Should the Augustin Plains Ranch, LLC be allowed to pump the amount of water they asked for?

Dear Editor:

Do you think that the Augustin Plains Ranch, LLC has the right to pump the water that is under their land? If money was no object to you, would you consider a similar request?

After all they are only asking for 3 acre feet of water per acre for each of the 18,000 acres of land they own. Does that sound exorbitant—that is only 54,000 acre feet of water per year? I have 40 acres and only received 3 acre-feet per year. I know of others who have even more acres and they only received 3 acre-feet of water per year.

Here is why I think it is exorbitant;

First it is not for the beneficial use of the land involved.

Second, the water they want to pump is not only under their land but under all of the adjoining land in the whole basin.

Third, this pumping scheme will adversely affect the property values of the rest of the basin.

Fourth, the mining of this water in the plains will cause land settlement and tension cracks to form, especially in the north basin.

Fifth, once this water is over pumped there will be no recharging of the aquifer for thousands of years.

Sixth, if the permit is granted why wouldn't other land owners in the basin also make similar requests for water?

Seventh, the southwest is currently in a protracted drought and what little water we are currently receiving is needed to keep groundwater levels from declining too much.

Eighth, with the APR, LLC only owning 18,000 acres in the plains (1.4% of the whole basin or 5.6% of all the private land) why would the State allow them to control over half of what little annual recharge is occurring in the basin. In the mid 1970s this recharge was estimated to be 100,000 acre feet per year.

Ninth, the request for this water by the APR, LLC has been turned down twice due to the application being faulty under the State's guidelines.

Tenth, how can the State grant this request when the APR, LLC does not own the water under appropriation, but is merely granted use of the water under the permit system?

I don't think the State has the authority to give away water for someone else's financial gain. There has to be a beneficial use involved, and I don't think it is for profit.

The APR's request has no sustainability in it and will only degrade the aquifer. Many aquifers in this country and around the world are in jeopardy of being pumped dry. So the question then comes to when is depletion considered impairment? I think this request will cause impairment and is that considered good stewardship of a vital resource by the State? I think that this request should be denied once again.

Dennis Inman