Walker River Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Numbers Show That Impact Will Be Huge (Post 7)
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Because the University of Nevada is supposed to be our state’s Land Grant University, the impression of them being the reason for wiping out the state’s largest agricultural county is something that they would like to avoid. It isn’t to say that they aren’t going to be involved in doing just that – but, they don’t want to get all the credit for being responsible. That’s one of the reasons why the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (which they don’t have to follow anyway) tries to soft pedal the economic impact of buying out water to put into Walker Lake. It is also the reason why they are so bothered by the paper that the Director for the Nevada Department of Agriculture, Dr. Tony Lesperance, put out which projects significant impacts if they go after the water they need to get in order to do the good they say they are wanting to do.
Having spent some time in trying to figure out the differences between the Bartholet figures used ($529 per acre of land) and the Lesperance figures ($602 per acre foot of water) I have been able to see where the Bartholet numbers come from. The calculations, I believe, are based on using alfalfa as the crop in question and determining the average net value ($119) and then multiplying that value by an average water duty of 4 acre feet of water. This figure is then further calculated to take into account production practices which have six growing seasons, followed by a year of non-production (fallowed). When you average the seven years together you end up with a $529 average, per acre value. In their model, if you use a grain crop as the off-year rotation, the average value increases to $616 per acre of land.
As things stand, with the University of Nevada holding only $56 million in funds for water right purchases, it won’t have the impact that buying out the 82,000 acre feet of water that supporters want to purchase (in order to get what they think will be 50,000 acre feet of water into Walker Lake). Having said that, there is going to be a lot more money than what the University had given to it by Senator Harry Reid for purchases. Senator Reid earmarked an additional $200,000 in the 2008 Farm Bill for more purchases (and this time he doesn’t have to route the money through the University System to get around the prohibition that was in the earlier funding authority).
It’s unknown what will happen after the University gets done spending their money. How things will operate to deal with the water they have purchased and how that will match up with the additional funds, targeted for buying up water, has not been explained.
To put into scale the consequences of the water purchases being envisioned, let’s consider the crop (alfalfa) that the DEIS uses for their calculations. Based on the information in the Bartholet assessment, alfalfa production accounts for just under 68 percent of the crop production in Mason Valley and nearly 56 percent of the crops in Smith Valley.
If alfalfa production were to be the crop taken out for the water sale 55 percent of the total alfalfa acres in the two valleys would be nixed to get to the amounts of water for the 50,000 acre feet of water into Walker Lake. This includes production taken out for all three of the possible combinations for water used (some of the water comes from underground pumping, some from Walker River water and the majority being a combination of both underground and river water).
If the fields removed from production came in the form of only irrigation water exclusively originating from river water, all crop production (not just alfalfa) would need to be taken out and that would still fall short by 30 percent of the 82,000 acre feet of desired water.
When put into perspective, the effort to make it seem like this amount of water removal is no big deal, doesn’t pass the straight-face test, unless maybe if you are connected with the University trying to make it seem that you’re not trying to destroy the state’s top agricultural county.
For other post on comments prepared for the DEIS, please use this link to reach the category grouping for our evaluation of the Walker River Acquisition Program.
We also hope that you will plan on attending the various local public meetings that have been scheduled:
Because the University of Nevada is supposed to be our state’s Land Grant University, the impression of them being the reason for wiping out the state’s largest agricultural county is something that they would like to avoid. It isn’t to say that they aren’t going to be involved in doing just that – but, they don’t want to get all the credit for being responsible. That’s one of the reasons why the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (which they don’t have to follow anyway) tries to soft pedal the economic impact of buying out water to put into Walker Lake. It is also the reason why they are so bothered by the paper that the Director for the Nevada Department of Agriculture, Dr. Tony Lesperance, put out which projects significant impacts if they go after the water they need to get in order to do the good they say they are wanting to do.
Having spent some time in trying to figure out the differences between the Bartholet figures used ($529 per acre of land) and the Lesperance figures ($602 per acre foot of water) I have been able to see where the Bartholet numbers come from. The calculations, I believe, are based on using alfalfa as the crop in question and determining the average net value ($119) and then multiplying that value by an average water duty of 4 acre feet of water. This figure is then further calculated to take into account production practices which have six growing seasons, followed by a year of non-production (fallowed). When you average the seven years together you end up with a $529 average, per acre value. In their model, if you use a grain crop as the off-year rotation, the average value increases to $616 per acre of land.
As things stand, with the University of Nevada holding only $56 million in funds for water right purchases, it won’t have the impact that buying out the 82,000 acre feet of water that supporters want to purchase (in order to get what they think will be 50,000 acre feet of water into Walker Lake). Having said that, there is going to be a lot more money than what the University had given to it by Senator Harry Reid for purchases. Senator Reid earmarked an additional $200,000 in the 2008 Farm Bill for more purchases (and this time he doesn’t have to route the money through the University System to get around the prohibition that was in the earlier funding authority).
It’s unknown what will happen after the University gets done spending their money. How things will operate to deal with the water they have purchased and how that will match up with the additional funds, targeted for buying up water, has not been explained.
To put into scale the consequences of the water purchases being envisioned, let’s consider the crop (alfalfa) that the DEIS uses for their calculations. Based on the information in the Bartholet assessment, alfalfa production accounts for just under 68 percent of the crop production in Mason Valley and nearly 56 percent of the crops in Smith Valley.
If alfalfa production were to be the crop taken out for the water sale 55 percent of the total alfalfa acres in the two valleys would be nixed to get to the amounts of water for the 50,000 acre feet of water into Walker Lake. This includes production taken out for all three of the possible combinations for water used (some of the water comes from underground pumping, some from Walker River water and the majority being a combination of both underground and river water).
If the fields removed from production came in the form of only irrigation water exclusively originating from river water, all crop production (not just alfalfa) would need to be taken out and that would still fall short by 30 percent of the 82,000 acre feet of desired water.
When put into perspective, the effort to make it seem like this amount of water removal is no big deal, doesn’t pass the straight-face test, unless maybe if you are connected with the University trying to make it seem that you’re not trying to destroy the state’s top agricultural county.
For other post on comments prepared for the DEIS, please use this link to reach the category grouping for our evaluation of the Walker River Acquisition Program.
We also hope that you will plan on attending the various local public meetings that have been scheduled:
- Monday, August 17 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Reno – Rancho San Rafael County Park, Main Ranch House, 1595 N. Sierra ST.
- Tuesday, August 18 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Yerington – Casino West Convention Center, 11 North Main St.
- Wednesday, August 19 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Wellington – Smith Valley Community Center, 2783 Highway 208
- Thursday, August 20, (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Hawthorne – Mineral County Public Library, First & “A” Street
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/7/2009 9:49 AM 
Categories: Walker River DEIS
Tags: University of Nevada Walker River Acquisition
Categories: Walker River DEIS
Tags: University of Nevada Walker River Acquisition
The plot to get all the water begins to unfold with this past weeks announcement that the Walker River irrigation District will get $25 million of another $75.7 million Senator Reid has secured. The $25 million will be to start the water leasing program for those who trust the district more than the Senator.The University will get another $25 to keep its program going and continue its world class research- including alterantive crops, and don't forget the $200,000 for alternative crops and agriculture cooperatives because the senator supports the agriculture communities of Northern Nevada. It won't stop until there is a change in Washington!
Reply to this