Irrigation Leader July/August 2013

Volume 4 Issue 7

July/August 2013

Delivering Water at 8,000 Feet: An Interview with Travis Smith of San Luis Valley Irrigation District

Irrigation District Managers Are “Idea People”

By Kris Polly

F

ew jobs bring the amount and variety of responsibility that must be shouldered by irrigation district managers. They must lead and manage staff, maintain project infrastructure, deliver water to farmers, comply with state and federal regulations, and work with their respective boards of directors to stay within a limited budget. It is a 24/7 kind of job, and it is not an exaggeration to say lives and livelihoods depend on them making good decisions. Out of necessity, the kind of people that do well as irrigation district managers are by nature problem solvers and idea people.

Alan Hansten, manager of the North Side Canal Company in southern Idaho, is a great example of an idea man. Alan phoned recently and said, “I have an idea for your magazine. Just like the Open Forum session of the January workshop, managers need a place in the magazine to post issues and to find out whether other managers are experiencing the same problems or have solutions.” The Open Forum session at the January Irrigation Leader Operations and Management Workshop, to which Alan referred, was an idea suggested by Steve Johnson, another great idea man. Steve, general manager of Central Oregon Irrigation District, suggested that we reserve time at the workshop for managers to share ideas with, or ask

questions of, the other managers present at the meeting.

As it turned out, the Open Forum was a very popular session.

As a result of Alan’s phone call, this issue of Irrigation Leader introduces our new Managers’ Forum section on page 32. Through this forum, Alan is reaching out to every irrigation district manager about an access road issue with Bureau of Land Management and Chris Treese is reaching out to managers about a situation that is preventing the Colorado River Water Conservation District from sharing Reclamation project water during times of drought. We encourage managers who have had similar experiences to contact Alan and Chris. This new magazine section will appear whenever managers have issues or questions to share. Should you have an item for the Managers’ Forum, or any other ideas for Irrigation Leader magazine, please let us know.

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 government agencies.

He may be contacted at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

The Water and Power Report www.WaterAndPowerReport.com The Water and Power Report is the one-stop aggregate news site for water and power issues in the 17 western states. Sign up for the free “Daily” service to receive e-mail notice of the top headlines and press releases each business day.

2

Irrigation Leader

JuLY/AUGUST 2013

C O N T E N T S 2 Irrigation District Managers Are “Idea People”

Volume 4

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 Crotty, Senior Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copyeditor 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 Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or 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 at Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Copyright © 2013 Water Strategies, LLC. Irrigation Leader relies upon the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contributor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Irrigation Leader magazine, its editors, or Water Strategies, LLC. The acceptance and use of advertisements in Irrigation Leader do not constitute a representation or warranty by Water Strategies, LLC, or Irrigation Leader magazine regarding the products, services, claims, or companies advertised.

COVER PHOTO: Travis Smith, general manager of San Luis Valley Irrigation District. Photo by San Luis Valley Irrigation District staff.

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

4 Delivering Water at 8,000 Feet:

An Interview with Travis Smith of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District 8 Hydropower is a Key Piece of All-of-the-above American Energy Plan

By Rep. Scott Tipton

12

Greater Sage Grouse Listing Threatens the West

By Kent Holsinger

14

Food Safety and Water Quality: A Conversation with Michael Taylor 22 Industry-driven Food Safety Guidelines

District Focus: 28 The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association

By Steve Fletcher

29

The Power of the Water Association

By Doug Kemper

Irrigated Crops: 30 Growing Garlic in Southeastern Colorado

By Dan Hobbs

Managers’ Forum: 32 North Side Canal Company BLM Access

Road Issue

By Alan Hansten Obstacles to Sharing Reclamation Water in Drought Conditions

By Chris Treece

Water Law: 34 Mexico Water Delivery Deficits on the Rio Grande Under the 1944 Treaty

By Glenn Jarvis

THE Innovators: 36 IWS Traveling Screens 39 CLASSIFIEDS 3

Delivering Water at 8,000 Feet: An Interview with Travis Smith of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District

F

or 21 years, Travis Smith has served as superintendent of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District (SLVID), leading a crew of seven employees in the operations and management of the Rio Grande Reservoir and Farmers Union Canal. The district provides water for approximately 62,000 acres of highly productive farm ground in the San Luis Valley, 8,000 feet above sea level.

Prior to his work with the district, Travis worked for the Colorado Division of Water Resources as water commissioner, administering the Rio Grande main stem. Travis serves as a Colorado Water Congress member, as the current Rio Grande Basin director, as past chairman of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and as an Inter-Basin Compact Committee member. Travis and his family operate a ranch south of Del Norte, Colorado.

In 1908, the Farmer’s Union Reservoir and Canal Company reorganized as the SLVID under Colorado’s Irrigation Act of 1905. The district is a private entity that provides storage and distribution of irrigation water to landowners within the district’s 62,000-acre boundary and is governed by five elected board members. The district owns and operates the Rio Grande Reservoir, the only precompact reservoir on the main stem of the Rio Grande. The reservoir celebrated its 100th anniversary last August. Irrigation Leader magazine’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, talked with Travis.

Kris Polly: What do growers in your district produce?

Travis Smith: Fresh market and seed potatoes, Coors barley, winter wheat, canola, fresh vegetables, and dairyquality alfalfa. Most of the alfalfa demand is from west Texas and New Mexico. The dairy industry is really driving the local alfalfa demand in the San Luis Valley.

The high altitude, cool nights, 100-day growing season, and great water quality place the relative feed value of our alfalfa off the charts. It’s like jet fuel.

Kris Polly: How much water do you divert for irrigation?

Travis Smith: Our normal delivery is approximately 60,000 acre-feet. . . . about 1 acre-foot per acre on irrigated lands. Here in the San Luis Valley, the other part of the 4

story is well development. We draw on the two aquifers— one is a deep, confined aquifer fed from the outfall of the rim around the valley. Mountains surround the valley, so the snowpack helps recharge the confined aquifer. The development of the major canals has created a shallow aquifer. The last 130 years of diversions by the major canals has created the unconfined/shallow aquifer and provides the water for center-pivot pumping.

Kris Polly: Are irrigators limited in how much water they can pump?

Travis Smith: To give an idea about the challenges in the San Luis Valley, there are approximately 6,000 highcapacity wells on the valley floor. North of the Rio Grande in the Closed Basin area, and there are approximately 3,000 wells pumping from the confined and unconfined aquifers.

Special Ground Water Management Sub-District No. 1, which was formed in 2010, includes 180,000 acres and all of the SLVID’s service area. The goal of the subdistrict is to reduce pumping and balance depletions with surface water contributions. There are financial incentives and disincentives to aid in this goal. This has been a local effort over the last 10 years to reach sustainability—it is self-government at its best. With high commodity prices and 10 years of drought, we’ve been in a mining situation here in the valley. We’re trying to get a handle on our declining aquifer while preserving our local economy and reaching sustainable groundwater levels.

Kris Polly: How has the district utilized public–private partnerships to address infrastructure issues?

Travis Smith: The district has been part of the Rio Grande Cooperative Project, a public–private partnership between the SLVID, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Rio Grande Reservoir is a 100-year-old reservoir needing about $25 million worth of rehabilitation. Parks and Wildlife owns Beaver Park Reservoir on the South Fork of the Rio Grande. Both reservoirs have dam safety issues. The Water Conservation Board invested $20 million in grants and low-interest loans for rehab on both reservoirs to ensure Irrigation Leader

Papoose fire just below Rio Grande Reservoir.

that they can work together in retiming and reoperation of releases and storage for multiple benefits. The partnership benefits meet consumptive and nonconsumptive needs— riparian, fisheries, low-flow conditions, and continued interstate compact compliance.

Phase 1 of Rio Grande Reservoir’s rehabilitation, a seepage control project, is currently in progress. Deere & Ault Consultants is providing the engineering services and MCMS, Inc., is the contractor installing a clay liner and grouting on the upstream slope to reduce unwanted seepage.

Kris Polly: Tell us about the West Fork Complex fire.

Travis Smith: The West Fork Complex fire is actually a series of fires—the West Fork fire, the Windy Pass fire, and the Papoose fire. The west perimeter of the Papoose fire is a half-mile below Rio Grande Reservoir. This fire started on June 20 as a single line of smoke from a lightning strike. Within three days, it grew to cover 20,000 acres. It spread so fast because of beetle infestations that killed off large swaths of old-growth Engelmann spruce.

The fire burned about 100,000 acres of the watershed affected by beetle-kill.

