Irrigation Leader January 2011

Volume 2 Issue 1

January 2011

Sonia Lambert: Tackling Texas’s Water Infrastructure and Conservation Challenges

Engineers Are Cheaper Than Lawyers

By Kris PollyInfrastructure can solve a lot of water problems. Litigation will always have its place in water, and state water law primacy and water rights must be defended whole heartedly. No exceptions. However, the true resolution of a water dispute occurs when all interested parties receive the water they need. That is a simple statement, but such resolution is very difficult to achieve with a finite resource.

The great water projects built by Reclamation in the 17 western states over the last 100 years are often acclaimed for their ingenuity and creativity in solving a variety of engineering challenges. This issue of Irrigation Leader sheds light on a very representative sampling of irrigation district general managers and water organization leaders who are showing the same inganuity and creativity in solving water supply problems. To them, water is not a zero-sum game of winners and losers.” Problems have solutions. These managers and leaders show that by making their distribution systems more efficient with new engineering projects, water supplies can be stretched to do more. Are there limits to what such engineering solutions can provide? Absolutely—conservation has its limits—but engineering can go a long way. Money spent on such solutions is always a good investment.

Sonia Lambert of Texas’s Cameron County Irrigation District #2, Jim Trull of Washington’s Sunnyside Division, and Marc Thalacker of Oregon’s Three Sisters Irrigation District are highlighted in this issue for taking a proactive approach to water conservation measures.

Each understands the benefits of infrastructure projects undertaken with water savings goals in mind. “You need to be a leader instead of a litigator,” said Thalacker in the article “Heading Off Potential Water Management Crises: A Blueprint for Success.”

Two other featured leaders—Tim Quinn of the Association of California Water Agencies and Bill West of Texas’s Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority—demonstrate the value of approaching new challenges with both water supply and environmental goals in mind. “Cooperation is necessary to ensure the diverse needs of the environment and Texas water users are met,” wrote West in his article,

2

“Cooperation Necessary to Protect State Water Rights from Federal Intervention.”

Furthermore, Ron Bishop of Nebraska’s Central Platte Natural Resources District touts the efficiencies gained when local irrigators worked cooperatively to close an outdated, open canal in favor of using local ground water supply in his article, “Nebraska Natural Resources District and Farmers Work Together to Increase Irrigation Efficiency.”

Importantly, Reclamation remains as essential to the future of water in the West as it was in its first 100 years.

When cracks were discovered in a Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District dam, Brad Edgerton was very please with Reclamation’s response. “Throughout this experience Reclamation has taken this situation very seriously, put their best people on task, and gone to great lengths to keep us informed,” he wrote in his article, “When the Dam Breaks….”

Reclamation’s efforts surrounding the Nebraska dam break – and on many other technical issues across the country – are spearheaded by its Technical Services Center.

The operations of the Denver-based resources center are the subject of the article “Reclamation’s Technical Services Center, A Resource for Irrigation Districts.”

Each of the water leaders featured in this issue demonstrate the value of infrastructure to solving critical water conservation challenges and the importance of working cooperatively to achieve solutions outside of the courtroom. With Reclamation’s valued support, leaders like these will help steer western water infrastructure forward to meet the many water conservation and supply challenges we will face in the future.

Kris Polly is editor-in-chief of Irrigation Leader magazine and president of Water Strategies, LLC, a government relations firm he began in February 2009 for the purpose of representing and guiding water, power, and agricultural entities in their dealings with Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies. He may be contacted by e-mailing Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

Irrigation Leader

JANUAry 2011

C O N T E N T S 2 Engineers Are Cheaper Than Lawyers

By Kris Polly Volume 2

Issue 1

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for NovemberDecember and July-August by: Water Strategies, LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210 Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Chisholm, Senior Writer Jean Schafer, Project Manager Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copy Editor SUBMISSIONS: Irrigation Leader welcomes manuscript, photography, and art submissions.

However, the right to edit or deny publishing submissions is reserved.

Submissions are returned only upon request.

ADVERTISING: Irrigation Leader accepts one-quarter, half-page, and full-page ads.

For more information, please contact our office by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

CIRCULATION: Irrigation Leader is distributed to irrigation district managers and boards of directors in the 17 western states, Bureau of Reclamation officials, Members of Congress and committee staff, and advertising sponsors.

For address corrections or additions, please contact our office by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

COVER PHOTO: Designed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Cameron County Irrigation District #2 Pumping Plant was completed in 2006. Fitted with both electric and natural gas powered pumps and able to switch power sources quickly, the district is able to make substantial savings in their pumping expenses. Managed by NRS Consulting Engineers, the project was completed $2 million under budget and 8 months ahead of schedule.

4 Sonia Lambert: Tackling Texas’s Water

Infrastructure and Conservation Challenges

8 Texas Reclamation Coalition Targets

Increased Funding for State Water Projects

By Tom Ray

10 District Modernization Efforts Produce

Benefits for Farmers and Fish

12 Nebraska Natural Resources District and

Farmers Work Together to Increase Irrigation Efficiency

By Ron Bishop

14 When the Dam Breaks…

By Brad Edgerton

16 Heading Off Potential Water Management

Crises: A Blueprint for Success

18 Reclamation’s Technical Service Center:

A Resource for Irrigation Districts

20 National Levee Committee Rx Draws Fire

from Western Water Users

24 California Approaches Water Management

With Co-Equal Goals

By Tim Quinn

26 Cooperation Necessary to Protect State

Water Rights from Federal Intervention

By W.E. “Bill” West, Jr.

31 Keys to Success as an Irrigation District

Board Chairman

Water Law

32 How the Federal Government Could Save

Irrigators Local Tax Dollars

By Tom Wilmoth

The Innovators

34 Software Developer Finds Niche in Irrigation

District Market Irrigation Leader

3

Sonia Lambert: Tackling Texas’s Water Infrastructure and Conservation Challenges

I

n early 1978, Sonia Lambert was asked to work as a part-time office clerk with Cameron County Irrigation District #2 (CCID2) in San Benito, Texas.

She was soon promoted to be a district accountant, then assistant office manager, office manager, assistant general manager, and, finally, general manager—the position she holds today. Upon her promotion to general manager in late 1999, Lambert also became the general manager for Cameron County Drainage District #3. It was then that she assumed full responsibility for bringing water into, and out of, an approximately 60,000 acre area through 227 miles of predominately earthen canals that zigzag 35 miles north from the diversion point at the Rio Grande River.

Lambert’s long tenure with the district prior to becoming general manager allowed her to build relationships with many farmers, landowners, and other community leaders. She remembers thinking on countless occasions that the decisions she would be making would have a direct impact on the livelihood of all of these people. “What was I thinking? Could I really make a positive impact?” she recalls asking herself before quickly realizing she had no time to second-guess her capabilities and simply needed to “grab the bull by the horns.”

However, the Rio Grande Valley was still feeling 4

the effects of a devastating drought in the 1990s, which were then compounded by Mexico’s refusal to pay for the annual 350,000 acre-feet of water mandated under the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico. In the Rio Grande Valley area, municipal water use has priority over agricultural use. While the system is designed to ensure there is enough storage to meet the municipal demand, there is not a similar reserve capability for agricultural water users. During shortages, agriculture may receive limited, if any, allocations of water. In the late 1990s, the valley reached the point when the only water being pumped went to municipalities that were already operating under restricted usage requirements. CCID2’s canals began to run dry, and some farmers either sold their land or lost it to foreclosure.

A few months later, Lambert testified before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power in support of legislation that would authorize water conservation projects in the Rio Grande Valley, one of which was the construction of a 700 cubic-feet-per-second pumping plant. The new plant was intended to replace the decadesold facility that provided water to approximately 60,000 acres, municipalities, rural water suppliers, and an industrial user. This pumping plant was the only source of water to Irrigation Leader

Cameran County Irrigation District #2 pumping plant dedication ceremony, May 2005.

the area, but it was running on borrowed time. Even when it could be fully operated, water poured out of not only the pumps, but also the floors and walls. At that time, the plant was three years into a projected remaining life expectancy of one to five years. Authorization for the construction of a new pumping plant and the piping or lining of earthen canals came in October 2000 and appropriations soon followed. CCID2 quickly started construction on the new plant and completed it within 12 months—6 months ahead of schedule. The piping and lining of earthen canals began concurrently, but due to the extent of the project costs and the availability of only limited appropriations, not all authorized water conservation projects have been completed. However, efforts continue to complete the authorized work today.

The following is a transcript of Irrigation Leader Editor-in-Chief Kris Polly’s interview with Lambert.

Kris Polly: What are the major challenges facing your

district today?

Sonia Lambert: There are so many challenges we face on a daily basis. However, I would have to say that operating an efficient system, with aged and antiquated infrastructure, on limited revenue and scarce appropriations for water conservation projects, has to be the absolute biggest challenge. As in most districts in the area, construction or conservation projects occur only during a short window in the fall when the water demand is not as significant as it is during the remainder of the year, so even with Irrigation Leader

funding on hand, scheduling can be a challenge in itself. Since the authorization of water conservation projects in 2000 and subsequent amendments to that original legislation, this district has constructed a new pumping plant, constructed a major interconnect within our own system to supply a previously deprived area, lined several miles of main canals, piped several miles of previously earthen laterals, and installed several automated gates and a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system. Still, with all the improvements that have occurred and continue to this day, I feel we have only scratched the surface of what is needed to continue to be a dependable provider to the farmers and municipalities we serve. Perhaps all needed improvements can be accomplished within my lifetime and that of the lucky person who will follow me! Just in time to start all over again! Another challenge to recently surface, and seemingly increasing, is that dealing with environmental issues. Obtaining clearance to continue with projects and maintenance of our system is not only time consuming but also has a major impact on which areas are selected for improvement.

Since we do depend on Mexico to comply with the terms of the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico, providing the demand can also be a tremendous challenge when Mexico does not comply.

To some extent, all our challenges are major issues to the people we serve, since so many are dependent on our continued effective, efficient, and sufficient supply of water.

5

Kris Polly: As president of the Texas Water

Conservation Association (TWCA), what is your agenda and what are the goals of the TWCA?

Sonia Lambert: Every legislative year brings new issues and challenges to the State of Texas. Fortunately all of us who deal with water issues on a daily basis can rely on the expertise of the TWCA staff and so many members throughout the state, in a diversity of water interests such as ground water, irrigation, municipal, industrial, drainage, utility, navigation and flood control, and river authority. A big item on our agenda is the TWCA Federal Affairs Committee’s continual monitoring of issues relating, but not limited, to environmental flows and EPA’s possible expansion of jurisdiction dealing with the Clean Water Act, as well as all other issues with a possible impact to the way we as water users do business.

TWCA’s affiliation with the National Water Resources Association has also allowed us to keep in tune with the issues on the federal level pertaining to water resources. It has also

6

Irrigation Leader

allowed us to build strong working relationships with other key western water leaders and organizations such as Tim Quinn and the Association of California Water Agencies. TWCA has always possessed the remarkable capability to monitor any legislative issue that may affect any of its members. With that in mind, I envision TWCA expanding and continuing to strengthen its relationship with our elected officials. One of our goals is always to invite all individuals and organizations with water interests to join our community of members.

Additionally, united we take a few of our most pressing issues to our congressional delegation on an event we call “Texas Water Day.”

to conceivably continue appropriations to already authorized water conservation projects. In addition, we have pending legislation that further authorizes additional water conservation projects in which authorization and appropriations are critical to our future. This area has suffered many losses due to water shortages and droughts, and the population is predicted to more than double by the year 2060. It is imperative to our citizens that we pursue avenues to best preserve and utilize our natural resource to ensure an adequate supply of water, to not only sustain our population, but to encourage industrial and economic growth of our future.

Kris Polly: What is “Texas Water Day” and how has it

Kris Polly: What would you say to the 600-plus other irrigation district managers? What do you think you can all accomplish together?

been helpful?

Sonia Lambert: Each year the TWCA, through its Federal Affairs Committee, and the Texas Water Development Board coordinate an event with our Texas congressional delegation and its staff to bring the priority water issues of the State of Texas to our delegation. Preparation for this one-day event is yearround. Members of TWCA and other interested parties attend scheduled meetings to discuss our concerns and engage the delegation’s cooperation with pending legislative issues and funding requests. Each attendee plays an active role and participates in discussions with the delegation and/or their staff. Texas Water Day has always been very well attended by devoted, interested, and enthusiastic individuals, and TWCA members do their part in bringing our message to Washington, DC. Our scheduled visits are followed by a reception for the delegation. Our next “Texas Water Day” is scheduled for February 2011. We anticipate another successful event.

Sonia Lambert: I have communicated with a few irrigation districts throughout the nation. It is interesting to know that although each district and its distribution networks vary greatly from each other, we all face similar issues dealing with conservation practices, funding of those practices, and ensuring the sustainability of our existing infrastructure. What would I say? Let’s all open and continue the communication lines between each other and our congressional delegations, to bring attention to the deprivation of our systems and every citizen it affects—from the district, to the grower, to the consumer. Together, we can aggressively strive for collaboration of water conserving capital improvements to not only continue supplying municipal water needs, but also to keep our farming communities alive and prosperous.

Kris Polly: What do your district and other members of the Texas Reclamation Coalition hope to accomplish with the new Congress?

Sonia Lambert: This district is part of an organization consisting of 27 irrigation districts here in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in South Texas. When we were approached with the concept of joining a coalition to bring light to the fact that Texas receives the lowest funding amount from the Bureau of Reclamation throughout the western states, we eagerly jumped at the opportunity. We anticipate bringing this matter of funding to the new Congress, most especially Irrigation Leader

Cameron County Irrigation District #2 pumping plant with dual natural gas and electric pumping capability.

7

Texas Reclamation Coalition Targets Increased Funding for State Water Projects

By Tom Ray

I

n the FY 2010 federal budget, Texas received less than one-third of 1 percent of Reclamation’s over $1 billion in funding, even though it remains the second-most-populous state and is poised for unprecedented growth in the 21st century. Funding a mere six Texas projects amounting to around $3 million is unacceptable and will ultimately hinder the state’s economic potential, as it will be unable to cope with increasing demands on its water supply.

The recently formed Texas Reclamation Coalition (TRC) aims to actively work with both key Reclamation staff and the Texas congressional delegation to grow Reclamation’s overall budget by advocating for specific Texas projects. To be clear, the intent is not to fight for a larger portion of Reclamation’s current funding, but to advocate for increased funding overall to help the agency focus on Texas’s infrastructure needs.

To continue the good work of the Texas Water Day effort, which promotes state water interests over a one-day event each year, TRC’s initiative is ongoing.

Changing the tide of the federal appropriations process is no easy task, and a sustained, targeted effort is necessary. Members and their consultants will actively campaign to obtain congressional authorization and gain funding for specific Texas water projects with continuous follow-up and a year-round presence in Washington, DC. TRC viewed the delayed FY 2011 budget process as an opportunity to illustrate the vast disparity in Reclamation funding available to Texas. The coalition accomplished this goal by highlighting the lack of funding for Texas Reclamation projects to Congress while advocating for the inclusion of specific budget items.

These incremental measures are a prelude to the FY 2012 budget effort that is only just beginning. TRC will work to educate the Texas congressional delegation to ensure its members understand the implications of only marginal Reclamation funding amounts being targeted toward state water infrastructure, as well as consult with Reclamation officials to promote strong working relationships.

Let there be no mistake, TRC’s initiative is not a simple undertaking and will require a sustained effort from a broad base of Texas water interests. However, joining the coalition will allow irrigation districts the opportunity to ensure Texas is no longer the forgotten 17th state in Reclamation’s budget allocation and begins to receive water infrastructure and program funding to keep pace with its vital role in the nation’s economy.

Tom Ray coordinates the efforts of the Texas Reclamation Coalition with Fred Hicks of Hicks-Ray Associates and Kris Polly of Water Strategies, LLC. He can be reached by phone at (254) 855-0880, or e-mail at tom@hicks-ray.com.

8

Irrigation Leader

Texas WaTer Day 2011

February 8-10, 2011

The Washington Court Hotel Washington, D.C.

The Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA), through its Federal Affairs Committee and the Texas Water Development Board, has scheduled the Seventh Annual Texas Water Day, which will take place February 8-10, 2011, in Washington, D.C. We will kick off the activities with a planning session, briefing, assignments, and get together at 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 8, 2011, at The Washington Court Hotel,.

525 New Jersey Avenue Northwest, Washington D.C. 20001.

A final briefing will be held at breakfast which will be served starting at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at the hotel, prior to the official visits at the Capitol.

The Congressional Reception will be held on Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in B338 Rayburn House Office Building.

A block of rooms have been reserved at Washington Court Hotel at a rate of $249.00 per night.

Call (800) 321-3010 for the reservations number.

YOU MUST MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS DIRECTLY with the Washington Court Hotel, and identify yourself as part of the Texas Water Conservation Association for this special rate.

Texas Water Day is an effort to inform Congress, the Texas Delegation, and other selected members of Committee Staff and Federal Agency Staff of the critical water issues facing the state today.

A registration form and more information will be provided soon.

texas water conservation association

Leadership

in

Water

Resources

for

Te x a s

District Modernization Efforts Produce Benefits for Farmers and Fish

T

hroughout the West, irrigation managers are consistently charged to do more with less. This charge is particularly acute in south central Washington, where the 500,000-acre Yakima Reclamation Project is expected to meet annual water user obligations of 2 million acre-feet with only 1 million acre feet of storage.

“When Reclamation built the project, it did not build enough storage to serve all the land it developed,” said Jim Trull, general manager of the Sunnyside Division. The Sunnyside Division is one of six irrigation divisions in the Yakima Reclamation Project. “We rely on good snow conditions and adequate snowpack to make it work.”

Combined with the frequent drought conditions it has faced since the late 1970s, together with increasing tribal and environmental pressure to restore instream flows in the Yakima River, the Yakima Basin’s lack of storage capacity creates significant water management problems. “We have to conserve water from wet months to dry months, instead of wet years to dry years,” Trull said, referencing the small margin for error when operating without sufficient reservoir capacity.

