A2B*lancaster Farming, Saturday, May 13, 1995
Family Farm Business
(Continued from Pago A2O)
what he wanted to do.
But the representative didn’t tell
him if a permit was necesssary.
and Masser wasn’t advised. “I nev
er got a response from (SRBC)
until July 16,1991,” Masser said
Late Correspondence
In fact, Masser received a letter
dated July 16,1991, from Robert
Biclo, former executive director of
the SRBC.
In the letter, regarding the use of
water for irrigation, Biek) stated
that the commission took no action
“to either approve or disapprove
the project.” In fact, in the six years
since an SRBC representative
came to the farm, nothing was
done by the staff.
In his letter, Bielo requested an
update on the irrigation use at the
Masser operation and though he
included the statement, “We
appreciate you cooperation con
cerning the above matter ...,”
Bielo wanted the information in
writing within the month.
“Since we have received no
word from you regarding the pro
ject (installing center pivot sys
tems) status, we ask that you pro
vide an update regarding your irri
gation operation ... ”
What was requested was;
• a detailed description of cur
rent irrigation practices;
• details of practices used prior
to Jan. 23, 1971, which was the
grandfathering of agricultural use;
• a location map showing from
where water was being taken and
to what Helds is was being applied;
• estimates on the maximum and
average daily total and consump
YORK, PA
717-845-9222
live use (the amount of water that
plants transpired or evaporated
during the irrigation process) dur
ing the irrigation period;
■ the amount of any intended
increase in water use;
• any available data (facts) on
the farm’s historic water use.
Masser said he was upset with
the letter.
Not only did the agency not pro
vide any information or direction
to Masser. it waited six years
before following up on Masser’s
initial effort to let them know what
he was doing.
On top of it, the agency now
wanted Masser to act quickly to get
the SRBC all the detailed data it
wanted data that would require
a good amount of time and cost to
research and compile.
Masser responded that the only
water he was using or intended to
use was that which was used by the
operation prior to the agency’s
January 1971 grandfathering
cutoff.
The agency is different now,
Masser said.
In recent months, the SRBC has
more or less publicly apologized
for the confusing state under which
it had been operating.
In fact, that confusion and
uncertainty has been cited as a
strong reason for the commission’s
attempts to restructure all of its
piecemeal regulations in a com
prehensible, interlocking docu
ment and to simplify the process as
much as possible.
Masser said he agreed.
In fact, he became involved with
efforts to improve the agency’s
regulations after attending public
CORN GROWERS
• Increase Root Mass
SEE YOUR LOCAL FERTILIZER DEALER FOR DETAILS OR CALL
AG-CHEM, INC.
BIGLERVILLE, PA OXFORD, PA INDIANA, PA MALAGA, NJ
717-677-6101 717-529-3117 412-465-7010 609-694-0120
hearings the SRBC held in 1991 at
state Game Commission head
quarters in Harrisburg.
That hearing was held to gather
public comment on the agency’s
proposal to implement consump
tive use regulations and fees for
those who. in effect, were hasten
ing the evaporative (or other) loss
of water from the river.
Human activities, such as using
river water to generate electricity,
can create laige, unnatural losses
of river water, because it is vapor
ized into the atmosphere and out of
the basin.
Support for regulating these
activities has been wide (except of
course from those who are being
regulated).
However, agricultural organiza
tions and individuals objected
strongly to the commission’s prop
osal when it had also targeted the
loss of water from the river that
comes from irrigating farm crops
and watering livestock.
Those consumptive use regula
tions went through several years
ago with a waiver for agriculture
and public water suppliers. Agri
cultural representatives involved
generally considered the debate
over farmer water use dead.
However, when the commission
proposed last year to consolidate
the entire package of commission
regulations, commission staff
reproposed including agriculture,
though with 50-percent discounts,
etc.
A new set of hearings were held.
That consumptive use proposal
would have made water users
come up with some acceptable
form of emergency water storage,
or some offsetting conservation
practices, or to pay for the drought
use. It also proposed some
registration fees.
ASK FOR
• Optimize Nutrient Efficiency
See the Difference
• Increase Drought Tolerance
Because of the public outcry,
and the strength of several argu
ments that farmers do more to ben
efit the river’s water flow than it
consumes, the SRBC has for now
set aside its proposed consumptive
use regulations, but has vowed that
it will notrepropose any fees upon
the agricultural registration, or use,
of water.
In the meantime, Masser has
been involved in presenting agri
culture’s side of the issue to the
commission, which has changed
staff and commissioners over the
years.
The commission has an agricul
tural advisory committee, and
Masser currently chairs. He
became involved in 1991, after
attending the hearings.
He said that while the previous
commission and staff had virtually
disregarded agricultural commit
tee concerns, the current commis
sion and staff is listening.
The agricultural advisory com
mittee, including Masser, has been
meeting and helped devise the
SRBC regulations for registration
of water use.
This is half of the regulations
and this is the half that is being
supported by the agricultural
industry in Pennsylvania and
Maryland. New York, however,
has caused some tension within the
agricultural community.
According to published reports,
and those involved in the hearing
process, the position-of the New
York basin community is that the
SRBC has no right to make them
register their water use. It is seen as
a threat to their independence and
rights to water.
Masser said that this is a
mistake.
The registration has been
requested by the SRBC, because it
needs to know how much water it
being putted out of the ground, on
of the streams and ultimately outof
the flow of the river.
According to Masser, those in
agriculture should take this oppor
tunity, before January 1996, to
register the use of their water with
the agency, because it is in theit
best interest
There is no cost there is not nor
will there be a charge, and the
agency needs the information in
order to manage die flow of the
river.
Those who don’t register may
well eventually And that neither
the government nor courts, will
acknowledge this historic use of
water on a farm if it has not been
documented.
And the oudook is that eventual
ly the need to document those
water uses on a particular farm will
be requested.
Eventually, barring some disas
ter that reduces human demands on
the flows of the river, or some mir
acle of technology that reduces
people’s uses of water (it has only
been increasing), some interests
will be denied access to water.
“I think registration is a good
thing. It gives us documentation of
water use, a historical record. And
although there are no guarantees to
.water use, it at least gives us con
sideration in future policy.” Mass
er said.
‘That’s why I went to the SRBC
in 1984,1 wanted to let them know
what I was doing.
“Water is a limited resource. If
agriculture doesn’t deal with the
issue now the issue will deal with
agriculture later, and then we
won’t be in a position to have too
many options.”
(Turn to 7'sgt A 29)