Irrigation Leader May 2011

Volume 2 Issue 5

May 2011

Craig Simpson: Large Siphon Project Aims to Alleviate Impact of Ground Water Declines in Washington Aquifers

The Builders

C

raig Simpson is serious about solving water problems. As general manager of the East Columbia Irrigation District, he initiated an effort that resulted in the construction of the Weber Branch and Weber Coulee Siphons, critical infrastructure necessary to supply irrigation water to thousands of acres. Such projects do not happen easily, but require the dedication and collective efforts of many people. Simpson will be the first to point out that building the siphons would not have happened without the tremendous work done by his board of directors, his staff, his congressional delegation, and especially the Bureau of Reclamation and the stimulus funding it provided.

Touring the siphon construction site, I was able to meet Kirby White, a 40-year veteran with Reclamation. It was clear White is very serious about solving water problems, too. No-nonsense and to-the-point, he was exactly like so many other Reclamation employees I have had the pleasure of meeting in the past several years. Like their irrigation district counterparts, when most employees have put in their 20 years, Reclamation people seem to just be getting started. These people have invaluable experience, knowledge, and a desire to solve problems the old way— effectively.

It was gratifying to see that this country still knows how to pour concrete and build something that will benefit generations. The work of the contractors was impressive

in its efficiency and safety precautions. They were building something great, and everyone worked together as a team.

Such projects should not be the exception. Those on the ground should easily receive the support they need to ensure the continued vitality of western water infrastructure. However, those of us working in the policy arena too often become mired in ideological debates and lose sight of what is most important—developing solutions.

We need to invest in water infrastructure projects like the siphons—projects that will yield benefits for years.

We need to find new sources of funding rather than continuing to rely upon diminishing federal budgets that simply cannot handle the burden of aging infrastructure and strained water supplies. Craig Simpson, Kirby White, and all those construction workers set a great example for all of us. We must to be serious about solving our water problems, and we must work together as a team.

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

Kirby White, Bureau of Reclamation, April 28, 2011.

2

Irrigation Leader

C O N T E N T S

MAY 2011

2 The Builders

Volume 2

Issue 5

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

By Kris Polly, editor-in-chief

4 Large Siphon Project Aims to Alleviate Impact of Ground Water Declines in Washington Aquifers

8 Boise Project Board of Control, Reclamation Act Quickly to Mitigate Risk From Canal Seepage

10 Family Farm Alliance Asks Lawmakers to

Weigh Costs of Duplicative Regulation

By Dan Keppen

Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Chisholm, Senior Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copy Editor

12 Urban Area Revisits Integrated Planning Process Following Economic Slowdown

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.

16 California Farm Water Coalition Promotes

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

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

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

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

By Holly Kennedy

14 New Warren H. Brock Storage Reservoir Promotes Efficiency Goals on Lower Colorado River Outreach, Education Goals

20 GIS Data Accuracy Enhances Credibility,

Promotes Integration Into District Operations

22 Arizona District Installs Low-Head Hydro to Offset Pumping Costs, Ensure Affordable Power Supply

24 California Water Agencies Target Sustainability

Objectives in Local Ground Water Management

28 Nebraska Ground Water Regulators Seek to Increase Stream Flow by Retiring Acres

30 The Lake Powell Pipeline Project: Meeting Southwestern Utah’s Critical Water Needs

By John Clements

District Focus:

32 Creative Local Programs Increase On-Farm

Storage Capability, Promote Water Conservation

Water Law:

34 Water 2012 Celebration: Colorado-U.S.

Reclamation Partnership Key to Cooperation

Craig Simpson, general manager of the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, at siphon construction site.

Photo taken on April 28, 2011

by Kris Polly.

Irrigation Leader

By Justice Greg Hobbs

The Innovators:

36 California Water District Economizes Power Costs,

Creates Shaded Storage Area With Solar Installation

38 Deer Ramp Installation Enhances Wildlife

Safety, Provides Access Point for Maintenance 3

Large Siphon Project Aims to Alleviate Impact of Ground Water Declines in Washington Aquifers

I

n recent years, Washington State’s Odessa Groundwater Management Subarea has seen its aquifers decline. Compounding the problem, the subarea currently lacks the ability to supplement its ground water supply with significant amounts of surface water from the Columbia Basin Project’s East Low Canal due to a bottleneck where the canal crosses Interstate 90.

To mitigate the impact of the I-90 bottleneck, Columbia Basin Project irrigation districts, in partnership with Reclamation and Washington’s Department of Ecology, broke ground on a large siphon project last year to provide up to 30,000 acre-feet of additional surface water to Odessa Subarea irrigators. Anticipated to be completed in time for use during the 2012 irrigation season, the Weber Branch and Weber Coulee Siphons will provide sufficient water to irrigate 10,000 of the 103,000 irrigated acres in the subarea.

Kris Polly, Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, discussed the siphon project with East Columbia Basin Irrigation District Manager Craig Simpson on April 28 during a tour of the construction site.

Kris Polly: What is the purpose of this siphon project and how did the project get started?

Craig Simpson: The Weber Siphon Complex Project is

being constructed to allow additional irrigation water deliveries downstream of the existing “bottleneck” in the East Low Canal.

Currently, the single barrels of the Weber Branch Siphon and the nearby Weber Coulee Siphon limit the conveyance of water to half of the ultimate design capacity of the East Low Canal.

Installation of the second barrels at each siphon location will allow us to deliver to lands that have been unable to receive CBP irrigation water due to the siphons’ and canal’s capacity restrictions. This project was developed to allow us to deliver portions of the 30,000 acre-feet that will become available as part of the Lake Roosevelt Incremental Releases Program to lands downstream of the “bottleneck."

Kris Polly: What are the dimensions of the project and how much water will it be able to move?

Craig Simpson: Two siphons that are being constructed, the Weber Branch Siphon and Weber Coulee Siphon. The

Irrigation Leader

5

total length of the two combined is over 9,000 feet. The Weber Branch Siphon is about 3,000 feet, and the Weber Coulee Siphon is about 6,000 feet. The two siphons are identical in size, with an internal diameter of 14 feet 8 inches. The outside dimension varies with the thickness of concrete, but the outside diameter of the pipe will be about 18 feet on average. The pipe itself is designed to carry 1,850 cubic feet per second in each siphon.

Kris Polly: How much will the project cost upon completion?

Craig Simpson: The bid for the project came in at

$20.2 million. I think it is substantially higher than that with change orders and modifications to the project. I would guess with the change orders, modifications, and Reclamation overhead, that the cost of the project is probably going to be between $35 million and $38 million when it is completed.

Kris Polly: When do you expect the project to be finished,

and will you be using it to full capacity as soon as it is ready to go?

Craig Simpson: I believe the latest completion date is somewhere right around the end of 2011, maybe into January 2012, which would be adequate for us to use it in our 2012 irrigation season beginning in mid-March. We expect to be able to start delivering some of the water that is associated with the 30,000 acre-feet that we have available for ground water replacement in March 2012.

Top: Aerial of siphon project. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation. Lower: Siphon intake.

6

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: How is this project able to cross a major highway?

Craig Simpson: Luckily for us, back when I-90 was being constructed and converted from a state highway to a federal highway, Reclamation and the Washington Department of Transportation had the forethought to go ahead and build a section of the second siphon underneath I-90 as they were doing the construction of the interstate. So there was an existing 600-foot stretch that was constructed in the 1960s to allow for the future phased development of the Columbia Basin Project.

We just happened to be able to take advantage of that right now as we try to find a way to get water further south to take care of the Odessa Subarea problems by utilizing that existing siphon and adding on the other two that pick up the capacity of the next 15 miles of the East Low Canal.

Kris Polly: How big of a siphon section was built under the highway and essentially left buried?

