Irrigation Leader July/August 2011

Volume 2 Issue 7

July/August 2011

Dave Koland: North Dakota's Garrison Diversion Unveils Plan to Increase Irrigated Acreage

Resourcefulness Is Alive And Well

By Kris Polly This issue of Irrigation Leader contains articles that underscore the resourcefulness of irrigation districts, as well as others responsible for the care and management of water, in their collective effort to solve today’s complex supply challenges.

In his interview, David Koland tells us how his district simply decided to move forward with its own plans to create much-needed irrigated acreage. Gary Esslinger again explains to Congress the common sense and job-creation potential of allowing districts to more easily make use of the hydropower generation capability of their canals—at no cost to taxpayers. Keith Meikle describes how communities in Utah have worked together so that all could have water after a significant canal failure. Thad Bettner and Greg Schildwachter show us ways to work with the Endangered Species Act. Representatives of CropMetrics, Monsanto, and the Upper Republican Natural Resources District tell us of an innovative water saving technology being used in Southwest Nebraska. Steve Johnson, always a visionary, speaks of a new idea for districts to create and use their own electricity, without involving local electric utilities.

Doug Kemper sets the standard for how water users and lawmakers can work together to solve problems. Ron Wilson of East Greenacres talks about the importance of planning for coming transitions. Attorney Bob Lynch and

Justice Greg Hobbs share their tremendous knowledge of water law and ability to see solutions that others often miss. Finally, Tom Knutson combines two old problems to create a solution that many other districts can use.

The above-mentioned individuals are all positive, forward-looking problem solvers. Each one is very hopeful about the future and confident that his respective challenges or issues have attainable solutions. Throughout my years in Washington, I have seen the negative effects of a failure to work together toward common ends. Too often, we become lost in politics and neglect to develop common-sense solutions that can satisfy more than just one particular interest.

It is an absolute joy to work with the people we have featured in this issue, and I am inspired to see that such resourcefulness is alive and well. We must take their efforts as an example because the challenges we face are too real to do otherwise.

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 representing and guiding water, power, and agricultural entities in their dealings with Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal government agencies. He may be contacted by e-mailing Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

Tired of hearing news that affects your job or business secondhand?

Need more timely information to remain up to speed on important water policy issues?

Water Strategies, LLC, is proud to announce the launch of

The Water and Power Report Available at

www.WaterandPowerReport.com The Water and Power Report is a one-stop marketplace for news, ideas, and insight into the water and power community.

A compliment to Irrigation Leader’s in-depth articles about western water policy, the website will feature a daily download of links to news and information from sites originating throughout the western United States.

The Water and Power Report also includes electronic copies of every issue of its sister publication, Irrigation Leader.

2

Irrigation Leader

C O N T E N T S

JULY/AUGUST 2011

2 Resourcefulness Is Alive And Well

By Kris Polly, editor-in-chief

Volume 2

Issue 7

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for November-December and July-August by: Water Strategies, LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210 Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Chisholm, Senior Writer 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 on rates and placement, 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.

4 North Dakota’s Garrison Diversion Unveils Plan to Increase Irrigated Acreage

8 House Subcommittee Hears Testimony on

Low-Head Hydro Support Bill

10 Utah Agricultural Community Hopes to

Rebound From Canal Slide

12 Pioneering Fish Screen and Gradient

Restoration Facility Serve as Example for Large-Scale Recovery Projects

14 Making ESA Work for You

Irrigation Leader

By Greg Schildwachter

16 Nebraska Irrigators Team With Private

Companies to Launch Variable Rate Irrigation Demonstration Project

20 Small Hydropower Development:

It’s More Than Just FERC

By Steve Johnson

21 Colorado Water Congress Enjoys Strong Member

Participation, Support from State Legislature

By Doug Kemper

District Focus:

24 East Greenacres Irrigation District Manages

Ground Water Irrigation Supply, Balances Original Mission With Urban Growth

Water Law:

26 Support Necessary for Low-Head Hydropower

Development in West

COVER PHOTO: Dave Koland, general manager for the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, stands in front of the pumping plant that will provide water from the McClusky Canal to 3,500 previously dry-land acres. The plant utilizes 1250 horse-power to run water through nearly 15 miles of pipe. Photo by Garrison Diversion staff.

By Thad Bettner

By Robert S. Lynch

28 Hear the Working Waters Sing

By Justice Greg Hobbs

The Innovators:

30 Farwell Irrigation District Repurposes Old Tires

to Prevent Erosion, Reduce O&M Costs

3

The discharge manifold assembly delivers water underground to a buried pipe network. Pictured are John Leininger (left), Garrison Diversion Board Chairman, and Dave Koland, Garrison Diversion’s General Manager.

4

Irrigation Leader

North Dakota’s Garrison Diversion Unveils Plan to Increase Irrigated Acreage

T

racing its roots to the Flood Control Act of 1944, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (Garrison Diversion) is the operating entity responsible for developing irrigated acreage in North Dakota’s Missouri River Basin. The state was originally promised 1 million acres in compensation for farmland lost when the federal government constructed six dams. However, Canada and downriver states raised concerns that ultimately resulted in significant decreases to the 1-million-acre vision over the ensuing decades.

Still aiming to increase economically viable acreage for farming, Garrison Diversion recently launched the McClusky Canal MM 7.5 Irrigation Project to construct a transmission water line for the irrigation of an additional 2,925 acres.

Previously, few farmers had been able to tap the canal as a source of water, so the new project will expand the region’s agricultural production. Garrison Diversion’s general manager, Dave Koland, spoke with Kris Polly, editor-in-chief of Irrigation Leader, on July 8, 2011.

Kris Polly: It is my understanding that Garrison Diversion recently developed new irrigated acreage.

How does this expansion fit into the district’s legacy?

Dave Koland: The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District was originally created to develop what North Dakota thought would be 1 million irrigated acres; however, as construction on the main canal (McClusky Canal) started, a number of concerns were raised by downstream states and Canada regarding return flows from the irrigation project. The project then became embroiled in Congress and was reformulated twice, first in 1986 and then in 2000. The main irrigated acreage that was conceived was never constructed, and by the last reformulation, known as the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, the federal authorization of 1 million acres was reduced to 75,480 acres, which includes the Oakes Test Area, constructed to monitor return flows and determine possible impacts to water quality.

Kris Polly: How have circumstances changed since the project was originally authorized, and how has technology impacted irrigation practices?

Irrigation Leader

Dave Koland: Since the project was originally authorized, farming operations and irrigation practices have evolved, changing the way we look at irrigation today.

At one time, irrigation was mostly flood-type irrigation, and most farms were small, with the typical operation at about 600 acres. Now, the land base for a farming operation has gone from 500 or 600 acres to 15,000 or 20,000 acres. Additionally, in North Dakota, where we used to grow a lot of wheat and fallow the land every other year, we now grow a lot of corn, soybeans, and beans, and we produce a crop every year.

What we were doing in 1950 won’t necessarily work in 2011. After taking another look at irrigation practices, sprinkler irrigation with micromanaged water supply has certainly advanced the technology that we’re able to use.

In turn, the number of acres that we’re able to profitably irrigate has increased.

Irrigation provides an excellent opportunity to increase production as it allows the farmer to regulate when water is applied and how other inputs can be applied to the crop. North Dakota has been fortunate to have had 10 years of very good rainfall, but we know the wet cycle will end. When it does, the states with irrigation capabilities are going to be able to more efficiently produce crops and stabilize farm income.

Kris Polly: How have your recent efforts to create additional irrigated acreage developed?

Dave Koland: While a few individual farmers were utilizing the 80-mile McClusky Canal for irrigation, Garrison Diversion realized the opportunity was available to develop additional irrigated acreage near the canal.

Canvassing the area brought favorable responses, and a feasibility study was completed. The feasibility study showed that irrigating farmland near the McClusky Canal would be profitable under current economic conditions.

In 2010, Garrison Diversion launched the first phase of a three-phase project to irrigate approximately 7,000 acres from the McClusky Canal. Phase I will irrigate around 3,500 acres from 28 pivots. The project consists of a large pump station with the ability to carry water as far as 5

Kris Polly: What is Garrison Diversion’s role in funding the project?

Dave Koland: Everyone wants to know what a project will cost, so Garrison Diversion had to be able to say, “Here’s what we can do, and here is what it will cost you.” It takes a lot of groundwork to get to that point— determining the irrigable land, who is interested, and the design work needed to answer technical questions on water flow, rates, etc. Some upfront investment is required, which Garrison Diversion covered. Garrison Diversion’s funding is supported through a one-mill levy provided by each of the district’s 28 member counties to support the district’s activities, including water development.

Once the project was defined and people understood what could be done, they were willing to make some personal investment.

Kris Polly: What is Reclamation’s role in increasing irrigated acreage?

Kip Kovar, Garrison Diversion’s District Engineer, explains the operation of the booster station.

10 miles away, increasing the opportunity to irrigate land in a larger area around the canal system than previously existed.

Kris Polly: What is the dimension of the pipe Garrison Diversion is using to run water up to 10 miles, and what is the power source of the pump station?

Dave Koland: The main transmission line consists of two 24-inch parallel pipelines, providing water a greater distance than could be done with a single pipe. Irrigators can expect pressurized water to be delivered directly to their fields at 35 lbs/square inch of pressure at the pivot point. The project power is wheeled through a local rural electric cooperative, with which Garrison Diversion has an important partnership, as there is a significant investment involved in bringing power to the high-powered pumps.

When looking at how to provide service to an area, a professional engineer on staff at Garrison Diversion determines what is feasible. Garrison Diversion also works with consultants to ensure that the project is going to work as designed.

6

Dave Koland: The irrigation project has been very much a joint effort with the Bureau of Reclamation. It has played an important role in completing the irrigation project by helping Garrison Diversion through the environmental elements of the project and making sure the district complies with Reclamation law. Garrison Diversion has made environmental commitments above and beyond any requirements for privately developed irrigation to ensure a positive environmental impact.

Kris Polly: What advice would you give to other district managers that are considering similar types of development?

Dave Koland: I think the key is to look where you didn’t think you had opportunities before. Most people are disbelieving and say “no, that’s never been done before.”

We have to find new ways to do things because we’re in a whole different world in agriculture now. Some situations don’t pay off right away. You might be able to come back later with some new players or technology and make something work that seemed impossible just a few years ago.

Garrison Diversion has learned, perhaps the hard way, that collaboration is essential when putting together a project. There is no one way of doing things anymore.

One size doesn’t fit all, and what works in this part of the country might need to be modified for another part of the country.

It’s unique to have an organization with the funding needed to put special projects together, but you absolutely must have that in this day and age. That’s our role; that’s what we’re trying to do.

Irrigation Leader

House Subcommittee Hears Testimony on Low-Head Hydro Support Bill

T

he House Water and Power Subcommittee met on June 23 to discuss the Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011 (H.R. 795), which will wholly exempt certain small projects built on existing, man-made water conduits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process. The bill appeared to receive bipartisan support from members of the subcommittee during the hearing.

“H.R. 795 eliminates costly and unnecessary federal regulations that are standing in the way of renewable and emissions-free hydropower generation,” said Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA). “This legislation will cut through red tape, get power on-line and put people to work.”

Representative Jim Costa (D-CA), a co-sponsor of the bill, concurred. “It just makes good sense when a project doesn’t have any impact on habitat or surrounding areas,” he said.

Gary Esslinger, Treasurer-Manager of New Mexico’s Elephant Butte Irrigation District, testified in support of the bill, noting his district’s trouble in obtaining approval 8

Irrigation Leader

for small hydropower projects under the current regulatory regime (Irrigation Leader, April 2011).

“These systems are implemented on existing, man-made conduits, ditches, or canal systems, where fish or other aquatic organisms are not present,” Esslinger said. “There are virtually none of the environmental impacts associated with traditional hydro generation.”

Esslinger discussed the potential benefits of developing the hydropower at the many sites operated by irrigation districts and water agencies across the western United States. “With federal and state dollars frozen as legislators confront the current budget crisis, giving districts the regulatory leeway to develop these opportunities will allow them to generate revenue to pay for aging infrastructure repairs at the local level,” he said.

H.R. 795’s sponsor, Representative Adrian Smith (R-NE), agreed with Esslinger’s assessment. “There are thousands of miles of irrigation canals in the West,” he said. “This bill would help stimulate the economy of rural America, all at no cost to the taxpayer.”

Representative Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) also Irrigation Leader

highlighted the bill’s attributes. “I believe this is a common sense approach to be able to harness power in an innovative way, a clean way, and, indeed, a green way,” he said. “This way of harnessing power is something I hope we can streamline.”

Testifying on behalf of Reclamation, Chief of Staff Bob Quint noted that Reclamation is already working to catalog low-head hydropower sites as required by Section 4 of the bill. While Reclamation does not have jurisdiction over many of the issues discussed regarding FERC’s licensing processes found in Section 3, Quint’s written testimony indicated that the administration is concerned about its impacts.

Arizona attorney Robert Lynch also testified in support of H.R. 795. His oral testimony is reprinted in this issue’s Water Law section on page 26. For the written testimony of hearing witnesses, as well as the opening statements of some members of the subcommittee, visit http://naturalresources.house.gov/ Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=246913. An archived hearing webcast is also available on the website.

9

Utah Agricultural Community Hopes to Rebound From Canal Slide

I

n the early morning hours of July 11, 2009, a section of Utah’s Logan Northern Canal suffered a catastrophic slide after an unusually wet spring had left the top of its hillside saturated. Initially, the canal hung in place as the ground underneath it slid away, but after 15 minutes it collapsed, cutting off water to about 7,000 water-righted acres of farmland.

Dating back to the 1860s, the canal is one of two conveyances servicing northern Cache County agricultural land. In the aftermath of the slide, local canal company officials began to strategize how the second canal, which rested higher on the hillside, could be used to shuttle water down to the Logan Northern beyond the site of the slide.

“We contacted them to see if they could increase flow to the max capacity,” said Keith Meikle, President of the Cache Highline Water Association. “We then started figuring out what shunts to put in” to transport water from the higher canal to the remaining section of the Logan Northern.

Ultimately, water users of the second conveyance—the Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield Canal—agreed to operate on half of their normal water allocations so that Logan Northern water users could stay in business as a long-term water supply strategy was developed. “We normally struggle to work together, but everyone came together to get it done because we all understand the ramifications for the next 100 years,” Meikle said, noting that the economy of

10

Irrigation Leader

the surrounding area largely depends on the continued use of agricultural land. “Everybody knows everybody who uses each canal. . . . They know the consequences.”

By early 2010, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) agreed to provide funds from its Emergency Watershed Protection program to study alternatives and eventually implement a solution. While several options were evaluated, including a full restoration of the original Logan Northern Canal, NRCS concluded that enlarging the nearby Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield Canal was the preferred alternative.

While the environmental impact statement for the project is yet to be finalized, $22 million has been allocated to perform the work. NRCS will contribute 75 percent of the funding, while the local canal company will provide 25 percent.

However, as work progresses, most water users in the region will continue to have around 25 percent less income than if they received their normal water allocations. “It is very economically devastating to this area,” Meikle said. “It costs producers the same amount to harvest half a crop as it does to harvest the whole crop.”

Integral to the success of the plan has been the support of area municipalities. Three of the four cities in the Cache Valley—Smithfield in particular—operate under exchange agreements with irrigators to secure their drinking water supply. “These canals aren’t just delivering to alfalfa and wheat, they’re delivering culinary water to three of the largest cities in the valley,” Meikle said. “The cities have Irrigation Leader

a large stake in this. . . . There are no new water rights available in Utah, and they need water to feed a growing population.”

Additionally, Logan, Hyde Park, and Smithfield Canal water users will benefit from the repairs performed to their aging irrigation system as part of the expansion process. These water users have agreed to continue to operate at half capacity throughout the construction process.

Still, development of the new canal system has faced opposition. Logan City initially filed a protest against the preferred alternative proposal selected by NRCS because a higher diversion point would have ramifications to generate hydropower. Because area diversions will now occur upriver, city officials were concerned they would lose this valuable power supply. Eventually, the city was satisfied when the local canal companies agreed to allow it to use irrigation facilities to increase its power production.

Despite progress, Meikle does not anticipate most construction beginning until fall 2012, preventing local farmers from using full water allocations for another growing season at a cost of around 25 percent income loss.

“This will be the third year of that loss,” he said, noting that farming is a low margin business. “One more year and they will have lost an entire annual income.”

Keith Meikle is the president of the Cache Highline Water Association in Logan, Utah. He can be reached by e-mail at mtnaomi@digis.net.

11

Aerial photo of district facilities, including the gradient facility.

"The construction of the fish screen and gradient restoration facility enabled GCID to continue its mission of delivering water to agricultural land in the area."

- Thad Bettner, GCID General Manager

The water control structure resembles a longthroated flume to balance hydraulic conditions.

12

Irrigation Leader

Pioneering Fish Screen and Gradient Restoration Facility Serve as Example for Large-Scale Recovery Projects

By Thad Bettner alifornia’s Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) diverts a maximum of 3,000 cubic feet per second of flow from the Sacramento River, primarily during the spring growing season. This water is then conveyed through miles of irrigation canals to around 141,000 acres of high-value farmland, as well as 20,000 acres of critical wildlife habitat.

The early spring growing season is also the peak outmigration of juvenile salmon on the river. In general, all four runs of Chinook salmon have declined over the past 25 years and a lack—or poor performance—of fish screens was an oft-cited reason by 1991, when a federal court injunction halted GCID’s ability to pump water from the Sacramento River to provide to its water-righted acreage. Eventually, a stipulated agreement was reached to ensure the continued availability of irrigation water for this important agricultural area. However, more recent data have shown that river diversions are not quite as significant an impact as previously thought compared to other stressors.

In August 1993, GCID replaced a 20-year-old drum screen with an interim, 1,100-foot flat-plate screen at its main diversion structure, which had a history of poor performance. It also altered the existing bypass return channel to reduce the time it takes fish to return to the river. Monitoring after installation demonstrated that the flat screen was a viable method to ensure fish protection on the river.

However, the interim solution was only the precursor to a far larger project. As part of the congressionally authorized Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the installation of a new, permanent screen was proposed.

Along with the construction of a gradient restoration facility, and associated planning, design, evaluation, and monitoring, project costs were estimated to be $76 million.

Federal funding amounted to 75 percent of project costs with the remaining 25 percent split evenly between the state and GCID. Construction began on the new fish screen in May 1998, and it was complete by September 2000.

C

Irrigation Leader

Reclamation was responsible for the design of the new screen, with GCID consultants cooperating throughout the planning and design process. Ultimately, a 620-foot extension to the interim screen was engineered, in addition to channel and bypass structure improvements, a new screen cleaning assembly, and a flow baffling system that ensures uniform hydraulic conditions across the screen.

The associated gradient restoration facility also produced strong returns. A major reason for the old drum screen’s loss of functionality was degradation of river gradient from flood events dating back to the early 1970s.

By the late 1980s, water surface had decreased by 3 feet at GCID’s main diversion structure, leaving much of the old fish screen out of the water.

The goal of the new facility—designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—is to ensure that the river gradient does not continue to degrade, and the new fish screen does not suffer the same plight as its predecessor. The facility also allows for safe and effective fish passage by ensuring adequate flow velocity past the screen and conditions that enable the bypass system to safely conduct fish downstream under gravity flow.

Overall, the construction of the fish screen and the gradient restoration facility enabled GCID to continue its mission of delivering water to agricultural land in the area. I encourage other managers involved in similar situations to remain actively engaged in the process. Costs, permitting, and ensuring the flexibility of a project going forward should river operations or conditions change are critical to the continued effectiveness of restoration efforts.

