Irrigation Leader March 2013

Volume 4 Issue 3

March 2013

Eric Kuhn: The Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the Colorado River Water Conservation District

The Importance of Leaders

By Kris Polly

E

“

very facility we have is ready and in shape to be seen.” That was Desert Water Agency (DWA) General Manager Dave Luker’s response when I commented on the cleanliness and organization of a pumping plant I toured in Palm Springs, California. Dave went on to explain that DWA’s previous manager and his former boss, Jack Oberle, had set that standard years ago. “On the rare occasions I do see something out of place, our people get right on it. That is how we do our business,” Dave continued.

It has been my observation that the very best general managers will reference the people they learned from.

They are very comfortable giving credit to others. That is certainly true of Dave Luker. He talked a lot about all he had learned from Jack and about how capable and conscientious the DWA employees are. An additional observation of the very best managers is the positive relationships they develop with their board of directors.

Every irrigation district and water agency is different.

Certainly, people are different and have different personalities. However, the very best managers always find a way to build respectful, collaborative working relationships in which everyone understands their role.

This issue of Irrigation Leader contains discussions with individuals on a variety of issues, but the underlying and unifying theme is the importance of leadership.

When one talks with Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, it is

immediately clear that he is an exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable individual. It is also clear he is a bridge builder and a problem solver. Gary Esslinger, treasurermanager of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, is quoted in the article about developing river habit for species while avoiding litigation. This collaborative accomplishment would not have happened without Gary.

Ed Smith, general manager for Palo Verde Irrigation District, talks about the importance his district has placed on building relationships with its “farmers, other districts, and the Bureau of Reclamation.” Tom Monroe, general manager of Roza Irrigation District, shares the accomplishments of his district and lessons learned from nearly 40 years of experience. Regional Director Lorri Lee discusses her job and the important issues of the Pacific Northwest Region. In the debut board member profile section, Derrick Lente shares his thoughts and experiences as chairman of the board of directors of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.

An additional underlying theme of this issue is that accomplishments require leaders. People who drive issues, work well with others, and focus on solutions. Just like Dave Luker, that is how the best managers do business.

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 site for news on water and power issues in the 17 western states.

Sign up for the Daily to receive a notice of the top headlines and press releases posted each business day.

2

Irrigation Leader

MARch 2013

C O N T E N T S 2 The Importance of Leaders

Volume 4

Issue 3

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 Š 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: Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.

4 The Endangered Fish Recovery Program

10

and the Colorado River Water Conservation District

Meeting the Food Demands of the Future

By Congressman Adrian Smith

12

Collaboration Not Litigation: A Water Transfer Partnership on the Rio Grande

16

Conservation Profile: San Antonio Bay Foundation

By Dan Alonso

District Focus: 22 Palo Verde Irrigation District

By Ed Smith

MANAGER PROFILE: 24 Tom Monroe Board Member Profile: 28 Derrick Lente, Chairman of the Board of

Directors of the Middle Rio Grand Conserverancy District

RECLAMATION PROFILE: 30 Regional Director Lorri Lee Water Law:

34

Supreme Court Rejects Environmental Group’s Challenge to Longstanding Forest Road Water Regulations

By Tom Bishop & Chad Clamage

The Innovators: 36 Fish: An Alternative to Canal Herbicides 37

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

CLASSIFIEDS 3

I

The Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the Colorado River Water Conservation District

n a time of increased tensions over access to the waters of the Colorado River, mediation and collaboration can often take a back seat to costly lawsuits. Fortunately, leaders in the water community, such as Colorado River Water Conservation District (River District) General Manager Eric Kuhn, have helped cultivate lasting partnerships to further water development, satisfy environmental concerns, and avoid litigation.

Early this year, H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012, became law. The act extends the use of hydropower revenues collected via the Colorado River Storage Project Act to fund existing endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. The programs ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for historical water use and future water development projects from the Colorado River and help restore four endangered native fish species—the Humpback Chub, the Bonytail, the Colorado Pikeminnow, and the Razorback Sucker.

Kris Polly, editor-in-chief of Irrigation Leader magazine, talked with Eric about the River District and its instrumental role in the development and implementation of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Fish screen at the Redlands canal.

Kris Polly: How much of the Colorado River does your district cover?

Kris Polly: How does a conservation district differ from an average irrigation district?

Eric Kuhn: The Colorado River, if measured at Lee Ferry, where it transitions from the upper basin to the lower basin, has a natural flow of about 14 to 15 million acre-feet per year (afy). The watershed that we cover provides around 60 to 65 percent of that flow. A little more than half of the water in the Colorado River originates in watersheds within the River District.

Within the district, consumptive use is about 1 million afy, while another 500,000 to 600,000 afy is diverted out of the River District underneath or across the Continental Divide to the South Platte and Arkansas River Basins.

We have a natural flow of about 9 million afy of water available, although most of that has to go downstream for [Colorado River] Compact purposes.

From the Adams Tunnel, which moves Colorado River water under Rocky Mountain National Park, to northeastern Colorado to the Twin Lakes Tunnel south of Aspen, seven large tunnels take water out of the basin to Front Range cities and irrigators.

Eric Kuhn: As a water conservation district within Colorado, the River District is an umbrella district for water policy purposes. When you look at all of the public and privately operated conservancy and irrigation districts, the West Slope’s water infrastructure delivers water to over 500,000 acres of irrigated lands. In most cases, irrigation districts have senior rights, so they deliver most of their water based on those rights. The River District helps them protect those rights. We help them, through our facilities and through our relationships with the Bureau of Reclamation, “make good or firm up” their water supplies when having senior rights isn’t enough.

We’re not the same as a large district in, say, eastern Washington or central California. There are 250–300 irrigation entities within the River District’s boundaries.

They range all the way from ditch companies that have small water rights and deliver water to backyards and horse pastures to large federal water users associations that irrigate upward of 90,000 acres.

4

Irrigation Leader

represent a broad diversity of folks that rely on, use, and value water in very different ways.

Kris Polly: Can you tell us about your issues with endangered species?

The reason that we exist is the Continental Divide and the political battles of the 1930s over the Colorado– Big Thompson Project (the first federal transmountain diversion project) and in later years over the diversion of water to Front Range municipalities. The River District shares the responsibility of stewardship for Colorado’s share of Colorado River water with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Southwestern Water Conservation District.

Kris Polly: What are the major challenges facing your district?

Eric Kuhn: Our major challenge is the diversity of interests within the district. We deal with issues ranging from water for thriving summer and winter recreation industries in areas like Vail, Aspen, and Steamboat Springs to the traditional agricultural economies in the Grand Valley, Uncompahgre Valley, and in higher valley ranchlands like the White River. In between, we have “Gas Alley,” which supports a fairly large and growing natural gas industry. As a conservation district, it is a challenge to Irrigation Leader

Eric Kuhn: When I started here back in 1981, the water community didn’t have an understanding of the power of the ESA. The only major case was the Tellico Dam decision against the Tennessee Valley Authority in the late 1970s. That lack of understanding began to change with the Riverside case in eastern Colorado [Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews, 758 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1985)]. The district court upheld the Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps') decision to deny a [404 nationwide] permit for a diversion off the South Platte River. When the 10th Circuit upheld the agency’s denial, many here in the water community realized that the ESA had real power to impact existing and future water projects.

In the Colorado River system, there are 14 native fish species. In the early 1980s, half of those species were in trouble, and 4 had been listed as endangered due to habitat fragmentation and changes in nature. Looking to avoid litigation, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming water entities organized to negotiate a programmatic approach to recovering the 4 native fishes listed under the ESA. This led to the signing of the Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program Memorandum of Understanding in 1988.

From the beginning, we [the water organizations] decided to establish the pillars of the Recovery Program—developing additional water and recovering the endangered fish. Many thought we were crazy, and that the program would not work. The bottom line is 5

that, through many people’s efforts, the program was put in place in 1988 and has been operating successfully ever since.

An essential aspect of the program is its responsibility to develop and implement mitigation measures; it is not an individual project responsibility. For example, when you have an entity looking to divert a few acre-feet of water, the application goes to the Corps for a permit, the Corps goes to the Recovery Program, the program determines whether the project is within its rules and guidelines, and a nonjeopardy opinion is issued. There are some exceptions—we had to accept some things as off-limits, like placing a dam on top of critical habitat. Generally, however, those exceptions have not impacted water development, so the arrangement has worked really well.