Craig Simpson: It was about a 600-foot length and a full

size, 14 feet 8 inches in diameter, constructed underneath the highway, and they put caps on the two ends. It was inspected a year and a half ago and found to be in very good shape. It was deemed to be useable, even though it had been sitting there for close to 50 years, and it is now going to be used as the conveyance structure underneath the highway.

Kris Polly: This project is being completed in partnership

with Reclamation. What advice would you give to other

managers who are working with Reclamation on projects of this scale?

Craig Simpson: We were lucky to have great partners on

this project with Reclamation, the other two irrigation districts in the Columbia Basin Project (Quincy-Columbia and South Columbia Basin Irrigation Districts), and the state Department of Ecology. We all signed a memorandum of understanding that allowed us to work toward solutions for the Odessa Subarea ground water decline problem. I think the collaborative process that we had among the three entities, the irrigation districts, the state, and Reclamation allowed us the opportunity to find a project like this that allows us to solve an ecological problem.

Kris Polly: Was communication the key to making this collaborative process come together?

Craig Simpson: Yes, as well as trying to find a common solution. Everyone was trying to do the same thing, and we had a common goal that made it very easy for us to work together.

Then we had an adequate water supply with the Columbia Basin Project to provide surface water to the Odessa Subarea.

A lot of things were just in place to make this occur and all we had to do was push the right buttons to make sure the process moved along properly and the environmental issues were taken care of as they came about. We also worked together to find the funding; we got lucky with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding becoming available right at the same time that we had a plan that was ready to be constructed.

Section of siphon built during construction of highway nearly 50 years ago.

Irrigation Leader

7

Boise Project Board of Control, Reclamation Act Quickly to Mitigate Risk from Canal Seepage

I

n late April, employees of a supermarket in Boise, Idaho, began to notice water seeping through the parking lot pavement behind the store. The local drinking water supplier, United Water, excavated and determined that the water was not from a burst pipe because of the low amount of residual chlorine present.

This finding suggested that there might have been seepage from the nearby New York Canal.

Responding quickly, the Boise Project Board of Control and Reclamation began to assess the situation. A retaining wall separating the canal from the supermarket had seep holes, but no water was flowing from them. This suggested that the water source originated underground.

Further excavation revealed the remains of an abandoned natural gas line a mere seven feet—as opposed to the standard 10 feet—below the depth of the canal.

When the natural gas company removed the line 12 years earlier, it left behind a pressure-grouted concrete plug that had likely become a conveyance for water from the unlined portion of the open canal.

“We really worked as a team to figure out what was the best approach,” said Boise Project Board of Control Manager Paul Deveau, who indicated that the Board of Control, Reclamation, United Water, and Intermountain Gas Company gathered together to develop a solution using their collective expertise. “Every time we came up with an idea, everyone jumped on it; the synergy was in the room.”

Ultimately, the parties decided that their best option was to excavate 2 feet from the unlined portion of the canal, and then blanket that section with a 5-inch layer of solid bentonite. The bentonite would then be topped with a 1-foot layer of clay material mixed with bentonite and a layer of gravel.

“The seep wasn’t all that much, only 1 inch of water, but we were concerned that this could be the beginning of a bigger problem, and it was better to get it taken care of in May than in the middle of irrigation season,” said Deveau.

The canal was shut down on April 24, only three days after the Boise Project Board of Control learned of the problem, and additional testing began the next day by injecting red dye into the remaining 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water running through the canal to confirm the source of the water. By April 30, repairs were finished after 10 trucks from all 4 Boise Project divisions, 2 rental belly-dumps, and 2 additional trucks provided by

8

Parking lot seep flow from New York Canal.

Irrigation Leader

Red dye used in canal to confirm source of seep.

Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District transported around $12,000 worth of bentonite from Teague Mineral Supply in Oregon.

In addition to the potential impact of the canal growing worse during irrigation season, the New York Canal, by default through normal operations, can provide up to 2,400 cfs of relief for the Boise River. On April 24, the canal flows were nearing 1,200 cfs. Given this winter’s heavy snowpack, the quick turnaround on canal repairs became especially important.

Further, public safety remained of utmost importance,

and Reclamation contacted both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about the incident. Additionally, a press release was issued to alert the public about the seep.

Despite the success of this repair, Deveau remains very concerned about the impact of encroachments near canals, particularly as residential subdivisions are constructed. Even if a new construction does not directly damage a canal embankment, urbanization can impede ready access to a canal when repairs are necessary and place residences and businesses at risk. These encroachments also drive up the costs of operation and even routine maintenance. It is important that state and local land use planning take into account the proximity to irrigation facilities and to recognize the impacts of urbanization on canals.

However, perhaps the greatest challenge Deveau faces is the inability to conduct certain nonemergency maintenance activities to aging infrastructure due to funding shortages. “What makes this job really difficult is that we don’t have enough money to do all the maintenance we would like to do,” he said, noting that the Board of Control works hard to apply for grants and other assistance, as well as works closely with Reclamation to obtain funding consistent with federal guidelines and priorities. “All the time we are trying to cut costs and stretch our dollar as far as we can go.”

For more information on the Boise Project Board of Control’s response to the seep from the New York Canal, contact Manager Paul Deveau, Assistant Project Manager Tim Page, or Division 2 Watermaster Phil Comegys at (208) 344-1141, or by e-mail at pdeveau@boiseproject.org, tpage@boiseproject.org, or pcomegys@boiseproject.org, respectively.

New York Canal repair underway.

Irrigation Leader

9

Family Farm Alliance Asks Lawmakers to Weigh Costs of Duplicative Regulation

By Dan Keppen wenty-five years ago, a group of farmers recognized that they needed to take a direct and expanded role in advocating for the reliability of a cost-effective water supply to irrigate crops. The Family Farm Alliance was the product of their efforts, and the organization maintains its commitment to connecting western farmers directly with lawmakers to explain the impact of federal regulation on family farms.

As part of its mission, the alliance conducts an annual fly-in to Washington, DC, where farmers and irrigation district officials discuss issues affecting them with Congress and federal agencies. Topping the list of the issues discussed at 29 meetings conducted over three days during the week of May 2 was the recommendation of the National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS) to expand the authority of a proposed levee safety program over water delivery canals in the West.

If authorized by Congress, this new program would duplicate efforts already undertaken by the Bureau of

T

Reclamation following the authorization of P.L. 111-11, which required the agency to conduct safety inspections of all canals presenting risks to urbanized areas and granted extended repayment authority to allow critical repairs to take place.

In addition to duplicating Reclamation’s efforts, the proposed levee safety program, which will presumably be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, fails to recognize the key differences between flood control structures and water delivery conveyances. Of particular importance, canals used for water delivery can be shut off in the event of a breach, greatly reducing their potential risk.

This fundamental difference between the types of structures was largely ignored by NCLS when it developed its recommendations without input from Reclamation, which opposes the inclusion of western canals in the new levee safety program. However, the Family Farm Alliance fly-in provided members the opportunity to discuss this issue face-to-face with federal policymakers,

From L to R: Dan Keppen (Oregon), Aaron Fukuda (California), Mark Schnepf (Arizona), Hayden Schnepf (Arizona), Bob Hanson (California), Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science John Tubbs, Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor, Mike LaPlant (Washington), David Mansfield (California), Tom Knutson (Nebraska), Grant Ward (Arizona).

10

Irrigation Leader

including those within the Army Corps campaigning for the inclusion of water delivery conveyances in the new program.

Some in Washington continue to espouse the unfounded belief that Congress intended to include both flood control structures and the embankments of water delivery canals in NCLS’s recommendations. Others are sympathetic to our concerns and want to learn more about the issue. To the layman, the issue is complicated, and we need to develop some simplified ways to tell our story.

One example would be to develop schematic drawings demonstrating the differences between flood control and water conveyance structures.

I encourage irrigation districts to contact their congressional delegations to emphasize the work they and Reclamation have already undertaken to ensure the safety of canals, as well as to discuss the duplication of efforts that will occur if they must also comply with a flood control levee safety program.