Plans can often change over the long life of a major project, and preparedness and flexibility is always the best defense.

Thad Bettner is the general manager of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in Willows, California. He can be contacted by phone at (530) 934-8881, or by e-mail at tbettner@gcid.net.

13

Making ESA Work for You

14

By Greg Schildwachter etting things done is always easier with some understanding of how things work. This is why we have engineers and—for frustrated do-ityourselfers—printed instructions. But for the Endangered Species Act (ESA), many now agree that its problems are in its implementation, which is a polite way of saying it takes a lot of work to make it work. Like owners of a pickup truck with the same problem, those of us who have fiddled with ESA long enough have found a few tricks for making it do what it is intended to do.

The intended purpose is a little obscure when you quote the law itself, but, as some skookum Colorado water buffaloes, Texas cowboys, and Louisiana foresters discovered, it means “make more fish and wildlife.” I am referring to the Upper Colorado Fish Recovery Program, the Fort Hood Recovery Credit System, and the Black Bear Conservation Committee.

In all three cases, working people were able to turn an ESA problem from its typical configuration of restrictions on water or land use into the intended production of fish and wildlife.

The water users on the Upper Colorado got behind a fish hatchery, the cowboys in Texas bid on contracts for producing bird habitat, and the Louisiana foresters reintroduced a subspecies of black bear.

It is ironic that these productive ways of making ESA work are rare, and controversies are common. It cannot be because controversy is cheaper: litigation employs far more lawyers than field biologists, and there are no deep pockets behind recovery programs—they run on cost-shares from state and federal agency budgets and private contributions. Neither is it because active recovery is a new science. Before ESA, from 1937 through the 1960s, fish and wildlife managers restored deer, elk, bears, turkeys, ducks, and other species using the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. The main reason ESA tends toward controversy is historical. It was written during the birth of an environmental movement focused on pollution; therefore, it emphasizes identifying declines in species and regulating activities that might harm them. These are the provisions behind lawsuits to force listing decisions and to overturn biological opinions such as on the Columbia River, where salmon have been in court 20 years straight.

ESA does not need to be controversial and expensive. The Upper Colorado, Fort Hood, and Louisiana examples provide a practical guide, if a species near you looks like trouble.

First, ensure there is a recovery plan for the species. These plans are not required by law and, unless one is written, you will likely bog down in controversy over protections for the species instead of active management to promote the species. On the Upper Colorado, the water users achieved a lasting victory by making the recovery plan not just a companion to protective rules, but the governing document over the entire enterprise.

Conservation there is not defined by compliance with protections, but achievement of population and habitat goals.

G

Irrigation Leader

Second, specify the amount and quality of habitat that regulators are looking for. This usually begins with questioning what they want set aside. For example, at Fort Hood, the Army base commander was required to set aside training areas for bird habitat. By determining why those training areas were valuable to birds (he already knew why they were valuable to soldiers), he and several conservation partners were able to counter with a proposal to produce a greater amount of habitat of the same or better quality outside the base. Having won approval, the Army then offered contracts to ranchers in the area to produce the habitat. By offering the contracts in a reverse auction, the Army controlled costs by letting the contracts to landowners who produced the most and best habitat for the least cost.

Third, do not wait for the species to get the memo.

Species are not likely to recover just because they are protected or provided with habitat. This is part of the reason that only 13 species have been recovered in the United States out of 1,300 on the list. Even the bald eagle, which rebounded strongly after the United States banned the pesticide DDT, needed breeding programs and reintroductions. But, as the bear conservation group in Louisiana knew, releasing an ESA species brings ESA restrictions and penalties with it. Therefore, the Black Bear

Conservation Committee obtained a special regulation that is available for reintroduced populations. These rules waive needless restrictions and help win local approval because, as they say in Louisiana, “I’d rather have a bear than a bureaucrat.”

More than these three ideas are available for working with listed species, and there are also ways to work with species headed toward but not yet on the list. All successful strategies share the basic premise that a restored species is a better neighbor than a regulated one, and field work is cheaper than lawyering.

Greg Schildwachter, Ph.D. is a professional conservationist with 20 years of experience in the policy, science, and management of land, water, and fish and wildlife. He previously worked at both the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. Schildwachter can be reached by phone at (202) 657-4330, or by e-mail at greg@watershedresults.com.

AquaLastic® The Last Chance Canal Company, Idaho, May 2011 It took less than 2 weeks to completely rehabilitate this 745 ft tin flume with AquaLastic®, enabling many more years of efficient operation.

Cost? – a fraction of replacement!

Before

Call 949 394 4228

AfTer

AquaLastic® is the trademark property of Hydro Consulting LLC 1800 735 1118. AquaLastic® is manufactured by SPI Irrigation Leader

15

Nebraska Irrigators Team With Private Companies to Launch Variable Rate Irrigation Demonstration Project

I

nnovative water-saving technology is getting a foothold in southwest Nebraska fields thanks to a private-public partnership that could be a template for managers across the country trying to make the most of every drop of water.

Nebraska’s Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) and area irrigators have teamed with three private companies to launch a demonstration project intended to test the ability of variable rate irrigation to conserve water while optimizing yields. URNRD is well positioned to coordinate such a project. Encompassing nearly 460,000 irrigated acres mostly watered by the massive Ogallala Aquifer, the district has been regulating water use and helping implement efficiencies for more than 30 years as part of Nebraska’s unique system that allows the multicounty NRDs to regulate water use based on local conditions. Under the project, five farmers each contributed one center pivot that was then divided into six alternating 30-degree pie-shaped sectors. Half of the sectors will be farmed using variable rate irrigation, the other half using the farmer’s legacy method.

“We wanted to test variable rate irrigation on a commercial scale and compare it to legacy decisionmaking,” said Chandler Mazour, who manages Monsanto’s

Ben Sauder, an agronomist with Frenchman Valley Coop in Imperial, explaining how data collected by moisture probes can be interpreted. Frenchman Valley monitors data for farmers and recommends how they can improve yields and hopefully save water using the technology.

16

Water Utilization Learning Center in Gothenburg, Nebraska.

The program initially developed through discussions between Mazour and URNRD’s manager, Jasper Fanning.

“This was the culmination of different ideas we had kicked around,” said Fanning, noting that the idea generated from some of the work already being done at Monsanto’s learning center. “We wanted to move these things out into field trials to get them a little closer to growers.”

Local Valley Irrigation dealers and CropMetrics joined the demonstration project to provide the necessary control equipment, software, and agronomic support involved in variable rate irrigation. “We are bringing the advantages and expertise of a precision agronomics company, combining it with a seed company, and doing it in conjunction with an NRD,” said Nick Emanuel, President of CropMetrics. Emanuel said the combined knowledge of the parties involved is unparalleled for this type of demonstration.

