U.S. Water News Online
KALKASKA, Mich. -- Dennis Iott has scooped up another load of potatoes, the bulky harvesting machine spewing dust as it rumbles back and forth. Now he leaps to the ground and activates a computer-operated system to water an adjacent field of rye.
Normally there's no need to irrigate this late in the year, but the fall has been unusually dry. Fortunately for Iott, groundwater is plentiful here in rural northwestern Michigan, even when rain is scarce.
"We can't grow our crop without irrigation,'' says the 48-year-old farmer, who grows seed potatoes for other operations that supply potato chip factories. "It's not a question of making them look pretty. It's a question of survival.''
As vice president of a trade association representing Michigan potato growers, Iott is watching warily as the Council of Great Lakes Governors fine-tunes the Annex 2001 water protection plan.
It eventually could require many farmers to keep records and obtain permits for things such as irrigation and pumping water for livestock from wells and ponds.
Farm groups contend even modest limits on their access to water would be unfair and potentially devastating. But environmentalists say conservation is no longer an option if the region's lakes and other waters are to be protected for future generations.
Agriculture is responsible for nearly one-third of all consumptive use of water in the Great Lakes basin &emdash; water that isn't returned to the system after use, according to the International Joint Commission, a Canadian-U.S. agency.
Twenty-nine percent goes to irrigation, and about 3 percent is used for livestock care.
"Agriculture is a major water user in the basin, and we simply must recognize that &emdash; if we're going to devise a policy that protects our lakes and streams and rivers,'' said Noah Hall, an attorney with the National Wildlife Foundation.
Federal agencies estimate that between 70 and 95 percent of the water used in irrigation is not returned to the source from which it is drawn. It's either used by the plant or evaporates.
On the other hand, agriculture helps replenish groundwater by providing open areas where precipitation can percolate into the soil, said Scott Piggott, agricultural ecologist with the Michigan Farm Bureau.
The Great Lakes Charter Annex Agreement blueprint would require state or, in Canada, provincial permits for new and expanded consumptive withdrawals from the lakes, their tributaries or groundwater averaging 100,000 gallons a day for 120 days.
Approval of six of the eight states would be needed for withdrawals averaging more than 5 million gallons.
The fact that the rules would apply only to new and expanded uses, not existing ones, doesn't satisfy critics who resent the idea that regulations are needed to make farmers conserve.
"Farmers get a little bit annoyed when it's suggested that they're wasteful,'' said Josh Wunsch, a cherry grower on Old Mission Peninsula north of Traverse City. "We irrigate when it's necessary, and when it's not we don't.''
Supporters of Annex 2001 point out that it makes a big concession to farmers by basing the rules on average water use over 120 days.
The original Great Lakes Charter of 1985, which calls for consultation among the states and provinces before major withdrawals are allowed, is based on a 30-day standard.
Environmentalists believe it should stay that way, aware that many farmers irrigate heavily for only two or three months a year.
"That means some seasonal users, including agriculture, will be virtually exempt, and we think that's unfair,'' said Molly Flanagan of the Ohio Environmental Council.
Farmers oppose returning to the 30-day standard. "It's not an accurate picture of water use over a year,'' Piggott said.
Regulating water use can be a hard sell in Michigan, he said, where swampland had to be drained to create farm fields. For many farmers, the biggest concern in springtime is "how to get water moved away so they can plant,'' he said.
But that doesn't mean Michigan farm country is immune from water shortages. A dispute in Saginaw County, where rural residents accused farms of pumping too much water and leaving the neighbors' wells dry, helped inspire a new state law last year. It established a panel to study groundwater issues and guide rule-making..
Dennis Iott and his brother, Greg, who have grown potatoes for 30 years, don't have to worry about groundwater shortages. In Kalkaska County, the ground is so wet at times that they worry about losing their crop to a blight caused by moisture.
Still, dry spells are common in July and August and water seeps easily through the sandy soil. So the Iotts turn to irrigation, using well above 100,000 gallons daily.
If the final version of Annex 2001 reverts to the 30-day permitting threshold, "we could have a real problem,'' Iott says. While their current operations wouldn't be affected, they might decide to expand someday, he said.
They use a "center-pivot'' irrigating system &emdash; a quarter-mile-long sprinkler device that rotates slowly on large tires, soaking the ground with a misty spray that Iott likens to a gentle spring rain.
"Just the electricity alone costs several thousand dollars a month, and then you have the equipment, the wells, all the rest,'' Iott says. "We have plenty of incentive not to irrigate when it isn't necessary.''
Hall, who helped draft the Annex 2001 implementing plan now under review, said it isn't meant to run farmers out of business.
But irrigation has increased 25 percent over the past half-century in the Great Lakes region, making it a leading example of the need for more efficient use of water, he said.
"We need to consider not just what's happening now, but where the trends are headed,'' Hall said.
Return to the U.S. Water News Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields