Peter Lawson stands next to Professor Creek, which drains into the Colorado River 20 miles upstream of Moab, Utah. For eight months each year, he diverts Professor Creek's water for hay cultivation, one of the thousands of marginal alfalfa fields that dominate irrigated agriculture in the upper Colorado watershed. He offered to share his frustrations with how state and federal programs discourage efficient agricultural water use and make it impossible for farmers to use their water rights to benefit the environment.



When Lawson purchased his farm in 1991, every drop of Professor Creek's water was poured onto the fields. "I went ahead and installed some fairly sophisticated sprinklers, which were much more efficient in delivering water to the alfalfa," he says. "Not only was water being left in the creek, but I was able to increase my acreage under cultivation."

Despite these gains, the state of Utah forced him to buy more water rights because he was farming more land. It made no difference that he was actually using less water than before. "One can't support a family with this business as it is, so when you try to increase efficiency so that everyone wins, they force you to spend more money."

Lawson points out that he can only get between $80 and $100 per ton for his alfalfa. With four cuttings per year and about one ton per acre from each cutting, that's less than $40,000 annually from the farm. When deductions are made for land purchases, equipment and supplies, there is very little left for anything else. This is why many farmers in the upper basin must have another source of income to make ends meet.

"I hate subsidies, but I've applied for them from the US Department of Agriculture on two occasions. It's impossible to keep up with the flood of forms, so I've never received any money," Lawson says. "Whether you have 50 acres or 50,000, the paperwork is the same; thus, it's the large growers with their attorneys that get all the handouts, making it that much more difficult for the family farms to compete."

Lawson believes that it's vital that all farmers are provided mechanisms so that more water can be left in the rivers for habitat preservation and restoration. " Now there's nothing but disincentives, he says. " Any water that he does not use can just be taken by someone else downstream, and were he to stop irrigating altogether, his water rights would be taken away and sold to somebody else.

"Despite this, I'm still trying to figure out how I might be able to use less water," he says. He's considered shifting to orchards with drip irrigation, but the state would require him to reduce the area irrigated or purchase even more water rights. "These laws are crazy," Lawson concludes. "It would be so easy for us to heal our rivers and still feed ourselves if only the politicians would focus on addressing the problems, not preserving corporate welfare for the larger growers."