To be honest, I would have never predicted that the program would work as well as it has. There’s been no litigation. Unless it goes beyond the bounds of the program, an applicant will not be denied a permit because of an endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

Fish and Wildlife has been a good partner. It participates in the weekly river management calls and offer assistance when it is needed. There has been remarkable cooperation on all sides.

Kris Polly: Who has benefitted from the program?

Eric Kuhn: It has directly benefitted agricultural, industrial, municipal, and even recreational interests.

There have been real secondary benefits for irrigators.

For example, the River District has been working on a river reach that extends upstream of the confluence of the

6

Top: Elkhead fish screen. A combination of a labyrinth weir design and stainless steel fish screens on the outlet works were installed during the enlargement of Elkhead Reservoir.

The round fish screens are equipped with a self-cleaning pneumatic blower system to help prevent debris from clogging the screens. Photo courtesy of Ray Tenny.

Bottom: Fish screen installed on the Redlands canal near Grand Junction returns fish to the Gunnison River.

Irrigation Leader

Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, known as the “15-Mile Reach,” to provide water and improve stream flows. In addition to improving fish habitat, those flows do two things for the downstream irrigators in the valley: They add high-quality (low TDS) water to the system, especially during peak irrigation season, and they ensure that irrigators are not chasing each other’s water when supplies are low.

Kris Polly: Would you say that the program has created a sense of certainty to the water development process?

Eric Kuhn: Yes, it has created procedural security. The program has to work—there is no false sense of security here. We know that if a project applicant follows the rules and guidelines of the program, it will get through section 7 [consultation requirements]. There won’t be a prolonged battle over the impacts of a project on the fish.

Kris Polly: Has the program worked so well that it has become invisible to its beneficiaries?

Eric Kuhn: That is true. Many applicants, such as gas companies or smaller towns, don’t even realize that the program is the reason they successfully obtained a 404 permit with a nonjeopardy section 7 opinion. There are few squeaky wheels to be greased with this program.

The program has not put an obvious burden on our water users. There has been a substantial capital investment component. The program has installed fish ladders, acquired bottomlands, and helped build fish hatcheries. It even helped fund one of our reservoirs from which it has a portion of the project yield. The sources of funding include federal and state appropriations, a depletion fee (waived for small depletions), and power revenues.

Kris Polly: Why did this legislation pass?

Eric Kuhn: The River District and many others work very hard to maintain broad support for the program. It benefits Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Democrat and Republican congressmen and senators have supported the program and its goals. The porridge is just right. It is not too hot and not too cold. The program is not too demanding and not too accommodating. It is just right to accomplish the twin goals of developing water resources and recovering endangered fish. Through our education efforts, we have allowed the congressional delegation to take a pragmatic role in support of the program.

Kris Polly: In your 30 years of experience at the River District, what is the most important lesson you have learned that other managers should know?

Eric Kuhn: All managers need to develop their mediation skills. Whether its ratepayers, regulatory agencies, municipal interests, agricultural interests, environmental interests, energy interests, or recreational interests, successful managers are the ones that sit down, listen, and try to understand the different interests.

The benefits of the River District’s water assets are immense. However, we all have to be mindful that [the Colorado] River is fully used. The Colorado River Basin is entering a new phase, and it concerns me as a representative of a rural district. The competition for Colorado River water in 20 years is going to be much, much greater than it is today. Most studies show that future supplies will be more limited than they are now. For those reasons, the River District, and districts like ours, must keep listening, communicating, and actively engaging with many parties. Programs like the Recovery Program must continue to succeed.

Stocking native endangered fish in the Colorado River.

Irrigation Leader

7

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Meeting the Food Demands of the Future

By Congressman Adrian Smith

N

ebraska farmers are among the most efficient and productive in the world.

Our producers have embraced new technologies and techniques to produce an abundance of crops, opening the door to increased trade and helping to feed the world. These advances have not only helped American agriculture thrive, but also play a critical role in meeting global food demands of the present and future.

By 2050, the Earth’s population is expected to swell to more than 9 billion people. To feed this growing population, scientists believe we will need to produce more food in the next 50–100 years than we have throughout most of human history.

Meeting this demand will require extraordinary efforts, especially considering it will have to be accomplished on the same amount of land (or less), and with fewer resources, such as water.

This effort will only be realized if farmers around the world continue to increase their yields. Farmers in Nebraska and across the heartland have led the way by utilizing new techniques, irrigation technologies, and crop sciences to grow more crops with less land, water, and fertilizer.

Ryan Weeks, who serves on my Agriculture Advisory Council, raises popcorn, commercial corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and prairie hay in central Nebraska. Ryan is one of the many Nebraska farmers using high-tech irrigation tools and modified crops to produce more food at lower costs and greater quality on the same acreage settled by his great-great grandparents in 1892.

Thanks to new technology, farmers such as Ryan are able to use computer systems to monitor moisture in the ground through sensors and only water the crops that need it. The entire system is tracked by satellite and can be monitored and controlled remotely through a tablet or smartphone. These advances help farmers manage their time and conserve water, reducing the cost of producing a crop and minimizing crop losses due to over- and underwatering.

Currently, about 17 percent of farmland in the United States is irrigated. These areas, however, account for around 10

50 percent of total annual crop revenue.

Another important development to improve productivity and efficiency is genetically modified and genetically engineered crops. While modified foods are nothing new—humans have been crosspollinating plants to create better crops for thousands of years—science is now helping us to create improved versions of these plants, which require less water, fertilizer, and pesticides.

To encourage further advances, federal policy should compliment, not undermine, innovation. This means ensuring that our regulatory structures are efficient and based on sound science. We also must ensure that our trading partners recognize our products as safe and nutritious based on internationally recognized standards.

We must also ensure that lawmakers are knowledgeable and informed on agriculture issues to make sure we get the policy right. As co-chairman of the House Modern Agriculture Caucus, I have held numerous briefings to educate members of Congress and staff on innovations in agriculture, including biotechnology, water conservation, and animal welfare.

As we recognize National Agriculture Week (March 17–23) we have much to celebrate and many challenges ahead. Knowing the work ethic and forward thinking of our producers, combined with the exciting advances in agriculture, I am confident we will meet the food demands of our growing world.

Congressman Adrian Smith represents Nebraska's Third District in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and serves as co-chariman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus and the Congressional Rural Caucus.

For contact information, please visit http://adriansmith.house.gov.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Collaboration Not Litigation: a water transfer partnership on the rio grande

F

or irrigation districts, a critical habitat designation can add increasing levels of complexity, cost, stagnation, and frustration to any project. On January 3, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated revised critical habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act. Of the 1,227 designated stream-miles located across the Southwest, almost 75 miles of the lower Rio Grande River, from Caballo Dam to Leasburg Dam, were excluded from critical habitat designation for the endangered species.

This 75-mile exemption was a real success story. One that, in the words of Audubon’s Beth Bardwell, “crafted a solution that not only protected irrigation district operations and the ability of district farmers to stay whole, but also promoted better river health.”

IBWC Plan This section of the Rio Grande is part of the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission’s (IBWC's) Rio Grande Canalization Project (RGCP), a project authorized by Congress in 1936 to regulate and control the Rio Grande water supply for use by the United States and Mexico. The RGCP is a reach of the Rio Grande extending from the Percha Diversion Dam in New Mexico 105 miles to West Texas. The Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) manages the water from the Rio Grande stored in Elephant Butte Reservoir for agricultural use, and IBWC maintains the levees and channel irrigation facilities.

In 2003, IBWC issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to proposed river management actions in an Integrated Land Management Alternative for longterm management of the RGCP. Those management actions included riparian habitat restoration at 30 sites along the RGCP; environmental water transactions; and levee system, floodway, channel, facilities, and sediment management. IBWC was walking a tightrope, trying to ensure water flows and flood control while making efforts to address depleted riparian habitats.

The Response For EBID, the draft EIS created a serious issue of rights. EBID informed IBWC that it lacked the authority to adopt any alternatives related to wildlife habitat because it did not have the necessary water rights. At the same 12

time, the Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage, which included the World Wildlife Fund and Audubon New Mexico (Audubon), argued that the river restoration alternatives required additional measures. For Audubon, the goal for long-term RCGP river management was to restore riparian habitats and help bolster the river’s original functions while still serving agriculture and communities that have grown up around the river.

