Dear Sir,
Perhaps we should follow the hand count of the presidential election ballots by hand counting the one thing that gets counted more than anything ... money. Throw out the electronic money counters and computers (the dadgum things are always plugging up or crashing anyway) and replace them with many hard-working volunteers with sticky thumbs. They would have to be volunteers because I didn't

figure payroll cost into my plan. Besides, we know we can count on them to be impartial and not count a $1 bill and call it a $50 bill.

After counting $$$ bills all day long, they are bound to rip a corner or two, which could be collected into a big pile of dimpled, pimpled, crumpled, wrinkled, hanging, swinging, but hopefully not pregnant "chads". If it were up to me I'd count the pregnant "chads" twice, but that would surely add to the complexity of the count, so we'll leave it up to the wise men of the courts to decide if a "chad" is already a "chad" when it is but a twinkle in its "chaddy's" eye.

A day's worth of "chads" from many hard-working sticky-thumbed volunteers receiving guidance and moral support from concerned politicians should be a big enough pile to tape together and make some extra $$$ bills (I'm not sure if this will work with pocket change, since we've gotten the politicians involved). This extra would just be a cushion to make up for all of the "chads" that those pesky electronic machines never counted properly anyway. The resulting cushion could be used by whomever was a few "chads" short, whether they're a bleedin' heart, yeller dog Democrat or a hard-nosed, pot-bellied Republican.

A plan such as this is bound to require a double cab pickup load of lawyers to figure out who's going to sue whom and how many "chads" it takes to make up a healthy hourly fee. We could let the lawyers who are sincerely trying to protect the people and defend the Constitution ride in the cab with a particular West Texas goat herder I know who would love to make a little extra money driving around in a brand new double cab pickup, even if it is full of lawyers. My goat herdin' pardner enjoys spinnin' a yarn or two, so he'd probably get lonely in that big ol' cab all by himself. And he'd probably think it was a darn shame to waste all that bed space on a bunch of lawyers when he could be hauling something useful, like a couple of sacks of goat feed and a heel-nipping Border Collie.

I myself won't have much time to help with the $$$ bill counting because I'm going to open a donut shop near the place where all of the counting is going on. I think that this is the key element in our hand counting plan, because glazed donuts seem to pump up the energy levels of politicians and volunteers quicker than mainlinin' a double dose of vitamin B-12. The donuts will also help keep their thumbs sticky, and we all know if they don't have sticky thumbs the hand count will be just as unreliable as the electronic count.

Of course, this plan to hand count all of the $$$ bills would make it sort of tough to tally out at the end of the day, but who's to say that those same folks who want to count things by hand couldn't come up with a new "chad" accounting system? They figured out voodoo economics and runaway inflation, didn't they?

Now, if I could figure out a "chad" system for counting heads of livestock and bales of hay and

bottles of beer and barrels of oil and my deer tags when that big whitetail buck shows himself just after I've used my last tag on a scrawny doe ...

 Dear Sir,
The October 12 issue of your paper had a fine article about the local Regional Water Planning Group meeting in Alpine (pages 20, 21 and 22).

David Bowser did an excellent job of reporting the highlights of this meeting and I wish to commend him for it.

Water is more precious than oil in the western part of our country. The sad part is that large population centers are grabbing for the limited supplies. Those of us living in the outlying areas do not have the clout to prevent them from taking our water.

Please give David Bowser a pat on the back. We like your paper and read it cover-to-cover each week.

Dear Sir,
This is in response to the guest article on the upcoming water wars by Tom Beard. As a landowner, under the rule of capture I have a right to sell my ground water by using it to grow corn, cotton, wheat, vegetables, or, if I am lucky, I can sell it to a municipality or industry for much more than I can make by using the water for growing crops. The cost of agricultural production in 2000 exceeds the return for the commodities produced. In 2001 the cost of energy, especially natural gas, is expected to double, which will result in significant increases in the cost of diesel, fertilizer, chemicals, and other agriculture input costs, while the price for the agriculture commodities are expected to remain about the same. Land payments, equipment payments, family living expenses, and unpaid operating loans have to be met or paid. Perhaps selling ground water to a city or industry may be the only option left to avoid declaring bankruptcy and losing everything.