The project also includes the use of the newest generation of soil moisture probe technology from AquaSpy that collects real-time data and packages it in a manner that makes it easier for producers to make water and cost-saving decisions.

Once a base application depth is determined from the probe, the variable rate irrigation prescription, which adjusts the pivot speed every 6 degrees based on varying field conditions, is then wirelessly uploaded directly to the controller. “By using soil moisture probes alone, irrigators can save 1 to 2 inches per year,” Fanning said. “We’re hoping these technologies can be used together to save 3 to 4 inches per year.”

URNRD and Monsanto each contributed $2,000 per pivot, while Valley and CropMetrics provided discounted equipment and program services. Landowners were responsible for the remainder of costs, which largely consisted of purchasing the remote-control piece required to manage the variable rate irrigation program remotely.

Mazour indicated that Monsanto’s involvement stems from its ongoing initiatives to increase crop yield in drought conditions. “This is closely aligned with our commitment to sustainable yield, to help farmers produce more and consume less,” he said, noting the two-fold goal of demonstrating the water savings of variable rate Irrigation Leader

irrigation and observing potential yield improvements from hybrid corn.

Participation from local growers developed from CropMetrics’ existing ties to local agronomists at Frenchman Valley Coop who were already working to implement variable rate irrigation technology. “We just helped to get some of these guys off the fence and offered the opportunity to participate in a new technology that they would not otherwise have been part of,” said Fanning. The district is also working on parallel projects with other irrigation providers.

“So far, this area of the country has really grasped hold of the technology,” said Emanuel. “It really goes along with what they are trying to do to optimize water allocation.”

Unfortunately, the first year of the program was hampered by a major hail storm that severely damaged the crops growing on four of the five participating pivots. However, Fanning believes that the first year will be valuable in helping project participants gain an understanding of the technology that will be useful in the coming years. “The first year was just getting set up and learning how to use the technology in the field,” he said.

For more information about the Upper Republican Natural Resources District, visit its website at www.urnrd.org. More information about Monsanto’s Water Utilization Learning Center can be found at www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/gothenberglearning-center.aspx. Further information about CropMetrics can be found at www.cropmetrics.com.

David Hogsett, who farms outside Champion and will participate in the pivot demo, is explaining the variable rate technology that is part of the demo.

Demonstration project participants will use soil moisture data to map an appropriate irrigation prescription.

Irrigation Leader

17

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Small Hydropower Development: It’s More Than Just FERC

By Steve Johnson recent issue of Irrigation Leader focused on low-head hydropower development, and several articles discussed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license exemption process for small projects constructed on existing conduits. As the general manager of an irrigation district with a newly built small hydropower facility, I believe it is important to highlight a second, and perhaps more important, issue—the ability to interconnect with local utilities.

Last year, as part of a broader canal piping project, the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) installed a 5-megawatt hydropower facility as part of a 2.5-mile steel piping project. The project was intended to conserve water diverted from the Deschutes River, but retained the added benefit of power generation thanks to a gravity-fed drop in elevation.

COID applied for, and received, a FERC conduit exemption for the project. While this process was not perfect, and our initial application was initially rebuffed due to deficiencies identified by FERC, we ultimately received approval within seven months. I credit FERC staff for being supportive and cooperative throughout the process. I understand that since our application was filed, FERC undertook a review of its processes and has taken lessons learned from applications like COID’s to streamline its evaluation scheme.

While 7 months is certainly a lengthy period of time to obtain approval for a project built off-river on previously disturbed ground (COID supports efforts to lessen the regulatory burden on small projects), it pales in comparison to the more than 18 months COID spent working with the local electric utility to finalize an interconnection agreement. Though the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act requires large power companies to purchase power from small generators, large companies generally prefer to simply generate their own power.

A

20

In its dealings with the local utility, COID encountered stumbling blocks throughout the process. For example, the utility does not pay for the interconnection, but puts specific demands on materials and equipment that increase the cost. Additionally, the pricing of electricity sold to the utility is based on the price of natural gas, which makes it difficult to calculate the payback period of a small facility.

Despite these challenges, COID remains interested in future low-head hydropower development throughout its system. However, the district is beginning to explore alternative means to avoid the headaches involved with selling power through the grid. In particular, COID aims to connect very small hydropower turbines, generating 20–25 kilowatts, to irrigation pumps used to bring water to farmers’ fields. This power would be enough to power a 25-horsepower pump that handles 40–50 acres of farmland.

Beyond alleviating the issues encountered with interconnection, direct connecting will potentially allow COID to price the electricity it sells in this manner above the wholesale price as we eliminate the local utility’s go-between role.

While COID’s plan to direct connect remains in its formative stages, the district hopes to begin work with the Energy Trust of Oregon to begin mapping the locations of irrigation pumps. Ultimately, a cost-benefit analysis will be performed to determine whether COID’s direct connect project is viable, but locating potential sites represents an important first step to this project and could potentially avoid unnecessary costs for future small hydropower development.

Steve Johnson is the general manager of the Central Oregon Irrigation District in Redmond, Oregon. He can be reached by e-mail at stevej@coid.org.

Irrigation Leader

Irrigation Leader

21

Colorado Water Congress Enjoys Strong Member Participation, Support from State Legislature

By Doug Kemper For over 50 years, the Colorado Water Congress (CWC) has provided leadership on key water issues and continues to serve as the principal voice of Colorado’s water community. However, CWC’s beginnings in 1958 were different from many other statewide nonprofit organizations representing water interests.

Initial funding for CWC was provided by Colorado Governor Steve McNichols through executive funds, and our first executive director was housed in the office of the attorney general. The organization was not formed to wrangle with internal divisions among Colorado water interests, of which there are many, but to support and nurture concepts on which there is substantial agreement.

This history, and continued status as an instrument of the state, gives CWC and its 350 member organizations a unique station in Colorado water issues.

During each session of the Colorado General Assembly (mid-January to mid-May), our State Affairs Committee meets on Monday mornings to consider water-related

22

legislation. The committee consists of about 90 of our member organizations. We are typically joined by several legislators, frequently the chairmen and vice chairmen of the agriculture committees in each house. A sophisticated audio conferencing system allows many of our members to actively participate from remote locations. Daily progress on legislation is posted on our website.

Of the 40 bills that CWC typically tracks, we usually take a position on about 20, supporting 75 percent and opposing 25 percent. Of the bills that CWC supports, around 83 percent have been signed into law since the organization began tracking in 1980. Of the bills that CWC opposes, it is very rare that even one becomes law without a complete modification to address the organization’s concerns.