These issues forced the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (SVID), which is the operating agent for the Sunnyside Division, along with other irrigation entities to begin considering large-scale conservation measures that ultimately culminated in the passage of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Act in 1994. The act sought to conserve water in the basin to enhance stream flow for salmon, the icon of the Northwest, but served the dual purpose of allowing SVID to modernize one of the oldest major Reclamation projects in the West.

Despite obtaining congressional authorization in the

early 1990s, SVID was not able to begin work until longrunning water rights adjudication was resolved through a mediated settlement in 2003. With legal wrangling finally complete, SVID sought to complete two major project components over the following two decades at an estimated cost of $150 million.

The first component focused on canal improvements and included fully automating check structures; constructing three small reregulating reservoirs; and implementing a supervisory control and data acquisition, or SCADA, system. The second involves piping the district’s major laterals to prevent water loss due to seepage or evaporation. Overall, SVID hopes to save 60,000 acre-feet of water a year. Two-thirds of the savings will be directed to increase stream flow, and the remaining water will benefit local farmers.

However, these efforts serve a purpose broader than producing much needed water savings. Dating back to 1890 when construction began on the Sunnyside Canal, SVID maintains one of the oldest Reclamation projects in the West. While water users once depended on ditch riders to turn water on and off as they irrigated their crops, the current modernization efforts will allow them to directly access water as necessary. “It enables them to be more efficient, save water, and improve their farming operations by putting water on their land when they need it,” Trull said.

Beginning in 2003, SVID received about $2 million each year in federal funding and anticipated spreading project work over many years. However, SVID received $21 million from federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funding in 2009, which

Placement and welding together of high-density polyethylene.

10

Irrigation Leader

enabled it to speed up its efforts. It is estimated that the stimulus funds will enable SVID to compress approximately 10 years of construction work into 2–3 years. Combined with $5.7 million in state funds, SVID acted quickly to put engineering and construction resources in place to meet the timing requirements attached with the money.

“It’s one thing to say you’re ‘shovel ready,’ but another thing to actually implement the project,” said Trull, referencing SVID’s significant efforts to quickly hire and obtain additional resources once the funding became available.

SVID is scheduled to complete the canal improvement component of its two-phase construction by 2013. With the help of the stimulus funding, Trull anticipates the district will complete piping its canals for the next 15 years, with a goal of servicing one-half to two-thirds of its district with enclosed conveyances built with mostly PVC, high-density polyethylene, and mortar-lined and -coated steel pipe.

The federal government will provide 65 percent of project funding, with remaining dollars evenly split

between the state and SVID’s local match. Water users contribute to project costs as a component of their $91-per-acre water assessment.

Trull believes it is no accident that SVID has been able to undertake its efforts with significant federal funding support and credits the dual purpose of the project with this ability. He highlighted that the 1994 act allowed SVID to demonstrate that a plan is in place addressing the needs of multiple interests. “Everybody wins,” Trull said. “It’s good for farmers, good for fish, and good for the environment in general.”

Jim Trull is the general manager of Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District in Sunnyside, Washington. He can be reached by phone at (509) 837-6980, or e-mail at jim@svid.org.

Trenching for highdensity polyethylene pipe using lase depth control.

Regulatory Reservoir under construction.

Irrigation Leader

11

Nebraska Natural Resources District and Farmers Work Together to Increase Irrigation Efficiency

By Ron Bishop

T Farmers work to close the Six Mile Canal, which will protect water supplies, future users, and endangered species by increasing flows to the river.

Farmers work to fill in a culvert with cement under a black top. Farmers worked with the state and county departments of roads to close canal crossings, which makes the roads wider and safer for travelers.

Center pivots can now be used to irrigate acres once irrigated by surface water. Farmers can now take advantage of new technology such as using cell phones to operate pivots and check fields.

12

he Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD) is finalizing the first-ever buyout of a surface water irrigation canal in Nebraska and is in the final stages of an agreement that will free up money for farmers to convert to more efficient ground water irrigation and increase Platte River flows. The buyout is an example of what can be achieved when surface irrigators and natural resources districts cooperate. Additionally, it could be a precursor to similar arrangements in other parts of the state, as farmers try to search for collaborative ways to conserve water through improved irrigation efficiencies, and natural resources districts work to put more water in the state’s rivers.

CPNRD has negotiated a buyout of water rights owned by land owners who were serviced by the Six Mile Canal Company as part of its efforts to increase Platte River flows to levels required under the three-state Platte River Recovery Program and state law. This project allows us to return water to the river, which will help protect endangered species, make irrigation more efficient for farmers, put more land into crop production, and improve public safety.

Using the best scientific hydrologic analysis available (Cooperative Hydrology Study, or COHYST), the closure of the ditch and elimination of direct river diversions will result in an annual savings of 130 acre-feet of water to the river, even if these same irrigated acres of farmland are irrigated with ground water. To put this in perspective, that is more than 42 million gallons returned back to the river annually. In looking at surface water projects in our district and talking with other natural resources district managers, it appears that more than 60 percent of surface water irrigated areas are also using ground water.

The Six Mile irrigation ditch has been in place and diverting Platte River water since 1894, withdrawing an average of 2,377 acre-feet of water annually. After 116 years of use, the more than 30 land owners and farmers along the Six Mile Canal are eager to convert their land to ground water use, which will be more efficient and reliable than surface water from open canals, and will help protect river flows and endangered species. The vote by land owners to close the canal was unanimous.

For farmers along Six Mile, agreeing to the deal was mainly a financial matter. “With the surface water system, we had to be at the fields several times each day, which Irrigation Leader

increased fuel and labor costs,” said Roger Wahlgren, a Six Mile Canal board member. “I can now irrigate with a touch of button on my cell phone, which can turn my pivot on or off and saves me time and labor. By doing this project, it has eliminated short crop rows and probably increased the value of land where the canal used to be by $500 an acre. Now we can leave the water in the river for future uses and save $15 an acre per year in fees for canal operations and maintenance. More than 80 percent of acres served by the canal were using ground water anyway and, under the new agreement, the remaining acres can be covered by ground water irrigation.”

“CPNRD has been a godsend to work with. They bent over backwards to do what we needed and helped out a lot with engineering and legal issues. Without [CPNRD] spearheading this project and providing ongoing support at every step along the way, this project never would have happened,” Wahlgren said.

“One of the biggest challenges was the financial aspect, making sure the land owners came out whole and that this makes good economic sense,” said Larry Gill, who has served as president of the Six Mile Canal Company since 1975. “The process took about 18 months from the time it was first brought up until the final decision was made. But everybody is very happy with the way this turned out. Ron Bishop and [CPNRD] did their very best to work with landowners to protect landowners’ interests,” Gill said.

More than a century ago, farming with a team of horses and irrigating from canals was considered new technology. Today, farmers in the region use tractors with GPS systems in place of horses and more efficient ground water irrigation systems in place of open canals. But much of the farm land was legally bound to the canal irrigation system. Buyouts like the one negotiated between CPNRD and several farmers in Dawson County whose land was bound to the Six Mile Canal allowed farmers to detach themselves from irrigation systems that increasingly fail to make financial or environmental sense.

“The ditch cut through three of the farms that we have leased,” said Mark Ostergard, a Dawson County farmer.

“Being able to close the ditch had made these farms much more efficient with longer rows and less turnaround time.

I can farm the same amount of land in less time. This increased the productivity and efficiency of our family farm. It also saves fuel and reduces energy costs.”

With the canal gone, farmers can now use centralpivot systems to chemigate and fertigate, which allows farms to apply nutrients efficiently. “Fields are now more aesthetically pleasing and level since the canal has been pushed in,” said Pat Hecox, a Dawson County farmer.

“Also, it was difficult to irrigate when there was no water in the ditch. With ground water, I don’t have to worry about reliability of surface water during early season irrigation.”

County and state roads also benefited from the canal removal because they are now wider and safer. “It really Irrigation Leader

has been an improvement for the roads,” said Tim Wolf, road foreman for Dawson County Department of Roads.

“It was a relief for us; the narrow crossings made roads dangerous and now they are as wide as they need to be.”

Farmers agree and hope the canal removal will also mitigate other public safety concerns. “In 2007, our area experienced a 100-year flood. The Six Mile Canal acted like a dike and the water from the flood backed onto my property and caused damage to the house. Now I don’t have to worry about it,” said Jim Hecox, a Dawson County farmer. “Our farm wasn’t serviced by the canal, but we still had to cross the canal with our pivots. Now we can run our pivots without crossing bridges, and we are able to chemigate.”

At its peak, the canal provided irrigation water to approximately 1,700 acres and multiple landowners. Land previously served by the canal will now be served by ground water irrigation and the water is being purchased

by CPNRD through Nebraska’s water banking program.

CPNRD started its water bank as a solution to balance water that is available with current water uses. There were two major programs that required the district to find a solution, including the Platte River Recovery Program and Legislative Bill 962.