IBWC attempted to make incremental river management changes, but it lacked sufficient property rights and did not really take significant conservation steps. When the smoke cleared in 2004, there were two entities opposed to the final EIS: EBID and Audubon.

While these two entities appear to be strange bedfellows, EBID and Audubon have proved to be strong partners.

They have been working together ever since to develop a better restoration management plan. The partners are addressing two major issues: determining the location of the restoration sites and enabling IBWC to acquire surface water rights to irrigate or flood restoration sites.

Background on the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is a small bird that breeds in dense riparian vegetation throughout the southwestern United States.

The Flycatcher is the size of a small sparrow, measuring about 5.75 inches in length and weighing roughly 0.4 ounces. The Flycatcher breeds within 20 yards of water or watersaturated soil. The Flycatcher arrives at its southwestern nesting grounds in the spring. Come autumn, it migrates thousands of miles south to Central and South America for the winter.

The Flycatcher is an indicator species, and as Beth Bardwell describes, “its [dwindling numbers] tell us that we have cut off river functions and processes that can build and sustain riverine habitats.” The Flycatcher, like Willow flycatcher. Photo courtesy of Jim Burns, www.jimburnsphotos.com.

Irrigation Leader

Photo courtesy of Adriel Heisey and Audubon. © Adriel Heisey.

many birds, can provide ecological services. Many bird species can serve as a natural form of pest control and as pollinators. They also tell us that the river is not providing services that it has in the past, such as water filtration, flood control, and groundwater replenishment.

Unique Solution: The Water Transfer Program EBID, IBWC, Audubon, and others worked closely on the creation of a voluntary, market-based water transfer framework to benefit riparian restoration. The framework will serve as the mechanism through which EBID continues to deliver water and control floods, in addition to enhancing riparian habitats. For restoration sites on IBWC to receive water, IBWC must become an EBID member; it will follow EBID rules and pay an assessment every year. As Beth Bardwell stated, “The idea, in a nutshell, was for the IBWC to become a farmer.”

Surface water for the restoration sites will be leased, donated, or permanently acquired and transferred through EBID board-approved leasing, voluntary suspension, or reclassification. Within EBID, all water users share equally in times of water shortage. That provision will also apply to the restoration sites.

According to EBID’s Treasurer-Manager Gary Esslinger, “[EBID] got the cooperation of the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure that, even though EBID was not delivering to a cotton field or pecan orchard, the cottonwood or black willow would be considered the same as agriculture.” Water delivered to the restoration sites will irrigate riparian shrub, woodland, and wetland vegetation. “It is still agriculture. . . .

We are just growing something different.”

Working Together Over the years, EBID and Audubon established a very good working relationship. Audubon’s Beth Bardwell has been a fixture at meetings of EBID’s board of directors.

Gary Esslinger said that Beth gained a lot of credibility with the EBID board by listening and being honest.

That credibility and respect is mutual. Beth Bardwell praised Gary for being “wonderful and open-minded, yet an extremely strong advocate for his constituents—and someone whom I truly respect.”

EBID and Audubon meet informally and semiformally to discuss issues affecting them. Both groups have a seat on the RCGP habitat restoration implementation team.

The team meets regularly to talk about how IBWC is translating its decisions on the ground—from habitat restoration to water transfers to channel maintenance and floodways. The meetings give EBID and Audubon an opportunity to learn about how IBWC is proceeding, as well as to respond and provide suggestions.

Irrigation Leader

With IBWC financial support, EBID, Audubon, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are working to put together the water transaction program. The groups are prioritizing restoration sites, establishing the water transaction program, and memorializing its framework so that, whenever water gets transferred to a restoration site, there will be guidelines to follow. That kind of uniformity and predictability may open it up for use at other environmental restoration sites.

Critical Habitat Designation Those years of hard work and partnership, however, were placed into jeopardy two years ago. In August 2011, in response to a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, FWS published a proposed rule for designating the revised critical habitat for the Flycatcher. To the surprise of the project partners, the habitat designation included the RGCP. As Gary Esslinger noted, “It was as if the prior eight years had been for nothing—no one had a clue as to what we were doing in our little 105-mile reach.”

The designation of critical habitat could have been 13

disastrous for EBID farmers. The Flycatcher breeds between March and May. At that same time of the year, EBID makes irrigation releases if it has water. EBID feared that with the designation, it would have had to make releases when it lacked the water to do so or at time of year that would not coincide with farmers’ needs. Of particular concern were releases in drought conditions, in which EBID could not afford to release if farmers were not irrigating. EBID wanted to ensure that habitat restoration could work around its irrigation schedule.

The potential for designation placed the partnership at risk. Gary Esslinger stated, “The onus of the critical habitat designation on the 90,000 acres of our project would have driven us out of collaboration mode into more of an adversarial role.”

Raising Awareness Gary, however, worked to spread the word about the partnership and to preserve its work. He reached out to Congressman Steve Pearce of New Mexico’s Second Congressional District to communicate the collaborative effort between the partners and how their work was conducted in the spirit of the Endangered Species Act. The congressman then called Steve Spengel, the field supervisor for FWS in Arizona, and communicated the efforts of the partners. Mr. Spengel had not known about the partnership.

Audubon, EBID, and IBWC sent Mr. Spengel a letter of explanation. It was well received, and although the proposed rule had already been issued, Mr. Spengel indicated that he would consider the work in the final

decision to designate critical habitat. By working together, the partners received far more attention from agency staff and elected officials than if they had pursued help on their own.

Strange Bedfellows, Effective Partners The education campaign led to the critical habitat exemption. That success was none too soon for EBID given the current drought. Gary Esslinger emphasized that “had we not been working on [water transfer program], we may have been subject to the critical habitat designation and it could have been devastating to our farmers if water that was to be released to the farmers in June had been released to the restoration sites in March.”

In the struggle to utilize water for multiple uses in a fully appropriated system, this kind of partnership can serve as a model for others. Gary’s advice for other irrigation districts is to keep the door open to working with these environmental groups, for “it may prove to be the right thing to do even though, at the time, it can be difficult.” On the other hand, Beth’s advice for the conservation community is to learn, understand, and acknowledge the seat agriculture has in water management in the arid West and to look for opportunities to work with districts to restore nature’s share of water. As Beth reflected, “There are two ways to change water management: through regulation and litigation, or through collaboration; Gary and I thought that we could help each other accomplish our goals better through collaboration.”

Photo courtesy of Adriel Heisey and Audubon. © Adriel Heisey.

14

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

C O N S E R V A T I O N

P R O F I L E:

San Antonio Bay Foundation

By Dan Alonso

T

he San Antonio Bay and the Guadalupe Estuary System are located at the mouth of the Guadalupe River, covering 100 square miles along the Texas Gulf Coast. The bay and estuary serve as habitats and nurseries for aquatic and avian life. The bay’s shallow, brackish waters teem with blue crab and shellfish—essential food sources for whooping cranes and other wildlife.

Regional growth and drought have stressed freshwater supplies, impacting inflows into the bay. In light of these challenges, the Guadalupe–Blanco River Authority Organizational Goals created the nonprofit San Antonio Bay Foundation (SABay) in 2008 to 1. Provide leadership in the conservation and stewardship of San Antonio Bay. serve as a vehicle for the protection 2.

Promote the preservation of San Antonio Bay through cooperative and preservation of the bay and the community partnerships. estuary. SABay’s primary geographic 3.

Support the health of San Antonio Bay by developing projects that area of work encompasses Calhoun, sustain the environmental quality of the waters.

Refugio, Victoria, and Aransas 4. Develop a knowledgeable constituency through supportable Counties. Our primary focus is to science-based educational programs. ensure the form, function, and health 5. Support research efforts of the San Antonio Bay System by of the San Antonio Bay. institutions of higher learning.

SABay’s mission is to foster 6. Encourage the recreational use of the bay and coastal environs. and steward the natural resources of the San Antonio Bay estuarine serves as an ecological lynchpin, both as prey for whooping system through science-based education and community. cranes and as a predator. Lost or abandoned traps are a We champion a healthy and prosperous San Antonio Bay nuisance and expense in the bay—increased trap use has system that will provide a quality environment for marine caused user conflicts, boat damage, unwanted trapping, life, coastal wildlife, and the recreational and commercial and underwater habitat damage. Texas Parks and Wildlife endeavors of area residents and visitors.