In addition to expressing our concerns with the inclusion of western water delivery canals in the proposed levee safety plan, the fly-in provided the opportunity to discuss other key items of interest to irrigated agriculture in the West. In particular, all irrigation districts face the critical issues of aging infrastructure and the accessing the financing tools necessary to make needed repairs. The inability to maintain infrastructure for future generations is a serious threat to western farming communities and to the country as a whole that relies on the food we grow.

Family Farm Alliance members also addressed the potential benefits of small hydropower to irrigation districts as they struggle to generate revenue to continue operations and maintenance without overburdening area irrigators. Additionally, we discussed the upcoming Farm Bill with lawmakers and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials.

Finally, alliance members highlighted the Young Farmers Initiative, which aims to foster and support the family farming tradition by encouraging younger generations to continue their parents’ work. Too often, young people leave their family’s farm to avoid the struggles they have seen their parents face in dealing with a myriad of federal regulations that ignore practical realities.

As a country, we need to encourage the work farmers do because they feed the nation and the world. We simply cannot afford to lose a generation of farmers to political squabbles about unnecessary regulations that ignore practical reality and provide no real benefit.

Dan Keppen is the executive director of the Family Farm Alliance in Klamath Falls, Oregon. For more information on the Family Farm Alliance, visit its website at www. familyfarmalliance.org.

Irrigation Leader Advertising Works

“

We are getting business from your magazine!

Please continue our ad. ~Jill Carding, AquaLastic®

”

Irrigation Leader directly markets your message to the decisionmakers on irrigation and other water infrastructure projects. Hard copies of Irrigation Leader are mailed to the 600-plus irrigation district general managers and their respective boards of directors in the 17 western states; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Congress; and a variety of western water-related organizations, engineering firms, and interested individuals.

In other words, advertising in Irrigation Leader is like having over 7,000 people stop by your vendor booth.

For information on advertisement rates, packages, and placement, please contact our office by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Irrigation Leader

11

Urban Area Revisits Integrated Planning Process Following Economic Slowdown

By Holly Kennedy eeking to optimize the use of existing water resources, a coalition of local government entities bound together in 2008 to implement an integrated water and wastewater master plan for the Hollister Urban Area in northern San Benito County, California. However, the area’s economy has since slowed, leading to plan revision in light of population decline and decreased growth expectations.

Historically an agricultural area, Hollister experienced significant urban growth over the past two decades as a bedroom community for workers in the nearby Silicon Valley. As demands on the area’s water resources increased, the City of Hollister, San Benito County, the San Benito County Water District, and the Sunnyslope County Water District entered into a memorandum of understanding intended to implement a long-term vision for area water resources.

The original plan—which was based on an assumption of continued urban growth through 2023—ultimately recommended phased demineralization of urban wells to improve drinking water quality and aid water recycling capabilities. While treated drinking water in the area meets federal and state drinking water standards, hardness and minerals force many residents to use home water softeners. Use of these products further elevated the mineral content of wastewater, limiting disposal and reuse opportunities due to potential adverse effects on crops and ground water supplies.

However, recognizing the changed growth expectations accompanying the economic slowdown, HDR revisited its original recommendations. From this review, the coalition determined that the costly demineralization process could wait and instead elected to explore opportunities to import additional water from the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SVP) using the Hollister Conduit—a large, 54-inch diameter pipeline.

Additionally, the coalition aims to implement a ground water banking program in northern San Benito County to supplement surface water supply. There is a surplus of ground water in the north, creating high water table levels and artesian springs. The region will gain multiple benefits by pumping northern ground water, including an increased water supply for the urban area, creation of aquifer storage capacity for seasonally imported CVP water, and reduction of detrimental impacts to area farmers from high water tables. Depending upon the proposed facilities and operational needs, various enhancements—such as environmental restoration—may also be integrated into the project if practical and cost effective.

During its review of the original plan, HDR helped the coalition to facilitate public outreach through community meetings and a booth at a county fair to gauge the impact of potential alternatives to demineralization. Through these interactions, the coalition learned that farmers were willing to accept higher salt content in irrigation water—around 700 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids—giving further credence to the decision to scale back initial demineralization efforts.

While it plans to revisit large-scale demineralization, the coalition is working to expand its current treatment capabilities to make better use of existing supply. Upgrades will be implemented to bring the hydraulic capability of the exiting Lessalt water treatment plant to its full design capacity of 3 million gallons per day. The coalition also plans to build a new surface water treatment plant capable of treating an additional 6 million gallons per day by 2015.

Importantly, the coalition recently completed its programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) for the Hollister Urban Area project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Approval of the PEIR leads the way for implementing the area’s integrated approach to water management.

S

For more information about this article, contact Holly Kennedy at Holly.Kennedy@hdrinc.com.

12

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

AquaLastic® CanalWrap When comparing physical properties of the various Geomembrane polymers, it is important to obtain the cost of all materials that are required when used as a canal liner.

Additional materials may include felt underlay and gravel ballast. These materials are necessary to protect the liner against puncture from the canal bed and from the gravel ballast added above the liner to prevent the liner from floating up.

It is also important to compare thickness and other aspects of materials.

AquaLastic® CanalWrap is applied in one single layer and does not require additional underlay or gravel ballast and assesses extremely favorably in these and many more ways, when a thorough comparison is made with other membranes.

AquaLastic® is distributed by Fix Canal in the USA and worldwide and is the trademark property of Hydro Consulting LLC

509 467 8487

www.fixcanal.com

Use AquaLastic® - when every drop counts.

A Response to Irrigation Demands AquaLastic® is one of the best known names in canal repair and maintenance.

The AquaLastic® polyurea material has been installed in millions of feet of canal over the past 10 years, with no product failure.

Customers who thought their canals, flumes and other structures were beyond repair, have saved $millions by using AquaLastic® products and the expertise of its applicators.

The expertise developed during this time has been put to good use for the development of the latest addition to the AquaLastic® family of canal repair solutions – this time for the efficient, cost effective lining of earthen canals.

The AquaLastic® CanalWrap is in direct response to studying and observing the needs of the irrigation industry when it comes to prolonging the life of, and/or preventing water seepage from earthen canals.

Pilot applications in irrigation were used to tweak the installation technique of this remarkRight: installation of a 100 ft section of a 30 feet wide canal can be completed in a few hours.

Anchor trenches at the sides and cross section trenches are use to highly efficiently secure the AquaLastic® Canal Wrap.

Sections are spliced using a thermal welder.

able material that is not only highly efficient, but environmentally responsible, in that it is made from 85% recycled rubber tires and plastic.

Once the pilot stage was completed, AquaLastic® CanalWrap was ready for our customers and is fast becoming a most popular choice.

To name but a few advantages of AquaLastic® CanalWrap: Canal soil preparation is less critical than with most other methods of ‘geomembrane’ types of lining.

One single layer of the AquaLastic® liner is installed, rather than ‘layers’.

It will not be damaged by foot traffic, or even light rubber-tired equipment.

Above: A successfully completed AquaLastic® CanalWrap project

It can be easily installed by a small crew or workers using basic and affordable tools.

The installation crew can easily be an irrigation district’s own maintenance crew. www.fixcanal.com

Aerial view of the new 8,000 acre-feet Warren H. Brock storage reservoir located near El Centro, Calif.

(Photo credit – Andrew Pernick, Bureau of Reclamation).

New Warren H. Brock Storage Reservoir Promotes Efficiency Goals on Lower Colorado River

A

s western water supply challenges become more complex, efforts to increase the efficiency of delivery takes on increased importance. The challenges presented—when lower Colorado River flows exceed users’ demands below Imperial Dam during the five-day period it takes to deliver water from Lake Mead—are particularly acute and can result each year in excess water flowing into Mexico.