The Platte River Recovery Program is a federal agreement between Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, with the goal of protecting endangered species. Legislative Bill 962 is a law passed in Nebraska in 2004 that gives the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources the authority to assess water basins on an annual basis. Both of these programs require CPNRD to return stream flows back to 1997 levels as part of first increment schedules. That level has been determined to be 3,400 acre-feet, which CPNRD must return back to the river.

Ground water retirements into CPNRD’s water bank from the Six Mile Canal service area were previously ineligible to participate because the surface water right could be transferred. With the closure of the Six Mile Canal, the associated state water right to divert natural flow from the Platte River will be relinquished, making the ground-water-irrigated acres in the service area eligible for the CPNRD water-banking program. The district is purchasing the water to increase stream flow in the Platte River. So far, CPNRD has acquired nearly 3,000 acre-feet with the purchase of the Six Mile Canal.

Ron Bishop is the general manager of Central Platte Natural Resources District in Grand Island, Nebraska.

He can be reached by phone at (308) 385-6282, or e-mail at bishop@cpnrd.org.

13

When the Dam Breaks…

By Brad Edgerton

O

n October 19, 2009, as Reclamation staff performed work at the Red Willow Dam near McCook, Nebraska, one member of the team stepped backward into a hole in the 126-foot-high earthfill embankment structure. Confident the hole was not simply the result of a rodent deciding to make its home in the dam, the team contacted Reclamation’s Technical Services Center (TSC) in Denver, whose staff quickly responded to the scene.

The TSC experts pronounced their diagnosis after pouring 150 gallons of blue dye into the original hole and digging additional holes in search of cracks in the dam.

While expecting cracks 1–2 millimeters in width, they soon discovered cracks 1–2 inches in width, and it became clear releases from the reservoir were necessary to ensure public safety. Reclamation began evacuating the water on October 31, and the downstream channel was soon filled to capacity.

Ultimately, about 20,000 acre-feet were released over a one-month period and the reservoir’s water level is now only 1 foot above the lowest point at which further releases would be possible.

The break may be the result of the original design of the dam, which was completed in 1962. While the dam’s outlet works on the far end of the structure were built on bedrock, the center of the dam sits on about 40–50 feet of alluvial fill

that had compressed more than originally anticipated. The cracks resulted as the portion of the dam sitting on alluvial fill sank compared to the end of the dam sitting on bedrock.

The cracks had likely been in the dam for some time and finally were exposed at the surface. I credit Reclamation’s fast action in recognizing the problem with ensuring continued public safety. Throughout this experience, Reclamation has taken this situation very seriously, put their best people on task, and gone to great lengths to keep us and the public informed. However, the challenges of local irrigators are only beginning, as Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District’s (FCID’s) water users must now cope with the loss of several years of water supply to the Red Willow Canal.

Though Reclamation’s best engineering minds have identified a method to correct the problem, it will require two years of construction. This means water users who farm the 4,800 acres serviced by the canal will not likely receive water deliveries for at least two or three more years, which will have particularly significant economic impact given the low-capacity ground water wells in this area and the loss in ground water recharge from the canal system.

Furthermore, construction timing is not assured because Reclamation’s modification report must withstand scrutiny when presented to Congress in February 2011.

Though the “mod report” does not require an affirmative vote by Congress, legislators could decide to block the

The initial sinkhole on October 21, 2009.

14

Irrigation Leader

repair project if they choose. To combat this potential, FCID has worked closely with Reclamation officials to ensure the required cost-benefit analysis fully incorporates the potential impact on the surrounding community. These impacts include more than the tremendous loss to farmers serviced by the canal, but also the reduction of recreational opportunities in the reservoir. We’re not going to mention the flood impacts that could occur during the downtime.

We know 350 cubic feet per second is the channel capacity, and the outlet works can pass up to 1,000 cubic feet per second. FCID has also maintained close contact with Nebraska’s congressional delegation to ensure members are apprised of the potential ramifications on their constituents.

Reclamation has also done an excellent job informing the delegation and provided site visits to some.

It remains unclear how much the project will cost, and Reclamation has declined to provide an estimate until the formal report is released. The project will require large amount of coarse gravel, which may need to be imported from Fort Collins, Colorado, at significant expense, if a sufficient local source is not available.

However, FCID is aware it will be responsible for 15 percent of the expenses, an amount it is unlikely to be able to pay up front. Reclamation has acknowledged since 2000 that the district is unable to make payments on the original project costs, and FCID has been operating on a water supply contract and has pushed the repayments schedule out to 2040. FCID looks forward to working with Reclamation officials as we determine the appropriate payment structure for our portion of the dam rehabilitation costs.

In the meantime, the district continues to investigate several conservation opportunities that would give it additional management tools for the water supply in the two remaining reservoirs.

Hole after placement of 150 gallons of dyed water.

Reclamation discovered significant cracks in the dam.

Brad Edgerton is the general manger of Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District in Nebraska.

He can be contacted by phone at (308) 697-4535, or by e-mail at brad.edgerton@fcidwater.com.

Excavation after initial investigation.

Irrigation Leader

15

Heading Off Potential Water Management Crises:

A Blueprint for Success

W

hen Marc Thalacker became general manager of central Oregon’s Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID) in 1997, he sensed a growing potential for conflict between local farmers and environmental groups. TSID diverts irrigation water from the Whychus Creek, which is a primary spawning tributary and home of certain salmon and steelhead species.

However, the creek often ran dry and did not meet water user needs.

“When I became manager, a local farmer told me if the creek wasn’t dry I wasn’t doing my job,” Thalacker said.

“I realized that the district had a very real potential for conflict, like that of the Klamath Basin, coming up in the near future.”

Thalacker began an effort to coordinate locally on watershed planning with other Deschutes River Basin irrigation districts and conservation groups. This coordination ultimately resulted in an effort to pipe all 60 miles of TSID’s system to conserve water and add additional flow to the creek. Before the piping project began, the district lost over 50 percent of its water to seepage though open canals. To date, the district has piped 30 of its 60 miles of canal. The water saved has resulted in increased creek flow to 14 cubic feet per second (cfs) to benefit the fish, as well as enhanced water availability for local farmers. The Main Canal Pipeline Project will return an additional 6 cfs, raising the potential in-stream flow to above 20 cfs, which is the Oregon Fish and Wildlife minimum stream flow target.

Prior to the piping project, farmers were able to access water just one day a week. “When we began installing pipelines, for the first time [farmers] could start watering seven days a week,” Thalacker said, noting that local water users also now receive as much as 25 percent more water.

Additionally, the project includes the installation of a fish screening and passage system at TSID’s diversion dam. Chinook salmon and steelhead fry have already been reintroduced to the creek, and a few anadromous fish could begin returning as early as next year.

To fund this expansive project, TSID partnered with groups at the federal, state, and local levels. Initially, the district generally met its cost-share requirements using in-kind contributions of equipment and resources from 16

Marc Thalacker, manager of the Three Sisters Irrigation District, began piping the district's canal system in 2000. He plans to have the whole system piped by 2012. Reclamation photo by Dave Walsh, April 2010.

TSID crews backfill irrigation pipe. The first phase of project piped over 3.5 miles of open canal. Reclamation photo by Dave Walsh, April 2010.

Irrigation Leader

local water users. However, TSID has since graduated to drawing long-term, low-interest loans with state backing.

Most recently, the district received $2.4 million provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus package. Importantly, funding this combined water infrastructure and habitat restoration project created six new, full-time jobs at TSID and helped stimulate the local economy during a difficult economic period.

Thalacker recommends that other managers contemplating similar initiatives start small. “It’s sometimes easiest to start with a small project with a couple of partners in order to develop and hone your skills in partnership arrangement,” he said.

To repay construction loans and create an ongoing revenue stream, TSID plans to install two hydroelectric power turbines capable of producing 1.5 megawatts of electricity—enough to power 500 homes in the surrounding community for seven months of the year.

Power will be sold to the local electric utility and TSID aims to receive around $300,000 a year in return. Once the loans are repaid, the district will be able to use these funds to address other ongoing operation and maintenance expenses, as well invest in new infrastructure projects.

TSID’s proactive approach to watershed management is intentional. Thalacker believes that districts not actively attempting to mitigate environmental concerns are only exacerbating potential problems. “For years, people have worked on conservation plans, but they never really took it to the next level,” he said. “There is no flying under the radar any more. Everything is open to scrutiny. You need to be proactive just to stay even and more proactive if you want to get ahead of the curve.”

TSID’s experience led Thalacker to believe in the importance of engaging environmental groups early on to establish a rapport. He noted that these relationships become particularly useful as projects evolve and begin to face more difficult challenges. “You need to be a leader instead of a litigator,” he said.

The solutions developed at TSID represent a case study in the benefits of coordinating efforts to obtain federal and state funding. Thalacker intends to develop a “playbook” for other irrigation district managers to use as they attempt to coordinate similar activities. However, he remains a strong Irrigation Leader

Attaching slings to 54 inch pipe. Federal stimulus funding helped provide full employment to almost a dozen skilled laborers and an economic shot in the arm for dozens of businesses in a small mountain town in Central Oregon. Reclamation photo by Dave Walsh, April 2010.