Department sets aside nine days during the season during SABay is currently engaged in several long-term which fishermen know that if they leave out a trap, it will projects, including water-quality monitoring of be set aside and disposed. We bring volunteers out on our San Antonio, Guadalupe, Hynes, and Mission Bay; boat to retrieve traps that have been left during that time. controlling water hyacinth; and creating and publishing a comprehensive guide to San Antonio Bay. In partnership Dan Alonso is the new executive director with educators, SABay is also developing interactive kiosks of the San Antonio Bay Foundation. for schools and libraries.

Dan was born and raised in We are currently looking at the concentration and San Antonio and is a graduate of salinity gradient around the entire San Antonio Bay. The Texas A&M–Kingsville. He has over majority of the freshwater inflows to San Antonio Bay 25 years of natural resource management come from the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers. We experience at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife want to know what is going on with the freshwater inflows.

Service—in Texas at Anahuac National We are partnering with the Texas Water Development Wildlife Refuge and as the refuge Board in a cost-sharing program to cover the expense of manager of the Aransas Northwest purchasing and employing current meters to determine Region, in Utah at the Ouray Northwest Region, and in which way and how far freshwater inflows are going.

Oregon at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge.

Blue crab trap removal is also an important aspect of our work in the bay. The blue crab migrates between the San Antonio Bay and the estuary as part of its life cycle. It 16

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

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

District Focus

Palo Verde Irrigation District

By Ed Smith

P

alo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) encompasses 189 square miles in Riverside and Imperial Counties, California. Pursuant to PVID’s contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, PVID delivers to 104,500 acres in the Palo Verde Valley and an additional 16,000 acres on the Palo Verde Mesa. The district grows a wide array of crops: alfalfa, cotton, grains, vegetables in the winter, and melons in the summer.

PVID prides itself on its effective water resource stewardship and fiscal conservatism. These tenets have guided PVID through the economic crisis and put it in a position to continue to effectively serve its constituents.

The District

PVID’s mission is to divert and distribute irrigation water from the Colorado River to valley farms and to provide agricultural drainage for that land. PVID’s board of trustees consists of seven members elected at large from among the owners of property within the district. Our board has been an excellent steward of PVID resources.

A gravity system delivers water to 95–98 percent of PVID acreage. The system consists of 244 miles of

main and lateral canals with capacities ranging from 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) in some of the smaller laterals to 2,100 cfs. PVID’s drainage system runs 141 miles of open channels carrying groundwater drainage and canal operational spill water away from the farmland and back to the river.

The valley itself is relatively level, with only 70 feet between its northern and southern ends. The valley lies in the Colorado River floodplain. Its alluvial soils are composed mostly of a sandy loam. The valley’s long, hot growing season is ideal for agriculture; crops are grown and harvested year round.

Fallowing Program

A month after I came on board as general manager 13 years ago, PVID started negotiating with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on a water-fallowing program. At that time, California was trying to make a soft landing to reach its 4.4 million acre-feet per year (afy) allotment of Colorado River water. One component of that soft landing was the fallowing program. It took the agencies 4 or 5 years to get the paperwork done and implement the program.

The program utilizes water “saved” through voluntary land management and crop rotation in PVID to provide Metropolitan with a water supply

Alfalfa fields in the Palo Verde Valley. Photo courtesy of Bert Bell.

22

Irrigation Leader

One of the many canals in the Palo Verde Valley.

option of 25,000 to 111,000 afy of Colorado River water 35 years. Participating farmers benefit from biannual payments for the saved water. The logistics are straightforward. Metropolitan makes a call with PVID a year in advance to retire anywhere from 7 to 29 percent of valley acreage, based on projected water supplies from the state project. That call is good for 2 years. It gives PVID farmers time to plan.

Metropolitan diverts water from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and delivers it to member agencies that serve more than 17 million people.

Metropolitan’s rights to California’s Colorado River water, however, are of a lower priority relative to PVID’s. In addition, PVID’s contract with the Bureau of Reclamation is for a nonquantified amount of water to be delivered to a specific number of acres. Whatever amount of water we need for use within our boundaries is what we have.

Because PVID’s allotment is not quantified, we can’t say, for example, that we have conserved 50,000 afy and sell it. That is why PVID fallows—it is the only way we can create excess for Metropolitan.

The water sold by PVID to Metropolitan is pursuant to our agreement and cannot impair PVID’s historic water rights. Within that legal framework, the situation works well for Metropolitan’s constituents and for PVID farmers.

Challenges

PVID’s biggest day-to-day challenge is addressing the rising costs associated with county, state, and federal regulatory compliance. A few years ago, PVID spent upward of $500,000 upgrading its fleet to comply with California air quality regulations. But for the new state regulations, the fleet of trucks would have lasted another 10 years. Similarly, we just finished an upgrade of working

Irrigation Leader

radios and telemetry equipment because of a new Federal Communication Commission regulation. PVID invested $300,000 to narrow-band its radios. The Federal Communication Commission wants to sell more bandwidth licenses, so it deemed PVID’s too wide.

PVID’s long-term challenges relate to supply. California has the largest allocation for Colorado River water, but that position puts a big target on the state’s back. Within California, PVID has the number-one priority within that allocation. Everybody wants more Colorado River water and within the state, PVID has it. Our biggest challenge will be navigating the increasing requests for more water.

Building on Strengths

We are most proud of our relationships with our farmers, other districts, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

PVID has worked hard over the decades to build the trust and respect of other Colorado River irrigation districts and agencies. Maintaining those good working relationships with our neighbors has been a key to our success. You can’t have too many friends.

In that vein, PVID is right in the middle of forming a coalition group to comply with new regulations.

The regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a conditional waiver for PVID’s outfall drain. PVID will manage the coalition of farmers, overseeing monthly sampling and an annual report on the condition of the drain.

PVID is a conservative district and always strives to be fiscally strong. In fact, PVID was able to take advantage of the tumultuous economic climate and the significant drop in construction equipment prices—the district substantially upgraded its equipment over the last five years. For example, the last excavator PVID bought prior to the recession was $360,000. A year later, we bought a slightly used one with just a few hours on it for half that price. PVID bought several large pieces of equipment that way. So, instead of going through tough times, PVID is in pretty good shape.

Ed Smith is in his 13th year as general manager of the Palo Verde Irrigation District. He can be reached at (760) 922-3144 or ed.smith@pvid.org.

23

Manager Profile

Tom Monroe

24

Tom with a Roza flowmeter.

T

om Monroe brings nearly 40 years of experience to his position as general manager of the Roza Irrigation District in Washington State’s Yakima Valley. He oversees the delivery of water to 72,500 acres of the “Fruit Bowl of the Nation.” Some 27,000 of those acres are elevated above the main canal, requiring the work of 18 pumping stations. Tom’s mission for Roza has been to upgrade a water delivery infrastructure that dates back to the 1940s and 1950s. Tom took some time out to talk with Irrigation Leader magazine's senior writer, John Crotty, to discuss his work as general manager, his successful efforts to make Roza an efficient water delivery system, and some key lessons learned over the span of a long career in water.

John Crotty: Can you briefly describe your work as general manager?

Tom Monroe: My normal workday consists of checking in with all of the supervisors and management personnel to direct maintenance and define the areas on which to concentrate our efforts. I make sure all the jobs that need to be done are being done. This is especially important this time of year, when we are about ready to prime the canal. We start working six days a week, nine hours a day.

John Crotty: What does priming the system require?

Tom Monroe: Our main canal is 95 miles long, and it takes about five days to get the water through it.

When we have water in the upper reaches of the canal, we start providing service to the landowners who may want water. This early in the season, they primarily want water for frost protection.

John Crotty: What are farmers growing in your district?

Tom Monroe: When I first came to work for the

district, farmers dedicated their land primarily to annual row crops: sugar beets, potatoes, corn, and alfalfa.

Over the years, as permanent crops—orchards, grapes, etc.—became more profitable, farmers converted to those crops on the project. Now, Roza is close to 80 or 85 percent permanent crops, and the remainder is annual row crops.

John Crotty: How did you get your start at Roza, and in what capacities have you worked for the district over your career?

Tom Monroe: When I started back in 1974, I worked on the maintenance crew for a couple of years.

I was given the opportunity to move into the office as an engineering aide. I did that for about six years. I was then promoted to assistant manager. In 2002, I was promoted to operations manager.

Prior to working with the district, I spent about six years working for a local tire store in Sunnyside. One of my accounts was the Roza Irrigation District, so I was very familiar with quite a few of the management people at the district.

