Wright — This tiny western Kansas town, with its single-story frame homes that sidle up to neatly plowed fields, looks like just the place for one of the new ethanol plants that have been turning up across the Midwest.
To some residents it is. But to others, an ethanol plant is low on the list of things Wright needs. Not that the 400 people around here couldn't use the jobs or money the plant would bring in - because they could.
Lowell Brakey talks about a proposed ethanol plant planned for the field in the background near Wright. Brakey is leading the opposition to the plant, saying the water required to grow the corn that would be used in the plant is more than the region can sustain.
But some area residents are hard-pressed to part with the water the plant would require.
"Frankly, we're not so much worried about this plant using 1.5 million gallons of water a day, even though we live in a semi-arid area," said Lowell Brakey, spokesman for a group of Wright residents who filed a lawsuit over the new plant and lost. "We're worried about the corn."
Corn, which is what most U.S. ethanol is made from, also requires more water to grow than many crops. And if area farmers are "fiscally responsible," Brakey says, they'll replace less water-intensive crops to take advantage of corn prices, which have almost doubled.
The agriculture industry already expects a massive increase in corn acres nationwide based on recent demand for corn seed and fertilizer. And U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns is weighing the possibility of easing penalties for farmers eager to plant corn on land that had been set aside for conservation.
"That's what's really going to kill the water situation here," says Brakey, a businessman from nearby Dodge City. "The amount of water it will take to irrigate all that corn."
Ethanol a popular option
Ethanol's popularity as an alternative fuel has reached all-time highs. In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, President Bush urged Americans to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 10 years by substituting alternative fuels, mainly ethanol. The ethanol would be in gasoline blends of 10 to 85 percent.
With about 114 plants nationwide and 80 more on the way, the country's ethanol output was about 5 billion gallons last year and is expected to double again by about 2009, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group that promotes ethanol.
Across the Midwest, where many of the ethanol plants are located, the new plants hold the promise of jobs and economic development. Supporters point to cities and towns like those across Iowa, where ethanol plants have saved local economies, eased unemployment and offered hope that another generation will stay on the farm.
But opposition has turned up elsewhere because of concerns over pollution and the risk of overextending water supplies. People in towns like Wright; Dover, Wis.; Batesburg-Leesville, S.C.; and Rogersville, Mo., have tried to halt the ethanol tide before it reached their city limits. Some had more success than others.
Dust Bowl memories loom
In Kansas, where the Dust Bowl of the 1930s is more than a memory, the Ogallala aquifer has shown signs of overuse in some sections for years, and corn doesn't grow much without irrigation, water - and who gets to use it - is a big deal. Some rivers, streams and reservoirs across the state have been at record lows for years.
Since 1975, the Arkansas River at Dodge City, just west of Wright, has had more days of no streamflow than days of measurable flow, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. And in a bid to revive sagging water supplies, the state is considering a plan to pay farmers not to irrigate.
Sections of southwest Kansas - where Wright is located - have more than 250 years of water for irrigation left. Others are down to about 25 years, according to the Kansas Geological Survey.
Kansas Agriculture Secretary Adrian Polansky, a fan of ethanol plants, says the state has to use its water for something, and ethanol is a rare opportunity, especially for rural Kansas. The marketplace, Polansky said, would determine "where the most economic value can be derived from water."
Kansas has eight ethanol plants so far, with four more under construction. Another 22 have been proposed.
"Anytime we have an economic opportunity that provides 30, 40, 50 jobs, that means millions of dollars for that local community. ... That adds some significant income to farmers and rural communities."
In a presentation last year, Polansky said more than half of the ethanol made in Kansas comes from sorghum, which requires less water than corn. Polansky also said the manufacture of ethanol from sorghum and other similar crops would likely increase.
'We cannot afford to lose'
But whether ethanol is made from corn or less water-intensive crops doesn't mean much to Harry Coambes. When Coambes, 64, heard last August how much water a proposed ethanol plant near his southwest Missouri home would use, he retired early from his job as a corrugated box salesman and went to work building opposition to the plant.
"What would you do to protect your home, your livelihood and your net worth?" said Coambes. "We cannot afford to lose because if they have to empty our aquifer, I am financially ruined, me and about 100 some other families."
Coambes organized a group, Citizens for Groundwater Protection, which he says now has about 500 members. The concern, he said, is that the plant proposed by Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC would discharge polluted water onto other property or underground and pump more than a million gallons of water a day from the Ozarks aquifer.
That's more than the area towns of Fordland, Rogersville, Seymour and Marshfield use combined, Coambes said. His group has spent about $100,000 fighting the plant. The case has gone to court, and visiting Webster County Judge Frank Conley left a restraining order in place earlier this month that prohibits the company from proceeding with its plans until he issues his decision.
James Kaiman, president of Gulfstream Bioflex, argues that the aquifer holds plenty of water for both the plant and the residents for thousands of years. He has also made concerned property owners an offer.
"We have told the surrounding property owners that if the plants would impact their wells, we would do anything to keep their wells intact," Kaiman said. He said the company has offered to dig existing wells deeper or drill new ones for property owners whose wells were compromised by the pumping from the plant.