Russel Luloff turns on the water to his farm in the Three Sisters Irrigation District, 25 miles northwest of Bend, Oregon. Reclamation photo by Dave Walsh, Aug. 2005.

proponent of local watershed management. “We’re happy to accept money to assist,” he said. “[However], watershed planning from the top down has never worked. You need an intimate understanding of the local advantages and challenges, and the cooperation of all the local stakeholders to be successful.”

Marc Thalacker is the general manager of Three Sisters Irrigation District in Sisters, Oregon.

He can be reached by phone at (541) 549-8815, or e-mail at manager@tsidonline.org.

17

technical service center Reclamation’s Technical Service Center: A Resource for Irrigation Districts

T

Reclamation's 5-million-pound press testing a concrete core sample.

18

ucked inside Buildings 56 and 67 of the Denver Federal Center complex in Colorado, engineers, scientists, and other professionals in Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC) constitute the brain trust of federal water infrastructure in the West.

Formed in 1995, TSC acts as Reclamation’s in-house technical consultant, offering services spanning its four divisions: civil engineering, water and environmental resources, geotechnical, and infrastructure. By housing these diverse service offerings in a single location, TSC is able to tackle complex issues from multiple angles to provide tailored responses to water infrastructure needs.

Furthermore, TSC’s extensive laboratory buoys its abilities by boasting the unparalleled ability to provide a realistic testing ground for products and materials that will ultimately be exposed to extremely harsh conditions. Capped by the 5-million-pound compression testing machine, the lab facilities provide TSC professionals the ability to create real-world stresses in a controlled environment.

These capabilities offer irrigation districts the unparalleled capacity to tap critical technical resources without having to maintain them locally. Recent projects range from assisting irrigation districts to install and calibrate automated gate systems, to conducting hydraulic model studies for spillway structures.

TSC encourages managers to work with Reclamation’s area offices to solicit project advice and integrate Reclamation’s best technical resources into their project teams. To remain at the forefront of technology and innovation, TSC also maintains close working relationships with the Army Corps of Engineers, other federal agencies, the private sector, and universities.

Importantly, TSC receives almost no direct funding from federal appropriations and essentially operates like a private consulting firm housed in a public setting. TSC clients are billed based on hourly rates adjusted for the pay grades of the staff members consulted, with additional charges assessed for certain specialized services.

Irrigation Leader

However, in addition to technical project services, TSC provides districts with a breadth of training opportunities.

Using its canal modeling facilities, TSC regularly offers extensive training related to the management of water delivery systems. These offerings include flow and water measurement, as well as automation and communication technologies.

Accompanying these engineering-oriented activities, TSC’s scientists collaborate to develop practical solutions to environmental issues. For example, many Reclamation projects struggle with zebra and quagga mussels that threaten to clog water infrastructure. TSC scientists have taken the dual approach of both developing new methods to detect the presence of mussels before they become a problem and conducting research to identify coating materials to which the mussels have difficulty attaching.

A hydraulic engineer measures flow velocities in a model representing a rock ramp diversion structure on the Yellowstone River in Montana.

For more information on Reclamation’s Technical Services Center, visit http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/tech_services/.

The website contains information about TSC’s service offerings, as well as potential training opportunities for irrigation district staff.

For a direct link to a list of upcoming training sessions, visit http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/tech_services/training/.

Alternatively, district managers can contact their local Reclamation area office.

Reclamation’s Hydraulics Laboratory and a 1:20-scale model of a segment of the Yellowstone River in Montana. The model features a diversion structure for irrigation water supply, fish screens to prevent fish entrainment in the canal, and a rock ramp to enhance fish passage.

Irrigation Leader

Reclamation's Canal Model located in the Hydraulics Laboratory in Denver. The Canal Model features five control gates and pools, four turnouts, and a variety of sensors and flow measurement devices. The model is used to evaluate equipment and canal operations, and as a training tool for canal workshops and classes.

19

T

he Family Farm Alliance, National Water Resources Association (NWRA), and Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) earlier this month joined forces to raise concerns with a draft legislative framework crafted by the nonfederal members of the National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS).

These organizations, which collectively represent millions of acres of irrigated farmland in the West, delivered a joint letter to NCLS at a public workshop convened in Sacramento, California, that was critical of proposed legislative efforts to apply urban levee standards to rural water delivery systems.

The three associations do not believe that the provisions of the Levee Safety Act apply to facilities operated by the Bureau of Reclamation or entities responsible for managing works transferred from Reclamation. The act was passed shortly after the flood damage inflicted to urban New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina and was intended to apply to embankments that provide protection relating to seasonal high water and other weather events.

This is in contrast to Reclamation canals, which are designed to deliver water.

“The nationwide inspection program and new project condition and maintenance standards required by the committee’s legislative proposal would be duplicative of existing federal law, and would increase federal and nonfederal costs without a corresponding increase in public safety or assurances of financial support,” said Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen. “It would also open up the potential for greater liability to water project operators.”

Status of NCLS Efforts Congress created the National Committee on Levee Safety to develop recommendations for a national levee safety program, including a strategic plan for implementation of the program. NCLS has been working on this effort since October 2008. NCLS developed 20 recommendations for creating a National Levee Safety Program and presented these in a draft report, Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program: A Report to Congress from the National Committee on Levee Safety, on January 15, 2009. The specific recommendations

20

of NCLS for a National Levee Safety Program embrace three main concepts: (1) the need for leadership via a National Levee Safety Commission, which would support state-delegated programs, provide national technical standards and risk communication, and coordinate environmental and safety concerns; (2) the building of strong levee safety programs in all states, which would provide oversight, regulation, and critical levee safety processes; and (3) a foundation of well-aligned federal agency programs.

According to the draft report, federal legislation will be necessary to fully implement 12 of the 20 recommendations at a national level. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are working within existing authorities and funding to begin the first steps in implementing several of the recommendations that address the basics of communication and outreach, use of common language, and refinement of their existing programs. The nonfederal members of NCLS have drafted a proposed legislative framework establishing a National Levee Safety Program and addressing the areas where NCLS sees that legislation is needed to implement their recommendations.

Further, USACE is considering NCLS recommendations in the development of its own levee safety standards and risk assessment and communication methodologies.

“While we support those efforts, it is not appropriate to assume that similar standards and methodologies should also apply to water delivery facilities operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and its local partners, especially when Reclamation and other interests with ties to western agriculture were not even represented on NCLS,” said Keppen.

NCLS is engaging with the federal, state, local, regional, and tribal governments, levee owners and operators, environmental groups, and technical associations to share the findings and recommendations from their draft report and continue the dialogue on levee safety. Alliance representatives were present at a stakeholder outreach workshop held this month in Sacramento, where senior Reclamation officials also made a presentation on this issue at an NCLS briefing.

Irrigation Leader

Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2005.

Bureau of Reclamation Position on NCLS Applicability to Reclamation Facilities Prior to the release of the draft report in early 2009, the Bureau of Reclamation in 2008 drafted an internal memo regarding the (non) applicability of the Levee Safety Act to Bureau of Reclamation canals, in which they noted that the USACE was interpreting the “Levee Safety Act,” to include Reclamation canals within its coverage.

Reclamation consulted the Department of the Interior Solicitors’ Office and determined that the provisions of the Levee Safety Act do not apply to Reclamation.

They opined that the act applies to levees, which the law

Irrigation Leader

defines as embankments that provide protection relating to seasonal high water and other weather events. This is in contrast to Reclamation canals, which are designed to deliver water.

“After reviewing the act carefully and consulting with the Solicitor’s Office, we do not find any indication in the act that Congress intended to subject Reclamation to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army,” concluded Roseann Gonzales, Reclamation’s then-director of policy and program services.

The Alliance, NWRA, and ACWA agree with the Department of the Interior and Reclamation’s position.

21

“

The proposed legislation should only address a program for levees as that term is traditionally understood, with the embankment sections of water delivery canals and dams excluded.

October 26, 2010, Family Farm Alliance / NWRA / ACWA Letter to NCLS

Concerns of Western Water Users There clearly is a need to address the deterioration of aging flood control facilities, and preventing failures like the one in New Orleans should be an immediate priority. However, western water users have reviewed the National Levee Safety Program draft legislation in detail and have a number of concerns. Many believe it mandates new standards that would apply to many existing Bureau of Reclamation water delivery facilities when the focus instead should be on those flood control facilities that pose an actual risk to lives and property in the flood plain.

The Levee Safety Act was intended, in light of the circumstances which led to its enactment, to only deal with levees and the kind of canals around New Orleans into which flood waters were pumped to be conveyed away from the low points in the city.

“We do not believe the proposed draft legislation is required to use the same definition of ‘levee’ as used in the act, which created the NCLS,” the Alliance/NWRA/ ACWA letter stated. “The proposed legislation should only address a program for ‘levees’ as that term is traditionally understood, with the embankment sections of water delivery canals and dams excluded.”