We started the seepage repair project on the Rio Grande Reservoir two weeks before the fire broke out. We had the upstream slope of the dam disassembled to do the liner project. Then the fire shows up and runs its course Irrigation Leader

for about three weeks. The watershed of the reservoir is made up of several hundred thousand acres of mixed beetle-kill and healthy forest. It was a real effort from the governor’s office and the Forest Service to knock that fire out before it went south and upstream from Rio Grande Reservoir.

The fire characteristics that they saw in the Papoose and West Fork fires are going to rewrite the firefighting books because of tens of thousands of dead trees, low humidity, and high winds. The fires were growing at 10,000 acres a day.

Kris Polly: How did they put the fire out?

Travis Smith: It started raining. Firefighters used “point protection” to combat the fire. They did not attack the fire where dead trees stood and waited until the fire moved out into the meadows.

Kris Polly: Is this the first major fire in your area?

Travis Smith: We had a small fire of 8,000 acres in 2002. We thought that was a big one. This fire was 109,000 acres.

Kris Polly: How will you address the postfire effects on the watershed?

5

Travis Smith: All the fire damage is adjacent to the watershed. Ash flow, debris, and other postfire issues will negatively affect 10 or 12 small tributaries. There are several land treatment methods that we will employ.

But given the large size of the basins, our main focus right now is public safety. We are putting extra stream gauges and tipping-bucket rain gauges in place to do extra monitoring for early warnings. That is an ongoing effort.

BAER [Burn Area Emergency Response] is the Forest Service’s postfire process. It brought in a team to do a postfire assessment, including hydrological and other postfire impacts. It will be a game changer for our water users. The local stakeholders created RWEACT [Rio Grande Watershed Emergency Action Coordination Team]. This is a community group to address general concerns regarding public safety and environmental health conditions caused by the West Fork and Papoose fires (www.rweact.org).

These types of fires have a multiyear impact. You can imagine—sediment flows, debris flows, public safety.

Flooding is a real concern. I personally observed a 20-minute rain of two-tenths of an inch increase sediment and debris flow tenfold just below Rio Grand Reservoir on a small drainage. Tourism and recreation will be affected. This area is an attractive spot for retired folks

in their campers to get out of the heat for three months.

The economic engine for the Upper Rio Grande, which is tourism and recreation, will be affected for many years.

The impact on irrigators has yet to be seen. We do know that ash flow is abrasive and acts like sand running through your pumps. There can be long-term effects from sediment in canal delivery systems that may reduce the ability to recharge the aquifer.

Kris Polly: Are there any hydro projects on the Upper Rio Grande?

Travis Smith: Humphrey Reservoir, located on Goose Creek, has a small hydro project. That is really the only one, because we don’t have any Bureau projects on the Upper Rio Grande. Private groups like the SLVID are reluctant to get involved with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permitting, which requires another layer of dam safety criteria. We investigated hydro’s potential in our area because Colorado is trying to incentivize groups like ours to include hydro. It is a real challenge to comply with state dam safety regulations. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission amends its requirements, the SLVID will revisit the feasibility of hydro power for Rio Grande Reservoir.

Southwestern Colorado

Four States Irrigation Council Summer Tour August 14-16, 2013 Based out of historic Downtown Durango, Colorado

Come & join the Four States Irrigation Council’s Summer Tour in Durango.

Explore historic and modern irrigation technologies in scenic southwestern Colorado as you tour with area experts.

Optional Mesa Verde Pre-Tour Welcome BBQ Vallecito Reservoir Florida Project & Lemon Reservoir

Long Hollow Reservoir McPhee Reservoir Anasazi Heritage Center Montezuma Valley Irrigation

Established in 1952, the Four States Irrigation Council serves as a forum for irrigators to exchange ideas and information, and to discuss specific irrigation-related problems and solutions. The member states are Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming.

More details & registration at www.4-states-irrigation.org 6

$150 Registration Fee

Includes: Wednesday Welcome BBQ, Thursday & Friday lunch, Thursday dinner, snacks & drinks, Anasazi Heritage Center admission & bus transportation

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Hydropower is a Key Piece of an All-of-the-above American Energy Plan

By Rep. Scott Tipton

T

here has been a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle about the need to pursue an all-of-theabove domestic energy strategy, and hydropower, as the cleanest and most abundant renewable energy source, should be at the forefront of any comprehensive national energy policy. I am pleased to report that we made significant progress in advancing this goal when, earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed with overwhelming bipartisan support my legislation to create rural jobs by encouraging clean, renewable hydropower development.

As readers of Irrigation Leader know, increased conduit hydropower provides several benefits:

8

• It produces renewable and emissions-free energy that can be used to pump water or sell electricity to the grid.

• It can generate revenue for an irrigation district to help pay for aging infrastructure costs and facility modernization.

• It can create local jobs and generate revenue for the federal government.

Many irrigation districts and electric utilities seek to develop hydropower on Bureau of Reclamation pipes, ditches, and canals, but regulatory uncertainty and the threat of unnecessary bureaucratic requirements stand in the way. My legislation, the Hydropower and Rural Jobs Act (H.R. 678), would remove duplicative environmental analysis when doing so will considerably reduce costs

Irrigation Leader

for hydropower developers, while retaining the level of analysis necessary to protect valuable natural resources.

While the Bureau of Reclamation has recently begun to inventory facilities suitable for small conduit hydropower generation and develop directives and standards to help promote that end, for too long duplicative review for small hydropower projects on existing man-made facilities rendered projects financially unfeasible. Significant uncertainty still remains.

The generating units covered by H.R. 678 would be installed on entirely man-made waterways that already received a full environmental review when they were built or rehabilitated. Any transmission associated with projects that would result from the passage of this bill must still undergo full environmental review when they impact the environment. To require a lengthy review for dropping a small generator in a pipe defies logic, and we cannot pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy if we continue business as usual.

In addition to creating regulatory certainty and removing duplicative processes, this legislation authorizes power development at the agency’s conduits to clear up multi-federal-agency confusion and further reduces the regulatory costs associated with hydropower development.

This provision of the bill will provide the necessary statutory authority to reduce the litigation the agency is sure to see under its current framework, which relies on broad authorities that do not specifically authorize hydropower development.

This legislation ensures the continued use of Bureau facilities primarily for water supply and irrigation and protects the interests of those maintaining and operating these facilities by offering them the right of first refusal to take advantage of small conduit energy development projects. Nonfederal operators know the details of the facilities best and are locally invested. As a result, it is only logical to offer them the first opportunity to develop this energy on the facilities they maintain. Additionally, those irrigation districts with preexisting arrangements with the Bureau or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for water delivery and hydropower development will not be disturbed by the bill.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had expressed hesitation with the provision of my bill that would have waived National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis for projects on these existing manmade conduits. To address these concerns, as well as to

Irrigation Leader

meet the request of the broad range of irrigation districts, water conservation and conservancy districts, and public utilities that supported the bill, I made a common-sense amendment prior to passage.

My amendment removed the NEPA waiver in the bill and instead codified the application of the Bureau of Reclamation’s categorical exclusion process under the NEPA for small hydropower projects covered by the bill.

This alternative provision would still ensure the streamlining of the approval process for clean renewable energy and help provide certainty for investors and job creators, while providing flexibility to the Bureau to adjust to changing circumstances moving forward. By advancing these projects under the Bureau’s categorical exclusion process, we ensure that all of the elements in that process are retained, including agency discretion for examining extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the amendment specifically mentioned codifying the categorical exclusion process for small conduit hydropower.

This approach was supported by Trout Unlimited in a March 19, 2013, letter, which stated that “Congress could direct BOR [Bureau of Reclamation] to create a categorical exclusion for small conduit hydropower.” That is exactly what the amendment achieved.

With the amendment, which was broadly supported by the diverse range of groups invested in the bill that are committed to ensuring continued environmental protection, we were able to assuage reservations about this effort to promote clean, renewable energy and move forward, united in strong bipartisan support. Ultimately, the use of a categorical exclusion for small conduit hydropower development can mean the difference between private investment in a public good with a multitude of benefits and unreasonable financial costs and lengthy delays that lead to untapped potential.

The Senate version of the Hydropower and Rural Jobs Act is being carried by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and has passed in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I am optimistic that the Senate will act soon to pass this common-sense clean energy bill.

Congressman Scott Tipton represents Colorado’s 3rd congressional district.

He serves on the House Committee on Natural Resources, the House Committee on Agriculture, and the House Committee on Small Business.

9

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Greater Sage Grouse Listing Threatens the West

By Kent Holsinger

F

or good reason, many have cautioned that the greater sage grouse could become “the spotted owl of the West.”

Perhaps never before has a species with such a vast range and robust population been seriously considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has committed to a listing decision on the greater sage grouse by 2015. In 2010, the greater sage grouse became a candidate species when the agency determined listing was warranted but was precluded by higher priorities.