Importantly, it takes a two-thirds majority of our membership for CWC to take a position on a bill, ensuring that we are not drawn into regional or partisan debates on controversial issues, and that decisions are not dominated by a limited number of powerful entities. We continue to

Irrigation Leader

act as an organization targeting the mutual interests of the whole. Additionally, thanks to the active involvement of many of our members, CWC often forms subcommittees to help shape legislation. They may meet multiple times per week for several weeks to reach consent on controversial legislation. Their recommendations must then considered by the larger committee.

Despite its beginnings using state funding, CWC does not receive annual appropriations from the Colorado state budget. However, many of our dues-paying member organizations are state or local government entities.

CWC’s membership base also extends to engineers, lawyers, and other professionals involved in Colorado water issues.

Additional funding is drawn from CWC’s annual convention, a summer conference, and other seminars and workshops for water professionals. CWC’s 2011 summer conference will be held in Steamboat Springs on August 23–25, with a keynote presentation by Congressman Cory Gardner (R-CO), a member of

the House Subcommittee on Water and Power. We are partnering this year with Colorado Coal and Power Generation, an organization representing the industry in northwest Colorado. The conference will feature two days of current issues in water supply and protection, including population growth, financing issues, and political dynamics.

The third day will focus on energy and its relationship to water and economic development.

Doug Kemper is the executive director of the Colorado Water Congress in Denver, Colorado.

He can be reached by phone at (303) 837-0812, or by e-mail at dkemper@cowatercongress.org. More information about the Colorado Water Congress can be found on its website at www.cowatercongress.org.

Steven L. Hernandez

Integrated

attorney at law

Water Planning, Permitting, Design & Construction Services

Specializing in

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contracts and Western Water Law

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PERMIT COMPLIANCE OPERATION OPTIMIZATION

21OO North Main Street Suite 1A P.O. Box 13108 Las Cruces, NM 88013

RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE STUDIES SOURCE AUGMENTATION POWER GENERATION WATER TRANSMISSION

(575) 526-2101

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

Fax (575) 526-2506 Email:

slh@lclaw-nm.com Irrigation Leader

23

District Focus Since converting to ground water in the 1970s, the district has seen significant urban growth on land that was previously reserved for agriculture.

East Greenacres Irrigation District Manages Ground Water Irrigation Supply, Balances Original Mission With Urban Growth

P

rior to 1977, Idaho’s East Greenacres Irrigation District operated a surface water system that drew from the nearby Twin Lakes Reservoir. However, water shortages during the 1960s forced the district to maximize its drawdowns from the reservoir, creating a conflict with lakeshore homeowners. Ultimately, a 1969 state court ruling limited irrigation use to half of the average requirement, leaving the district without water for irrigators as early as late June.

“They went to their legislators for help,” said current District Manager Ron Wilson of the board of directors.

Eventually, Reclamation became involved and helped the district to develop a solution that would convert the irrigation system from surface water use to ground water. Fortunately, the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (RPA) offers a vast water supply, and the entire district switched to ground water alone by 1977.

However, ground water use presents unique challenges compared to those of surface water

24

suppliers. Specifically, the RPA is the sole source of drinking water for the residents living over the aquifer and the only sensitive resource aquifer in the state. While this allows the district to provide aquifer water to users without treatment, the highly permeable soils and gravels over the RPA make it susceptible to contamination. For example, current wastewater reuse regulations maintain standards of nondegradation and do not allow transmission past the root zone of vegetation.

The change to ground water use also brought the added responsibility of providing potable water to homes and businesses within district boundaries, in addition to irrigation supply for agricultural use.

“We’re different in that we are a purveyor serving domestic, municipal, and industrial users,” said Wilson, noting that the district’s primary function is to provide irrigation water to 5,340 acres of land.

In recent years, the district has seen significant urban growth as the city of Post Falls continues to expand into areas that were previously reserved for agriculture. This expansion has raised concerns over Irrigation Leader

the effects of potential wastewater reuse programs on aquifer water quality and the ability of the district to continue to make payments on its federal construction balance. So far, the city has purchased 300 acres within district boundaries in pursuit of its wastewater reuse initiative.

“We have a very good working relationship with the city,” said Wilson, noting that the district has exclusive authority to serve lands within its service boundaries.

Continued urban growth is anticipated. A middleof-the-road estimate projects annual area growth of 2.3 percent over the next 50 years. This could result in yearly withdrawals between 100,000 and 163,000 acrefeet, potentially doubling the current annual draws of 74,000 acre-feet.

“Reclamation identified early on that this would take place,” said Wilson. “We have gone from 250 original domestic hookups to 2,500 with a current contract capacity of 6,500.”

Serving domestic customers in addition to irrigated acreage can be challenging for the district, particularly given the lack of storage reservoirs from which it can draw. Currently, only one 325,000-gallon reservoir is available. Given that the district provides around 35 million gallons per day in the summertime peak, the reservoir storage capacity would be fully drawn within minutes.

“If pivot water drops out, there is not much of a problem, but if you lose pressure for drinking water, that can become a real health problem,” said Wilson.

Although the aquifer itself is considered storage capacity, it can only act as such if electricity is available to power the 14 well pumps. Fortunately, power for the district’s three well sites is provided by two different power companies operating separate facilities.

Additionally, the district has added backup power supply and redundancy in operation controls to mitigate the effects of a major power loss.

The district is also making significant advances to conservation by reducing its water loss in preparation for continued growth and has been particularly aggressive in modernizing its system. Until last year, it operated 1970s GE pump controls, but recently switched to an automated SCADA system. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure,” Wilson said. “We had to modernize it.”

For more information on East Greenacres Irrigation District, visit its website at www.eastgreenacres.org.

Irrigation Leader

Prior to the 1970s, the district relied on surface water from Twin Lakes Reservoir. Above, the Twin Lakes Head Works served the district beginning in 1921.

A construction team sets a pump as the district worked to convert its water supply to ground water.

Today, the district relies on three modern well sites to supply irrigation water as well as water for its increasingly urban population.

25

Water Law

Support Necessary for Low-Head Hydropower Development in West

26

By Robert S. Lynch (Editor’s Note: The following is the oral testimony of Arizona attorney Robert S. Lynch before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power on June 23, 2011.

Lynch testified in support of the Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011 (H.R. 795). Additional information about the hearing can be found in Irrigation Leader’s article beginning on page 8 of this issue, or on the House Natural Resources Committee’s website at http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle. aspx?EventID=246913.)

C

hairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the Subcommittee, for the record, I am Bob Lynch, an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you to support H.R. 795.

You already have my written testimony so I will not repeat it. Rather, I want to talk to you about what is going on in Arizona or, more correctly, what is not going on in Arizona.