Canals have unique design and engineering specifications that are much different than those of levees, and western water managers believe that applying standards meant for levees to their water delivery canals will be not only illogical and irrational, but expensive and unaffordable.

“The nationwide inspection program and new project condition and maintenance standards required in the legislative proposal would in most cases be duplicative and undermine existing operation and maintenance standards and inspection procedures built into Reclamation contracts for both reserved and transferred facilities,” said Keppen.

“This would increase costs, both federal and nonfederal, and in many cases without a corresponding increase in public safety.”

It could also open up the potential for greater liability to water project operators, as applying levee standards not meant for canal delivery structures would make compliance difficult if not impossible due to the excessive costs of rebuilding such structures. Although the draft legislation would authorize financial assistance to nonfederal entities responsible for the maintenance of federally owned 22

”

facilities, it is not clear how or when that assistance would be realized.

The Alliance/NWRA/ACWA letter also pointed out that Congress recently provided new authority to Reclamation through P.L. 111-11, signed into law in March 2009, intended to address aging canal systems in urbanized areas of the West. These authorities were proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who in early 2008 introduced a bill (S. 2842) designed to make aging federally owned canals safer across the West. Reclamation, in consultation with transferred works operating entities, is already moving forward with the development of specific inspection guidelines for project facilities that are in proximity to urbanized areas and that could pose a risk to public safety or property damage if they were to fail.

“We believe Reclamation’s new program for canal safety already addresses the risk of failure of canals and ditches in areas of highest risk, and the National Levee Safety Program should not duplicate or hinder this effort with more layers of federal bureaucracy,” said Keppen.

One Size Does Not Fit All In the American West, water supply systems are essential components of communities, farms, and the environment. These facilities are an integral part of the nation’s food production system, and their consistent operation helps ensure our farmers’ ability to provide a reliable and secure food supply for U.S. citizens and the rest of the world. Population growth, environmental demands, and climate change are placing an unprecedented strain on aging water storage and conveyance systems designed primarily for agricultural use.

The Alliance has supported updating Reclamation guidelines for analyzing projects to include considerations for urbanization and other effects that did not exist when these facilities were originally designed many decades ago. However, many Alliance members do not have the financial capability to conduct required repairs or upgrades to their facilities to comply with a national levee standard on their canals, resulting in little or no commensurate increase in public safety.

“One size still does not fit all, and expensive, nonsensical standards for all Reclamation water delivery facilities are not appropriate or cost effective,” said Keppen.

Irrigation Leader

2011 Family Farm Alliance

Annual Conference

February 24-25, 2011 Monte Carlo Resort & Casino Las Vegas, Nevada e Room Rat 50% Less Than 2010!! $50/Night!!!

The 23rd Annual Conference of the Family Farm Alliance will once again take place in the West’s most glamorous town — Las Vegas!

We’ll bring together insightful, outside-the-box presentations and discussions you’ve come to expect from the West’s most effective grassroots irrigated agricultural organization.

Registration available online at www.familyfarmalliance.org

California Approaches Water Management With Co-Equal Goals

By Tim Quinn

I

n the early 1990s, California experienced a water management crisis unlike anything water managers had previously experienced.

Environmental and economic concerns were at loggerheads in the midst of a long drought that brought water management initiatives to a standstill as legal challenges multiplied. Finally, in 1994, state and federal authorities under the leadership of Governor Pete Wilson and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt stepped in to negotiate the CalFed Bay Delta Accord. This landmark agreement centered on a collaborative approach to watershed management and brought environmental groups, municipalities, and agricultural water users to the table.

The Bay Delta Accord was an early manifestation of what we now refer to as California’s “co-equal” goals. The concept is simple: federal, state, and local agencies must recognize that strategies focused on creating both sustainable ecosystems and a reliable water supply throughout the state have the greatest likelihood for success.

While this landmark agreement only held together for about a decade, its central thesis of co-equal goals was recently reiterated in a comprehensive package of state water legislation passed in November 2009. This historic legislation achieved bipartisan support and focuses on restoration of the delta environment and improving water supply reliability throughout California, thereby seeking to provide benefits in all the diverse regions of this big state.

Significantly, the 2009 legislation recognizes that conservation or water use efficiency alone won’t solve the

24

Irrigation Leader

problem. Accomplishing the co-equal goals in California will require the design and construction of 21st century infrastructure as another key element of a comprehensive solution. While the efforts of our predecessors to bring water to even our most arid regions deserve the highest praise, the predominant focus at the time was to provide affordable water with less emphasis on the environment than is required today. Today, California is planning for major new infrastructure projects—for example, improving how we convey water through or around the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Delta and adding new ground water and surface water storage capacity—that will promote both environmental and economic sustainability consistent with the core state policy of co-equal goals.

With the support of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), California water managers embraced the concept of co-equal goals in an effort to move past the costly regulatory battles that have long hampered critical infrastructure projects in the state. Only a business-like approach in which both environmental and water supply interests acknowledge the needs of the other will allow California to ensure the reliability of its water supply in the long term and take appropriate steps to restore its environment.

Of course, not everyone in California embraces the concept of co-equal goals. Some still engage in sharply adversarial pursuits as though water policy were a zero-sum game (it is not). In particular, federal and state Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulators sometimes devote too few resources to analyzing and developing well-coordinated strategies that adopt a comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach. Specifically, “single-action” strategies geared solely to meeting the perceived needs of a single species with a limited set of policy tools are not acceptable when they are accomplished to the detriment of water supply reliability and the sustainability of the ecosystem as a whole.

Importantly, nothing in the ESA prevents implementation approaches that seek to promote the goal of improved water supply reliability. Both California law and recent federal court decisions indicate that

Irrigation Leader

regulators have a responsibility to consider alternative remedies that both protect species and minimize adverse effects on human water use. In California, attempts to negotiate an agreement called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to guide future management of the delta represent a promising change in direction. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is arguably the most ambitious habitat conservation plan ever attempted under section 10 of the federal ESA and embodies the hope of implementing ESA in a more efficient, effective, and economic manner.

The need to balance environmental and economic concerns is not unique to California, and other states are beginning to embrace this important concept. Every water manager in the western United States has seen the impact of environmental regulations that do not account for the impact on the surrounding community or the overall ecosystem. I recently spoke at the fall meeting of the Texas Water Conservation Association. Texas managers are seeking an alternative approach to the regulatory battles of the past. At the meeting, I observed that Texans and Californians have many of the same issues, and I told attendees that the focus on infrastructure constructed for the dual purposes of ensuring water supply and protecting our ecosystems is critical to solving these long-term challenges.

We have the ability to irrigate our crops, supply water to our cities, and take care of species living in our watersheds.

Approaching these issues upfront with a business-like approach will allow managers to ensure future water supply needs are met, while also promoting the sustainability of the local ecosystem.

Tim Quinn is the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies in Sacramento, California. For more information on ACWA, please visit http://www.acwa.com.

25

Cooperation Necessary to Protect State Water Rights from Federal Intervention

By W.E. “Bill” West, Jr. recent lawsuit filed under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) opens the possibility of federal control of Texas water rights.

However, legal actions are unnecessary and signal that some remain unwilling to cooperate to achieve balance between the needs of the environment and those of farmers, ranchers, and other water users.

Since becoming mired in a previous ESA lawsuit in 1989, Texas’s Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) has led efforts to responsibly manage water resources and to protect the endangered species that thrive in them. From that experience, GBRA, state environmental authorities, and environmental groups learned that cooperation is necessary to ensure that the diverse needs of the environment and Texas water users are met.

However, the recent lawsuit signals a break from the trend of cooperation. In March 2010, an organization called The Aransas Project (TAP) sued the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, alleging state management of the Guadalupe and San Antonio rivers led to violations of the “takings” clause of ESA. Effectively, TAP’s lawsuit claims that too much water is being diverted from the rivers during droughts, which led to the deaths of endangered whooping cranes that winter at the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge.

Yet Texas A&M University researchers previously conducted a seven-year study on the whooping crane and found that in times of drought the birds easily switch away from their preferred food source, the blue crab, the population of which declines in low water conditions.

A

26

Furthermore, GBRA consultants observed that of the reported 57 whooping crane deaths in 2008 and 2009, 34 occurred before they reached Texas, and there was evidence that a viral infection contributed to most of the “confirmed” deaths. Though the actual mortality rate of the whooping cranes during that period remains in question, scientists continue to try to determine the causes of reported whooping crane losses, and there is no evidence that food shortages related to freshwater inflows were responsible.

Lawsuits and federal ESA petitions by environmental groups that fall outside of cooperative processes already in place in Texas threaten to undermine years of goodfaith efforts to ensure adequate water for both human and environmental needs. The Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program, regional water planning efforts, the environmental flows process, and the development of desired future conditions for aquifers all represent efforts in Texas to balance priorities and ensure cooperation among disparate interests. By attempting to circumvent these processes, some environmental groups are abandoning good faith and inviting federal control, to the detriment of both sides.