Water users in the lower Colorado River region cannot fully utilize water orders for numerous reasons, including unexpected canal outages, changed weather conditions, and high runoff into the river. To respond more effectively to the changing conditions, Reclamation and stakeholders in Nevada, Arizona, and California collaboratively constructed the new Drop 2 Storage Reservoir. Later officially renamed the Warren H. Brock Storage Reservoir, the facility is located 25 miles west of Yuma, Arizona near the All-American Canal.

Brock Reservoir provides space for incoming river water from underutilized orders to be diverted at a

14

turnout structure on the All-American Canal and through a 6 ½-mile inlet canal into the new reservoir.

The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) then releases the water to users through a ¼-mile canal and siphon system to fill subsequent orders. The new reservoir allows Reclamation to capture water when supply exceeds demand and conserve water in Lake Mead as orders for subsequent days are filled from reservoir storage. Annual water savings from this new facility are anticipated to be approximately 70,000 acre-feet.

“As the Southwest continues to grapple with water resource challenges, the Warren H. Brock storage reservoir represents a commitment to our conservation strategies,” said Jennifer McCloskey, area manager of Reclamation’s Yuma Area Office. “This facility benefits our stakeholders in the Lower Colorado Basin, and through wise storage and use of water, it clearly demonstrates the power of cooperation among individual agencies, states, and the federal government."

The budgeted cost for the Warren H. Brock Reservoir

Irrigation Leader

Slide gates separating the fore bay and reservoir cells at the Warren H. Brock storage reservoir.

(Photo credit – Ed Virden, Bureau of Reclamation)

was $172 million. Southern Nevada Water Authority contributed $115 million, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Central Arizona Project each contributed $28.6 million. In return for their investment in water conservation, Nevada will receive 400,000 acre-feet from Lake Mead at a maximum of 40,000 acre-feet per year until 2036, and California and Arizona each receives 100,000 acre-feet at a maximum of 65,000 acre-feet per year from 2016 through 2036.

Construction began in October 2008 and was completed in September 2010. Approximately 7 million cubic yards of soil were removed to construct the project, and the resulting reservoir pool and sides were covered with 1,800 rolls of geomembrane lining to prevent seepage. Following installation of the membrane, the bottom of the reservoir and sides were then covered with

Irrigation Leader

9 inches of soil cement. The reservoir is comprised of two storage cells of equal size, is capable of storing 8,000 acre-feet, and can be filled in about three days. Excavated material was primarily used to construct canal and reservoir embankments, resulting in very little wasted material.

For more information on Reclamation’s Warren H. Brock Storage Reservoir Project, visit the Lower Colorado Region’s program page at www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/ drop2reservoir.html.

15

California Farm Water Coalition Promotes Outreach, Education Goals

D

uring a six-year drought spanning 1986 to 1992, irrigation districts and other agricultural water interests became concerned that misunderstandings in the media threatened California’s irrigators.

To ensure that their message was heard, these groups founded the California Farm Water Coalition (CFWC) in 1989.

“There was a lot of concern over water use and this misunderstanding that farmers didn’t pay for water they had,” said Mike Wade, CFWC’s executive director. “We provide factbased information to the public about water use.”

While other organizations focus on government relations and lobbying strategies, CFWC limits itself solely to public outreach and educational activities. “We didn’t want to be a lobbying organization because other folks were already doing that, [but] there wasn’t anything happening with respect to a general effort about how farmers use water,” Wade said.

CFWC is governed by a board of directors and now counts more than 300 individual farmers, agricultural water districts and agencies, agri-business representatives, and other agricultural organizations as members.

The majority of its funding is provided by irrigation and water districts.

The coalition maintains a consumer focus by engaging in activities such as paid public advertising campaigns and responding to reporters’ inquiries for articles about California’s agricultural water use. “Our mission is to reach the consumer with a message about agricultural water use,” said Wade. “The consumer is really a partner in agriculture because most people don’t grow their own food.”

CFWC also takes part in county fairs, farm day programs, and other public forums that provide direct contact with the public. It also proactively engages school-age children

16

Irrigation Leader

through the development of educational materials and participation in statewide awareness campaigns promoting the benefits of responsible water use.

Overall, CFWC hopes to promote an understanding of agriculture among those living in urban communities, who may not understand the water resources needs of the farmers providing the country’s food supply. “We want to foster communication between urban neighbors and farmers,” Wade said.

“You’ve got to be out there talking about what you do.”

Wade offered advice to those relying on irrigated water use in other states without developed public outreach efforts. “It’s invaluable having the public understand what you’re all about . . . they’re not going to get that information on their own,” he said.

“Agriculture has so many wonderful stories, but if people aren’t hearing the story from you, they are hearing a story from someone else.”

For more information on the California Farm Water Coalition, visit its website at www.farmwater.org.

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

Cost? – a fraction of replacement!

Before

Call 949 394 4228

AfTer

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

17

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Diamond Plastics PVC Pipe Helping Irrigation Districts

Save Water

Gasketed PVC Pipe: • 2” Diameters thru 60” Diameters • Bottle Tight Joints • Easy Push Together Installation • Large Internal Diameter • Smooth High Flow Rate Interior • Practically Maintenance Free • Corrosion Free PVC = Long Life • The Sustainable Solution

For more information on Diamond Plastics Corporation’s PVC pipe offerings, please contact a representative at 1-800-PVC-PIPE or visit our website at www.dpcpipe.com

GIS Data Accuracy Enhances Credibility, Promotes Integration Into District Operations

E

ssential to any geographic information system (GIS) is the confidence it instills in users and other stakeholders. “When landowners walk into the office and we show them their property on the GIS, most times they are really impressed with what they are seeing,” said South Columbia Basin Irrigation District (SCBID) GIS Coordinator Allan Scott. “The advantage is the confidence level and accuracy.”

In 1992, SCBID formed an alliance with three other local government entities in Franklin County, Washington, to jointly manage GIS capability. Nearly two decades later, the system is integrated into many facets of SCBID’s operations and is maintained regularly by constantly updating and adding new layers of data.

Credibility becomes especially important when dealing with encroachments or litigation, as inaccurate depictions can be readily recognized and call data accuracy into question. Scott cited the example of some less-accurate GIS that may have feature data that lines up within 20 feet of aerial photographs and project overlapping boundary lines. Feature data entered into SCBID’s system generally line up within a few feet of the aerial photography, and are drawn from maps having survey information or from positions captured by Global Positioning System, or GPS. When administrative boundary lines should be coincident, the best location is determined and the same line is used for all the boundaries so that they do not overlap.

“We were fortunate to have the resources required to obtain an accurately surveyed PLSS [Public Land Survey

20

System] base map before implementing the GIS and have gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that all data added to the system is georeferenced to it. More recently, we also had geodetic control points surveyed and corrections to the digital elevation model made to improve the accuracy of our aerial photography,” said Scott, noting that the accuracy of the base map is essential to GIS credibility.

For example, SCBID used its GIS in the past to examine the impact of canal washouts and landslides on district facilities and nearby landowners. Similarly, the district often uses its GIS capability to measure the acreage of existing and proposed fields for the benefit of landowners, and GIS was an important tool in implementing a voluntary load reduction program administered by the Bonneville Power Administration that benefited all parties involved.

However, the uses of the district’s GIS capability expand far beyond dealing with landowners. In fact, the original purpose for local development of a GIS was to have an accurate enough system to facilitate the piping, lining, and maintenance of canals, and the placement of structural engineering works throughout SCBID’s large system.

“We can bring data in the GIS up in the CAD [computer-aided design] system and show the actual design of a canal where it should be,” said Scott. “Since the original as-built survey data was used to draw all the canals in CAD using the same base map, there is no need to draw it out again when using it for engineering purposes.”

Irrigation Leader

I cannot emphasize enough is having data that can be accessed quickly,” said Scott, noting that SCBID’s system updates the display almost instantaneously. “When you have people having to wait too long, they are not interested in using it.”