Having grown up amid one of Colorado’s largest sage grouse populations, the moniker “greater” sage grouse was completely new to me in 2003. At the time, I was unaware that environmental groups had embarked on a nefarious campaign to dramatically change our way of life in the West. Petitions to list the greater sage grouse under the ESA had followed earlier, but unsuccessful, attempts to list the “western” and the “eastern” sage grouse, not to be confused with petitions to list the Mono Basin and the Gunnison sage grouse.

The Mono Basin sage grouse and the greater sage grouse were designated candidates for listing under the ESA in 2010. The Gunnison sage grouse was petitioned for listing precisely one day before certain scientists proclaimed it a separate species. The FWS proposed listing the Gunnison sage grouse in 2012 along with 1.7 million acres of proposed critical habitat despite stable (if not rising) populations and extraordinary federal, state, and local conservation efforts.

Like no other law, litigation drives the ESA. The Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians alone have filed hundreds of lawsuits over the ESA. Often, they collect attorneys’ fees at the taxpayers’ expense. These abuses continue unchecked despite congressional scrutiny and calls for amendments to the ESA. The provisions of the ESA apply to all land in the United States: federal, state, and private. Ironically, listings

12

often restrict the ability to manage for species and could even result in harm to the species. Species may be listed as either “threatened” or “endangered.” For threatened species, the FWS may exempt certain activities from the provisions of the ESA under section 4(d) of the act. In the past, the agency has exempted, as an example, ongoing agricultural operations under a 4(d) rule. Recently, the agency has been unwilling to consider exemptions apart from activities that are expressly designed to benefit the species.

If the greater sage grouse is listed, activities with a federal nexus (those that require federal permits, licenses, approvals, or funding) that may affect it are subject to consultation with the FWS. Upon listing, the FWS is also to designate “critical habitat” for the species. If the proposed action is likely to adversely affect the species or its critical habitat, the FWS can impose mitigation requirements for the proposed action to go forward.

Consultations can drag on for months and result in the need for costly project modifications. Thousands of permits, rights of way, leases, and other authorizations needed for roads, power lines, water, grazing, or energy development could be subject to such consultations.

In addition, the ESA prohibits “take” of listed species. Regulations that define take to include habitat

Irrigation Leader

modification on private property have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Section 11(g) of the ESA also allows environmental groups to sue to enforce take provisions.

However, recent case law suggests that take can be difficult to prove and enforce.

Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil penalties of up to $25,000 per occurrence, criminal fines up to $100,000, and up to one year in jail against any person who knowingly violates any provision of the ESA. While the ESA also provides for seizure of “guns, traps, nets, and other equipment, vessels, vehicles, [and] aircraft” used to aid in an ESA violation, this provision has been relatively untested in the courts.

The FWS must also ensure that the data it relies on are consistent with the standards of the ESA and the Data Quality Act. Under the ESA, listing decisions must be made based upon the best-available scientific and commercial data. In 2000, Congress passed the Data Quality Act as an amendment to section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The Data Quality Act allows any person to challenge data or information a federal agency distributes or relies on. The act required the Office of Management and Budget to develop government-wide standards “for ensuring and maximizing” the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies.

Unfortunately, such standards may be difficult for the FWS to meet. Responding to litigation-driven settlement agreements has consumed the majority of the FWS’s budget. Two agreements entered into with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians in 2011 require the FWS to process no fewer than 757 species for ESA listing determinations under tight timelines. The consequences to land uses in the West could be disastrous.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management plans (RMPs) govern land use on roughly 250 million acres of land in the West. BLM offices have been directed to incorporate revisions for the sage grouse into these RMPs. By varying accounts, a staggering 64 to 88 RMPs are under revision. The December 21, 2011, Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT report) forms the basis of these revisions and other regulatory restrictions.

But the NTT report has been hotly criticized. A review commissioned by the Northwest Mining Association

Irrigation Leader

found that the NTT report ignored existing regulatory mechanisms, employed a predetermined goal to restrict land uses, and was compiled contrary to the best-available science. Questions have been raised relative to peer review of the NTT report and other agency documents; flaws with data, assumptions, and models related to population trends; and threats and selective interpretation of data. Even the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has decried the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the NTT report.

Correspondence obtained via the Freedom of Information Act indicates that implementing the NTT report’s recommendations would violate existing laws. While Chairman Doc Hastings of the House Natural Resources Committee has expressed similar concerns, recent U.S. Geological Survey reports on the sage grouse seem to be even more prescriptive.

Significant challenges lie ahead. While the bird numbers in the hundreds of thousands and is already protected by hundreds of federal, state, and local conservation measures, pressure from litigation elevated the greater sage grouse to a candidate species in 2010 with a 2015 deadline for a final listing determination under the ESA. Federal agencies are already implementing draconian measures to restrict activities on public lands despite serious questions on scientific integrity and legal efficacy. Ironically, even habitat improvements for the sage grouse require additional red tape and permitting. Fortunately, many states are developing their own sage grouse conservation plans and most (regrettably not Colorado) have urged BLM to incorporate these respective plans as the preferred alternatives in RMPs. Far greater strides could be made in concert with the states and private landowners than with a federal listing. Please urge your state and congressional representatives to weigh in on these important issues.

Kent Holsinger is the managing partner of Holsinger Law, LLC. Kent testified at the congressional hearing on taxpayerfunded litigation. He has been recognized for his work on ESA issues by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and CNN.com, among many others.

He currently represents a broad array of clients in complex ESA, National Environmental Protection Act, water, and land-use issues.

13

Food Safety and Water Quality: A Conversation with Michael Taylor

M

ichael R. Taylor is deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Mr. Taylor is leading FDA efforts to develop and carry out a prevention-based strategy for food safety and to implement new food safety legislation.

One of those efforts is the development of a proposed rule to establish science-based “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption,” as part of the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

Of particular import to irrigators are the proposed regulations pertaining to “agricultural water.” Irrigation Leader magazine’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Mr. Taylor about the proposed regulations and their potential affect on irrigators and growers.

Kris Polly: What is the purpose and goal of the proposed rule with regard to irrigation water?

Michael Taylor: The proposal for irrigation water really has to be understood within the context of the overall rule and our congressional mandate. The charge that we have from Congress is to identify reasonably foreseeable hazards [to fresh produce] and to put in place practices and procedures to prevent the introduction of those reasonably foreseeable hazards. We are committed to doing this in a way that takes full account of the wide diversity of growing conditions and practices across the produce sector. We are working to develop rules that are adaptable to this diversity and will make a practical difference for food safety. A onesize-fits-all approach would not make sense for growers or for food safety.

We have learned over the years that there are several recognized pathways for the biological contamination of produce. Water is one pathway, but by no means is it the only one. We are also looking at other known factors, such as hygiene practices of workers. The way in which compost and manure are used and when they are applied is another factor. Animals are a potential pathway, as is equipment used in packing facilities.

Irrigation water is widely viewed by experts, and is shown by long-standing good agricultural practices, as a pathway of contamination. When we are looking at water as a potential pathway, however, our focus is on how a particular use of water could contribute to contamination.

For example, we have laid out proposed criteria for water quality, particularly with regard to E. coli, that would make irrigation water suitable for direct contact with the edible

14

portion of a fresh fruit or vegetable. Water used in drip irrigation or that otherwise does not directly contact the edible portion of the produce would not be subject to such criteria or to any testing requirements.

I want to stress that the development of these water standards is very much a work in progress. We have proposed certain criteria and certain approaches to testing, and we have proposed that growers have the opportunity to take alternative approaches to criteria if they are more scientifically suitable to their particular production process.

We are at the very beginning of the standards development.

We will work with the irrigation and grower communities to craft a flexible standard for irrigation water as it used in produce operations—one that is good for food safety and is adaptable to diversity.

Kris Polly: What does the FDA believe the health and safety risk to the general public from irrigated produce to be?

Michael Taylor: Water is one of the recognized pathways that can contribute to the potential contamination of produce with bacteria. Water can become contaminated Irrigation Leader

very commonly through the presence of animal waste in the environment, including from livestock being close to water sources. But, there are any number of ways in which microbial pathogens—Salmonella, E. coli, and others—can enter into water used for the production of produce. So our task is to understand the ways pathogens can contaminate produce and to set appropriate criteria for the use of water, thus minimizing the risk of contamination of fresh produce with bacteria that can make people sick.

water used in particular circumstances: when and how it is applied to crops and whether the pathogens die off before the crops are harvested. If so, we want to take that into account. We need more scientific information on the die-off question. Therefore, we have proposed allowing farms to use alternative standards. This issue is obviously complex. If we’re going to achieve our goal of a flexible, adaptable water standard, we need to make it feasible and effective across diverse irrigation and growing conditions.

