Water board continues ‘study area’ near Hedley

The Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District Board alleviated the fears of local farmers last Wednesday when it decided not to create a water conservation area near Hedley.

A conservation area designation would have meant meters on every well capable of producing over 25,000 gallons per day, the imposition of a 1 acre-foot per contiguous acre limitation, and the prospect of fines for violating that limit.

At a meeting in White Deer, board members and local producers agreed that more information was needed about water levels and aquifer recharge rates.

PGCD Hydrologist Amy Crowell said the aquifer levels around Hedley have declined more than 1.25 percent annualy in the last decade.

“Over the last ten years, we’ve seen declines from 20 feet to one foot with a lot of the area in the 10-foot range,” Crowell said.

The area of concern has been a “study area” for the district for about two years, and Crowell said the monitored wells had least eight years of records.

Crowell recommended the study area be changed to a conservation area and said the first year should be spent gathering more data.

“At current rates of decline, the expected life of this aquifer would be 15 years,” Crowell said.

Speaking for many Donley County producers, Clarendon’s Bob White urged the board to go slow.

“We strongly agree that the study area should be continued,” White said. “Our recharge rate is significantly different in that area.”

White said information from the US Geological Survey showed that aquifer levels in Hedley area experienced significant increases in the 1980s, and he also said he believed the groundwater district may have unknowingly included faulty data from one property in the study area.

“We’ve scared some people, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing,” White said.

White also said the board needs to improve the manner in which it notifies producers about its actions. Many producers lease the land they farm, but notifications are sent to the property owners and are never relayed to the producers.

Jason Green, who represents Donley County on the PGCD Board, agreed that the prospect of imposing conservation rules had gotten people’s attention.

“A lot of people realize now the problem we face and are willing to help us measure,” Green said. “This idea snuck up on a lot people, and I apologize for that. Everybody is already stressed out anyway this year.”

Green agreed with the idea of gathering more information to get a better picture of what’s happening with the aquifer.

“We need to know,” he said. “If this aquifer will really be depleted in 15 years, then it’s all over with.”

Green also said the board needed to go slow because any conservation restrictions put in place in Donley County now would directly influence how the district handles water that might be pumped out of Roberts County in 25 years.

Marty Jones, an attorney representing T. Boone Pickens’ Mesa Water, said his client was opposed to any conservation area being enacted.

“Every producer ought to be have an equal opportunity to produce water subject only to the capability of their water,” Jones said.

The board also considered enacting a new “study area” near McLean, but landowners had differing opinions as to whether that area needed to be studied.

Jay O’Brien opposed the study area and questioned the methodology used by the district in determining aquifer levels. He requested that rangeland and dryland farms be taken out of the proposed study.

McLean Feed Yard manager Laphe LaRoe also said he was concerned because there were no wells that could have been monitored in the southern part of the McLean study area.

But Mary Kay Phelan said she owns land in the proposed study area and that she supports it being declared as a study area and maybe even a conservation area.

The board tabled action on the McLean study area and planned to hold another town hall meeting on that subject in the future.