Water conservation is an admirable goal whether it involves reducing your water bill at home, improving your bottom line on your irrigation use or providing necessary habitat to both native and migratory wildlife species.
But there’s somethings hard to control without an overall global consensus, such as global warming.
That’s why with all the good intention programs that’s part of the Platte River Recovery program, the effects of global warming and climate change could impact not only the program’s goals, but compromise the economic balance of Nebraska’s multi-billion dollar agricultural industry.
Here’s the reality — in 2007 state farmers harvested 5.73 million acres of corn producing 1.038 billion bushels off irrigated land.
If global warming takes away Platte River flows   and those flows have to be replaced to satisfy the program goals of the Platte River Recovery Program, irrigation agriculture suffers and in turn, Nebraska’s economy takes a hit.
Agriculture is the state’s main economic driver, especially in rural areas, including Grand Island.
The Platte River Recovery Program has some great goals in providing Platte River habitat essential to the recovery of the whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon (all threatened or endangered species).
In 2006, the Governors of Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska, along with the Secretary of the Interior, signed the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Agreement (Agreement).
According to the agreement, it provides measures to help recover the four endangered or threatened species, thereby enabling existing water projects in the Platte River Basin to continue operations, as well as new water projects to be developed in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
But if Platte River flows are being impacted by global warming, there will be greater demand to provide the necessary water to help those four endangered or threatened species. And that will come from groundwater resources.
The argument against global warming and climate change is weak whether its manmade or part of a natural cycle. It’s happening, it’s real and it’s already impacting Nebraska. And global warming and climate change is going to impact those four endangered or threatened species by effecting the migratory routine those species follow annually.
Here’s some research, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., that shows that along with man’s altering water flow, as world warms, water levels dropping in major rivers, such as the Colorado, Yellow, Ganges, Niger.
While the Colorado flows on the other side of the continental divide, its waters come from the same place as the Platte River — the Rocky Mountains.
According to the researchers, rivers in some of the world’s most populous regions are losing water, according to a comprehensive study of global stream flows.
And their research suggests that the reduced flows in many cases are associated with climate change, and could potentially threaten future supplies of food and water.
And Nebraska, because of its blessing of groundwater resources, is one of the nation’s top agricultural producing states for both crops and livestock.
“The distribution of the world’s fresh water, already an important topic,” says Cliff Jacobs of NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences, “will occupy front and center stage for years to come in developing adaptation strategies to a changing climate.”
According to the research, scientists, who examined stream flows from 1948 to 2004, found significant changes in about one-third of the world’s largest rivers. Of those, rivers with decreased flow outnumbered those with increased flow by a ratio of about 2.5 to 1.
Several of the rivers channeling less water serve large populations, including the Yellow River in northern China, the Ganges in India, the Niger in West Africa and the Colorado in the southwestern United States, according to the research.
In contrast, the scientists reported greater stream flows over sparsely populated areas near the Arctic Ocean, where snow and ice are rapidly melting.
“Reduced runoff is increasing the pressure on freshwater resources in much of the world, especially with more demand for water as population increases,” says NCAR scientist Aiguo Dai, the lead author of the journal paper. “Freshwater being a vital resource, the downward trends are a great concern.”
Many factors may affect river discharge, including dams and the diversion of water for agriculture and industry. Also, included in this mix are well-intended programs that means to return the life of a river before man’s alteration of it.
The researchers found, however, that the reduced flows in many cases appear to be related to global climate change, which is altering precipitation patterns and increasing the rate of evaporation.
According to the researchers, the study raises wider ecological and climate concerns.
The study found that discharge from the world’s great rivers results in deposits of dissolved nutrients and minerals into the oceans. The freshwater flow also affects global ocean circulation patterns, which are driven by changes in salinity and temperature, and which play a vital role in regulating the world’s climate.
Although the recent changes in freshwater discharge are relatively small and may only have impacts around major river mouths, Dai said the freshwater balance in the global oceans and over land needs to be monitored for long-term changes.
The scientists analyzed the flows of 925 of the planet’s largest rivers, combining actual measurements with computer-based stream flow models to fill in data gaps.
The rivers in the study drain water from every major landmass except Antarctica and Greenland and account for 73 percent of the world’s total stream flow.
Overall, the study found that, from 1948 to 2004, annual freshwater discharge into the Pacific Ocean fell by about 6 percent, or 526 cubic kilometers–approximately the same volume of water that flows out of the Mississippi River each year.
In the United States, the Columbia River’s flow declined by about 14 percent during the 1948-2004 study period, largely because of reduced precipitation and higher water usage in the West.
The Mississippi River, however, has increased by 22 percent over the same period because of greater precipitation across the Midwest since 1948.
“As climate change inevitably continues in coming decades, we are likely to see greater impacts on many rivers and the water resources that society has come to rely on,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a co-author of the paper.