John Crotty: Describe what it is like to work with a board of directors.

Tom Monroe: When I first came to work here, there were only three directors on the board, but now we have a five-member board. We meet once a month.

The board members have been very supportive of the projects the district wants to undertake.

We have a very progressive board that has been closely involved with the rehabilitation of the project since the late 1970s and early 1980s. We have probably spent around $20 million on replacing open ditch laterals, flash board check structures, and concrete Irrigation Leader

irrigation pipe. One thing I’ve found over my career is that you have to keep the board involved with operations and with everything that is happening in the Yakima Basin. Also, ESA [Endangered Species Act] issues with Steelhead and Bull Trout are continuing challenges.

John Crotty: Can you provide some background on the rehab work you are talking about?

Tom Monroe: Roza is a junior water right district.

That means it is a proratable district in the Yakima Basin.

Anytime there is a shortage, the senior districts get their entitlement and the junior districts are prorated—there have been years when the district has received as low as 37 percent of its entitlement. Many of the improvements we have been making over the years are to make us more efficient so we can operate on lower flows in order to get through the season.

When we improved the lateral system, we put everything into PVC pipe. We removed the concrete delivery boxes and hooked directly to lines with flow meters for measurement purposes. In many areas of the project, there is enough change in elevation to provide gravity pressure so that many of the farmers are able to eliminate their electric pumps.

John Crotty: What do see for the future of the district?

Tom Monroe: Well, we still have a quite a few years left to complete the rehab of the project. That will take some time. We’ve also been working for a number of years to come up with funding for the construction of more reservoirs in the Yakima Basin.

The capacity of the reservoirs here is only 1.1 million acre-feet per year, and demand in the Yakima Basin is 2.3 million acre-feet per year. You have to be blessed with a good snowpack to get through the season. Once the basin districts have made their improvements and have done all they can in terms of conserving water, there is still going to be the challenge of getting additional storage space built.

That will likely be the focus of the district for many years ahead. Completed conservation projects in the Yakima Basin will save water, but building additional storage will still be needed to prevent years of severe prorationing.

John Crotty: What have been your biggest challenges as a manager?

Tom Monroe: The biggest challenges I’ve faced come from the years marked by severe droughts and severe rationing of our water supply. The key issue during those times is determining how to keep the water going through the season. In past years, we’ve had to shut off two to three weeks early on in the season in order to stretch it out into September for the later crops. Figuring out how to extend the season for as long as possible in water-short years has been one of my biggest challenges.

Part of the challenge of water-short years is informing farmers about what to expect. If precipitation and snowpack are considerably below normal, we know in early January or February that it is a possibility it could be a water-short year.

However, the Bureau of Reclamation will not give its first Irrigation Leader

projection until the beginning of March. At the same time, growers are concerned about crop insurance. They have a deadline to meet. All we can tell them is what the numbers are at that time and what we reasonably anticipate.

In 2005, for instance, we shut off the water for three weeks in early April. That hurt growers raising wheat because that crop requires water early in the season. On the other hand, shortening the season at the end reduces some permanent crops’ growing season. The trick is to make the time the water is off as short as possible. In 2005, nature cooperated, providing cooler temperatures and even a little bit of rain. There was probably minimal damage for the growers who wanted water in April. All in all, we were able to get through the season to September 20; October 20 is normally when our season ends.

While some people may not be happy with the way you actually get the district through the season, you have to look at the project as a whole. You cannot cater to a certain group and base your plans off that.

John Crotty: What are you most proud of as a manager?

Tom Monroe: I am most proud of all of the changes that Roza has made within the project. Our rehabilitation project started back in 1980, and as of 2008, we installed 233 miles of PVC pipe. We’ve spent a little over $20 million of mostly district money to do away with earth-lined laterals, flash board check structures, and old concrete pipelines.

The project is ongoing, improving efficiency and conserving water to make our operations easier when water is tight and to continue the water season as long as possible in a watershort year.

John Crotty: How do your employees feel about the improvements the district is making?

Tom Monroe: One of the big drivers of employee enthusiasm is to see that your employer is a progressive district that is willing to spend some money to improve the system. Work with your employees to enable them to be able to visualize how the improvements have helped. Take the ditch rider. Most of the laterals on his particular patrol area were open ditch, and in two or three years, they are all in pipe. He can see how much easier it is for him to deliver water to landowners. That builds the enthusiasm within the employee—we are here to improve the system not only for the farmers, but also for the employees.

John Crotty: What advice would you give to other district managers?

Tom Monroe: I would say that if your project is one of the older projects—a lot of open ditch with high operational losses and waste—try to come up with scenarios to improve the project and put everything in pipe that is economically feasible. We all know that there is not enough water to go around. Each year, there is more and more demand for water. You have to make your system as efficient as possible.

Any type of improvement that makes your operation more efficient is a big plus.

25

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contracts and Western Water Law 21OO North Main Street Suite 1A P.O. Box 13108 Las Cruces, NM 88013

(575) 526-2101 Fax (575) 526-2506 Email:

slh@lclaw-nm.com

Family Farm

LLIANCE The Family

SM

Farm Alliance is a powerful advocate for family farmers, ranchers, irrigation

districts, and allied industries in seventeen Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers.

As a 501(c)(6) tax exempt organization, our support comes exclusively from those who believe our mission is important enough to contribute. We believe the cause is important enough to ask for your support - Please join us by completing the web form at http://www.familyfarmalliance.org/ProspectiveContact.cfm.

For more information contact Dan Keppen by phone at (541) 892-6244, or by e-mail at dankeppen@charter.net

ADVERTISEMENT

B O A R D

M E M B E R

P R O F I L E:

Derrick Lente, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Derrick Lente brings a broad perspective to his role as chairman of the board of directors of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. As a farmer, a business owner, an adjunct professor of law, a private law practitioner, a member of the Pueblo of Sandia, and a father, Derrick holds a deep respect for water rights, agriculture, and tradition. The district was established in 1928 and spans close to 150 river-miles from Cochiti Dam on the northern boundary all the way down to Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge on the southern boundary. The district’s extensive gravity-fed system provides drainage, flood control, and irrigation to over 70,000 acres of cropland in the middle Rio Grande valley of New Mexico.

John Crotty, Irrigation Leader magazine's senior writer, spoke with Derrick about the district, his work as district chair, and the challenges ahead for the valley.

John Crotty: How did you become involved with the board?

Derrick Lente: Back in the late 1990s, I was a water resources specialist for the Pueblo of Sandia. That was my first real introduction to water policy issues here in the middle valley—I learned more about policy, politics, and Indian water rights. Although I came from an agricultural family, I did not know much about water rights and how they were impacted by politics and policy. The Pueblo had dealings with the district and its board which, in my opinion, were not always sympathetic to Pueblo issues. That experience inspired me to run for the board when I had the opportunity.

I graduated from law school in 2006 and started practicing law. In 2009, the Sandoval County seat on the board was up for election. I felt the timing was right and it was a good opportunity to run. For me, it was an uphill battle because I was running against the incumbent who, along with his father, had held the seat for the last 30 years. I ran on the platform of change: issues, policies, and procedures that I felt needed to be addressed.

Transparency was also important to me. The district had lacked transparency with respect to rulemaking, salaries, infrastructure, standard operating procedures, appropriations, and so on. I ran on what many in the middle valley considered the first “professionally run” campaign for a seat on the board. I ended up winning with over 70 percent of the vote.

John Crotty: Describe the unique water rights structure in the district.

Derrick Lente: The district was established through 28

Irrigation Leader

statute in 1925, the six sovereign Pueblo nations were already here—living, farming, and utilizing water from the Rio Grande. The Pueblos were diverting water from the Rio Grande River for many purposes: religious, cultural, domestic, and irrigation and farming. So, pursuant to the statute, whatever lands were already in production were to be given a water right, termed “prior and paramount.” That means it was prior to anyone else being here in the valley and paramount to anyone else’s rights. So the Pueblos have prior and paramount water rights for a portion of their land.

Those rights are senior and last to be impacted in times of drought.

The Pueblos also have another water right called the “newly reclaimed land water right.” Any of the lands that could be fed or farmed through the infrastructure of the district would be considered newly reclaimed and eligible for irrigation by the district infrastructure. Those water rights are not necessarily prior and paramount. By law, those rights are considered to be equal to non-Indian water rights. So in terms of a hierarchy, we have prior and paramount rights on top, newly reclaimed and non-Indian water rights below that, and last, we have leased rights associated with the district-implemented water bank.

