Irrigation Update

(Big Sky, MT)- Upon seeing irrigation occurring in places in Wyoming where it seemed so unnatural, I posed this question in a blog post:

It is said to be more environmentally friendly to grow crops near to populations. While Wyoming is the least populated state in the Union, they do have to eat. Which would be better environmental policy? Irrigating locally in Wyoming to feed the state's population? Or, ending the irrigation and shipping the food?

A reply came in the form of a post on the Aguanomics blog:

If there are no subsidies, accurate prices will lead people to make efficient decisions. If there are not, all bets are off.

I don't know whether the irrigation I saw is subsidized or not. My bet would be that it is. What I've learned about the west is that the population wouldn't be what it is, in Wyoming or any other Western state, if it weren't irrigated- and irrigation wouldn't have been undertaken privately, because the scale is too great, and the payoff too small.

Now, we all know that the crops are subsidized, especially corn.

Absurd Irrigation

(Big Sky, MT)- Along US 20 in northwestern Wyoming, we saw several examples of farms that wouldn't exist if it weren't for irrigation. If it weren't for dams and ditches, there wouldn't be irrigation. Every farm in the area near the Bighorn River had either an irrigation ditch surrounding it, or a 6" water pipe lying on the ground near the crops.

Big deal? Read a great book called "Cadillac Desert". It details the large-scale big government water programs that have artificially populated the west, creating farms where they aren't sustainable, depriving people downstream of water, and otherwise damage the environment. It become evident how absurd the irrigation is when you see them in the context of the powdery desert soils that surround the farms.

The hose spurts far off in this shot. This image shows what most of this part of Wyoming looks like.

Sage brush in the foreground. That's what naturally occurs here. A lush farm behind it- only where the land is irrigated.

The big sprinkler is visible here.

So, now I want to pose a question: It is said to be more environmentally friendly to grow food crops near to populations. While Wyoming is the least populated state in the Union, they do have to eat. Which would be better environmental policy? Irrigating locally in Wyoming to feed the state's population? Or, ending the irrigation and shipping the food?