The cities and industries in Texas do not need all the groundwater that is available in Texas. The August 1997 Texas Water Plan compiled by the Texas Water Development Board shows municipal water use as being 3,197,000 acre-feet in 1990, projected to be 4,087,000 acre-feet in 2000, 4,881,000 in 2020, and 6,213,000 acre-feet in 2050. Of the 3,197,000 acre-feet used by municipalities in 1990, approximately 1,846,000 acre-feet was surface water, with 1,351,000 being supplied by groundwater.

The total quantity of groundwater available in the state is not known by the author. However, the 21 counties in planning Region O, which is located in the central southern High Plains of Texas, reported in their planning document that the Ogallala contained 106 million acre-feet in 2000. In the 18 counties in planning Region A, which is the northern High Plains of Texas, their planning document shows 129,120,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage in the Ogallala in 2000. Likely few other planning regions will show as much groundwater in storage as these two regions. However, the point is that the projected 6,213,000 acre-feet needed for municipalities in 2050 is only a fraction (0.02) of the total volume of groundwater in storage in the Ogallala. Further, a large percentage of the 6,213,000 acre-feet will be supplied with surface water.

Municipalities do not need and are not going to take all the groundwater in the state and dry up agriculture, as implied by Mr. Beard.

Mr. Beard stated that the impact of reduced irrigation and livestock water being provided to wildlife is a "looming environmental disaster." His assumption is that all groundwater will be transferred to the "big cities" and no farmers and ranchers will be left on the land. As I stated above, cities do not and are not going to do this. Therefore, the "cause" does not exist hence the effect will be mute. Underground water does not begat wildlife. As Mr. Beard stated, a wildlife presence due to water being made available to livestock and agriculture is an "environmental and societal fringe benefit." I am not minimizing the impact of wildlife on the Texas economy. I know firsthand of the benefits. I have been active in farming and ranching all my life. Let us not instill fear in one another but let us educate one another with the clear reality of fact.

Underground water districts were not "gutted" of their power or authority, as stated by Mr. Beard. Underground water conservation districts, under Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code, have the power to require spacing of wells from property lines, require wells to be spaced from existing wells, regulate the quantity of water that can be pumped annually on a per acre basis, prevent the waste of underground water, require unused wells to be capped, require wells be completed (concrete) to prevent surface contamination of the aquifer, plus many other things.

I wish to clarify a statement made by Mr. Beard regarding Chapter 36 of the State Water Code. Section 36.122 of the State Water Code concerns the responsibility of a groundwater district in regards to transfer of water out of a district. As the current law reads, it does allow a district to "impose a reasonable fee for processing an application for a permit" (a permit to allow the transfer of water out of the district). This law does not allow a district to "charge for that water" (impose a fee based upon the acre-feet of water being exported from the district) or to impose a fee for the permit. There are some who wish to change this law and endow this capability upon a district. They should not be given the power to charge a fee for a permit to export water from a district for any use. There are three good reasons. The first being that if I use my water to grow wheat, cotton, or corn, the end product is exported from the district, which is no different than directly exporting water. Second, the export fee may make the price of my water higher than another landowner who does not reside in a district, which may prevent me from selling my groundwater. We have tried to get our trading partners (other nations in the world) to stop charging export-import fees to help agriculture and industry. It seems that we are speaking with a forked tongue. The third being the export fee will be passed on to the end user, which probably will be residents of large cities. Most will resent being charged the fee, and it could bring major legislative repercussions on underground water district operations in the future. One final point on Mr. Beard's concern that the cities are going to run agriculture out of business. Only a small percent of the total acres in the state of Texas is irrigated. The remainder is rain-fed. During periods of drouth, dryland or rain-fed production is limited. However, in average or above average precipitation years, it is not all that bad.

I do agree with Mr. Beard that it should be possible to modify the rule of capture by creating groundwater conservation districts, and that underground water districts should work with regional planning groups to solve groundwater issues. It will not be easy, but the future of Texas, both rural and urban, will benefit if we work together to solve our water problems, rather than choosing up sides, rural vs. urban. If we do so, urban will win because they have the population (votes) and the money.

A. Wayne Wyatt
Chairman, Region O
Manager, High Plains U.W.C.D.
Farm and Ranch Owner