|
Water Reductions and You Steve Smith – WaterClaim A $54 million dollar loss to the community is difficult to imagine. Numbers on paper do not mean a lot until we see how they affect our personal lives. So, let’s investigate. Ray Supalla, UNL, recently completed a study for Southwest Public Power District, along with about 20 other utilities, banks, and coops. We believe this study significantly underestimates many things, but we will use the study’s numbers as a best-case scenario. The study says 55-65% of the estimated loss will occur in Perkins, Chase, and Dundy counties. Most of that will be focused on Chase and Dundy -- where the streams are located. Farms next to streams must make much greater cuts than those far from the streams. According to Supalla, the loss will be about $54,000,000 for these three counties (about 330 jobs, in his estimation).
In this table, we estimate the lost jobs by sector, using Supalla’s overall numbers and our breakout by sector. Supalla’s study assumes no land retirement program and that all water reductions are taken equally by all farmers. He says these cuts will have no affect on the schools and government. We disagree. If 330 jobs are lost, some of those lost jobs are held by parents. When they leave the area, they will take their children with them. Thirteen education jobs lost. It may be 10, or 18. There will definitely be losses under the State plan. For Wauneta, it may be enough to cause the school to close. Whose jobs are at most risk? The financial sector will be hit harder than the above numbers imply because they are combined with the real estate numbers. People do not need to borrow as much money. People will make less profit when inputs and yields are down. However, the real estate sector will make more money as land values and rental rates go down -- there will be more land sold as people find they cannot survive with less water. Supalla says land retirement (where the State pays farmers to convert farmland to grass and trees and the NRDs pay farmers to not irrigate a crop) will have a much greater economic impact than what his study shows. However, the impact will not be as much on the farmers as on the input suppliers and grain handlers. As an acre is taken out of production, no one is needed to carry seed, fertilizer, or chemicals to the field. No one is needed to drive the tractor or to drive the grain truck. Will the railroad continue to operate when we need 10,000,000 bushels less grain moved (the equivalent of 60 fewer trains per year)? If grain was all moved by truck, we would need 10,000 fewer truckloads per year and a lot fewer truck drivers. The landowner is paid to keep the land out of production. Taxes are still paid at irrigated rates, even though the land is not producing. The State is asking the three counties to take about 50,000 acres out of production. We believe the study severely underestimates several things. This is just the best-case scenario, which is bad enough. See the entire report on our web page. This is not a done deal. The State is asking that we voluntarily sacrifice these 330 jobs for the good of the State. The NRD does not have to agree to this. They can voluntarily do so, but they do not have to unless the law is changed in the next legislative session. Please express your support for our local NRD board as it chooses to protect us from debts that should be paid by the State. If they do not hear from you, do not be surprised if they feel they do not have the local support they need and cave into the State’s demands. Your input is needed now, if you want to protect your job and that of your neighbors. There are better alternatives to what is being planned. |