Yet the success of SCBID’s GIS program is largely attributable to constant data input and refinement. SCBID has linked in scanned copies of specification books compiled by Reclamation, permits granted by the district, and other documents dating as far back as the 1940s, all of which previously had to be searched for in paper files when needed. The district’s data set also contains the results of thousands of soil sampling SCBID GIS Coordinator Allan Scott, reviews a GIS map with Drainage tests conducted by Reclamation before the project Technician Tony Eveland, Assistant Engineer Tyson Poe, and Assistant was constructed.

Engineer Anna Schumacher.

“It’s easy to get distracted,” Scott said.

“Without the commitment of the board and manager, Importantly, employees throughout the district have there is no way you are going to be able to build a system access to SCBID’s GIS program and are able to use the and keep the project going.” system for diverse tasks such as scheduling and tracking SCBID continues to refine and expand the capabilities the application of herbicides, assessing and responding to of its GIS. “The primary goal for the future development excavation notices, more easily subdividing water rights of the GIS is to make detailed, accurate engineering data based on soil classification, and the maintenance of the of the district’s irrigation system, such as stationing and district’s buried drain systems. These employees are able to as-built design characteristics, immediately available for customize the system to meet their needs and can choose display and analysis, future planning and design, and from any combination of over a hundred available layers. assessment of emergency management scenarios,” Scott “People who would have just been viewers end up being said. users,” said Scott, noting that even SCBID personnel working almost exclusively in the field use the system for Allan Scott is the GIS coordinator and network administrator mapping. “When they know what they can do with it, they for the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District in Pasco, become interested in using it.”

Washington. He can be reached by phone at (509) 547-1735, However, the speed of the system is essential to or by e-mail at ascott@scbid.org. broadening the reach of GIS capability. “Something that

Irrigation Leader

21

Arizona District Installs Low-Head Hydro to Offset Pumping Costs, Ensure Affordable Power Supply

I

n April 2010, Arizona’s Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District (BWCDD) began operating a 12-kilowatt hydropower turbine on an 11.5-foot canal drop. Intended as a pilot project to explore supplementing the district’s imported power supply used to pump water, the turbine is functioning as intended and could serve as a model for future low-head hydropower development.

While the district maintains a Hoover Dam power allocation, which provides access to low-cost electricity, its contract is set to expire in 2017 and will require congressional action to renew. “We were looking at other potential low-cost energy supplies that we could control better than a legislative process,” said Ed Gerak, BWCDD’s general manager, of the district’s first foray into hydropower generation.

Additionally, Gerak estimates that BWCDD spends about 30 percent of its annual budget on purchasing power, an amount that could increase as the district pumps more water to compensate for surface water shortages. The district is a junior appropriator and currently pumps about 60,000 of the 130,000 acre-feet it sells annually.

Gerak offered advice for other districts contemplating the introduction of small hydropower generation capability to existing irrigation canals.

Specifically, BWCDD encountered difficulty when it submitted its initial application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to obtain a conduit exemption from the normal hydropower licensing process.

While such an exemption is intended to offer an easier path to regulatory compliance for small projects representing little environmental concern, a misunderstanding of the terminology used in Dan Schneider, the inventor of Natel's technology, and Ed BWCDD’s application led to delays and required Gerak, Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District's more time to work through the issue with FERC. general manager, pose in front of the district's newly installed hydropower turbine.

“It was a learning curve on both sides,” said 22

Irrigation Leader

Gerak. “We used the word ‘impoundment’ for a check structure and they looked at that as a dam, but it’s not. Just one misplaced word led to some delayed time.”

Gerak indicated staying in close contact with FERC throughout the licensing process is essential to ensure miscommunications do not occur. Ultimately, BWCDD’s licensing process took more than one year, though only about nine months from the time it actually submitted its conduit exemption application.

BWCDD’s turbines were contributed by Natel Energy, which used the district as a commercial demonstration site. Gerak indicated that BWCDD ultimately favored the Natel unit because of its simplicity. “Coming from a manufacturing background, I know the importance of eliminating downtime,” he said.

BWCDD is in the process of exploring the potential of two additional sites for low-head hydropower development on its main canal. The district submitted a WaterSMART grant application to Reclamation in order to receive partial funding for the project, which would allow it to accelerate its development timeline if accepted.

“If we’re able to get the WaterSMART grant, we will be ready to install in the next couple years,” Gerak said.

Ed Gerak is the general manager of Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District in Buckeye, Arizona. He can be reached by phone at (623) 386-2196, or by e-mail at egerak@bwcdd.com.

Irrigation Leader

23

California Water Agencies Target Sustainability Objectives in Local Ground Water Management

A

s California surface water use becomes increasingly constrained, those with the ability to source ground water are becoming more reliant on this alternative source. However, increased ground water use leads to management challenges that raise important questions in a state where ground water is historically regulated at the local level.

“Even with the very favorable hydrological conditions of this year, ground water is playing an increasingly vital role in meeting California’s water needs,” said Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) President Paul Kelley at a rollout event for a new ground water management framework proposal on April 4.

ACWA’s proposed framework encompasses recommendations in four key areas, each aiming to meet long-term ground water sustainability objectives. First, ACWA recommends that local water agencies should implement ground water management plans focused on sustainability in an open and transparent manner.

Second, the state should facilitate the development of local ground water management plans through incentives, easier access to data, remediation projects and recycled water initiatives, new infrastructure, and the denial of public funds to those that fail to implement plans.

Third, the state should remove impediments to sustainable ground water management, such as declaring surface water recharge as a reasonable use, preventing state agency interference with local management plans, and local agency liability protection in ground water remediation projects. Finally, sustainable ground water management should be part of a comprehensive plan to achieve the co-equal goals of improved statewide water supply reliability and environmental restoration.

“We recognized that ground water and ground water management in California had to be part of that comprehensive solution, and that gave birth to this process. But, it is equally important to recognize that we will only achieve acceptable sustainable ground water management as part of a comprehensive program that has restored the reliability of California’s surface water delivery system. You can’t have one without the other,” said ACWA Executive Director Tim Quinn, referencing the interplay of ground water management with the coequal goals embraced by California water agencies.

24

ACWA’s recommendations are the result of an 18-month process conducted by a task force of local ground water managers throughout the state. In addition to the recommendations developed during the process, the association’s report also identifies relevant case studies as evidence of sustainable ground water management practices already being implemented statewide.

“There were a lot of pressures developing in the policy arena that were focused on looking at ground water not only as an issue of local management, but as a statewide concern,” said Greg Zlotnick, chair of ACWA’s ground water committee. “Ground water is regulated very significantly at the local level and managed successfully at the local level in the vast majority of the state . . . we needed to get that story out.”

Dave Orth, general manager of Kings River Conservation District, also spoke at the April 4 event and provided comprehensive examples of ongoing local ground water management efforts in California.

“Statewide there are 515 basins and sub-basins identified by the California Department of Water Resources, and they demand local solutions,” he said.

California’s Department of Water Resources also lent its support to ACWA’s efforts to begin a statewide conversation on complex ground water management issues. “We need improved management plans that build toward and achieve sustainable ground water management of all of our ground water basins throughout the state,” said Mark Cowin, the department’s director. “This isn’t stuff you do overnight.

You’ve got to have a goal, and I applaud ACWA for setting that goal for us.”

For more information on the Association of California Water Agencies and its sustainable ground water management efforts, visit its website at www.acwa.com.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

X

Currently Serving 18 21 irrigation DiStriCtS in 5 6 WeStern StateS

X

TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS provides focused software solutions and services for Ag water billing and operations designed specifically for Irrigation Districts.

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

Agricultural Irrigation Management

AIM

Agricultural Irrigation Billing

Bill

Customer Information Portal

CIP

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

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

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

TrueGIS

GIS

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

Irrigation Leader advertising has definitely “helped – Kent Johnson our business!