What is not going on in Arizona is meaningful installations of very small hydropower units in the hundreds of miles of canals, laterals, and ditches delivering water across the state.

I was going to talk to you about all the wasted energy I hear flowing by me every morning when I walk by the [Salt River Project] laterals or drive across the Grand Canal on my way to work. But then I went to the American Public Power Association Annual Meeting here in Washington, DC, earlier this week.

First, I attended a presentation at a Saturday session by the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation is struggling with how to use its lease of power privilege authority, how to charge for use of its facilities, and how to process applications for these leases. Part of the problem is that things have changed since 1939, when Reclamation got its general authority for this program. Part of the problem is that things we want to do now weren’t really being thought about and clearly legislated about in 1939. We saw a slide that showed that Reclamation only has a handful of projects leased and just a few being processed.

Second, I attended a Monday morning session on hydropower licensing. The head of the licensing division of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was one of the panelists, and her talk was very enlightening.

She had a number of slides that showed the United States with dots as to various kinds of permits that had been granted or are in the works. All those slides showed Arizona as just a white area with no dots until she finally got down to facilities granted

exemptions under Section 30 of the Federal Power Act. These are small facilities—up to 15 megawatts in ditches and canals and 40 megawatts in municipal pipes. The commission can exempt them from the full licensing process. On the exemption slide, there were only two Arizona dots. I can’t think of any better way to demonstrate what is wrong with the exemption program.

I have one member of the state association I represent that manages a canal and has identified 15 places where small hydropower turbines of less than a megawatt each could be installed. It hasn’t happened, and it isn’t happening. I talked to the manager of another member, the Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District, on Tuesday. His district has one of the two Arizona dots. I asked if he had made any further application to the commission for new units. He said he had not because of the expense and the delay.

I am not here to blame Reclamation or the commission. I am here to tell you that things have changed since the Reclamation Project Act was passed in 1939, and since 1978 when the exemption statute was put in the Federal Power Act. In any event, the proof that the conduit hydropower programs aren’t working under the current federal statutes is evident. There are a handful of Reclamation leases and commission exemption permits around the country, but only a handful. The Department of Energy estimated that Colorado could install 1,400 megawatts of in-conduit hydro using small turbines that develop 5 megawatts or less capacity. If you do the math, that’s at least 280 sites. Colorado has formed a state agency to try to help with the red tape, but its program doesn’t help with the statutory coordination costs.

This is truly low-hanging fruit. Irrigation district managers would enthusiastically embrace this program if it made economic sense. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes. All they’re asking is that you give it a try. Let these managers show you that tweaking this program at the very bottom will produce good results.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and to testify in support of this very promising legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Robert S. Lynch is an attorney in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona. His firm’s website is www.rslynch-az.com.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Water Law

Hear the Working Waters Sing

By Justice Greg Hobbs (Editor’s Note: The following is the forward to the forthcoming second edition of the book Acquiring, Using, and Protecting Water in Colorado by the law firm Trout, Raley, Montaño, Witwer & Freeman, P.C. The new edition will be published by Bradford Publishing Company in July 2011.)

W

ithout water there is no life.

Water is a public resource subject to allocation for beneficial use. That’s the fundamental precept of the water law. Wherever it comes from—surface or ground water, no matter what elevation, no matter what depth one must go to find it—water serves the needs of people and the environment.

So it has been in this vast and beautiful West that’s dry and full of mountains, mesas, plains, streams, and intermittent arroyos: Since the Puebloans of Mesa Verde built and operated cisterns, reservoirs, and diversion ditches between 750 and 1280 A.D. Since the establishment of Bent’s Fort in American Territory on the north bank of the Arkansas River in the 1830s along the watered route of the Santa Fe Trail Since the migration of Northern New Mexico Hispanos onto a former Mexican land grant where the oldest continuous water right in Colorado, the San Luis People’s Ditch of 1852, perpetuates the Spanish acequia tradition Since the cry “Eureka!” sounded at the confluence of the Platte and Cherry Creek and Pikes Peak Region in the seminal Colorado year of 1858 Since the first ditch to grow vegetables for the Front Range miners was cut into the banks of Clear Creek in 1859 Since the Colorado Territorial Legislature passed its first water law in 1861 Since the Colorado Constitution incorporated prior appropriation water law when Colorado became a state in 1876, marking the Centennial of the Declaration of Independence Since the Colorado General Assembly fashioned legislation for instream flow (1973) and kayak course

28

(2001) water rights as part of the state’s prior appropriation water law So along the current of water use into the future.

Consider the farmer who cleans out the irrigation ditch, straightens the furrow rows, sets the siphon tubes, and carefully changes them from row to row until the water’s duty to the corn or garlic is done.

Consider the dedicated people of a city’s public works department. They worry about storing, treating, and delivering the water for homes and businesses when it’s needed, and returning the unused water to the stream clean enough for fish, swimmers, boaters, towns, and farmer’s fields.

Consider the businesses that make consumer drinks, or pour the water through the turning turbines for electricity, or grow the greenhouse plants that grace our homes and gardens.

Consider the out-of-state skier who has booked for her family a long-anticipated Thanksgiving vacation on ski slopes dependent on snow-making, or the rafter in the summer sun riding the flowing current through a slotted red-walled canyon, or the urban kayaker scooting off a wave top crashing down an in-channel whitewater course.

Consider a greenway walk along the fisher heron’s refuge, where once a dumping ground for industrial refuse stunk.

Irrigation Leader

Consider the more than one-third of our state that we glory in visiting, watersheds preserved in open space by the local, state, and federal governments.

Consider the 18 downstream states that depend on water leached from melting snows high along both sides of the Great Divide.

Consider the endangered native greenback cutthroat trout.

Everywhere one goes in the throes of the early 21st century drought, climate change, and an expanding population, people want to learn about and care for the water they love in their backyard watershed. That’s why understanding how water works is so important. Because of many changes in state and federal law, managing our scarce water resources requires the participation of the many among us whose full-time work does not involve the complexities of law, policy, natural science, engineering, and administration, which undergird the water law. In addition to state water law, federal water quality, endangered species, forest, and range protection laws shape our water resource decision-making.

There’s a working piece of history and culture in every irrigation ditch. Currently, we are living on the water lines and the reservoirs that generations of the past built and handed over to us, and that conservation is a necessity. How to deliver water to humans for use while also protecting the environment is necessarily about water scarcity and smart practices.