One of the issues the district was facing was the sale of water rights out of the middle valley. To address that issue, the district created a water bank program to acquire the water rights that might be shipped out of the valley, hold them, and lease them to support the beneficial use and distribution of water for agriculture and related purposes within the district boundaries. The bank enables farmers without water rights to access available water for irrigation as supplies allow.

John Crotty: Can you briefly describe your work as a board member?

Derrick Lente: One of my first goals was to help foster good written policy to guide the district. Pursuant to that goal, the board has established a governance policy that guides how we are to act as a board of directors. We’ve also created a water distribution policy that sets forth how the district distributes water to all of its users. Additionally, we have enacted the water bank program. All of these policies will hopefully help better guide our staff and provide a reference point to our constituents when questions are asked.

Another important area of work has been with government transparency. The board established its sunshine rules, which have translated to the publication of salaries, budgets, meetings, invoices, and contracts—anything a water user might want to know about—on our website. Our constituents really appreciate the transparency.

John Crotty: What makes for a successful relationship between the board and the manager? How does a successful Irrigation Leader

relationship affect the board’s efforts to set policies?

Derrick Lente: I believe it is important to appreciate the work done by the executive and staff. Any change must come with their support and input. You have to build and improve upon the structures that were already put in place.

When you set policies, they must be realistic. Here in the middle valley, we can’t say that we want to irrigate everyone in the entire district—even though that would be fantastic.

The fact is that we are in an unprecedented drought. So that is not realistic. Naturally, we’ll have to scale back to ensure our existing users’ deliveries. Policies also require enforcement mechanisms. There is no point in setting up a policy if it is only worth the paper it is written on. So, here in the valley, we must collaborate with other governmental agencies to ensure water rights are enforced.

John Crotty: What have been the biggest challenges facing the district?

Derrick Lente: Water shortages, endangered species, and state compact deliveries. It is a very difficult task to collaborate with other governmental agencies to ensure the Silvery Minnow has enough water to survive in a time when water is scarce and in high demand. The state compact with Texas also creates a challenge. According to the compact, the district has limits on storage when downstream dams are at record low levels, creating a domino effect on everyone in the state and leaving us in a difficult position as to how to take care of our farmers.

Looking at the bigger picture, the issue is balancing competing interests. We have to accommodate agricultural, recreational, and municipal interests within the context of the district’s mission of flood control, drainage, and irrigation. This situation will get even more competitive as the population grows and our resources diminish.

John Crotty: Where would you like to see the district in the future?

Derrick Lente: I would love to see my district look exactly as it does today. However, we must have the policies, planning, and procedures in place to protect it, which means communicating and working with other agencies and the people in the middle valley to help better understand what we have and what we are working with. It also means good policymaking, sound budgeting, and prudent spending.

I want my daughter Jade and generations to come to be able to go out to the ditch bank, open their gate, and watch the water flow into their fields along the ditches that have supplied water here for hundreds of years. That is what I would love to see. It is about the legacy of the people who have come before us, respect for what they loved and created, and the assurance of water and a livelihood for the future.

29

R E C L A M A T I O N

P R O F I L E:

Regional Director Lorri Lee

The Columbia River Basin is home to an immense water and power delivery system: 72 dams, 54 reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 18 million acre-feet, 17 irrigation districts, and more than 4,700 miles of canals. The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest hydropower producer in the United States with a total generating capacity of 6,809 megawatts, while the Columbia Basin Project irrigates more than 600,000 acres of highly productive farmland. As regional director for the Pacific Northwest (PN) Region, Lorri Lee oversees the management of the Bureau of Reclamation’s water projects in the basin. Lorri guides Reclamation’s efforts in the basin to ensure water supplies for irrigated agriculture and power generation, to conserve water supplies, and to support regional fish and wildlife.

Lorri began her federal career in 1982 as a minimum-wage employee in Reclamation’s Boulder City office. Over the span of her career, Lorri impressively moved up the ranks to take on a variety of leadership positions within Reclamation, including program manager for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Program, deputy regional director, regional liaison to the Commissioner’s Office in Washington, DC, and regional director of the Lower Colorado Region. On January 1, 2012, Lorri took up the reigns of the PN Region as regional director.

In light of her 30th anniversary as a Bureau of Reclamation employee, Irrigation Leader magazine's editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, talked to Lorri about her career with Reclamation, the PN Region and the challenges it faces, and the importance of partnerships in tackling water security in the Columbia Basin.

Kris Polly: How would you describe your transitional experience from being regional director in Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region to the PN Region?

Lorri Lee: It’s interesting, Kris. While both of the regions report to the same headquarters, and both regions are in the water business, there are some large differences and some similarities. There is certainly more water in the Northwest than in the Southwest, although the need for water is about the same. There are growing demands for agriculture, M&I, and environmental purposes in both areas. It is sometimes more difficult to convey the idea that water is a limited resource up here because people can see the river running and not really understand why they can’t have some of it. Whereas, if you look at the bathtub ring around Lake Mead, it is clear that water levels are stressed.

Kris Polly: Providing water for irrigation has always been the cornerstone of Reclamation’s mission. Can you describe some of the greatest challenges facing that mission today?

Lorri Lee: Aging infrastructure is a concern for everyone, Kris. It is not only Reclamation’s infrastructure; our partners in the districts are dealing with it as well. Environmental compliance is also a major concern—trying to find that balance between making sure that the needs of irrigators are met while still addressing environmental needs.

Kris Polly: Partnerships are extremely important. How do you maintain and build these relationships within the region?

Lorri Lee: One word for me is time—time to actively engage stakeholders. That involves trying to understand what they think, what they do, and what is “eating their lunch.”

That kind of approach allows us to actively work through issues when they do arise. With that in mind, I have been going out to the districts, meeting managers, and looking at infrastructure.

30

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: Tell us about the employees in the PN Region.

Lorri Lee: We have an amazing group of smart, devoted folks in the PN Region. Currently, the region employs about 1,090 people. We are putting a good deal of time and attention in the Grand Coulee Dam—the requirements of infrastructure and equipment upgrades are pushing up our staff numbers slightly.

Kris Polly: How would you best describe your management style?

Lorri Lee: I would use words like open, hands-on, and approachable. My philosophy is to directly involve myself with 15 percent of regional activities, depending on where we have issues, the hot topics, and stakeholder interests.

Regional staff carries out the rest of the work.

Kris Polly: You are also very serious.

Lorri Lee: Yes. The stakes in the water business can be very high as there are impacts to people, families, businesses, economies, and the environment.

Kris Polly: What are your key priorities and how do they fit into Reclamation’s mission?

Lori Lee: We have several priorities that range from delivery of water, to the generation of power, to addressing aging infrastructure, to ensuring the safety of our employees and the public.

Rehabilitation of the Grand Coulee is a large piece of important work—that plant plays a huge role in what goes on in the PN region from a hydropower standpoint. Grand Coulee provides 30 percent of the power in the federal Columbia Basin power system. We are making sure that we are able to generate power well into the future.

Another priority is the FRCPS [Federal Columbia River Power System] Biological Opinion implementation.

With the oversight of a court order, we are working closely with Bonneville Power and the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure we fulfill our responsibilities.

Kris Polly: As federal budgets get tighter, how are you able to meet the demands to improve vital water infrastructure and ensure public safety?

Lori Lee: It is always a balancing act Kris. When we look at infrastructure, we have to make sure that we are addressing infrastructure issues as quickly as we can while staying within budget constraints. We have a wonderful partner in the State of Washington. The State has become a great funding partner. The same is true of our irrigators, who have partnered with us to cost-share conservation activities through our WaterSmart program.

Kris Polly: Describe the challenges of dealing with conflicting interests over water today.

Lorri Lee: The biggest challenge is helping people understand the value of being proactive. That goes back to relationships. It is really tough to sit down with somebody when the context for the first time you talk is a fight.

Irrigation Leader

Both Reclamation and its stakeholders are better off sitting down to proactively address how to approach an issue before litigation, or before a third party gets involved. Since there are costs to this kind proactivity, it is important to find ways to provide and articulate value to project stakeholders. That kind of communication goes a long way in managing potential conflicts.

Kris Polly: On the issue of water, how does this year’s irrigation season look for the Pacific Northwest?