Kris Polly: Are there any documented cases of food consumers becoming ill due to irrigation water?

Kris Polly: Irrigation districts deliver large volumes of water in open canals to millions of acres. Is the FDA proposing that irrigation water be treated before it is applied to crops?

Michael Taylor: The path we have taken, and that Congress has laid out, is to address the most likely pathways for contamination of produce. In any particular outbreak, it is often hard to determine exactly how the contamination occurred—what was the source of the bacteria that made people sick. And, in recent years there have been cases of contamination in certain produce that had never been implicated in an outbreak before, such as Listeria in whole cantaloupe.

But, there are documented cases in which we know in all likelihood that the contamination came through the water pathway. We know that the presence of harmful bacteria in surface water is a reality. We also know that if harmful bacteria are present in water applied to crops, they can contaminate the product.

In our regulatory approach to the produce safety rule, we conducted a risk-based, qualitative assessment, which provides a basis for our proposed minimum standards, including those for agricultural water. In that assessment, we concluded that the most likely routes of contamination from growing, harvesting, and on-farm postharvest activities are associated with seed (for sprouts), water, soil amendments, animals, worker health and hygiene, and buildings/ equipment. Although some types of produce have been repeatedly associated with outbreaks, all types of produce have the potential to become contaminated through one or more of these potential routes of contamination. Use of poor agricultural practices in producing any commodity could lead to contamination and illness, even when the potential for contamination is relatively low. These facts are reflected in current GAP programs and in industrydeveloped specifications for produce safety. We feel that our regulatory approach would minimize the risk associated with the hazards identified, but at the same time provide flexibility for the use of alternative measures that would provide the same level of public health protection as the proposed standards.

For example, we know that there are circumstances in which, after irrigation water is applied directly to the crop, those pathogens can die off. This is where the situation gets complicated. We want to recognize the practical reality of Irrigation Leader

Michael Taylor: As a general proposition, no. The whole idea is for growers to understand the microbiological quality of the water they use and how it can contribute to contamination. There may be circumstances under which treating the water that is applied directly to the edible portion of the produce is the only way to meet the microbial standards we are proposing.

But we’re specifically providing for alternatives here. For example, in the growing conditions in which water is being used, if it can be shown scientifically that the pathogen dies off before the product is harvested, the grower would not have to meet that microbiological standard and would not have to treat the water to get to that standard.

The solution here is not the treatment of vast quantities of water in irrigation districts. We have to have a more targeted approach to understanding the safety of the water that is being used and the manner in which it is being used.

We recognize the feasibility limits on the treatment of large volumes of water and open canals. We need to be practical, we need to deal with the reality of agricultural production and the way in which water is sourced, and we need to find targeted solutions to help farmers continue to produce safe products. That’s why this issue will continue to be a work in progress for some time.

Kris Polly: Under the alternate approach you mentioned above, what are the requirements that need to be implemented for such approach to be acceptable to the FDA? Michael Taylor: We have specifically provided in the rule for taking an alternative approach to ensuring the safety of the product, such as by demonstrating scientifically, under the particular growing conditions involving temperature, humidity, and a combination of other factors, that pathogens will sufficiently die off to ensure the safety of the finished product. The basic requirement is a scientific study that shows that the alternative approach is equally protective of public health. It could be a study developed by the farm, or 15

through a third party, such as a cooperative extension or a regional commodity board. The grower is not required to get advance FDA approval to use the alternative approach.

We recognize that growers are typically not going to be going out and doing these kinds of scientific studies, so we provided funding to the Western Center for Food Safety (http://wcfs.ucdavis.edu/saaw.php), which worked with industry, academia, and other stakeholders to develop standardized frameworks for designing study protocols for these types of studies. We want to work with the community to support the science for those alternative approaches in particular circumstances. We want to be flexible and adaptable to certain conditions. We’ve repeatedly said that we don’t want a one-size-fits-all rule, and this is one way we can avoid that.

Kris Polly: Should the proposed rule create a new water testing or regulatory program for irrigation water, will funding be available?

Michael Taylor: The FDA is not set up and is not financed as an agency that provides funding to cover compliance costs. We are very sensitive to the economic impact of our proposals. The proposed rule is accompanied by a regulatory economic impact analysis of what those costs might be. We are eager to work with the irrigation community to help find solutions that can minimize those costs.

Kris Polly: Is E. coli the only source of contamination the FDA is concerned with testing in irrigation water?

Michael Taylor: Yes. In our proposed rule, we set forth when testing is necessary for generic E. coli, which is widely recognized as an indicator of fecal contamination that could also contain human pathogenic bacteria. We are not proposing to test for specific pathogens themselves, but to test for generic E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination.

Kris Polly: The comment period for the proposed rule was extended for 120 days. What kind of information from the irrigation community would be most helpful to the FDA? Michael Taylor: We hope the community will take this comment process seriously. We do need to know as much as we can about the quality of water that is present in these irrigation systems, the manner in which the water is used, and the variability of the quality of water over time. That information will enable us to craft solutions to ensure the proper quality of water in produce operations.

We also want to work closely with specific commodity groups and regions to understand how water is being used and how it is contributing to the production of safe 16

food. We know that surface water is supplied to growers in irrigation districts and systems and results in few, if any, reported safety problems. The quality of water coming out the irrigation system, the manner in which it is used, the way in which pathogens die off the product in the field, the way in which the product is being handled during packing and processing—all of those factors go into the end result of safe fresh produce. We want to understand, document, and embrace the practices that provide safe produce to consumers, even if they do not line up with what we propose in our regulation.

Kris Polly: Will the final regulations apply only to produce, such as iceberg lettuce, or to all food crops?

Michael Taylor: The proposed rule applies to fresh produce, not to grains like wheat and corn. It also doesn’t apply to produce that is normally cooked before being eaten (such as potatoes or artichokes), or to produce for commercial processing, such as canned green beans, that normally undergo a commercial process designed to kill bacteria.

Kris Polly: Certain items, such as potatoes, are exempt because they are normally exposed to heat. Is there a similar exemption for items that are normally exposed to cold? If so, what is the temperature below which the exemption would apply?

Michael Taylor: There are two exemptions here that we recognize in our proposed rule. The first that you mention is that the rule does not apply to products, such as potatoes, that are ordinarily cooked by the consumer before consumption. There is also an exemption for produce destined for commercial processing that includes a “kill” step to reduce or eliminate any bacteria that may be present.

We propose to exempt those commodities from various requirements of the proposed rule.

The commercial freezing process is not recognized as effective in killing microbial pathogens. We welcome comment and scientific evidence on particular cold conditions, or on how exposing produce to cold or freezing would be effective in killing pathogens. Refrigeration by itself does not do that.

Kris Polly: How will the new regulations comport with existing state regulations and industry standards?

Michael Taylor: The FDA’s proposed requirements for agricultural water outlined in the proposed produce safety rule draw upon good agricultural practices being employed by farms that follow standards of the California and Arizona Leafy Greens Marketing Agreements and upon several state produce safety programs, such as the Tomato Irrigation Leader

GAPs (T-GAP) adopted several years ago by both field and greenhouse growers in Florida. The proposal is intended to reflect best practices that many farms already employ, while taking full account of the great diversity of growing conditions and practices, as well as the need for rules that are adaptable to this diversity and that make a practical difference for food safety.

We think we are working in the same basic direction, using the same science and the same practices, to reach a workable standard. Our hope is that [the industry, FDA’s proposed standards, and state standards] will all line up at the end of the day and result in a reasonable and consistent set of national standards.

Kris Polly: Finally, what is your message to farmers who use irrigation and to the districts that store and deliver irrigation water?

Michael Taylor: We fully recognize the challenge presented by the water requirements outlined in the proposed rule. The goal is to ensure the safety of water used in produce operations and to prevent foodborne illnesses. We want to work with the irrigation and grower communities to meet this challenge with flexible and adaptable standards that make a practical difference for food safety across the diversity of the produce sector.

We need the input, the expertise, and the kind of practical understanding that comes from the people who are doing agricultural work every day.

We specifically proposed more time for compliance with the water-quality requirements—an additional two years. It will be four to six years, depending on the size and annual food sales of the operation, after the publication of the final rule before anyone would have to comply. That timing reflects our recognition that arriving at the right standards, and the right way to implement them, is a work in progress.

We want to get this right in way that meets our shared safety goals and is practical and workable for growers.

The comment period for this proposed rule has been extended to September 16, 2013. To submit a comment by mail, write: Division of Dockets Management (HFA– 305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 To submit a comment electronically, go to www.regulations.gov and enter FDA‑2011‑N‑0921‑0087. All submissions for this rulemaking must include the agency name, Docket No. FDA‑2011‑N‑0921, and Regulatory Information Number RIN 0910‑AG35.