For over 110 years, Colorado has had an established means for transferring agricultural water rights, on a willing seller–willing buyer basis, from existing to new and different uses from their prior uses and points of diversion. Because beneficial use is the basis, measure, and limit of prior appropriation water rights, historical use of water rights must be defined and quantified before they can be changed to different uses, or the water taken out of the streams or aquifers at different points of diversion. Protection of other water rights is an essential feature of change-of-water-rights proceedings.

Conditions designed to prevent an enlargement of the historical consumptive use made of the water right is typically a feature of any contemporary change decree.

Often crucial to approval of the change is maintenance of historical return flow patterns upon which other water rights depend in whole or part for their supply.

Augmentation plans work to allow out-of-priority diversions and uses that could not otherwise occur under priority administration. This is possible through state engineer-approved, temporary substitute water supply plans and water court-approved augmentation plans.

These plans replace water to the stream in sufficient quantity and quality to satisfy the priorities of other water rights.

Irrigation Leader

Appreciate the difficult and essential job of the state and division engineers and the local water commissioners have. Without enforcement, water rights lose the security and reliability to serve the needs of all who depend on them. Whether for a farm, city, business, recreation, or the environment, the value of a prior appropriation water right resides in the enforcement of its decreed priority in time of scarcity. The water officials also have the crucial job of delivering water out of state to comply with interstate compacts and U.S. Supreme Court equitable apportionment decrees that affect each state’s right to use water of an interstate stream.

Like other state legislatures that are carefully revising their water codes to meet new challenges, the Colorado General Assembly has adopted legislation for stored water banks, has prohibited new residential covenants that restrict use of drought-tolerant landscape, has authorized conservation easements for water rights to keep irrigated land permanently in open space, has required financial mitigation to a county when transferring agricultural water permanently out of the county, and has authorized crop rotational fallowing plans so that agricultural water can be leased to municipalities without permanently removing water rights from rural areas.

Many important questions await answers. Because water law tracks the customs and values of the people, new statutes and court decisions will continue to speak about how the basic principles of water law continue to adapt to changing times and changing uses.

Our population will surely grow. Conservation in all its forms will be required, including more efficient use and additional above-ground and underground storage projects, cooperatively built and maintained, without injury to other water rights or the environment. We must realize much more carefully the basic maxim of water law that water is a public resource to be used beneficially, without waste.

Surely, in each and every generation, we have learned from drought that scarcity is the opportunity for community. Our inclusion of all points of view in contemporary water decision-making is a great source of strength. May we not stalemate. Let the hallmark of our generation be civilized action, not neglect.

Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr., serves as a justice on the Colorado Supreme Court, a position he has held since 1996. Hobbs previously practiced law for 25 years, focusing on water, environment, land use, and transportation issues.

29

The Innovators Farwell Irrigation District Repurposes Old Tires to Prevent Erosion, Reduce O&M Costs

C

oncerned with soil erosion on its Sherman Feeder Canal, Nebraska’s Farwell Irrigation District began using old tires linked together to mitigate degradation of the canal’s slope in 1995.

By joining the tires to create mats that keep fabric placed on the canal bank in place, the district has largely been able to prevent soil from washing away.

“When we first started the project, the canal bank was pretty much straight up and down,” said Mike Spotanski, Farwell’s project manager. “We were able to get back to a 2:1 slope.”

Initially, Farwell funded the project using a $250,000 grant provided by the Nebraska Environmental Trust, a state program using the proceeds of the Nebraska Lottery. However, it expanded when the district discovered a free source

30

of tires from nearby auto repair shops.

The district’s general manager, Tom Knutson, remembers receiving a call from his son at a tire store in Omaha. He had gone in to change the tires on his vehicle and wanted to know if he should pay the $2 fee to have the store dispose of his old ones. “I told him to have them throw them in the trunk and we would use them on our tire mats,” Knutson said.

This encounter sparked a broader idea. Knutson now realized that auto shops were actually paying a service to take away old tires, many of which ended up in Kansas.

Sensing an opportunity to lower the costs of the tire mat program, Farwell worked with the local businesses to house trailers in five locations throughout its service area. Auto shops dispose of used tires in the trailers and the district hauls them away when each trailer is full.

Irrigation Leader

“We probably bring in 15,000 tires a year,” Knutson said, noting that the program saves the auto shops about $900 per load in hauling fees, and the district receives 12 to 15 loads per year.

So far, Farwell has lined both sides of the canal for about 8 miles, but ultimately hopes to line the entire 19.5-mile-long feeder canal. “It’s been a super erosion control mechanism,” Knutson said. “We don’t have to go out there with equipment and reshape the canal because it just stays in place.”

The mats are 10 tires long and 5 tires wide. District staff members lay out the tires on a flatbed trailer, which doubles as a workbench, and use cordless power tools to tighten the bolts holding them together. They then use a winch to remove the mat from the trailer and store it for installation during the winter maintenance season.

When installed, district staff members use three 4-footby-1-inch pipes to hold each mat in place. “There hasn’t been any erosion back on those banks since we’ve done them,” said Spotanski, noting that the original tire mats installed are still working effectively 15 years later.

Knutson highlighted that the project received approval from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality as a condition for receiving initial funding from the Environmental Trust. Additionally, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission used tire mats supplied by Farwell in the Sherman Reservoir to assist walleye spawning.

For more information on Farwell Irrigation District, visit its website at www.farwellid.com.

Hydraulic press used to punch bolt holes in tires.

General Manager Tom Knutson standing next to completed tire mat.

Irrigation Leader

31

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

2011 CALENDAR

July 21–22 July 25–27 July 27–29 Aug. 23–25 Sep. 25–27 Oct. 12–14 Oct. 13–14 Oct. 19 Oct. 26–28 Nov. 3–4 Nov. 6–8 Nov. 16–18 Nov. 29–Dec. 2 Nov. 29–Dec. 2 Dec. 8–9

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

Irrigation Assn., Water Conference, Broomfield, CO National Water Resources Assn., Western Water Seminar, Colorado Springs, CO Western States Water Council, Summer Council Meetings, Bend, OR Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference, Steamboat Springs, CO Nebraska Assn. of Resources Districts, Annual Conference, Kearney, NE Texas Water Conservation Assn., Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX Oregon Water Resources Congress, Water Law Seminar, Bend, OR Columbia Basin Development League, Annual Meeting & Conference, Moses Lake, WA Wyoming Water Assn., Annual Meeting, Casper, WY Idaho Water Users Assn., Annual Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID Irrigation Assn., Irrigation Show, San Diego, CA National Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Tucson, AZ Assn. of California Water Agencies, Fall Conference, Anaheim, CA Oregon Water Resources Congress, Annual Conference, Hood River, OR Washington State Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Spokane, WA

For more information on advertising in Irrigation Leader magazine, 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.

Past issues of Irrigation Leader are archived at www.WaterandPowerReport.com