”

Sacramento

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

26

tucSon

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

IncLIne VILLaGe

774 mays Blvd #10-377 Incline Village, nV 89451

www.truepointsolutions.com Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Nebraska Ground Water Regulators Seek to Increase Stream Flow by Retiring Acres

W

ater is plentiful and in high demand in Nebraska, facts illustrated by the state’s position as the nation’s leader in irrigated acres, having surpassed California in recent years. Balancing water demands with the need to ensure that it is available for generations to come is the job of the state’s Natural Resources Districts (NRDs)—the only system of its kind nationally that allows for regional management of ground water. Increasingly, that effort by some NRDs, in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), includes reducing the number of irrigated acres, especially in areas where stream flow and compliance with an interstate compact are chief concerns.

“We’ve regulated ground water use since the 1970s and have learned it takes an array of tools to meet interstate compact obligations and responsibly manage water supplies, while also allowing producers to thrive,” said Jasper Fanning, manager of the Upper Republican NRD which includes three counties in far southwest Nebraska that have about 450,000 irrigated acres. “Retiring irrigated acres, especially those with immediate and substantial impacts on stream flow, is a key, but admittedly expensive, part of a multifaceted management strategy.”

Recently, the Upper Republican NRD announced it would partner with NRCS to launch an irrigation retirement program, using $1 million in NRCS funds and $1.75 million from the NRD’s tax on irrigated acres.

28

The partnership is expected to last four more years with possibly millions more from the NRD and NRCS. As a result, all three of the NRDs in the 9,060-square-mile Republican River basin, which has 1.2-million irrigated acres, now have programs to retire irrigated acres. No additional irrigation development is allowed in the basin.

The retirement programs are all partnerships with NRCS under its Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP). The regional-management structure of the NRD system has allowed each of the NRDs to tailor a program that fits its part of the basin, so the programs differ.

Craig Derickson, state conservationist with the NRCS said, “The NRDs are the perfect partner to assist us in implementing the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program. Through AWEP, farmers receive technical and financial assistance to improve the efficiency of their irrigation systems. AWEP contracts cover a portion of the cost incurred to convert from irrigated land to dry land and also help producers convert to higher-efficiency irrigation equipment. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is proud to work with the NRDs to establish partnership agreements that will help conserve one of Nebraska’s most precious natural resources—its water.”

The Middle Republican NRD has extensive experience with retirement programs, realizing their value early on and utilizing a variety of funding mixes and payment criteria over the past five years. The district has gone from

Irrigation Leader

a program that utilized federal, state, and local dollars in 2007, to one that solely used local money in 2008, to the current program that is a blend of local and federal dollars under the successful AWEP partnership.

Under the ongoing AWEP program that began in 2009, nearly 4,200 acres have been temporarily retired from irrigation, and nearly 1,300 acres permanently retired.

“We realized early on that a retirement program could help balance water supplies with water uses and mitigate impacts to stream flow caused by ground water pumping,” said Dan Smith. “It fits well into our plan of reducing consumptive uses of water to the greatest degree practically and economically feasible and achieving sustainability, while being small enough in scale that there isn’t a significant erosion of the tax base effecting local political subdivisions.”

Both the Middle and Upper Republican NRDs are trying to target acres where irrigation has a significant impact on stream flow. Landowners with wells that ground water modeling shows deplete stream flow by at least 48 percent of the amount pumped over a 50-year period get a higher payment from the Middle Republican NRD than landowners with wells that have a so-called stream flow depletion factor of less than 48 percent.

Rising commodity prices of course have had an effect

Integrated Water Planning, Permitting, Design & Construction Services SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

on the program, motivating the NRD to increase payments to attract landowners to the program.

In its AWEP partnership, payments from the Upper Republican NRD are based on the acre-feet of stream flow estimated to be gained from retiring eligible acres. The formula used to calculate the acre-foot benefit to stream flow includes the 50-year stream flow depletion factor of a particular well and the amount of water pumped in recent years as a predictor of what will be pumped in the future.

The higher the impact a well has on stream flow, the higher the payment. Interest in the program has been strong despite the booming ag economy—about three times more acres have applied for the program than can be accepted this year with the money available.

Currently, nine AWEP project areas cover the heavily irrigated regions across Nebraska. Project areas were selected using several factors including emphasis on water conservation activities. AWEP operates through contracts with producers to plan and implement conservation practices in project areas established through partnership agreements. Producers with land located in the project areas may apply to participate in AWEP at their local NRCS office. Additional information is available at www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/.

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

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

PERMIT COMPLIANCE OPERATION OPTIMIZATION RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL

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

CLIMATE CHANGE STUDIES SOURCE AUGMENTATION POWER GENERATION WATER TRANSMISSION John Maxwell, P.E. 360.570.4400 www.hdrinc.com/water

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

slh@lclaw-nm.com

The Lake Powell Pipeline Project Meeting Southwestern Utah’s Critical Water Needs

By John Clements outhwestern Utah is known for its beautiful red rock scenery, warm winter weather, low humidity, and unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities, including championship golf, tennis, walking paths, biking trails, and hiking. It’s no wonder that it is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the country. Current growth projections for this area of Utah indicate that before long the region will have to reach beyond the local sources of water on which it currently relies in order to meet growing demand. In fact, studies conducted to date indicate that local sources of water supply to serve the growing population may run out as soon as 2020.

The Utah Legislature has responded to this critical need by enacting, the Lake Powell Pipeline Development

S

30

Act in 2006. The act authorizes the Utah Board of Water Resources (UBWR) to meet the growing need for water by building the Lake Powell Pipeline. The pipeline is designed to use about 86,000 acre-feet-per-year of Utah’s allotment of Colorado River water under the Colorado River Compact. When fully developed, the pipeline is expected to annually deliver up to 69,000 acre-feet to Washington County Water Conservancy District, 4,000 acre-feet to Kane County Water Conservancy District, and 13,000 acre-feet to Central Iron County Water Conservancy District.

The Project will draw water from Lake Powell upstream from the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona and transport it 139 miles through a 69-inch pipe for delivery to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah. A second

Irrigation Leader

pipeline, 36 inches in diameter, will transport water 58 miles from the main pipeline at Hurricane Cliffs for delivery to a treatment plant near Cedar City, in Iron County. Wherever possible, UBWR will route the pipeline in an existing utility corridor and alongside existing roads to minimize potential environmental impacts.

The water will be lifted approximately 2,000 feet to the pipeline’s high point by four booster pump stations.

From its high point, the pipeline will drop about 2,900 feet to the delivery point at Sand Hollow. UBWR will take advantage of this drop in elevation by installing hydroelectric generating facilities along the pipeline from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow. The sale of the electricity will help reduce overall project costs, which are expected to be between $1.1 billion (in 2008 dollars). Four of the hydrogenerating facilities will be 2 megawatts (MW) or less, but the project design also includes a 300-MW pumped storage project and 35-MW peaking generating facility, which will take advantage of a nearly 1,000-foot drop at Hurricane Cliffs.

The pipeline, hydro facilities, and their attendant infrastructure are a very complex undertaking not only from an engineering standpoint, but also as to the permitting regime. Project facilities will be located on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Reclamation at the pipeline intake, the Bureau of Land Management, including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, which is administered by the National Park Service.

In addition to the permits required from these agencies, the project will require a license or licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the hydroelectric developments. UBWR is also considering whether to supply the booster pump stations by electric distribution lines or a natural gas pipeline that would occupy the same right-of-way as the water pipeline. If the gas pipeline option is elected, additional federal or state permits will be required.

UBWR has engaged in extensive consultation with resource agencies, members of the public, and Indian tribes to identify interests that may be affected by the Lake Powell project. The consulted parties have identified many issues that the federal permitting agencies will have to address. These include the need for water, potential Irrigation Leader

alternative sources of supply, water conservation options, the effects of climate change on water supply, and potential impacts to wildlife and Native American cultural resources.

