: ... a boom in cattle and pig operations has stretched [the
water] supply to the limits. ... cheap subsidised water has spurred
people (and farmers in particular) to overuse it.]



http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVDTTNG


The Great Plains: Turning off the taps
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Amid all the other problems a growing need for new pipelines

THERE was a time when clean, sweet water bubbled up from wells in
Hull. But like other Iowan towns, Hull's shallow aquifers left its
water supply vulnerable to contamination. Pesticides and fertiliser
leaked from local farms, raising sulphate levels in the well water
and wreaking havoc on newcomers' digestive systems. Ten years ago,
Hull capped its wells and turned to its neighbours for clean water.
Now a boom in cattle and pig operations has stretched that supply to
the limits. Without a new source of clean water, the town's future
prosperity is doubtful.

Hull may be a harbinger of a drier future on the northern Plains. The
town is one of many in the area whose groundwater has been
contaminated by farm chemicals. Hull is one of 15 towns and five
rural water systems, including South Dakota's biggest city, Sioux
Falls, that have hitched their futures to the Lewis and Clark Rural
Water System (LCRWS), a big new pipeline, which in theory will pump
45m gallons a day from the Missouri river to about 200,000 people
thinly spread out across South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa.

Dennis Healy, the boss of the Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water System in
south-western Minnesota, calls the LCRWS, which is due to open in
2018, "our only viable option for a future water source". The towns
and water systems that will benefit from the LCRWS have agreed to
bear 10% of the project's estimated $420m price tag, and Sioux Falls
has agreed to pay even more. But much of the rest is supposed to come
from the federal government. Getting the cash is a priority for the
region's senators.

For most of the last century the federal government was eager to help
farmers turn the semi-arid northern plains into arable farmland. But
that support has waned, along with the rural population. Minnesota,
Iowa, North and South Dakota already receive almost $3 billion in
agricultural subsidies. Last year, Congress rather grumpily agreed to
hand over half the $35m the LCRWS's backers wanted. This year, George
Bush's budget offers $21m-$6m more than the project got last year but
well below the requested $53m.

Without full funding, completion will be delayed several years,
leaving many towns high and dry. Last year, Sioux Falls nearly
tripled its requested stake in the project, from 10m gallons a day to
27m gallons. The city grew by 20% between 1990 and 2000. But city
officials say water shortages may crimp growth as soon as 2012.

The story is much the same in the northern Plains states. North
Dakota is revisiting a huge, 40-year-old project called the Garrison
Diversion to deal with water shortages in the Red River Valley. The
LCRWS is one of 13 water projects proposed or under development in
the northern plains that seek federal money to redistribute water.

But is the answer really to lay new pipes? Natural-resource experts
point out that cheap subsidised water has spurred people (and farmers
in particular) to overuse it. Tom Power, an economist at the
University of Montana, says projects like the LCRWS are "nuts. The
last thing you want is federal subsidies for the consumption of
resources, especially given the [water] scarcity we face across the
West."

From this perspective, the long-term future is not more federal
money, but less, to force farmers to start trading water with the
towns. Those creaking pipes may yet be the beginning of a water
revolution.