ADVERTISEMENT

Choose from AquaLastic® High Pressure or AquaLastic® Low Pressure AquaLastic® High Pressure System – approved applicator installation* AquaLastic® Low Pressure System – application by a district’s own crew*

The self-contained AquaLastic® Low Pressure System reaches canals and flumes where access for vehicles is impossible.

AquaLastic® systems, high and low pressure, provide valuable repairs and leak prevention

This vertical-sided canal repaired by irrigation district’s own crew

The AquaLastic® Canal Repair Systems are proven.

Over 15.5 million feet of canal and flume now repaired in the USA Contact Customer Service to discuss which system is right for your canal repairs. *Some important differences exist between the AquaLastic high pressure and low pressure.

www.fixcanal.com Telephone 949-394-4228 for information Email: customerservice@fixcanal.com

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Industry-driven Food Safety Guidelines

N

othing hurts demand more than a loss in consumer confidence. Outbreaks of foodborne illnesses injure consumers and hurt the reputation and pocketbooks of growers. Lettuce growers in Arizona and California are leading the way in self-regulation and setting protocols to ensure the safety of their lettuce.

A Yuma Grower’s Experience

The Edwards family has been farming in the Yuma area for 45 years. Back in the 1960s, Troy Edwards’s father bought a cattle feed yard and the surrounding land to protect it from encroachment. He started farming that land. Today, Mr. Edwards mainly grows two crops a year: lettuce in winter followed by one rotation crop—wheat, cotton, Sudan grass, or a seed crop.

Like many growers in the Yuma area, Mr. Edwards sells to California-based shippers who then sell to customers all over the country. That close connection means that if California companies and consumers demand particular food safety measures, Arizona growers will meet that demand. Given that relationship, Arizona’s food safety rules—under the industry-generated Leafy Green Program—mirror California’s. In addition to state industry practices, companies such as Sam’s Club, Costco, and Albertson’s may have additional requirements of their own.

The Leafy Green Program

Arizona law enables commodity growers and shippers to regulate their particular area of expertise through marketing agreement programs. According to Arizona law [A.R.S. 3-402], “[t]he policy and purpose of [these programs] are to promote the general welfare of [Arizona] by enabling and encouraging fresh fruit and vegetable producers and shippers to help themselves.” Marketing agreements may set standards for the quality, condition, and safety of commodities. The Arizona Department of Agriculture oversees a citrus, fruit, and vegetable standardization program that establishes and administers the agreements.

After a deadly 2006 E. coli outbreak in Californiagrown spinach, California shippers took action to prevent such an event from reoccurring. In 2007, California farmers, shippers, and handlers came together to form the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement (LGMA) to protect public health by reducing potential sources of contamination in California-grown leafy greens. Arizona shippers and growers then followed suit, first following California’s guidelines and then developing their own. The members of the Arizona

22

LGMA seek to reduce potential sources of contamination in Arizona-grown leafy greens by agreeing to a set of best safety guidelines and practices; signatories must then implement those practices to comply with the program.

Those practices and guidelines are compiled as the Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Leafy Greens for Arizona.

Water testing is an essential component of those guidelines. The table below (adapted from the Arizona guidelines) summarizes some of the main pre- and postharvest requirements.

Preharvest: edible part of

Targets E. coli and applies to overhead sprinkler irrigation, pestici

Sampling Method

Criteria

Remedies Records

100 mL sample collected aseptically at the point of u water source, and monthly thereafter during use.

FDA BAM method or any U.S. EPA approved or AO

Less than 126 MPN (or CFU*)/100 mL (rolling geo single sample.

If geometric mean or individual limits are exceeded, d source and distribution system to find and then elimi is not readily apparent.

Samples and analysis shall record: the type of water ( method of analysis and detection limit. Results and re

Preharvest: edible part of c

Targets E. coli and applies to furrow, drip irrigation, dust abatement testing not

Sampling

Same as preharvest standards.

Criteria

Less than 126 MPN (or CFU*)/100 mL (rolling geo single sample.

Method

Remedies Records

Same as preharvest standards.

If geometric mean or individual limits are exceeded, d source and distribution system to find and then elimi is not readily apparent.

Same as above.

Postharvest: direct product co

Targets E. coli and must meet EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goa to prevent cross

Sampling

Same as preharvest standards.

Criteria

Same as preharvest contact requirements.

Method

Physical Testing & Criteria

Same as preharvest standards.

Testing of water disinfectant (chlorine or other disinf specific probe, ORP, or other as recommended by dis Single Pass acceptance: Water must have non-detectabl Multi pass water acceptance: Less than 1 ppm free chlo than 650 mW & pH 6.5-7.5; Other approved treatm Irrigation Leader

How the Guidelines Translate on the Ground

The minimum food safety guidelines require growers to take samples of irrigation water once a month at each turnout from the main irrigation system. Many labs are in the business of pulling water samples and running the necessary analyses. Mr. Edwards explained, “The lab we hire starts taking samples a month before I plant a crop subject to the rules. If a crop only takes three months to grow, we take a sample in each month of growth.” Still, customers drive the process. It may be the case that a particular customer requests more than the number of samples required for the geometric mean. In those cases, Mr. Edwards said, “We take our monthly samples, and then at the end, we take extra samples spread out over a

f crop contacted by water

ides/fungicide applications, etc. EPA recreational water standards.

use and tested prior to use if greater than 60 days since last test of the

OAC accredited for quantitative monitoring of water for generic E. coli.

ometric mean of 5 samples) and less than 235 MPN/100mL for any

discontinue water contact until compliance. Conduct survey of water inate source of contamination. More aggressive testing if an explanation

(canal, reservoir, well, etc.) date, time and location of the sample, and the emedies kept for at least 2 years.

crop not contacted by water

t water, etc. Less stringent. If water not used in vicinity of produce, t necessary.

couple of weeks to meet the customer’s request. . . . We take the process very seriously.”

If a sample from the water source does exceed the criteria, growers must conduct a survey of the water source and distribution system to try to find the possible source of contamination and eliminate it. That situation will require repeated sampling to ensure safety. As Mr. Edwards noted, “These systems are flowing. If a grower finds a high count, it may be due to something flowing through the system.

Thirty seconds later, a sample in the same spot could read clean.” Even after years of testing, Mr. Edwards has never had a high count or a reading even close to the limit.

Growers in the Yuma area do not necessarily own their own crops. For Troy Edwards, his shipper owns most of his crops and, therefore, bears the costs of guideline compliance. This type of market differs from many commodity growers’, whose crops’ price is what it is at the time of sale regardless of regulatory and investment expenses. “I am growing cost-plus—I have a line item in my budget for that. Up to now, the customer has been willing to pay that price. It is a cost like fertilizer or anything else. I do own a percentage [of the crops], so I take some of the risk.” Generally, Mr. Edwards’s customers are looking at total cost per acre, not at how total costs break down.

Meeting Customer Needs

The Leafy Greens Program, and others like it, has been ahead of the curve in terms of ensuring the food safety needs of Americans and customers abroad. As Mr. Edwards succinctly put it, “Our customers are demanding [stringent testing]—it does not matter if [a particular safety practice] makes sense to me, we have to find a way to satisfy the customer.”

ometric mean of 5 samples) and less than 576 MPN/100mL for any

discontinue ag production until compliance. Conduct survey of water inate source of contamination. More aggressive testing if an explanation

ontact or food contact surfaces

al for E. coli or contain approved disinfectant at sufficient concentration s contamination.

fectant compound): chemical reaction based colorimetric test, ion sinfectant supplier. le levels of E. coli or breakpoint disinfectant present at point of entry. orine after application & pH 6.5-7.5; Oxygen reduction potential less ments per product EPA label.

Irrigation Leader

23

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Pivot stuck again? Put your log chain away.

RAAFT TRAcks will solve your problem.

by PolyTech LLC

• Quick & easy to install • Keeps center pivots from getting stuck • Reduces or eliminates tracks and ruts • Fits tire sizes: 11.2x24, 11.2x24.5, 11.2x38, 14.9x24 • Can withstand bridges yet float with ease over acres of muddy terrain RAAFT tracks are manufactured using a rugged polyethylene/carbon composite plastic that is 100% recyclable and floats with ease over acres of muddy terrain. RAAFT Tracks are designed to operate in field conditions from 40° F to 105° F, with water being applied to the wet the track. It can be winter moved at temperatures down to -10°. Lightweight enough to be carried/dragged by one person, 4 to 6 bolts for installation per tower, depending on the model.