To have the most efficient federal permitting process possible, the federal environmental analysis is being conducted in the context of an application to FERC for the hydroelectric license portions of the project. FERC will serve as the lead agency for an environmental review of all aspects of the project requiring federal permitting, with the other federal permitting agencies acting as cooperating agencies. To ensure that these agencies have all the information necessary to make informed decisions, UBWR is currently conducting an extensive array of studies and data gathering for submission with its license and permit applications.

In addition to the federal permits, the project will occupy state and private lands in Utah and Arizona, and so require state permits. Although the timing for receipt of all necessary permits cannot be identified with precision, UBWR is hopeful that all necessary licenses and permits can be obtained by 2013, so final project design can take place in 2014, construction can begin in 2016, and the first deliveries of Colorado River water and power generation will begin in 2020.

The water resources provided by the Lake Powell Pipeline Project will enable Southwestern Utah to continue its orderly path of economic growth, prosperity, and a high quality of life for several decades to come.

John Clements is of counsel to Van Ness Feldman, PC, an energy and environmental law firm with offices in Washington, DC, and Seattle, Washington. John advises UBWR on federal permitting issues. He can be reached by phone at (202) 298-1933, or by e-mail at jhc@vnf.com

31

District Focus 32

Creative Local Programs Increase On-Farm Storage Capability, Promote Water Conservation

A

s concerns over water supply continue to increase while federal funding for many projects dwindles, local irrigation districts are helping to implement creative on-farm programs to ensure the continued vitality of irrigated agriculture.

In this spirit, Roza Irrigation District in Sunnyside, Washington, encourages on-farm efficiency and conservation through the promotion of on-farm pond construction and a low-interest loan program.

In recent years, district farmers have constructed 100 to 200 farm ponds, many with a capacity of between 2 and 5 million gallons. With the construction of additional large-scale storage capacity in doubt, local farms have effectively built a reservoir’s worth of storage, one pond at a time. The ponds have grown especially important, as the district has dealt with water shortages in recent years.

“The very first thing that got my interest was dealing with water-short years,” said Ric Valicoff, a Roza director and local farmer who has installed several ponds on his land. “If we’re not going to get [large-scale] water storage on the Yakima River quick enough . . . this is a quick deal for us to stay out of trouble while waiting for the big fix.”

Valicoff highlighted that on-farm storage is a relatively inexpensive way for farmers to ensure that irrigation occurs at the best time for the crop. This becomes especially important during shortages, as overnight irrigation can help to avoid water loss due to evaporation on sunny days. In turn, this advantage serves as a benefit for the district itself as well.

“Farmers with on-farm ponds ask for a somewhat smaller delivery and have more flexibility instead of having to have the district make any changes to their order,” said Roza’s Operations Manager Tom Monroe, noting that the on-farm storage capacity promotes efficiency. “If they can do it all themselves instead of relying on someone else, it helps their bottom line.”

Valicoff noted that those considering on-farm pond installation consider lining the pond to ensure that water is not lost to seepage. “It’s very important to ensure when you are building ponds that they are tight, he said, noting that lining his largest pond cost around $30,000. “Thirty thousand dollars is a good

expenditure for something you will use for the next 30 to 40 years.”

Valicoff also indicated the importance of flexibility between ponds constructed on farmland. He used 10and 12-inch pipe to ensure that water can be moved throughout his acreage. “When a pond comes up, the upper ones are designed to overflow and send water down to the lower ones,” Valicoff said. “That overflow goes into a natural drain . . . we don’t want to send back any water if we’ve paid for it.”

In addition to encouraging on-farm storage, Roza and Washington’s Department of Ecology have loaned more than $6 million since 1999 to area farmers to complete projects such as installing sprinklers, drip lines, and on-farm storage ponds. Overall, more than 10,000 acres have been converted to sprinkler or drip irrigation.

The terms of the Roza’s loan program, which was completed in 2010, were simple. Borrowers paid 1 percent interest and 25 percent of the loan’s principal value on an annual basis over a four-year period.

Payments were then billed as part of Roza’s annual water assessment process, easing efforts needed to collect on the loans.

The loan program paid all materials costs and up to 40 percent of labor costs, subject to a maximum of $1,200 per assessed acre. Any funding for the same project received from other sources counted against the $1,200 maximum. Acreage included in the program must have previously been rill irrigated.

During the program’s life borrowers encouraged farmers to submit applications quickly, as the time of application is used to establish priority should the loan fund be oversubscribed. Then, applicants had to submit a design approved by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and sign a contract.

The borrower was required to purchase and install the system using his or her own funds and subsequently apply for reimbursement using the receipts. Roza also conducted inspections of each project after installation.

For more information on the Roza Irrigation District, visit its website at www.roza.org.

Irrigation Leader

Ric Valicoff beside one of his several storage ponds.

Irrigation Leader

33

Water Law

Water 2012 Celebration

34

Colorado-U.S. Reclamation Partnership A Key to Cooperation

By Justice Greg Hobbs ext year, 2012, is a celebratory year for Colorado water. It’s the 75th anniversary of the General Assembly’s 1937 legislation creating the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

The cause for that 1937 legislation was a hardbargained agreement negotiated on both sides of the Continental Divide for construction of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The first feature constructed was a 152,000 acre-foot reservoir for the benefit of the Western Slope water users in the natural basin of the Colorado River within Colorado. Completion of Granby Reservoir and the Adams Tunnel followed, to divert an annual average of 230,000 acre-feet of water to the Eastern Slope for agricultural and municipal use in a seven-county area north of Denver. The General Assembly established the Colorado Water Conservation Board to promote statewide agreement on as many intrastate and interstate water issues as possible.

The 2012 celebration will be larger, broader, and deeper than a commemoration of these public entities.

It will embrace and honor all of Colorado’s arteries— our streams—that claim their sources in the Great Divide. The Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, and the Colorado River Basins share the unity of being joined hip to heart at the 14,000-foot level.

Up there, it’s all vistas. Down here, at the level of making water law and policy decisions, we scrape, scrap, and holler at each other, rejoice in periodic agreement, and always gird ourselves for the inevitable next conflict.

There’s a very good reason for Western Slope Congressman Ed Taylor’s 1922 congressional legislation that turned the “Grand River” into an extension of the Colorado River from its confluence with the Green in Utah all the way back up to Rocky Mountain National Park. No other moniker would do but for Colorado to have its brand on “The Colorado.”

N

Seventy percent of the native flow of the river gauged at Lee Ferry, Arizona, derives from Colorado’s mountain stronghold.

Eastern Slope resident, Delph Carpenter of Greeley—principal architect of the Colorado River Compact—acted for Colorado’s future by helping to preserve a perpetual consumptive use share for our state. He made sure it could be used anywhere within the boundaries of Colorado. Arizona’s representative had tried to restrict use of Colorado River water to the natural basin.

Nothing in the 1922 Colorado River Compact or the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact dictates where our state’s share shall be used. But, generations of Coloradans have made sure that Western and Eastern Slopes alike enjoy the benefit of this most valuable of all Colorado assets.

Colorado’s earliest reclamation projects, built soon after passage of the 1902 Reclamation Act, are located on the Western Slope for Western Slope uses, the Uncompaghre and Grand Valley Projects. They have pre-1922 compact water rights. In the event of a sustained drought compact call by the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, these would be the most valuable consumptive use Colorado River water rights.

In contrast, the transmountain water rights of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (northeastern Colorado) and Frying Pan-Arkansas Project (southeastern Colorado) both constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation and diverting from the Colorado River through the Divide are junior, along with Denver’s diversions from the Colorado River.

Three of Colorado’s largest reservoirs storing Colorado River water are primarily intended to benefit the Western Slope, Green Mountain Reservoir near Kremmling, Blue Mesa Reservoir near Gunnison, and McPhee Reservoir near Cortez. But, these water rights are also post-1922 compact rights.

