Which Came First – The Answer Or The Math?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As the University of Nevada and the government agency (Bureau Of Reclamation) which is supposed to be evaluating the desired end result of purchasing agricultural water rights from willing sellers in the Nevada reaches of the Walker River, they will probably be deciding on the merits of moving forward with plan to buy up water using their “research” as justification that the end result will be a good idea. Last week in Yerington, University researchers came to town to share their final report (although they didn’t actually have a final report in hand and a couple of alternative agricultural projects are still being carried out).
Those who attended the presentation were shown the highlights of some of what the findings indicate, there is also a 1092 page document you can review to get the actual details of the science they carried out to reach their pre-determined objectives. Yes, the chief spokesperson for the project, University Chancellor Dan Klaich admitted the end result was to get the water they were told by Senator Reid to get. Getting whatever water they can buy for the $56 million earmarked for that purpose is what this has always been about – but, we’re all supposed to believe that in this new venture of acquiring as much water as they can get, the University is being cooperative and collaborative.
No small amount of bile was expelled by those associated with the project for the Director of the Nevada Department of Agriculture, Tony Lesperance, for his report that indicated as its conclusion that the area and the state couldn’t afford to be doing what this project is working to do – get as much water as possible out of agriculture and into Walker Lake. They didn’t take too kindly to the suggestion that their project was actually geared to acquiring water for Las Vegas or Los Angeles and the economic researchers felt that their analysis should be the more authoritative word on the subject of what would be a possible outcome, since they put their report through the peer-review process, having lots of other economic gurus consider whether they did all the right figuring to get to their conclusions.
Having read the economic portion of the report, it is interesting to note that as they evaluated three different examples of what might happen and then did the economic evaluation of how it would all pencil out (using a computer and a fancy model as opposed to an actual pencil) only one of the three approaches didn’t end up in the hole.
The one approach that did result in a positive financial gain, gets to where it gets to on the basis of a number of assumptions that include 35 percent of the water coming from total buy-outs; 10 percent of the water coming from changes in the crop rotation plans with saved water being sold; 41 percent of the water coming from producers who keep farming, but do so by changing to less water consuming crops and selling the “saved water”; and, lastly getting 14 percent of the water from some other source than agricultural water.
As you read through the assumptions that get them to a place where the end result answer is not red, you’ve got to ask yourself the likelihood of all of these stars lining up in such a perfect sync to accomplish the positive outcome being projected. Even if the folks involved wanted to follow the plan to the letter of the details required to get the right answer – I’m not so sure that you could actually achieve production from the lack of water they suggest would be used.
Then again the end result was to come up with a positive economic answer – just because it won’t work is not the fault of the economists who did the figuring.
As the University of Nevada and the government agency (Bureau Of Reclamation) which is supposed to be evaluating the desired end result of purchasing agricultural water rights from willing sellers in the Nevada reaches of the Walker River, they will probably be deciding on the merits of moving forward with plan to buy up water using their “research” as justification that the end result will be a good idea. Last week in Yerington, University researchers came to town to share their final report (although they didn’t actually have a final report in hand and a couple of alternative agricultural projects are still being carried out).
Those who attended the presentation were shown the highlights of some of what the findings indicate, there is also a 1092 page document you can review to get the actual details of the science they carried out to reach their pre-determined objectives. Yes, the chief spokesperson for the project, University Chancellor Dan Klaich admitted the end result was to get the water they were told by Senator Reid to get. Getting whatever water they can buy for the $56 million earmarked for that purpose is what this has always been about – but, we’re all supposed to believe that in this new venture of acquiring as much water as they can get, the University is being cooperative and collaborative.
No small amount of bile was expelled by those associated with the project for the Director of the Nevada Department of Agriculture, Tony Lesperance, for his report that indicated as its conclusion that the area and the state couldn’t afford to be doing what this project is working to do – get as much water as possible out of agriculture and into Walker Lake. They didn’t take too kindly to the suggestion that their project was actually geared to acquiring water for Las Vegas or Los Angeles and the economic researchers felt that their analysis should be the more authoritative word on the subject of what would be a possible outcome, since they put their report through the peer-review process, having lots of other economic gurus consider whether they did all the right figuring to get to their conclusions.
Having read the economic portion of the report, it is interesting to note that as they evaluated three different examples of what might happen and then did the economic evaluation of how it would all pencil out (using a computer and a fancy model as opposed to an actual pencil) only one of the three approaches didn’t end up in the hole.
The one approach that did result in a positive financial gain, gets to where it gets to on the basis of a number of assumptions that include 35 percent of the water coming from total buy-outs; 10 percent of the water coming from changes in the crop rotation plans with saved water being sold; 41 percent of the water coming from producers who keep farming, but do so by changing to less water consuming crops and selling the “saved water”; and, lastly getting 14 percent of the water from some other source than agricultural water.
As you read through the assumptions that get them to a place where the end result answer is not red, you’ve got to ask yourself the likelihood of all of these stars lining up in such a perfect sync to accomplish the positive outcome being projected. Even if the folks involved wanted to follow the plan to the letter of the details required to get the right answer – I’m not so sure that you could actually achieve production from the lack of water they suggest would be used.
Then again the end result was to come up with a positive economic answer – just because it won’t work is not the fault of the economists who did the figuring.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/29/2009 7:43 AM 
Categories: Walker River
Tags: Walker River Basin Project Water Grab
Categories: Walker River
Tags: Walker River Basin Project Water Grab
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." Mark Twain.
In our State of Nevada, as well as most other Western States many of our local problems arise from Politicians in Washington D.C. debating and dividing the natural resources of the West amongst themselves and their backers who hope to profit from these resources, but never live here.
It is time those Western Lands not required and justified on a case by case basis for National Defense, or as the Home of Native American Tribes as agreed to by treaty, be surrendered at no cost to each of the Western States where the land resides. The same holds for water that is not adjoining two or more states.
As an adjunct, the recent attempt by the EPA to extend their power to any water resource must be stopped.
Bill Parson
http://parsonforsenate2010.com/
Reply to this