For more information, please visit our web site at

www.RAAFT.com e-mail raaftsales@gmail.com or phone (402) 261-5774

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association

District Focus

By Steve Fletcher

T

he Uncompahgre Project provides water to approximately 3,200 customers irrigating nearly 80,000 acres of farmland in west-central Colorado on lands along the Uncompahgre River. The project’s 438 miles of laterals and 128 miles of main canals supply water to fields of sweet corn, onions, dry beans, hay, and grains in the fertile Uncompahgre Valley.

The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) is a not-for-profit association that runs the project. Our staff of 44 maintains and operates Taylor Park Dam and Reservoir, Gunnison Tunnel, seven diversion dams, and two new hydroelectric facilities.

Today, we face the challenges of maintaining our water and ensuring that there will be plenty for future generations to come.

UVWUA members are shareholders who are billed per share. One share equals one acre of land. UVWUA uses the shareholder assessments to cover project operations and maintenance costs, including the costs of head gate replacement or repair, deliveries, and measurement devices. The project has two types of soil: mesa and adobe. Mesa soil receives 5 acre-feet per share per year and adobe soil receives 4 acre-feet per share per year. During times of drought, or if demand is great and we have capacity problems, we deliver a percentage of each share so each user receives equal portions of their water.

History The Uncompahgre Project was one of the first five projects to be built by the Reclamation Service.

The secretary of the interior approved project funding in 1903, and construction on the Gunnison Tunnel began the next year. By 1909, and with great difficulty, construction crews successfully “holed through” more than six miles of sheer mountain rock to complete the Gunnison Tunnel and divert the waters of the Gunnison River into the Uncompahgre Valley. At the time, it was the longest irrigation tunnel in the world. Later that

year, President William Howard Taft visited Montrose, Colorado, to commemorate project workers and dedicate the tunnel.

Thirty years later, project staff identified the need to provide upstream storage for spring runoff. In 1935, they began the construction of Taylor Park Dam on a site on the Taylor River, a tributary of the Gunnison. Completed two years later, the reservoir holds 106,230 acre-feet of water.

Bringing an Old Project into the 21st Century The Uncompahgre is a 100-year-old project, and UVWUA is starting to feel the wear and tear of that age. Of the seven diversions along the Uncompahgre River, two were automated back in the 1960s. They were failing, so we had to act. A Reclamation WaterSMART grant will help UVWUA update the two headgates and automate the other five. We will tie them all together with a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) system, which will be integrated into our existing management software.

And like many irrigation projects, UVWUA grapples with Clean Water Act (CWA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues. Our solution is to be proactive. The entire east side of the project lies within the Mancos Shale formation, home to highly soluble salt and selenium.

The deep percolation of those minerals from canal seepage is carried into the Uncompahgre and ultimately the Colorado River, violating both CWA and ESA requirements.

With grant money from Reclamation’s basin-wide program to address salinity, UVWUA started piping and lining ditches. We have been able to do the work in-house, lining or piping roughly 20 percent of our east-side canals and laterals. The results have been fantastic: Salinity and selenium levels in the rivers have dropped, and the quality of water on the lower end of the project has changed considerably. Those readings are trending downhill.

Hydropower Project operators have contemplated hydropower on the Uncompahgre from the very beginning of the project.

Aerial view of the South Canal Hydro Project.

28

Irrigation Leader

View of a newly lined ditch.

We have looked at several models over the years. Over the last five, we have teamed up with the Delta-Montrose Electric Association (DMEA), the provider for the entire valley, to develop the South Canal Hydro plan. There are two different sites capable of generating 3 to 4 megawatts each, enough electricity for 3,000 to 3,500 homes. The project went out for bid last year, UVWUA and DMEA obtained a lease-of-power privilege from the Bureau of

Reclamation, and we accepted a design-build bid from a company out of Washington State—Mountain States Hydro. Site 1 went online this past Memorial Day weekend, and Site 3 will go online the last week of July 2013.

We had to build lines from the powerhouses to tap into the grid. We upgraded a distribution line and tied into it.

There was a new substation about 3 or 4 miles from the site, so our power goes there.

Hydropower is on the forefront of renewable energy right now. We are utilizing the project’s existing facilities to tap into the energy of the water on a couple of drops in the South Canal. We did not change our environment much at all; we just added a pipe next to our canal. The project is just borrowing the energy from the water as it goes down the canal.

Steve Fletcher is general manager of the UVWUA.

The Power of the Water Association

By Doug Kemper

T

"

he Colorado Water Congress exists on the theory that there are enough people in the State of Colorado with enough foresight to see the necessity for a strong water program for the State of Colorado; that these people are willing to forget their differences while they discuss matters that we all agree on; that the subject is one that is above political consideration; and that the future of the State of Colorado is written in terms of water supply.”

These (and those below) are the words of John Bernard Jr., our first executive director, as he described the organization of the Colorado Water Congress, its principal programs, and the problems we faced at the end of 1958. The need to pull water users together, to gain support from a broad representative group, and to speak with a clear and effective voice is just as important today as it was 55 years ago.

The technology may have evolved from the mimeograph machine to Twitter, but our message has remained the same.

We are the heartbeat of the water community, tapping out a steady rhythm of water supply that keeps our economy flowing. Few know the names of the countless individuals keeping our system working—setting siphon tubes by moonlight or leaving their warm bed in the middle of January to repair a water main break. Willie Nelson’s heroes may always have been cowboys, but these are mine.

“We feel that it is not necessary for us to wait until the well runs dry before we miss the water. The magnitude of the task is almost staggering. Yet, the magnitude of the effect of a failure to do the task is equally staggering.”

Irrigation Leader

We live in the constant shadow of drought, and April snows can make or break a water year. Climate changes, but our mission does not. Legislation, regulation, and court rulings remain a constant concern, but our presence should never fade.

“As big as these problems are, we think they can be met. As a matter of fact, we cannot afford not to solve them—the future of Colorado is at stake.”

We serve as the leading voice of Colorado’s water community. On behalf of our 350 members, we provide an open forum to share information; form positions; and advocate for a strong, effective, and fair state water program.

Most every western state has an organization with a mission that is similar to the Colorado Water Congress. Our organizations are vital to keeping the system in place that our predecessors worked so hard to create. Wherever you live, there is an opportunity for you to get involved. By spending just a few minutes on our websites, you might find some opportunities to participate in the future of water. The power of our water associations is our members.

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

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

29

Growing Garlic in Southeastern Colorado

Irrigated Crops

By Dan Hobbs

30

G

arlic is one of the oldest domesticated crops in the world, cultivated for thousands of years for culinary and medicinal purposes.

Having originated in the steppes of central Asia, it has adapted well to the geography and climate of southeastern Colorado. On Hobbs Family Farm, we have been growing organic garlic for 17Â seasons.

Most folks think garlic is just garlic, particularly the white garlic you see at the grocery store. The vast majority of garlic production was outsourced to China and Mexico years ago, and we see one or two main varieties on the grocery store shelves. However, hundreds of varieties are grown worldwide. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, American plant collectors traveled to the former Soviet republics and collected regionally adapted garlic varieties. Many of these varieties are now being grown by smaller specialty garlic growers like us.

There are different types of garlic with a variety of uses. There are two subspecies—hardnecks and softnecks. Hardneck garlic

tends to be flavorful and colorful. Softnecks are generally more tame and have good storage qualities.

Among the many types, Silver White is suited for long-term storage; Pueblo Early has a nice, mild flavor; and Romanian Red can be really hot. Hobbs Family Farm began growing large heads for the garlic seed market in 1996. Since then, we have experimented with many varieties and have settled on eight or nine.

Growing Organic Garlic

We’ve always grown garlic organically, which means we use no chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides), and we pay attention to natural soil health based on crop rotation, cover crops, and composted animal manure. Garlic is labor intensive. We touch each head of garlic at least three times: At planting, you break up each head of garlic

Irrigation Leader

and plant each clove 5 inches apart; at harvest, you pick each head up by hand; and after picking, you take the heads up to the shed for curing, cleaning, and boxing. At planting time, we generally have 15–20 people help out with breaking up the heads.

Garlic is planted in the fall, generally in October in most of North America. Harvest runs from summer solstice through July 7. We grow approximately 5 acres a year with a combination of hand and mechanical work.

We have a home-made planter with shovels that sit on the back of the tractor and are lowered into the bed. We use a beet digger for harvesting, which undercuts the garlic.

Then we collect the bulbs by hand and haul them out of the field quickly, because the skins are subject to sunburn, and we stack them in a ventilated shed. In the hot, dry summer weather, the garlic generally is cured in about three weeks, and we begin shipping by August 1. Hobbs Family Farm produces about 7,000 pounds of garlic each year.