Lorri Lee: We have water but we are seeing a drying trend. Currently, the PN Region has only has one basin at 100 percent capacity. Although we are watching the situation closely, we are certainly not seeing restrictions right now.

Ultimately, the reservoirs are not as high as we would like them to be, and the projected runoff is not as voluminous as we like it.

Kris Polly: The PN Region is unique among the regions.

One reason is that you are actually in the process of adding to part of the region with the Odessa Subarea project. You are doing today what Reclamation was doing 50, 75, 100 years ago: You are moving water to other lands. Is there anything you would like to share with our readers about the Odessa?

Lorri Lee: The Odessa area is very important to our irrigators, to farming families, and to the State of Washington’s economy. The original authorization of the Columbia Basin envisioned water delivery to a very large area.

When Reclamation project development slowed, and it was unable to address the area that is now the Odessa, the State of Washington stepped in and enabled groundwater pumping to irrigate crops. Unfortunately, we are now seeing an impact to that groundwater due to the pumping. So now, getting surface water to those farmers is extremely important. We are hopeful that we can complete this process.

Kris Polly: During your career with Reclamation, who has been a mentor to you?

Lorri Lee: My all-time mentor is [former Reclamation Commissioner] Bob Johnson—he is such a brilliant person.

On the other hand, the best compliment that I have received was from [former Deputy Commissioner] Bill McDonald at a meeting. He said, “I am so glad you are here; you are willing to ask the questions that I am so tired of asking.”

As opposed to just one person, Kris, Reclamation has been blessed with amazing regional directors that I look to, ask questions of, and get help from. I have been really fortunate. I also must mention John Keys, who left us too soon, but whose leadership and legacy will remain a part of Reclamation for years to come.

Kris Polly: What is the most important thing that you have learned as a regional director?

Lorri Lee: I appreciate the question. For me, as circumstances change, as economies change, as political landscapes change, continuing to look at problems in nontraditional ways will allow us to meet our stakeholders’ needs.

31

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Water Law 34

Supreme Court Rejects Environmental Group’s Challenge to Longstanding Forest Road Water Regulations

By Tim Bishop & Chad Clamage

I

n a significant victory for states and the forest and paper products industry, the Supreme Court rejected an environmental group’s challenge to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on forest road stormwater runoff in a March 20 decision called Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center. An environmental group had tried to persuade the Supreme Court to require potentially millions of costly federal Clean Water Act permits over the nation’s vast network of forest roads. But agreeing with the industry defendants (whom we represent), Oregon, 31 other states, the federal government, and numerous trade associations, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations do not require federal permitting.

To give some background to the lawsuit, under the Clean Water Act, EPA regulates “point source” discharges of pollutants through a system of national permitting requirements.

After initial uncertainty about the

regulation of stormwater under this regime, Congress in 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to provide that only certain types of stormwater discharges require permitting, including discharges “associated with industrial activity.” In its 1990 stormwater regulations that implemented this law, EPA indicated that precipitation runoff from forest roads that collects in ditches or culverts before reaching streams and other waterways is not an “industrial” discharge.

EPA explained that, instead of national permitting, silvicultural stormwater was most effectively regulated by the states using best management practices—just as it had been since the 1970s.

An environmental group, Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC), filed suit against the State of Oregon and a number of forest and paper products companies that use forest roads in Oregon. NEDC claimed that the defendants were

Irrigation Leader

violating the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations by discharging runoff from forest roads without water permits. The district court threw out the lawsuit, deciding that permits were not necessary under EPA’s regulations.

But a federal court of appeals reinstated NEDC’s lawsuit by ruling that EPA’s decades-old regulations should be reinterpreted in a manner that EPA had never intended and that the defendants and states across the nation had never expected.

In its 7-1 decision in Decker, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling. The Supreme Court held that the statutory term “associated with industrial activity” does not “encompass outdoor timber harvesting” and road use in connection with it. The Court also ruled that, under a long-established doctrine in administrative law, the Court should defer to EPA’s understanding that its own regulations do not define forest road stormwater runoff to be “associated with industrial activity.” The Court explained that EPA had reasonably interpreted its own regulations to mean that permitting is required only for “traditional industrial buildings such as factories and associated sites, as well as other relatively fixed facilities,” not for timber-harvesting operations.

The Court pointed out that Oregon, like other states (31 of which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the defendants), had developed “a comprehensive set of best management practices to manage stormwater runoff from logging roads,” using its “considerable expertise” in this area. And Congress in the Clean Water Act had given EPA “express instructions” to work with state and local officials “to alleviate stormwater pollution by developing the precise kind of best management practices Oregon has established here.” Given this effective state regulation directed to particular local circumstances, EPA was entitled to conclude “that further federal regulation in this area would be duplicative and counterproductive.”

This victory for states and forest-based businesses was decisive and avoided an outcome that could have been crippling. NEDC had alleged that the defendants violated the Clean Water Act, which could have brought heavy penalties. And its attempt to require permits for all forest roads would have been inordinately costly. Obtaining one Clean Water Act permit can require years of work and thousands of dollars. The permitting process demands public hearings and comments, extensive water sampling and testing, effluent limitations, strict technological standards, extensive monitoring, and the treatment of pollutants, and once a permit is issued, the Clean Water Act allows environmental groups to sue for violations of its terms. The Supreme Court’s decision averts these dire consequences.

The Supreme Court’s decision also should sound the death knell to environmentalists’ challenges to EPA’s Irrigation Leader

amended forest road regulations. The business day before oral argument, EPA revised the regulation at issue in Decker to further clarify that channeled stormwater runoff from forest roads is not “associated with industrial activity.” NEDC has filed a lawsuit to have the amended regulation declared invalid. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Decker held in no uncertain terms that the Clean Water Act allows EPA to classify forest road stormwater runoff as not associated with industrial activity.

The Court also recognized that the “purpose of the amended regulation” is to exempt the stormwater runoff from permitting, and even the sole dissenting opinion, from Justice Scalia, explained that EPA’s amended regulation “vividly illustrated” that permitting is not required.

The victory in the Supreme Court is a result of a tremendous, broad-based coalition seeking to promote sensible forestry and water regulations. The business defendants, 32 states, and an assortment of forestry and nonforestry trade groups together asked the Supreme Court to uphold the regulations that have governed forest water management for decades. And to its credit, EPA and the Obama administration did not waver from its longstanding interpretations of those regulations. While a dispute like this should have been resolved in industry’s favor long before it reached the Supreme Court, it is comforting to know that the rule of law and sensible water management regulation prevailed in the end.

Tim Bishop is a partner in Mayer Brown LLP’s Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Practice.

Mr. Bishop argued on behalf of the petitioners in Decker v. NEDC before the U.S. Supreme Court.

He has argued 5 cases and briefed more than 60 before the Court and has successfully handled appeals in federal and state appellate courts. Numerous legal publications rank Mr. Bishop as a top practitioner in the area of environmental law.

Chad Clamage is an associate in Mayer Brown's Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice.

35

The Innovators

FISH: An Alternative to

Canal Herbicides

The proliferation of aquatic weeds and algae causes serious operational challenges, and headaches, for irrigation district managers. Weeds and filamentous algae impede flow and reduce canal capacity. Often, these impediments require districts to invest in costly aquatic herbicides and expend a good deal of manhours applying chemicals and physically removing excess debris.

Natural biological systems can have a substantial impact on nuisance algae and weeds in canals and ditches. In fact, fish can serve as a cost-effective way for irrigation district managers to naturally control water quality while saving money and limiting employee exposure to chemical treatment regimes. P.K. Gills is an Arizona-based company that is successfully harnessing this unique value of fish. The company supplies live fish and creates water management programs to address debris in canals.

Pat Church’s Passion

Pat Ann Church, founder of P.K. Gills, brings more than 30 years of experience in water quality management to her work with irrigation districts. She began her career in lake management back in 1974.

Three years later, she bought out her father’s interest and became sole proprietor of a company that managed golf course ponds. The company grew and became Aquatic Dynamics Incorporated (ADI) in 1984. Over her 15 years at the helm of ADI, Ms. Church worked closely with biologists and limnologists to achieve natural and effective quality management programs for a variety of water bodies.

According to Ms. Church, her inspiration for natural solutions Pat Church, owner of PK Gills, weighing a koi fish. “developed

36

out of the inadequacies and issues we had using chemical treatments dating back to the 1970s.” After selling her interest in ADI in 1998, Ms. Church continued promoting fish as an effective water quality management tool and established P.K. Gills.

