I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - protecting our natural resource base, adapting to climate change and reducing greenhouse gasses are not at odds with making money in production agriculture.

In fact, I would argue just the opposite.

Time and time again we’ve seen that the same steps farmers and ranchers need to take to deal with the challenges presented by our changing climate whether it’s “hardening” your operation to extreme weather or taking steps to reduce the greenhouse gasses that exacerbate climate change - are the same things producers want to do to control soil erosion, reduce input costs, expand grazing opportunities, and address water issues, all while maintaining and potentially expanding yields.

Which brings me to my latest example of how protecting our resource base goes hand in hand with profits and preparing for the effects of climate change. This time, I’m talking about protecting the Ogallala Aquifer.

Underlying over 111 million acres and providing water to nearly 2 million people, the Ogallala Aquifer is one of the most critical water resources in our country. It provides over 98% of all the water needs for the Oklahoma Panhandle, it accounts for billions in agriculture production in Texas and it adds over $3.8 billion to the value of ag land in Kansas alone. Needless to say, the loss of this aquifer would have a huge economic impact, not just on farmers and ranchers, but on the entire nation.

The challenge is that the wells are starting to run dry.

A 2013 study by Kansas State University determined that if current rates of irrigation continued nearly 70% of the water in the Ogallala Aquifer under Kansas will be gone by 2060. In Texas, where aquifer levels in most locations are already lower, it’s anticipated that these already shallower levels will decline by over 50%.

So what’s to be done? According to folks in Kansas, plenty. Over the last few years Kansas has made several changes to their water law, including the granting of authority for existing Groundwater Management Districts to recommend the approval of Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs) to the chief engineer of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources. A LEMA is a geographic area where the owners of water rights voluntarily agree to have those rights regulated to an agreed-upon, higher level of conservation, and rewater use.

According to a study by Kansas State University, this change in water regulation, combined with changes in cropping patterns, the adoption of new irrigation technology, and the expanded use of soil health farming methods has shown promising results when it comes to both aquifer levels and producer income. K-State researchers found that agriculture producers participating in this project reported that they had at least 4.3 percent more cash flow than their counterparts just outside the area. And while less irrigation has meant smaller yields, producers who participated in the LEMA (and undertook it’s suggested conservation practices) have reported that the money they saved on their energy bills alone by pumping less water was four times more than the amount of money they lost due to decreased production.

When it comes to aquifer levels, the producers within these areas have reduced their overall irrigation by as much as 35% resulting in a decline rate of the Ogallala Aquifer in the area of the LEMA that went from two feet per year to less than a half foot per year.

K-State researchers say that this reduction in water use has actually resulted in an overall stabilization of aquifer levels in the regions where the original project was enacted and has even shown some recharge and increase in limited locations. And while few states regulate ground water to the same extent Kansas does, the concept of promoting a more sustainable approach to irrigation is applicable to the whole region and could do wonders toward extending the useable life of the aquifer. The result of this effort has been so successful that the Kansas Legislature actually appropriated additional funds to expand cost-share dollars for this approach throughout the area of the aquifer as part of a larger water resources bill.

Extending the use of a critical resource, maintaining the agriculture production of a major portion of the Great Plains, and doing it all while reducing input costs... I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - protecting our natural resource base, adapting to climate change and reducing greenhouse gasses are not at odds with making money.

In fact, it’s just the opposite. --- Clay Pope is a natural resource consultant. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his current or former employers. You can read more from Clay and listen to his podcast at https:// southernplainsperspective.wordpress. com/.