'Great opportunity'
Gary Harshberger, president of Boothill Biofuels, which will run the Wright ethanol plant once it gains final approval, said he was not concerned about using too much water because the aquifer in Ford County is "in better shape than some" counties.
Besides, he said, the benefit to residents of Wright and beyond would outweigh the costs. Plans now call for construction on the Wright plant to begin by August, with grinding set to begin in October 2008.
"This is a great opportunity for kids to come back to rural America," Harshberger said. "A grain merchandiser in Kansas City said he wanted to get back closer to the farm, and he's from Wright. We've already employed him.
"And then ... someone told me she's thinking about opening a sandwich shop in Wright when the plant gets going. Anytime things like that start happening, the entrepreneurs start cropping up."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Ethanol is Not Enough
Climate solutions must start in the U.S. with more efficient cars and trucks.
President Bush will soon meet with Brazilian president Inacio Lula da Silva, hoping to encourage Latin American investment in sugarcane-derived ethanol. While this may seem like the great white hope for the region to help stop global climate change, the truth remains that this is only a distraction from the real issues at hand. The largest contributor to global warming in Brazil is the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. As a natural carbon sink, rainforests help keep our air clean and serve as our best defense against global warming. Over 55 percent of all intact forest landscapes in tropical Latin America are in Brazil, and 11 tropical nations in the Latin America/Caribbean region have destroyed all of their intact forest landscapes. Currently, Brazil clears a larger area of forest annually than any other country in the world.
While an ethanol surge may seem like the answer to many problems, what President Lula da Silva could do to halt the climate crisis is protect the unique Amazon forest. As leader of the largest consumer of fossil fuels, and largest emitter of carbon pollution, President Bush can work within the U.S. to create a sensible carbon emissions cap, and make U.S. automobiles more efficient.
Learn more about how increased ethanol production is a distraction from real climate solutions here.
Learn more about our disappearing forests here.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press/r...
snowWI (anonymous) says…
The ethanol plants should stay mostly in the real Midwest where their is more of an adequate water supply. For some reason, people in Kansas can not seem to except that they are located in the semi-arid plains and NOT in the Midwest. The only lucky thing is that Wright is located in one of the Western Kansas counties where the aquifer is not quite as depleted yet. Ethanol plants are going up like crazy in the corn belt which includes Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and southern Wisconsin.
gr (anonymous) says…
Why corn?
Why not wheat or something else? What is it that corn has that other crops don't. I thought all you need is starch. Wheat has starch and is more drought tolerant. I'm sure there are other crops which may have more starch - or sugar (beets?).
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Gr,
crops that have the best amount of sugar are hard on the ground. The "GW" (Great Western) sugar plants in Kansas and Nebraska raised sugar beets and in 5 years the land could not produce squat. Sugar producers need LOTS of nutrients and water, Corn is the best for our area, but the water to grown the corn, .... man, this will be bad.
In my opinion, I calculate it will deplete the Ogallah Aquifer more quickly producing all that corn and using all that water to produce ethanol in these plants in W. Kansas, that the water it will take to run the proposed 700 MW Coal Power plants. I also think there will be much more burned hydrocarbons (diesel) to carry the crops from planting through harvest to processing to final transport to the ethanol plants, than the 700 MW plants will produce in GHG.
Thgat is my opinion. Of course we are not talking a couple tractors, but thousands of trucks tractors, and the Trains to produce and transport corn and ethanol. And energy defecit proposal here. Short term thinking, short term solutions.
merrill (anonymous) says…
It could be done with grasses as well or hemp for that matter. Staying away from food sources would be best cuz it would inflate prices for food....and that is NOT what we need.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Ethanol's future not dependent on corn
Tyler Hamilton
An aggressive push into ethanol production is a horrible idea, particularly when it's supported by hard-earned taxpayer dollars. So say the politicians, journalists and energy executives who attack ambitious policies aimed at making the renewable fuel more plentiful.
It would make food and cattle feedstock prices rise, they lament. The energy return on ethanol is too small to be worthwhile, they point out. It's a farmer's subsidy in disguise, they argue, neglecting to mention the massive subsidies that go to the oil industry and other hidden oil-industry costs that our governments take on.
So when the U.S. president announced in his recent State of the Union address that he wanted his country to produce 132 billion litres of biofuels a year by 2017, and as a result reduce U.S. gas consumption by 20 per cent, there was no shortage of skeptics in the crowd.
The controversy is partly deserved, if we assume that well into the future we'll be making ethanol mostly from food crops such as corn. Even if corn was the ideal ingredient, there's simply not enough of it to reach Bush's goal of a five-fold increase in ethanol production.
At best, corn could satisfy about half of demand and that ignores the general impact on food and feedstock prices. The situation in Canada is different, but heading in the same direction.
Dave O'Reilly, chief executive of U.S. oil giant Chevron, said in a recent Reuters report that achieving Bush's target "requires technology that has not yet been invented." Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson made a similar comment, insisting that "some significant technological breakthroughs" are needed to get the necessary scale of ethanol production.
Clearly, ethanol isn't the problem. It's the way we currently make it that's the problem. And with due respect to comments from these well-paid CEOs who have their own corporate interests to protect, the "technological breakthroughs" and inventions are already here.
It all centres on a technique...
http://www.thestar.com/article/183138
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Shiny side out, bub.