Herbivores at Home in a Canal

For over 50 years, public and private water managers have employed White Amur as an agent to control and manage aquatic plants. These fish can grow as long as 3 feet. Generally, when they reach that size, their metabolism slows and they do not eat as much. At that point, the fish should be replaced in a canal system.

The White Amur is an herbivore that consumes a substantial amount of vegetation, but can also impact native aquatic communities. Because White Amur compete for food and space with native species and game fish, the species is highly regulated. Most states require that the species only be introduced if sterile.

Triploid White Amur, a hybrid with three sets of chromosomes instead of two, are sterile.

Most states have strict regulatory requirements for stocking White Amur. For example, in Arizona, a White Amur stocking and holding license allows a business to stock and possess triploid White Amur in closed aquatic systems where a natural or manmade barrier prevents the fish’s ingress or egress. In Texas, water-body owners, their agents, or controlling authorities must obtain a Triploid Grass Carp Permit from the Inland Fisheries Division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to stock White Amur. As part of its water management services, P.K. Gills takes care of all the permits for its customers.

In addition to state restrictions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) certifies that the fish are sterile. For example, for a district that orders 3,000 head of fish for importation, APHIS comes out and does random blood tests on the fish prior to stocking to ensure that they are triploids.

Work with Roosevelt

Back in 1994, Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID) reached out to ADI about the use of fish to treat aquatic weeds. RID had some significant safety and cost issues with the application of the herbicide Magnicide. The district chose to stop using chemicals cold turkey. RID leadership heard about the use of Irrigation Leader

fish from the Salt River Project and determining how to manage water decided to give it a try. quality.

To the surprise and pleasure of the Districts generally will have district, improved water quality and to install grating to comply with increased cost savings soon followed state regulations. Fish growth is the the introduction of White Amur deciding factor for the grate size. For (grass carp) to the canal system. RID’s example, RWCD uses barriers with weed treatment costs decreased from 2-inch grates. P.K. Gills adjusted $600,000 annually, not including accordingly. “So we ordered fish of the liability insurance premiums for 21/4-inch head size, generally 14-inches storing and handling toxic materials, or longer,” Ms. Church explained. to between $70,000 and $100,000 Unlike RWCD, RID dries up annually for stocking the fish. That its canal and laterals for repair and translates to an 83 percent savings, not maintenance, which means the stocked including insurance savings, over the fish must be removed. During the cost of the chemical regime. “dry-up,” the fish are released into The company has also been a wash in west Phoenix, and the working with Roosevelt Water coyotes and birds have a field day.

Conservation District (RWCD) [P.K. Gills has tried to get a pet-food since 2008. RWCD has 27 miles of manufacturer to take the fish, but concrete-lined canals broken up by the logistics thus far have proved too weirs that prevent fish from moving challenging.] With a few tweaks to the downstream. When the district draws Piping live fish into canal system. management program over the years, down for grate maintenance, the fish the cost and labor savings continue for are isolated in wet areas created by hay bales. This method RID. P.K. Gills now stocks tilapia in the system to control retains the existing fish population, reducing the need for algae growth. annual stocking.

Given RWCD’s system, P.K. Gills applied a more Saving Time and Money gradual approach to cleaning the system, stocking Ms. Church notes that “if you are a canal district considering fish, it is an easy process to determine if you 2.5 miles of canal at a time. The end result has been can use them.” P.K. Gills provides its potential customers fantastic; the canals are cleanest they have ever been. with a simple questionnaire. Upon completion, the Although the district continues to apply sporadic copper company can quickly determine whether the district treatments in some laterals, RWCD has completely would be a good fit. This easy process can save a district eliminated its use of Magnicide. The total cost of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In canals and laterals, fish program was approximately $52,000 over a two-year fish can serve as a natural solution to a costly problem. period. It has not required any additional expense for the four years hence. Ms. Church remarked, “I worked myself out of a job on that one.”

Management and System Flexibility

In canals, P.K. Gills employs different stocking densities of White Amur depending on the particular weed and algae problem of the district. Multiple variables affect densities: flow rate, water temperature, construction, existing aquatic weeds and algae, local regulations, and placement of weirs or grates. These factors are unique to each district, and Canals may impact residential areas. Sustainable water quality management is a key strategy for this urban canal system.

P.K. Gills assesses all factors before

Irrigation Leader

37

ADVERTISEMENT

CLASSIFIED LISTINGS GENERAL MANAGER We are conducting a national search for a full-time executive to lead our team and deliver on our mission: To provide reliable, high quality and affordable water supply to benefit the people of North Dakota.

If you are a visionary leader in the water industry who is looking for an opportunity to lead, impact legislation and drive the necessary change to make a difference in North Dakota, then apply with us.

Ideal candidates will demonstrate excellence in planning, communication, negotiations and problem solving.

Leadership excellence in the area of strategic decisionmaking, emotional intelligence, team development and coaching. Requires a Bachelors degree, with 7-10 years of water industry leadership.

We offer competitive salary and benefits and look forward to your application including a cover letter, resume and three professional references to: recruiter@vogelbusiness.com.

For more information and to download our application, please visit: www.garrisondiversion.org.

GDCD is an EOE

Irrigation District Manager

The Grand Valley Water Users’ Association in Grand Junction, CO is seeking a manager. Reporting to an 11-member board, the manager implements the board’s directives and policies and manages the administrative and operational functions of the Association.

GVWUA maintains and operates the USBR Grand Valley Project in Grand Junction, CO. Our system includes a diversion dam on the Colorado River, 55 miles of canal and 150 miles of laterals, irrigating 23,340 acres.

Requirements include knowledge and experience in irrigation system operation and excellent management, budgeting and customer relations skills.

THE TWIN LOUPS DISTRICTS ARE TAKING APPLICATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF GENERAL MANAGER

Responsibilities include: personnel management, evaluate general operational procedures and take corrective action as required, coordinate planning and development programs, financing and budgets, oversight of expenditures, and public relations. Attend Board meetings, provide various reports to the Boards, and collate information on issues and items of negotiations as directed by the Boards. Administration of District policies, water rights, and water transfers. Work with various inter-local agreements and coalitions, water associations, and with local, state, and federal agencies.

Hands-on experience with water delivery and/or irrigation district maintenance preferred. College and/or administrative experience a plus.

Salary negotiable and commensurate with experience.

Submit resumes by April 25th, 2013 To: Twin Loups Districts, P. O. Box 98 Scotia, Nebraska 68875 or to twinloups@nctc.net The Twin Loups Districts Headquarters are located near Scotia, Nebraska, 55 miles north west of Grand Island, Nebraska. The Districts provide irrigation to 55,000 acres with a crew of 13 people. Facilities include 2 reservoirs, one diversion dam, two electric lift stations, 165 miles of canals, and 212 miles of pipelines.

Big Horn Canal Irrigation District

currently has an opening for a full time ditch rider. Duties involve running heavy equipment, working on canal structures, must be willing to work weekends. CDL and general knowledge of water is preferred. Random drug testing required.

Please mail resume to Big Horn Canal Irrigation District PO Box 348, Basin, WY 82410. Salary is based on experience.

Preferable living in Basin or Greybull area.

Salary range is $70K - $90K depending on qualifications and experience. In addition, GVWUA provides a full benefits package including retirement and health insurance.

For more information or a detailed job description, contact John Potter at jpotter@theblythegroup.com.

To apply please submit a cover letter and resume including education, employment/salary history and references to GVWUA, Attn: Manager Position, 1147 24 Road, Grand Junction, CO 81505. Deadline is May 8, 2013.

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

2013 CALENDAR

Apr. 14–16 National Water Resources Assn., Federal Water Seminar, Washington DC Apr. 16–19 International Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, 7th International

Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Phoenix, AZ May 7–10 Assn. of California Water Agencies, Spring Conference & Exhibition,

Sacramento, CA May 17

Agri–Business Council of Arizona, Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ

June 2–4

Groundwater Management District Assn., Summer Session, Colorado Springs, CO

June 4–5

Nevada Water Resources Assn., Well Design, Construction & Rehab Workshop, Reno, NV

June 17–18 Idaho Water Users Association, Summer Water Law & Resource Issues Seminar,

Sun Valley, ID June 19–21 Texas Water Conservation Assn., 2013 Mid–Year Conference, Galveston, TX July 29–31 National Water Resources Assn., Western Water Seminar, Stevenson, 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