Accordingly, all of Colorado shares a great and common interest in statewide measures that protect local concerns in face of a potential Colorado River Irrigation Leader

The Big Thompson Project diverts water from the Western Slope of the Rocky Mountains to the Eastern Slope for drinking water, irrigation, and hydropower generation.

compact call. Our state’s share of the Platte, Arkansas, and the Rio Grande rivers are, for the most part, fully appropriated. A series of great Western Slope leaders— not limited to the late Ed Taylor, Wayne Aspinall, Clifford Stone, Felix Sparks, and Frank Delaney— foresaw this in their insistence on safeguards for the Western Slope’s agricultural, recreational, and municipal future. And don’t we like to have fun fishing, rafting, skiing, and eating peaches west of the divide on, in, and from water they helped to marshal?

Throughout Colorado we enjoy a heritage of farming and ranching that secures local economies while fostering open space, wildlife, and recreational values. I have spread out on my writing table John Fielder’s Colorado Ranches, a portrait of our state’s astounding rural landscapes that feed and captivate us. How to preserve this heritage while meeting the water needs of a growing Colorado is at the heart of the roundtable discussions and the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s technical and financial assistance to them, as authorized by the General Assembly.

In the face of the early 21st century drought, our legislature has enacted many measures designed to optimize use of Colorado’s water. These include shortand long-term leases, crop rotational fallowing, water banking, land and water conservation easements, and market incentives for providing water to municipal and environmental uses, while keeping the title to senior water rights in rural ownership.

Within the rectangle of our borders, Colorado’s future is triangular—ag, urban, environment. There are no whiners or hoarders in this discussion about what might be done or not done. The stakes are great and the need to optimize use of our state’s scarce water resources as vital as ever. How we develop, conserve, and preserve our compact entitlements for consumptive and nonconsumptive uses will continue to mark our measure as Coloradans.

Irrigation Leader

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

35

The Innovators 36

California Water District Economizes Power Costs, Creates Shaded Storage Area With Solar Installation

T

aking advantage of a collective vendor selection process organized by a regional water authority, California’s Helix Water District activated a 290-kilowatt solar power facility in March that will supply most of the energy consumed by its operations center at a lower and more stable cost than purchasing it from a local power company. As an added benefit, the facility was constructed to provide shade for the district’s main storage facility.

“Our agency set a goal to put in a solar project a few years ago, which we saw as a trend in San Diego County,” said Mark Umphres, Helix’s director of water quality and system operations. “Fortunately, the San Diego County Water Authority took the lead and organized and managed a collective procurement process.”

The vendor selected, Borrego Solar Systems, entered into a power purchase agreement with Helix prior to installation. Under the agreement, Borrego paid for the development of the project and will own and maintain the facility. Helix will then purchase the power, around 454,000 kilowatthours annually, from the system for 20 years at predetermined rates, providing greater certainty to budget forecasting.

Tom Philp, a senior project developer for

Borrego, indicated that water districts maintain two key advantages that are conducive to installing solar power capability: typically high electric bills and long-term budget horizons. Additionally, the arrangement allows Borrego to pass along some of the tax-incentive savings in the pricing it offers to Helix.

“With a power purchase agreement, we own it,” Philp said. “We’re taxable so we can capture the incentives they can’t capture as a nonprofit and put them into the pricing.”

In addition to the long-term power supply, Helix and Borrego worked collaboratively to achieve other goals as they searched for location to install the solar structure.

Ultimately, the parties settled on creating a shade structure to cover sensitive inventory in Helix’s storage yard. The solar panels were then affixed to the top of the structure.

“Coincidentally, a few years ago we had planned to build a shade structure,” said Umphres, noting that the original idea foundered under cost concerns. “We worked carefully with Borrego on that to make sure we had the right spacing and height.”

Both Philp and Umphres noted Irrigation Leader

that the installation of solar power capability may not be a viable option for all water districts. “There are a number of stars that have to align to make it work,” said Philp, noting that the cost of the proposed solar system, the price of the energy, and the nature of any government incentives are key characteristics that must be evaluated.

However, Umphres advised that solar power is something that districts should look at, even if previous attempts have been rebuffed. He noted that Helix explored solar power opportunities in the past, but found that the proposed project was then too small to interest private developers. “Everyone should take a look, but it may not make sense for some people,” he said, describing the cost challenges presented as the amount of available state subsidies declines. “Choose the right company to work with . . . we were lucky talking to Borrego.”

For more information on Helix Water District, and to view a snapshot of its solar power production statistics, visit its website at www.hwd.org. More information about Borrego Solar Systems can be obtained by visiting its website at www.borregosolar.com.

Irrigation Leader

37

The Innovators

Deer Ramp Installation Enhances Wildlife Safety, Provides Access Point for Maintenance

D

uring its winter maintenance season, Washington’s Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District (QCBID) installed a deer ramp on a section of West Canal between Soap Lake and the City of Ephrata. The ramp serves the dual purposes of helping deer and other slickhooved wildlife escape from the canal and allowing QCBID maintenance crews ready access to the area.

“On the concrete-lined section of the canal, the side panels are 1.5:1 slope [a 33-degree slope angle], which makes it almost impossible for deer and the occasional elk to get out with their slick hooves,” said Darvin Fales, QCBID’s secretary-manager.

“Our intent as far as wildlife goes was to give them a ramp to be able to walk out.”

QCBID built the ramp in partnership with Reclamation, which provided a portion of the $65,000 cost of the project. The ramp is intended to supplement a similar structure on the district’s Main Canal. Buoys serve as barriers across the canal near the ramp, allowing wildlife to slow progress downstream and move toward safety.

Fales estimates that about 10 to 15 animals drown in West Canal each year. Beyond QCBID’s concern for the deer’s safety, Ephrata citizens often become agitated seeing the animals struggle as they float toward the city and may be inclined to enter the canal to attempt a rescue, imperiling themselves in the process.

38

In addition to the benefits to wildlife, QCBID intends to use the ramp to access its canal for maintenance. The 40-foot bottom width and 20foot depth of the canal present challenges to crews and their equipment. “Being so deep, it’s difficult to maintain it all from the top,” said Fales, noting that the district has had to use cranes and bulldozers to access the canal in the past. “This will make it really easy for us to get all of our equipment down there.”

Despite these benefits, Fales is concerned that trespassers will attempt to use the deer ramp to access the canal, particularly given its similarity to a boat launch. To alleviate this concern, QCBID prohibits vehicle traffic to the area. Additionally, QCBID uses ecology blocks to prevent vehicles from moving toward the deer ramp. When QCBID needs to access the ramp for maintenance purposes, the blocks can be easily moved using heavy equipment.

Darvin Fales is the secretary-manager of the Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District in Quincy, Washington. He can be reached by phone at (509) 787-3591, or by e-mail at dfales@qcbid.org.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

2011 CALENDAR May 10–13

Assn. of California Water Agencies, Spring Conference & Exhibition, Sacramento, CA

Jun. 1–3

Groundwater Management Districts Assn., Summer Session, Estes Park, CO

Jun. 15–17

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Mid-Year Conference, Galveston, TX

Jun. 22–24

Western Coalition of Arid States, Annual Conference, San Diego, CA

Jun. 27–28

Idaho Water Users Assn., Summer Water Law Seminar & Workshop, Sun Valley, ID

July 21–22

Irrigation Assn., Water Conference, Broomfield, CO

July 25–27

National Water Resources Assn., Western Water Seminar, Colorado Springs, CO

July 27–29

Western States Water Council, Summer Council Meetings, Bend, OR

Aug. 23–25

Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference, Steamboat Springs, CO

Oct. 12–14

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX

Oct. 13–14

Oregon Water Resources Congress, Water Law Seminar, Bend, OR

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.