Since TAP filed its lawsuit in March 2010, GBRA has spent $1 million in legal fees defending its water rights—a significant price for an organization with about a $25 million annual budget. Court battles such as these can take years and deplete resources and energy that could better be spent achieving cooperative solutions that ultimately will benefit human and environmental water users. Yet some groups remain entrenched and insist on impractical measures that Irrigation Leader

can only be achieved by seeking action from federal entities unfamiliar with the realities of Texas water resource use.

Whether intended or unintended, federal groups can become an impediment to Texas’s balanced approach to water management. For example, in December 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing nine species of mussel that are found throughout Texas’s rivers. An ESA listing of this magnitude could lead to a significant designation of critical habitat. And, if the lawsuit for the endangered whooping crane is successful in usurping water rights on the Guadalupe River, the same legal logic could be used on any other Texas river where there are endangered species. To be fair, both the lawsuit and the proposed mussel listings were initiated by two environmental groups, not the federal government. Yet, the outcome of both issues could lead to federal control of Texas’s surface water.

In addition to ESA enforcement, federal intervention in other areas has prevented the development of solutions to ongoing water supply problems. Specifically, efforts to increase water supply by constructing a desalination facility have largely stalled over federal air quality standards.

Effectively, regulations targeted at ensuring clean air Irrigation Leader

could prevent GBRA from increasing water supply, which ultimately would benefit species involved in ESA litigation.

The inflexibility of the federal approach prevents cooperative solutions from being achieved through state water management, and inviting federal intervention creates costly legal challenges that ultimately result in detrimental impacts to both sides. Importantly, the potential effect of federal intervention is not confined to Texas, but can be observed across the West. It remains important for water managers to compare their potential issues to those seen elsewhere and to anticipate potential vulnerabilities in order to stave off litigation when possible.

Bill West is the general manager of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority in Seguin, Texas.

He can be reached by phone at (830) 379-5822, or by e-mail at gm@gbra.org.

27

At its core, going green is about reducing waste, minimizing impacts and cleaning up the environment, and these principles have evolved to embrace all aspects of sustainability and corporate responsibility. Realizing we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, Acequia is dedicated to getting our clients and partners involved by promoting effective conservation practices and environmentally sustainable programs, generating water awareness and encouraging responsibility.

Integrated Water Planning, Permitting, Design & Construction Services

Backed by science.

Driven by performance.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

ACEQUIA PROVIDES SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE BASED SOLUTIONS FOR WATER MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE & URBAN LANDSCAPES:

PERMIT COMPLIANCE OPERATION OPTIMIZATION

Superior Technology Documentable Measurable Savings

RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT

Enhanced System Performance Industry Proven Best Management Practices

WATER QUALITY CONTROL

24/7 Trained Agronomists on Staff Real-Time System Monitoring

CLIMATE CHANGE STUDIES

Detailed System and Utility Bill Audits

SOURCE AUGMENTATION

Performance Based Guaranteed Results Our comprehensive approach to commercial and agricultural irrigation water management has resulted in water savings exceeding 2 billion gallons and numerous awards and recognition as a leader in water conservation efforts.

POWER GENERATION WATER TRANSMISSION John Maxwell, P.E. 360.570.4400 www.hdrinc.com/water

www.acequia.com

General inquiries: conserve@acequia.com

AQUALASTIC® AquaLastic® saved Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho, well over The AquaLastic® Canal Repair System is a proven method of concrete canal crack $1 million when it was used to repair a badly degraded concrete flume. repair.

Irrigation District Manager, Johninstalled Anderson, the $110million were has Millions of feet have been oversaid more than years savings and AquaLastic® conservative.

Outline districts cost estimates tocompanies replace the flume would likely haveby saved irrigation and canal many thousands of dollars escalated, especially as anconcrete environmental studyatwould haveofbeen required effectively repairing lined canals a fraction the cost of replacement. because the flume spans a creek. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

“

“

WATER CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION ARE OUR PASSION. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS ARE OUR REALITY.

Kenneth Cook, CEO kwcook@acequia.com 800.276.1507 ext. 4 P.O. BOX 271 ATHENS, TX 75751

Our expert applicators are now positioned throughout the Western USA.

AquaLastic® has been a great product for us and held up every bit as expected.

AquaLastic® Low Pressure System

The AquaLastic ® flume repair system repairs not only concrete flumes, but tin, steel and even wooden flumes, representing very significant savings for irrigation and water companies.

The innovative American technology is leading the market in the American West’s canal infrastructure repair and flumes are just one great example of how irrigation district can save money as well as save water.

Contact: Cygnet Enteprises NorthWest Inc. The low pressure system is now available for 208 262 9566 purchase or to rent jwinfield@cygnetenterprises.com Hydro Consulting LLC, 615 S. Oregon Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 www.fixcanal.com

Sales enquiries: 877 467 8490

Don’t let an irrigation canal

ditch your environmental efforts.

When it comes to site-specific lining solutions, Huesker’s Canal3® is the preferred choice. That’s because Canal3 is a durable geocomposite, which can be used as an exposed liner or in combination with a concrete lined system. Canal3’s superior interface frictional response allows for steeper side slopes thus reducing excavation and maximizing water flow. Give Huesker a call and let us show you how you can save money and keep your irrigation waters flowing.

Applications for Capping • Water Containment Erosion Control • Reinforced Embankments

Engineering with Geosynthetics 800.942.9418 huesker.com 704.588.5500 email: marketing @ hueskerinc.com

Hue_003_Canal_Ad_vFinal.indd 1

2/11/10 4:33:05 PM

Currently Serving 18 irrigation DiStriCtS in 5 WeStern StateS TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS provides focused software solutions and services for Ag water billing and operations designed specifically for Irrigation Districts.

Our commitment to hard work and integrity makes us the company you can trust to deliver the solutions you need.

Agricultural Irrigation Management

AIM

Agricultural Irrigation Billing

Bill

Customer Information Portal

CIP

a solution which enables your field based Agricultural Irrigation Management canal staff to more effectively take water orders, monitor consumption, and efficiently exchange data from the field back to the office.

Provides the tooLS needed to efficiently Agricultural Irrigation Billing and effectively deliver on your agency’s water consumption bills, assessment billing, collect payments, invoicing and a/r functions.

customer Information Portal is an online web application. customers have the Customer Information Portal ability to place water orders online and view up-to-the-minute customer account status.

TrueGIS

GIS

trueGIS offers powerful tools to access Geographic Information System and visualize critical information. navigating, searching and printing maps just got faster and easier giving your organization an immediate return on investment.

Sacramento

3262 Penryn road Suite 100-B Loomis, ca 95650 (916) 577-1470

tucSon

7670 east Broadway Blvd Suite 305 tucson, aZ 85710 (520) 790-7721

www.truepointsolutions.com

Keys to Success as an Irrigation District Board Chairman The following is an excerpt from the Irrigation Directors Handbook compiled by Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District in Quincy, Washington. It provides guidance to board chairmen as they assume their roles as leaders of an irrigation district board of directors.

The Board Chairman 1. Takes charge—assumes the role of leadership.

2. Uses tact—impartial.

3. Is punctual—prepared for meetings.

4. Works closely with managers.

5. Gains and maintains the respect of fellow board members.

6. Guides discussions.

7. Takes the wraps off the problems so all can understand fully before making final decisions.

8. Brings discussions to orderly and timely conclusions.

9. Is diplomatic and persuasive, but accepts the majority decision.

10. Keeps meetings on schedule and adjourns at a reasonable time.

The traditional and recognized duty of a chairman is to convene, conduct, and adjourn the meetings. This is only a small part of the job. He or she must prepare, with the assistance of the secretary and manager, the agenda prior to the meeting. He or she must weigh the problems at hand and be able to fully inform his or her fellow members of the effect each decision may have on the future of the organization.

Irrigation Leader

31

Water Law 32

How the Federal Goverment Could Save Irrigators Local Tax Dollars

By Tom Wilmoth

I

n 2003, the Central Platte Natural Resources District paid to support the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA’s) efforts to develop Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. Those funds came from local tax dollars raised from irrigators within the district. Two years later, the district asked FSA to share some of the GIS data that the district helped FSA develop, so the district could better implement various state and federal programs.

Despite previously sharing such information on an informal, ad hoc basis, FSA this time declined, explaining that the district, its long-time partner in cooperative conservation programs, was not entitled to the GIS data. The district spent a number of years navigating various administrative reviews and

working with Nebraska’s congressional delegation to alter FSA’s position. Finally, with no other recourse, the district sued. The dispute has reached the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which hopefully will clarify the district’s entitlement to the data it needs to help manage Nebraska’s natural resources. Regardless of the outcome, the district’s irrigators find themselves footing the tax bill to obtain GIS data they paid to create once as state irrigators, again as federal tax payers, and now a third time as the district fights its so-called partner.

The district is a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska, charged by its enabling legislation with managing natural resources and carrying out various programs for the conservation, protection, development, and management of the state’s natural resources. In furtherance of those duties, the district has been working with FSA and other Department of Agriculture agencies to implement cooperative programs in Nebraska for decades. The district, like Nebraska’s 22 other natural resources districts, needs the GIS data to accomplish its mandated mission, which, in addition to cooperating in federal programs, includes the management of ground water used for irrigation. In the district’s case, it also partners with the U.S. Department of the Interior on a state-federal partnership for endangered species recovery on the Platte River, and it needs the federally collected data to facilitate its role in the agreement.

