Peanuts as water or water as peanuts
The stewardship of state waters is held by state government as the trustee of the people’s water. Significant changes are taking place in the availability and quantity of water resources in South Dakota. On that score I will write a separate piece. In this piece I address the history of water rights from the point of view of one municipality. I choose Aberdeen as the subject but other cities in the state have equally problematic histories.
Like some family stories, the history of Aberdeen water rights is turbid if not also turgid. The water plan of Aberdeen is, and was, to not have a plan. The city’s early and first water supplies are indicative of contemporary problems. In the book Brown County History, the authors discuss the history of Aberdeen’s water system and supply. Well over 100 years ago Aberdeen was able to access water for the city, but only just barely. “Thus Aberdeen had its first water supply; it was a yellowish, slimy, ill-tasting water – but it was water.” I am not prepared to report that the city’s water is currently of that sort, but I can with personal knowledge report that historically the city’s water quality has not been agreeably palatable. The authors of the book go on to discuss artesian well problems, treatment plant problems and the like. Not that much has changed in Aberdeen on the question of water quality and availability.
An American News article just this past month discusses a ‘new’ idea of the city. Aberdeen would access Missouri River water. (Yet Aberdeen had already opted out of Missouri River water as we shall see.) The newspaper article stated, “Aberdeen currently draws water from the Elm River and city wells to meet demand with current use at about 10 million gallons per day. But the city does run into treatment challenges when river water levels are low, per the report.” This proposed Missouri pipeline is not in concept different from the current WEB Water system which started operations in 1986. WEB currently serves a large chunk of northeastern South Dakota with good water from the Missouri. The news article skims over the wooden headedness of the then-elected political leaders of Aberdeen when they on behalf of the city ‘opted out’ of the now successful WEB system. The article cautiously states, “city leaders in Aberdeen decided against joining the project, though WEB serves other communities across the region.”
Please consider that only just this year Aberdeen applied to the state for a future use permit for water to be drawn from the James River. This was an effort to get a future insurance policy on a water source so to speak. A Future Use Permit is a reservation of a specific amount of water within a defined area for future development. Although much closer in distance to Aberdeen, the James River is a drastically less reliable source of water than the Missouri. The state approved the application holding that the water is to be reserved for future water supplies for municipal use. The Water Management Board found, “This application does not request authorization of the construction of works or to put water to [current] beneficial use.”
Now let us here review city government planning in action– the missed opportunity to establish a decent water supply for the city of Aberdeen. We have before us a case study by way of the incomprehensible refusal of the city to become a part of the WEB water system. The city refused to participate in the WEB system in 1982, and yet today Aberdeen still has no solid future water supply plans. In 2001 WEB again offered to supply the city with water but that came to nothing. The WEB system is now at its maximum serving capacity.
Some years ago a political conflict burst forth around a proposed new East River irrigation project known as the Oahe Irrigation Project. This history is documented in a book by South Dakota author Peter Carrels titled Uphill Against Water.
Two camps developed over the irrigation project. Those who wanted the Oahe Irrigation Project and those who did not. The opponents, mostly the grassroots ag community, won the battle. Oahe was discontinued, and a substitute water project was advanced. The substitute project was the WEB water pipeline. WEB is now one of the largest water pipeline systems in the U.S. and is ironically headquartered in Aberdeen.
Aberdeen’s support for the Oahe Project and the fight elected city officials carried against the opponents of the project influenced the city’s decision on the question of joining WEB. The absence of a vision for the water needs of Aberdeen and good old-fashioned ignorance effectuated the considered decision. Aberdeen rejected the city’s participation in the WEB water supply system in 1982. One official said he would not accept “a bag of peanuts (WEB) in exchange for (Oahe),”
The city’s decision to reject WEB was a loud political decision but a long-term miscarriage of governance. Government planning is the exercise of political authority over the affairs of its residents. Planning is indispensable to modern governance. Taking a loud political stand on a controversial issue will get media attention. However, those who later reside in the community pay the price for shortsighted politics. Today Aberdeen does not have a solid and reliable water source that will serve its future needs and does not have access to quality drinking water.