Watering Garlic

We irrigate on a furrow system with siphon tubes. We have senior water rights from the Bessemer Ditch, one of the older ditches in Colorado. We soak the garlic every 10 days—about three times in the fall. When the ditch comes back on March 15, we’ll water until about June 15.

Garlic is a survivor. It can produce with little water, although head size may not be as robust. When the crop

Irrigation Leader

is close to maturity, it is susceptible to overwatering.

Overwatering stains garlic heads a black color, while underwatering prevents the garlic from filling out and hinders removal at harvest.

The Business

We have different marketing channels for garlic: large heads for seed, which we sell to national seed companies and directly to other farmers and gardeners; mediumsized culinary garlic for our local produce cooperative and Whole Foods; small heads, which we sell to processors for peeling and drying; garlic scapes, which are the green tops in the spring; and immature spring garlic, for use like a scallion, also in the spring. Western U.S. garlic, originating in arid climes, is prized for its high quality and lack of disease, so we ship our garlic locally within Colorado as well as across the country.

Dan Hobbs grows certified organic garlic and open-pollinated seeds on Hobbs Family Farm in Avondale, Colorado, near Pueblo.

For more information about the farm and about garlic, visit www.farmdirectseed.com/.

31

Forum

Managers’

North Side Canal Company BLM Access Road Issue

This past spring, one of my maintenance foremen approached the local office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to inquire about grading some access roads across federal lands to access a canal company right of way for a canal across the federal land. The canal company has been accessing the canal using these roads for over a century. My foreman was told that the access roads we wanted graded were not identified as part of BLM’s road system for maintenance purposes, and therefore, BLM does not maintain them. Further, if the company wanted to grade the roads itself, it would need to obtain a right of way pursuant to Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976, and that right-of-way process would require a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis. Once the NEPA process was completed, a determination would be made on granting the right of way for the roads. If granted, the right of way would be for a term of 20 to 30 years and an annual fee would be assessed at a rate of approximately $65 per acre, or more depending on the location of the easement.

Construction of the North Side Canal Company system in southern Idaho began in 1908. By 1930, approximately 1,200 miles of canal had been constructed. These access roads were used by the company during the construction of the canal system and have been used for its maintenance for over 100 years. We believe that the roads were inadvertently left out of the federal and state laws that were enacted to authorize the construction of the system back in the day. The company has graded and used the access roads in the past to maintain its canals, and it is not proposing to change the use of the roads in any way. We just want to continue what we have been doing for over 100 years.

We are presently working with the local field office manager and the Idaho state director of BLM to find out whether we can continue to do what we’ve been doing for a long time without having to spend time, effort, and money.

If anyone has run into a similar situation in trying to maintain roads across public lands to access facilities, please let me know. I am Alan Hansten, manager of North Side Canal Company in southern Idaho, and I can be contacted at (208) 324-2319 or ahansten@cableone.net.

Obstacles to Sharing Reclamation Water in Drought Conditions

Eleven years ago, my agency, the Colorado River District, worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to avoid the worst of a record-setting drought. We polled the water contractees of a local Reclamation reservoir to determine whether any portion of the stored water would not be required by individual contractees. Working with Reclamation, we were able to redirect more than 10,000 acre-feet of contracted “emergency drought supply” water to those, including endangered fish, with critical water supply needs.

With a repeat of extreme drought conditions in 2012, we approached Reclamation with an identical proposal only to be told that a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) would have to be conducted before any releases to noncontractees could be made. The time requirements of NEPA, even in the most optimistic scenario, precluded repeating this vital program, and water remained unused but badly needed in storage.

Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation with Reclamation in which previous operations couldn’t be repeated because of a new determination that a NEPA review would be required?

Chris Treese is the external affairs manager of Colorado River Water Conservation District in western Colorado. He can be contacted at (970) 945-8522 or ctreese@crwcd.org.

If you have an issue or question for the Managers’ Forum, please e-mail us at Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com with the subject line “Managers’ Forum.”

32

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Water Law 34

Mexico Water Delivery Def icits on the Rio Grande Under the 1944 Treaty

By Glenn Jarvis

I

n the late 1800s, irrigation development in Colorado resulted in increased use of Rio Grande water in the upper reaches of the Rio Grande, which affected available water supplies downstream in Mexico, New Mexico, and Texas. These reduced water supplies prompted governmental efforts to provide for the needs of Mexico, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas at the time, resulting in the 1906 Convention, the construction of Elephant Butte Dam, and an allocation of 60,000 acre-feet per annum to Mexico.

Floods and development in the lower reach of the Rio Grande in Texas and Mexico in the early 1900s, and the need for allocation of the Colorado River between the two countries in the western part of the United States and in Mexico, resulted in the 1944 Treaty, which divided the waters in the Colorado River in the West and the Rio Grande in Texas.

The Rio Grande is a unique river. Not only does it flow through three states—Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas—with contrasting cultures and economies, but after it reaches Texas, it flows for over 1,200 miles as the international boundary between the United States and Mexico until it reaches the Gulf of Mexico.

It is a river that has been divided by politics and the needs of the time into two segments. I will refer to the segment from the headwaters of Rio Grande in the San Juan range of the Rocky Mountains in southern Colorado through central New Mexico to Fort Quitman, Texas, as the Upper Reach, and the section that continues downstream from Fort Quitman, Texas, through miles of desert, mountains, and semitropical areas in the Lower Rio Grande Valley to the Gulf of Mexico as the Lower Reach.

The water in the Upper Reach is all from tributary sources in the United States. Flows in the Lower Reach were historically mixed waters composed of U.S. flows from the Upper Reach mixed with water from several Mexican tributaries and the Texas tributaries, mainly the Pecos and Devils River. Now, after the 1906 Convention and the Rio Grande Compact in the 1930s between Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, the majority of the flows in the Lower Reach derive from Mexico.

The 1944 Treaty has many unique features, including the way in which it divides available water

during an extraordinary drought. On the Colorado River in the western states, the 1944 Treaty and the 1906 Convention provide a specific annual allocation of 1,500,000 acre-feet to the United States and 60,000 acre-feet to Mexico. In drought periods, water is allocated on a pro rata basis between the two countries. In contrast, on the Rio Grande the 1944 Treaty provides a different approach. It requires Mexico to deliver an average minimum of 350,000 acre-feet per annum during five‑year cycles to the Rio Grande for the United States. During a year in a cycle when insufficient run-off waters in the watershed in Mexico prevent this guaranteed flow, the deficiency is to be made up during the other years of the five-year cycle. If run-off is insufficient during the entire five-year cycle, then the deficit is to be made up during the following five-year cycle. Obviously, this requirement was founded on existing natural facts: On the Colorado River, the flows emanate from the United States, in contrast to the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman, Texas, where the majority of water comes from certain named tributaries in Mexico.

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which includes the U.S. section and Mexico section, is charged and entrusted with implementation and enforcement of the 1944 Treaty.

The 1944 Treaty was successful on the Rio Grande for about 50 years, including during a state-wide drought in the 1950s. The treaty was not successful during the drought on the Lower Rio Grande in cycles 1992–1997 and 1997–2002. A violation of the 1944 Treaty occurred when Mexico failed to provide flows of the named tributaries in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. A water debt of about 1.5 million acre-feet was created, which was not covered in the following cycle ending in 2002. This deficit was challenging to resolve and was finally paid over a period of years in exchange for an agreement that Mexico would implement water policies to prevent water delivery deficits in the future.

The current five-year cycle began on October 25, 2010, and ends on October 25, 2015. As of this writing (in the third year of the five-year cycle), Mexico is behind in its deliveries by about 480,000 acre-feet.

Mexico’s lack of water deliveries to the Lower Rio Grande in Texas significantly affects the region’s irrigated agriculture of over 500,000 acres, as well as Irrigation Leader

the population of about 1.5 million who depend on the Rio Grande for water supply. In 2010, the combined population of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, including Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, was 1.23 million; by the year 2060, the population will be over 2.9 million.

Webb County (Laredo, Texas) had a population of over 250,000 in 2010, with a projected population of over 725,000 in 2060; Maverick County (Eagle Pass area) had a population of over 58,000, which is projected to reach approxiately 100,000 in 2060. These increases total a projected 3.725 million by 2060. Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group (Texas Water Development Board), Rio Grande Regional Water Plan, Region M, 2010 (Pgs. 2-5).

The growth in population and agricultural needs is increasing the pressure for Mexico to comply with the 1944 Treaty. A recent report by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service reveals that the deficit in deliveries

by Mexico and the lack of irrigation water has cost $229.2 million in crop revenue loss, which will contribute to an estimated $394.9 million in economic loss for the region and a loss of 4,840 jobs that depend on the production and sale of crops in the Lower Rio Grande region.