To that end, the agencies have found GIS to be an important tool. As the Congressional Research Service explained in Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Current Issues and Future Challenges ( June 8, 2009): The federal government and policy makers increasingly use geospatial information and tools like GIS for producing floodplain maps, conducting the Census, mapping foreclosures, and responding to natural hazards such as wildfires and hurricanes. For policy makers this type of analysis can greatly assist in clarifying complex problems that may involve local, state, and federal government, and affect businesses, residential areas, and federal installations.

Irrigation Leader

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted the usefulness of geospatial information, in its Geographic Information Systems, Challenges to Effective Data Sharing ( June 10, 2003), explaining, “Federal, state, and local government agencies are using GIS today to provide vital services to their customers.”

However, GAO noted, the “biggest problem with collecting this duplicative geospatial data is its cost.”

While GAO estimated the federal government spent $4.1 billion collecting this data, it found “state and local governments are estimated to spend twice that of the federal government on collection and management of geographic referenced data.” In the district’s case, duplication of the data it seeks from FSA is estimated to cost $300,000 annually, to be funded through taxes on local irrigators—the same irrigators who already paid for the development of the GIS data. Due to budget constraints, the district has not been able to collect the data each year, compromising its program implementation.

In Geospatial Information, Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative Investments ( June 23, 2004), GAO recommended better coordination among all agencies to eliminate duplication and reduce the overall cost of this vital resource.

Notwithstanding the importance of GIS data and the cost-saving potential of interagency data sharing, when the district ultimately sought the GIS data under the Freedom of Information Act, FSA denied access to GIS shape files for farms within the district’s boundaries. At first, FSA cited third-party privacy interests it asserted trumped the district’s (and the general public’s) need for the GIS data. That justification was rejected in Multi-Ag Media LLC v.

Dep’t of Agric., 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and the district believed it would receive the data it had long sought.

Weeks later, however, Congress responded to the Multi-Ag decision by enacting section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill. The relevant provision, now 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b), prohibits the release of GIS data, with limited exception. But the law allows disclosure to “a person or Federal, State, local, or tribal agency working in cooperation with the Secretary in any Department program … when providing technical or financial assistance with respect to the agricultural operation, agricultural land, or farming or conservation practices[.]” The District assumed it qualified as such and looked forward to disclosure of the useful information.

Nevertheless, FSA and the department have

Irrigation Leader

formally asserted that the law requires a cooperator to prove (1) it is cooperating in an FSA program on every parcel for which it seeks GIS data, and (2) the cooperator will use the information exclusively for that purpose. In short, FSA and the department have taken the narrowest possible view of the exception to the rule laid out in section 1619, and have limited the utility of the GIS data it ultimately chooses to disclose.

Having exhausted its administrative remedies under the Freedom of Information Act and having also been denied access to the GIS data under FSA’s Routine Use exceptions to the Privacy Act (see Notice of Revision to the Privacy Act System of Records, 72 Fed. Reg. 70,559 (Dec. 12, 2007)), the district filed suit in Federal District Court for the District of Nebraska. In a lengthy opinion issued September 8, 2010, the district court sided with the federal defendants. The court first concluded FSA’s decision to withhold the GIS data under the Routine Use exceptions was not judicially reviewable. The court then went on to hold, under the Freedom of Information Act, that the district was required to prove FSA’s decision not to release the GIS data was arbitrary and capricious. The court concluded the decision was reasonable, despite the district’s decades-long cooperative relationship with FSA and the district’s professed intent to use the GIS data, in part, to further those cooperative programs.

The district has appealed the matter to the Eighth Circuit, and a decision is expected late next summer.

The appellate decision will be closely watched, as it will set a precedent for the accessibility of GIS data presently held by department agencies. Unless the district court’s decision is overturned, it is unlikely that long-time state and local cooperators will have open access to the very data they helped create in many cases. Of course, Congress, in the next Farm Bill, or in related legislation, could resolve the conflict simply by directing disclosure of GIS data like that sought by the district to state and local entities with responsibility for managing resources, thereby ensuring they have access to the federally collected data they need to effectively cooperate in state-federal partnerships.

Tom Wilmoth is a partner with Blankenau Wilmoth, LLP, in Lincoln, Nebraska.

He may be contacted by phoning (402) 475-7082 or by e-mailing tom@aqualawyers.com.

33

The Innovators

Software Developer Finds Niche in Irrigation District Market

W

TruePoint Solutions software allows Merced Irrigation District delivery service operators to view water orders electronically in the field.

hen San Benito County Water District (SBCWD) in California decided to replace its aging billing system, it struggled to find a product suited to its needs. “We went and surveyed different water districts to see what they were doing, but nothing really seemed complete and nobody had anything that was like ‘hey, this is really great’,” said Sara Singleton, the district’s manager of administration and finance.

After SBCWD temporarily abandoned its search, district staff decided to make a final attempt to find a potential provider with an approach better tailored for the primarily agricultural district and discovered TruePoint Solutions, a software developer based in Sacramento. “We came across TruePoint and it was really kind of a relief . . . it was like we found somebody that not only spoke our language, but also spoke our

34

dialect,” Singleton said.

Founded in 2004 after its four co-owners left a larger company that dealt extensively with publicsector clients, TruePoint developed its first product, TrueISM, when working for another irrigation district client. TrueISM is a management information system geared specifically to irrigation districts that automatically acquires data from weather stations to help staff forecast irrigation schedules and manage deficit irrigation strategies, among other functions. “It’s still kind of rocket science,” said Kent Johnson, one of the four co-owners, of the product originally developed and deployed in spring 2005.

From its beginnings in California, TruePoint has grown and completed work for 18 irrigation districts throughout the western United States, developing new products tailored to their needs along the way.

Irrigation Leader

Its product offerings now include TrueAIM, which allows field-based staff to efficiently exchange data with the main office using laptop computers, and TrueCIP, which permits customers to place water orders and view their account status over the Internet. Linking with TrueBill, a revenue application geared towards agricultural water billing, TrueCIP aims to reduce costs by automating many of the time-consuming administrative tasks district staff encounter everyday.

However, TruePoint understands that not every district is the same, and Johnson noted each client receives a system that has been personalized.

“Because all our products are browser based, we can configure the system to meet their particular needs,” he said.

Some of TruePoint’s most recent innovations have come from a collaborative working relationship with Merced Irrigation District (MID) in California, which began when the district contacted TruePoint to update its water order and billing systems. The project quickly expanded to include automated phone ordering and the development of a mobile phone application, in addition to a Webbased approach.

“Our growers love it, usage has increased, and as soon as an order is placed it immediately becomes accessible to [our distribution system operators] in the field,” said Bryan Kelly, MID’s director of regulatory compliance and government affairs for water.

Kelly lauded TruePoint’s ability to implement new ideas and tailor them to MID’s specific needs.

“For a group of computer programmers, they really know our business,” he said.

Singleton noted that SBCWD’s experience with TruePoint was similar from the beginning of their relationship. “They came down and did a needs analysis for us . . . it was really apparent that we were not having to explain all the vocabulary words,” she said, while also highlighting that the company understood the unique nature of dealing with public irrigation districts that must receive board approval for budget expenditures.

Importantly, TruePoint’s client relationship does not end once a new system is implemented. Through ongoing service and maintenance agreements, the company offers technical support and periodic product upgrades to ensure systems remain up-todate.

For more information on TruePoint Solutions, visit its website at http://www.truepointsolutions.com.

Irrigation Leader

Merced Irrigation District's server supports the district's electronic water ordering system.

35

Integrated Water Planning, Permitting, Design, Optimization & Construction Services

2011 CALENDAR

John Maxwell, P.E. 360.570.4400 www.hdrinc.com/water

Jan. 5-6

National Water Resources Assn., Leadership Forum, Phoenix, AZ

Jan. 12-14

Groundwater Management Districts Assn., Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX

Jan. 12-14

Four-States Irrigation Council, Annual Conference, Fort Collins, CO

Jan. 18-20

Idaho Water Users Assn., Annual Convention, Boise, ID

Jan. 25-26

Nebraska Assn. of Resources Districts, Legislative Conference, Lincoln, NE

Jan. 26-28

Colorado Water Congress, Annual Convention, Denver, CO

Jan. 26-28

Mid-Pacific Region Water Users, Annual Conference, Reno, NV

Jan. 27-28

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Water Law Seminar, Austin, TX

Jan. 31-Feb.1

California Irrigation Institute, Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA

Feb. 1-3

Nevada Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Reno, NV

Feb. 8-10

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Texas Water Day, Washington, DC

Feb. 24-25

Family Farm Alliance, Annual Meeting and Conference, Las Vegas, NV

Mar. 1-4

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Annual Convention, Austin, TX For more information, or if you would like a water event listed here, please phone (703) 517-3962, or e-mail Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Submissions are due the first of each month preceding the next issue.