Most Recent Posts

Across the High Plains, many farmers depend on underground stores of water, and they worry about wells going dry. A new scientific study of western Kansas lays out a predicted timeline for those fears to become reality. But it also shows an alternative path for farming in Kansas: The moment of reckoning can be delayed, and the impact softened, if farmers start conserving water now.

David Steward, a water expert at Kansas State University, says that he and his colleagues started this research project with a specific kind of person in mind: "The family farmer who's trying to see into the future, and trying to pass on his or her land to their grandchildren."

Farmers in western Kansas have good reason to worry about the future. They know that big irrigated fields of corn in this part of the country are taking water out of underground aquifers much faster than rain or snow can fill those natural reservoirs back up.

Steward decided to come up with better estimates for how soon the aquifers will go dry and how that will affect farmers. He got together with experts on growing corn and raising livestock. "We were trying to provide a little bit better glimpse into the future, so that people would have a better idea how to plan," he says.

According to their calculations, if Kansas farmers keep pumping water out of the High Plains aquifer as they have in the past, the amount of water they're able to extract will start to fall in just 10 years or so. They'll still be able to continue harvesting more corn for another generation, though, because technology — better irrigation systems and genetically improved corn — will let them use that water more efficiently.

But after that, even the latest technology won't save the corn fields. Irrigated fields will start to disappear, followed by cattle feedlots. The long expansion of agricultural production in western Kansas will end.

Yet Steward and his colleagues also lay out some alternative paths that the farmers of Kansas could take. For instance, if farmers reduced their water use by 20 percent right now, it would take a big bite out of their corn production, but production then would resume growing. It wouldn't peak until 2070, and then it would decline much more gradually. "If we're able to save as much water as possible now, the more we save, the more corn we'll be able to grow into the future," Steward says.

These predictions appear in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The exact numbers are new, but the issue of water conservation is a familiar one in western Kansas. Thirty years ago, local governments in several parts of the region set up groundwater management districts — essentially, committees for discussing ways to attack the problem.

Mark Rude, executive director of the groundwater management district for southwest Kansas, says that discussion can turn emotional "because there's nothing more fundamental to the local family farm than the water supply."

At the same time, he says, the families on those farms are worried about the future. They want their grandchildren to have plenty of water, too.

Rude says, in his district, they've discussed lots of alternatives for how to reduce water use: cuts in irrigated acres; cuts in the amount of water used on each acre. But it's mostly talk so far, rather than action, for a very practical reason. His agency may not have the legal authority to force farmers to cut back on their water use.

Those farmers own rights to water the way they own land. Any rule that tries to restrict that right could be challenged in court. "The last thing people really want to see is simply a whole lot of court cases," Rude says.

The groundwater management districts have been trying to avoid that outcome by coming up with plans everyone can support.

There's a model for this. In one small area in northwestern Kansas, farmers have agreed to use 20 percent less water for the next five years. "It's an experiment, and a lot of people are watching that," Rude says. "And of course, that figures prominently in the conversations about, 'If we were going to do it, how would we do it?' "

If they can't come up with a plan for cutting water use, of course, eventually the natural laws of hydrology will step in. Farmers will use less water when the wells go dry.

It's been a good year for Tesla Motors, the luxury electric car maker, particularly in California, where it's selling more cars than Porsche, Jaguar, Lincoln, or Buick. In 2013, the company has sold 4,714 cars in the state, according to the California New Car Dealers Association.

Here's a rundown of the state's vehicle sales rankings:

Tesla: 4,714

Porsche: 4,586

Land Rover: 4,022

Volvo: 2,982

Lincoln: 2,230

In California, Tesla also sold more vehicles than Buick, Fiat, or Mitsubishi (in descending order). And it's within shouting distance of Cadillac, which has sold 6,805 vehicles in the state this year.

The car industry has seen strong results in California, where sales gains in the past year easily exceed those in America overall.

"New light vehicle registrations (including retail and fleet transactions) in California increased 12.5 percent during the first six months of this year versus a year earlier," the association reports, "higher than the 7.7 percent improvement in the U.S. market."

We first spotted this story over at CNBC, which also puts Tesla's strong showing in context — the Model S isn't about to challenge the Camry or Accord — or the Impala — for market dominance.

"Toyota Motor and Honda Motor are California's biggest seller this year, at 157,035 and 100,416, respectively," the site's Marty Steinberg reports.

The Tesla Model S's sticker price is around $63,000, including a federal tax credit of $7,500. As we reported last June, Tesla claims a combined mileage of 89 mpg for the car, which can reach 60 mph in under six seconds.

Last week, Tesla announced that in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash safety tests, its Model S "set a new record for the lowest likelihood of injury to occupants," compared to other sedans, minivans, and SUVs.

Part of the credit, the company said, goes to a large front "crumple zone" — in this case, a storage space where most gasoline-powered cars keep an engine.

"Without the songs of the movement, personally I believe that there wouldn't have been a movement," says Rutha Mae Harris, one of the original Freedom Singers.

Fifty years ago, the Freedom Singers performed along with artists like Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, and Mahalia Jackson at the March on Washington.

The group came together in Albany, Georgia in 1962. Their mission was to raise money and awareness for the civil rights movement. It's a journey that took them more than 50,000 miles, across over 40 states in less than a year.

Harris tells NPR's Michel Martin that the Freedom Singers were in California when they got a call to board a plane that Harry Belafonte had chartered.

"That's how we got to the March on Washington. We were on the plane with all these movie stars. And the five of us had our own room on the plane," she says. "We thought we were in high heaven."

Did "NSA leaker" Edward Snowden really surprise Russian officials when he showed up at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport on June 23?

Maybe not.

The Associated Press writes that, according to the Russian newspaper Kommersant, a Russian goverment official says that "Snowden appeared at the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong on his own initiative two days before the flight, showed his Aeroflot ticket and asked for help."

The Washington Post adds that Kommersant also says Snowden, "spent several days living at the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong" before his flight to Moscow.

The report raises questions about Russian President Vladimir Putin's claim that Snowden's decision to go to Moscow was a "complete surprise" to Russian authorities.

Kommersant's reporting also sheds some new light on what happened on July 11 when there was much speculation that Snowden would be on a flight from Moscow to Havana. The AP writes that Kommersant:

"Citing several 'informed' sources, said that Cuba informed Russia that the Aeroflot flight from Moscow would not be allowed to land in Havana if Snowden were on board, citing pressure from the United States. A source identified as someone 'close to the State Department' confirmed to the paper that Cuba was among a number of countries that had been warned not to provide assistance to Snowden."