Mexico has failed in each of the three years in this cycle to meet the minimum treaty obligation of 350,000 acre-feet per year on average. In year one, Mexico delivered 82 percent of the required minimum, and in year two, 29 percent of the required minimum. This year, approximately 17 percent of the required minimum, or about 62,000 acre-feet, has been delivered. If Mexico were treated the same way on the Colorado River, our delivery for year three of the cycle on the Colorado River would be closer to 255,000 acre-feet, not the 1,500,000 acre-feet Mexico is guaranteed.

Contrast this with the United States’s efforts on numerous occasions to assist Mexico through the IBWC. These efforts are based on a good-neighbor policy.

Recently, the United States stored Mexican water in Lake Mead after the 2010 earthquake. To provide this storage, the IBWC enacted various minutes orders, which are agreements between the U. S. State Department and the Foreign Ministry of Mexico, without congressional approval, designed to implement the treaty. These orders include the recent Minute Order 319, which required extensive action by the member states of the Colorado River Compact and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and a request by Mexico, for early water delivery in 2012 under the 1906 Convention for crop insurance purposes. The IBWC quickly granted this request, without a minute order, requiring Texas water users in the El Paso, Texas, area to scramble to implement alternative water-use Irrigation Leader

strategies. This action cost U. S. water users a large amount of water due to water loss. Over a dozen IBWC minute orders have been signed, including Minute Order 310 in 2003, that allowed for emergency delivery of Colorado River water for use in Tijuana. Reciprocity for the United States on the Rio Grande is needed.

The principal challenge is for Mexico to implement new policies and programs to avoid future crises that result from violations of the 1944 Treaty. Experience gained by the IBWC in both countries in the implementation of the previous international agreements and lessons learned should be beneficial. The present challenges test the integrity of the treaty; their resolution should ensure the enforcement, and restore the integrity, of the treaty so that the Rio Grande can be better managed in the future to serve those in both countries who rely on its waters.

Glenn Jarvis has almost 50 years of experience in the field of water law.

He is a recognized authority in the law of the Rio Grande, surface water law in general, and special issues of western water law. He can be reached at (956) 682-2660.

35

The Innovators

IWS Traveling Screens

F

or International Water Screens (IWS), business is booming. IWS has installed more than 100 screens over the last year in the United States and abroad. That business is a testament to the company’s dedication to customer service and customizable water screen solutions. For President Rich Gargan, personal relationships and comprehensive service distinguish IWS from other screen manufacturers. Says Mr. Gargan, “My word is stronger than any contract I sign. It is my bond.” And sure enough, word is getting out. According to Mr. Gargan, “In the last six months, we’ve had 10 customers who have referenced Irrigation Leader magazine as their introduction to IWS.” IWS’s central California shop produces screens to fit a particular location and situation. IWS does everything in-house—manufacturing, sandblasting, epoxy coating, and welding. That kind of control enables IWS to maximize cost savings, schedule reliably, and ensure the production of the highest-quality screen. The IWS shop produces personalized solutions to meet customer needs.

Solutions for Excess Debris

The accumulation of debris on trash racks in pumping stations creates significant costs for irrigation districts and utilities. In 2008, Berrenda Mesa Water District, located in California’s central valley, contacted IWS about designing traveling screens for its main pump station off the California Aqueduct. The district had been experiencing the build up of excessive moss and debris on its trash racks.

Berrenda Mesa’s maintenance crew worked around the clock cleaning the trash racks with only partial success. Using long-armed rakes extending 15–20 feet, the crew would have to shove the rake down to reach the trash rack and drag the moss up.

It is a backbreaking, ugly job. That level of ongoing maintenance ultimately put workers at risk of injury.

In fact, the worst thing that could have happened in that scenario did happen. On one maintenance shift, just one minute after a worker stopped cleaning a trash rack, the rack collapsed into the pumping structure. If the worker had still been working on the rack, he could have easily been pulled into the rack and

36

Moss removed by two screens during the first year of service at Berrenda Mesa Water District.

been injured or killed.

Over the course of a $1 million project, IWS installed eight traveling screens over a two‑year period. IWS installed 9-foot-wide by 30-foot-long traveling screens. The district waited until delivery season was over and the canal was drained to have IWS to install the screens. Now, the screens pick up the debris, convey it up to the top of the screen, and dump it behind the screen.

Not only do the screens remove moss and debris, but they also brought significant cost savings. The clogged trash racks were effectively working as a dam. After the installation of the traveling water screens, the decreased head loss across the trash racks raised water levels, reducing pumping costs over the course of the year. Berrenda Mesa estimates that its power savings from the increased water level alone saved enough to pay for the project in less than two years. That estimate does not even include the savings in labor costs.

Long-term Partnerships

IWS and Berrenda Mesa Water District partnered to reach an optimal solution for the debris issue. IWS invests in relationships. IWS goes to customers work sites and gets to know them. For Mr. Gargan, “[IWS] believe[s] in holding our customer's hand for at least a year after an installation. . . . And we provide that kind of service worldwide. We become partners. That’s the way we do business.”

For more information on International Water Screens, visit its website: www.internationalwaterscreens.com.

Pumping station at Berrenda Mesa Water District with IWS traveling screens.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

CLASSIFIED LISTINGS Join Lindsay Corporation in our mission to be the leader in providing worldwide, differentiated water management solutions! We are growing and looking for top talent for the following roles: Regional Sales Manager, Mississippi Delta regionCandidate should have a demonstrated track record of attracting and retaining customers for life and a passion for the irrigation business. Requirements include: 4 year college degree, and 5+ years of direct sales experience in agricultural or equipment sales through a captive dealer organization.

Position will be territory based, in or around the Memphis, TN area.

Product Service Technician, bilingual SpanishCandidate should have a strong customer orientation with a willingness to go the extra mile to resolve customer issues.

Requirements include: AA degree and 3+ years experience in the irrigation equipment or other agriculture industry, and experience with electrical troubleshooting. Strong phone and email communication skills. Position will be based at our manufacturing facility in Lindsay, NE or our corporate office in Omaha, NE.

Manager, Sprinklers & Applications EngineeringCandidate should demonstrate a passion for the irrigation business with strong work ethic and commitment to excellence. Requirements include: 2 or 4 year degree and 5+ years experience in irrigation or agricultural equipment industry. Irrigation Association CID designation or 5+ years experience in all aspects of irrigation design. Technical competence in sprinkler, VRI and complete system design.

Position will be based our worldwide corporate office in Omaha, NE. All positions include a strong base + bonus package, and relocation assistance is available. We offer an excellent benefits package, including a comprehensive health insurance, 401K match and tuition reimbursement. Qualified candidates should submit a resume and cover letter to humanresources@ lindsay.com. Lindsay Corporation is an EOE.

For information on posting to the Classified Listings, please e-mail Irrigation.Leader@ waterstrategies.com

Mark Your CaleNdar and Save the date!!!

November 13-15, 2013 NWra 2013 annual Conference Crowne Plaza San Antonio Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX Program and agenda details will be coming soon. In the meantime you can make your hotel reservations by calling the Crowne Plaza San Antonio Riverwalk at 1-888-233-9527 and requesting a room in the NWRA block.

If you would like to book your room on-line, the link is: https://resweb.passkey.com/go/NWra2013.

National Water Resources Association

Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenge

Irrigation Leader

Room rates are $169.00 plus tax for single-quad occupancy for Monday, November 11 – Saturday, November 16th.

And if available, you can come in three days early or stay three days after the conference at the same group rate.

39

–

2013 CALENDAR

July 8–12 July 11 July 29–31 August 14 August 14–16 August 21–23 August 27–29 September 12 September 12–13 October 23–25 November 4–8 November 5–7 November 13–15 November 13–15 November 21–22

ESRI, International Users Conference, San Diego, CA Wyoming Water Assn., Annual Summer Tour, Evanston, WY National Water Resources Assn., Western Water Seminar, Stevenson, WA Assn. of California Water Agencies, Regulatory Summit, Oxnard, CA Four States Irrigation Council, Summer Tour, Durango, CO Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference, Steamboat Springs, CO Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Texas Groundwater Summit, San Marcos, TX Assn. of California Water Agencies, Energy and Water Nexus Summit, San Francisco, CA Northwest Hydroelectric Assn., Small Hydro Workshop, Bend, OR Texas Water Conservation Assn., Fall Conference, San Antonio, TX Irrigation Assn., Irrigation Show and Education Conference, Austin, TX Nevada Water Resources Assn., River Symposium and Tour, Reno, NV National Water Resources Assn., Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX ESRI, Southwest User Conference, Salt Lake City, UT Idaho Water Users Assn., Annual Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID

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